Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[gad-fly]

The issues of the world being over-populated must have been on the mind of quite a few of us for some time. Some may contest that, given what we can do to mitigate, the world may not yet be over-populated. Some may argue that present over-population may not be detrimental if it can be overcome by upcoming technological advancement. Be that as it may, most of us hold the notion that abhorrent over-population is here to stay.

Regional Distribution is a relevant issue to be tackled. If there are too many in Nigeria, but too few in Norway, is that not a problem since the density can be averaged out. No, it cannot because there are equally-important parallel issues involved. In this respect, a regional problem is a world problem at this point in time. But why now? Why cannot localized over-population not be solved locally without bothering those outside? Because we have reached the stage historically when one local problem cannot be kept under wraps without spilling over to the rest of the world around it. Witness the immigration wave suffered by Europe from the Middle East.

I can see four factors in over-population:
1. Space
Comfort Zone is a basic demand by all organism. Limited space imposes limit on the volume of accommodation. Technology can help to some extent, like layering by multi-story development, which will stress on resources below.
2. Resources
Limited resources like nutrient and water can only sustain so many. Again, technology can help to increase resources, but such improvement cannot be allowed to outpace population increase.
3. Quality of life
Overpopulation would be the case if it serves to lower the quality of life which you should reasonably expect, like peace and quiet, serenity, open space, no pollution, and so on.
4.Nature
Natural disasters like forest fire, earthquake, drought, and so on have served as nature's rather cruel way to keep the balance. We cannot be blamed to improve our hygiene and medication to reduce early death, but in so doing we are also fighting against the balance, by counter-measures like birth-control.

[Alias]

Yes.
And we could do something intelligent about it, except for three obstacles:
religion, politics and economics
four, if you count the inherent specific mental illness

[Marvin_Edwards]

I can see four factors in over-population:
1. Space
Comfort Zone is a basic demand by all organism. Limited space imposes limit on the volume of accommodation. Technology can help to some extent, like layering by multi-story development, which will stress on resources below.
2. Resources
Limited resources like nutrient and water can only sustain so many. Again, technology can help to increase resources, but such improvement cannot be allowed to outpace population increase.
3. Quality of life
Overpopulation would be the case if it serves to lower the quality of life which you should reasonably expect, like peace and quiet, serenity, open space, no pollution, and so on.
4.Nature
Natural disasters like forest fire, earthquake, drought, and so on have served as nature's rather cruel way to keep the balance. We cannot be blamed to improve our hygiene and medication to reduce early death, but in so doing we are also fighting against the balance, by counter-measures like birth-control.

5. We can add the greater likelihood of pandemics like the current one with covid-19.
6. Global warming is directly related to the number of people driving cars, producing electricity by fossil fuels, etc. Not to mention cutting down the Rain forests which help absorb the CO2.
7. Pollution is another by-product of human activity, threatening not just ourselves but other species.

The good news is that opening up careers for women has lowered population growth in many industrialized nations. But the lower birth-rate has created an aging population that is less able to support itself. And in China, after the one-child rule led to a disproportionate number of males to females (some female newborns were simply killed to make room for a future male child), and their own aging population, they are now advocating a second child.

[Count Lucanor]

The real issue is that overpopulation is a myth that disguises who the real troublemakers are:

How racist myths built the population growth bogey-man
Overpopulation – The Human Explosion Explained
Sierra Club -The Overpopulation Myth and its Dangerous Connotations
7 Billion People: Everybody Relax!
The Overpopulation Myth
https://www.worldometers.info/world-pop ... n-by-year/
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
A graph that shows how Europeans and North Americans are destroying the planet.

[LuckyR]

The word overpopulation supposes that there is an optimal population and anything above that is overpopulation and below that is what? Underpopulation?

A more savvy approach states that overpopulation is not a single number but a sliding scale based on the available technology to create resources and address waste. If those capacities are exceeded, then that's overpopulation. That's ok but as many have stated it could be better described as a over consumption problem.

[gad-fly]

The word overpopulation supposes that there is an optimal population and anything above that is overpopulation and below that is what? Underpopulation?

A more savvy approach states that overpopulation is not a single number but a sliding scale based on the available technology to create resources and address waste. If those capacities are exceeded, then that's overpopulation. That's ok but as many have stated it could be better described as a over consumption problem.

Treat over-population as a notion, not as a gatepost of say 7 billions or 10 billions. It is futile to argue on a figure, or on whose notion deems fit. One who feels uncomfortable or worse would be so stressed as to hold the notion.

Technology to increase resources and reducing waste would in turn reduce stress and strain, but overpopulation is much more than a problem of over-consumption. The problem is not solved alone by sufficient goods and service. The environment, climate change, and the earth's health are also serious concern.

[Sy Borg]

A graph that shows how Europeans and North Americans are destroying the planet.

Do you truly believe that Africans, Asians and South Americans are morally superior to Europeans? The racism comes from both sides.

The fact is that most developing nations are working hard to enjoy the same lifestyles. They did not hold back on resource use because they are better people than Europeans, only due to lack of opportunity. But they are catching up and developing countries are now producing more carbon than wealthier ones: https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing- ... -emissions

Not because they are bad, but because they can. One side has a problem with overbreeding, other other with over-consuming. Both are obviously an issue, except to the hopelessly one-eyed. The racism card you played is both dishonest and manipulative.

I fact-checked your sources for media bias. Every source has a left-leaning bias. Are you prepared to sacrifice the natural world for politics? Because those nasty rich people are being so naughty? The fact is that, if you took away all of those ultra-wealthy people, others would take their place. The revolution is not going so well, is it, comrade?

I also note that you have used the word "myth" with "overpopulation" twelve times in the past two weeks. Yet you chastise others for repeating the obvious fact that humans are wildly, and catastrophically, overpopulating. Please don't try to Trump us. Just be straight and consider the issue without politics.

That human activities have substantially changed the atmosphere is an OBVIOUS sign that we have overpopulated. The situation is so extreme that many climate denialists find it impossible to believe that humans would be capable of changing the composition of an entire planet's atmosphere. Yet there are so many humans that we have done exactly that. We have also wiped out almost all of the world's large fauna. Why do some people here ignore the concept of sustainability?

According to some here, there is no way humans can ever become unsustainable. We will always find a way! Yes, I expect people will always find a way to survive. Not so, other species. There is the standard line peddled by demographers about "11 billion in 2100", revealing their lack of research into any connections between population, mass extinctions and loss of natural and wild spaces.

I find it hard to understand the the ruthlessness of the "not overpopulated" camp towards the natural world, that is already struggling to survive. How much destruction is too much?

[Jorgen Pallesen]

Social media has made birth rates plummet, if 3rd and 2nd world countries become 1st world countries with AI and robots that can help the countries to better status, then i'm sure it will greatly help the problem of overpopulation.

[Alias]

The real issue is that overpopulation is a myth that disguises who the real troublemakers are:

How did the problem of too many humans wanting too much stuff and destroying everything around them morph into
"troubelmaking"?
Trouble is here - we've already made it.

[LuckyR]

The real issue is that overpopulation is a myth that disguises who the real troublemakers are:

How did the problem of too many humans wanting too much stuff and destroying everything around them morph into
"troubelmaking"?
Trouble is here - we've already made it.

Not untrue. Depending on enlightenment to compensate for human nature is a fool's errand. Better to harness natural forces to accomplish the same goals. For example, the association of women's education to delayed and therefore reduced childbearing.

[Count Lucanor]

A graph that shows how Europeans and North Americans are destroying the planet.

Do you truly believe that Africans, Asians and South Americans are morally superior to Europeans? The racism comes from both sides.

Do I truly believe? When did I ever say that I believe such thing? BTW the graph is not about racism, is about CO2 emissions per capita.

The fact is that most developing nations are working hard to enjoy the same lifestyles. They did not hold back on resource use because they are better people than Europeans, only due to lack of opportunity. But they are catching up and developing countries are now producing more carbon than wealthier ones: https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing- ... -emissions

Yes, sure, when one looks at the absolute numbers, higher populated areas contribute more, but they contribute far less per capita, which goes to show where should the warning flag be raised more eagerly. And your numbers account for China's 23% as a contribution of the developing world, that is, the contribution of the country that in 2017 stood as the largest economy in the world, surpassing the US in 2014 for the first time in modern history, becoming the world's largest exporter in 2010, and the largest trading nation in 2013. Interestingly, China's population growth rate is only 0.39% (down from 2% in 1955), a tendency that does not correspond to its historical growth in CO2 emissions. Because it is not a direct relation between emissions and the number of people, but between emissions and economic activities. And looking at the cumulative CO2 emissions, there's no doubt that it is not the poor people in Bangladesh to blame for the planet's pollution, but North Americans and Europeans.
Who has contributed most to global CO2 emissions
Turns out that:
North America and Europe have contributed to 62% of the cumulative CO2 emissions since 1751.
The United States has emitted more CO2 than any other country to date: at around 400 billion tonnes since 1751, it is responsible for 25% of historical emissions;
This is twice more than China – the world’s second largest national contributor;
The 28 countries of the European Union (EU-28) are also a large historical contributor at 22%;
Many of the large annual emitters today – such as India and Brazil – are not large contributors in a historical context;

Not because they are bad, but because they can. One side has a problem with overbreeding, other other with over-consuming. Both are obviously an issue, except to the hopelessly one-eyed. The racism card you played is both dishonest and manipulative.

The issue is that it has not been demonstrated that there's an "overbreeding" problem that relates directly to the world's availability of resources, and therefore it is not a good excuse for population control policies, bordering eugenics. It would prove wiser to solve the 30%-40% of wasted food problem.

I fact-checked your sources for media bias. Every source has a left-leaning bias. Are you prepared to sacrifice the natural world for politics? Because those nasty rich people are being so naughty? The fact is that, if you took away all of those ultra-wealthy people, others would take their place. The revolution is not going so well, is it, comrade?

Are you sure you checked my sources? Perhaps you might want to double check your fact check. Does Sierra Club, the oldest environmental organization in the USA, have a left-leaning bias? I hope it does!! Are Science Alert and Kurzgesagt (the German channel that has been funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates) revolutionary lefties ready to seize power for the proletariat? And what is too lefty about Prospect Magazine, owned and supported by Resolution Group, a US consulting firm? Is Worldometer, the source you submitted, asking you to join the revolution? They deny it in their About page, you know: "We have no political, governmental, or corporate affiliation." Is Our World in Data (the collaborative efforts between researchers at the University of Oxford, who are the scientific editors of the website content; and the non-profit organization Global Change Data Lab, who publishes and maintains the website and the data tools that make our work possible) a stronghold of left-wing militias? And how about the Google graphics based on the World Bank data? I grant you that, they are all a bunch of commies, comrade.

I also note that you have used the word "myth" with "overpopulation" twelve times in the past two weeks. Yet you chastise others for repeating the obvious fact that humans are wildly, and catastrophically, overpopulating. Please don't try to Trump us. Just be straight and consider the issue without politics.

I presented a fair argument and I have backed up my claims with substantial information from reliable sources, that can be reviewed by anyone interested in refuting them. Politics? It was very early in these debates that I said to you: "As far as I know, the myth of overpopulation is peddled from left to right, fitting different agendas."

That human activities have substantially changed the atmosphere is an OBVIOUS sign that we have overpopulated.

But of all the human activities, the one that has not substantially changed the atmosphere, is reproduction. It's what the data and science indicates.

[Count Lucanor]

The real issue is that overpopulation is a myth that disguises who the real troublemakers are:

How did the problem of too many humans wanting too much stuff and destroying everything around them morph into
"troubelmaking"?
Trouble is here - we've already made it.

Oh, perhaps you're late and have not witnessed the whole conversation. I must therefore correct you: no, it's not the problem of too many humans destroying everything. It's around less than 10% of humans doing it.

[Sculptor1]

How did the problem of too many humans wanting too much stuff and destroying everything around them morph into
"troubelmaking"?
Trouble is here - we've already made it.

Oh, perhaps you're late and have not witnessed the whole conversation. I must therefore correct you: no, it's not the problem of too many humans destroying everything. It's around less than 10% of humans doing it.

And, in your view, which 10% do you call upon to take the blame?

[Sculptor1]

Social media has made birth rates plummet, if 3rd and 2nd world countries become 1st world countries with AI and robots that can help the countries to better status, then i'm sure it will greatly help the problem of overpopulation.

Social media? How does that work?
Do we have an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc?

[Sy Borg]

I'm not interested in debating in that repetitive, chopped-up style you insist on using, Count.

If you think it's desirable to live shoulder-to-shoulder with other humans, to increasingly live in our own filth as we desertify once-pleasant lands, as the forests burn and even space is filled with debris, then that's a world for you, not for me.

What you are advocating is a "hard landing" - to stay in denial, blaming the rich (who are doing what others would do, given the chance) and to keep on breeding until systems inevitably break down. Then nature will culls the excess numbers.

The alternative is is to work to tax billionaires, hold environmentally damaging companies to account, and work to reduce breeding in the most profligate parts of the world - to save people being born into a nightmare, and to soften what will be inevitable blows because we have already so dramatically overpopulated.

There is no possible soft landing at this stage. The only question is how hard it will be.