Isn't overpopulation either directly, or indrectly, the cause of every...

[banjosareunderrated]

single problem, conflict, crisis, argument, and intense casual chat the world knows?

In other words, is there one single problem the worlds' population is facing that isn't related to overpopulation?

honestly curious for dissenting views.

p.s. I don't mean overpopulation as it pertains to land use in the U.S. or any other country. I realize that Japan builds up while we build out, but I'm talking about a general lack of resources for a booming world population.

[democracyindanger]

1. I forgot the name of the book

but one historian had a theory that a central reason for war was a subconscious human effort to reduce the population.

[Frederik]

2. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard

[banjosareunderrated]

6. i'm willing to learn....name one problem we face that isn't related to

overpopulation. I'm not saying that for any other reason than anthropology is way above me.

[H2O Man]

49. Greed.

Greed is distinct from overpopulation. It includes being greedy for power, especially that power which comes from wealth.

In early hunting & gathering cultures, there is no evidence of true warfare. That does not mean no violence, nor does it imply an absence of battles between clans/villages. These are often a result of "blood feuds. It does indicate that there were not organized warfare.

Agriculture, which creates larger and more sedentary communities (some of which will be the first "city-states") allows for a surplus of products, which becomes the foundation of accumulated wealth. Agrarian cultures allow for greater social stratification: some people will become the ruling classes. This can result from a hereditary leadership position (sounds familiar), as well as the religious life of the community changing from shaman/individual experience within the group context, to a priesthood/ structured experience that regulates the group context. Stratification within a growing community brings with it the first stages of institutionalized conflict.

More, agricultural societies tend to expand their trade, especially as they grow and have more non-food producing community members. When a community reaches the city status, they depend upon outlying areas for resources. Often, the city-state organizes a "fighting class" or military that is used to acquire the best deal for the ruling class when dealing with others. This is when true warfare begins.

(There will probably be a few folks who will debate this. That's fine; we can all have different takes on this. But this is based on the experience and teachings of traditional Iroquois society.)

Greed is the opposite of sharing. It matters less if there is overpopulation, than if there is greed or sharing. If my garden produces its bounty before yours, I should share with you, confident that when you harvest your garden, you will share with me. The earth produces enough for both of us. It is only when one is greedy for "power" that conflicts arise.

[doubleplusgood]

92. desire for large family = genetic greed

that's what it boils down to, IMHO

[wuushew]

94. Or the corrupting influence of a major religion

n/t

[H2O Man]

50. Are you sure?

I can think of things far more stupid; they come from the White House daily.

[friesianrider]

81. Really.

It sure seems like a distinct possibility.

[H2O Man]

118. In your case

it wouldn't surprise me.

[Iris]

54. why?

Can you expound on that?

Seems to me a lot of wars are fought over land or resources, which would make wanting to eliminate your enemies seem pretty reasonable.

[Frederik]

58. Sure, land and resources

and trading routes. That's what wars are fought over. There's no need to add overpopulation to the equation.

[Iris]

78. The reason land and resources are at a premium is because there

are lots of people competing for them. So, the basic premise here that people are subconsciously trying to reduce population when they wage war makes sense. At least it does to me, but you are certainly entitled to your own opionion.

[Frederik]

110. I don't think that theory

has much merit.

[Mairead]

117. There's was at least one enormously-respected anthro who thought it did

at least in part.

Read the late Marvin Harris's work and see whether you hold the same opinion still.

[Kraklen]

80. Then why do chimpanzees do it?

They're not interested in land, resources, or trading routes.

They simply gather up all the male chimps and go marching of single file to the neighboring "tribes" and kill the males and rape the females.

[Frederik]

112. Because they're crazy mofos?

Are the chimpanzees trying to "unconciously reduce overpopulation"? Chimpanzees don't do those things because there are too many chimps. Anyway, chimps are not humans.

[Kraklen]

119. Then why do geese fly south for the winter.

Because they're "crazy mofos?"

[Frederik]

121. Yes

Why don't humans fly south for the winter?

On edit: for a serious answer, I'd have to think and read some more. I don't think that you can draw very informative analogies between human wars and bird migration, though

[Kraklen]

122. Really?

I thought it had to do with instinct.

Geese fly south because of evolution. The populations of geese that fly south for the winter have far greater reproductive success. So they do it even though they don't consciously understand why they do it. Just like other organisms prevent overpopulations by killing off neighboring members of the same species, those that do have a greater success of reproducing.

I had no idea it was because of some mental disorder.

:eyes:

[AlienGirl]

127. They are interested in territory--land and resources. nt

[Mr.Green93]

62. The problem is capitalism not over population

A truly democratic socialist world would have plenty of everything for everybody.

[Maple]

3. We aren't

overpopulated

[Matariki]

4. is that the dissenting view?

do you mean it or is it a joke?

if you mean it, can you explain?

[Maple]

7. The world is not overpopulated

we could put everyone on the planet in Texas and still have plenty of room...assuming anyone wanted to live in Texas. :D

We will peak at about 9 billion, and then drop drastically. The problem will be under, not over, population.

An aging population with very few young people.

The UN did studies on this some time ago, but it got very little media coverage. Crisis-a-minute is more their style.

[KitchenWitch]

8. What about the food and water supplies?

[Maple]

10. Well 2/3 of the planet is water

and we have surplus food...tons and tons and tons of it...for the first time in human history.

We could easily feed everyone. We have the food, what we lack is the political will.

[KitchenWitch]

12. Salt water

without desalination is unpotable.

[Maple]

16. Well Canada alone

is awash in fresh water...but if we need to use salt water, we do indeed have a method of solving that.

[eridani]

45. Where do you get the energy?

It's a very energy-intensive process.

[anarch]

65. the endless supply of cheap oil, right?

since oil clearly comes from the earth's core, and isn't a fossil fuel or anything...and since the means of getting it out of the ground cheaply will always be available, so we can just keep on relying on oil for agriculture, shipping...pretty much all our energy needs...uh huh. Hell, it's worked for the past 100 years or so, I don't see why we should worry....

And since the only space and resources humans need is what they physically exist in...no need for including arable land, potable water, and so on into the equation, since cheap oil will last forever and solve all our energy/production problems...and god told us to "go forth and multiply" anyway, right?

Maybe if we can all learn to eat our own waste, like some giant, living perpetual motion machine....

sorry. I'll stop ranting now....

[wuushew]

71. Humans since at least 1800 have been like a petri dish culture

As long as there were resources to exploit a population boom was encouraged. More and more people meant that the natural wealth of any given area could be exploited at an ever increasing rate. It was easy to get rich.

Green energy sources have a very very difficult time acting as a substitute for the chemically stored energy of millions of years of sunlight. The American dream is to have your children do better than you have. This idea is already starting to fall apart. All our wealth is based on energy, since it provides us the ability to change and manipulate physical matter into usable goods. If energy production and or conservation does not keep pace with population, there is never any reason to have more babies in the first place.

[lenidog]

21. And what also hurts is the lack of ability to get the food everywhere

it needs to be.

[Matariki]

11. why peak at 9 billion?

[Maple]

13. That's as high as we'll get

probably not even that high...but that's a hopeful guesstimate.

[Matariki]

17. no, i meant back that up

not say it as if it's a given. i'm interested at how you arrive at that particular number.

[Maple]

18. I didn't arrive at it

It's from the studies done on the problem.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&rls=GGLC%2CGGLC%3A1969-53%2CGGLC%3Aen&biw=827&q=population+peak+at+9+billion

[Matariki]

22. it's not one of those studies the bush administration paid for, is it? ;-)

[Maple]

25. No....he'd prefer

lots of good religious breeding methinks. :D

[funflower]

87. Population decrease causes some economic problems, but we do

have far too many people for the planet to support in a way that is healthy and sustainable and also maintains our current comfortable standard of living.

[doubleplusgood]

93. excuse me...are you nuts ?

Not overpopulated ? I guess all of the species going extinct, depleted world fisheries, deforestation, global warming, wars for resources (Iraqi oil, land in Darfur, etc.) are figments of the imagination, huh ?

[Solon]

114. Wrong about the Texas remark....

Do the math, Texas has 261,914 square miles of land, divide 6 billion out of that and you get a little over 22,000 people for every square mile of land, not really roomy if you think about it.

Sources:
http://www.texasalmanac.com/texasenviro_2000.htm#physical
Calculator and Brain

[RPM]

52. we are overpopulated

get rid of our ability to accellerate production through the use of fertilizers and transportation and we are well over what we could support naturally.

[Frederik]

5. Overpopulation

is an idea primarily pushed by people who believe in the supremacy of the white race and that there are too many brown people. First of all, the world population isn't booming, second, the majority of the world's resources is consumed by a small, white elite in the North.

Europe's problem is the exact opposite of overpopulation - the populations are steadily ageing because of the low birthrate.

Some areas may be overpopulated, which does not mean that there are too many people, but that the infrastructure and the economy can't support the number of people living there. Parts of Western Africa would be an example, the Gaza strip perhaps another. But overpopulation is not the main cause of the problems there.

[Matariki]

9. so do you think the population count is fabricated?

or that it's not significant that the population has more than doubled since 1960 - a mere generation ago?

[Frederik]

14. The growth has slowed

and is still slowing down.

[lenidog]

23. Sperm counts around the world are declining and no one knows

exactly why.

[Maple]

28. It's no mystery

People put off having kids now. So those who used to have kids starting at 14-15 with fertility tapering off in the 40s, are now trying to have kids for the first time in the 40's.

[lenidog]

30. No from what I understand the counts are off even when a man should

have his highest counts.

[Maple]

31. I don't suppose

3 generations of drugs has anything to do with that?

We've blamed air pollution, asbestos, MacDonalds and the ozone layer...and overlooked the obvious source of damage to the body.

They certainly don't have problems with it in China or India.

[Frederik]

35. Are you sure?

"They certainly don't have problems with it in China or India"

China has not had a rapid population growth (they had the one-child policy, which I think has been repealed) and the pace of India's growth has slowed.

[Maple]

37. Am I sure? Yes

They don't have problems with fertility. Just the opposite.

Which is why they went to the one-child policy, and the massive effort to use birth control. Anything to slow it down.

[Maru Kitteh]

91. How about meat? Of course drugs would figure in also since every bite

of meat in the "modern" world includes at least one of the following; artificial hormones, antibiotics and other drugs as well as feces and organisms that can kill in the cruelest of ways.

India and China are both MUCH lower in their consumption per capita of animal flesh and dairy.

[shraby]

15. I think politicians and governments

are the main source of most of the world's ills. For the most part the ordinary John and Jane Doe tend to get along and do just fine until the "powers that be" start mucking things up.

[banjosareunderrated]

19. the world population isn't booming? Today it's 6.5 billion...by 2050, 9.5

billion according to the UN. Perhaps booming was too strong. Increasing the worlds' pop. by 33% in 1/100th of recorded human history is at least noteworthy.

"some areas may be overpopulated, which does not mean that there are too many people."???????

[Maple]

24. Canada is bigger than the US

and 90% of it is unpopulated.

We have plenty of room on the planet. Bunching up proves nothing.

We will peak at 9 billion or so...and then drop.

This is not good.

[Matariki]

26. huh?

you're a cryptic one Maple. What's 'not good'?

[Maple]

29. A dwindling population

dominated by the elderly is not good.

Sorry, I thought that was clear. I didn't mean to be cryptic.

[wuushew]

34. We cannot grow forever Maple

either dole out the necessary social services or you will be forced to do something less appealing like eldercide or living with alternating cycles of growth and collapse.

[Maple]

36. Sure we can

There is no limit you know.

The world and the universe are much bigger than you know.

And 'eldercide' is cured by having more babies...as in, population growth.

[Matariki]

38. so, is this a religious belief you hold?

"the world is much bigger than you know"?

it certainly sounds more like a 'faith based' statement than one grounded in reality.

[Maple]

39. Nope, I'm an atheist

It's simple reality...not propaganda left over from the 60s.

Earth is a rather large planet...humans are minor in comparison.

We have plenty of room...and there is space beyond that.

[raccoon]

59. Just having enough room isn't the problem

the problem is enough food, enough drinkable water (as someone mentioned earlier, other resources, etc. And having these things distributed to those who need them.

At the present time, Americans & people in other industrialized countries are consuming the lion's share of resources.

[Frederik]

40. Overpopulation does not mean too many people

At least, that's what I learned when I studied human geography briefly. It means lack of the infrastructure needed to support the population, and of jobs for the people who live in the region.

[Maple]

43. Well that can be fixed

It's a big world.

Like I said, 90% of Canada is uninhabited, so millions bunching together in Calcutta is just human folly, not fate.

[raccoon]

60. Good point

and the way things are going with jobs....what's the point of
increasing the birth rate when there aren't enough jobs for people as it is? And lots of those available are McJobs.

[funflower]

88. That's quite a leap. People concerned about population growth are all

white supremacists. Yeah. Whatever.

[Triana]

20. IMO - Yes! (n/t)

[dsc]

27. terrorism has virtually nothing to do with overpopulation

[Triana]

72. poverty does though...and overpopulation is part of what causes...

...poverty.

[dsc]

79. that is a pretty hard case to make

19 of the hijackers were Saudis and thus not poor. A fairly large percentage, maybe even a plurality, of Palestinian terrorists are actually middle class, not poor.

[Triana]

106. just because the TERRORISTS aren't poor...

...doesn't mean no one else is and does not automatically mean that poverty doesn't contribute to terrorism.

[dsc]

128. Yes there are poor people

I don't think I denied that. But for there to be a link between poverty and terrorism I think one of two things would have to be true. One, the terrorists would have to be poor. Or two, the sponser countries would have to be poor. Neither seems to be the case. These people didn't attack the towers because they were poor, they did so because they were pissed off.

[Kenneth ken]

32. greed is a bigger problem

I believe we have the capacity to feed, clothe, educate and house the earth's population. We lack the will and spirit of cooperation.

[Maple]

33. Greed moved us forward

The urge to do better, and have more, helped us a great deal.

A nation without greed is, and will remain....dirt poor.

But now, for the first time ever, we do indeed have the capacity to feed, clothe, educate and house the earth's population.

And that's a good thing for everyone... prosperous people, educated thinking people, healthy people, well-fed people...and then innovation. The search for knowledge.

Greed morphs into a search for knowledge and meaning when people have basic needs filled, and extras just for the luxury of it.

[Kenneth ken]

41. I'll disagree

and say that my sense of history is that greed helps to expand knowledge in the sense that empires extending their reach spread their ways among new lands, and also get exposed to different cultures and ideas.

But the search for knowledge and meaning seems more driven by those within a powerful population who are comfortable, but not greedy; those who have the luxury of time to think, but not the desire to accumulate power.

So I am saying moving us forward is a side effect of greed, not a direct result, and that greed doesn't morph. Greed is greed; at best it helps to provide an environment for knowledge to flourish. Knowledge being tolerated until it threatens the state.

[Maple]

42. Feel free

But once you have the luxury of buying anything you want, 'things' matter less and less, and you want some meaning in your life.

The 'state' is neither here nor there. We've always had states.

The 'glory of Rome' is now a tourist site.

But the world has expanded far beyond those old limits.

[Kenneth ken]

44. the world may be expandING

beyond the old limits, but clearly, if it had expandED, we as a planet would have the political will to feed, clothe, house and educate all of humanity.

Why do we not have the political will? I say greed. What say you?

[Senior citizen]

46. I think overpopulation is the problem.

Many places on this planet are lightly inhabited or uninhabited because people have found it difficult or impossible to survive there. Desalinating ocean water takes energy, and we don't have cheap energy. Indigenous peoples who lived simply for thousands of years find their lands encroached upon, their natural resources stolen or destroyed, and they are forced to crowd into the cities where they have to compete for scarce jobs. Many countries have their own citizens going hungry while they export food to pay off national debts or enrich their ruling class.

But overpopulation in humans has a cause: patriarchy. An ecologically viable species controls its reproduction in accordance with available resources so that it doesn't fall into a cycle of overpopulating, dying off, overpopulating, dying off, and repeating this until it dies off completely. We are not an ecologically viable species because patriarchy uses violence to force people into gender roles based on sex, thus preventing them from recognizing the problem and trying to do something about it until it is too late. By the time you figure out that you've been had, you've probably already reproduced.

Every time we hit an overpopulation peak like the one we're at now, life becomes cheap and genocides become common. After the big die-off, life is precious for a generation or two and people say, "lest we forget," and "never again." By the 3rd or 4th generation it is all forgotten and it happens again. And again. Until, like any nonviable species, we become extinct. Unfortunately our growth has been more like that of a cancer than that of a parasite. Parasites usually leave their hosts alive. Cancers don't.

[OneBlueSky]

47. we live in an abundant universe . . .

there's plenty to go around, and to ensure that every human being has shelter, clothing, food, healthcare, and a job . . . the problem is how the abundance is controlled and distributed by those "in charge" . . .

[eallen]

48. Europe's low fertility rates put its various pension systems at risk.

A shrinking population has its own woes.

[sweetheart]

51. Thats because of stupid pension provisions

The concept that today's workers pay for yesterday's retirement is
the problem. The politicians have used this sort of scam to rip off
the treasury during the time when there were less relative retired to
working persons... and now the ripoff reverses on them and they are
missing that the original crime were those earlier politicians.

Lower population is healthy, and only a problem when neoliberal
economists are missing a massive source of slave labour.

[eallen]

57. D'you think we should dig up FDR and burn his corpse?

I think the freepers beat us to it. :eyes:

[sweetheart]

63. So much has changed with impermanence in the jobs market

It used to be that you had a long term employter. Now its a gazzillion
jobs across states, even nations in order to feed ones family over the
long haul, with many many employers. The very concept that those
employers will provide pensions is an absurd corporate lie of the
corporate media. Amoral for-profit agencies that can fall over dead
at any given quarter of the business cycle cannot provide for living
breathing entities that outlast the business cycle of most corporations.
Geesh if i think about it, companies i've worked for that are now
erased: Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Chemical Bank, Pacific Bell,
Caspian Securities, Mattel Electronicss... and the list goes on...

None of these defunct companies could possibly carry a pension provision,
and it is a wrong-headed concept to expect them to.

The persons who financed FDR's dream decided to cheat by providing
a demographically underfunded dream, and it is unfair for persons of
my generation who are screwed out of pensions to start with, and the
older generations now want to be supported... and all because some of
an even previous generation cheated.

[wuushew]

70. Rates of negative population growth can be solved by immigration

for instance the United States would have a negative population growth if not for the large numbers of both illegal and illegal immigrants that enter the country. One problem with this "solution" is that it would require an constant imbalance in the birth rates between poor and rich countries. Such a system would be easier to implement than a very meticulous management of female fertility in the pursuit of neutral or very slightly positive rates of growth.

[eallen]

77. But then you face the issue of integration....

The Netherlands, Britain, and other European nations are concerned also about the large influx of immigrants from Muslim nations, because of that segment who do not adopt a democratic outlook. This was brought to a head in the Netherlands with the murder of Theo van Gogh.

[baldguy]

53. The Earth isn't overpopulated.

Resources aren't distributed evenly.

[Bridget Burke]

55. When people become more prosperous, population growth slows.

Families realize that most of the kids will live & they won't be solely dependant on them for support in their old age. The kids stay in school longer instead of going to work. Young women get more education & postpone marriage & motherhood. A strong & educated population wants a greater voice in their government.

But corporations need large workforces who will work cheaply.

[rman]

56. Isn't greed the cause of every problem, crisis etc?

Greed as in: hoarding wealth by a few at the expense of many others, thus causing much poverty, which in turn contributes to population growth.

It's not just that the greedy have "more" then many others, they have disproportionally more; a million, a billion times as much. Also this has nothing to with "hard work" any more, since most poor people work longer hours then the rich, under miserable circumstances, for ludricously low wages, while the rich literaly get richer still while they sleep.

[SmokingJacket]

61. Well, to take that argument all the way to the end...

human beings are the problem.

[blindpig]

64. Overpopulation and overconsumption

will do us in, probably sooner rather than later. Maybe not the cause of all of humankind's problems but surely the bulk of them. To state otherwise is whistling in the dark.

Many proponents of "population plus" like to point to the green revolution as an example of how technology trumps Malthus.Peak Oil will turn the green revolution into a net negative: it allowed the population to double on the basis of chemical fertilizers and pest control, industrial farming and internal combustion transportation, this is all about to become very expensive. We would have been better off to have foregone the green revolution and dealt with population at that time.

Best estimates of carrying capacity of the Earth is one to two billion human beings. The only ethical way to reach that goal is world wide birth control with strong encouragement for one child only. If only we had started to deal with this in the 70's.......

Overconsumption is seldom addressed, small wonder as we are ground zero. In order to provide more goods and services to the poor of the world we the rich are going to have to do with less. We cannot just produce our way out of this on a finite planet which we are using up at an alarming rate. Redistribution will help diffuse tension but unless matched with population reduction the quality of life for most will still decline.

Deniers of the population problem seldom even address the biodiversity issue. Oblivious to the many ecosystem services provided by our fellow lifeforms, ignoring the many benefits the continued study of Nature has provided, these people seem contemptuous of anything that cannot be used or consumed in 10 seconds. That they show no concern about exterminating tens of thousands of vertebrates, millions of insects and gods know how many plants I find dismaying, personally incomprehensible.

I strongly suggest the recent works of Anne and Paul Ehrlich, E O Wilson and particularly Jared Diamond's Collapse:How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

[otohara]

66. Corporations Love Overpopulation

Especially Walmart.

[stanwyck]

67. Yes. And people who have children

who are unable -- or unwilling -- to care for them. As my co-worker says "too many rats in the cage".

[funflower]

89. This sounds like two separate and unrelated problems.

[Cleita]

68. I dunno. The "experts" can't make up their minds.

First they say there are too many people and in many parts of the world, that's true. But, when populations start to dwindle, then the hand wringing starts about where will they get the next generation of workers.

I think if women are left in charge of their fertility without any interference from men and religious extremism then the population will expand and contract according to needs.

For instance, back in the pioneering days of our country, settler families were quite large, part of the reason being that a new generation of farmhands was needed and there was plenty of space anyway.

As we became urbanized, families became smaller. Big families today aren't practical considering our cramped living spaces and dwindling resources. I think women instinctively know this. If they aren't brainwashed to think otherwise, they will plan smaller families.

[Johonny]

69. No

You cant leave out the distibution of resources from the equation.

[chaska]

73. Over population is a huge problem....

It has been estimated that the planet can comfortably support a population of about 3 billion. We are currently at 6.5 billion. The way we've managed to support these numbers is because of oil. Oil is free energy. It's all about energy at some point. We turn resources into humans. Oil therefore equals human being, to be a bit obtuse. When the oil's gone we are going to see a great reduction in human beings. People will starve unless we can come up with a replacement for oil. Big if. Read up on peak oil.

[Endangered Specie]

74. In the sense that more people will use up limited resources faster...

yes. Truth is mother nature will eventually but a stop to our exponential growth, one way or another. unless we move elsewhere or find better ways to use what we have.

[IrateCitizen]

75. Overpopulation has been a problem for a long time

The truth of the matter is that humankind long ago vastly exceeded the earth's carrying capacity to support us. We began to wreak havoc from the moment we began using fire and crafting tools, taking over portions of the ecosystem that had previously been the domain of other organisms. Then, we accelerated the process when we began the shift from hunter/gatherer society to agricultural.

But through all of that, we still depended solely upon our ecosystems in entirety for all the things we needed for life. That all changed with the invention of the steam engine by James Watt, and the oncoming process of industrialization.

Industrialization meant that life was no longer about depending directly upon natural processes -- it was about effecting a massive, temporary increase in the planet's carrying capacity for humans by drawing down nonrenewable sources of energy that had taken millions of years to accumulate. In the process, we also began to wreck the natural ecosystems we had come to depend upon. For proof, just look at some of the summaries of the recent UN millenial working group report on the state of the world's ecology -- we have presently exhausted some 60% of the earth's ecological principle, which means that it's used up forever and we can't get it back. This report doesn't even address fossil fuels.

As for those who champion the cause of globalization and tout economic models that claim we can continue this way forever, they're perfectly entitled to their delusions. However, reality is something completely different. We (industrialized society) have developed nothing more than a road that will reach a dead-end, forcing us to completely abandon much of what we now take for granted as "modern life". The earth will see a massive die-off of human population, as our numbers are brought back in line with the ability of the earth to actually sustain us.

[chaska]

76. IMPORTANT POINT (please read)....

One the left there is an issue to be decided. On the one hand we have humanitarians (that's all of us to some degree) on the other hand we have those who - I struggle for a term here, but let's just call them environmentalists. The latter see population as a problem.

Is it a good idea to feed the starving when they live in a desert that can't support the current population? To do so only guarantees that you have to do the same next year and the year after that, ad infinitum.

There appears to be a pretty solid law that says that animals will reproduce in direct correlation to the food supply. We currently have lot of food because of cheap oil. We will continue to reproduce until we are wall to wall human flesh. This can't possibly be good for the planet. Just for starters the more of us there are the less habitat there will be for other animals.

But wait, I didn't want to get too heavy into this.

Just let me repeat that we on the left have to figure out where we stand on feeding the hungry vs. doing good for the planet.

These are not my ideas, incidentally.

[alarimer]

83. I think you can do both

A major part of the problem is that, despite declining birth rates, western countries (especially the US but Europe also) use up more than their fair share of natural resources. If China and India catch up to those standards with their huge populations, we will be in serious trouble. I think ultimately the west will have to accept a serious decline in standard of living in order for developing nations to continue to develop (given current practices). The only alternative I see is to curtail our overuse of resources in a serious fashion which I do not see happening at all. Coupled with climate changes, the world is in for some serious hurt not oo far down the line. It has less to do with absolute population than it has to do with where that population is distributed and the per capita consumption of resources. I read somewhere that a person in the US has several times the impact on natural resources than a person in a third world country.

[funflower]

90. We can't feed people without a healthy planet.

These two issues are not opposing, they are inextricably linked.

[friesianrider]

82. THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

I am so flipping insulted! It's SOO apparent you are anti-child and anti-working parents! What, do you hate kids or something? You must not have them and that's why you're so anti-child!!! You ought to be ashamed of yourself!!!

:sarcasm:

[Pithlet]

100. That was productive. n/t

[friesianrider]

102. LOL, oh lighten up...

Sheesh. The parents on this board are so damn testy :hi:

[Pithlet]

104. And selfish. Don't forget selfish.

We get beat up on a lot, here. That adds to the testiness.

[friesianrider]

105. I think that's how some perceive it...

But whatever. It's really not that big of a deal! :shrug:

[Pithlet]

107. Well, posts like the one in this thread don't help that perception

If it isn't a big deal, then I don't understand the sarcastic posts about how touchy we are. This isn't the first time I've seen something like that. It's a cumulation of little things like that. And posts like one I saw recently in one of the DU Forums about how someone wasn't friends with very many parents, because they tend to be boors and only want to talk about their kids. And then there are the posts that pop up now and then about how selfish and inconsiderate we are to our childless co-workers. One person, one, flamed someone for posting about how awful a dad who let his kid vomit repeatedly in a restaurant and did nothing about it, months ago, and it STILL gets brought up as an example of the touchy, defensive parents on DU. As if a majority of us didn't see how irresponsible that dad was being. Every time someone complains about a kid's behavior, you can count on SOMEONE showing up and saying something to the effect of "You'd better not post that! You're going to get flamed by the parents!!!!" It's just a lot of little "no big deals".

[friesianrider]

108. Um, ok.

Well, when I made a post about the selfishness of some people with wedding and baby registeries, someone called me "selfish and anti-kid". Maybe that's why so many of us think the parents on here need to chill out a little.

If parents are so fulfilled by kids, I really don't get why they all SEEM to be so grumpy and resentful of kid-less folks.

But seriously. For the second time, I really don't care, I just think it's silly how the parents on this board can be so obsessed with any statement REMOTELY critical of a parent or a child, and that's perceived as somehow "picking on parents" or the OP is somehow "anti-child".

Just lighten up about it - everyone on DU gets made fun of for something!

[Pithlet]

109. They aren't

Your contention that the "parents on this board" are grumpy and resentful of kidless folks is exactly what I'm talking about. People who have children aren't a mass of like minded people. I didn't change into a touchy grumpy person after years of cheerful childless adulthood. I'm the same person I was before. And I happen to agree that baby registries are, for the most part, tacky. This has nothing to do with your other post. Your post was worded in a way that made it seem you thought people who have kids thought they were entitled to things just because they have kids, though, and also came across as a tad resentful. People reacted to that. People who expect gifts are tacky, and they were likely tacky before they had kids.

Edited for clarity

[friesianrider]

111. I DO think people with kids...

Have a sense of entitlement to a number of special circumstances...not limited to childless co-workers covering for them and family and friends buying them heaps of gifts. A few people got PO'd and threw the very predictable "anti-kid" tantrum, but I got lots of PMs and posts of support, so I don't think it was THAT out-of-line.

I hate to generalize, but generalizations are generally true. Until some of the parents on the board quit playing the victim and acting like such martyrs, they're gonna be made fun of for being overly-sensitive...if not by me certainly by SOMEONE. Like I said, everyone gets made of for something on here. :shrug: Sensitive parents, although I love everyone on here, should just grow a set and get over themselves already in regard to this. JMHO, of course.

[alarimer]

84. Yes

A shortage of resources will inevitably lead to war. I envision the next war being fought over fresh water.

[gulfcoastliberal]

85. Yes

Desertification combined with rising sea levels and global warming will mean more drought and famine and severe weather phenomenon than ever before. Thus the scramble for resources and the alignment of smaller countries with whichever superpower they think will help them get through the impending doom the best.

edit for spelling

[Mabel Dodge]

86. The issue of overpopulation isn't touched by Liberals or Conservatives.

Conservatives view this issue as anti-family and Liberals view the issue as racist. It seems to me that most people want to stay in denial about overpopulation.

Sure some countries are down in population, but that is quickly negated by the number of countries where the population numbers are booming.

Couple the overpopulation with consumer technology of western countries and it's obvious that we don't have the resources to take care of the world's population. We are creating havoc on this planet destroying our environment and other species.

What's truely sad is how we treat each other, you never value what you have too much of.

[Eloriel]

95. That's easy: absolutely not.

Think it through. You could cut the entire population of the world in half -- or even more, if you want -- and that in itself would NOT stop such things as the accumulation of wealth in the U.S. in the hands of a few (the widening gap between rich and poor).

It wouldn't stop this country's advance toward fascism. It wouldn't even stop the rape of the earth for what resources there are. That actually started well before there was all that much scarcity of resources. It wouldn't stop racism, sexism, homophobia, such things as religious wars, etc., etc.

Nope, not even close.

[Mairead]

115. Agree it's easy: absolutely so :-)

The smaller the load on natural resources, the less meaningful wealth becomes.

Wealth comes from labor, not capital. Labor can create wealth without capital ('sweat equity'), but capital without labor cannot.

So when you have some nitwit saying 'I lay claim to all of Asia', but you don't have to live in Asia because there are few enough people that competition isn't an issue, you can say 'up yours' and walk away.

As Marvin Harris's work made clear, status in low-load societies is based on skills, not accumulation.

[gulliver]

96. More humans, less human life.

I don't think overpopulation is the only root problem, but it is one of the worst. There is also bigotry, selfishness, foolishness... Stamp out foolishness and you would stamp out overpopulation in short order (the Bush Administration too).

I also think Joni Mitchell had a trenchant point:

"And the gas leaks. And the oil spills.
And sex sells everything. Sex kills."

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

97. Peak water will make peak oil look like a picnic

And unlike oil, for which there can be alternative types of energy developed, there is no alternative to water. We simply can't live very long without it. We are very rapidly using up all of the fresh water on the planet.

I agree with others who point out that there was still injustice and exploitation of others when the earth had a much smaller population. Overpopulation doesn't cause the fundamental problems of society, but it exacerbates them. The effects of poverty and injustice, famine, disease, and ignorance are only made worse when more people are in competition among themselves at the bottom. A country like Bangladesh, where about 150 million people live in an area the size of Wisconsin is a society right on the edge. One hard famine, one bad monsoon season, one serious plague is all they need to descend into complete chaos. China is also doing a precarious balancing act, as more people move into the cities and natural resources dwindle.

We need to make abortion far more available throughout the world. We need to start sex education from the earliest possible age, including the common sense use of protection. We need to expand the size of the middle class throughout the world and drastically reduce the numbers of individuals controlling us from the very top and also slaving for us at the very bottom. I don't promote the curtailment of any particular race or culture and I believe this should occur across the board, in every part of the planet. This is not proposing genocide. I would propose a world with one tenth of the present population, where we could create not only a socially egalitarian society where no one is in want, where science and technology are our tools and not our masters, and where we could live in a garden that would nourish man's need of space and natural beauty.

[Lorien]

98. Yes. Nearly every war was/ is over resources

Overpopulation has led to global warming, and will eventually (most likely in the lifetimes of many here) lead to the end of our species. Nobody wants to believe it because most people want several children, and don't want to change their lifestyle. It's a taboo topic in politics.

[Frederik]

113. Europe's economic problems

are partly caused by the low birthrate. The population in Italy is already shrinking. The result is of course that the proportion of the population that is elderly and retired increses.

As for overpopulation leading to global warming, most of the world's population contribute little to global warming. The 150 million people in Bangladesh contribute less than the 15 million of the Netherlands.

[wuushew]

120. I really don't think Italy is in THAT bad of shape

You would only need to be able support the higher rate of elderly until you reached a politically agreed upon sustainable population level.

Besides there are many many wealthy individuals in Italy including their fascist king of all media Prime Minister, who could be forced to pay their fair share in taxes.

The people who fear negative population growth are capitalists, who weep at the prospect of every decreasing product demand with fixed costs that do not change. Also a large factor in the worth of stock is total book value and it is rather hard for your investment to appreciate when your factories and equipment are rotting or being sold off for scrap.

[Lorien]

99. Here you go:

http://www.populationconnection.org/

It used to be the ZPG site, but even the term "zero population growth" is too offensive to many these days.

[Pithlet]

101. Many of the problems plaguing us today have always existed

I don't know that all of them are directly linked to overpopulation. I'm not convinced that overpopulation is the problem so much as allocation of resources, either.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

103. I thought religion was the biggest cause of war. Discuss among yourselves

[Mairead]

116. I think it's generally accepted among anthros that yes, it is

(5 or 4?)

[wuushew]

123. kick

:kick:

[wuushew]

124. kick

:dem:

Neutral Population Growth?
Negative Population Growth?

Both, Neither?

[banjosareunderrated]

125. thanks for a world of dfferent ideas for this not-so-bright guy to read

It sounds like this has been a topic of discussion many times before, and I'm sorry if it led to some people, primarily parents, to feel like an old wound has been scratched. I didn't mean for this thread to lead to that at all, and I'm sorry if this added to that. It was an honest question by someone who doesn't know many of the intelligent details of this issue and was simply looking for ideas. Truth be told, my naive view isn't so much about people having children now as much as what happened in the last century when it seems the populace on all continents was being encouraged to procreate at an abnormally high rate because we/they didn't know what the "enemy" was doing. Strength in numbers and all that.

FWIW, I think that Senior Citizen nailed it about patriarchy in human civilization. MHO.

[Sugarbleus]

126. Total hogwash.

People also DIE daily enmasse all over the world. Some because the greed mongers won't even offer a crumb of food. We have enough land mass and resources to feed every single human being on the planet.

It's GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED and SELFISHNESS that causes all the problems.

Population control is feasible (like china does with "one or two children" rules) but zero population growth is a death sentence for future generations.

As for building UP...........FUCK THAT! Disabled and aged people cannot climb UP. I HATE the idea of being crammed into a "Tenament-like" living space where fire is a real hazard for everyone. Spaces like that are revolting; who wants to live so crowed together that they have to listen nightly to the neighbor beating his wife and/or smelling his neighbor's shit. Just remember the "happy" living arrangements Soviet Russia had before the wall came down. Geezus..

I can't speak for middle america but in my "green belt" community, ALL the new builds are two stories and quite cramped; it totally sucks. I want a yard on level ground where I can plant my own veggies and have a pet. I need to be on ground level with enough space to BREATHE and think and create. Doesn't have to be a huge mansion, just sensible and practical.

Living in cramped quarters is exactly like being confined in a prison cell...unless one LIKES the city life and never spends much time at home.