Overpopulation

	Email		Print
	Bookmark		Link

Overpopulation

Overpopulation Discussion Forum

A modest proposal

A modest proposal

evasta
1/6/09

This site has some good information, but I think it suffers a bit from that default "impartial scientific observational position". I think a bit more of a sense of urgency is in order. (Though our sense of time is one of the problems in this scenario.)

We?ve already exceeded global carrying capacity. We are now in ?overshoot?. Global population is nearing 7 billion. Different theorists using different methods seem to end up agreeing that global carrying capacity is probably about 2 billion. (This assumes some level of social justice and a moderate, low by US standards, standard of living. More is possible if you accept a cattle car / Matrix-esque "life".)

In any case, we will get to that much-lower-than-7-billion number the hard way (wars, famine, disease, and their accompanying losses of environmental quality, freedom, and social justice) OR the less hard way (immediately and drastically reducing our population voluntarily). Yes, all of us, yes, everywhere. There is no scenario anywhere in which population growth is a "good thing" long term.

If I may suggest a few more resources be added to the list:

First, this list has a gaping lacunae without the classic "Overshoot" by Catton

Online resources I'd suggest include:

Albert Bartlett on the exponential function as it relates to population and oil:
http://c-realm.blogspot.com/2008/12/kmo-interview-with-albert-bartlett.html

Bandura
http://growthmadness.org/2008/02/18/impeding-ecological-sustainability-through-selective-moral-disengagement/

Approaching the Limits www.paulchefurka.ca

Bruce Sundquist on environmental impact of overpopulation http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/

The Oil Drum Peak Oil Overview - June 2007 (www.theoildrum.com/node/2693)

scbrow
1/10/09

You seem to almost welcome a global cataclysm which will reduce the human population to a level that the earth's resources can support.

A more optimistic scenario is one in which technology addresses the inevitable resource shortages. We should put our energies into desalination technology, genetic enginieering of crops, and finding artificial substitutes for nature's resources.

In short, let's think our way out of this problem rather than hoping for the unthinkable.

evasta
1/10/09

Just because I think that all available evidence suggests that a car I'm watching is about to go off of a cliff, in no way means I am hoping the car will go off the cliff ;-)

Please note also that a voluntary reduction in human population is not at all inherently "bad". In addition, it's the only way to prevent (or at this point maybe 'reduce' is the best we can do) cataclysmic human suffering in the future. It's the human suffering that I think is bad.

Optimism is simply not supported by the data.

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/WEAP/WEAP.html

scbrow
1/11/09

Forgive me. It seems that I have mischaracterized your views. You are not hoping for a catacysm, you are instead advocating a global emphasis on decreasing birth rates.

While this approach has obvious benefits, I feel that it epitimizes the optimism you derided in your previous comment.

I would like to reiterate my view that technology is our salvation with an example:

Genetic engineering is in its infancy, yet scientists have already been able to double the growth rate of Pacific salmon.

This achievement is the result of something analogous to uninformed tinkering. As the technology matures, we will see advancements in resource production that are unimaginable by todays standards.

It is not safe to assume that our resource production/utiliation techonology will keep pace with populuation growth, but it is our best hope.

carlo64
4/13/09

Throughout history everytime we tamper to improve lifestyle it really only results with further more involved problems ( mobile phones contraception the combustion Engine).Over population is the direct consequence of capitalism and the "American dream",that is not to say that I'm picking on americans its just that the world economies rely on growth, therefore until we as a world can survive and satisfy our hunger for PROFITS with a different economy model (not communism either)only then will governments stop encouraging population growth. So the answer really is not technology it is not wars its not any of the current theories out there, its THE ECONOMY OF THE WORLD!!