[jimjam]

When I came onto this planet in 1944 there were about 2,000,000,000 humans on it. Today? 7,600,000,000. My contention is that over population is at the foundation or root of many of the problems presently facing the human race. Global warming, pollution, wars, drugs, "illegal" immigration, anger and pissed offness. People are swarming to and fro not primarily out of any nefarious motivation but simply to have food and a decent life. Our current 7.6 billion will grow exponentially faster.

Where is this going? What does the future hold?

[Victoribus Spolia]

The rate of population growth is actually decreasing at a rapid rate:



However, beyond this, overpopulation is a myth.

We have enough available and fertile hectares in the Guinea plateau alone to exceed our current food production for the entire planet. Likewise, we could fit the entire world's population, comfortably in the state of Texas alone, with each family of 4 having a home and small yard.

Its just nonsense.

If there is any reason to believe that current population is unsustainable its because of resource mismanagement (especially in agriculture) and various human practices and conditions that are highly tenuous, such as our reliance on petroleum and the global system of fiat currency which makes our current addiction to statism even remotely possible.

Much more could be said, but i'll start there to get the conversation started.

[Reichstraten]

If everyone adopts the lifestyle of the Amish, everything will be alright.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Agreed.

[Rancid]

It's impossible to stop humans from wanting to create and invent. I place my bets on that fact that we can engineer our way out of problems.

It's all just a game of chicken. For example, and we solve global warming issues with technology before it's too late?

[blackjack21]

The answer lies in nuclear war, cannibalism and homosexuality... Just kidding. I'm also one to bet on capitalism to find more efficient means of production.

[layman]

The problem isn’t really over population given the trends, partly demonstrated above.

The problem is fertility rates across population groups. They are lowest in well educated 1st word, middle/middle high income and highest is war torn/ low income, low educated third world locations.

Because harmonious migration appears impossible there is precedent this could lead to conflict. It also seems likely it could hinder progress as the more regressive society’s multiply much faster.

[One Degree]

The rate of population growth is actually decreasing at a rapid rate:



However, beyond this, overpopulation is a myth.

We have enough available and fertile hectares in the Guinea plateau alone to exceed our current food production for the entire planet. Likewise, we could fit the entire world's population, comfortably in the state of Texas alone, with each family of 4 having a home and small yard.

Its just nonsense.

If there is any reason to believe that current population is unsustainable its because of resource mismanagement (especially in agriculture) and various human practices and conditions that are highly tenuous, such as our reliance on petroleum and the global system of fiat currency which makes our current addiction to statism even remotely possible.

Much more could be said, but i'll start there to get the conversation started.

2% of 3.5 billion and 1% of 7 billion equals the same increase. The only figures that matter are total people.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The only figures that matter are total people.

Which is also why we aren't overpopulated, as my post also states.

Current population is not "overpopulated" either in regards to actual space required to sustain, or food output to feed.

The issue is not population-size but resource mismanagement or what people stupidly do to others and their environment, which are constants irrespective of actual population size.

Let me be clear, those who believe in overopulation as a legitimate theoretical construct, are holding to a foolish and mythical notion that is entirely disconnected from fact. Its a scapegoat from real problems and is idealogically lazy.

The problem isn’t really over population given the trends, partly demonstrated above.

The problem is fertility rates across population groups. They are lowest in well educated 1st word, middle/middle high income and highest is war torn/ low income, low educated third world locations.

Because harmonious migration appears impossible there is precedent this could lead to conflict. It also seems likely it could hinder progress as the more regressive society’s multiply much faster.

This is also why ruling classes following a civilizational collapse tend to be the the survivors of the former order who were not only intelligent, but also fecundist and land-holding at the time of the collapse.

[One Degree]

Which is also why we aren't overpopulated, as my post also states.

Current population is not "overpopulated" either in regards to actual space required to sustain, or food output to feed.

The issue is not population-size but resource mismanagement or what people stupidly do to others and their environment, which are constants irrespective of actual population size.

Let me be clear, those who believe in overopulation as a legitimate theoretical construct, are holding to a foolish and mythical notion that is entirely disconnected from fact. Its a scapegoat from real problems and is idealogically lazy.



This is also why ruling classes following a civilizational collapse tend to be the the survivors of the former order who were not only intelligent, but also fecundist and land-holding at the time of the collapse.

Overpopulation is determined by the level of society you desire as a norm. The earth does not have the resources for everyone to live at a first world level. Any population over the sustainable first world level reduces the average level of first world people. The resources used to insure survival of billions of third world people comes at the expense of the average first world people. It hinders progress.
What other mammals do you believe have a sustainable population of 7 billion? Applying logic to humans that is not logical to apply to other mammals demonstrates it is false logic based upon humancentric hubris.

[Victoribus Spolia]

What other mammals do you believe have a sustainable population of 7 billion?

Mice. 20 billion. Boom.

Overpopulation is determined by the level of society you desire as a norm.

That is not overpopulation, that is a relative desire. Claiming that the world is overpopulated is false, period. Discussing how many people can live in our current wasteful first-world way, is an entirely different matter. That is a moral question about first-world lifestyles and has nothing to do with the claim that there are too many people on earth.

The earth does not have the resources for everyone to live at a first world level. Any population over the sustainable first world level reduces the average level of first world people.

Same thing, this does not mean we don't have enough food, lumber, and space for the population, we have that in spades, this is a question pertaining to whether first-world lifestyles are good and sustainable. I boldly say that they aren't, but you are confusing different issues.

Like one poster said above, if we all lived like the amish there would not be any problems worth discussing.

Applying logic to humans that is not logical to apply to other mammals demonstrates it is false logic based upon humancentric hubris.

Absurd. Humans are superior to animals, animals are just another resource, whether you like it or not.

If you have some sort of fact to prove that we have too many people, irrespective of resource management concerns or the actions of said persons, please provide it.

Otherwise, you have nothing to offer in challenge of my claim that the theory of overpopulation is bull-shit.

[Rancid]

Call me an asshole, but I"m sure you could cull the bottom 50% of contributors to human progression. We probably wouldn't notice it. That said, many in the bottom 50% aren't there due to their own fault. They were just dealt a shitty hand.

[One Degree]

@Victoribus Spolia
Yes, humans can live at the level of mice if that is your goal. My goal is the advancement of the species. This requires limited numbers. What purpose is served by billions living at a survival level? If humans are special, as you say, then should our goal not be more than mere survival? Is God’s purpose for us meaningless survival generation after generation or are we intended to find answers? It is an entirely different universe depending on whether God’s agenda is based upon each individual or humankind as a whole. Is the individual important, or just humankind? Our short lifespan makes the importance placed on the individual or current generation seem unlikely.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

Mice. 20 billion. Boom.

To be fair, mice are a lot more smaller than humans and require less resources to survive.

Also,

If there is any reason to believe that current population is unsustainable its because of resource mismanagement (especially in agriculture)

This is correct. Industrial agriculture not only damages the environment, ruins the economies of local communities, and diminishes the quality of the produce being harvested, it also is a wholly inefficient way to distribute the resources gained from that produce. To drive this point home, there are over 10 million industrial farms in the US while there are only 2.2 million farmers. Yet, traditional farms produce a huge majority of the food in the US while industrial farms only produce a small portion of the food in the US. This should tell us where our priorities should be and who we should be supporting.

and various human practices and conditions that are highly tenuous, such as our reliance on petroleum and the global system of fiat currency which makes our current addiction to statism even remotely possible.

As a Modern Monetary Theorist, I am thoroughly offended. /s

[Politiks]

When I came onto this planet in 1944 there were about 2,000,000,000 humans on it. Today? 7,600,000,000. My contention is that over population is at the foundation or root of many of the problems presently facing the human race. Global warming, pollution, wars, drugs, "illegal" immigration, anger and pissed offness. People are swarming to and fro not primarily out of any nefarious motivation but simply to have food and a decent life. Our current 7.6 billion will grow exponentially faster.

Where is this going? What does the future hold?

The worse part is that the people who procreate like habits shouldn't be procreating at all. The dumbest people on earth are the ones over crowding the world. The result is what you see....

[anasawad]

Currently we produce enough food to feed 10 billion people at full nutrition level, that is average of 2500 calories per day consumption.
This is while the fact we use only 50% GMO food production. If that percentage is 100% (GMOs are not bad, cut the bullshit from the start) and increased investments by only a fraction annually, we'll be able to feed every single person on earth to obesity.

For resources, 2 points.
1- there are enough raw materials and minerals on earth to sustain peak population which is 11 billion people all at consumption levels compared to that of the first world. (lack of access due to hording and prevention of access methods used by states to maintain power are not the same as scarcity. That should be clear for everyone)
The only problem is oil is running out so we need to find an renewable or manufactured alternative.
Some will say fresh water, that would be stupid. 70% of the earth surface is covered with water and we already have the technology to turn it into usable fresh water.
2- We have a thing called space where there are other planets and asteroids with lots of minerals.

The problem with food and resources aren't scarcity, rather mismanagement and faulty distribution.
People who cant find food are like that because the current world system prevents them from accessing food not because there isn't enough food.
Let me repeat that we currently produce enough food to feed 10 billion people.

For the environment, again, the answer is well not anything else. We have the technology to produce all our needs without damaging the environment, its just cheaper not to care about the consequences of using outdated production and manufacturing methods rather than actual updating to better standards.


For the space needed for everything. 2 ideas and 2 countries.
1- China with its mega cities plans, having mega, highly concentrated, population centers massively reduce the burden on the environment.
And
2- Iran with vertical farm stacks proposed in the university of Tehran and currently in governmental consideration to increase food production.
The idea is building large closed farms stacked on top of each other in a contained environment, And the proposal is using mountains to reduce building cost, that is building inside mountains to reduce construction and maintenance cost to an economically viable rate.

The same can be done with factories, as in stacking factories on top of each other in large scale industrial complexes built somewhere that doesn't harm the environment, primarily, mountains.
I'm sure we have enough mountains to go around for everyone.

[One Degree]

The over population deniers always point to what could be done while ignoring nothing has been done. Why do you expect anything to change with even more people? We had starving people when the world population was 3 billion and we still have starving people. Yet, you insist 10 billion will not be a problem. Such wishful thinking leads to making irrational decisions. Our decisions should be based upon what is happening , not on what could possibly happen. All the bad things get worse with more people. More pollution, crime, etc. Why not tackle the base cause of too many people?

[anasawad]

The base cause is not too many people, the base cause is an outdated governing and administration system that is perpetuating the problems of the last centuries while refusing to update and catch up to the current day world and current day science, technology and social conscience.

[Politiks]

The base cause is not too many people, the base cause is an outdated governing and administration system that is perpetuating the problems of the last centuries while refusing to update and catch up to the current day world and current day science, technology and social conscience.

Yes, out of the West is really a mess

[anasawad]

@Politiks
Actually, the west is indeed in the middle of this mess.
The west in general, and the US in specific, set right in the middle along with China, India, and the rest of major industrial countries.
They after all are the ones holding most of the industries and are the ones refusing to make the needed changes because it would reduce their profit.
A country in the middle of the Sahara for example with no industries, barely any production of any sort, and barely even being noted in international politics is a country that is irrelevant to be considered in the solutions for the current problems.