Why is no One Talking about Overpopulation?

[PC2]

The issue is that "overpopulation" is basically a nonsense word. It's inherently subjective, since it expects that there is a "proper" population level, and we're over it. No such population level can be objectively determined. In terms of resources, we're well under the planet's capacity, and not even distribuing our current resources very well because they're so plentiful. In terms of space, we've still got plenty, particularly as urbanization is ongoing, leading to greater population densities in those cities without actually hugely increasing our infrastructural footprint. And so on.

All the things nanook12 is trying to tie to population actually has some other actual cause. And some of them are just flat-out not issues in the first place, like inflation rates.

There can be objective measures. Such as the amount of arable acres needed so that everyone can have a diet similar to what middle class Westerners currently consume. And that includes meat, forcing future people to go vegetarian is not helping the population argument.

[Endus]

There can be objective measures. Such as the amount of arable acres needed so that everyone can have a diet similar to what middle class Westerners currently consume. And that includes meat, forcing future people to go vegetarian is not helping the population argument.

This is kind of a silly standard, since it assumes that livestock are being fed food that humans would otherwise be eating. In many cases, particularly with animals like cows, they're eating stuff we can't eat, and converting that into A> manure for fertilizer, and B> edible meat.

[PC2]

This is kind of a silly standard, since it assumes that livestock are being fed food that humans would otherwise be eating. In many cases, particularly with animals like cows, they're eating stuff we can't eat, and converting that into A> manure for fertilizer, and B> edible meat.

This isn't addressing the argument that there is a limited amount of arable acres for each food type.

[greysaber]

Because it isn't a problem? There is a veritable crapton of land across the world that is uninhibited along with natural resources up the wazoo. The issue isn't overpopulation, the issue is that the land and resources are controlled by a teeny tiny percent of people. The issue isn't the number of people. It's distribution of wealth.

you're an idiot.

almost all of Earth's arable land is under cultivation

the issue is fresh water, and no desalinization is not a fix

as a trump supporter, I am all for encouraging the 3rd world to STOP FUCKING NOW.

why can't we sterilize the 3rd world? serious question.


[Infracted - Flaming]

[Endus]

This isn't addressing the argument that there is a limited amount of arable acres for each food type.

Well, define "arable acres", because if you're defining it as "productive farmland", that's a self-fulfilling prophecy; that farmland only BECAME farmland by taking non-arable land and making it arable. It's like saying we can't house a growing population because there's only so many houses and apartments, ignoring that we can build more.

And the point extends to livetock. A crop rotation system often involves leaving a field fallow for a year or more, and in that time, it can serve as grazing pasture for livestock, who contribute manure back to boot. If livestock were that inefficient, we'd never have been so successful at domesticating them and making them a major component of agriculture in the first place. Sure, I disagree with growing so much corn you feed the pigs, cattle, and chickens corn as well, but after you harvest or eat the kernels (which is what people eat), the stalks and leaves and cobs are all edible by those same pigs and cattle. Stuff we can't eat, being converted into stuff we can; that's what livestock do.

And that's without pointing out we're opportunistic omnivores, and meat is a pretty significant component of a healthy human diet.

[Deathquoi]

Another nanook12 thread based on his studies in freshman biology and philosophy.

I invite anyone who thinks overpopulation is the scourge of the earth to take the first step in combating it.

[PC2]

Well, define "arable acres", because if you're defining it as "productive farmland", that's a self-fulfilling prophecy; that farmland only BECAME farmland by taking non-arable land and making it arable. It's like saying we can't house a growing population because there's only so many houses and apartments, ignoring that we can build more.

And the point extends to livetock. A crop rotation system often involves leaving a field fallow for a year or more, and in that time, it can serve as grazing pasture for livestock, who contribute manure back to boot. If livestock were that inefficient, we'd never have been so successful at domesticating them and making them a major component of agriculture in the first place. Sure, I disagree with growing so much corn you feed the pigs, cattle, and chickens corn as well, but after you harvest or eat the kernels (which is what people eat), the stalks and leaves and cobs are all edible by those same pigs and cattle. Stuff we can't eat, being converted into stuff we can; that's what livestock do.

And that's without pointing out we're opportunistic omnivores, and meat is a pretty significant component of a healthy human diet.

The population is 7.5 billion. Lets say it goes up to 8 billion, can all of them enjoy a diet similar to the current Western statistics? If the finite arable land can support that then great, if not, there is a natural resource per capita problem.

[Endus]

The population is 7.5 billion. Lets say it goes up to 8 billion, can all of them enjoy a diet similar to the current Western statistics? If the finite arable land can support that then great, if not, there is a natural resources per capita problem.

Again, define "finite arable land". The current agricultural landscape is mostly all used, yes. But the same goes for housing. If we need more, we can make more. We aren't in a position where we can't create more new farmland.

And this is also ignoring that "arable land" isn't even a requirement; vertical urban farms are already a growing trend.

[Phookah]

Because overpopulation is a myth. The earth population is plenty sustainable for a LOT more people, and growth is slowing down to begin with anyway.
Non-issue is a non-issue.

[PC2]

Again, define "finite arable land". The current agricultural landscape is mostly all used, yes. But the same goes for housing. If we need more, we can make more. We aren't in a position where we can't create more new farmland.

And this is also ignoring that "arable land" isn't even a requirement; vertical urban farms are already a growing trend.

No we cannot create significant amounts of new farmland at a reasonable cost. You are merely betting on a scifi future that requires futuristic amounts of energy and fresh water.

[dwightyo39]

I find it weird that some folks consider me to be the selfish one, because I do not intend to have children. By not creating sex trophies to use up more resources, I'm the bad guy.

[jellmoo]

you're an idiot.

Nope. I am not.

almost all of Earth's arable land is under cultivation

Nope. Not even close.

the issue is fresh water, and no desalinization is not a fix

Nope. There is an insane amount of fresh water available. Between Brazil and Canada alone, there's more fresh water than the world needs by a huge order of magnitude. The issue is where the water is located, and who owns it.

as a trump supporter, I am all for encouraging the 3rd world to STOP FUCKING NOW.

Ah. That explains it...

why can't we sterilize the 3rd world? serious question.
[Infracted - Flaming]

Moving away from how morally reprehensible the notion of forced sterilization is? How about the fact that Trump would lose his cheap labour for his shitty products?

[chazus]

Birth rates are actually below death rates in most countries. So, we're dying quicker than we can repopulate.

"Most countries" are usually small, low population, or wealthy countries. Many european countries have negative rates.

Places like Africa, Middle East, US, and South America have much higher positive rates.

-20% rate in some 100 million population country doesn't offset +300% 1.2 billion population of India

[zealo]

Because overpopulation is a myth. The earth population is plenty sustainable for a LOT more people, and growth is slowing down to begin with anyway.
Non-issue is a non-issue.

Essentially this. With current birth rate trends, we've already gone past the peak child population point, and humanity is expected to cap out at about 10 billion.

[nanook12]

This isn't addressing the argument that there is a limited amount of arable acres for each food type.

Endus fails to acknowledge that much of the earths surface is either completely arable land or non-economically feasible for aeration. He is stacking the earths resources and land surface as a whole without realizing that it is not possible to farm corn on Antarctica, nor is it economically feasible to farm corn in a desert due to heavy, and rising, costs of water transportation. Yes, the earth has plenty of resources to support even more people, but many resources are locked under mile deep glaciers, are non-arable due to geographic location, or simply too expensive to extract. He still doesn't factor in that human beings are a greedy species that pursue over excess and are not going to share equally, we need wiggle room for our resources because we all want to live satisfying lives and consume more than we actually need. Even further Endus doesn't account for land that needs to be used for power generation such as solar and wind which take up heavy area footprints and use resources to be built and maintained. Roads for transportation are another thing that take up a lot of surface area that he doesn't account for. He doesn't account for recreation areas, nor does he account for places for animals to live such as wildlife sanctuaries which also take up a lot of land. He doesn't account for shopping malls and and all the other modern convinces we enjoy that soak up footprint area and resources themselves. His analysis is unrealistic.

There is a massive amount room and resources left for people if we want to wipe out all infrastructure and technological advancement and basically live as cavemen again. So who is ready to give up your modern comfortable lives and go shit in a dirt hole so that we can make room for more people on this planet?

- - - Updated - - -

Essentially this. With current birth rate trends, we've already gone past the peak child population point, and humanity is expected to cap out at about 10 billion.

Essentially no.

- - - Updated - - -

Because 9 out of 10 times it devolves into shit like this:


That's why we're not talking about it.

So your opinion is we just slam straight into resource limitation and start killing each other. Such a better plan.

[PC2]

Nope. There is an insane amount of fresh water available. Between Brazil and Canada alone, there's more fresh water than the world needs by a huge order of magnitude. The issue is where the water is located, and who owns it.

Surplus fresh water far away from most uncultivated arable land only emphasizes the limitations of that natural resource. Also deforestation in places like Brazil is mainly due to farmers increasing acreage. So if you want more consumption at any cost, that is what you'll get.

[Canbie]

Neither of these things are issues. The distribution of wealth is simply what you arrive at within a society that doesn't arbitrarily assign resources (be they necessary or unnecessary) to people regardless of their contributions. Wealth isn't and shouldn't be wholly 'distributed', it should be earned based on merit, which is ultimately what happens within a true capitalist society and is why such a system works; because rather than being based on how some idealists think mankind 'should' behave, it instead is based off of how mankind does behave.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this...

[Berengil]

Again, define "finite arable land". The current agricultural landscape is mostly all used, yes. But the same goes for housing. If we need more, we can make more. We aren't in a position where we can't create more new farmland.

And this is also ignoring that "arable land" isn't even a requirement; vertical urban farms are already a growing trend.

Endus, I'm shocked that you of all people would be against bringing population growth under control.

In his book Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth, Alan Weisman quotes a Mormon woman in an audience he spoke to as saying " There isn't a single problem on Earth that wouldn't be easier if there were fewer people."

A Mormon woman.

Eventually, no matter how technologically tricky we get, the Earth will not be able to hold us all, at least not in a lifestyle people would find tolerable. Not to mention the habitat destruction and mass extinctions a world of twice the population we have now would see.

[Polygons]

Why haven't we made space hotels and terrariums yet?

[nanook12]

Endus, I'm shocked that you of all people would be against bringing population growth under control.

In his book Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth, Alan Weisman quotes a Mormon woman in an audience he spoke to as saying " There isn't a single problem on Earth that wouldn't be easier if there were fewer people."

A Mormon woman.

Eventually, no matter how technologically tricky we get, the Earth will not be able to hold us all, at least not in a lifestyle people would find tolerable. Not to mention the habitat destruction and mass extinctions a world of twice the population we have now would see.

Just because someone wears a moderator tag doesn't mean he or she is better than anyone else at making logical arguments. That would be the appeal of authority that Endus tried to pin onto me in another thread.

Endus: "Their job titles is not evidence of anything, other than that they're employed somewhere. That's not how "evidence" works. What you're doing is an appeal to authority fallacy, not making a claim based on evidence."

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...ob-Outsourcing