Are There Too Many People? And Can Fiction Help Us? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14448378
Are there too many people? The math needed to understand population growth is irrefutable. As long as a population is growing, it will eventually double. How many human beings is too many? 8 billion? 10 billion?

We've known about the threat of overpopulation for a very long time. Since Americans seem to be deaf to science and facts these days, I wonder if a good story could get folks to change their behavior.

There are a number of great novels with an overpopulation theme. One in particular caught my interest. It's Patriarch Run, a fairly new release. I think this story has the potential to catch on with the public because it is exciting and action-packed. But smart, too. The hero/villain is obsessed with the population problem and determined to solve it by quite controversial means. Whether or not you agree with the character's actions, the controversy has already provoked a lot of discussion in the reviews on the story.

It's a very interesting novel, unlike anything I have ever read. The science the character uses to justify his actions is sound, the actions, however...that's another question.

But that's what we want, isn't? Debate on the issue. Awareness. I think this story really has the potential to make the science relevant for the general public. Very powerful.
Last edited by Cartertonian on 17 Aug 2014 07:39, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Advertising link removed
#14449284
Methinks the two questions implied in the OP's topic have gotten short shrift thus far.

Let me elucidate. The second topic question implies that fiction, eg. novels, may have the capability to sway public thinking and result in a modification of public action. Now, any American 'conservative' talk show hosts would have us believe that 'liberals' actively use 'Hollywood' -- that is, films -- to advance their [Socialist/Anti-American/Commie/Self-hating or what have you, pick one or more,] agenda. So, if these worthies are to be believed, [Ed.: A part of the American public, based on the heavily-screened calls to the shows, do indeed believe.] the answer to the question is a resounding 'Yes!'.

One with a sense of history, that hoary study of the follies of mankind, might cite 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' in evidence on the right-hand page of the morality ledger. On the facing page, 'The Elders of Zion' would take the palm. The second question is thus, I believe, not without interest.

Returning to the first question, it immediately evokes the image of the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus. His dour scenario marks the far limit of the question. There is much room for discussion regarding not the horrors of the worst-case Armageddon but, rather, the questions implied in the word 'optimum'.

As I said, short shrift.
#14449350
There are already too many people for the Earth to sustain indefinitely. Technology and a stable climate have thus far been able to postpone a Malthusian collapse. But that cannot last. Global warming is already beginning to disrupt that stable climate on which much of our agriculture is based and represents a harbinger of things to come.

There will be an increase in resource wars both in frequency and magnitude as the population grows, the climate worsens and resources needed to survive start to become scarce. A significant culling is inevitable.
#14449386
oscar wrote:There are already too many people for the Earth to sustain indefinitely. Technology and a stable climate have thus far been able to postpone a Malthusian collapse. But that cannot last. Global warming is already beginning to disrupt that stable climate on which much of our agriculture is based and represents a harbinger of things to come.

There will be an increase in resource wars both in frequency and magnitude as the population grows, the climate worsens and resources needed to survive start to become scarce. A significant culling is inevitable.





Yes, there are way too many people and that is the root of all of our problems. Less people equals less problems. Simplistic thinking but true.

-less pollution
-enough resources for everyone, not just certain countries hogging up all of the planets resources
-less pressure on infrastructure
-less crime
-less wars
-less conflict
-more wealth for everyone


It may be wistful thinking on my part, but I think a significant decrease in the world population will be advantageous to all. Let's hope a new virus comes and kills most of us off Also, I hate people who breed like crazy. It is irresponsible.
#14449510
Torus34 wrote:-> Oscar:

I'm intrigued by your very first sentence. It's an absolute statement and, I suspect, one which can [or cannot?] be backed up by a formal, logical proof. I'm all eyes.



Too complicated a problem for the likes of me to provide a formal rigorous proof. It's a common sense gut feel; just look at the World around you and how matters are trending. Anthropogenic global warming is already causing climate change and adversely affecting our ability to produce food on the massive scale we have needed to to feed the world's population. E.g. the recent severe prolong droughts in Syria which likely triggered the Syrian civil war. The recent droughts in the US midwest which caused corn prices to rise. The recent Russian wheat crop failures which forced Russia to stop grain exports. The current California drought which is seriously threatening the crops in central California which feeds the US population and is beginning to cause a water shortage crisis in a state whose population probably already exceeds the ability of "nature" to provide the necessary resources (e.g. water) to sustain it.

Most people do not look at what is happening which will eventually plague not just California, but the entire southwest and midwest as we continue to deplete the water aquifers faster than nature can replenish this. And this is with the existing population, not to mention the population growth. An early symptom the water rationing forced on most North Texas residents which complicates efforts to maintain green lawns. I expect water shortages to have an impact on drinking water in many parts of the USA.

Droughts are just one aspect of the total picture. AGW-induced ocean acidification is going to affect the ability of shellfish and coral reefs to thrive. In fact, we can expect coral reef mass extinction to occur within decades which will seriously disrupt the ecosystems which feeds the ocean fishing industry (which already has overfishing issues leading to near-extinction of some species). Sea level rise will create another serious issues including drowning of heretofore coastal agricultural food production and urban areas causing not only food shortages but a need to relocate huge populations to higher ground. E.g. the communities of SE Florida (e.g. Miami) are likely doomed before the end of the century and Bangla Desh will be largely underwater by the same time.
#14449635
-> Oscar:

I certainly don't wish to be nitpicking-ly argumentative. I would, however, like to point out that the two threats which you noted -- global warming and oceanic pollution -- are the result of what we humans are doing and not specifically how many there are of us. In both instances, in fact, it is a relatively small percent of the total human population concentrated in highly-developed nations that is responsible for the larger portion of the threat.

Additionally, we could stop both our increasing input of materials into the global warming and ocean pollution factors by modifying our behavior. This is already starting to take place, though progress is slow as we adjust to new ways of thinking and new ways of doing things. The 'drag' of economic inertia* is difficult though not impossible to overcome.

So it is not the number of us, per se, which cause the problems you so correctly outlined. Rather, it is our modifiable activities.

I still prefer to consider human population levels on the basis of an optimum number as opposed to some apocalyptic upper limit. That removes the discussion from such points as the total amount of phosphorus on the planet [Ed.: We need it for our bones,] and moves instead in the direction of looking at a human life and considering, as did the ancient Greeks, what size of a community is needed to support a good one.

* Read: corporate lobbies, etc.

"And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." Geoffrey Chaucer.
#14449719
A lot of the CO2 emissions we are engaged in IS a result of overpopulation. Too many people looking for living space/means to live/farmland cutting down forests which serve a huge function in "moderating" climate change (i.e. sequestering CO2). Deforestation represents a large contributor to rising CO2 levels and there is no end in sight to deforestation because of continuously expanding populations. This cannot be sustained.

Even without climate change, the massive "agricultural machine" in the US Midwest and other grain belts relies too heavily on depletion of water aquifers faster than nature can refill them. This is unsustainable in the long run. Methinks, the human population is already higher than the World's ability to sustain it.
#14452222
We got a little problem here with the population size and the food; our food system can't afford too much people.

This said, with another food system, I think we could grow a lot more. So there is no problem of overpopulation imo due to the lack of space or resources. Just due to a food system that need a lot of space and resources to work.
#14452225
The present problem with feeding the Earth's population is not production but, rather, distribution. Additionally, the distribution system, while not providing adequate food for some, leads to a great wastage of food. When one adds in the personal habits of consumers to the waste, estimates range well over 25% for some nations.

"And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." Geoffrey Chaucer.
#14452230
Torus34 wrote:The present problem with feeding the Earth's population is not production but, rather, distribution. Additionally, the distribution system, while not providing adequate food for some, leads to a great wastage of food. When one adds in the personal habits of consumers to the waste, estimates range well over 25% for some nations.

"And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." Geoffrey Chaucer.


According to some rumor here, there is over-production here. To not count that they are not willing to give food, like I could be anyway.
#14452398
Certainly there is overconsumption in the USA and perhaps other western states but the USA can afford it (for now) because of it's efficient exploitation of vast natural resources and the heretofore stable climate in which that agricultural production has thrived. That is beginning to change' climate change will disrupt food production globally and it remains to be seen if the World can compensate adequately to changing growing seasons, unpredictable weather and extreme weather events. Not to mention rising sea levels which will begin to disrupt/displace coastal urban communities as well as trashing heretofore fertile agricultural areas near or at sea-level.
#14484936
Science Fan wrote:Are there too many people? The math needed to understand population growth is irrefutable. As long as a population is growing, it will eventually double.

Ahem. See Zeno's Paradox.
How many human beings is too many? 8 billion? 10 billion?

How many of them are Jessica Biel? 10 billion of her would not be too many.
We've known about the threat of overpopulation for a very long time.

There is no threat of overpopulation. There are only the threats of underjustice, underintelligence, underliberty, underwisdom, and especially underhonesty.
#14508182
Nature will eventually solve this for us with Man's continued consumption of natural resources and climate change. Already we have water aquifer depletion issues, drought, sea level rise which will eventually wipe away most of our coastal communities, including fertile farmland/rice fields), ocean acidification threatening coral reef systems and shellfish (hence threatening the ecosystems which support our fishing industries). The shifting climate also will disrupt heretofore finely-tuned agricultural production.

The only way to support population growth maybe to adopt "third world" standards of food and energy consumption or worse case, the "Soylent Green" scenario. Certainly the Western energy/food consuming democracies will not like that approach.

There is bound to be a culling (probably via a series of resource wars/famines and/or pandemics) to reduce the population.
#14509773
Jim4120 wrote:If you believe Hans Rosling, and he seems pretty credible, then the world can hold 11 billion people without too many issues. Seems like we can hold at least 4 billion more.


Huge areas of the world that currently support few or no people because the natural environment is not suited to agriculture -- deserts, boreal forests, etc. -- could be made agriculturally productive, and thus able to support people, with fairly modest investments in hydrological projects, greenhouse plantations, etc. In addition, the oceans could be fertilized and farmed to produce orders of magnitude more seafood than we currently get by harvesting incompetently managed wild stocks. It is interesting to note that the total amount of solar energy that falls on the earth in ONE DAY is more than all the energy people have ever obtained from oil, or ever will obtain. In principle, that energy can be harnessed and turned to the support of larger human populations. Given a commitment to supporting more people, currently known or known-developable technologies could probably support a global population in the neighborhood of 50 billion.
#14509826
Truth To Power wrote:It is interesting to note that the total amount of solar energy that falls on the earth in ONE DAY is more than all the energy people have ever obtained from oil, or ever will obtain. In principle, that energy can be harnessed and turned to the support of larger human populations. Given a commitment to supporting more people, currently known or known-developable technologies could probably support a global population in the neighborhood of 50 billion.


While this is true in theory, I don't think it would ever be possible to harness all of the energy that comes to the earth from the sun. That being said, we could definitely harness a large portion of it, and it's a shame that we're not collecting even 1% of that energy at the moment.

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspir[…]

It is true that the Hindu's gave us nothing. But […]

I dont buy it, Why would anyone go for a vacation […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]