World over-population

[Someone here]

The issues of the world being over-populated must have been on the mind of quite a few of us for some time. Some may contest that, given what we can do to mitigate, the world may not yet be over-populated. Some may argue that present over-population may not be detrimental if it can be overcome by upcoming technological advancement. Be that as it may, most of us hold the notion that abhorrent over-population is here to stay.

Regional Distribution is a relevant issue to be tackled. If there are too many in Nigeria, but too few in Norway, is that not a problem since the density can be averaged out. No, it cannot because there are equally-important parallel issues involved. In this respect, a regional problem is a world problem at this point in time. But why now? Why cannot localized over-population not be solved locally without bothering those outside? Because we have reached the stage historically when one local problem cannot be kept under wraps without spilling over to the rest of the world around it. Witness the immigration wave suffered by Europe from the Middle East.

I can see four factors in over-population:
1. Space
Comfort Zone is a basic demand by all organism. Limited space imposes limit on the volume of accommodation. Technology can help to some extent, like layering by multi-story development, which will stress on resources below.
2. Resources
Limited resources like nutrient and water can only sustain so many. Again, technology can help to increase resources, but such improvement cannot be allowed to outpace population increase.
3. Quality of life
Overpopulation would be the case if it serves to lower the quality of life which you should reasonably expect, like peace and quiet, serenity, open space, no pollution, and so on.
4.Nature
Natural disasters like forest fire, earthquake, drought, and so on have served as nature's rather cruel way to keep the balance. We cannot be blamed to improve our hygiene and medication to reduce early death, but in so doing we are also fighting against the balance, by counter-measures like birth-control.

[Preety_India]

Overpopulation is the biggest and the worst epidemic of the 21st century. 

 

[Someone here]

10 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

Overpopulation is the biggest and the worst epidemic of the 21st century. 

 

Yes.
And we could do something intelligent about it, except for three obstacles:
religion, politics and economics
four, if you count the inherent specific mental illness

[Preety_India]

Just now, Someone here said:

 if you count the inherent specific mental illness

What specific mental illness? 

 

[Someone here]

2 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

What specific mental illness? 

 

Having unprotected sex and manufacturing childrens a ton .Social media has made birth rates plummet, if 3rd and 2nd world countries become 1st world countries with AI and robots that can help the countries to better status, then i'm sure it will greatly help the problem of overpopulation

[Yarco]

Elon Musk says there aren't 'enough people,' birthrate could threaten human civilization
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2021/12/07/elon-musk-declining-birthrate-threatens-human-civilization/6414749001/

Elon Musk says population collapse 'potentially the greatest risk to the future of civilization'
https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/565224-elon-musk-says-population-collapse-potentially-the-greatest

Elon Musk says ‘civilization is going to crumble’ if people don’t have more children
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/07/elon-musk-civilization-will-crumble-if-we-dont-have-more-children.html

I still haven't been able to figure out what his rationale is behind these statements. I don't know if he's elaborated on why society will crumble if people don't have more kids... is it just the fact that capitalism is a pyramid scheme that requires more and more people to support social security, etc for the previous generation, GDP line needs to keep going up to maintain quality of life? It's not even about becoming a spacefaring civilization. He seems to think this even if we stay earthbound. 

Just a counter-point to consider I guess, when at least one smart guy is saying the opposite.

[max duewel]

In my opinion, things will get much worse but eventually, the population will naturally decrease and then stabilize. 

[BadHippie]

That´s one perspective. You need more than one in order to even make sense of things.

There are scientists saying we could hold up to 30 billion people on the planet. It probably wouldn´t be too comfy, but possible. 
It´s all about living in harmony with nature. The whole agribusiness is fucking up the planet. There are crazy alternatives to the way we do agriculture now.

We have the technology to change things.
We have the people who want things to change.
Yet most people are locked in time & space by fear.

I´m not sure about this overpopulation thing. I didn´t read the studies saying that we are nearing the limit. But did any of you? Did you guys check the methodology? The assumptions? And so on?
Isn´t it more about a limited mindset? If it´s possible to change things locally, it´s also possible to change things globally. 
 

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by BadHippie

[Hardkill]

If we manage the environment of the whole better then over population of humanity won't be a concern for humans.

[BlueOak]

Yes. Its the magnifier for all issues, thank you for starting this thread I will keep it book marked and go back to it time to time. Its a sensitive issue and one nobody wants to talk about. Economic impact and civil rights being the two biggest roadblocks.

The shrinking distance between populations allows things like viruses to spread easier, and their impact to magnify from urban density through mutation and strain on a particular area because of the ease of infecting many people in a short perioid. People can adapt to most things but the quality of life you get living in a small room shaped box is much worse a feeling than you get in a wide open room, or a building with a garden to sit in. Fuel costs, resources being used, pollution, crime rate, environmental damage and decline, war over land etc everything is increased in dense urban centers and rising population levels. Health issues and the strain on health services is also magnified, traffic, queues, heat, and stress levels are up for example.

There is no easy answers I can see. Welcoming gay communities more and more openly in life, is a step in the right direction as that directly impacts population, and something some species do in nature to curb the biological drive if food is low. So a large gay population is ultimately good for our species right now. Encouarging people to stick with one or two kids in a gentle way, like having these kinds of discussions openly and more frequently is another for example. Again naturally species have less kids if there is less food or space.

The biggest change will come when people, their governments, their businesses, and you all reading this take responsibility for our world. For all the species we no longer have, and all the medicine, insights, companionship, or life we can no longer gain or share with them, All the impacts we have and all the decisions we make. I have hated responsibility, it was a harsh word growing up, used in the same sentence as punishment in school, at home, on the TV or at jobs. I resisted when I saw people trying to redefine the word to not be completely linked to things like punishment at first.

We need to educate and raise people that want to take responsibility, not are burdened with or worse hit over the head with it as a punishment. This is slowly changing and that is good.

We need to reinforce that actions are more important than immediate results, and that has been another mountain for us to climb, avoiding the instant gratification that the 80s really pushed hard, and still lingers today. People need to know and act like what they leave when they die, is just as important as when they were living here. If you can work that last one out and how to do it, great, you've help solve the problem.

Edited February 16, 2022 by BlueOak

[Someone here]

Yes, sure, when one looks at the absolute numbers, higher populated areas contribute more, but they contribute far less per capita, which goes to show where should the warning flag be raised more eagerly. And your numbers account for China's 23% as a contribution of the developing world, that is, the contribution of the country that in 2017 stood as the largest economy in the world, surpassing the US in 2014 for the first time in modern history, becoming the world's largest exporter in 2010, and the largest trading nation in 2013. Interestingly, China's population growth rate is only 0.39% (down from 2% in 1955), a tendency that does not correspond to its historical growth in CO2 emissions. Because it is not a direct relation between emissions and the number of people, but between emissions and economic activities. And looking at the cumulative CO2 emissions, there's no doubt that it is not the poor people in Bangladesh to blame for the planet's pollution, but North Americans and Europeans.

this case, I see no major amount of guilt landing on religion, unless you count the near-global religion of Predatory Capitalism? Religions have done many bad things in the past, and will probably continue into the future - for as long as it lasts - but I don't think they've contributed to our over-consumption of the Earth's resources any more than any other human social grouping.

The core problem is not population per se, but consumption. While it's obvious that more people = more consumption, it's also the case that poor people (those who have yet to maximise their own consumption) consume a huge amount less than rich people, per capita.

The problem is consumption, and it began with the Industrial Revolution. These days, the primary cause of consumption is American Predatory Capitalism, and all that goes with it (e.g. continuous-growth economics). We cannot rid ourselves of it, like CoViD-19, so we will die of it.

[Tim R]

It's not the population that is a problem, it's the way we waste ressources and in so doing wreck the planet. We could easily handle 10B people. 

[Someone here]

Just that, when you look at reality - actual reality, not just social froth and bubble - there are far too many of us and far too few other mammals for sustainability or for sanity. Humans are a "rich diet", so to speak - endlessly complex and coercive. The excess of these attributes with the loss of animal qualities such as innocence and the capacity to mind one's own damn business are driving humanity insane.

Look at the news over the last decade. People are going nuts, becoming ever more aggressive and angry. This is not happening due to a shortage of humans. Logically, once a society is building tall apartment blocks to store the multitudes, then they are already overdoing it in terms of sustainability and livability.
 

[Tim R]

20 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Logically, once a society is building tall apartment blocks to store the multitudes, then they are already overdoing it in terms of sustainability and livability.

I don't know, I think that's like bee hives or something, not necessarily unnatural. 

[something_else]

I don't think it's overpopulation that's the problem... More exploitation of the planet and greed.

The predicted peak population of the world right now is around 10 bil and coincidentally the estimated carrying capacity of Earth is also like 9-10 bil

Obviously these are estimates

But also, think about it: there isn't really anything about a larger population that's inherently problematic. We have an excess of food, water and space, it just so happens that these are not really distributed very fairly/evenly

[Someone here]

37 minutes ago, something_else said:

I don't think it's overpopulation that's the problem... More exploitation of the planet and greed.

The predicted peak population of the world right now is around 10 bil and coincidentally the estimated carrying capacity of Earth is also like 9-10 bil

Obviously these are estimates

But also, think about it: there isn't really anything about a larger population that's inherently problematic. We have an excess of food, water and space, it just so happens that these are not really distributed very fairly/evenly

Demanding higher quality of life is what causes lower birth rate among fertile couples. Information, knowledge, and accessibility are more important than education as far as lowering birthrate is concerned. The quality concern on potential child-bearing couples is extended to their offspring on education and nurture. Overcrowding in urbanization may only have marginal influence on birth rate. Witness the birth rate in Sweden, where no overcrowding occurs, and compare that with Hongkong.

Incidentally, what a state and its economy want is often not satisfied by its people. Replacement birth-rate and that for a growing economy are ignored as a matter of course. One-child policy is doomed except by fiat in the short term. Incentive like bonus and public housing provision for large family causes no more ripple than a thrown stone on the pond. Thus it would be futile to urge or blame a government like Nigeria for not having an effective birth-rate control policy.

Over-population is a debacle which we have to suffer long and patiently, but it will come, peak, and pass in due course. Can we afford to wait? We can take remedial measures, but wait we must.