• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

What is Overpopulation?

Palamon

Silence is Purple
  • 8,343
    Posts
    15
    Years
    Overpopulation has been debated for quite awhile. Scientists estimate by 2024, there will finally be 8 billion of us. I just looked at the World Population Calculator. As of this post I'm making, the population is 7,312,136,289. And climbing. It's changing constantly every time I go back to look. Anyway.

    What would you consider overpopulation? Are we overpopulated now? Were we overpopulated when we hit 1 billion? Or do you think we're still not yet overpopulated?
     
    Overpopulation is when there's more individuals than there's resources to support, yeah? So I guess the question is, how many humans can we support with our current systems and resources? 7.3 billion is certainly a lot of people, but it's possible we can support that many as well or something. So how many is too many? And let's say that we are overpopulated, what happens then? Normally in nature when an area is overpopulated there's a die-off until the population is at a sustainable number, but with humans it's not exactly gonna go that way.....
     
    I'll be that broken record for the sake of the thread - there are enough resources to sustain humans, but the prevalence of capitalism and the inherent inequality it forces upon us mean that the issue of overpopulation is created and blah, blah, blah. You know the rest - capitalism is evil etc. Our species shouldn't be considered overpopulated because there are enough resources to sustain our exponentially growing population but because of the way resources are distributed, we are at that point where the technical term for overpopulation, as summarised so nicely by Zekrom, becomes a reality.
     
    What I consider overpopulation is if it involves artificial selection, in which there are deforestations and mass extinctions because of humans' ever-rising population (there's a reason why scientists are theorizing that the next extinction impact will be influenced by humans alone), as well as improvements in medical technology that prevents the weak from perishing by mother nature.


    Overpopulation is when there's more individuals than there's resources to support, yeah? So I guess the question is, how many humans can we support with our current systems and resources? 7.3 billion is certainly a lot of people, but it's possible we can support that many as well or something. So how many is too many? And let's say that we are overpopulated, what happens then? Normally in nature when an area is overpopulated there's a die-off until the population is at a sustainable number, but with humans it's not exactly gonna go that way.....
    And this is why we need someone like Ultron.
     
    Not sure if anyone remembers this but Stephen Hawking puts us at 200 more years of survival unless we start utilizing resources more conservatively or colonize other planets:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...ust-move-to-outer-space-within-a-century.html

    ... I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space.

    I know that quantum physics and demographics aren't very related, but I still put significant weight on the man's opinion.
     
    Not sure if anyone remembers this but Stephen Hawking puts us at 200 more years of survival unless we start utilizing resources more conservatively or colonize other planets:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...ust-move-to-outer-space-within-a-century.html



    I know that quantum physics and demographics aren't very related, but I still put significant weight on the man's opinion.
    That still falls under artificial selection, and it sounds more like running away from our problems rather than taking responsibility on fixing it by decreasing our own population. We may also become invasive species, which is one of the very things we are against, if find another sustainable planet and waste its resources too. We are destined to stay on Earth and be killed off completely by either the rapture or mother nature's way of wiping us out.
     
    We would be overpopulated were the cost of having children and proving them living space simply unable to be met. With that said, we're still so far from overpopulation that it's a non issue.

    This doesn't even consider the fact that most first world nations, without immigration, are actually experiencing a population decline.

    Mix in technological advancements such as Vertical farming and you're likely going to find that a much higher population is sustainable. 30 billion people with no real shortages? I could easily see it coming to pass.

    Mind you this is the abundance we've currently achieved and that 30 years ago the amount of people living off of less than 2 dollars a day (debt/inflation based purchasing power devaluation adjusted) was 1 in 2 people in the world. 50% of the world was in terrible poverty just 30 years ago while now it's 1 in 7. (That's a reduction of 35% for you non math peoples.) Magnificent progress has been made and doesn't appear to be slowing down. There are many challenges yet to be overcome but as the spirit of my fellow humans endure, I have much reason to be optimistic.
     
    This reminds me of that one book called a classic I think, where you can only have 2 kids, and if you have a third child the government takes them away, probably for death. And this one family has a third child, in hiding, and he meets a girl next door by sneaking out, who also happens to be a third child. And the girl's father is a worker for the government.

    Point is I'd hate to be forced underground or draw straws for life.
     
    This reminds me of that one book called a classic I think, where you can only have 2 kids, and if you have a third child the government takes them away, probably for death. And this one family has a third child, in hiding, and he meets a girl next door by sneaking out, who also happens to be a third child. And the girl's father is a worker for the government.

    Point is I'd hate to be forced underground or draw straws for life.

    You're thinking of Anthony Burgess's The Wanting Seed.

    Not my favorite dystopian novel, but definitely a classic.
     
    Well currently we haven't hit our carrying capacity which is estimated to be like... 9 to 12 billion iirc? We certainly aren't overpopulated quite yet, but with our lifestyles we're leading ourselves to a point where very quickly we'll see overpopulation. We're getting to a point where we're using resources way faster than they can be replenished (oil, wood, coal etc), and contaminating or not taking care of those that are reusable (fresh water, soil, fish etc). Having 7.3 billion people all wanting to live like those in developed nations is creating a very real threat of overpopulation because we're lowering that carrying capacity. If it wasn't a threat we wouldn't even be considering it's potential to be one.


    We would be overpopulated were the cost of having children and proving them living space simply unable to be met. With that said, we're still so far from overpopulation that it's a non issue.

    This doesn't even consider the fact that most first world nations, without immigration, are actually experiencing a population decline.

    Mix in technological advancements such as Vertical farming and you're likely going to find that a much higher population is sustainable. 30 billion people with no real shortages? I could easily see it coming to pass.

    Mind you this is the abundance we've currently achieved and that 30 years ago the amount of people living off of less than 2 dollars a day (debt/inflation based purchasing power devaluation adjusted) was 1 in 2 people in the world. 50% of the world was in terrible poverty just 30 years ago while now it's 1 in 7. (That's a reduction of 35% for you non math peoples.) Magnificent progress has been made and doesn't appear to be slowing down. There are many challenges yet to be overcome but as the spirit of my fellow humans endure, I have much reason to be optimistic.

    Technological advances have saved our butts every time it seems like we're reaching a food limit. Not to be a Debbie Downer, but the fact that fewer nations are in poverty, and many are just beginning the developmental process is actually really bad for population sustainability. As countries make the demographic transition there's huge burst in population because there are less deaths and still the same amount of births. Developed countries slowly declining in population doesn't make up for this (the Total Fertility Rate in US is 1.88, just under enough to replenish the population). Even with the possibility of technological advances, with the lifestyle of developed nations we're driving ourselves into a place with few options. The number of harmful positive feedback loops we've created are quickly going to spiral into feeding themselves. When that happens our ability to live sustainably is pretty toast - which means Earth's carrying capacity will plummet. And that's when we're overpopulated.
     
    Overpopulation occurs when a population of a species(we mostly say humans) exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecological enviroment.I think we have been already highly overpopulated now.OverPopulation in cities is quite a common concern(this problem occurs mostly in developing countries of the world).We can say this is one of the reason that animals are being killed.Overpopulation is basically a potential threat to Earth.
     
    Back
    Top