Politics The Malthusian Theory

Current World Population A Problem

  • Will be a problem soon

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Could be a problem eventually

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not a problem at all (it will balance itself)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't care

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
The Malthusian Theory of Population is a theory of exponential population growth and arithmetic food supply growth. Thomas Robert Malthus, an English cleric, and scholar published this theory in his 1798 writings, An Essay on the Principle of Population. ... These checks would lead to the Malthusian catastrophe.

The current world population is 7.7 billion as of January 2019 according to the most recent United Nations estimates elaborated by Worldometers.

Medical Definition of Malthusian. : of or relating to Malthus or to his theory that population tends to increase at a faster rate than its means of subsistence and that unless it is checked by moral restraint or by disease, famine, war, or other disaster widespread poverty and degradation inevitably result.

Neo-Malthusianism is the advocacy of population control programs to ensure resources for current and future populations. In Britain the term 'Malthusian' can also refer more specifically to arguments made in favour of preventive birth control, hence organizations such as the Malthusian League.

Definition of overpopulation. : the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash.

Malthus came to prominence for his 1798 essay on population growth. In it, he argued that population multiplies geometrically and food arithmetically; therefore, whenever the food supply increases, population will rapidly grow to eliminate the abundance.

Overpopulation worsens numerous environmental and social factors such as pollution, malnutrition, overcrowded living conditions, and lacking health care which makes poor communities vulnerable to infectious diseases.

Overpopulation occurs when a species' population exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecological niche. It can result from an increase in births (fertility rate), a decline in the mortality rate, an increase in immigration, or an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources.

How does overpopulation transscribe to YOU?

* Jobs are affected. More people means fewer well=paying jobs available at any given time.
* Supply/Demand. More people means demand is high while supply is dependent on the resources available at any given time.
* Culture clash. more people means that more people are forming opinions which affects how things are taken by the masses.

DENIAL:
Most agencies refuse to acknowledge the over-population factor in their studies. This skews the results and doesn't allow for intelligent strategies.
Most people do not 'see' the effect of the population often citing 'other' factors as the cause for problems.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
Think about Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War.
Apply that reasoning to any current condition right now on Earth.
Imagine for one moment the conditions if the world population were halved.
Now, look at the problems we face as a civilization.
I don't have a solution, aside from an exodus from the planet, there is no reasonable fix.
Just because there is no reasonable fix doesn't mean there is no problem.
 

screenersam

This is news, Vincenzo, NEWS!
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Location
Maryland
sci fi book Deep Sky about a group of elitists who address that problem.
for millions their operation turned to be a too-final solution
if you know what I mean

Amazon.com: Deep Sky (Harper Thriller) (9780061958793): Patrick Lee: Books

not affiliated wi Amazon, author, etc.

have heard suggestion give third worlders $1000 each to be sterilized.
no win-wins here.
Bible prophecies of end times suggest we're close to the end of this ave
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
As far as I can figure, the ONLY humane solution to over-population is an exodus from the planet by a signifcant percentage of the population.
The problem with that, and its a BIG problem, is that we don't have the technology or even the science to make that happen.
How could we hope to lift and support 4 BILLION people in space when we can barely man the ISS in low Earth orbit?

Nature effectively culls populations but our science has over-ridden nature's natural ability to maintain our population.
Then we have the morality aspect of human culture that promotes health and reproduction.
We don't die of things like we used to. Our medical science is geared to preserving life at all costs.
Suicide in most cultures is repulsive and natural disasters are dealt with by trying to save as many lives as possible.

Look at the world population clock. More people are being born than die every second.
People are living longer because of better living conditions, better healthcare and improved intelligence.
Most people don't think about the impact all this has on the finite resources available.

We (as a species) are very close to a tipping point.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
Even if we threw tons of money into the problem nothing significant would develop in time to stave off a crisis. There just wouldn't be enough time.

Forget 4 Billion, just think about what would have to happen to lift 1,000 people into space in a safe and sustainable habitat.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
The sad reality is that no humane measures are going to work for a meaningful solution in the amount of time before an untennable condition exists.
Even if every single couple on Earth were to limit their offspring to 1 child that is, right now, an additional 3.7 BILLION people added every generation.
At 7.8 Billion people, add another 3.7 Billion people every say 15 years, we surpass 10 billion in 15 years.
Thing is, not every single couple limits their offspring to one child so it compounds from that.
At 7.8 Billion right now. we are already in a pattern of extreme population potential.
The 'time' for doing something 'humane' has already passed.
We are already in the 'exteme' situation.

World Population Clock: 7.7 Billion People (2019) - Worldometers

Take a moment and actually look at those statistics.
Births are 3 times the number of deaths. Not double, THREE TIMES.
We are populating three times faster than dying.
Where does that get good?

Some will say that a pandemic will equalize us but at the most, its only going to slow us down and insignificantly.
Imagine if 200 million people died right now.
TWO HUNDRED MILLION
What natural disaster kills 200 million people in one fell swoop?
Even 200 million is nothing compared to 7.7 billion.

No, we are on a diminishing return.
This year, an exodus of 3.8 billion would help but 10 years from now, about the time your school children reach breeding age, that 3.8 billion will be 5 or 6 billion.
I wish I had stocks that were so sure at that accumulation.

There is no fix, we are past our expiration and we have no clue about it because NOBODY wants to look at it with any sense.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
1548902117801.png

1548902261189.png

This is an example of screen capture, save, convert to jpeg, save, upload to pinterest and copy then paste here.

The big number represents the current world population change during that time.
It INCLUDES the number of births AND the number of deaths in that given time.

Here, let me put this in perspective:
Open a beer, light a smoke, watch a tv show. whatever, Listen to one song...
Note the population at the start then note the population at the finish.
Tell me that is not significant!

In the time it took me to quickly smoke a cigarette 1,00 people were increased on this planet.
Holy mackeral Andy!
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
Imagine you had a ship the size of an aircraft carrier with 1,000 people on it.
Now, launch that aircraft carrier sized ship into space.

Now imagine you have 1,000 of those ships each with 1,000 people on it.
Launch 1,000 aircraft carrier sized ships into space.
You just launched 1,000,000 people.
There are 7,708,737,999 people on this planet alive right now and increasing.
1,000,000 people is nothing. (SOURCE: World Population Clock: 7.7 Billion People (2019) - Worldometers )
To launch 700,000,000 people on those ships at 1,000 people each it would require about 2 launches a day of 1,000 ships per launch each year.
Which leaves another 7,000,000,000+ people still here and growing exponentially each minute.

Currently we have the ability to launch, what, around 20 people every 6 months?
We are not even close to the technology level needed for planet exodus to be a solution.

We are already extinct.
 

RH1

Cadet
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
So I got reminded today that the classic science fiction exploration of the effects of overpopulation is Stand on Zanzibar by John Brunner, which I would recommend not least because it's an amazing piece of literature, but also because it doesn't address the issue in a simplistic way.

It is obvious that human beings are creating a significant environmental crisis, but I wouldn't say that is simply down to overpopulation. It's a platitude that much of the world's population isn't very resource intensive. Furthermore, in the parts of the world that are resource intensive, the trend is towards population decrease. That doesn't mean it's not necessarily a problem, but it has geographic and economic dimensions as well (you may have mentioned this - I haven't read all the posts). It's all about how rationally we use the resources the planet has - not necessarily how many of us there are per se (though how much space would be left for other species can also be seen as an issue).

Whether a large population in itself is a bad thing is something that as been debated by philosophers extensively. There is a whole area concerned with population ethics and the ethics of our responsibilities to future generations.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
Thanx for the comments and the reference, I found the book online free. I'll give it a read this winter.

The way I see it OMO (One Man's Opinion) over population of the species is more than environmental impact. Population density also affects social and economic prosperity.
Environmentally, its more than our rape of the planets natural resources.

As our numbers grow (check the population clock, they are growing) there are more people producing waste. Not natural waste like other species, waste that is difficult for re-absorption by natural processes.
Additionally, we are clearing more and more land to make space for bigger and better human habitats. As we do this, we displace flora and fauna which balances the environment. Our numbers push everything out of balance.

From a human perspective, everyday lives are changing to account for more population.
Classrooms get larger, more students per teacher means less time per student individually.
Education costs increase. More students are graduating and seeking secondary educations in hopes of landing a well paying job.
There are more educated, qualified applicants than jobs supporting them.
Housing costs increase, hell, every cost increases.

Just because it is not an emergency "Oh My God" situation yet, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Most people are oblivious to the issue because they choose not to think about it or they dismiss it as nonsense without actually looking at the issues themselves.
They read an article that says we are just fine and say "yup, I am" and dismiss it on someone elses word without even looking. But then again, we do tend to think in mass mentality most of the time.
After all, we are told what to eat, told what to drink, how to act, how to raise our children and how to spend our money. We are conditioned to social delusion and not only are we unaware, if someone points it out, we defend our delusions.

When beavers build a dam they don't strip the forest, we do. Look at the lumber industry world-wide.
Deer trails are not paved.
Yes, humans are unique but we are hazardous.

Cut the population by 1/2 and suddenly there is more food, plenty of wood for houses, plenty of jobs, better educations, cleaner environment, lower costs for things we need to buy, less traffic, simple social management and on and on and on.

There are other species on this planet that exceed our numbers.
Thing is, you don't see insects doing what we are doing to the planet.

The important thing to realize, no matter which culture you use to study the effect, there are more humans being born than dying. We are out of balance. As time progresses, that balance gets further and further off-kilter.
The very fact more people are being born than dying indicates we are already in a no-win scenario.
The extinction we fear is already upon us.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Location
Gulf Coast
Just a word on note:
I am not screaming "The End Is Near!"
I'm not preaching doomsday.

I sit and look at the reality around me and reason.
I'll be long dead before overpopulation becomes a common threat on everyone's mind.
All I'm saying is look at the reality before you and see what is actually happening.
You may not see it in your town right now. Possibly, not even in your country.
Look at the species and the planet as a whole and its evident.
I don't see a 'humane' solution.
 

Kevin

Code Monkey
Staff member
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Location
Pennsylvania
You may not see it in your town right now. Possibly, not even in your country.
Look at the species and the planet as a whole and its evident.
Not to go off on too much of a tangent but if people can't be convinced of the science behind climate change then trying to convince them to think of a topic like population control would be a Herculean task.

only thing I can think of is bribe people not to reproduce
good luck with that, huh
A reduction of birth rates is not uncommon.
USA: Americans aren't making enough babies to replace ourselves
Global: Falling total fertility rate should be welcomed, population expert says

But... The birth rate decline in developing countries. - PubMed - NCBI
Developing world birth rates have fallen since the 1960s from an average of six children to four in the 1990s, but a replacement level of 2.1 is needed to reach balanced growth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom
Top Bottom