Why Isn't the Population Problem on the News?

[DRTY]

Just wandrin.

It seems mind blowingly obvious that in about 50 years we'll all be royally FUCKED.

Surely we'll all be starving to death and homeless?

I don't get how we could possibly keep reproducing at current rates without completely fucking ourselves over.

Just seems odd that it's never mentioned to me.

[badger]

because it's not a story that will sell; and it's as simple as that. it doesn't fit into any of our current fear narratives and nor is it something that anyone will be willing to legislate about in order to solve the problem. no party is going to win an election if they try to do anything about overpopulation by imposing limits on children born so it's largely an issue that's swept under the carpet and ignored in favour of other scares that may well be a far smaller problem but a problem that people actually want to hear about

[DRTY]

shit.

[magma]

because it's not a story that will sell; and it's as simple as that. it doesn't fit into any of our current fear narratives and nor is it something that anyone will be willing to legislate about in order to solve the problem. no party is going to win an election if they try to do anything about overpopulation by imposing limits on children born so it's largely an issue that's swept under the carpet and ignored in favour of other scares that may well be a far smaller problem but a problem that people actually want to hear about

Yep.

[hackman]

cos there is no problem

[DRTY]

cos there is no problem

how you figure that?

we're going through exponential growth, the earth has limited resources, it's basic maths fundamentally

[dreamizm]

Look into tax takes and State Pensions.

[hackman]

"The world is NOT over-populated. More than 97% of the land surface on Earth is empty.... Yes, certain cities are over-populated, of course. Yet the entire population of the world could fit inside the state of Arkansas. So, then, how is the world 'over-populated'? Europe and Japan will be facing under-population crises in the coming decades, even according to UN studies on population." -- Anthony C. LoBaido

[hackman]

"The world is NOT over-populated. More than 97% of the land surface on Earth is empty.... Yes, certain cities are over-populated, of course. Yet the entire population of the world could fit inside the state of Arkansas. So, then, how is the world 'over-populated'? Europe and Japan will be facing under-population crises in the coming decades, even according to UN studies on population." -- Anthony C. LoBaido

[lloydnoise]

dunknow exponential function
over population will be shit

[DRTY]

"The world is NOT over-populated. More than 97% of the land surface on Earth is empty.... Yes, certain cities are over-populated, of course. Yet the entire population of the world could fit inside the state of Arkansas. So, then, how is the world 'over-populated'? Europe and Japan will be facing under-population crises in the coming decades, even according to UN studies on population." -- Anthony C. LoBaido

The problem isn't about space though, it's about resources and food.

The Earth could continually sustain about 4.5 billion people, we currently have about 6 billion (I think), this is exponentially growing.

You can't grow food in alot of places, and there's not enough energy.

[badger]

"The world is NOT over-populated. More than 97% of the land surface on Earth is empty.... Yes, certain cities are over-populated, of course. Yet the entire population of the world could fit inside the state of Arkansas. So, then, how is the world 'over-populated'? Europe and Japan will be facing under-population crises in the coming decades, even according to UN studies on population." -- Anthony C. LoBaido

depends what you mean by overpopulated really. does it just mean too many people for the land available? too many people for the land that is productive for food? or just too many people for the amount of resources available? (be that for the area they are in or even for the planet as a whole)

just because there's spare space for people to live on; it doesn't mean that they will actually be able to survive on it

[james fox]

the entire population of the world could fit inside the state of Arkansas.

it's an eye-catching statement, but what does it actually mean? overpopulation is a question of resources rather than physical space.

Europe and Japan will be facing under-population crises in the coming decades, even according to UN studies on population.

i think a more accurate statement would be that 'europe' (bit vague, no? clearly written by an american ) and japan will have a growing disparity between old people and young people, proportionally speaking; this doesn't really link to over- or under-population though, does it...?

or, what they ^ said.

[magma]

The Earth could continually sustain about 4.5 billion people, we currently have about 6 billion (I think), this is exponentially growing.

Just past 6.8Bn according to http://www.census.gov

[DRTY]

The Earth could continually sustain about 4.5 billion people, we currently have about 6 billion (I think), this is exponentially growing.

Just past 6.8Bn according to http://www.census.gov

holy moly

[alien pimp]

The Earth could continually sustain about 4.5 billion people, we currently have about 6 billion (I think), this is exponentially growing.

You can't grow food in alot of places, and there's not enough energy.

said who?
the same people working on terraforming the moon or mars? maybe those are more welcoming places for naives, hope they'll go there when they will be sold some bullcrap like this

[karmacazee]

Are we overpopulated, or are the resources of the world unfairly distributed, causing an illusion of overpopulation? Right now, it's the latter, IMO. In the future, I think it will be a problem.

Look at modern agriculture. During the 20th century farming practices changed dramatically, resulting in high yielding crops, cheaper food, and less people going hungry by using many new techniques, such as inorganic fertilizers, tilling, growing only one crop per field (monoculture), Chemical pest control, genetic engineering and so on.

As these new agricultural practises became more widespread, so did the economic practises that came with them. Farmers became increasingly dependent on the industries that supply the products that make farming what it is today (tractors, pesticides, fertilizers, genetically modified seeds), and so the companies tightened their grip on them - I'm looking at you, Monsanto.

When it became apparent that many of these agricultural techniques and practices were causing degradatiob to the soil, damaging eco-systems, leaving themselves open to pest outbreaks and a slow rise in food prices, the supporting industries and companies further tightened their grip, as they didn't want to lose the vast and lucrative business they had acquired. Instead of researching, developing and implementing new organic standards of farming, rock dusting, and ecological/ecosystem farming , they continue to export these damaging techniques to places that are totally unsuited to that kind of farming, such as many parts of Africa and the Amazon rainforest, where the soil is already poor.

This results in rich countries buying up land in poor countries, growing food for export (not for the people working the land), using damaging techniques, and then moving on to the next useable bit of land once that one is defunct. The people and the environment of that land don't benefit in any way except to get a measly wage.

Not to mention the way food is traded and exported/imported, and the tariffs and prices they impose on farmers (UK farmers are one of the poorest classes in Britain) but I'm not too clued up on the politics of it all, so I won't get into that.

I'm not saying every company do it, the Co-operative is setting quite a good example, (buying up organic farms, and being the biggest Fair trader in the country, I believe), but many, many food companies are very guilty of exploitation, damaging countries, people and ecosystems, all for a bit of profit. (Take a look the United Fruit Company and the Banana industry as one example.)


I remember reading somewhere that humans account for something like 40% of the production of photosynthesis on this planet, an astounding figure if it's right. It means that we have a huge responsibilty not to fuck it up, because if we do, then overpopulation really will be a huge problem, just in terms of food. There isn't much room for error there, and if the population continues to expand and we can't figure out how to maintain a food/population ratio, either via technological and ethical advances in agriculture, or by some sort of consenting population control, or both, then we'll be doomed.

If there really was an overpopulation crisis, then many people would perish, thus resulting in a natural reduction of numbers, and it would even itself out. Not sure if it's worth the suffering of millions though. Or, we'll continue raping the earth, and we'll completely fuck it up. Hopefully that won't happen. Or, maybe, just maybe, we'll figure it out and achieve a balance of some kind. How likely that is, I don't know.


Apologies for such a long post.

[alien pimp]

Are we overpopulated, or are the resources of the world unfairly distributed, causing an illusion of overpopulation? Right now, it's the latter, IMO. In the future, I think it will be a problem.

Look at modern agriculture. During the 20th century farming practices changed dramatically, resulting in high yielding crops, cheaper food, and less people going hungry by using many new techniques, such as inorganic fertilizers, tilling, growing only one crop per field (monoculture), Chemical pest control, genetic engineering and so on.

As these new agricultural practises became more widespread, so did the economic practises that came with them. Farmers became increasingly dependent on the industries that supply the products that make farming what it is today (tractors, pesticides, fertilizers, genetically modified seeds), and so the companies tightened their grip on them - I'm looking at you, Monsanto.

When it became apparent that many of these agricultural techniques and practices were causing degradatiob to the soil, damaging eco-systems, leaving themselves open to pest outbreaks and a slow rise in food prices, the supporting industries and companies further tightened their grip, as they didn't want to lose the vast and lucrative business they had acquired. Instead of researching, developing and implementing new organic standards of farming, rock dusting, and ecological/ecosystem farming , they continue to export these damaging techniques to places that are totally unsuited to that kind of farming, such as many parts of Africa and the Amazon rainforest, where the soil is already poor.

This results in rich countries buying up land in poor countries, growing food for export (not for the people working the land), using damaging techniques, and then moving on to the next useable bit of land once that one is defunct. The people and the environment of that land don't benefit in any way except to get a measly wage.

Not to mention the way food is traded and exported/imported, and the tariffs and prices they impose on farmers (UK farmers are one of the poorest classes in Britain) but I'm not too clued up on the politics of it all, so I won't get into that.

I'm not saying every company do it, the Co-operative is setting quite a good example, (buying up organic farms, and being the biggest Fair trader in the country, I believe), but many, many food companies are very guilty of exploitation, damaging countries, people and ecosystems, all for a bit of profit. (Take a look the United Fruit Company and the Banana industry as one example.)


I remember reading somewhere that humans account for something like 40% of the production of photosynthesis on this planet, an astounding figure if it's right. It means that we have a huge responsibilty not to fuck it up, because if we do, then overpopulation really will be a huge problem, just in terms of food. There isn't much room for error there, and if the population continues to expand and we can't figure out how to maintain a food/population ratio, either via technological and ethical advances in agriculture, or by some sort of consenting population control, or both, then we'll be doomed.

If there really was an overpopulation crisis, then many people would perish, thus resulting in a natural reduction of numbers, and it would even itself out. Not sure if it's worth the suffering of millions though. Or, we'll continue raping the earth, and we'll completely fuck it up. Hopefully that won't happen. Or, maybe, just maybe, we'll figure it out and achieve a balance of some kind. How likely that is, I don't know.


Apologies for such a long post.

no need for apologies, after the first phrase i trusted without reading

[DRTY]

The Earth could continually sustain about 4.5 billion people, we currently have about 6 billion (I think), this is exponentially growing.

You can't grow food in alot of places, and there's not enough energy.

said who?
the same people working on terraforming the moon or mars? maybe those are more welcoming places for naives, hope they'll go there when they will be sold some bullcrap like this

What I'm saying is that it's going to be a problem in the future, not right now.

No one is terraforming Mars or the Moon?!?! Humans haven't reached Mars, and we've only tip toed on the moon...... but aren't you someone who believes we haven't been there anyway?

I don't understand how people can deny that overpopulation will be a problem, it's shockingly obvious. It happens all the time on smaller scales.

[BaronVon]

because it's not a story that will sell; and it's as simple as that. it doesn't fit into any of our current fear narratives and nor is it something that anyone will be willing to legislate about in order to solve the problem. no party is going to win an election if they try to do anything about overpopulation by imposing limits on children born so it's largely an issue that's swept under the carpet and ignored in favour of other scares that may well be a far smaller problem but a problem that people actually want to hear about

This
and
this
<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>