Thread: Overpopulation....a threat or a myth?

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

If you lived in Miami,FL in the 1950s and then went back now you would begin to see the problem. Here is a broadcast of the Diane Rehm show addressing the issue. Dr Paul Erlich, author of "The Population Bomb", is one of the participants. All I can say is I'm glad I'm an old guy on my way out.

Looking forward to going or no? See signature!!!

Its pretty simple really, the collective health of people in mind/body/soul dictates the number of sustainable population.
The more unhealth wheither in mind or body causes more waste and loss of value, hence the value assigned to total possible population also drops.

If someone tells you that the world would be better off with a population of 500 million then when they were doing their math they probably factored in all the unhealthy pastimes and addictions they themselves are accustomed to and do not want to give up.

Food and water are the main things, and the water problem is easy to solve with rainwater catchement/filtration.
The next thing is obviously food which really means that people just need a healthier understanding of the health of the land. (not overcropping and draining all the resources with industrial farming).
The real problem for food though is peoples consumption of meat, sustaing a planet of meateaters is much more difficult than sustaining a planet of vegitarians. Meat eating isnt healthy and therfore lowers the overall value of the planet, that value has knock-on effects in possible population size aswell as many other areas.(lol i know theres probably a few who would disagree with me)
The planet could probably double its population from 7 to 14 if everyone was vegitarian, and then more if people didnt use drugs,alcohol,tea,coffee and the possible population goes up even higher the more (unhealthy/wasteful/unnecessary/disconnected/linear/stagnent/
unwise/unmanagable/negative/uncreative/temporary/problems/
unreality/lies) we collectivly decide to remove. (its all about choices)

Truth = Health= Love = Life = Freedom = Necessary = Connected = Cyclical = Transient = Wisdom = Manageable = Positive = Creative = Eternal = Utilisation = Sollutions = Reality

Well thats my 2 cents on the population thing.
Best regards
Greg.

Overpopulation is a serious problem worsening every day. It is not just a matter of multiplying the number of households times the average size of the plot of land they live on. Every person in the west uses a couple of hectares of land to grow food. Many of those hectares are in the 3rd world. As we pay higher prices we get the best produce produced on the most fertile land in the 3rd world leaving less for the indiginous 3rd world population. Don't think: "I hardly eat third world meat and veg." Most pig, chicken and cattle fodder comes from the 3rd world and is imported.

Moreover: the more land used for agriculture the less is left to wildlife. Large carnivores are on the brink of extinction on every continent. Don't be fooled by the number of lions you see on Discovery Channel: these live inside a few wildlife reserves, outside wildlife reserves there's hardly any left. The population size of lions, but also elephants and rhinos inside many reserves is so small that inbreeding is a growing problem.

Due to overpopulation freshwater shortage is an increasing problem even in 1st world countries like Spain and Italy where desertification is already taking place: the Sahara is coming to us!

Large human populations are only viable as long as there's plenty fossil fuels. As soon as we burnt them all there will be nothing else but trees to burn for cooking and heating. If 6 billion people would depend on trees alone for heating and cooking all the earth's trees would be felled within a year. That would cause such a rise of global temperature that we could then start using all the peat that is now locked up in permafrost which would serve us a couple more years. Before all the peat has been burnt the CO2 content of the air will be so high it is incompatible with most animal and plant life. The peat bogs of the Northern Hemisphere contain the equivalent of 70 years of global CO2 emissions according to New Scientist.

Population control should be highest on the list of all international organisations but unfortunately some religions especially the RC church are still fiercely opposed. Stopping the destruction of God's creation does not seem to have a sense of urgency in Rome.

I understand your concern based on the projections you're providing, Kees, but my reaction would be that your projections seem to assume there would be no change in the modes of resource consumption. Fossil fuels are finite as are other carbon based fuels (trees, peat, coal, etc.). If the world's population continues to grow and even grow rapidly and the population were only to vie for the ever dwindling carbon based fuels our planet has, then the logic you outline supports a problem.

My rhetorical argument is that IF alternative energy sources such as geothermal, solar and wind were utilized on a global scale, wouldn't that dramatically lessen the desire and the need for fighting over the last scraps of carbon based energy sources?

And, I would not consider myself to be an eco-minded person to be perfectly honest.

Chris L

trees are renewable.

Energy is not such a big problem compared to food and water. Two things which are becoming quite a premium.

My opinion is still to let every one get on with it. I do wish we would leave Africa alone though, the damage the west is doing there is quite saddening to me.

Actually we already have a problem with the present numbers.
If everyone would raise living standard to the western level, not just energy would become a problem but all sorts of metal (for cars) would, too.

Originally Posted by gregs656

trees are renewable.

Yes, it would have been better for me to say that. I was thinking about carbon based energy including trees in relation to the rapid destruction and consumption model that Kees was describing. Based on his model, I would project that if fossil fuels were exhausted and there was no change in consumption behavior AWAY FROM carbon fuel consumption, you probably couldn't grow trees fast enough to replace the trees harvested for fuel. Renewable, yes, but being one of the sole sources of energy for the planet, if it got to that, I agree with Kees, tree consumption would outpace tree growth making tree renewability a moot point.

My intent in starting this thread to be clear, was not to further any personal agenda in regard to "clean" energy. You won't find me at a gathering or protest demanding a global carbon based tax to be sure. I'm too intent on wanting to possibly experiment with charcoal and possibly even coal fired forges! ;-))))))

Chris L

In a lot of places they can't grow trees fast enough, have you tried cooking with dung lately? A lot of smoke, not a lot of heat. The mongolians make it happen though.

to answer you're question, it is not a myth - but not a 'threat' either. It's just how it is.

Originally Posted by gregs656

I do wish we would leave Africa alone though, the damage the west is doing there is quite saddening to me.

I don't know how to respond to that comment. So I'll limit myself to a single word.

Zimbabwe.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

I don't know how to respond to that comment. So I'll limit myself to a single word.

Zimbabwe.

Sure, but who are we to sort out their problems? Has any one ever become involved with us because they believed they knew better than us? Were we allowed to have our civil war?

Have you ever been to Africa?

Edit: do you know Africa is the only continent to have regressed in terms of the accepted development indicators in the last century?