The Truth About Overpopulation

[fragmentsofdreams]

As an American who drives a hybrid vehicle when I need to get my kids around, is a vegetarian, rides her bike to work instead of driving, conserves electricity, recycles, and teaches my two children to do the same... the "American" lifestyle only seems to apply to the rich and selfish. I honestly don't have any friends who aren't socially and enviromentally conscious. Not that I wouldn't have them, I just haven't met any. But I don't hang in those circles really. I see people all the time that are completely oblivious and ignorant, but I don't make an effort to get to know them. Wasting resources just because you can is illogical and selfish.

What I called the American lifestyle is common in the middle class and many aspects of it are found in the lower class. Just because they can't afford to waste as much as the upper class doesn't mean they can't be wasteful.

 

[MoodyBlue]

To follow up on this point a little, I fully expect the population to level out before we all starve. As space becomes more limited and life becomes more and more uncomfortable, I think people naturally have fewer children (for example, many couples decide not to have many children because they can't afford to buy a decent-sized house where there will be enough room for a large family). The more uncomfortable life becomes, the fewer children they will have. This is similar to the behavior of many animals who, placed in captivity where they are denied any of the comforts or behaviors of their past lives, will cease to breed.

I have to question your comment that people would naturally have fewer children as life becomes more uncomfortable. I have always wondered why all of those proverbial "starving africans" continue to have children. You would think that eventually they would be too hungry to have sex. Doesn't appear to be the case however. There always appears to be an abundance of starving babies sitting around in the dirt. Just my observation.

Perhaps this has been mentioned earlier in the thread, but an interesting book to read that is related to this discussion is "Collapse - How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed", by Jared Diamond. Mainly deals with how various successful societies in the past collapsed due to their damaging their environments or outstripping their resources.

 

[Nymphalidae]

There is also the question: Just because we have the ability to cover every square inch of land with Wal-Marts and corn, does it mean we should?

 

[charityagape]

Yes.

Because they take up more of the earths resources. Do you realize that America alone uses up more than 80% of the worlds production of oil? That in turn causes the price of oil to go up, and causes less third world countries to be able to afford equipment that can help them survive. The same goes for food production. There are children in America that can't afford to eat, and there are 375,000 children in orphanages (not including foster children) who have to pay the price for inflation and overpopulation. It's bigger than how many children you can fit into a minivan. Yes, it's very selfish to think of only yourself, even if you are rich and can "afford" it.

Okay, but how do you think that wealthy or at least middle class families having fewer children will change the amount of resources a family uses? I also know friends in the same income bracket as large families that have only one or two children. Instead of reducing what they consume, they just consume more per person. Less kids, more disposable income, more consumption. Less kids does not automatically mean using less. As long as you're not having them on welfare.

 

[Lifesaver]

If there is indeed a population boom, we needn't worry, as long as the market is allowed to operate freely.

First, we must make it clear that the problem is not with the number of people, but with the productivity per individual; it is that which defines the material conditions of life for mankind.
One person alone as a much lower productivity per individual than each man has in a population of 100 men. Yes, 100 men means 100 people will eat, dress, use objects, etc. but with more people it is possible to divide tasks better and each person, carrying on his own task and trading with the rest, will be better off than they would be if each had to produce everything they ate, dressed, used.

In short, up to a point population growth makes everyone richer, by allowing a more efficient and productive division of labour and providing more people to come up with innovations, scientific advances, ideas, etc.
After a certain point, each new individual will bring a decrease of productivity per individual.
Right now, we seem to be in the first scenario. Afterall, there have never been so many people and the world has never been richer.
Yes, there are many distortions, caused mostly by State-imposed distortions which greatly harm mankind's quality of life, but overall the world today is, per capita, a lot richer than in generations past.

When more people stops meaning better quality of life, parents will naturally want less children, as they will not have the means to support as many.
Sadly, mankind's priorities nowadays are such that having children is seen as a bad thing, as a terrible burden. Therefore, rich people even have no children. And thus many rich nations are in dire need of a great influx of immigrants to maintain their current quality of life.

 

[AdamAnderson21]

Lifesaver: If there is indeed a population boom, we needn't worry, as long as the market is allowed to operate freely.

10,000 years ago marks a milestone in human growth. Before this time the human species, on average, doubled every 19,000 years. This was definite growth, but it was glacially slow. After this period, with the introduction of a specific culture, the human species began to grow rapidly. Starting with 10 million people around this period, the next doubling only took 5,000 years. 20 million. The next doubling took only 2,000 years. 50 million. The next doubling took only 1,600 years. 100 million. The next doubling took only 1,400 years. Bringing us to 200 million. This would be the zero point of our calander. The next doubling took only 1,200 years. 400 million. The next doubling took only 500 years. 800 million. The next doubling took only 200 years. 1.5 billion. The next doubling took only 60 years. 3 billion. The next doubling. 45 years. 6 billion people.

You and I will most likely live to see the population reach 12 billion people and beyond.

I say population boom is an understatement. We have an exponentially increasing population explosion.

Lifesaver: First, we must make it clear that the problem is not with the number of people, but with the productivity per individual; it is that which defines the material conditions of life for mankind.

We are not talking about whether people have cars, or shoes, or houses. We are talking about the fact that it will come to a point when our population will be doubling every five years, one year, 6 months. That is a problem, and it is a problem purely based around the number of people. There is more than enough food produced every year to feed everyone on the face of the world. If you want to know why people still starve, go to your local grocery store. We are the only culture that keeps our food under lock and key.

If you don't have money, you do not eat.

Lifesaver: One person alone as a much lower productivity per individual than each man has in a population of 100 men.

True, but only if you are , mass producing things to begin with.

Lifesaver: Yes, 100 men means 100 people will eat, dress, use objects, etc. but with more people it is possible to divide tasks better and each person, carrying on his own task and trading with the rest, will be better off than they would be if each had to produce everything they ate, dressed, used.

If you define better off as having more possessions than you are certainly correct. But again, that is only if you are mass producing to begin with.

Lifesaver: In short, up to a point population growth makes everyone richer, by allowing a more efficient and productive division of labour and providing more people to come up with innovations, scientific advances, ideas, etc.

Only if you are mass producing things to begin with. It is only our culture that does this. For three million years humans lived without doing this. Population growth did not make anyone richer. In fact, before the birth of our culture, it did the exact oppositte. In nature, when a species food supply grows, the species grows. Always. This is a law of nature. But as the species grows, it consumes more food. Which causes the food supply to lower. This causes the species to reach its equilibrium once again.

Lifesaver: After a certain point, each new individual will bring a decrease of productivity per individual.

If I remember correctly from my Economics classes, the law of diminishing returns. But this is true only if you are limited to a certain amount of machinery. For example if you only have 1 grill, then 15 cooks aren't going to do you any good. After the 2nd or 3rd cook, you begin to see diminishing returns. Simply because there is a lack of room. In our culture, I don't see why this would hold true, because we can always produce more machinery.

Lifesaver: Right now, we seem to be in the first scenario. Afterall, there have never been so many people and the world has never been richer.

I don't know about the world. The world seems to be dying. But some humans are most definately infinitally richer. If you define rich as the possession of material objects. (You might run into an objection of this definition from one of my good pals Jesus)

Lifesaver: In short, up to a point population growth makes everyone richer, by allowing a more efficient and productive division of labour and providing more people to come up with innovations, scientific advances, ideas, etc.

Up to a point, population growth, in our culture, makes some people richer, and alot of people poorer. Most people aren't scientists and most people aren't rich. Most people live in poverty and essentially slave laborers. Working long days to buy one loaf of bread. I don't remember the percentage off-hand, but dosen't 80% of the world's weath lie in the hands of 1% of the population? Or something like that.

Lifesaver: Yes, there are many distortions, caused mostly by State-imposed distortions which greatly harm mankind's quality of life, but overall the world today is, per capita, a lot richer than in generations past.

What distortions are you speaking of? That I would disagree with. Could you show me some numbers?

Lifesaver: When more people stops meaning better quality of life, parents will naturally want less children, as they will not have the means to support as many.

If this were true, then I would expect parents in Africa not to have any children and for parents in America to have plently. What we observe is the oppositte. What governs population growth is simply a law of nature: as the food supply grows, so does a species population. No matter how terrible conditions get, or how good they get; no matter how much you beat people over the head with birthcontrol, or how many regulations you pass, this law will always how true for any species. Including humans.

Lifesaver: Sadly, mankind's priorities nowadays are such that having children is seen as a bad thing, as a terrible burden. Therefore, rich people even have no children. And thus many rich nations are in dire need of a great influx of immigrants to maintain their current quality of life.

I've never heard anyone say that having children was a bad thing. Never. As far as I'm aware of, rich people are still having children. Could you provide some numbers? Rich nations do not require, they are getting a great influx of immigrants to fill service jobs that nobody wants. With, on average, 5 million people unemployed, there are more than enough people to fill those jobs.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Actually, current trends predict that the population will stabalize around 9 billion around 2050 (Scientific American, September 2005). We are booming now because developing nations are experiencing a decline in death rates. The birth rates will follow, just as they did in the industrialized nations.

We can handle 9 billion. We already make enough food to make that many.

 

[AdamAnderson21]

fragments: Actually, current trends predict that the population will stabalize around 9 billion around 2050 (Scientific American, September 2005). We are booming now because developing nations are experiencing a decline in death rates. The birth rates will follow, just as they did in the industrialized nations.

We can handle 9 billion. We already make enough food to make that many.

Scientific American cannot override the laws of nature. An increase in food supply always results in an increase in a species population. There are no exceptions. Think of it as an experiment that we've run each year for the past 10,000 years.

The only way to curb or stop a species' growth, is to curb or stop the increase in production of food.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Scientific American cannot override the laws of nature. An increase in food supply always results in an increase in a species population. There are no exceptions. Think of it as an experiment that we've run each year for the past 10,000 years.

The only way to curb or stop a species' growth, is to curb or stop the increase in production of food.

Western Europe appears to be an exception to your rule. They have no shortages of food, yet the native population has a birth rate at or slightly below replacement levels.

Humans are capable acting contrary to maximizing the propagation of their genes.

 

[HouseApe]

Western Europe appears to be an exception to your rule. They have no shortages of food, yet the native population has a birth rate at or slightly below replacement levels.

Humans are capable acting contrary to maximizing the propagation of their genes.

And why is it that there are no food shortages in Western Europe? The answer is because Europeans outcompete most of the rest of the planet for food supplies. They have money. Once the rest of the world can equally compete with Europeans for food supplies, starvation will happen in Europe (among the poorest).

The reason countries birth rates begin to decline is twofold: Women are empowered through birth control mechanisms to determine the number of children they want to have, and the cost of children become high. Industrialization has nothing to do with it.

These things may or may not happen in the developing world. If they don't there will be starvation on incredible scales relative to the already massive levels of starvation in the world today.

 

[LienShen]

Okay, but how do you think that wealthy or at least middle class families having fewer children will change the amount of resources a family uses? I also know friends in the same income bracket as large families that have only one or two children. Instead of reducing what they consume, they just consume more per person. Less kids, more disposable income, more consumption. Less kids does not automatically mean using less. As long as you're not having them on welfare.

That's a very shortsided view. Large families consume more food, more gas and in general more resources. Do you think that they just portion out food better, and make their kids walk to school and extra-curricular activites? In the big picture, a larger family would consume more resources. It's simple math. But here's more simple math. A couple has two children, and their children each have two children a piece, and their children have two children a piece. Zero population growth, only enough born to replace you. No more resources than have been used before. But a couple has six children, and their children each have six children, and those children each have six children... That's 216 people.

 

[Lifesaver]

Only if you are mass producing things to begin with. It is only our culture that does this. For three million years humans lived without doing this. Population growth did not make anyone richer. In fact, before the birth of our culture, it did the exact oppositte.

This is completely false.
If one would get a man in the Roman Empire, he would have a better quality of life than a man who lived absolutely alone and who produced everything he consumed.
And Rome was a civilization with very little economic freedom. The same is true for, say, the Egyptians. A regular man in the Egyptian empire, poor as he was, had a life materially better than a man who lived completely alone, producing everything he consumed. Division of labour, which happens everywhere, even in primitive indian tribes, makes the life better for everyone, and it can only come about with a larger number of individuals.

If I remember correctly from my Economics classes, the law of diminishing returns. But this is true only if you are limited to a certain amount of machinery. For example if you only have 1 grill, then 15 cooks aren't going to do you any good. After the 2nd or 3rd cook, you begin to see diminishing returns. Simply because there is a lack of room. In our culture, I don't see why this would hold true, because we can always produce more machinery.

Here you are right, to a certain extent. One sector of the economy, as it gets saturated with workers, offers lower and lower salaries. This is will make people looking for jobs try to find jobs in different sectors, which offer higher salaries.
Only when people's desire for consumption is satiated (and we are yet to see this happening for mankind as a whole) will more people eventually mean more poverty.

Your main mistake is to regard people as consuming animals, when they in fact contribute by working as well; and when each concentrates his work on one task and then trade with each other, the final result is that every single man is richer than they would be if everyone produced everything they consumed.

Up to a point, population growth, in our culture, makes some people richer, and alot of people poorer.

Completely false.
The poor man in England today has a much richer life than the aristocrat in 1700.

If this were true, then I would expect parents in Africa not to have any children and for parents in America to have plently. What we observe is the oppositte. What governs population growth is simply a law of nature: as the food supply grows, so does a species population. No matter how terrible conditions get, or how good they get; no matter how much you beat people over the head with birthcontrol, or how many regulations you pass, this law will always how true for any species. Including humans.

Err... the world today shows how wrong your prediction is.
Humans are not common animals, but rational ones. They make their own choices.
Thus, people with a lot available wealth and food may choose not to have any children, and those with none may even so try to breed more intensely.
Look at the rich people in Europe today: they don't breed anymore, though there are a lot of available resources; a lot more than there are in poor African communities.

I've never heard anyone say that having children was a bad thing. Never. As far as I'm aware of, rich people are still having children. Could you provide some numbers?

Yes. Just look at the birth rates of European countries, where the great majority of the population have very good standards of living.

Your fears of overpopulation have no rational basis; do they stem from some Gnostic principle you adhere to?

 

[Lifesaver]

That's a very shortsided view. Large families consume more food, more gas and in general more resources. Do you think that they just portion out food better, and make their kids walk to school and extra-curricular activites? In the big picture, a larger family would consume more resources. It's simple math. But here's more simple math. A couple has two children, and their children each have two children a piece, and their children have two children a piece. Zero population growth, only enough born to replace you. No more resources than have been used before. But a couple has six children, and their children each have six children, and those children each have six children... That's 216 people.

But here you make the mistake of forgetting that people work, and that the resources come from the work of people.
Thus, whereas in the USA today most people have cars, piped clean water, private homes and TVs, this would be impossible if the USA were composed of 100 people, for they wouldn't be able to divide tasks as efficiently, and would concentrate on the most basic things only. A new person in this case allows for a better division of labour and a better satisfaction of everyone's needs and wants.

Malthus was right when he realized that our world has limited resources, and that therefore it cannot support an infinity of people; and also that each sector, after a certain point of labourers, begins to have diminishing returns. But he failed to realize that the economy is composed of innumerable sectors, and also that technology advances and new ideas can increase the efficiency of production and thus push the line of sustainability a lot farther.

 

[BananaSlug]

At the risk of sounding Nazi-ish, I sometimes think we should let people starve. When we give them more food all they do is produce more children who in turn starve. We Americans should cut back on our resource use as well. Everyone in poorer countries strive to become/live like Americans. That's not possible considering 20% of the world's pop (Industrialized nations) uses almost 50% of it's resources. Sometimes I have daydreams about becoming a hunter/gatherer, but I guess that's the "noble savage" wanting to come out in me...

 

[Ledifni]

But here you make the mistake of forgetting that people work, and that the resources come from the work of people.

No they don't, Lifesaver. Production comes from both the work of people and the availability of resources. People cannot work to put more oil in the ground, or to add mass to the Earth for more living space, or to increase the Sun's energy output, or to create winds or waves to drive generators, and so on. Natural resources are not infinite and cannot be infinitely increased by human effort.

 

[AdamAnderson21]

fragments: Western Europe appears to be an exception to your rule. They have no shortages of food, yet the native population has a birth rate at or slightly below replacement levels.

Let me repeat the law: "An increase in food supply always results in an increase in a species' population. There are no exceptions."

I have underlined the relevant part. This rule applies to species as a whole.

fragments: Humans are capable acting contrary to maximizing the propagation of their genes.

"An increase in food supply always results in an increase in a species' population. There are no exceptions."

There has never been a single case in the history of the entire universe where this law has not held true.

HouseApe: And why is it that there are no food shortages in Western Europe? The answer is because Europeans outcompete most of the rest of the planet for food supplies. They have money. Once the rest of the world can equally compete with Europeans for food supplies, starvation will happen in Europe (among the poorest).

Exactly.

HouseApe: The reason countries birth rates begin to decline is twofold: Women are empowered through birth control mechanisms to determine the number of children they want to have, and the cost of children become high. Industrialization has nothing to do with it.

Another reason birthrates are so high in poor countries is because parents absolutely need their children to survive. In a country where survival is an everday fight, the team with the most players wins.

Livesaver: This is completely false.
If one would get a man in the Roman Empire, he would have a better quality of life than a man who lived absolutely alone and who produced everything he consumed.
And Rome was a civilization with very little economic freedom. The same is true for, say, the Egyptians. A regular man in the Egyptian empire, poor as he was, had a life materially better than a man who lived completely alone, producing everything he consumed. Division of labour, which happens everywhere, even in primitive indian tribes, makes the life better for everyone, and it can only come about with a larger number of individuals.

"Only if you are mass producing things to begin with. It is only our culture that does this. For three million years humans lived without doing this. Population growth did not make anyone richer. In fact, before the birth of our culture, it did the exact oppositte."

The Roman Empire and the Egyptians were part of our culture. They mass produced things, and do not fall under the category of before the birth of our culture. By our culture, I refer to those who practiced and spread totalitarian agriculture.

Lifesaver: Your main mistake is to regard people as consuming animals, when they in fact contribute by working as well; and when each concentrates his work on one task and then trade with each other, the final result is that every single man is richer than they would be if everyone produced everything they consumed.

"Only if you are mass producing things to begin with."

Is this not true? Because that was my original response to this same argument.

Lifesaver: The poor man in England today has a much richer life than the aristocrat in 1700.

In not talking about geographical locations, I'm talking about our population as a whole. England only represents an extremely minute quantity of the world's total human population. The large majority of the world would be unquestionably bursting at their seems with glee if they could only have 1/10th or even 1/100th of what the aristocrat in 1700 England had.

Livesaver: Err... the world today shows how wrong your prediction is.
Humans are not common animals, but rational ones. They make their own choices.
Thus, people with a lot available wealth and food may choose not to have any children, and those with none may even so try to breed more intensely.
Look at the rich people in Europe today: they don't breed anymore, though there are a lot of available resources; a lot more than there are in poor African communities.

The law is not "if England's food supply increases, its population will increase." The law is not "if Europe's food supply increases, its population will increase." The law is not "if America's food supply increases, its population will increase.

I'll repeat the law again.

"An increase in food supply always results in an increase in a species' population. There are no exceptions."

Never in the entire history of the universe has this law been violated.

Lifesaver: Yes. Just look at the birth rates of European countries, where the great majority of the population have very good standards of living.

I understood your term "rich" to mean above what we call Upper Middle Class. The Upper Class. IF you are speaking in terms of the world, than rich countries most certainly do have lower birth rates. That's an undeniable fact. But my statement that you responded to still holds true.

"I've never heard anyone say that having children was a bad thing. Never. As far as I'm aware of, rich people are still having children. Could you provide some numbers?"

Lifesaver: Your fears of overpopulation have no rational basis; do they stem from some Gnostic principle you adhere to?

In your response to my original post, you did several things.

1) misunderstand most of what I said
2) as a consequence of #1, provide responses which in no way actually responded to my original post
2) clarify what you meant by rich
3) and question my ability to reason correctly

You could have saved us alot of time by simply clarifying what you meant by rich, and questioning my ability to reason correctly.

Judging by your other responses, I would suggest that here we agree to disagree on this topic in the interests of not wasting both of our time.

And no I am not Gnostic, I am not even Christian. I'm Ishmaelic.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

At the risk of sounding Nazi-ish, I sometimes think we should let people starve. When we give them more food all they do is produce more children who in turn starve.

That is why you have to make long term investments to help them improve their productivity and the reliability of their food production.

We Americans should cut back on our resource use as well. Everyone in poorer countries strive to become/live like Americans. That's not possible considering 20% of the world's pop (Industrialized nations) uses almost 50% of it's resources. Sometimes I have daydreams about becoming a hunter/gatherer, but I guess that's the "noble savage" wanting to come out in me...

Being a hunter/gatherer has its advantages, but the big disadvantage is that it cannot support even moderate population densities. That is why people switched to agriculture.

 

[HouseApe]

Being a hunter/gatherer has its advantages, but the big disadvantage is that it cannot support even moderate population densities. That is why people switched to agriculture.

I doubt that is true. Agriculture was well understood before the agricultural revolution. People planted and grew crops, as well as gathered from existing plants as well as hunted. People could have switched to pure agriculture sooner, it was just that it was a horrible way of life compared to what they were doing. It is my understanding that the "agricultural revolution" happened because people conquered other peoples and forced them to grow food for them. That is why the agricultural revolution happens exactly at the same time and in the same places as the first kingdoms.

Though with these agricultural societies, these kings could now support a large population with large armies to conquer the rest of the world. Which is why the world became as it is. Our forefathers were all forced into slavery to the agricultural economy for some kings/emperors/lords at some time in the past.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I doubt that is true. Agriculture was well understood before the agricultural revolution. People planted and grew crops, as well as gathered from existing plants as well as hunted. People could have switched to pure agriculture sooner, it was just that it was a horrible way of life compared to what they were doing. It is my understanding that the "agricultural revolution" happened because people conquered other peoples and forced them to grow food for them. That is why the agricultural revolution happens exactly at the same time and in the same places as the first kingdoms.

Though with these agricultural societies, these kings could now support a large population with large armies to conquer the rest of the world. Which is why the world became as it is. Our forefathers were all forced into slavery to the agricultural economy for some kings/emperors/lords at some time in the past.

I don't think that one could begin conquering other people without agriculture to support a ruling class and a warrior class. Population densities probably forced the switch to argriculture which allowed the ruling and warrior classes to emerge which allowed them to conquer other people and force them to switch to agriculture.

 

[Lifesaver]

"An increase in food supply always results in an increase in a species' population. There are no exceptions."

It holds true for non-rational animals and other simpler lifeforms. For mankind it clearly doesn't, as developed Western nations, which have never been richer and which have never had such a vast food supply, prove.
Human beings make choices; there is no such thing as a "collective choice" of society, the species or of the universe. Increases in the population of men means that men are choosing to have children in such a degree that there is an increase in population.
Many people in Europe simply do not behave according to your "universal" law. They have a greater amount of food at their disposal and yet they don't breed more often, because they have other values.

Your law, to be coherent, must mean: "when there is more food supply, individuals make the choice to breed more." It is not "the species" that acts, nor is there a larger force at play in this case than not the agregate of individual choices.

There are countless exceptions indeed, since a lot of individuals make choices contrary to your "law", which is otherwise well-suited to be applied to populations of bacteria, pigs, apes, etc.

Simple, hard fact.