Overpopulation: a myth?

Crowned One · Oct 18, 2013

Over population is a official, governmental and secret societal fear that needs to be understood and removed!

OldWiseGuy · Oct 21, 2013

Ask doctors if there are already too many people.

leftrightleftrightleft · Oct 21, 2013

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
I think that what Robbins is saying is that uncontrolled fertility in the so-called Third World is at best an ethnocentric perception and at worst a neo-colonial lie.

Okay I can understand that. The industrialized world also went through a period of rapid growth due to high fertility back in the early 1900s through to the 1960s. The industrialized world experienced its highest economic growth and "industrialization" during this time.

Now we turn around and blame the Third World for being a problem because they are now enjoying high fertility and high growth that we First Worlders experienced several decades ago. We already did the damage, and the Third World is just following suit.

So I can see how it is an ethnocentric and neo-colonial view to blame the Third World for our overpopulation woes.

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
Furthermore, Western intervention in the so-called Third World, such as in the exporting of infant formula and the resulting decline in breast feeding, contributes to that fertility that is supposedly out of control.

Not sure what you are getting at here.

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
The point is the true nature of fertility in the periphery, not whether or not it is part of an overpopulation problem.

What?

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
If it is part of an overpopulation problem then people with racist, elitist, ethnocentric beliefs about a large percentage of the human population are going to be ineffective at finding solutions.

And it is part of the overpopulation problem as I outlined in my previous post.

Increasing numbers of humans on the Earth + rapid use of Finite Resources = an eventual overpopulation issue.

The third world is largely responsible for the first part of that equation (increasing numbers)

The first world is largely responsible for the second part of that equation (rapid use of resources).

But you can't deny that fertility rates is not linked to overpopulation.

Think of it this way, if every woman had 15 kids, that's a very high fertility rate...which would lead to a faster approach to the carrying capacity. If every woman had 7 kids (like in Niger), that's still quite high (though not as high as 15) but still is a greater contributer to approaching the carrying capacity than somewhere that only has 1 kid per woman (like much of Eastern Europe).

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
It is about the nature of the views of people in the core about fertility in the periphery, evidence refuting those views, and, therefore, what the real problem is and what might be real solutions.

So what exactly is the "real" problem? You seem to continue to point to the motives of the people who are suggesting overpopulation is a concern. But their motives have no bearing on whether overpopulation IS a concern or not.

Is overpopulation a concern at the present time?

I'm losing you and what your overall point is.

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
The part about overpopulation being a myth is simply my personal conclusion after considering all of the evidence I have seen/heard.

What evidence?

I don't even know what evidence there is except for this:

http://blog.dssresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/world_population_1050_to_2050.jpg

Humans have lived for hundreds of thousands of years below a billion people. Within about two hundred years, we have increased to 7 billion. Also in that same time we have drastically increased our energy consumption per capita. Take any ecosytem and add 7 times the number of organisms overnight and its bound to put stress on the system.

Crowned One · Oct 22, 2013

I think that any measures of population control is motivated by fear and should be done if done at all with wide, open and honest debate that is inclusive of many spheres of life and not just one like a rich isolated populace who think they should do what they like when they like and how they like because they are rich and able to take such measures.

Any man who takes such measures in a society is to be held under scrutiny and judgement until his motives are exposed and new ideas that are fair, right and just for all mankind are mutually explored and considered honestly and openly with the agreement of government and the people at large. That is my adamant and emotional opinion. That is all.

If such a thing is a myth then so be it.

I just read the forum title and i realised that im ranting about something entirely different! Im very sorry!

Over population may or may not be true but i don think it should be a cause of alarm or fear. Only a God fearing man like 'Andrew Jackson' a pastime hero and US President will understand such things like the importance of Government having its own money and not being enslaved into debt and population. Only a man with fear would take measures of controlling power with extreme manipulative force in an attempt to control what he can not control because ultimately his life and existence is understandably without God.
And we all know what life is like without God.

Eudaimonist · Oct 22, 2013

Something important to keep in mind is that the available resources of the Earth are not a fixed quantity -- they are highly dependent on the types of technologies available.

Perhaps there are some limits regarding what we cannot control through technology, but overpopulation is not as simple an issue as it may seem since available resources (including substitutes) may increase over time, and tend to do so.

eudaimonia,

Mark

OldWiseGuy · Oct 22, 2013

Eudaimonist said:
Something important to keep in mind is that the available resources of the Earth are not a fixed quantity -- they are highly dependent on the types of technologies available.

Perhaps there are some limits regarding what we cannot control through technology, but overpopulation is not as simple an issue as it may seem since available resources (including substitutes) may increase over time, and tend to do so.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Remember too that even if populations don't increase raising the standard of living of those already here will place huge new pressures on all resources. Our only hope is to keep the third world in poverty to prevent this. Cynical but necessary.

Eudaimonist · Oct 22, 2013

oldwiseguy said:
Remember too that even if populations don't increase raising the standard of living of those already here will place huge new pressures on all resources.

Not so. This is not an absolute principle. Resources can be used more efficiently with improvements in technology, meaning that raises in the standard of living don't have to involve "huge new pressures" on resources.

Our only hope is to keep the third world in poverty to prevent this. Cynical but necessary.

No, you are falling for zero-sum thinking. It's not true that wealth is some fixed pie where one person getting a bigger slice means that someone else must get a smaller slice. That's not how the world works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYyNY_5ACFc

eudaimonia,

Mark

OldWiseGuy · Oct 22, 2013

Eudaimonist said:
Not so. This is not an absolute principle. Resources can be used more efficiently with improvements in technology, meaning that raises in the standard of living don't have to involve "huge new pressures" on resources.

Click to expand...

If the billions of people who now have nothing are going to have something close to a western lifestyle enormous new resources will be needed.

No, you are falling for zero-sum thinking. It's not true that wealth is some fixed pie where one person getting a bigger slice means that someone else must get a smaller slice. That's not how the world works.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

That's exactly how the world works. The rich exist at the expense of the poor. Follow the money.

AlexBP · Oct 22, 2013

oldwiseguy said:
If the billions of people who now have nothing are going to have something close to a western lifestyle enormous new resources will be needed.

That's exactly how the world works. The rich exist at the expense of the poor. Follow the money.

You're wrong on both points. Regarding "the rich exist at the expense of the poor", do a quick thought experiment. Imagine that Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and other wealthy people spontaneously combusted and all of their wealth vanished instantaneously. Would this benefit the poor in any way? Obviously not. It would hurt poor people, first because those wealthy people would no longer be giving to charity, and second because the poor could no longer sell to the rich. Rich people are a net benefit to the poor, provided that they have the economic freedom to sell to them.

Regarding "new resources", most people who complain about overpopulation don't really understand the concept of resources. An acre of farmland in the USA produces four or five times as much grain as an acre of farmland in Mozambique. Why is that? Because American farmers have the best technology, genetically engineered crops, reliable water supplies, fertilizers, computers to analyze soil conditions, and so forth. Farmers in Mozambique lack these things. If we could raise Mozambique up to a "western lifestyle", then farmers in Mozambique would grow a lot more crops and could reduce the amount of land used. This would be better for the country.

leftrightleftrightleft · Oct 22, 2013

Eudaimonist said:
Something important to keep in mind is that the available resources of the Earth are not a fixed quantity -- they are highly dependent on the types of technologies available.

Perhaps there are some limits regarding what we cannot control through technology, but overpopulation is not as simple an issue as it may seem since available resources (including substitutes) may increase over time, and tend to do so.

eudaimonia,

Mark

They are finite. I've never stated they were fixed, but rather that they were finite.

Increasing human population + finite resources = eventual overpopulation issue.

Excluding moving to other planets, humans will eventually run out of resources if the population continues to grow.

Technology tends to make things more efficient at getting work done. With regards to agriculture, that means better yields. But in almost any other industry, all technology means is that we've become more efficient (ie faster) at using up the resource. Agriculture is the exception, not the rule.

Think how long it would take to shovel all that coal out of a mine and get it to market with only shovels, hand drills and donkeys?

Crowned One · Oct 22, 2013

This debate and conversation is really about a governing issue that is held by those in power and those with wealth. Either way though how one approaches such an issue will determine the outcome.

As a christian i believe that even in the midst of "over population" or "dwindling resources" a certain trust and faithful expectation must be held, otherwise i am indeed doomed and that is what a fatalistic debate does, brings and creates a heavy sense of doom and gloom because of how the issue is approached. Jesus has vowed the Fathers lavished love on us so much that he even said that if we were to seek his kingdom then the Father would give us what we "needed" and this is a led comment after his words of "Do Not Worry" about what you will eat, drink or what you will wear because God knows that you need these things. If this issue is approached in any manner that is motivated by faith and trust in God and not fear for such things then the fear of running out of resources and overpopulation will be gone. But who can ever expect such godly values to come from our systems of government. This is why we must pray and i am a strong believer in christians playing part in every sphere of life including politics, finance and law. There is a light to be shone, given the right place to stand that light can shine brightly and in a very powerful way not just for a few but for all. Selfish ambition and self oriented preservation is a doom and gloom dead end street that leads to no where and such motives should be not be found in the hearts of men who govern nations or finance!

OldWiseGuy · Oct 23, 2013

AlexBP said:
Regarding "new resources", most people who complain about overpopulation don't really understand the concept of resources. An acre of farmland in the USA produces four or five times as much grain as an acre of farmland in Mozambique. Why is that? Because American farmers have the best technology, genetically engineered crops, reliable water supplies, fertilizers, computers to analyze soil conditions, and so forth. Farmers in Mozambique lack these things. If we could raise Mozambique up to a "western lifestyle", then farmers in Mozambique would grow a lot more crops and could reduce the amount of land used. This would be better for the country.

Click to expand...

You're making my point. The resources aren't there to elevate third world countries to western standards of living. The resources needed to sustain our production, of everything, are enormous. There may be a looming shortage of phosphorus fertilizer. This alone would limit food production in third world countries as they would be priced out of obtaining it. If they can't feed themselves nothing else matters.

LOVEthroughINTELLECT · Oct 24, 2013

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Not sure what you are getting at here...

The way that I understand it, breastfeeding suppresses ovulation and therefore increases intervals between births.

If Westerners are really concerned about excessive fertility in the so-called Third World then we should not disrupt the natural controls on population that are already at work.

CabVet · Oct 24, 2013

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
The way that I understand it, breastfeeding suppresses ovulation and therefore increases intervals between births.

Yes, by a whopping 6 months.

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
If Westerners are really concerned about excessive fertility in the so-called Third World then we should not disrupt the natural controls on population that are already at work.

Just let them starve, I agree.

Joykins · Oct 24, 2013

Interesting; I'll have to read the book in the OP.

As a counterpoint may I suggest More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want by Robert Engelman? It's highly readable and not too long. (Engelman suggests that overpopulation is a self-curing problem, but the cures are extremely painful and that prevention is simple if we let women control their own fertility).

LOVEthroughINTELLECT · Oct 26, 2013

CabVet said:
Yes, by a whopping 6 months...

I have seen tables/charts in anthropology books showing that breastfeeding significantly reduces the number of births. If I recall correctly, it was even in Robbins' book.

I do not know what point you are trying to make.

Joykins · Oct 26, 2013

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
I have seen tables/charts in anthropology books showing that breastfeeding significantly reduces the number of births. If I recall correctly, it was even in Robbins' book.

As typically done in Western society (and probably most agricultural societies), it delays ovulation by approx. 6 moths postpartum.

A hunter-gatherer woman practicing unrestricted breastfeeding may have it delay ovulation significantly longer, on average IIRC up to about 2 years. But there are certainly other factors in a hunger-gatherer lifestyle that can inhibit fertility.

OldWiseGuy · Oct 28, 2013

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
The way that I understand it, breastfeeding suppresses ovulation and therefore increases intervals between births.

If Westerners are really concerned about excessive fertility in the so-called Third World then we should not disrupt the natural controls on population that are already at work.

Sadly all breastfeeding does is lengthen the interval between the births of the still too many children born in third world countries. In the West birthrates are falling even though few breastfeed. It's the tradition (way of the heathen) that must be attacked. Christian missionaries have been trying to do this for centuries. Women are often victims of male dominated traditions which include the demand for large families.

Overpopulation: a myth?

Newbie

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

I believe in life before death!

Wake me when it's soup.

I believe in life before death!

Wake me when it's soup.

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Wake me when it's soup.

The courage to be human

Question everything

free Crazy Liz!

The courage to be human

free Crazy Liz!

Wake me when it's soup.

Similar threads