How big of an issue is overpopulation? What would you do about it?

[Cogman]

I agree to the extent it seems like some people think we can sustain infinite population growth. There has to be a limit somewhere for what the Earth can sustain. Maybe it's 7 billion, maybe it's 50 billion, but it can't be infinite.

I don't think anyone has proposed that infinite growth would happen. What we have been saying is "The population will take care of itself." We won't wake up one day to find everyone dieing off rapidly. More likely, it will taper off and then maybe dip to a sustainable level at whatever tech level we reach.

We have a lot of land to expand to. so that isn't really a problem. We also have a lot of land that can be farmed, that currently isn't being farmed. So that isn't a problem. Water supplies and energy supplies will be the main issues, however, if we solve energy problems, we solve water problems. That leaves expanding until we don't have enough land to feed the population, which we are a LONG ways off from reaching.

 

[Cogman]

It blows my mind to read here those who pretend infinite growth can be contained within a finite space. The question asked, what would you do about it? Bury head in sand, apparently.

Please, point to one post that suggests infinite growth is a possibility.

 

[Svnla]

There is A LOT of fresh water out there. There is also several methods, if we get desperate, to distill salt water. 3% of the earths water supply is fresh water. With oceanic water, we have a pretty much limitless supply.

Hummm, I don't know about your place but around here, there is not a lot of fresh and CLEAN water. The aquifers are running low or not recharged fast enough from human water consumption.

Desalination is an option but it is NOT cheap or easy and has other consequences.

http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/138/The-cost-of-desalination.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/world/asia/11water.html

http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/132/6.pdf

 

[Brigandier]

Hummm, I don't know about your place but around here, there is not a lot of fresh and CLEAN water. The aquifers are running low or not recharged fast enough from human water consumption.

Desalination is an option but it is NOT cheap or easy and has other consequences.

http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/138/The-cost-of-desalination.html

http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/132/6.pdf

Around here we have one the largest deposits of fresh water on the face of the planet.

 

[Cogman]

Hummm, I don't know about your place but around here, there is not a lot of fresh and CLEAN water. The aquifers are running low or not recharged fast enough from human water consumption.

Desalination is an option but it is NOT cheap or easy and has other consequences.

http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/138/The-cost-of-desalination.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/world/asia/11water.html

http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/132/6.pdf

British Columbia has THOUSANDS of fresh water streams just waiting to be tapped. Many of them aren't even being used. Barring that, we have large glaciers with millions of gallons of water that just need to be shipped (IIRC new york does, or used to do this.)

I do live out in the dessert, and I do preserve water whenever possible. However, I don't have an imminent fear of running low. Compared to the amount of water used on the farms here, it would really just be a case of saying "Hey, you turn off one of your lines, we need water for 1,000 more people" if worse came to worse.

 

[ericlp]

I read everyone today could live in Florida and Florida could sustain them in scientific American once. They seemed to think no problem whatsoever.

I think environmental destruction is a separate issue.

Yeah but everyone wants a 3K sq foot home and with central heating and AC. And to drive a big V8 so they can burn up 15 gallons waiting in the BK/Taco hell drive through.

Uh..... and that doesn't include the 1.5 billion in China. Lets see you try stuff that into Florida as well. The population is the EARTH as a whole not just the USA.

 

[dammitgibs]

It's a huge problem and we need volunteers to remove themselves from the population, or at least the gene pool, thanks for volunteering.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Its definitely not a problem. Birth control works too well in many countries.

...And in some countries people don't use birth control or simply don't believe in it. America's population problem is currently being driven by mass immigration.

The problem is not that society could not figure out a way to grow enough food for people, but rather that there won't be many resources for people to enjoy beyond that. What most people don't understand is that the supply of certain natural resources is limited and each additional person increases the demand for those resources, increasing the scarcity and prices of those resources. In other words, it would be easier to sustain a higher quality of life and standard of living with a lower population.

Part of the opposition to addressing or even acknowledging population growth as a problem is the fundamentalist Christian wackos (big surprise). Their concern is that advocacy of population control implies support for birth control and abortion. Therefore they want to pretend that it isn't an issue.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It's a huge problem and we need volunteers to remove themselves from the population, or at least the gene pool, thanks for volunteering.

Advocacy of birth control, improved forms of birth control (male pill!), tax incentives, and easy access to abortion should suffice.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I do live out in the dessert, and I do preserve water whenever possible. However, I don't have an imminent fear of running low. Compared to the amount of water used on the farms here, it would really just be a case of saying "Hey, you turn off one of your lines, we need water for 1,000 more people" if worse came to worse.

Since that water is being used to produce food, where will the food for the 1000 new people (plus the people that food used to feed before the water was turned off) come from? Water for people = less water for growing food.

We have a lot of land to expand to. so that isn't really a problem. We also have a lot of land that can be farmed, that currently isn't being farmed.

What is the quality of that unused farmland like? Is it high quality farmland (why isn't it being used now?) or lower quality land? If it's of lower quality that means that the same amount of human effort and resources (fertilizer, water, etc.) will produce less food, meaning that you need even more land to produce 1 unit of food. At some point we'll run out of productive farmland.

 

[Cogman]

Since that water is being used to produce food, where will the food for the 1000 new people (plus the people that food used to feed before the water was turned off) come from? Water for people = less water for growing food.

You don't understand just how much water one line uses, and how little letting it stay off for a day would affect the food supply (Even though we produce MUCH more food then we consume right now.) Heck, there is such a thing as dry farming.

What is the quality of that unused farmland like? Is it high quality farmland (why isn't it being used now?) or lower quality land? If it's of lower quality that means that the same amount of human effort and resources (fertilizer, water, etc.) will produce less food, meaning that you need even more land to produce 1 unit of food. At some point we'll run out of productive farmland.

Have you ever been to british columbia? I suggest one day you do your self a favor and take a visit there. There is literally miles upon miles of unused land with 1000's of rivers running through it. Not only that, but the land is VERY green (not arid) with lots of grass. Heck large parts of alaska are considered rain forests.

I'm not saying that there isn't a finite population that can be supported, I'm saying that we are several years off. Disease is more likely to stop us from hitting our limit then food scarcity is. Heck, look into the CRP program. The government is paying thousands of farmers not to farm. We have that much farmable land.

 

[Saint Nick]

There are 6,697,254,041 people on Earth as of 2008.

The size of Texas is 268,820 square miles.

6,697,254,041 / 268,820 = 24913 people per square mile.

Not a lot considering Monaco has a density of almost 40000 per square mile.

I don't think we are really worried about over population. Environmental problems are an entirely different issue.

 

[Synomenon]

I don't see an issue with "overpopulation" other than possibly running out of natural resources.

Only around 30% of the Earth's surface is populated right?

 

[Jaskalas]

Please, point to one post that suggests infinite growth is a possibility.

I extrapolate that from arguments suggesting overpopulation is not a problem. A straw man maybe, but what else are they telling us?

I would consider many of the ways overpopulation "takes care of itself" to be a problem for us. I find it incredulous that there are those scoffing at the very notion.

I contend that the most certain way to obtain African standards of living, is to simply keep growing our population. It might be foolish to suggest a specific threshold or time frame for it, but when X amount of resources are spread out among Y number of people. The last thing you want to do is increase Y.

 

[Genx87]

The population issue would take take of itself if we let it. As harsh as this sounds. If we stopped giving food aid to populations who are unable to sustain themselves. Nature would take its course.

That said I dont think we are near a point where population is a problem for the planet.

 

[Jaskalas]

At what point does a local problem become a global problem, when they can no longer immigrate to a better place?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Not a lot considering Monaco has a density of almost 40000 per square mile.

But what is Monaco's environmental footprint? Are they growing all the food they need and getting all of their freshwater from those square miles?

I don't think we are really worried about over population. Environmental problems are an entirely different issue.

Population growth and environmental problems are intimately connected. Very simply, more people = more pollution = less available land to absorb the pollution.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Yet the USA's population still manages to increase by 10 - 14% yearly?

that's mostly illegal mexicans.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

'Third' World (I hate that term) --- fuggetaboudit, how to deal with that I have no clue.

--

I suggest you use the term "Shit Hole" to describe "Third World", because that is what it is.

 

[bullbert]

Is overpopulation a problem? If so, what should be done to solve it?

Soylent Green?

 

[BoberFett]

Soylent Green?

It's good with a little hot sauce.

 

[Hyraxxx]

Personally, I think this is a huge issue. Environmentally I think the impact of too many people on this planet is fairly obvious. Even if we can feed everybody, we will need to destroy more and more habitat to do so.

The geopolitical consequences are scarier though. Worst case scenario is that more wars are fought over resources and land. It's hard to imagine that at the very least we will not all be relatively poorer because we have to share less resources. But maybe science will find a way to meet all our energy needs?

I think the left and the right share the blame for this problem. The bleeding heart types seek to help all third worlders and help them get to an equal level. This is a noble goal but it has dramatic consequences (overpopulation and increased global consumption) that they don't really have solutions for. The right pushes their religious crap and stops family planning funding.

Is overpopulation a problem? If so, what should be done to solve it?

Overpopulation is not a problem in a truly free market. And yes, the left and right are to blame for the problem. Government is to blame for the problem. Prices would adjust to compensate the amount of people. Water shortages would not be a problem because private property would protect it. Prices of water would rise during the summer, so people would have second thoughts over-watering their lawn or taking 20 minute showers. Same with electricity. Electricity would go up in the summer in line with demand. Prices will control demand. Would solve the blackout issue.

 

[fail]

..

 

[bullbert]

It's good with a little hot sauce.

HOT SAUCE!?! Show me your papers!

 

[AreaCode707]

Getting there, and my solution is not to have kids. Therefore I don't have to worry about this, since it won't happen in my lifetime and it won't affect my descendants.

Overpopulation produces one of two possible results.
1. Self-correction. Food is limited, people starve. Plague sets in, people die. War happens, people kill each other. The population drops, as it has throughout history.
2. Lifestyle change. Gas is unavailable, people cease traveling even for work. Food is expensive, people eat locally. Land is overcrowded, people relocate to less desirable areas. The consumer-style life that many of us live is reduced to the essentials, more in line with how people have lived throughout history.