Human population

[Set]

really, we haven't overpopulated this world

Hmph. I'm sorry, but BILLIONS of human beings seems, to me, overpopulated. A species of animal would be very lucky if it reached one million in number. There's alot more humans than that in the United States alone. By nature's standards we are extremely overpopulated and I would be more than happy to see most of the world kill eachother off in a war or something. Maybe an unusual string of natural disasters. And then there's this thing about trying to bring dead people back to life...what the hell? Science is a good thing yes, but you can only screw with nature so much before it bites you in the a** big time. Death isn't going to like it when those souls that have already been collected are taken away from it. And I bet you anything it'll want payment for it, meaning at least ten people killed for every one revived.

*shifty eyes* The apocalypse is near...

[Figarou]

really, we haven't overpopulated this world

Hmph. I'm sorry, but BILLIONS of human beings seems, to me, overpopulated. A species of animal would be very lucky if it reached one million in number.

Try 1.5 million Wildebeests.

http://www.ultimateafrica.com/migration28.htm

[Vuldari]

really, we haven't overpopulated this world

Hmph. I'm sorry, but BILLIONS of human beings seems, to me, overpopulated. A species of animal would be very lucky if it reached one million in number. There's alot more humans than that in the United States alone. By nature's standards we are extremely overpopulated and I would be more than happy to see most of the world kill eachother off in a war or something. Maybe an unusual string of natural disasters. And then there's this thing about trying to bring dead people back to life...what the hell? Science is a good thing yes, but you can only screw with nature so much before it bites you in the a** big time. Death isn't going to like it when those souls that have already been collected are taken away from it. And I bet you anything it'll want payment for it, meaning at least ten people killed for every one revived.

*shifty eyes* The apocalypse is near...

Indeed...if the fact that we have to stack our homes on top of each other 3-30 stories high just to make room for us all in many places doesn't tip one off that it's getting a little crowded around here, I think it's time to take another look out the window.

(I'm in apt. #Three hundred and twenty two of a complex smaller than many Office buildings. That's alot of people crammed into a small space. Even if we all won the lottery and wanted to buy Homes for ourselves, there simply are not enough homes (or plots of land) available for all of us.)

The world is FULL. It was full Decades, if not Centruies ago, so we are desperately trying to come up with ways to fit more people into smaller spaces, comfortably. We can't spread out any more, so there is nowhere to go but up...taller buildings first...then orbital space stations...then who knows what.

We just don't seem to get (as a collective species, not as individuals), that we can't keep expanding our numbers like this. We would sooner (again..."as a species") conquer an an alien planet and move our excess population there than come to the brilliant conclusion, "...hmm...theres no more room here. Maybe I Don't need to have 5 kids. ...maybe I don't need to have any kids at all"


*sigh*

[Figarou]

Population growth cannot continue indefinitely. If the current world ratio remains unchanged, the world population would grow from its current 6.4 billion to 43 billion over the next 146 years (2150).

Will it? Probably not.

Could the earth's resources sustain such a population?

If not, how large a human population can live decently on this planet?

[Vuldari]

Population growth cannot continue indefinitely. If the current world ratio remains unchanged, the world population would grow from its current 6.4 billion to 43 billion over the next 146 years (2150).

Will it? Probably not.

Could the earth's resources sustain such a population?

If not, how large a human population can live decently on this planet?

How many?...if you ask me, the number would be at least a few hundred millon LESS, if not Billions, than the current population. IMHO (I think 10% of the current world population would be workable...but still a bit crowded)

And you are right...it can not possibly continue at the current rate forever. Unfortunately, whenever it finally begins to taper off, it is unlikely that it will happen because we made a collective effort to slow it down, but rather, the effects of overpoulation will finally catch up with us and millions of people (mostly sick and starving children) will die on a regular basis. (More than what is allready the daily norm, that is)

War, Hunger and/or Disease will reduce our numbers if we don't do it ourselves.

Sad, but true.

[Figarou]

Population growth cannot continue indefinitely. If the current world ratio remains unchanged, the world population would grow from its current 6.4 billion to 43 billion over the next 146 years (2150).

Will it? Probably not.

Could the earth's resources sustain such a population?

If not, how large a human population can live decently on this planet?

How many?...if you ask me, the number would be at least a few hundred millon LESS, if not Billions, than the current population. IMHO (I think 10% of the current world population would be workable...but still a bit crowded)

And you are right...it can not possibly continue at the current rate forever. Unfortunately, whenever it finally begins to taper off, it is unlikely that it will happen because we made a collective effort to slow it down, but rather, the effects of overpoulation will finally catch up with us and millions of people (mostly sick and starving children) will die on a regular basis. (More than what is allready the daily norm, that is)

War, Hunger and/or Disease will reduce our numbers if we don't do it ourselves.

Sad, but true.

Well, the "cost of living" can help with over population. Can you afford to support 8 children? Probably not. Some people can't afford to support one child.

Also if one doesn't want a problem child, then don't have any.

[vrikasatma]

I wasn't going to sound off on this because overpopulation is one of my big causes and I *know* at least one or two of my takes would touch off a flame war...so with that in mind, let's continue...

I'm okay with humanity building up; primates, after all. And I'm pretty sure the world's resources would continue to sustain us however populous we get.

But!

— this is assuming that the food and fuel are distributed evenly and fairly. The UN can't do it and they're as close to a true world government as we've come. Personally I think they're a crowd of meddlesome bozos, but that's another flame war entirely.

The other "however" is, the earth can sustain us, but at what cost? How many species? The Dalai Lama himself came out against abortion, claiming that it keeps a soul from reincarnating. My response to that was, "Get enough of those reincarnations and one morning we'll wake up and say, 'Gee, what happened to the snow leopards?'"

This is probably my gentility getting in the way of doing the right thing, but whenever I see a woman with three kids, including a toddler, and another one in the oven, I feel like going up to her, pointing to the youngest and saying, "What are you going to tell her when she asks why Species XYZ went extinct?" We all know how much children love animals, so in that regard overpopulation and extinction of animal species owing to habitat encroachment and destruction is the ultimate child abuse.

I was born into a world where I couldn't experience the quagga, the aurochs, Balinese tigers, California grizzly, European forest horse. The aurochs and the Irish elk only went extinct about 500 years ago. We came within an ace of losing the peregrine falcon, the osprey, the cheetah, the Eskimo curlew, the ivory-billed woodpecker. Many of them are still hanging by a thread. What's the next generation going to be deprived of? They're already saying we could lose 30 species of frogs in our lifetime.

It's not necessary to have five children, not here. It's not like they're going to get polio or cholera or something equally horrendous and die in a few years. You should stop at two: replace yourselves, and if your parents yelp at you that they want more it's almost effortless to say, "Don't get greedy, Mom." If you want more, adopt! The fewer children you have, the more attention each child gets and pretty much everyone agrees that having time and material resources to spend on a child is the key to raising children into good adults.

Shakespeare said you are bound to breed. This implies that everyone has a right to reproduce. I voluntarily gave up my right to have children because I felt overpopulation is a serious threat to both the environment and human society/civilization. Very unfortunately, that sacrifice was a most transient one: all it takes is for a couple bloody fundies of the Christian, Mormon, Islamic or Hindu or even Buddhist flavours to negate that sacrifice.

I tried expressing my concerns to my circle of friends. They more or less replied by saying things like, "But it's better if WE have a bunch of children because we're more intelligent and enlightened and we'll raise them to respect the earth." That or they say, "Don't worry. The earth will take care of it eventually."

What's wrong with this picture? "Respect the earth," by having eight kids like David Suzuki did? How much wildlands have to be ploughed under and poisoned to feed those eight kids of his? How many animals have to be not only killed, but kept from being born to make room for their houses?

The other thing is, yes, nature is self-correcting. <b><i> I don't want to witness the correction.</i></b> The tsunami of last winter was a correction. It killed more people in one day than the American Civil War did, in toto. What if something like Krakatau happens again? It was a cataclysm then, if something like that happened today it would eclipse 9/11, Jonestown, Oklahoma City and the Ceaucescu and Hussein regimes by a scorefold. Guess what? There are three active volcanoes that are capable of that, and one of them is Mt. Rainier. Near Seattle.

A lot of you are still very young, and cynical. But trust me, watching even one person die IRL is no picnic, never mind a million. And it *would* take millions of deaths to get things back on an even keel. It's easy to watch on a film because we know it's not real. Could you do that for real? Anyone who says "yes" is lying through their teeth.

[Lupin]

Hmph. I'm sorry, but BILLIONS of human beings seems, to me, overpopulated. A species of animal would be very lucky if it reached one million in number. There's alot more humans than that in the United States alone. By nature's standards we are extremely overpopulated

We're nowhere near overpopulated. The entire worlds poplauton could fit, all six billion of us comfotably in a space the size of Texas. We do have a problem with the distribution of resources, however. If we had exceeded the carrying capacity of our environment, our numbers wouldn't be increasing, they'd be decreasing.

Completley unrelated fact: Births in the US are actually under the replacement rate. Our population is increasing because of immigration.

[vrikasatma]

So what do we do? Stop immigration? That's not an option, and unwise as well. Any country thrives on diversity. Moorish Spain had Christians, Jews and Muslims living side-by-side peacefully; Jerusalem before the Crusades was an island of peace, too. Familiarity and understanding is a stepping stone to respect and tolerance: immersion is they key to understanding. Knowledge banishes fear born of ignorance; xenophobia is the first step to persecution, universally.

And by the way, we're slightly exceeding the replacement rate. Italy, Germany and Canada are under. My source:

http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm

Take a look at India. They're a slightly larger landmass than Texas and they have 1.6 billion people shoe-horned and piled on top of each other. 1 in 6 of the world's populace resides on the Indian Subcontinent, and I don't see a lot of elbow room either. You're wrong: the world population of humans <i>would not</i> fit comfortably in an area the size of Texas. The Ganga at Varanasi is a dead river — it cannot support life above the microbial level — and the Bagmati in Nepal is getting there. They're both Love Canals and Lake Eries in the '70s.

If we didn't have attendant species, both plant and animal, it might be alright. We started out as a migratory species and our economy was hunting and gathering. It was only after the invention of agriculture that things started to get out of hand. We were never meant to settle in one space, draw up territories and defend borders, and pile pollutants. Personally I'd love to see the human race return to its migratory roots but can you imagine the environmental havoc we'd wreak?

[Vuldari]

We're nowhere near overpopulated. The entire worlds poplauton could fit, all six billion of us comfotably in a space the size of Texas.

Just where are you getting this from? I doubt you could fit the entire population of INDIA in Texas, let alone the ENTIRE WORLD.

Are you talking about just people standing together in a group?...like, if someone flattened all of texas, and then everyone got together in one enourmous group and stood there? Yeah...maybe everyone would fit, but using that as an example of how there is room for more people to actually LIVE in this world is ..is...

I'm trying not to be insulting here, but just THINK about that for a moment.

Thousands of people can fit inside of a sports stadium...but does that mean that same number of people could also LIVE in that same space?

And I'm pretty sure the world's resources would continue to sustain us however populous we get.

I just don't know were to begin on this one.

Humans need 'X' amount of food and resources each to survive.

There is only 'F' amount of raw material on the planet that is used for life sustainment. (Carbon/minerals, protiens, etc.)

If the world population is 'W' then:

When F-X(W) < X(W) (which would happen once #W became large enough) ...We would not only be nearly the last living things left on the planet, but we would be mathmatically/fundamentally "Screwed".

There IS a limit to how "populous" we can get, before it becomes fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE to be supported anymore.

...not that this is even relevant, because a catastrophy of BIBLICAL proportions woud have happened that would kill most, or all of us off long before 'W' became a large enough number to make that equation true. That is just a law of nature.

I hate being a pessamist, but I fear we are far closer to that "Biblical Catastrophy" than any of us would care to believe.


Edit: ...ummm...I think my algebra is a bit off. ...dang it...and I used to be good at math.

[Lupin]

So what do we do? Stop immigration? That's not an option, and unwise as well. Any country thrives on diversity. Moorish Spain had Christians, Jews and Muslims living side-by-side peacefully; Jerusalem before the Crusades was an island of peace, too. Familiarity and understanding is a stepping stone to respect and tolerance: immersion is they key to understanding. Knowledge banishes fear born of ignorance; xenophobia is the first step to persecution, universally.

You misunderstand it was simply a fact in a vacuum, it had nothing to do with my opinion on immigration.

And by the way, we're slightly exceeding the replacement rate. Italy, Germany and Canada are under. My source:

http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm

The CIA says the total fertility rate as of 2005 2.08 births/woman. IIRC to replace the previous generation, you need a TFR of 2.1-2.2. We're under.

Take a look at India. They're a slightly larger landmass than Texas and they have 1.6 billion people shoe-horned and piled on top of each other. 1 in 6 of the world's populace resides on the Indian Subcontinent, and I don't see a lot of elbow room either. You're wrong: the world population of humans <i>would not</i> fit comfortably in an area the size of Texas.

Sure it is:

Total land area of Texas: 262,000 square miles. (7.3041408e+12 square feet)
Total world population: 6 billion

Divide fitst into the second and everone gets 1,217sq ft. That's only 83 square feet smaller than the largest house I have ever lived in, and twice (I believe, too lazy to check the square footage of this apt.) as large as the place I'm currently living in. Not to mention, that's only if we're building out and not up.

[vrikasatma]

Vuldari: My argument was that the world could support us IF everything outside of us and our attendant species — meaning, plants and animals used for food — disappeared. Don't get me wrong, I'm with you on the overpopulation issue. But I like the fact that there are snow leopards, wolves, sequoias and ospreys in the world. I like it even more that there are botos, tahrs, orchids, papyrus, and every other species that makes this world so rich.

I'd hate living on a planet where there were nothing but humans, rats, cattle, fleas, dogs, pigs, artichokes, wheat, rice, corn and codfish existed.

So: how do you choose what needs to go away? If it were up to me, NONE of it would. The world would stay as it is and in a perfect scenario, the human race would go into a slow population backlash, preferably voluntary. Nothing dramatic like the Tsunami of '04 or Krakatau or the Civil War or the Black Plague. I suspect the Dalai Lama made the "reincarnation" comment because China was implementing mandatory abortion, which is just as bad as rampant elective abortion (which will happen unless the pharmacists start honouring the "Duty To Dispense" laws being enacted).

How does one do this? By circulating the meme that stopping at two children per couple at the most is an all-around win-win situation and a good practice to follow, and having only one child is perfectly acceptable. Keeping birth control socially acceptable is key.

[Vuldari]

Take a look at India. They're a slightly larger landmass than Texas and they have 1.6 billion people shoe-horned and piled on top of each other. 1 in 6 of the world's populace resides on the Indian Subcontinent, and I don't see a lot of elbow room either. You're wrong: the world population of humans <i>would not</i> fit comfortably in an area the size of Texas.

Sure it is:

Total land area of Texas: 262,000 square miles. (7.3041408e+12 square feet)
Total world population: 6 billion

Divide fitst into the second and everone gets 1,217sq ft. That's only 83 square feet smaller than the largest house I have ever lived in, and twice (I believe, too lazy to check the square footage of this apt.) as large as the place I'm currently living in. Not to mention, that's only if we're building out and not up.

...that leaves no space left over for Land around the homes, roads, lakes, forested arias (where does the oxygen come from without plants?), rivers, farmland, buisnesses or anything else...unless every single building is a minimum of 10 stories tall...in which case you have a massive complex of builings the size of Texas with not much else in between. It would look like the planet Coruscant, from Star wars.

...just what would it take for you to consider the world "over-populated" anyway? If what I am describing is not Overpopulation, then what is, Lupin?

[WolvenOne]

Mmm... I wouldn't call human beings overpopulated "everywhere," but there certainly are places in the world where they are overpopulated.

Honestly the number we're at about now should be just fine so if we could just get the birthrate in countries like India and China to reach around the same population rate in Europe or parts of America we'd be fine for quite awhile.

I should note though that once we figure out space travel and figure out how to put humans into a living environment off of earth then the current population becomes wholly insufficient. Granted this is a ways off.

[vrikasatma]

And all of this is a good deal more difficult than simply...using birth control. Or opting out of the gene pool altogether. The childless can lead rich and fulfilling lives, it just has to be pointed out and accepted on a wide scale basis.

Visualize birth as an <i>option</i>, not a requirement.

[Lupin]

...that leaves no space left over for Land around the homes, roads, lakes, forested arias (where does the oxygen come from without plants?), rivers, farmland, buisnesses or anything else...

It leaves the entire rest of our planet for lakes, forested areas, rivers, oceans, etc. My statement said 'area' not 'planet.' A 'planet' with a surface area the size of Texas would be something completely different.

unless every single building is a minimum of 10 stories tall...in
which case you have a massive complex of builings the size of Texas with not much else in between. It would look like the planet Coruscant, from Star wars.

No the figure I quoted is only for 1-story homes. if we built both up and out then available space increases even more. Having everthing a minimum of ten stories tall would give you slightly less than 2.6 million square miles of space (For comparison the Earth's total land area is 57,470,148 square miles)

...just what would it take for you to consider the world "over-populated" anyway? If what I am describing is not Overpopulation, then what is, Lupin?

When the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment. Since the current agricultural production of the world is sufficent to feed everyone on Earth living today, if it were distributed evenly, I don't think were overpopulated.

[Vuldari]

I should note though that once we figure out space travel and figure out how to put humans into a living environment off of earth then the current population becomes wholly insufficient. Granted this is a ways off.

Don't take this personally, as it is just an opinion about an opinion, but I don't like that way of thinking at all.

...when we gain the capacity to live in outer space, then there will be some sort of NEED to fill that space with More Humans?...

If we wanted to explore the universe, it would not be neccesary to fill the entire gap between here and the next planet with more of ourselves, nor do I see why we would need to fill that next planet to it's capacity with more humans as well when we got there.

Is there somthing wrong with just being happy with a colony population of a few hundred or less, (for "genetic diversity" needs) and stopping there? Or even just visiting, transmitting what the explorers learn back to earth and either return home, or stay till you die, without spawing an entire new population when you get there?

Just because there is room "out there" does not mean we have to fill it.

That kind of thinking drives me CRAZY...

It's like the way my mother decorates her home. If there is a gap between pictures on the wall, she has to fill it. If there is actually a decent amount of walking space in her living room for once, she buys ANOTHER sofa or table so there are no "unused" open spaces.

"Less is More" people...

"...less is more..."

[vrikasatma]

That's my argument too. Before we take on a huge, risky and unproven project, let's clean up our own house first.

I would include California in the list of places on the planet that's overpopulated. They've been threatening droughts in that state ever since I can remember; there's no drought. The population has outstripped the amount of available water that the habitat can deliver. San Francisco Bay Area has plenty of water to sustain itself in the Bay-Delta system, but it ships it down to Los Angeles and had to flood a whole valley in the Sierras for its own water. How many species did that wipe out?

[Vuldari]

...just what would it take for you to consider the world "over-populated" anyway? If what I am describing is not Overpopulation, then what is, Lupin?

When the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment. Since the current agricultural production of the world is sufficent to feed everyone on Earth living today, if it were distributed evenly, I don't think were overpopulated.

Okay...I think I see the problem here.


It does not seem that we are considering the term "Overpopulation" to mean the same thing.

When I say the world is "overpopulated" I mean that I believe it is currently IMPOSSIBLE for every human being on the planet to live an ideal, natural, and healthy life. Living in a cubicle, with just sufficient food to stay alive is NOT "living" to me. That, of course, is an extreme exageration, but it will help me make my point.

I picture a wide spectrum of possible populations and the conditions needed to sustain it at those levels.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the very bottom is a scenario in which there is only ONE Human on the entire planet, and the rest is as the rest of nature made it.
That is EXTREME "Underpopulation". Once that person dies, the human race would be extinct.

EXTREME "Overpopulation" would be the Cubicle Scenario. A disease outbreak or any kind of food shortage whatsoever would cripple the entire world population and potentially wipe it out.

Then there is everything in-between.

Somewhere in the middle would be a range within which the quality of Human Life (as well as the stability of the world ecosystem) would be "Ideal". Below that range puts us in danger of becoming extinct. Above that range has the world very crowded, average quality of life poor, resources strained, and the Ecosystem out of whack.


On this scale I just described, I believe the current world population is far Above the "Ideal" range, into the Red Zone of poor quality of life and a sick ecosystem.

Therefore...I Believe that the world is "OVERPOPULATED".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...sure...we could go much higher without going extinct...but life would seriously SUCK for us, and everything else on the planet.

What you are describing is more like what I would call, the "Planetary maximum life sustainment capacity" or something like that.

[Lupin]

[Figarou]

Ok, I made a new thread for "human population" from the "support of real wolves" thread.

In other words, I did the splits!! Banana splits!! There is a banana in my ear!!! Errr...Umm..wait..thats not a banana. And its not in my ear.

[Kzinistzerg]

Whoah- you guys didn't read my whole post now did you. The world isn't overpopulated- BUT noone wants to live out i nthe mmiddle of nowhere.

as for birth controll, the best scenario i've seen in is larry niven's Knnown SPace univese.

essentially: every couple can have one child. thi is called a 'birthright. so everyone starts out with one birthright (which can only be used in conjunctio nwith another). you all take tests- people with bad genes won't get to have any children, people with good genes might get two birthrights, or, if they're otright geniuses, infinite irthrights. you can win them in the lottery (luck), or get one by buying it (and they would be expensive) because the ability to make money means you had some sort of good genes.

Get the picture? as for birth controll itself, we would have to invent something very reliable for both men and women.

[Jamie]

I've already decided never to have children. Really, if I had the urge and the financial stability to be a mother, why not adopt? There are many children around the world (for example, little girls in China) who need homes. It is a bit selfish to want to create your own spawn.

[Fenrir]

Um your starting to remind me of Vicious

Mr. I hate humanity

Sorry

[WolvenOne]

Uh, Shadowblaze, that's a very scary concept and sadly some governments are already trying to do stuff similer to that.

In China, parents are killing thier own newborn infants because they're only allowed 1 and many don't want girls. Then there's the fact that the government itself over there is killing infants.

You know, deciding not to have children is.... good and all, but it's not something the government should decide for people, nor should there be a government that actually has the means to enforce something so blasted oppresive and barbaric.