Why is no One Talking about Overpopulation?

[Dezerte]

A path that forces you into a less-options lifestyle is an overpopulation argument.

The biggest threat to our meat consumption levels is developing countries, the poor becoming richer. It could drive up prices on meat if there's a higher demand that cannot be me(a)t.

We'd probably need to do some serious down-sizing of our world population, or that artificial meat needs a breakthrough.

- - - Updated - - -

It wouldn't really surprise me if it was an extension of current systems; there's a huge amount of wastage currently.

Up to one third of all food is wasted according to FAO, so yeah.

[PC2]

The biggest threat to our meat consumption levels is developing countries, the poor becoming richer. It could drive up prices on meat if there's a higher demand that cannot be me(a)t.

We'd probably need to do some serious down-sizing of our world population, or that artificial meat needs a breakthrough.

I agree.

Up to one third of all food is wasted according to FAO, so yeah.

Yes because food is one of the most perishable products.

[Annoying]

Overconsumption how? Shouldn't individuals be free to chose how much meat they decide to purchase then eat?

How much meat individuals choose to eat doesn't just affect those individuals, though. It affects everyone.

Should we be free to heinously pollute the planet? Because raising livestock is pretty good at that. Some argue that they're worse than cars in terms of their emissions -- not even counting the water pollution resulting from livestock. We already have limits on pollution of many kinds, and most reasonable people agree with limits. I don't see what's unreasonable about limiting livestock emissions, either, even though we don't do that. Which means, as an answer, sure, individuals should be free to choose how much meat they eat, provided they can find that much and afford that much. But society as a whole clearly needs a limit on that.

As for the source, there's a boatload of them in both directions, it appears. Real contentious, as some say "we're already past it" and others say "we could feed 10b with what we have right now if everyone was a vegetarian". Many more other differing opinions, like what Endus posted about extending our current systems.

Personally, I don't think the "west" is likely to see much of the increase that's going to get us to 10b. Nearly all of the countries with the high growth rates are developing nations.

[PC2]

How much meat individuals choose to eat doesn't just affect those individuals, though. It affects everyone.

Should we be free to heinously pollute the planet? Because raising livestock is pretty good at that. Some argue that they're worse than cars in terms of their emissions -- not even counting the water pollution resulting from livestock. We already have limits on pollution of many kinds, and most reasonable people agree with limits. I don't see what's unreasonable about limiting livestock emissions, either, even though we don't do that. Which means, as an answer, sure, individuals should be free to choose how much meat they eat, provided they can find that much and afford that much. But society as a whole clearly needs a limit on that.

As for the source, there's a boatload of them in both directions, it appears. Real contentious, as some say "we're already past it" and others say "we could feed 10b with what we have right now if everyone was a vegetarian". Many more other differing opinions, like what Endus posted about extending our current systems.

Personally, I don't think the "west" is likely to see much of the increase that's going to get us to 10b. Nearly all of the countries with the high growth rates are developing nations.

I'm against such authoritarian ideas. Luckily the president and Congress have no such desire to implement meat limitations.

[Annoying]

I'm against such authoritarian ideas. Luckily the president and Congress have no such desire to implement meat limitations.

And I'm against having to have millions of people move away from the coasts. Unluckily the president and Congress haven't done enough. And depending on who gets in next year, they might actively work towards us having to do that.

[PC2]

And I'm against having to have millions of people move away from the coasts. Unluckily the president and Congress haven't done enough.

If there is plenty of natural resources for everyone then they can be sustained at a higher elevation. Is there enough natural resources per capita for that contingency?

[ringpriest]

The Heartland Institute's mission statement is:

"The Heartland Institute’s mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Those solutions include parental choice in education, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."

We have never had a free-market so it is not possible to see what it does to anything.

I never realized the Heartland Institute was located in The One True Scotland - thank you for pointing it out.

[ItachiZaku]

The impending race war will solve the overpopulation issue.

[Osmeric]

Indefinitely, sure. There's quite obviously a max sustainable population. We aren't at it, however. It's estimated to be ~10 billion people where we start having sustainability problems. At current rates, that'll be sometime between 2040 and 2050.

It depends very much on the level of technology available.

The ultimate physical limit for the number of people the Earth could support is around 1 trillion. This limit is set by the need to radiate waste heat to space without the planet becoming too hot. This number assumes food is mostly synthesized rather than grown (which would be a good idea, as agriculture is both hugely inefficient and highly environmentally disruptive.)

[cubby]

It wouldn't really surprise me if it was an extension of current systems; there's a huge amount of wastage currently. The planet doesn't have a food production issue, for instance; there's more than enough food produced for every human on this planet to be fat and happy. The reason there's famine and hunger is that food distribution is an issue, largely for economic reasons rather than logistical ones (if we can get fruit from Argentina here in Canada, then shipping food to destitute regions is totally possible).

That's an interesting point. I read that the biggest single thing that would benefit African nations is a modern road system.

[Endus]

That's an interesting point. I read that the biggest single thing that would benefit African nations is a modern road system.

That and overall economic strength (the two are related). It's why some developing countries are starting to move out of that "developing" status; their economies are surging and catching up to the developed world fairly quickly. The absolute best thing we can do to stifle population growth is pull everyone up to a decent living standard; the one constant factor that pushes population growth is high child mortality rates. It's not economics, it's not religion, it's not culture; you improve child mortality rates so that you don't have to worry about your kids surviving to adulthood, and people just naturally stop trying to have a ton of kids after a generation or two. The costs of supporting those kids becomes more critical than the risk of having them die and leaving you no next generation of your family.

[Therec]

why doesnt the west donate all the local-grown, organic, no preservative food we're wasting to the developing nations who are starving? Give them something healthy rather than GM frankenstein crops?

[Thelin]

How is it a problem? Agricultural production has grown exponentially?

Not to mention with all the "progressives" out there who want to be single and live life till they're 40, we don't have that much to worry about the earth's population getting too high.

Yes Agricultural production has grown exponentially but its not going to be able to keep up. Look at brazil for example, their dedicating most of their available land for slaughtering cattle. Cows also provide a shit ton of methane gas/waste. GMO corn is also a big issue, the majority of corn is the same GMO strand, if something were to happen to that strand it could wipe out everything. We do not have the ability to sustain the way we're growing. Fresh water will also be a problem.

[Tico]

Indefinitely, sure. There's quite obviously a max sustainable population. We aren't at it, however. It's estimated to be ~10 billion people where we start having sustainability problems. At current rates, that'll be sometime between 2040 and 2050.

With this current system and/or consumption habits (as they are related), yes, we are already overpopulated. In 2016, the 'oveshoot day' (when we humans consumed already what the Earth can regenerate in one year) was 8th of August.
Also, take into consideration the rising living standards of regions liek China aod India.

[Malachi256]

Overpopulation has turned out to almost always be a self-fixing problem.

Once you fix the primary political/social/economic problems, population growth rapidly tapers off. Most of the developed world is stable or having conversations about not enough growth.

[PC2]

Overpopulation has turned out to almost always be a self-fixing problem.

The same logic can be applied to Carbon green house gases. The question is should there be a limit on quantity to benefit civilization long-term.