Overpopulation

1. 72

   lovetherainposted 6 years ago

   Do you think the world is overpopulated? How do we go about dealing with this problem, if it is a problem? How many billions do you think the world can sustain?

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      If "overpopulation" means we can't be fed, no we are not overpopulated worldwide.  Yet. 
      
      But many local areas certainly are!

      replyreport
      1. 72

         lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         How large of a population do you think the world can sustain?

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Double what is there now?  Triple?
            
            Indeterminate question as it will depend, at the highest levels, on what future improvements we can make in food production as well as transportation and politics.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Yikes. People are already living on top of each other now. Even my little town has grown a huge amount since I've been here. Well not a huge amount, but enough to be noticable.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Your town grew?  Mine is reported to be the fastest growing city in the country and has increased by a factor of 10 since 1990.  From around 10,000 to about 100,000.  Talk about "noticeable" - what was a small farming community only 20 years ago is now the second largest city in the state and a metropolitan area!

                  replyreport
                  1. 72

                     lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     that sucks. I'd move if possible.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Actually, my little area is still residential, though even that is beginning to change.  So far I'm OK with it, although when the main road outside my subdivision got an interstate interchange it had a major effect on traffic there.  Also made it very nice for me to get ON that freeway: it's only a mile away and a straight shot down a 4 lane road.

                        replyreport
   2. 81

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      How about another perspective lovetherain... Is it an arrogant thought to even think that we could over-populate the world?
      
      My answer would be yes. I think that when the account is taken, there will always be a balance. Now whether that balance is the work of the Universe, Mother Nature, a Deity, or just the nature of finite life, isn't relevant. Regardless... the end will be balance.
      
      I think our known history of the universe supports the thought that  it could only be our arrogance that even contemplates we would have that power.
      
      In short ... were we to approach that physical possibility, either our own human nature, or one of the above mentioned possibilities will bring us to a balance.
      
      Ha! Now how's that for a  transcendent angle. *And it's not even a martini night. :-)
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 72

         lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         well yeah, either nature will strike a balance, or we will do it ourselves the hard way probably

         replyreport
      2. 89

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I never thought of over-population that way.  Rather it is simply that when we can no longer feed our population and begin to starve to death we are over-populated, just as animals are.
         
         Which we see in various areas of the world where local "over-population" has led to starvation as the people there cannot grow enough food to feed themselves.  As you say, there WILL be a balance struck; nature will do it for us if we don't do it ourselves.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I took her question to be one of global scale, but I think your scope would have the same answer as mine Wilderness. It is just easier to see what returned the balance when seen on a micro level - like a single country or culture
            
            Hell, we could even go up a level of transcendence ... . Can we know that human nature is real, and not just directives from one of those previously mentioned possibilities? :-)
            
            GA

            replyreport
2. 74

   Aime Fposted 6 years ago

   I don’t think it has as much to do with the population as it does with overall consumption. If each individual actually paid attention to what they were eating, using, etc. and rationed it appropriately then “overpopulation” wouldn’t really be a problem, at least not at this point. Eventually you’d run out of space to build housing but look at cities like Tokyo or Seoul and you can see how to jam a whole bunch of people into a pretty small space, so that probably wouldn’t be an issue for quite some time.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Most animals will reproduce themselves into starvation if they can.  While it would take man a long time if we really put our minds to food production, we could still do the same thing.  Eventually living space will compete with food space.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         And we might have a clean water issue before there is a serious food issue as well.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Doubt it.  When we have to we will go nuclear again, providing all the power we need for desalinization.  Or sooner - doesn't Israel get most of it's fresh water from the sea?

            replyreport
      2. 74

         Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I think Soylent Green already solved that problem.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
         2. 72

            lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!!!

            replyreport
            1. 89

               wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Right.  Endless food source from an overpopulated citizenry.  Perpetual motion of the food chain and your living space is food growing space.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Have you ever seen Cloud Atlas? It's close to the same thing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     No.  I'll have to look it up - Soylent Green was a decent flick as I recall.

                     replyreport
   2. 72

      lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That makes sense. I think the US has a lot of room to grow still. But other places, not so much.

      replyreport
3. 90

   MizBejabbersposted 6 years ago

   Everybody keeps talking about food when it comes to overpopulation, but nobody has mentioned water. We are running out of clean potable water. Water levels in aquifers are being lowered at an alarming rate to water crops to feed people. The water in these aquifers are not being replaced at an equal rate. The oceans are being fished out. Whole populations in some areas of the world are already starving.
   
   What about energy? The world's natural resources are not being replaced at a comparable rate. What about oil, natural gas, coal? I'm all for replaceable sustainable natural energy sources such as wind generation, solar, and hydroelectricity, but it appears that the people in power believe that there is not enough money to be made in sustainable energy at this time. When will it be too late?
   
   What about housing? What are all these people supposed to live in? When we cut down the forests to build houses and the rainforests to make charcoal, we are depleting the earth's natural cooling system. Are we going to go back to cutting apartments into the mountainsides like pueblo people and some of the Mediterranean peoples? This provided safe and appropriate housing for their day, but to go back to it would be a societal regression. And by the way, houses being built today with new-growth wood are not lasting very long. We've already had to replace a rotten new-growth wood fascia on a house that we remodeled 10 years ago.
   
   When we run out of resources, where will we get the medicines and equipment to make the sick and injured well; to manufacture the hospital equipment and medical equipment needed? Remember the wars when a scratch could kill a soldier? There's already a move to go back to leeches. Will we be forced to?
   
   Ok, so lets keep on having babies because that's our right as human beings. We can sit around in our ice cold pueblos chomping our raw food (if we're lucky enough to find some) and carrying out our wastes in buckets because we don't have the energy to heat the house and cook the food or the water to run bathroom facilities. If the right to sex and food are the only arguments people can make, then I'm glad I probably won't be around to see this happen.
   
   We have already reached frantic overpopulation. Re:  wars over territory, mass shootings, mental health issues, these are all symptoms of overpopulation as stated in a Popular Science magazine in the 1950s. We had to study the article in my 3rd grade health class, and I've never forgotten it.
   
   As one said, "there will be a balance struck; nature will do it for us if we don't do it to ourselves."

   replyreport
   1. 72

      lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You mention a lot of good points. It is scary , really.

      replyreport