Are We Overpopulated?

The answer is NO! The myth of overpopulation has been perpetuated for some time now, but are we really overpopulated or is it just that certain people in the elite have a not so hidden agenda to remove vast numbers of useless eaters from the planet? I will make a case for the latter.

Everyone has heard that we have now surpassed the 7 billionth number of persons on the planet. And with that information, which may or may not be true, the mainstream media (MSM) is starting to roll out numerous articles about the problem of overpopulation. However, if you've ever flown across the United States or other parts of the world you will notice that we still have vast areas of land that are underpopulated. So how is it that the MSM can continually perpetuate the myth that we are overpopulated? First of all, people are not very smart these days, they tend to believe whatever the media tells them if it is presented on the 6:00 news followed by a PhD at the end of the name. If you can throw in a few think tank studies from some elite group then voila you have your new fact, unquestioned and adhered to by the masses.

Putting aside all the media hype that we are overpopulated, let's look at the facts and for argument sake let's assume that the 7 billion number is correct. The earth has a land mass of approximately 57 million square miles including Antarctica, the Sahara and other uninhabitable areas. In one square mile there are 640 acres. 57 million multiplied by 640 equals 36 billion 480 million acres. 36 billion 480 million divided by 7 billion equals 5.2 acres per person. For argument sake let's just cut that figure down to a round 3 acres per person to account for the unusable land mass.

Sounds bleak doesn't it? It does sound bleak and many a report has taken these numbers and run with it, sounding the alarm and fueling the myth that we are rapidly running out of earth, resources, that the earth is overpopulated and that we must start imposing a Chinese-like solution to the world's overpopulation problem. But before we impose upon the world a lifestyle void of brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles let's just take a step back and think about this right now. Right now we are at the figure I just quoted and yet we don't see hoards of starving people. I don't own any acreage and by some miracle I am far from malnourished and that could be said of the majority of inhabitants on the earth. So what is the deal here?

The reason that some countries are suffering from hunger has little to do with overpopulation and much to do with greed, corruption and war. In history it is rare that whole groups of people have simply starved to death because there wasn't enough resources to cultivate food. However, it is very common for whole nations to starve to death because of war, greed and corruption.

In addition, we do not need 3 acres per person to live well on the earth. I don't live on 3 acres, I live along with 300 other people on a little less than 1/4th of one square city block...and I'm quite happy to be doing so! Not everyone wants to live in a high-rise in Manhattan but not everyone wants to live on 3 acres, in the country, either.

Has this article changed your mind or made you think twice regarding the myth of over-population?

See results without voting

Changes may have to be made. There are quite a few studies that note that topsoil is being eroded due to overuse. However, if we stopped raping the land the way we have through big agriculture (Big Agra) and institute an agricultural system that replenishes the land (like Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms encourages in his books) then we wouldn't have to worry about this. Additionally, the claim is made that the amount of fresh water available for human needs is inadequate but if we were to institute a system using humanure as laid out in the Humanure Handbook not only would we save millions of gallons of fresh water but we would also be using that composted humanure to replenish the topsoil previously mentioned.

So if we aren't running out of land then why is it that all we hear from the mainstream media and elite think tanks is that we are overpopulated? Well, the elite have an agenda. They have had this agenda for sometime now and it is called Eugenics. The elite would like the population to be no more than 500 million as stated in the Georgia Guidestones. They are pushing this agenda through the ruse of environmentalism, climate change and over-population and I must say's working. My answer to those who think that the population is overwhelming the planet is to please lead us by example, cease to reproduce and remove yourself from the planet toot suite!

More by this Author

Comments 60 comments

KeithTax profile image

KeithTax 5 years ago from Wisconsin

There are 7 billion of us now. I think there are too many people for the planet to sustain. Of course, I am not volunteering to step off just yet.

eye-see profile image

eye-see 5 years ago from canada

Spot on Brie!

The elite plan to depopulate is just part of the one world government agenda. Too many people believe what they are spoon fed by the largest propaganda mill on the planet, the mainstream media.

At this point one of the only sources of truth is the internet. Even then it takes intelligence and dilligence to weed out the propaganda there!

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Keith, we are sustaining them now. And we could be extremely prosperous if the unethical, immoral wars were stopped. And, by all means, if you think that way YOU should not procreate.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Amen Eye-See Amen!

randslam profile image

randslam 5 years ago from Kelowna, British Columbia

Isaac Asimov wrote a piece many moons ago in which the earth was overpopulated by THREE billion people. A new novel called The Hunger Games divides North America into 12 starving districts who have to sacrifice their young.

The propaganda of overpopulation is just another populist tool to throw fear at general public.

If we would change our focus from chasing monetary gain and simply become a more focused group of hunter gatherers we would likely see a more balanced approach for all.

Solving the famine-threatened regions' dilemmas around the globe is certainly a priority, but for many westernized civilians the chase for wealth and comfort is a far greater concern.

Education will always be the answer to solving the problem, but experts are less likely to be right in most cases than a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard. We see this with the global economic crisis right now.

Our experts have been wrong...much more than they've been right. These are supposed to be the most educated among us.

So educational institutions need to change their curricula and start educating real solutions to real problems--not just the pursuit of more oil, more natural gas, more gold, more diamonds.

If we could see a more agrarian-centered approach around the world to allow people to grow what they need to survive, medical service to maintain health and a realistic approach to family size--we would see a much calmer planet.

Of course, "utopia" means nowhere in Latin, and Utopian results on a planet that seems to thrive on drama and trauma in the media will not result in reaching solutions to what may be future crises in the menus that can be served to seven billion human beings.

It certainly is a fascinating topic. Thanks for the hub.

A Little TRUTH profile image

A Little TRUTH 5 years ago

Excellent logic and analysis Brie, and so simply put! How could anyone argue it? Apparently the likes of Keith Tax can't, but can only say "I think there are too many people" with nothing to back it up or counter any of the points you made.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks Randslam and A little truth. So many of the "supposed" problems we have are contrived and even the real problems are seldom dealt with honestly but instead are used as a ploy for gain.

Hubertsvoice 5 years ago

I was caught a little off guard by the 7 billion population. It was not long ago that I made a comment about the 6 billion mark. That right there is a lot of begattin', don't ya reckon? It seems that if people spent a little more time planting vegetables and a lot less time begatting, 2 problems might be curtailed very quickly. If that is not a plausible suggestion and the elite disagree. Then the elite who want to reduce the population, should feel free to line up at tables 1-5 and volunteer for the soylent green program. For those that would insist on making me feel old with the question, "what is soylent green?" I refer you to a movie starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, among others, filmed during the stone ages of Hollywood.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Actually, family size has gone down quite a bit. In my own family, my great grandmother had 16 kids, my grandmother had 9, my mother had 2 and I have 1. Sooo it doesn't seem like we are "begattin" very many kids to me.

Topnewhottoys profile image

Topnewhottoys 5 years ago from Salisbury, Maryland

wow - speaking of agendas! A quick read leaves the impression you think the only space we need it what we sleep on. 3 acres per person? Can you even picture a world populated to that ratio.

Sorry Brie - I'm not supporting the "over-populated" theory, but your "catch-phrase" labeling certainly reduced your credibility in my eyes. But then again, that's only my opinion, and the good thing about opinions is that we can all have them.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Ummm, we are at that ratio NOW and I don't know about you but I'm not tripping over people in the stairway!

Hubertsvoice 5 years ago

Brie, I am speaking of a world much larger than there is out side your door or in your hallway. There are many families in the world who have not stopped begatting. There are many families where I live in the Philippines who have 6-7 children the wife is pregnant and there is no income to buy food to feed them. In many areas of the world, Brie, there is staggering overpopulation. Perhaps you should look beyond your stoop.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

I agree that if a couple can't support a large family that they should not have a large family but that doesn't mean that the world is over-populated, there is plenty of land for everybody.

Hubertsvoice 5 years ago

Yes, there is, but open land in Wyoming is not a help to a poor family in India or Africa. There is also the question of growing food. There has to be space for that.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

True but you can grow food in one place and sell it in another...we pretty much do that now too.

Hubertsvoice 5 years ago

Not with the land proportioned at three acres per person. Many people won't even cut there there grass and weeds around their house, let alone raise a garden or raise animals for food. It takes, I believe, 5 acres per 1 or 2 cows to graze and be healthy enough for people to eat.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

That's ridiculous and not true (about how many acres you need per cow). You should read some of Joel Salatin's book about farming. You can farm on as little as 1 acre with all kinds of animals if you rotate the animals and this actually improves the land.

Not everyone needs to grow there own food, we don't have it like that now, no need for that.

Hubertsvoice 5 years ago

Don't believe me or Joel, Google it. As far as growing food it takes space. Joel me, you or anyone else can grow large amounts of food neede for millions of people on 3 acres.

Hubertsvoice 5 years ago

Brie read this Or google How many acres per cow

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Hubertsvoice, WE DO THIS NOW! We are already doing it, so how can you argue with me?

randslam profile image

randslam 5 years ago from Kelowna, British Columbia

There are 1.5 cows per human on the planet. It really isn't a question about acreage, when we're discussing over-population--this is about methane gas and global climate change.

The over-population problem has been present in certain areas as regional populations have fluctuated due to human migration. In White Chapel, during the 1890's--the time of Jack the Ripper, the immigrant zone for London's unwanted visitors, the population of this small suburb was stacked up to 800 people per acre.

It was in this light that Thomas Malthus began to write of hunger and over-population.

The trends today are not dissimilar, as people move to cities from rural areas because they can't make a living or be happy on the family farm because profits made from farming are so low.

Many of the societal issues of murder, rape, hunger and poverty are created by cities of over-population due to desires of the public.

Small towns do not see the violence or hunger, but rather see more contact with neighbors, however, the mundane rural life isn't for everyone and the pursuit of happiness often leads young people to bright lights and over-crowded regions. More recently, towns have become the veins through which the drug trade has flowed through--increased rural drug use is a problem--the kids are bored.

Much of our present crisis is also surrounding diet. Why are there so many cows? Do we really need to ask on a daily basis, "Where's the beef?" The answer is can't help but step in it...when there are 10 billion cattle out there.

A change of diet, a renewed effort by business and government to create sustainable jobs--not Walmart and McDonald minimum wage positions, instead of useless gov't programs that cost billions, human greed by the top 1 percent all indicate the changes needed to the human spirit--business should be responsible to its employees--just as employees are responsible to their business owners. it is a two-way least in successful businesses that continue to exist.

However, the media--including entertainment--needs to see a very real change in educating our planet, instead of informing of recent "spectacular" or "fear-mongering" events to stir up political footballs that will only be kicked about and distract us from real solutions.

By way of example, I can only laugh at the ridiculousness of the "Kartrashian" marriage and divorce--18 million plus in profits just to be watched by millions of people? This is a low point in our societal focus--time to turn on the food network and watch real chefs make incredible food. It might help motivate the hungry ones to go out and build business, learn how to the very least...make mouths water.

Only 7 percent of the land mass on the planet is considered food-producing. So this has been seen as a "hunger" issue, but with that in mind--by polluting this small percentage with natural gas fracking, oil exploration, etc--we could see food issues because of the quality of our produce--it could be turned into poison by the tainted water created by this type of industrial exploration.

There's lots of stuff going on out there--but this money-making focus needs to stop--we can live on less, eat better and concern ourselves with more artistic endeavors.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

I don't even thing that we need to sacrifice anything. If the corporate and government greed would stop we have enough for everyone. It's NOT over-population that is the problem it's wickedness.

Vladimir Uhri profile image

Vladimir Uhri 5 years ago from HubPages, FB

Brie, thanks for good Hub. I would like to add that jealousy and envy is the same sin as greed. It is materialism.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks Vladimir.

sheila b. profile image

sheila b. 5 years ago

Some people just don't like people and wish they'd disappear. We get in their way. And it seems when you have enough money to buy anything you want, killing off half the world seems like fun.

jfay2011 profile image

jfay2011 5 years ago

Yes. And rapidly expanding world.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

True Sheila, very true.

femmeflashpoint 5 years ago

Sadly, I totally agree with you, Brie, and sadly is an understatement.

By the way - that was some impressive math-works you incorporated with this article. A very nice added touch to keep numbers and size in an feasible perspective. :)

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks...but why so sad?

femmeflashpoint 5 years ago

Oh, the sad bit is a recurring condition brought on by mainstream media's maneuvering of the masses. Nothing to worry about. When I feel overwhelmed and frustrated with it, I read breakfastpop's articles and I cheer right up. ;)

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Oh too. At least we have this and a few other forums that we can speak the truth on.

Stacie L profile image

Stacie L 5 years ago

Just drive on the L.I.E. on any workday or Friday afternoon...ugh!

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 5 years ago from Manhattan Author

Yes certain areas are congested but if you drive an hour or less away from those areas you'll find acres and acres of land.

ArtzGirl profile image

ArtzGirl 5 years ago from San Diego

Agenda 21 plays in with this Depopulation Plan. The best resource that I've found is Michael Shaw. Here's one of his videos on this topic:

QualityContent profile image

QualityContent 4 years ago

The fact is we could build giant skyscrapers with small apartments and totally transform our concrete hell holes we have today into self sustaining cities with everything we need.

Enough food can be produced inside these self contained cities for everyone. No one would starve. Overpopulation is a myth. It's the monetary system and the way we live currently that is causing these problems.

Humans are not the problem, OUR SYSTEM is.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author

Amen QualityContent Amen!

I'll go a step further..anyone who thinks that humans are the problem should lead by example!

Vladimir Uhri profile image

Vladimir Uhri 4 years ago from HubPages, FB

Brie, Bravo.

LGrey profile image

LGrey 4 years ago from Alabama

Wow. I am really enjoying your hubs. I read the hub, and just skimmed the responses s I am not sure if this has been said. I agree that we aren't over populated. I think we just use our resources wrong. It doesn't make sense to burn up fuel transporting food from one side of the country to the other. If every town was responsible in growing and maintaining their own food for their own citizens there would be plenty for everyone and cut down on the use of oil. Anyway, I will say it once again. I am enjoying your hubs. I am glad I found them.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks L Grey, I agree with you however the likes of Monsanto and General Foods will most likely never allow such common sense! Thanks again for the kinds words.

Larry Fields profile image

Larry Fields 4 years ago from Northern California

Hi Brie. I agree with you 100%. One more detail.

When certain conditions are met, including non-corrupt government, a country will go through a Demographic Transition, in which the population naturally levels off, without Big Brother coercion, and without mass starvation. For example, the Japanese birthrate is now well below replacement levels.

Voted up.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 4 years ago from Manhattan Author

Thanks Larry and thanks for the vote up.

Larry Fields profile image

Larry Fields 3 years ago from Northern California

Hi Brie,

One more thing. I like to compare the population alarmist cult with the Heavens Gate cult. Even though suicide may have nasty consequences in the next world, I have more respect for the deceased HG folks. At least they were willing to put their lives on the line for what they believed in.

In contrast, the population alarmists believe that the truly draconian measures that they advocate are always for other people, not for themselves. Did you know that 40 years ago, Paul "Population Bomb" Ehrlich was talking about poisoning water supplies with anti-fertility chemicals? The alarmists are not nice people.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 3 years ago from Manhattan Author

The alarmist are definitely NOT nice people, they WANT 80 or 90% of the population dead. Thanks for commenting.

A Little TRUTH profile image

A Little TRUTH 3 years ago

Larry, they ARE poisoning the water/food supplies with anti-fertility and other chemicals. Please use a filter - even for the shower!

Neuendorffspeaks profile image

Neuendorffspeaks 3 years ago from Old West End Toledo, Ohio

I believe that seven billion people now, nine billion by 2050, are too many when we think about the fact that most of the world's population does not have the life styles and "things" that a small portion of the world now enjoys. Billions of people currently "exist" on $2 per day without adequate water, food, clothing, and shelter.

Even then we are destroying the environment, decimating ecosystems, and driving many species to extinction. Your argument that most folks only use a small piece of the planet does not explain where the food, shelter, clothing, and things come from that they are using to exist on their small piece. Very few individuals are self sufficient anymore. The necessities of life are mined, produced, processed, created, shipped from a space and impact a space bigger than your apartment or house.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 3 years ago from Manhattan Author

Most of the things that we mine, produce, process and create are not necessities. There is plenty of space..anyone who thinks that the world is overpopulated has not traveled much. If we are destroying the environment then we should focus on stopping that, not blame overpopulation.

gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 2 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

Yes, the world is overpopulated. The earth simply cannot reasonably sustain the present number of people. People have to be educated regarding contraception and birth control must be rigorously enforced. The number of children a couple should have is 1-2 children as a replacement. To have more than 2 children is utter foolishness. Those who willingly have large families should be penalized.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

"Gmwilliams" have you traveled much?

tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 2 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Forget if she has traveled, how about has she read anything? Try this from the NY Times opinion page

And there are so many articles you can find debunking the overpopulation "myth" it makes you wonder how it even got started. Oh that's right, liberals, the elite don't need facts to launch policies, just good intentions.

poetryman6969 profile image

poetryman6969 2 years ago

If everyone is brought up to a western standard of living the problem takes care of itself. Very few middle class western women want to have 16 children.

Sue Adams profile image

Sue Adams 2 years ago from Andalusia

My article on Manila, one of the world's most overpopulated cities in the world, confirms that the problem is not so much overpopulation as over condensation of population.

The question is:

Would a couple of acres of land per family fill up the globe?

Mathematician co-hubber Ngureco came up with this answer which exactly coincides with your figures Brie:

"Area of earth’s land is 150,000,000Km².

The world’s population is 7,000,000,000 people.

If you divide global land area by number of people, each person should get 0.0214Km². One square kilometer is equal to 247.11 acres. Therefore, 1 person should get 0.021 x 247.11 = 5.2 acres.

If you have a husband/wife and two children, then, your family should be entitled to 20.8 acres.

Are you having your rightful share?"

No need to live in Antartica if each family rightfully owned their due share of 20.8 acres of land when actually 2 acres would suffice.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Interesting indeed, I think the whole over-population thing is just a smoke screen for eugenics.

Thanks for stopping by Sue.

CharlieCCgirl 2 years ago

What about building tall vertical structures that house hydroponic style gardening systems and that would solve a lot of the problem with land we need to grow crops, which is a large portion of our agricultural land consumption? The same could technically be done with grazing animals like cows, but lets just assume that it can't be and that they do need horizontally portioned land to feed on. A significant amount of the land needed to grow food and raise animals that we eat is still lessened because we would no longer be using such an ineffective way of growing crops. At our level of technology, there are plenty of innovative solutions to solving the land usage issue. As far as land per person, remember, we can build up, and we can also build into the sky, and into the universe. Why are we only worried about soil-based earth? Also we can build cities into the ocean. Fish don't need acreage. They need water. Why not properly farm raise fish in the vast amounts of water we've got on earth alone? And wild game like deer don't' require dedicated acreage. They graze and feed on the land already provided without requiring it to be sectioned off. Such a shame...we as humans limit ourselves. Most of the technology needed to make such a system work already exists. Also, I think a system like this would be much less stressful on the environment than what we do right now.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

That isn't the problem, there are solutions like you mention. The issue is that there are people out there who want to get rid of 90% of the population and they are using the ruse of overpopulation to further their goals.

CharlieCCgirl 2 years ago

Yes, I understand this. But the way that they are using overpopulation to further their goals is by keeping most people ignorant of what solutions there are. Most people wouldn't have thought of any of this. Therefore, it is important for people to know what solutions there are, and get them thinking about new ones. As I was reading through the comments, I didn't notice anyone really speaking on any of this. Our innovation and curiosity as well as simply questioning things (which we are being taught not to do) will be what destroys the illusion of overpopulation. Now that I have said all of this, hopefully other visitors to your hub will see it and it will give them something to think about in addition to all the other information on your hub.

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

I agree, thank you for your contribution.

Hendrika profile image

Hendrika 2 years ago from Pretoria, South Africa

You make a lot of valid statements here, but I cannot agree with you whole heartedly. I do agree that corruption is one of the major problems, but also that the population growth is a problem.

We have to take into account the masses in Africa (I stay in South Africa) Unless they can be moved to a place where there is more space Africa is going to remain overpopulated. It is no use people reproducing simply for the child support. Lots of areas that are seemingly usable is in fact not.

Here in South Africa, for instance, in the Karoo you need VERY big farms to sustain the possibility of farming, the land is dry and has no grass and is only suitable for sheep and needs very huge areas per sheep to to farm sustainably. Simply making the sums like you looks very impressing, but unfortunately there are a lot of variables that has to be taken into account

Buildreps profile image

Buildreps 2 years ago from Europe

Good subject. It depends how you look at it. I agree that our planet is not overpopulated if we live on our planet how life is meant to be - close to nature without eating meat. The current overproduction in the agriculture that is around 50% could house at least 15 billion people. At least if they live close to nature without eating animals. There lies the only solution.

MikeNV profile image

MikeNV 2 years ago from Henderson, NV

What is a sustainable number (assuming resources were allocated equally)? Quality of life is the real issue. Existing just to exist makes little sense to me Do we have too many people under the current monetary model of distribution *YES

If we changed the model, how many could lead good lives?

Brie Hoffman profile image

Brie Hoffman 2 years ago from Manhattan Author

Most people don't need much to live happy and productive lives. I certainly don't.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article