Overpopulation: Is it an immediate threat?

Cerberus87 · Feb 9, 2014

I think it's a myth because I believe the riches in the world are too concentrated in th hands of a few. Overpopulation seems to be an issue in specific areas such as China and India, but in others we're experiencing a reduction in population because people no longer want to have children. Still, when you see there are people in the world who are absurdly rich and others have nothing, you can't help but think it's a problem of resource management and not overpopulation.

Raine · Feb 16, 2014

Orogenes said:
My opinion is that overpopulation as a concept is "looking at the problem" wrong. I like to compare this the term "natural disaster". If there is a volcanic eruption, hurricane etc. in an area with zero population, it's a "natural event"; it becomes a disaster only if it affects people. In addition to this, what can be said to be the cause of a natural disaster? The short answer is "well, the eruption/storm etc.", but consider two societies being hit by the same event: one is a society with large income disparities, slum areas, bad infrastructure, corruption etc, the other is the opposite. Which one of these will be hit hardest? In all probability, the first one. Why? Because they have what are called different levels of "resilience" or capability to withstand/adapt to abrupt changes from normal conditions. In other words, the "root cause" of the problem isn't the natural event but rather a question of power relations, politics etc, or if you'd like, the main problems is society, not nature.

This has been a long detour but I wanted to give you an example of the difficulties there might be to separate "cause and effect". In the case of population, the English cleric Thomas Robert Malthus was one of the first people to talk about "over population" way back in the 18th century, with arguments about the limits to population growth due to limited food supplies, resources and technology. Later on however, Ester Boserup argued that in times of crisis, mankind is able to invent new forms of technology/practices to deal with the situation. In other words the number of people isn't the real issue but the means available to provide them with necessities, and the latter isn't fixed.

With regards to demography, according to a theory called "the demographic transition" there are traditionally four phases that are directly related to these sorts of means discussed above, in particular those that can keep child mortality down. Societies in the early stages have high levels of birth rates to keep up with high death rates among children. When the latter begins to fall, it takes some time for society to adjust and the population grows significantly until it levels out in the fourth stage with people living longer and having fewer babies - basically many "western" societies. This is all theory but generally it has held up surprisingly well. It might very well change in the future, but most societies have tended to proceed along these stages, meaning there isn't exponential and infinite population growth but rather different phases with different characteristics.

Lastly, population has a geographical dimension, meaning that people can migrate from areas with large populations to other places with less population. Connecting the the above mentioned theory of the demographic transition, especially younger people are more prone to migrate and also move farther. Socieites with a large population increase are often characterized by a high amount of young people....

This has been a very long post, so here comes the short version:
1) Over population is a relative term that has less to do with the amount of people and more to do with they way societies are structured, including economic models, culture and habits of consumption.
2) It's not likely that population levels will increase infinitely; in fact in many western countries most of the population growth comes from immigration - there is a natural decline in population numbers in these places.
3) "Over population" often disregards the fact that people are mobile and not locked in one region, meaning things can to some extent "balance out"

There are many more angles and points to make, but this post has been long enough. I just wanted to add some more basic demographic theory and concepts into the debate ;).

What happens if you take overpopulation out of the relative context though? Or do you not believe the Earth being home to over 7 billion people is a problem? I understand your perspective in regards to overpopulation being an immediate problem in certain countries, which is completely true, but looking at the world as a whole it does raise a bit of concern, no? At least that's the way I see it. The reason why I see this issue as a potential problem is because of resources; they're not able to be replenished at the rate they are being consumed.

Orogenes · Feb 18, 2014

Vanille Sky said:
What happens if you take overpopulation out of the relative context though? Or do you not believe the Earth being home to over 7 billion people is a problem? I understand your perspective in regards to overpopulation being an immediate problem in certain countries, which is completely true, but looking at the world as a whole it does raise a bit of concern, no? At least that's the way I see it. The reason why I see this issue as a potential problem is because of resources; they're not able to be replenished at the rate they are being consumed.

I do share your concern about resource depletion rates, especially with the current trend of "developing countries" wanting a more "western" lifestyle. I believe this is a problem especially when discussing issues such as climate change and environmental degradation. I also agree with you when you take the current situation of a rapidly increased population together with a rise in "consumer economies" and increased urbanization; there are lots of problems to tackle and population numbers do figure as a part of a lot of them.

My point is that it is hard to neglect that "relative context", meaning that most of the aforementioned issues are connected to population increase but not necessarily created by it. In other words, I believe that debates that I think should be about things like equality, ecology, economy etc. turns into discussions about population. This, again isn't a problem per say as, again, population is definitley one factor in this equation, but it is one, not the. I've been having many of these kinds of discussions with people where the framing of the solutions turn from addressing these other issues to focus on things like birth control, migration quotas etc. It quickly becomes a case where people in "poor countries" are blamed for problems that in equal, if not greater part, has to do with people in "rich countries".

So, what I'm trying to say is just that population is 1) part of the problem, but not "the" problem, and
2) by framing it as a population problem, you risk focusing on the manifestations of bigger structural problems rather than the root causes. I hope this has clarified my reasoning a bit ;)

Dakotah · Feb 20, 2014

In the short term, yes, overpopulation is a threat. This is because there are only so many resources to go around, and when the population increased, it places a tremendous strain on available resources. However, one thing to point out, the speed at which we are increasing the population is slowing, and some would even say reversing. We are now faced with the problem that more people are becoming senior citizens than are being born. More and more people are opting to have children later in life, and an increasing number of people are deciding that it is too much of a bother to have children, or who simply don't want children at all.

While the population of the world is growing rapidly, you'll find that it is in only certain locations that the population growth is expanding. In other areas, the population growth is slowing dramatically. Pretty soon, I think, we're going to start seeing programs put into place incentivising people to once again think about having children. Because what happens when our population ages out?

Raine · Feb 22, 2014

Alessi_sys said:
In the short term, yes, overpopulation is a threat. This is because there are only so many resources to go around, and when the population increased, it places a tremendous strain on available resources. However, one thing to point out, the speed at which we are increasing the population is slowing, and some would even say reversing. We are now faced with the problem that more people are becoming senior citizens than are being born. More and more people are opting to have children later in life, and an increasing number of people are deciding that it is too much of a bother to have children, or who simply don't want children at all.

While the population of the world is growing rapidly, you'll find that it is in only certain locations that the population growth is expanding. In other areas, the population growth is slowing dramatically. Pretty soon, I think, we're going to start seeing programs put into place incentivising people to once again think about having children. Because what happens when our population ages out?

On the matter of people not wanting children or having them later, that becomes a problem for the school system when elementary schools are not attracting enough enrolments and are inevitably closed down. This has happened to quite a number of schools in the neighbourhood where I used to live. Relatively, the increasing standard cost of living makes having children a turn off to couples as they may even find it hard to support themselves, never mind a child. The elderly population living as long as they are is a problem in itself considering there are only a limited number of retirement homes.

El Héroe Oscuro · Feb 22, 2014

Vanille Sky said:
On the matter of people not wanting children or having them later, that becomes a problem for the school system when elementary schools are not attracting enough enrolments and are inevitably closed down. This has happened to quite a number of schools in the neighbourhood where I used to live. Relatively, the increasing standard cost of living makes having children a turn off to couples as they may even find it hard to support themselves, never mind a child. The elderly population living as long as they are is a problem in itself considering there are only a limited number of retirement homes.

Just adding onto this - great argument by the way Vanille Sky - it's not only a finanical decision, but a cultural one as well. Some cultures view many children as a sign of power or manhood, while others keep theirs limited.

Caucasian families usually keep their family size to 1-2 children (1.6 on average per family) for the reason to provide the best financially, emotionally, and spiritually;unfortunately, it is often difficult to send your child to the best school possible when you must also provide for 4 or 5 other kids.

Likewise, just look at China. They actually have a policy called the "one-child/family planning policy" which limits each couple to one child (the only people exempt from this is if the child is disabled, or if one of the parents is an only child - than they are able to have a second kid). Which, to be honest, makes sense if you look at it based off of world population. China alone accounts for a little over 19% of the world's population, equating to 1.36 billion people. They are now taking the step necessary to prevent an overpopulation crisis (which in my opinion I feel like they are already having)

On the other hand of the spectrum, we have cultures such as those of Hispanics where children are highly valued and desired. As such, on average, they have around 3.87 children, around .6 higher than the nation's average.

Do I believe overpopulation will become a threat? Yes. Do I believe it's imminent? Not in the next few years I don't believe so. But it could very well be around 2025. That may just be a shot in the dark, but I leave with this quote that I found which is quite staggering

"Sixty years later, in 1987, the world population was five billion, and 12 years later, in October 1999, it is estimated to have passed six billion. Small wonder that many are concerned about what this bodes for our future. Due to the momentum represented by steeply pyramidal age distributions, population growth surely will continue for one to several generations. Most of that growth will occur in developing nations. An eventual world population of 8-12 billion is expected by the end of the century. But estimates change frequently."

Melody · Feb 23, 2014

Overpopulation isn't an issue as much as lack of efficiency when using resources is. We still don't cooperate enough. The world needs a governing body which can ensure the rights of all people are respected and granted. We do not have one yet, and not even a body that can really even influence local policy making much anyways.

If we could break up and redistribute the areas of power more equally to allow more efficient governing, we might stand a chance. As things are now, our population will become a problem. It will also bring a solution with time.

Livewire · Feb 24, 2014

Right now, it's only a big problem in certain areas of the world. Asia & Europe, especially, have always had space issues and populations too large for the infrastructure. Eventually, it hits a tipping point and either disease, war, or famine comes in and restores the balance. So I'd say that overpopulation is an immediate threat in countries like China, Japan, India, Bangladesh, the rest of southeastern Asia, etc. (That general are of the world, really). But know that there's a big difference between overcrowding and overpopulation.

Toutebelle · Mar 17, 2014

Vader said:
Right now, it's only a big problem in certain areas of the world. Asia & Europe, especially, have always had space issues and populations too large for the infrastructure. Eventually, it hits a tipping point and either disease, war, or famine comes in and restores the balance. So I'd say that overpopulation is an immediate threat in countries like China, Japan, India, Bangladesh, the rest of southeastern Asia, etc. (That general are of the world, really). But know that there's a big difference between overcrowding and overpopulation.

And ESPECIALLY Africa. Seriously, we need to help millions of Africans by providing them with sex education and birth control. After all, a lot of them have 7-8 children on average and causing overcrowding.

Blu·Ray · Mar 18, 2014

I recommend you all to read a wonderful document on this issue by the UN that consists of a mere 240 pages: https://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
Here are a few points of interest:

The UN apparently thinks that the world population will stay at it's current high and stay at about 9 billion. As a counter-argument I have to say: Look at that freaking high-projection! It's huge!

This graph is really naive. To think that all territories will eventually become equal is the worst nonsense I have heard in a while. Also, you can't just say that the population growth has been at it's absolute high already. There are billions of people out there, and fertility rates of China and the west are not the entirety of the world. Additionally, fertility rates in the document show the same decline.

More graphs from the same document showing the same tendencies are available here:
http://imgur.com/a/5MPfe

Eevee3 · Mar 19, 2014

I do believe this is a threat, but where I live I've noticed that people are having far less children than back in the day.

For example, my grandpa lived in a family of 8. At most, I've seen families nowadays having 2 kids. But again, that doesn't apply everywhere, of course. xD

But I am wondering how we will handle running out of resources, if we do.

Eevee-Kins · Mar 19, 2014

The population rate is scary dangerous.
We don't have a death rate like we used to so people are living longer.
Survival of the fittest would come into play but we have advanced medicine and technology.
We really just need to calm down on breeding IMO.

maccrash · Mar 19, 2014

can you spell "overreaction?"

accommodations will be made. the world has been growing more populated for, like, always, and as long as a billion people aren't spawned at the exact same time in the same area, there's not gonna be a problem.

Zorogami · Mar 20, 2014

Maybe its not an immediate threat, but i do think we have to start taking some kind of measures to prevent future generations having to deal with this problem. After all, its not just the housing that has to be increased, but food supplies and other commodities for example. We should start being more thoughtful on how we do things, to prevent future problems

Raine · Mar 21, 2014

Blu·Ray said:
I recommend you all to read a wonderful document on this issue by the UN that consists of a mere 240 pages: https://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

Good gracious...One day, when I will make enough time to go through that entire document because overpopulation and the threat that it could present is something rather interesting. Mainly in relevance to the Earth's resources; becoming more environmentally conscious and friendly. By looking at the graph though, I'm relatively optimistic about the world population not increasing to the double digits, but they are simply estimations so probably taking it with a grain of salt would be optimal.

maccrash said:
can you spell "overreaction?"

accommodations will be made. the world has been growing more populated for, like, always, and as long as a billion people aren't spawned at the exact same time in the same area, there's not gonna be a problem.

Accommodations for future generations can only go so far. Who knows, maybe technological advances will enable the world population to increase without expending too many resources. We can't predict the future and can only simply estimate the world population in the years to come.

Sage Ebock · Mar 21, 2014

I think Carl Sagan says it best:

(please excuse the very long quote, i do love it so tho...)

" "Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

-From Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

lulz

Tek · Mar 22, 2014

maccrash said:
can you spell "overreaction?"

accommodations will be made. the world has been growing more populated for, like, always, and as long as a billion people aren't spawned at the exact same time in the same area, there's not gonna be a problem.

Look at the first post again. You're right, the population has always been growing. What it has never done, until recently, is grow exponentially. And if the growth rate continues, unchecked, we will literally reach a point where a billion people are born every day.

Most of the points I would raise have been made already, the main one being that Westerners are so wasteful it's sickening. And the worst part is not that over-consumption is a defense mechanism to unhappiness that actually creates more unhappiness, the worst part is that the rest of the world wants to be just like us.

On the final disc of the documentary series Planet Earth, a frightening figure was given. How it was reached, I don't know, what I do know is that it's not very far-fetched. The narrator stated that if everyone on the planet used the amount of resources that the US uses, we'd need three Earths to sustain the population. This fits with my own observations of social behavior and cultural expectations in this country, and it also fits with another figure I read somewhere, Time magazine maybe? Not sure exactly where but there was a full page graphic illustrating that it takes something like ten times the amount of energy produced by a pound of grain to get that grain from seed to store shelf.

There are a lot of ways to cut down wastefulness, the simplest yet seemingly most difficult is to learn to enjoy what you've got instead of seeking more more more more more more. If you feel the same, I recommend reading "The Book (on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are) by Alan Watts", he illustrates not only the origin of our pleasure seeking, but also how that primary problem is creating many of the huge issues that we're dealing with in the modern age.

Luckily (?), we won't have to deal with overpopulation if we don't find an alternative to fossil fuel. Urban countries feed their populations by using vast quantities of fossil fuels to grow and transport food. Fossil fuel which will eventually (maybe soon) be gone forever. Which is what I consider to be a major flaw in thinking that urbanization solves overpopulation. With the current state of affairs, urbanization actually intensifies resource shortages and the chronic, self-perpetuating unhappiness which also consumes needless resources.

Overpopulation: Is it an immediate threat?

More options

Cerberus87

Mega Houndoom, baby!

Raine

Orogenes

Dakotah

Raine

El Héroe Oscuro

IG: elheroeoscuro

Melody

Banned

Livewire

Toutebelle

Banned

Blu·Ray

Manta Ray Pokémon

Eevee3

╰( ´・ω・)つ━☆ﾟ.* ･｡ﾟ

Eevee-Kins

Sleepy Eyes, Bony Knees

maccrash

foggy notion

Zorogami

WUB WUB

Raine

Sage Ebock

Squirtle Squad 4 life

Tek