How valid is this argument that the world is not overpopulated?

[Tubby Lardmore]

I grew up hearing on TV documentaries and in public school classrooms that a good number of problems in the world stem from there being just too many human beings. Pollution, scarce resources, even crime are commonly attributed to overpopulation.

On vacation trips I have seen signs saying things along the lines of, “The black-footed ferret was once abundant here. It is now on the endangered species list.”

Or: “Even in the summer emigrants in the 1800s could find ice inches underground in the marsh that was here. Due to irrigation diversions there is no longer ice in this region.”

Or: “The coastal range 80 miles to the west was commonly visible from this ridge until the 1960s, when chronic air pollution made it a rare sight.”

Or: "Evidence of Native American campsites was found near this location. The sites are now under water due to the construction of a dam downstream from here."

Or: “UNLEADED $3.26/GAL”

So I have pretty much bought into the idea that collectively we would be better off if there weren’t so many of us.

The host of the local Christian radio talk show disagrees. He presented an argument that goes like this: If the Earth is overpopulated, there should be a correlation between the population density of nations and the per capita income of nations. In particular, the trend should be that the most densely populated places will suffer especially badly from the ills of overpopulation, driving the bulk of their population into poverty. He claims that he researched tables of data and found no such correlation. He specifically mentioned Hong Kong (a city, not a nation, but I’ll overlook that) and Bangladesh. They both have high population densities compared to the world average, but the former has a laudable per capita income, though the latter does not. He says he could also name low-density nations that have either high or low per-capita income.

How valid of a case does he have for concluding on that basis that our planet is not suffering from overpopulation?

[AthenaAwakened]

Is this preacher on crack? No use in going any further if the man is on crack.

[gargoyle]

The world is not overpopulated - though population control is a good idea for any number of reasons.

There is no correlation between population density and poverty - or at best it is a weak one probably more closely related to large populations in developing nations with labour intensive family agriculture and/or the beginning stages of industrialization. High birthrate bears a much stronger relationship to poverty - for the reasons above.

The main problem the planet suffers from is that we poorly and unfairly/immorally distribute resources. Hong Kong and Bangladesh are fabulous examples of this.

[Tubby Lardmore]

Is this preacher on crack? No use in going any further if the man is on crack.

Well, he does say that Creationism is much more plausible than evolution, so you never know.

[Preno]

First, Hong Kong is a very special case, so it becomes irrelevant on any significant level of generalization.

Second, overpopulation is not dependent only on the density of population. It is about the density of population relative to the number of people that can be sustained by a particular ecosystem. Thus, correlation between density of population and per capita income demonstrates nothing (especially not if Hong Kong, Monaco, and the likes are included).

However, I would agree that most problems are not caused directly by overpopulation. Armed conflict, capitalism, and good ol' disregard for the environment seem to be more prominent culprits.

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a total red herring.

Yes, there is no correlation between population density and standard of living. This means nothing, however, as people affect more than where they live. Living space is a very minor component of the demand a person places on the planet.

We live on about 1/6 of an acre. Does that mean we need only 1/6 of an acre to live on? No way--even with no animal protein you need something like an acre to grow the food you need to live on.

There are two of us here. That means a minimum of two acres. In other words, just for food it's up to 12x the land we actually live on--and we live in the suburbs in a single-family home.

The high density places are mostly apartments and condos. Lets look at where her parents used to live--in one of those high density areas. It's a 28 story building. I would say that the total land per condo was no more than 2% of an acre and that's being generous. Two people were living there. That means they needed at least 100x as much space for food as they were actually living on.

Furthermore, growing food means water. An awful lot of fresh water is already being put to use. The river we get most of our water from doesn't reach the sea anymore.

The city I grew up in had such a "river" "flowing" through it. Most of the crossings across it were asphalt laid right on the riverbed. It was actually cheaper to repair or replace these on the rare occasions the river flowed and damaged it than it would have been to build bridges.

[Laurentius]

In the cases when overpopulation seems to be a risk, I think we can easily see that other problems actually lie at the core of the problem, such as sectarian conflicts, lack of resources, mismanagement, etc.

[exile]

Indeed. I may live on a small plot of land but it takes several acres of Canadian prairie to provide me with bread.

City dwellers live at a high density because agriculture is productive and a transport system exists to bring food products to urban markets. If either of those ceases to apply...... (see Soylent Green)

Also, due to the way world markets work, I can outbid someone living in poverty in Africa to obtain food since I can pay more for a bushel of wheat than he can, having a job that pays more dollars per hour than he can earn in a month. Again, if my local economy collapses due to war or other reasons, this again ceases to apply.

[Trout]

On vacation trips I have seen signs saying things along the lines of, “The black-footed ferret was once abundant here. It is now on the endangered species list.”

Or: “Even in the summer emigrants in the 1800s could find ice inches underground in the marsh that was here. Due to irrigation diversions there is no longer ice in this region.”

Or: “The coastal range 80 miles to the west was commonly visible from this ridge until the 1960s, when chronic air pollution made it a rare sight.”

Or: "Evidence of Native American campsites was found near this location. The sites are now under water due to the construction of a dam downstream from here."


So I have pretty much bought into the idea that collectively we would be better off if there weren’t so many of us.


The radio show host is basing conclusions on bad data and correlations.

However, all of the things you mention above are a result of human choices not direct population pressures. Building a dam, diverting a river, air pollution, habitat destruction, etc are all because of how we have chosen to conduct our lifestyles. It is erroneous to determine that the choices modern, industrial humans have made are the only options and while more humans generally means more cars in our current model for example, that is not a straight cause and effect fact.

We can do many things to help prevent all of those things but we generally do not. This is a symptom of lifestyle not population. Many of us live in medium density suburbs built on good farmland, drive cars long distances, demand excessive water to maintain things like lawns, do not tolerate much in terms of wild animal populations near to us, etc but that is due to choice. If we had never developed lawns and suburbs, built cities on rocks instead of farms, decided to eat grains instead of beef and various other things, our impact on the earth would have been far less.

[psikeyhackr]

I think the degree to which the oceans are fished out is a greater indication of overpopulation than messages you will see on nature trails.

But our lifestyle concepts are a significant factor in the effects of population. Suppose Americans changed their diets and cut meat consumption in half. Would that reduce our quality of life? What would be the effect of not having to raise all of those animals?

I think 7,000,000,000 will be too many but to a considerable degree because of stupid behavior by at least 80% of them.

psik

[PaineInTheBrain]

The preacher is right, in this instance. "Overpopulation" has been an excuse for human suffering for about two hundred years when the idea was advanced by Thomas Malthus. It was BS then, and it is still BS now.

ETA: You don't hear economists advancing this as much these days, but sadly, this has been co-opted by some in the environmental movement.

[Trout]

I think the degree to which the oceans are fished out is a greater indication of overpopulation than messages you will see on nature trails.


If you want to see real and bloody ecological destruction check out some commercial fishing videos. Near totally indescriminate, the kills are huge and the waste is enormous not to mention techniques such as dragging which destroys the ocean bottom leaving essentially sunken deserts.

[psikeyhackr]

The preacher is right, in this instance. "Overpopulation" has been an excuse for human suffering for about two hundred years when the idea was advanced by Thomas Malthus. It was BS then, and it is still BS now.

ETA: You don't hear economists advancing this as much these days, but sadly, this has been co-opted by some in the environmental movement.

Malthus appears to have been wrong because technology pulled enough rabbits out of the hat fast enough to stave off a lot of the problems but it also created problems which were often ignored. How much technology was invented by economists over the last 200 years?

Now if the the technology stops turning out rabbits fast enough or we have some kind of techno-CRASH because of running out of oil or global warming or both we could get Malthusian Doom with a vengeance.

psik

[Loren Pechtel]

The preacher is right, in this instance. "Overpopulation" has been an excuse for human suffering for about two hundred years when the idea was advanced by Thomas Malthus. It was BS then, and it is still BS now.

ETA: You don't hear economists advancing this as much these days, but sadly, this has been co-opted by some in the environmental movement.

Overpopulation isn't an issue?

Rwanda!

[Loren Pechtel]

The preacher is right, in this instance. "Overpopulation" has been an excuse for human suffering for about two hundred years when the idea was advanced by Thomas Malthus. It was BS then, and it is still BS now.

ETA: You don't hear economists advancing this as much these days, but sadly, this has been co-opted by some in the environmental movement.

Malthus appears to have been wrong because technology pulled enough rabbits out of the hat fast enough to stave off a lot of the problems but it also created problems which were often ignored. How much technology was invented by economists over the last 200 years?

Now if the the technology stops turning out rabbits fast enough or we have some kind of techno-CRASH because of running out of oil or global warming or both we could get Malthusian Doom with a vengeance.

psik

Malthus's fundamental issue is true--population growth will eventually outstrip any ability to feed them. Consider how long it would take even a 1% growth rate to make more people than the mass of the universe.

The mere fact that we have staved off doom for now doesn't mean it's not an issue.

What he missed is birth control. We can choose not to get into the catastrophe.

[Nitrousoxide]

The question is, can we eek out enough resources from the planet to support 50 billion people, the number the UN thinks that the population growth will stop at, and then start a downward trend.

[Nice Squirrel]

One human is too many in my opinion.

[psikeyhackr]

The question is, can we erk out enough resources from the planet to support 50 billion people, the number the UN thinks that the population growth will stop at, and then start a downward trend.

I say the UN is out of their F-----g Minds!!! :devil2:

Crap will hit the fan and fly everywhere long before we get to 50 BILLION. :boohoo:

psik

[PaineInTheBrain]

Malthus appears to have been wrong because technology pulled enough rabbits out of the hat fast enough to stave off a lot of the problems but it also created problems which were often ignored. How much technology was invented by economists over the last 200 years?
Malthus was wrong because his entire premise is wrong. Humans do not reproduce at a rate that nature cannot support. It wasn't true when he said it, and it isn't true now.

Now if the the technology stops turning out rabbits fast enough or we have some kind of techno-CRASH because of running out of oil or global warming or both we could get Malthusian Doom with a vengeance.

psik
Or we could get hit by a giant asteroid. Still wouldn't make Malthus right.

[PaineInTheBrain]

Overpopulation isn't an issue?

Rwanda!
Overpopulation is not Rwanda's problem. It exacerbates Rwanda's problems, no doubt, but it is not the cause.

Malthus's fundamental issue is true--population growth will eventually outstrip any ability to feed them.
That wasn't Malthus' fundamental issue; that the population will eventually reach a point of unsustainability is obvious. His point was that the growth rate causes a perpetual state of poverty, due to the inability of production to keep up with growth. From the Wikipedia article on Malthus: "This Principle of Population was based on the idea that population if unchecked increases at a geometric rate (i.e. 2, 4, 8, 16, etc.) whereas the food supply grows at an arithmetic rate (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)." This principle is fundamentally flawed, though many still believe it today.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

The question is, can we eek out enough resources from the planet to support 50 billion people, the number the UN thinks that the population growth will stop at, and then start a downward trend.

The UN claimed population growth will reach 50 billion?

I don't have much faith in the UN, but I know they aren't that stupid. The population of the earth will not go over 9 billion.