Overpopulation

[Laser]

Recently I'v been thinking alot about the state of the planet and mankind's prospects for the future. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that there are just too many people on the planet. We are crowding out the other animal species, polluting all the water and air, and spend way too much time just generally screwing up the place. And every minute of every day it gets more crowded with no end in sight.
I've traveled the world a bit, recently in China, and I hate to think that the planets health, and mankind's ability to support his numbers, will have to degrade to that state before the world starts to contemplate similar measures as China's "one child policy".
This policy didn't work very well for girls because it turns out that most people prefer to have a boy instead of a girl when faced with a "one child" decision. And I like girls.
So the worlds first attempt at population control was less than perfect. It was really only possible in a place like China, with a centralized government, and a nationalized population willing to try the experiment. But what about in a Democracy?
Obviously, we can't just begin killing people, no matter how much we might like to.( I have my own secret list). So we have to create a way to limit births. How would we do that?

[Monash]

Current estimates of world population growth show an steadily decreasing rate of population growth with the best estimates indicating the World’s population peaking about 2050 at aprox 10 billion persons (Check Wiki or the UN World population survey). After that baring any unforseen factors the world's population will start to decline (and at an accelerating rate). So to a certain extend the world has to manage increasing population densities and the consequent demands for food, raw materials and energy for about 4 more decades after which these pressures will start to ease.

Positive factors effecting the expected downward trend in global population include technological developments, general improvements in world living standards (people are getting wealthier) and greater access to health and education services. All these factors are interrelated but raising the education standards of women of child bearing age in third world countries is proving to have the greatest impact on the decreasing global birth rates.

As the sign says "DONT PANIC" it’s not all gloom and gloom. If we can manage to maintain the current rate of increase in global food production for another 30-40 years the "crisis" should pass. This is not to say it will be easy but Malthusians have been predicting the "imminent" destruction of the world via overpopulation and starvation for more than a century - they keep underestimating human ingenuity and problem solving skills.

[Old Codger]

The 'Doubling Time' of the planets population is currently about 45 years.

It has been getting steadily less over the past 2000 years and it is on an exponential path. No matter what the UN tells us, and they usually tell us what they want us to hear or what they want us to believe, that trend WILL continue.

A glance at the historical figures over recorded history, together with 'estimates' of what it was before they had a census shows that the rate of increase has NEVER declined except for major pandemics.

It was 'about' 6 billion at the turn of the century, is close to 7 billion now, and it WILL be about 12 billion in 2050.

It WILL be 24 billion early in the 22nd century, but of course Mother nature will intervene before it gets to that figure, and the intervention will not be pleasant.

[Laser]

I followed you lead and discovered some other interesting points. China is actually 10th on the world list of countries as far as being crowded, with Monaco having the most people per km2. (16,000+). Also there are many countries worldwide that are experiencing decreasing population rates. Apparently, the wealthier a group becomes, the less children they have, with the population soon leveling off to the replacement rate. I wouldn't have guessed that. Which begs the question. Why would China have taken such a drastic step. Especially as drastic a step as a "one child policy' rather than a "two child policy"(one boy, one girl). A shortage of girls sure makes it tough on the guys!

[Old Codger]

PS,


When i was but an innocent lad back in about 1948, I read a newspaper headline that said that the city of Melbourne had just passed the million mark.

It is now about 4 million.

About the same time, my teacher said to us that the population of the Earth was 2 billion. That figure has tripled, and is well on the way to QUADRUPLING!

Yes, the 'rich' countries are slowing, but Asia, Africa, and South America are SURGING!

....and the "one child policy' is an act of desperation in the face of a population bomb! Soon in China 140 males will be chasing 100 females.

[Monash]

The 'Doubling Time' of the planets population is currently about 45 years.

It has been getting steadily less over the past 2000 years and it is on an exponential path. No matter what the UN tells us, and they usually tell us what they want us to hear or what they want us to believe, that trend WILL continue.

A glance at the historical figures over recorded history, together with 'estimates' of what it was before they had a census shows that the rate of increase has NEVER declined except for major pandemics.

It was 'about' 6 billion at the turn of the century, is close to 7 billion now, and it WILL be about 12 billion in 2050.

It WILL be 24 billion early in the 22nd century, but of course Mother nature will intervene before it gets to that figure, and the intervention will not be pleasant.

Codger,
Firstly the UN for all its faults has access to a excellent statiticans and experts on popualtion dynamics. Furthermore its figures are derived from data supplied by member countries and these are crossed checked by academics from other countires so its figures on this topic tend to be regarded as reliable.

Secondly it is a mistake to base assume complex systems follow simple trends. Just because world population has increased steadily over the past few thousands of years it is not necessarily safe to assume it will continue to do so - the contraceptive pill is a recent development for instance. Taking the stock market as an example, the fact that a single stock increased in price today is not an indication that it will do so again tomorrow - a detailed analysis needs to be conducted looking at that stock in comparison to others - there are lots of variables. Same with the weather just because it has been getting hotter in Sydney this month does not automatically mean it will be even hotter in two moths time.

Its the same with world population trends. In this case complex analysis and census data indicates that the trends plotted by the UN and other national agencies and academic bodies is real, not imaginary.

Yes, Australia's population is increasing but that is being driven largely by immigration not natural replacement, so is the U.S. growth in the U.S and Canada. In Western Europe birth rates are far below the replacement rate and in Asia rising prosperity is driving birth rates down. If you don't belieive the UN go to varius national websites to check on figures for individual countries. Measured cumulativly the overall rate of growth is also trending down in South America and parts of Africa and the Middle East as well.

Laser, as far as China goes the "one child" policy was introduced (in the 60's I think) long before the effects of the pill, education and prosperity on population growth were apparent). It definately slowed Chinas population growth but is propbably outlived its usefullness especially given the disparity in the sexes it has produced.

(As for Old Cogers poit about future imbalances in gender in China this is a problem. I suspect however that China will implement policies that reward the birth of girl children in the future to counter this trend.

[tantalus]

Originally posted by Monash
Firstly the UN for all its faults has access to a excellent statiticans and experts on popualtion dynamics

no doubt I believed their models produced simulations between 9 and 12 billions by 2050, alot of variability, but that doesnt mean it isnt cutting edge, just that the task of prediction is a very difficult one.

Secondly it is a mistake to base assume complex systems follow simple trends

this is very true and vital to understand. It does not just apply to the trends but also the consequences, so I would be cautious to your post 2 in the thread.

Originally posted by Monash
indicating the World’s population peaking about 2050 at aprox 10 billion persons (Check Wiki or the UN World population survey). After that baring any unforseen factors the world's population will start to decline (and at an accelerating rate). So to a certain extend the world has to manage increasing population densities and the consequent demands for food, raw materials and energy for about 4 more decades after which these pressures will start to ease.

such as this, in four decades it will have peaked and even if the decline is relatively fast we are going to have a pop. greater than 7 billion for a long time, even by optimistic standards we will have alot of strain for a long time, not for 4 decades.
and I will take the predicted decline with a pinch of salt, the models may be cutting edge but that doesnt mean their right

Originally posted by Monash
Positive factors effecting the expected downward trend in global population include technological developments, general improvements in world living standards (people are getting wealthier) and greater access to health and education services. All these factors are interrelated but raising the education standards of women of child bearing age in third world countries is proving to have the greatest impact on the decreasing global birth rates.

all true, but meanwhile many such advancements create additional strains on resorces and the environment, as the living standars and demands of many who enter the middle classes, catch 22.

Originally posted by Monash
"DONT PANIC"

it is a matter of intepretation depending on your philosophy, but it is not a doomsday scenario

Originally posted by Monash
Malthusians have been predicting the "imminent" destruction of the world via overpopulation and starvation for more than a century

it is irrelevent, it doesnt mean a doomsday pop doesnt exist for the planet, it doesnt mean one does, it means nothning, we have new pop. numbers, new realities, and this isnot proof that one side of the arguement today is right or wrong, I am not saying you are saying this, I just see this point made alot that malthusian's failure in the past somehow verifies that anyone who predicts castrophic shifts in human society in the future because of overpopulation is wrong, people can come up with better arguements than this.

my final point adresses the topic as a whole so I have left it to the end, regarding philosophy/interpretation.
What is acceptable damage/problems from overpopulation quantitatively?

aside from the very important human aspect, it is importent to mention the issue of others species, we have done alot of damage over the last few thousands of years, this has accelerated greatly in the last 100 years, and will continue, who knows how much damage will be caused over the next 500 years and how much things will be shifted, but different people weigh this differently, some will say that we need to reduce the current pop. and accept a less materlalistic lifestyle already, others will say it doesnt matter what we do, its not a issue of responsibility......
on the human side, we have a resposibility to those we bring in to this world, they shouldnt be brought in to it to live in poverty, one thing we are likely to see is an increase in child mortality imo...
so depending on this philosophy and interpretation, opinions on acceptable world pop. and way of life are likely to be divisive.

There arent many other vital and complex issues of this magnitude facing us imo.

this would take hrs to tease out so I will go no further.

[gunnut]

Recently I'v been thinking alot about the state of the planet and mankind's prospects for the future. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that there are just too many people on the planet.

Let's take this step by step.

You think there are "too many people" in this world. Can you quantify what "too many" is? Do we go by population density? High birth rate? Or sheer numbers? Do we take global number? Or regional numbers? Or even national numbers?

We are crowding out the other animal species

Are we? There are more cows, chickens, rats, pigs, sheep, cockroaches, and ants, than ever before.

polluting all the water and air

Air and water have never been better in the US since the industrial age.

and spend way too much time just generally screwing up the place

I think the place is doing quite well. In fact, we need more screwing up in the US because it's just too clean. We are so clean because we shipped our manufacturing industry to other places on earth. Then we complain about it.

And every minute of every day it gets more crowded with no end in sight.

I think we could use a few hundred million more people in the US, Australia, Canada, and Russia.

[Old Codger]

Quick points.

The pill is not a factor in NON developed countries and Continents.

I would venture that the pill is not widely used in Asia, Africa or Catholic Sth America. It certainly IS used in Nth America, Europe and Australia.

Migration is a factor in Australia etc, but the FACT remains that shifting people from less developed countries to developed countries has negligible effect on the 'LDCs' population.

And the worlds population HAS increased from 2 billion to near 7 billion in about 60 years! I simply cannot see it increasing only 2 billion in the next 40 years.



OC

[Mihais]

I think we could use a few hundred million more people in the US, Australia, Canada, and Russia.

Maybe but you need quality before quantity.And,IMO,those places are better left the way they are.I'd like to retire in a place where my nearest neighbor is 100km away.

[Old Codger]

Gunnut,


"I think we could use a few hundred million more people in the US, Australia, Canada, and Russia."


That would take care of about 2 years world population growth! What do you do with the NEXT 2 years growth?

And if you want an extra 100 million in the USA, just hang about a bit - it will be well over 400 million in 2050.

Over here we are having a debate about population, and the 'estimates' are that we will have 36 million+ in 2050. With national infrastructure falling to bits now, I cannot see us doubling it in the next 40 years.

About 80% of this island is generally unproductive desert, apart from mining, and new cities are not an option.



OC

[tantalus]

originally posted by gunnut
Do we go by population density? High birth rate? Or sheer numbers? Do we take global number? Or regional numbers? Or even national numbers?

most of these are useful indicator of pop. change and can provide useful info regarding different impacts/consequences/management
the global pop is important, we now live in a globalised society with many countries with movement of all types of goods, you cant treat countries just on their own when considering the impacts of pop.

originally posted by gunnut
Are we? There are more cows, chickens, rats, pigs, sheep, cockroaches, and ants, than ever before

.
listing a handful of animal groups doesnt reflects the quantitative reality
http://www.ecomuseu-azores.org/saojo...Assessment.pdf
the contents page is on page 9 onwards, page 10 lists the main threats as part of section 6, this brings together some of the trends, the papers in the scientific literature researching the negative impacts of humans on other species is enormous, it hardly seems worth while to provide individual examples, humans are having a much larger negative effect than postiive, this is fact, what, if anything, we should do about it and how we should view it, is another matter, which I already mentioned in part.

originally posted by gunnut
Air and water have never been better in the US since the industrial age.

could you provide some references
I had a look but I found it difficult to find anything on google scholar which assessed air and water quality over that time period and scale , ofcourse certain pollutants would have declined (decline in coal, intro of unleaded petrol) but they have been replaced by a very large novel selection of pollutants and activites

I

originally posted by gunnut
think the place is doing quite well. In fact, we need more screwing up in the US because it's just too clean. We are so clean because we shipped our manufacturing industry to other places on earth

It doesnt seem a realistic claim that human society is having a reduced effect on its environment in 2010 then 1850 in the US (factually, not if it is right or wrong) and anyway the issue is a global one, not just an national.

Originally posted by Old Codger
The pill is not a factor in NON developed countries and Continents

its importance on effecting world pop. is growing and as more people enter the middle classes in China, India, Brazil et al., its influence will grow, but the UN forecasts of 9-12 billion obviously incorporate its current and predicted affect, however Africa is set for the largest proportion increase in this period where I imagine the pill is likely to have the least effect.

[2DREZQ]

Population predictions for 2050 are less than useless.

In the next 75 years the rise of Homo Technicalus (resistance is futile) will render 95% of the human population "surplus to the needs of the planet", and a massive, managed decrease in human fecundity will begin. By 2200 the population will stand somewhere between 1-20 million.

Even in his wildest dreams, Hitler couldn't imagine where we're headed.

[Old Codger]

I am going to open a 'Soylent Green' factory.

[Laser]

Or mabey a condom factory in China.