Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE OVERPOPULATION DEBATE?! Other than obvious GREED and IGNORANCE, OVERPOPULATION is the cause of most problems the world over!
Let's start talking about preventing overpopulation! Why are we not setting up incentives for having less children instead of rewarding those who continue to overpopulate an already completely overwhelmed planet?
Actually overpopulation will PROBABLY take care of itself. I didn't use to think that would be the case, but there are big changes going on in the world as it modernizes. In the developed countries of the world, populations have about stabilized and are on the verge of declining. Already, virtually every country in Europe is looking at an actual reduction in population on the way - in some cases a very substantial decrease.
Virtually all of the growth in population world-wide is occuring in the developing nations. This is because agrarian societies traditionally have both a high birth rate and a high death rate (among juveniles) - resulting in a slow population increase. On the other hand Industrial societies almost always have both a low birth rate and a low death rate - again, resulting in little or no growth (or possibly even a decrease in population).
Thus, almost all of the population growth worldwide occurs in developing (ie 3rd World) countries. Such countries' populations boom as they make the transition from an Agrarian society to an Industrialized one because they still tend to have a high birth rate for a while, but the juvenile death rate drops dramatically because of the availability of better hygine, medicines etc - and so the population booms.
So, most of the population growth world-wide is occuring in those nations making the transition from an agrarian system to an industrialized one. Once the transition is completed, the population growth seems to stop and even to actually decline. No one knows of course what the future will bring or that the developing nations will follow the trends of the developed world and stabilize their populations, but there is considerable reason to believe that this is the case.
Certainly we are NOT out of the woods in regard to overpopulation, and there can and will be considerable disruption yet to come because of it, but I think there is a pretty decent chance that the problem may very well take care of itself (if we can somehow manage to not destroy ourselves between now and then) eventually.
Either way, I guarentee you that the population will eventually stabilize and even decline. If it doesn't happen because of cultural changes, then it will happen because of natural changes (ie plague and famine). We may think we are the top dog on the planet, but in reality Mother Nature still rules and she has some pretty effective (and harsh) ways of dealing with too many of any type of creature. Increased density brings with it an increased likelihood of desease - and with today's modern means of travel a plague could be spread around the world in a remarkably short time - so, one way or another, the population growth will stop at some point. It will either happen because of cultural changes or because of Mother Natures' checks and balances.
Personally I prefer the former (and think that will be the case) - but, no one can say for sure.
I think the thing that really scares me about the future is the side-effect of over-population: resource over-usage.
As the standards-of-living rises in countries like China and India, we are experiencing nearly 2 billion or so people who's resource usage will increase substantially over the very short time span of a decade. Already China is having problems keeping up with domestic demand for pork (a meat staple in Chinese cuisine). Not to be the harbinger of doom, but it's just going to get worse: Africa is also expected to add significantly to the world population by 2050.
Of course, I wouldn't want Chinese, African, or Indian standards-of-living to do anything but increase. I think what might end up happening though is that, world-wide, standards-of-living will decrease as the distribution of resources becomes more globalized and pressure is removed from the developing world.
A really good book on this subject is "Collapse - How societies choose to fail or succeed" by Jared Diamond, an anthropologist from UCLA.
Oh yeah, I'm not saying that overpopulation is not a problem. On the contrary, it's THE problem of our time - the one that drives almost all the other problems we face. I'm just saying that I'm relatively confident that we will make it through this time of crises as I can see changes already taking place (ie population stabilizing in the most advanced parts of the world) that lead me to believe that.
Many years ago, I had an opportunity to listen to a lecture by late noted astronomer Carl Sagen and was in fact able to go on stage and speak to him afterwards. During a discussion about the possibility of finding extra-terrestrial civilizations, he put forth the theory that perhaps the reason we had not been contacted by a more advanced civilization (assuming that we haven't) is that perhaps these beings all blew themselves to bits.
He stated that there was likely a correlation between the level of technology a species attains and the population of its planet and in fact articulated the very argument I mention above - that is that primitive agrarian cultures tend to have high birth rates & high death rates - resulting in fairly low population growth while advanced industrial cultures on the other hand tend to have low birth rates and low death rates - also resulting in fairly low population growth. His point was the exact same as mine, that cultures going through the transition however, have low death rates and high birth rates - resulting in rapid population growth and that this is the stage that much of the "3rd World" nations are in.
He put forth the proposal that this transitional period (when a species was going though this technological Revolution) was the most dangerous time for them, because fierce competition for dwindling resources occurred just as the species developed technology powerful enough to destroy themselves. This is the period we (the world in general) are in now. He said that perhaps the reason we've not yet been contacted by a technolgically advanced alien society (assuming that we haven't) is because once they reach this same stage, 99% or more of them blow themselves back to the stone age and thus never develop to the point of interstellar communications and/or travel. In other words, population pressures (which come about because the advances in technology) combined with the technology to do some serious damage come together in such a way as to make further progress nearly impossible. In a way, it was like a race's final exam - and most simply did not pass the test (failing to develop renewable resources and get their populations stabilized before global thermonuclear (or similar) war broke out).
This went right along with what I'd already been thinking - after all, it's no accident that raising population, diminishing resources (and the pressure that brings) AND the capability to destroy ourselves (or at least knock yourselve back to the stone age) all happened at the same time. ALL those things are driven by the advances in technology (population soars because of technology (as does the availablity of advanced weaponry) and the resources become scarce because of the population increase). This is a VERY bad combination and as I mentioned, his proposal was that this happens all over the universe as the local technology reaches this critical point.
I used to be pessimistic about our chances of making it through this greatest of tests. That is no longer the case. I remain optimistic that we are on the verge of a Great Age. The future holds wonders we cannot yet imagine - but first we must get there.
Maybe we will, and maybe we won't - but I tend to think we will.
Sorry about that, LordBalfor, it seems I only repeated what you'd already posted.
I find that proposal from Dr. Sagan to be extremely interesting and valid (and am jealous you got to meet him! I won't ever have the chance now...). If only we had success/failure cases of extraterrestrial civilizations in which to base our future direction, of course that would be a bit like spoiling Christmas I suppose.
I also find it interesting due to the assumption that the transition from agrarian to industrial society is a normal progression in the social evolution of an intelligent species. Not to bring up Diamond again-- as his name gets kind of thrown around in these types of discussions --but I read a very interesting essay written by him years ago where he puts forth that the biggest mistake the human race ever made was to drop the hunter-gatherer society and take up agriculture. Here's a link to it if you haven't read it (in pdf format): http://anthropology.lbcc.edu/handoutsdocs/mistake.pdf
His reasoning is that agriculture shifted the human diet to a limited variety of crops and animals and allowed humans to live in closer groups which made diseases more virulent. It also allowed class-stratification-- some people have everything, whilst some have nothing --which did nothing to prevent starvation nor oppression.
Anyhoo, my point is that Diamond makes his case with assumption that our evolution into an agrarian (and then industrial) society was a choice that could be refused. I'm not sure I agree with that personally (I rather think Sagan was closer to the truth of it), but I think it's an interesting idea nonetheless that our society now deals with the consequences of decisions made many millenia ago.
I agree with your point about the eventual stabilization and decline in world population as resource/population equilibrium is reached and then resources themselves decline. I too hope that we as a society will graduate to the next stage.
Pretty interesting article - and much of it makes a lot of sense - though I do think the proposal that hunter-gathers have more free time than farmers is really VERY dependant upon the hunting conditions present at a particular time and place. Sometimes that may be true, other times likely not. Game can get pretty scarce at times. Though farming has it's risks too, it seems to me that in general it provides a greater sense of security than hunting/gathering does. I also think there is a bit of a flaw in his logic about hunter/gathers being larger than farmers. That may indeed be the case, but is the reason because of their superior diet - or simply because smaller babies and scrawny children tended not to survive among the hunters/gatherers?
I think the thing that really scares me about the future is the side-effect of over-population: resource over-usage.
As the standards-of-living rises in countries like China and India, we are experiencing nearly 2 billion or so people who's resource usage will increase substantially over the very short time span of a decade. Already China is having problems keeping up with domestic demand for pork (a meat staple in Chinese cuisine). Not to be the harbinger of doom, but it's just going to get worse: Africa is also expected to add significantly to the world population by 2050.
Of course, I wouldn't want Chinese, African, or Indian standards-of-living to do anything but increase. I think what might end up happening though is that, world-wide, standards-of-living will decrease as the distribution of resources becomes more globalized and pressure is removed from the developing world.
A really good book on this subject is "Collapse - How societies choose to fail or succeed" by Jared Diamond, an anthropologist from UCLA.
China's going to suck the planet dry. It's not really their fault; there's just too many of them for the planet to sustain a western standard of living for all of them. We're going to have to solve a LOT of problems in the near future.
All these erudite arguments do not really acknowledge that the situation is serious NOW, and has been for decades, if not longer. The earth can really only support half a billion people or so, and here we are, well over the six billion mark. Almost everyone I have talked with complains about overcrowding and traffic, pollution and environmental destruction, less affordable or desirable places to live, more competition for jobs, too many immigrants, etc. All one has to do is look around to see this happening before our very eyes. The problem is here NOW, whether or not it will eventually take care of itself with plague, natural disasters, or warfare. I think NOW is the time to start implementing laws and incentives to prevent overpopulation as well as over-consumption of natural resources. Otherwise, we certainly are in danger of blowing ourselves up for good.
I totally agree...the world is busting at the seams.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still Too Many People!
