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

Originally Posted by gregs656

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

That's the point. Over the last century many African nations have gained their independance as the British Empire, white rule, and "the West" in general have withdrawn.

Has it lead to great improvement? Generally no, not even South Africa has come up smelling of roses if you examine what little has changed for the average inhabitant.

And given the example of what has happened in Zimbabwe, which has been left to its own devices apart from harsh criticism, I don't see how you can blame Africa's problems on the West. Obviously I'm missing something.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

I don't see how you can blame Africa's problems on the West. Obviously I'm missing something.

Ok, this is how I see it.

Charity, in general, does not work. For too long now we have been giving money to the rich and clothes to the poor. Did you know that in countries across Africa the traditional industries have mostly died off because instead of making things to take to market, they just sell off the stuff we send them? They are reliant on the west to the point where it's just sad to watch.

It was very difficult and sobering for me to have kids run and run after a car full of white people because they know someone will give them something. That's all they do. Charity has made them dependent.

The other one that is particularly distressing for me is the medical 'help' we give them. Traditionally in Africa you have large families because some of them would die. We went out their with our moral high ground and technology and gave every little kid a jab, so now they're immune. So instead of dying, they all survive - great. Thing is, we never thought about the implications. Now instead of dying from disease, the WHOLE FAMILY is suffering immensely from starvation. We just assumed our way was better. No one ever really thought to tell the old man he didn't need any more kids now, and to be honest, he wouldn't have listened any way.

Then there's things like micro-credit (which I disagree with on principle) and the whole issue of cash crops and many many more oars we have stuck in. Including giving the impression that we are better, and that big cities is where it's at - not so much in the slums but hey, they don't know that.

The whole thing, all of it, is a complete and utter mess and as far as I'm concerned it mostly comes down to us thinking we are better and 'helping' on that basis. We have not withdrawn, we just don't fly the flag any more.

I strongly suggest you go and visit and see it all for your self, it was a difficult 10 days for me - lots of people have struggled with my conclusions, but then lots of people think the west is getting it right. The road to hell indeed.

On the up side, you can buy coca cola where ever you like, because that's what every one drinks and that's what every one sells, on the street. Globalisation - don't cha love it.

More people means more food needs to be produced regardless of energy source. Every person needs a couple of hectares for food production. Dwindling freshwater resources cause droughts. Irrigation causes accumulation of salts in the soil making it useless for future generations and causing more desertification. This is happening in many countries already that depend on irrigation (Middle East, Australia, FSU) but also on smaller scale in the Americas (even USA) and Europe.

We are simply destroying the earth. We have been trying to find alternative energy sources since WW2 but still heavily rely on fossil fuels because the alternatives are too expensive and produce not nearly enough energy or the right sort of energy.

Originally Posted by ChrisL

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

Originally Posted by gregs656

You're listed in the Netherlands, not Bangladesh.

I'm sorry, make the ONE of the most populated countries. It used to be true a couple of years back.


Anyway. I still think it's not true. Plenty of space. It's just not used too smartly. But that's not because the amount of people.

As for africa, I agree wholeheartedly.

Give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish etc. And if he doesn't like fish, let him muck about on his own because you don't know anything about big game hunting!

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Anyway. I still think it's not true. Plenty of space. It's just not used too smartly. But that's not because the amount of people.

Yeah, there's plenty of space, but it has a purpose: the space is our resource. Forests, farms, lakes, rivers, nuclear test sites (tongue in cheek icon needed). Isn't there an equilibrium to be struck here? The more the population grows, the more space we need to provide for those resources we all use. But if we start encroaching on those spaces, the capacity for those resources is reduced when we actually need to increase it. So we keep squeezing tighter and tighter into those already populated areas. And that's when nature takes over and starts the cull.

'Overpopulation' to me doesn't mean the end of the world, it means things have got to a state where one of life's natural checks and balances starts happening (war, famine, disease). Then it starts over.

Originally Posted by gregs656

trees are renewable.

But once felled take 30 years to regrow. In the mean time the soil will start eroding. Most forests nowadays are on hill sides and in tropical regions where erosion is a serious threat. Erosion stands in the way of reforestation.

I'm sure that there's a balance point. However I don't think we've reached that point by far. If only you look at the vast amounts of space on some continents that are basically grass and nothing else. Then the idea that there's not enough room is just plain stupid.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

I'm sure that there's a balance point. However I don't think we've reached that point by far. If only you look at the vast amounts of space on some continents that are basically grass and nothing else. Then the idea that there's not enough room is just plain stupid.

Overpopulation and large grassy plains occur on different continents. If you think large scale emigration is the solution of overpopulation that is more than plain stupid. We call that krankjorem (=loony). Large scale immigration will lead to intolerance and civil strife/civil war. Mr Wilders is a prime example on your own doorstep.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

I'm sure that there's a balance point. However I don't think we've reached that point by far. If only you look at the vast amounts of space on some continents that are basically grass and nothing else. Then the idea that there's not enough room is just plain stupid.

O there might be enough space, but space is not the only issue. It's a resource issue as well, resources are at a premium right now.

Migration has eased population and exacerbated population.

Trees are renewable - there is no argument against that. If you fell them unsustainably, then that creates issues.

Bodies of African immigrants pile up around sunbathers - Europe, World - The Independent

There's a little glimpse of it.