Talk:Overpopulation/Archive 1

Demographic transition

<marquee>HI!</marquee>

Many critics point out that, in the absence of other measures, simply feeding the world's population well would only make matters much worse, quickly causing the population to quickly balloon to absolutely unsustainable levels, and resulting in mass famine, disease and other human misery on a scale unimaginable even today.

....although in fact, within a generation after the standard of living and life expectancy starts increasing, family sizes start dropping: the demographic transition. That's why every estimate of maximum global population since the 1960s, when the "population explosion" became a worry, has been significantly lower than the previous estimates. Popularisers of overpopulation doomsday like to quote the famous overcrowded breeding rats experiment: feeding rats might make their populations balloon, but human beings aren't rats, and don't breed like rats - the ecologist Paul Colinvaux points this out very readably in Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare, and The Fates of Nations. Interestingly, the Limits to Growth computer study of the early 1970s, amongst other counterfactual elements in their model, assumed that people will have more children as their standard of living rises. They actually have less; Western European population would now be steadily declining if we didn't have any immigration. Malcolm Farmer

Something like the above should be incorporated into the article, since there's clearly more than one POV on the subject. Wesley

• Done. -- April 10:19 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

Past predictions

I'd like to see something about the various major predictions made during, say, the years 1850-2000 about overpopulation. In particular, has anyone ever predicited that rising world population would lead to famine or fuel shortages? The article could compare those predicitions with what actually happened later.

I recalled dimly that a few major predictions garnered worldwide attention and even some political action, but that each of these predictions was far off the mark. I'd like to see some hard facts to enlighten the gloom of the musty dungeons of my mind... --Ed Poor

Even Malthus was way off. I don't like the tone of this article, which seems to have the same element of despair to it as discussions on global warming with those not ascribing to doomsday scenarios labeled "optimists". The human race has been finding ways to innovate and combat unwarranted overpopulation concerns for 300 years. This article should have a corresponding tone: this was a viewpoint in 1745, this is how it was resolved, 1803, how it was resolved, 1880, etc. --Jd147703 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It also seems kind of silly that only one article has a linked rebuttal, and one that is presented in such a blunt tone as to imply that Bjorn is an idiot.128.211.174.100 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Birth control

I wonder why in an article about overpopulation there is no mention of birth control.
It seems to be a crucial point. Some governments tried (or are trying) to fight overpopulation with forced (or dishonest) sterilization. On the other hand the official Catholic church views on birth control in effect are likely to foster overpopulation and poverty in developing countries.
Another point is influence of the current AIDS epidemics on overpopulation trends.

"are likely to foster overpopulation and poverty in developing countries. " - except that those same predictions have failed over and over again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.174.100 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Status of women

I wrote the initial page here. I dispute the allegation that simply enhancing the standard of living depresses population growth. I think it's been demonstrated that this happens ONLY when the status of women is high in the society. When women are second-class citizens in a highly-patriarchal society, just the opposite happens: population balloons. See Population Politics by Virginia Abernethy, PhD.

A comparison of fertility rates in Italy and Sweden [1] suggest Italy is alleviating overpopulation more than Sweden due primarily to greater gender inequality and fewer social services, similar findings from the same source relate to Japan, Russia and Estonia. First and second world effects of social services and gender equality on overpopulation appear to be the opposite of those found in the third world. Alan Ditmore

Explain Iran, which many view as patriarchal, yet has a declining birth rate.

Doomsday predictors

And, as far as the doomsday predictors, I have several points: 1. They were seldom wrong in principle. They simply did not anticipate the technological advances and geographic expansions that made further population increases possible. 2. The expanding populations over the past couple of hundred years have resulted in environmental degradation that's quite beyond the capacity of most people to comprehend. People who don't understand what HAS happened look out at the world today and see what they think is a healthy world, and they're unaware of the scale of damage that's already occurred. 3. Doomsday scenarios are already here, and are already going on and have been for quite some time. I can point to many disease, famines, wars, environmental disasters and the like that are directly linked to overpopulation, especially over the past fifty years, and they're getting worse. The evidence is present and current.

John Knouse

Thanks for explaining that, John. And welcome to Wikipedia!! Please tell us more about overpopulation, famine and environmental degradation -- especially as it relates to the status of women (equal to men vs. second-class) and technological advances. Another factor is political/economic system, e.g., famine deaths in North Korea and forced collective farming. Oops, I didn't mean to tell you how to write the article, I'm just listing some factors of personal interest. Please tell us anything you'd like! :-) --Ed Poor

No, the doomsayers were not right in principle. Their predictions were based on the false idea that people are only consumers. The truth is that people produce and consume. In countries with freedom, capitalism, and property rights, people produce more than they consume. The comparison of capitalist South Korea to communist North Korea is the best example. China's switch to collective farming cause famine. When China switched back to private farming, the famine was eliminated. Zimbabwe used to be self sufficent in food production. But then President Robert Mugabe nationalized the farmland and created a famine. Before the 19th century, petroleum had no value. It was a nuisance that got in the way of people who were digging water wells. It was only after someone with a brain invented a way to use the petroleum that it acquired any value. Today's trillion dollar silicon revolution is based on something that's found in rocks everywhere. A "natural resource" has no value until someone with a brain invents a way to use it. Our most important resource is information, and this is a resource that can only get bigger. The doomsayers do not understand this, and that is why they keep making their predictions that will never come true. --grundle2600

Famine and diseases really has NOTHING to do with overpopulation. It has to do with the very unequal distribution of wealth in the world. Capitalism leads to starvation and is the evil that might end all life on this planet. But thats a different topic I guess.

Capitalism does not cause famine. Capitalist countries grow plenty of food. Famine is caused by communism - see the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Ethiopia for examples. --grundle2600

I thought I saved the world by redirecting the POV-Monster-written "Population explosion" page here. Boy I was wrong, this is blatanly not NPOV. -- Rotem Dan 11:12 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Starvation is not rampant in America, and was only close too it during the Great Depression. On the other hand, Russia, North Korea, etc, very communist states, had rampant poverty and starvation. Maybe using logic would work better?

Capitalism encourages hard work. History has shown that with all the failings of capitalism, it is the system that has worked the best to alleviate suffering.128.211.174.100 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Malthusian catastrophe history

The article states:

Over the two hundred years which followed, Malthusian catastrophes have overtaken numerous individual regions.

Can you please give some examples, with cites? Karada 11:21 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Whatever for? History is littered with examples, and they are to be seen right now in action. Looked at Mauritania lately? Or Sudan? Or indeed any of the countries where population control by mass starvation is a regular thing. PS: please do not be misled by the placement of a heading in the middle of a sentence a while back. I have corrected that. It would be good to discuss some examples in this entry, of course. I've got far too much on to take this article onto my to-do list anytime soon, but as it stands it's a disgracefully lightweight entry for such a major issue, and I hope tht someone will take it on board and expand it. Tannin

OK, that's two examples. This article would benefit by expanding on them, with cites to WHO statistics, etc. Actual facts are always better than assertions. What about Amartya Sen's theories of famine? Karada 11:48 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I agree. It's far too short and light on detail.

Alas I am knee deep in work right now, so we will have to hope for another volunteer. I haven't read Sen and only know of him by reputation. I'm not sure that this article would be the best place to go into his work, but (if in doubt) I always say "write it to start with, and then figure out the best place to put it when it's finished and you can see what shape it's in". So by all means, write it up. I'll read with interest. But first .. I have to get some sleep. Tannin

Whooah there Karada. You now have the article defining "Mathlusian catrastrophe" as "mass death by famime", and then saying "there have been lots of mass deaths by famine but maybe they weren't Mathlusian catrastrophes because a Mathlusian catrastrophe is a mass death by famine, but these were mass deaths by famine. Tannin

Hi- The simple fact is that there are presently more people on the earth than ever before. Yet they have more food, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortality and morbidity rates, food and resources are cheaper and more plentiful. And this is despite the fact that in the 20th century we saw loss of life in wars and genocide on a previously unimaginable scale, and major (policitcally caused) famies: China, Russia, various parts of Africa, as well as some good old plague and pestilence (Spanish influenza springs to mind). So there have been plenty of "Maltuhusian events"- but population continues to grow and there is no sign that it will stop anytime soon. There is no shortage of food or anything else....simple conclusion: Malthus was wrong. Still- at least he had a theory. He may have been right- but he wasn't. Science and technology (in food production, medicine and health- as well as things we take for granted such as packaging and refrigeration) have progressed far beyond what Malthus or any other mind of his era could have imagined....[JK]

Overpopulation is not a theory

RD: Overpopulation is not a "theory". Overpopulation is a condition or a phenomenon. There is no theory about it. The question is not "can there be such a thing as overpopulation?" Of course there can. It doesn't matter how much food you can produce on the planet, because for any amount there is a number of people such that it is insufficent to feed them all. (Overpopulation is not just about food, of course, but that will do as an example.)

The question is "do we have this thing called overpopulation", or "are we going to have this thing called overpopulation?"

There are theories about population and overpopulation, but the thing itself is a theory only in the same sense that other abstract concepts like "length" or "weight" are "theories". Tannin

Yes I know, checked other encyclopedias google, etc.. I'm no scientict (check out my summaries), be bold, correct it.. I have been awake for 26 hours weeee :) (check out my contribution-list if you don't believe) -- Rotem Dan 13:24 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Done. -- Rotem Dan 13:37 21 May 2003 (UTC)

A population is a fact, i.e. a number. "Overpopulation" (as well as "under population" and "optimal population") is a socially constructed theories. It's not a natural phenomenon like a hurricane or erosion, but rather an interpretation of population data, i.e. a theory. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think 'overpopulation' could be defined as a function of time, where 'overpopulation over time T within region X' is defined as the size of the population (assumed constant in perpetuity) that lives within a specific geographical region X, and that at or prior to T it will experience forced population decreases due to limited resources despite the population's best efforts and reasonably likely technological advances. So for example, when X = Earth and T = 1 year, overpopulation is not a concern (it may be within some subregions, but not for Earth as a whole - its population is in fact steadily increasing). Within this framework, I think that 'the pesimists' tend to be concerned about X = Earth and T = 100 years or more whereas the optimists are more focused on T = 10 years or so. They could both be right. It is in a sense like smoking: if I smoke for one year, the likelihood that I will die of cancer is deminimous; however, if I smoke for 25 years, it becomes a likely cause of death. There is, of course, the issue of whether anybody alive today really cares about what will happen many decades after they are gone. That is a bigger question that I have no answer for - I would just hope that they do.

Definitions

I think we need to change the definition here. A quick Google search on animal overpopulation gives over 40,000 hits. Most deal with spaying or neutering your pet. Rmhermen 13:44 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I think the ambigious term "overpopulation" and "population explosion" is overused:

• A City is said to be "overpopulated" (e.g. tokyo)
• Dogs, cats et al are "overpopulating" the streets (nice, let's sterialize/eliminate them)
• humans are supposedly "overpopulating" the world
• School classrooms are "overpopulated" (yes it's used around israel, at least)
• china, india are "exploding"
• everything that looks crowded is "exploding"
• a 5 room apartement with 6 people is "overpopulated"
• a 5 room apartement with 9 people is "overpopulated"
• a 5 room apartement with 12 people is "exploding"
• etc. etc.

Excellent example of using language as a way of extracting pitty and sentiments from others, no insight for an encyclopedia (what's on the dictionary is enough for a definition) -- Rotem Dan 16:07 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Moved list of cities

I moved the list of cities to population density: high population density is not necessarily overpopulation (consider an anthill). I was in New York and London recently: no signs of mass starvation in either as of the time of writing. The Anome 14:13 21 May 2003 (UTC)

True, overpopulation is not synonymous with overpopulation. But for example, Tokyo or NYC is sure overpopulated no? -- Taku 14:20 21 May 2003 (UTC)

But: people choose to live in these places, in preference to the surrounding lower-populated areas where there is also abundant economic activity. Surely if they don't like it, they wouldn't live there? The Anome

I am not sure what you mean. Population density is a simple measure that can tell you the city is in the condition of overpopulation. What's wrong with stating Tokyo is overpopulated? -- Taku 14:41 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, the definition of overpopulation in the opening paragraph is a situation when the population of a given area is greater than the surrounding ecosystem can support. If Tokyo's ecosystem is able to support its population, i.e. it's not running out of food, water, air, etc., than according to that definition it's not overpopulated. On the other hand, it's conceivable that a village of only 50 people in a remote desert may be overpopulated if the limited availability of water and plants will only support a village of up to 30 people. Such a village would be overpopulated, although its population density would be very low. Does this make sense? Or is the definition of overpopulation in error? Wesley 14:48 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Tokyo, or New York, or most other cities, are overpopulated by this definition. They all require massive inputs of food, water, and power from outside, removal of waste, etc., otherwise the people would be quickly overrun by starvation and disease. Graft 15:39 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Now I see. (To be honest, the opening paragraph doesn't make sense at all to me). I think the trouble is either we talk about overpopulation with Darwinism or simple social issue, in other words, context problem. My definition of overpopulation is a social issue, so overpopulation is in other words, simply too much people. See it's not neither density nor mere number of people. Overpopulation becomes a huge social issue because it causes

• lack of housing or any other place (the same trouble with high density)
• trouble with transporation
• deteriation in life standard

-- Taku 14:57 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Most people talk about overpopulation in terms of resource strain - housing and transportation don't come into it. People don't give a shit that there's a million homeless living in cardboard shacks in Bombay, they are worried about the fact that all these people are eating and defecating, and thus are using up precious resources. Graft 15:39 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying overpopulation is not an issue of housing or transporation? -- Taku 15:53 21 May 2003 (UTC)

No, i'm saying it's not treated that way. Most frequently it's treated as an issue of food (see above), i.e., "There's too many people to feed!", or resource consumption, i.e., "We are running out of trees, gas, and arable land to support all these people!". I.e., overpopulation is not treated as a problem for the, err, overpopulating, but for everyone else. Or, anyway, that's how I read it, when people in the first world complain about third-world overpopulation - "those damn brown people are using up our precious resources". Maybe I'm just a bitter, bitter man. It might be nice if it were treated the way you took it, but I don't think that's how most people who write books and such on the subject look at it. Graft 15:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't agree with the allegation of racism in this statement. Many people are concerned about overpopulation in countries and ethnic groups not their own, not on account of self-interest, but instead on account of the global interest or the interests of the countries in question. It does not profit the people of Niger that they have over 7 children per mother; it seems to profit the people of China that they have highly effective birth control. Procrastinator supreme 14:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Consecutive sentences

I think that the consecutive sentences on The Limits to Growth and Global warming are potentially misleading without clarification. IIRC, in the early 1970s at least as many people feared that potential further gains from the Green revolution might be threatened by cooling as by warming. -- Alan Peakall 17:00 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Decrease and education

Anyone have references to the studies that population growth decrease has the greatest correlation to the level of education in an area?

Moved this

There are some examples from history suggesting that when population pressures become too great, the results may, indeed, include war, famine, epidemic disease, and environmental devastation. On the other hand, in many other cases countries with large populations relative to their resources, such as Japan and the Netherlands, have achieved high living standards with limited immediate environmental impact.

I took this paragraph out - no examples are given, and Japan and Netherlands have nothing to do with US immigration policy. Mark Richards 16:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Sierra Club

I'm afraid that the references to the Sierra Club may end up in a POV dispute that would require a lot of extra text to resolve. To avoid overburdening the overpopulaiton article with a tangential issue, I suggest reducing that graf to a sentence simply mentioning that the issue has come up in the Sierra Club. The person who has been making the changes won't get a username, so it's hard to discuss the matter. Willmcw 09:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Sierra Club reference, as currently written looks NPOV to me. Leaving out the fact that the Sierra Club was on record on the issue prior to 1996 would falsely imply that immigration reductionists are outsiders and the immigration debate is a new one within the Club. Kaibabsquirrel 04:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The implication is that because it was the position in 1996 that it the position that the Sierra Club has always taken. To clear that up means adding more history about policy changes within the club. And if you want to get into identifying the people who have been involved in the issue, well, then we're talking about another few hundred words. Nobody wants to get vote counts from elections in an article like this.

This is an article about overpopulation in general, and tangential issues shouldn't overwhelm the main topic. For this article it's probably sufficient to write that environmental groups across the world agree that overpopulation is an environmental problem, that there is disagreement within and between organizations on how to integrate that issue into their missions, and that the Sierra Club in particular has changed its policies over time and may do so again. If you think that civilization needs a detailed description of the Sierra Club elections then that should go in its own article. Willmcw 04:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it probably should be shortened to a one-sentence mention. Done. Kaibabsquirrel 06:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Willmcw 18:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rockefeller Commitee

What about all the research the Rockefeller committee did back in 1972... Did a complete study on how over populated we were, with suggestions. Problem is though that this would increase the controversial nature of this article, tie it into Aids_Reappraisal, and mean we would need a Rockefeller Committee page, and well there have been a couple dozen or so 'committees' on different things.

In the end they recommended many new policies, research, open birth control policies etceteras.. But, the research used to come to these conclusions may be pertinant to this topic.

Will wait for feedback before I do any damage :)

Committee's Recomendations The full report from the Minnesotans for Sustainability MaxInux 08:04:20 Apr 8 2005 (PDT)

Citing an over 30 years old study is uninteresting. Much new data has changed projections. The UN projections has constantly been lowered as more new evidence has emerged that birth rates are falling all over the world. Regarding Aids, it is a horrible disease, but it affects to few victims to have any large effect on overall world population growth, even if it can have a large effect in some countres. Ultramarine 15:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While this is all quite true, but the evidence sited then made bases for many things today that are now researching it. It was the outcome of this committe that caused the UN to look into it at all. So it is relevant IMHO, but this is why I posted here rather than in the article itself. MaxInux

Ultramine- please do not delete the "food supply" topic.

You may have been well-intentioned, but it seems that you misunderstood the concept.

The theory that population is a function of food supply is not "another version" of a Malthusian theory, it is in fact the opposite of Malthus' hypothesis.

Malthus stated that one day, population would 'fly away' from available food- even if the available food remained constant- resulting in shortages of resources. In this manner, Malthus views food and population as two INDIPENDANT VARIABLES.

There have certainly been 'Malthusian Catastrophes' in the past and present. However, these only happen when a food supply FAILS the population that it was origionally supporting. There has and will never be a Malthusian catastrophe in which a population skyrockets in the midst of resource (food) scarcity--- because every population is MADE out of the resources it consumes. The "No food, no people" link works BOTH in the growth and decline of populations.

As it turns out, populations can no more 'escape' their food supplies any more than a car can 'escape' the need for gasoline. This is why the theory of population and food supply is new: it suggests that populations themselves can be DEPENDANT variables.

I'm going to repost the topic, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't delete it again on the grounds of 'redundancy'. If you'd like to talk about the differences between this theory and those of Malthus, I'd be willing too. Perhaps these might help clarify the differences for you between these ideas:

'The Opposite of Malthus' (Jason Godesky) 'Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply' (R. Hoppfenberg, D. Pimentel)

Clarification of theory

"Food production has outpaced population growth, meaning that there is now more food available per person than ever before in history. Studies project that food production can continue to increase until at least 2050. Using modern agricultural methods, FAO has predicted that developing countries could sustain a population of 30 billion people [2] (http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/perspectives/youdecide/pop/overpop/2yes.html). At the same time, world population is predicted to voluntarily stabilize at 9 billion. [3] (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm)."

This is a counter to a Malthusian argument, which is not the premise of this theory.

Malthus stated that food production would eventually not be able to keep up with population.

The Pimentel/Quinn theory states that if food production is increased, population will increase. As quoted, world food supply is increasing, as is world population. The fact that population is declining in the First World distracts from what is occuring on a global scale.

Population is declning in several nations with abundant food supply. Regarding the global scale, population growth is declining while the amount of food/capita is increasing. The theory is falsified. Ultramarine 15:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is true that birth RATES are undoubtedly decreasing. Nevertheless, food production is increased every year hand in hand with the global population- which grows by 80 million people annually. Even the most conservative estimates of population plateauing indicate the global population is going to increase for another half century, at least. To 'falsify' this theory, a population must be observed growing amidst a lack of food, an ecological impossibility.

Another factor that is not being accounted for is that in developed nations, weight-control is a multi-billion dollar industry. Fewer people are consuming MORE calories, per-capita. Development of a society leads to a reduction in population growth, while contributing to an increase in population girth. KevinHFeeley 02:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Food production has outpaced population growth, meaning that there is now more food available per person than ever before in history. Studies project that food production can continue to increase until at least 2050. Using modern agricultural methods, FAO has predicted that developing countries could sustain a population of 30 billion people [2] (http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/perspectives/youdecide/pop/overpop/2yes.html). At the same time, world population is predicted to voluntarily stabilize at 9 billion. [3] (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm).

Talk about missing the point. Your statistics have nothing to do with this theory, and should be posted as counter arguments to Malthus, who predicted that food PRODUCTION would one day level off. This is not relavent to the food-availabilty theory, which I suggest you actually read. It's OBVIOUS that food production will outpace population, because populations can ONLY grow if their food supplies grow, as proven biologically. History shows that EACH TIME the food supply is increased to a population, the population responds by a mirror increase. To understand this point of view of this theory, it helps to look at global population trends, instead of those of countries, which are really arbitrary divisions into sub-populations.

Here is how an economist might see the theoretical issue. Population is an endogenous variable in a labor market model, where parents reproduce themselves in the form of their children. In equilibrium, the reproduced factor must be of a size at which the marginal cost of reproduction ( marginal cost of childraising) is equal to the marginal benefit (return from investment in childraising/ marginal productivity of labor). In Malthus, there is no technical change in childraising (they are not raised with more costly education and associated consumption of educated children) so that the marginal cost of childraising remains at the old level. In equilibrium, the number of children must increase to the point where the marginal return (marginal wage of new labor) is equal to marginal cost. If the available quantum of cultivable land increases in this scenario, it will simply be absorbed by increasing the number of workers, since the workers are unable to work more land per person under the unchanged technology. To have more land per person, one must increase the cost of childraising as well as productivity of labor so that now, fewer adult workers can work the same amount of land or a worker can till more land than before. In reality, economic development occurs by expansion mainly of non-food product. The number of children per family declines, but each child is raised at greater cost, and each child is more productive. The farm sector also undergoes technical change so that food output per farm worker goes up too. The bulk of the increase in output comes from technical change such that the same land has greater yield and the trained worker can till more land.Gani 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Food production has outpaced population growth?

As can be seen very plainly from the table below if China (with it's one child policy) is left out of the equation more people were malnourished in 1997-1999 than in 1990-1992.

If the 2 'no data' points were filled in, it would have been seen calories were less also.

Yes I know the PERCENTAGE went down. What that means is that a billion people could be hungry and if that was out of a total population of a 100 billion the percentage would be 1 percent.

My bet is that the billion who are hungry would not think the percent made much difference to them.

I gave references for this table to abide by the Fair Use Doctrine since it's source is the United Nations and it was on the internet I assume it's okay.

Region/Subregion	Total Population (in millions)		Per Capita Dietary Energy Supply (kcal/day)		Number of people undernourished		Percent undernourished in total population
	1990-92	1997-99	1990-92	1997-99	1990-92	1997-99	1990-92	1997-99
DEVELOPING WORLD	4,050.0	4,5655	2,540	2,680	816.3	777.2	20	17
DEVELOPING WORLD excluding China	2,8805	3,311.7	no data	no data	623.7	660.9	22	20

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2001. Food Insecurity: When People Live With Hunger and Fear Starvation. The State of Food insecurity in the World 2001. Italy: FAO.

Couldn't this table be used as one of Mr. Knouse's references?
Lee Wells 01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would you exclude China... Isn't that the same as excluding Sub-Saharan Africa? Exclude this region and the improvements would be more dramatic. But what would be the point?

Also, it probably makes sense to see a little longer time period as is shown in a more recent (2005)report from the same source that you cite - FAO see - http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0050e/a0050e09.htm#P2_50

Here is some info from that article - "At the global level, the long-term trends for many food security indicators have been positive. The world total calorie supply per person has grown by 19 percent since the mid-1960s to reach 2 804 kcal/person/day in 2002, with the developing country average expanding by more than 30 percent. As consumption has increased, diets have shifted towards more meat, milk, eggs, vegetables and oils and away from basic cereals. The number of undernourished people has declined over the long run, although progress has slowed in recent years (Figure 38). The prevalence of undernourishment in developing countries fell from 37 percent of the total population in 1969-71 to 17 percent in 2000-02 (Figure 39). "

The longer term term trend in the percentage of undernourished is very positive -

--Jdeely 02:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Positive if you use precentages what are the TOTAL NUMBERS? You obviously don't understand the problem if you asked why I left out China. The one child policy obviously lets food production catch up with population.
10:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"About 21% of the earth's land is arable. In the past, 160 acres (650,000 m²) of farm land crops fed one person"

For how long and in what capacity? The amount of food that could feed a person comfortably for a month could theoretically be rationed to keep a person alive for year in less comfortable conditions.

   Yeah, something's pretty far off with that statistic. I have no idea what the actual figure is, but I can't 
   imagine any time where it would take 160 acres to feed a single person, even just foraging for wild plants.
     --Julesa 17:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

the "Soylent green scenario"

Some references about overpopulation in movies and science fiction could be made.

optimist's viewpoint

I just replaced references to Buckminster Fuller and Barry Commoner with a reference to Bjorn Lomborg in the section on optimist's viewpoint. In "Critical Path," published in 1981, Bucky claimed that the entire global population could enjoy a materially superior quality of life compared with anyone who lived before now. I don't think he claimed that "technology could keep up with population growth indefinitely." I don't think that was Barry Commoner's position either. Both Fuller and Commoner are a little out of date. Fuller's optimism was dependent on humanity's following a certain course of action. In "Critical Path" he mentioned the threat of global warming, but the U.S. government is still largely in a state of denial about global warming. We have diverged so far from the path envisioned by Bucky that his 1981 prognistication that "100 percent of all humanity will be thus advantaged before 2000 A.D.", while possibly still basically correct, is clearly overly optimistic. Lomborg is more contemporary, and a better reference for the optimist's position on overpopulation. Jkintree 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Toxic Waste

Why did you delete

It can also relate to waste.Yeast die from the waste they produce (alcohol). Humans also die when their numbers produce too mush waste.

By George

I didn't delete it, but I might have because it was poorly organized, poorly spelled, a weak analogy, and no supporting sources were given. (SEWilco 04:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC))

Hi. I deleted this contribution to "overpopulation":

It can also relate to waste.Yeast die from the waste they produce (alcohol). Humans also die when their numbers produce too mush waste.

because I have never heard of an instance of humans dying due to excess waste caused by overpopulation. I suppose we could argue that since overpopulation is a function of the carrying capacity of the local environment, anytime that carrying capacity is exceeded then overpopulation has resulted, but that would be an original argument. Original arguments and especially original research are banned on Wikipedia. OTOH, if there have been prior discussions of this aspect of overpopulation by noteworthy people then let's include it. But without any source, or indication of why you'd added it, it just seemed like something that you'd thought up. I'd be happy to add more if we can find a source that for a reference. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you intended to require a specific pollution connection in this particular sentence, but otherwise your comment that "since overpopulation is a function of the carrying capacity of the local environment, anytime that carrying capacity is exceeded then overpopulation has resulted" would be an original argument does not seem to be true. William R. Catton, a biologist very concerned with the possibility of a human population crash who wrote the book Overshoot, could be a source here. (Also, I find that in his "The Problem of Denial", available online, he includes air pollution in his discussion of overshooting of carrying capacity, which can be a source for that aspect.) A separate line is that the definitions of "carrying capacity", while varying somewhat, mostly intrinsically reference population in a way that implies overpopulation; Garrett Hardin, for example, has it as "the maximum number of a species that can be supported indefinitely by a particular habitat, allowing for seasonal and random changes, without degradation of the environment and without diminishing carrying capacity in the future", which is certainly referenceable and not controversial as a definition. Flugendorf 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pollution has nothing to do with overpopulation or underpopulation. It is a matter of institutional strength to set and enforce environmental standards regardless of how large or small the population is. If anybody wants to claim a connection between population and toxic waste, it must come with a clear model that shows the conenction.Gani 13:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Overpopulation

Please see below. Does it support my position that overpopulation and pollution are related?

Impacts September 23, 2005

The Earth's Life-support System is in Peril - a Global Crisis. Our planet is changing and many environmental indicators have moved outside their range of the past half-million years. If we cannot develop policies to cope with this, the consequences may be huge. We have made progress. Life expectancy and standards of living have increased for many, but the population has grown to six billion, and continues to grow.

The global economy has increased 15-fold since 1950 and this progress has begun to affect the planet and how it functions. For example, the increase in CO2 is 100 PPM and growing. During the 1990's, the average area of tropical forest cleared each year was equivalent to half the area of England. The impacts of global change are complex, as they combine with regional environmental stresses. Coral reefs, which were under stress from fishing, tourism and pollutants, are now under pressure from carbonate chemistry in ocean surface waters from the increase in CO2. The wildfires that hit the world last year were a result of land management, ignition sources and extreme local weather probably linked to climate change. Poor access to fresh water is expected to nearly double with population growth. Biodiversity losses, will be exacerbated by climate change. Beyond 2050, regional climate change, could have huge consequences. The Earth has entered the Anthropocene Era in which humans are a dominating environmental force. Global environmental change challenges the political decision-making process and will have to be based on risks that events will happen, or scenarios will unfold. Global environmental change is often gradual until critical thresholds are passed. Some rapid changes such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet would be irreversible in any meaningful timescale, while other changes may be unstoppable. We know that there are risks of rapid and irreversible changes to which it would be difficult to adapt. Incremental change will not prevent climate change, water depletion, deforestation or biodiversity loss. Breakthroughs in technologies and resource management that will affect economic sectors and lifestyles are required. International frameworks are essential for addressing global change. Never before has a multilateral system been more necessary. Will we accept the challenge or wait until a catastrophic, irreversible change is upon us? No mention of the success that voluntary family planning has been, and how meeting the unmet need for contraception and reducing maternal and infant mortality is vitally important for reducing population growth fast enough. January 20, 2004 Herald, The (UK)

Looking foreward to your response,

--By George 11:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If you can find a way to write it so that it is apparent how overpopulation leads to pollution which leads to death then that would be appropriate. The yeast analogy is too simple to be correct. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC) (PS in the future just give us links if you have them, rather than pasting source material in here, thanks)

It seems extreemly clear to me that we are in danger of extinction from pollution and other destruction of our environment due to overpopulation, overconsumption and warefare. It is just a matter of how to sumarize it and of links and references. Malthus knew only of overloading the food supply, but since then we have learned that, when he wrote, land near the Mediteranian had already been damaged by over-farming, leading to local population declines. Easter Island is a smaller but more dramatic case. But those people did not yet have the technology to make their land totally uninhabitable. I think we were lucky to have such an early and dramatic example of potentially lethal globar pullution with atmospheric bomb testing. It set some people thinking in those terms, but unfortunatly drew too much attention to nuclar power and away from coal. Global warming has the potential to run away, like on Venus. Coal puts stable carsinogenic and mutation causing elements into the biosphere. The oceans are losing their ability to support fish. There must be many mary more that I haven't heard of or that noone has recognized. Shouldn't the fact that so many other species dissapear as we destroy their eniroment remind us that we live in that same environent? David R. Ingham 15:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you can clarify several points. (SEWilco 18:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC))

• What pollution is threatening extinction of humans?
• Which continents are overpopulated?
• Which continents are not overpopulated and when will they be?
• How globally lethal was atmospheric bomb testing? How many millions did it kill?
• In what way can our global warming run away like on Venus? (Do you understand the role of water vapor, the carbon cycle and tectonic subduction?)
• How large is the dead zone around coal plants?
• Which fish are vanishing, and what are their natural cycles?

broken link?

I think the link in this:

"Recent studies <--*LINK* attack the contemporary belief that human populations are a naturally explosive..."

is broken.

Overpopulation as a social issue

The density of population has an impact on a broad range of social and economic issues, such as land prices and housing costs. For example, relatively densely populated countries such as Japan have higher land prices than less densely populated countries such as Australia, and even in that country, land prices have doubled and redoubled as the population has increased. It is sometimes argued that reducing the populations of some areas, such as large cities, would have positive benefits for these reasons.

Response: No, not at all. Absolute nominal price has no meaning, and certainly has no connection to overall population size. Land price must be seen in the context of the income of the buyers and the productivity of land (such as rental rate plus value-appreciation)from the supply side regarded as opportunity cost. An example is that a square foot of cropland in a certain village in Bangladesh is about taka 9 (I bought it)while a squre foot of land for housing in Gulshan area of Dhaka City is about 5500 taka, namely 611 times more precious. But notice that the Gulshan land is suitable to build skyscrappers with very large income potential per square foot of land surface compared to the village land. My calculation shows that the income potential is over 800 times larger in Gulshan than in my village. Indeed, my investment in rural land is utterly stupid because the income from cropland is actually negative. If I just left the money in a savings account then I would get a lot more than I do get from growing crops. I was forced to buy the land to protect clan prestige as my cousins were selling it to outsiders.

Reducing the city size would be horribly disastrous because it will mean the eliminaiton of the incredibly large economies scale, scope and nearness. Urban areas have concentration of infrastructure and amenities such that any producer can reach his customers and input suppliers at the lowest cost, being located nearest to them. Why do not people of Dhaka buy the much cheaper land in my village and set up factories and offices there? What benefit are the villagers getting from cheapness of land versus the landowners of Dhaka who pay so much higher price? The villagers are becoming ever more destitute while the city dwellers are getting ever richer. It is a mistake to forget the determining factors behind the price of land (or of anything else) and to regard it as a social issue. No, price is by no means a social issue. It is an economic issue.

Let us also remember a land-recovery advantage of urbanization. In my village, about 2100 people have over 187 acres of land devoted to housing. In Dhaka, the same people could be housed in just 3 acres of land, leaving 2 acres for open space for 21 storied buldings over just 1 acre of building space. This is an extreme example of course, but the point is that urbanization makes use of land very intensively and releases rual land for crops.

Notice the anomaly. A middleclass Dhaka resident pays over 2000 taka per year in rental for one square foot of living space (circa 2006). But the same person could actually buy (not just rent) one square foot of rural land for less than 10 taka. So why does he rent expensive housing in Dhaka rather than live in the villge on dirt cheap land? He lives in Dhaka because he can earn high income in Dhaka and enjoy everything nearby while he cannot earn much at all in the village and can hardly find anything other than food. Gani 14:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this at alll!!!

203.173.48.199 06:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC) i don't understand why the link to australia refuses to work (only in the actual article though, not here)

Backwards edit

[[2]] seems to have lost content if favor of politics. I don't see how to fix that now. David R. Ingham 05:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Recaption Image:World population evolution.png?

We might want to rephrase the caption on the graphic Image:World population evolution.png to clarify the log scale used on the y axis. I'm not unfamiliar with the concept, but I was confused for a minute. Other users might not understand what they're seeing (i.e., that the total World population is "apparently" not the sum of the populations of the component areas). Anybody have any thoughts on how to say this clearly? -- 200.141.108.170 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert non-neutral revert.

These seem to be available as fair use under copyright law and authoritative. Is what Wikipedians say more important than what great men and women say? Wikiquotes is about what people say, but if it is available for reprocuction and the best information available, it belongs in the body also. David R. Ingham 07:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the heading wrong? David R. Ingham 07:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I left a note on your user page. Sets of quotes are generally discouraged. We have a sister project for them, Wikiquote. We can certainly summarize important opinions on the matter. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

This may be the most controversial subject that has ever been. Are we, as a species, endangered by being too many, or is it still that the more the merrier? Are there any Wikipedia ways of dealing with controvery that have not yet been invoked, or it this article the precident setter? David R. Ingham 08:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to right the world's wrongs, only to write the world's encyclopedia. There hasn't been much controversy about this article. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny i thought making the world a better place was the only goal. If discussion of this topic helps that along, it might be one of the few places in the 'growing world' where this discussion is allowed. Lee Wells 10:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Population projections in space

Currently, the article reads: "Many authors (eg. Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov) have pointed out the obvious absurdity of 'solving' overpopulation through shipping the excess population into space, arguing that (Clarke, 1999) 'the population battle must be fought or won here on Earth'."

I was reading this article to get a better idea of the issues involved and found this sentence to be rather jarring and POV. The phrase "pointed out the obvious absurdity" and the use of scare quotes around "solving" are unsupported by the previous paragraphs. This is especially true since the article makes the point that overpopulation is a deficiency of resouces for a given population. It is not at all obvious that there are insufficient resources outside the earth to support a larger population.--S Roper 15:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all obvious that there are insufficient resources outside the earth to support a larger population That's not what the article says.

As you already mentioned, the article states Many authors (eg. Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov) have pointed out the obvious absurdity of 'solving' overpopulation through shipping the excess population into space, arguing that (Clarke, 1999) 'the population battle must be fought or won here on Earth'.

There is nothing in this passage that states that there are insufficient resources in space (and I'm quite confident that there are vast resources in space, as I added the Mining the sky article (and have read the book), so we probably agree on that point).

What it states is that overpopulation on Earth cannot be solved by shipping people into space (and a reference is provide, I believe). This is quiet a different thing altogother. It is the sheer physical impracticality of shipping vast numbers of people into space to "solve" overpopulation on Earth that these authors and others regard as "absurd" and they have said so in writing.

I've added the following to the article...

It is not the lack of resources in space that they see as the problem (as books such as Mining the sky demonstrate), it is the sheer physical impracticality of shipping vast numbers of people into space to "solve" overpopulation on Earth that these authors and others regards as absurd.

Let me know what you think. regards, --Couttsie 00:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Would that paragraph make more sense as a rebuttal at the end of the existing text about space? It may seem odd because it is arguing against something that is explained subsequently. -Will Beback 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, change it so that it makes sense. I have to go out now. --Couttsie 01:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The move to the end makes a great deal of sense. It is much better to present a position before you present criticism of it. The clarification sentence is very helpful. I assumed (without reading the reference) that the argument was based on lack of resources because no argument was actually given. The statement by Clarke is a statement of opinion and advances no line of reasoning. I went ahead and changed the wording of the first sentence as the argument is based on projected costs of migration which is a subject that is not treated in the article. I consider the argument rather sophisticated and not at all obvious. --S Roper 17:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed-section

Another point of view on population versus the standard of living is that of Virginia Abernethy in Population Politics, in which she shows her evidence that this effect only holds true in nations where she claims women enjoy a special status. In strongly patriarchal nations, where she claims women enjoy few special rights, a high standard of living tends to result in population growth.

Can anyone back this claim up? I know Iran is now at 1.82 children per couple, far below the replacement rate, and Saudi Arabia is just above the replacement rate (for Saudi citizens, not for non-citizen guest workers). In Iran you cannot live together without getting married, and you cannot get married without taking a course on family planning. If the claim fails in these countries, then where does it hold true?

Yemen and Pakistan yes, but countries with a high standard of living? Brimba 19:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Total Fertility Rate (TFR)

The total fertility rate is the average number of children that each woman will have during her lifetime. The TFR is an average because, of course, some women will have more, some fewer, and some no children at all.

Theoretically, when the TFR = 2, each pair of parents just replaces itself.

Actually it takes a TFR of 2.1 or 2.2 to replace each generation — this number is called the replacement rate — because some children will die before they grow up to have their own two children. In countries with low life expectancies, the replacement rate is even higher (2.2–3). from Human Population Growth[3] Brimba 17:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the claim is true, but whether Abernethy made the claim. I think that in the text it is quite clear that we are attributing it all to her. -Will Beback 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that new edit covers the topic well. -Will Beback 22:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Overpopulation and space

I'm surprised that there aren't any real plans by the U.N. to send men into space on to get rid of "earths excess population", or if there is that it isn't stated on wikipedia. Can someone please look into this. Chooserr 03:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's just the men. --Her girlfriend 04:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? It costs millions of dollars for a space tourist to take a joy ride. The feasibility of living in space has yet to be demonstrated. Much more cost effective to promote birth control. pstudier 05:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen a somewhat serious discussion of industrialization of space, but I do not think it is relevant. Venus and Mars are little help. If it did turn out that a self-sustaining economy was possible in space, which is far fetched, it would depend on reproduction in space and not on bringing huge numbers of people up from Earth. David R. Ingham 06:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[4]

Yes, this revert seems correct. May implies less likely than "may not". David R. Ingham 09:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Demographic Entrapment

Should we perhaps have a discussion of demographic entrapment here, ie what happens when the demographic transition fails? There doesn't seem to be much peer-reviewed research on this, (although I found one 10-year-old article [5], plus a website by the author [6]). However, the idea might be worth a mention. Also, how about a mention of past and present attempts to deal with overpopulation, such as China's one-child policy? Procrastinator supreme 14:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition in second paragraph

"If a given environment has a population of 10, but there is food and drinking water enough for only 9 people, then that environment is overpopulated, while if the population is 100 individuals but there are food and water enough for 200, then it is not overpopulated."

This doesn't seem to be the definition of overpopulation at all. For example, nearly the entirity of the developed world has to import food or other raw materials. This is certainly true on a local scale. Would you say that Boston and New York are overpopulated because there is not enough food grown there to feed the population? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in intro

"Overpopulation is not a function of the number or density of the individuals, but rather the number of individuals compared to the resources they need to survive."

Followed by:

"In the context of human societies, overpopulation occurs when the population density is so great as to actually cause an impaired quality of life, environmental degradation, or a long-term shortages of essential goods and services."

So which is it? Is density the definition of overpopulation? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit

The present article is extremely one-sided on a contested issue. As a test case, I have uploaded another article under the title Overpopulation Debate. Gani 14:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. The nutshell version is:

• Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.

Please add the additional information that you think will result in a balanced article here, rather than to a second article. We want one balanced article, not two unbalanced ones. -Will Beback 22:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the earlier article titled Overpopulation ought to be deleted, because it is beyond edit and extremely unbalanced. The new article titled Overpopulation Debate is not one-sided, but presents the debate.Gani 14:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Overpopulation debate seems a little one-sided to me, particularly in the introduction, which clearly favours the view that overpopulation is not a problem. Procrastinator supreme 09:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Broken link in Malthus theory section

Link [1] in the Malthus theory section links to a page that doesn't exist - http://www.ku.edu/~hazards/foodpop.pdf. extraordinary 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be Hopfenberg's 2003 paper, "Human Carrying Capacity Is Determined by Food Availability"? It is mirrored at http://media.anthropik.com/pdf/hopfenberg2003.pdf Jason Godesky 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is seriously POV

The article is written from a perspective assuming that overpopulation is something that actually exists. Salvor Hardin 22:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Like Evolution, it is written from the predominate scientific standpoint. bcasterline t 22:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that the article says "overpopulation exists". Since overpopulation is defined as populiton above the carrying capacity, there can be local overpopulations, especially on islands. How would you like us to change the article? -Will Beback 23:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the idea of a "carrying capacity" is inherently POV. There is no meaningful connection between the population/resource ratio and the effects that are said to occur because of it. "Overpopulation" is almost always a euphemism for saying that resources are not being allocated effectively -- most often because of corrupt government. Salvor Hardin 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that viewpoint? If so we can include it. -Will Beback 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add scholarship to that effect. "Carrying capacities" do exist, and therefore so does the condition of "overpopulation" -- neither is inherently biased. Whether human beings have reached a carrying capacity and are suffering from overpopulation is more subject to dispute, a dispute which the article seems to reflect. It may be imperfectly unbiased, so please feel free to make substantive changes for balance. The {{totallydisputed}} is probably overkill, though. bcasterline t 00:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Many of the problems that get blamed on "overpopulation" are actually caused by bad government and bad economic policies. Just compare South Korea to North Korea. They have similar population densities and natural resources, but South Korea is rich while North Korea is poor. Zimbabwe and Ethiopia used to be self sufficient in food production, but then they nationalzied the farmland and that created famine. China's nationalization of its farmland caused famine - then when they went back to private farming the famine disappeared. A communist country with 10 people per squre km will have famine, while a capitalist country with 1,000 people per square km will be well fed. Instead of calling it "overpopulation" it would be more accurate to call it "underdevelopment" or "bad management of resources" or "bad government and bad economic policies." Grundle2600 22:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a false analogy, because SK consumes far more than their nation can provide (as do many industrialized nations, and indeed some developing ones). They import the rest. --Belg4mit 16:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The analogy is valid. While South Korea does import, it also exports. South Korea benefits from trade and specialization. Trade and specialization mean that some countries can be good at some things, and ohter countries can be good at other things, and they can trade with each other, for mutual benefit. Grundle2600 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. Trade is one thing, unbalanced trade (to the detriment of one party, or the collective good) is another. If there are 2 hectares of usable land per person on the planet, and you consume the products of 10 hectares by importing goods from another country clearly some imbalance arises. It takes about 1 tonne of water to produce a kilogram of grain, but how little water did it take to create that Hello Kity doll that was exported for $10 that then went to purchase 125 kilos of wheat? --Belg4mit 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your claim that trade is "detrimental" to one party. Trade is voluntary, so it is always beneficial to both parties. Trade always makes both parties better off.Grundle2600 20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I almost have to assume you're attempting satire here, because that's almost unbelievably naive. Trade often involves social and political pressure to accept terms that are anything but mutually beneficial. We develop systems to pit one party in a desperate position, so they will agree to very unfair trade. Look no further than the plight of Fantine in Les Miserables. The same dynamic lies at the heart of modern trade between the First and Third Worlds, as well as all historical empires.[7] In actual practice, trade is usually detrimental to one party. JasonGodesky 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No. It's not satire. I'm serious. Voluntary trade makes both parties better off. The Asian tiger countries used to be very poor. But then they started trading with the rest of the world, and that made them rich. Now today, other poor countries like China and India are becoming rich from trading with the rest of the world. Voluntary trade always makes both parites better off.Grundle2600 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's unbelievably naive. What about neocolonialism? What about Western-backed despots? What about every empire in history? What about most of the poor throughout history? Trade has more often been detrimental to one party, something engaged only because they are made desperate by deliberate, usually violent, actions that put them into a position where trade is better than the alternative (usually death). JasonGodesky 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Colonialism and that other stuff is from the past. I'm talking about now - today. When countries engage in peaceful, voluntary trade today, both parties benefit. Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing it.Grundle2600 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And the present comes from where, if not the past? Even if that kind of historical myopia were true, neocolonialism is still going on, right now, today. There's lots of reasons to engage in "peaceful, voluntary trade" today, despite the lack of benefit: chief among them being "economic hit men" like John Perkins (see Confessions of an Economic Hit Man), and in more extreme cases, the overthrow of the government by rebellions stirred up and supported by Western powers (see Mohammed Mosaddeq). Basically, if you won't play ball, we'll rub you out and replace you with someone who will, no matter how it might ruin your country. JasonGodesky 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello again!

I'm going to respond to everything in one section.

France does not use "most of the world's nuclear power." The U.S., France, and Japan together account for about 50% of the world's nuclear power. France does not send its nuclear waste to Russia. Each pound of nuclear waste means that several million pounds of carbon don't get released into the atmosphere. France's nuclear waste has never hurt or killed anyone, and it does not cause global warming. Nuclear waste is great, because it's all concentrated in a tiny amount of mass, so it's very easy to store and keep track of. That's much better than fossil fuel waste, which gets released into the atmosphere. Also, France recycles its nuclear waste, which reduces its mass, and creates more energy.

I think gay marriage should be legal. I think marijuana should be legal. I'm against the Iraq War. I favor cutting the military budget by 70%. So those are my views on those things. I tend to lean between liberal and libertarian.

You're wrong about life expectancy in the past. Throughout most of human hustory, the average woman gave birth to about 6 babies. But only 2 of those babies lived long enough to reproduce. So average life expectancy was only about 25 or 30 years.

The only reason that the population explosion ever happened was because technology caused a huge reduction in infant mortality.

Please understand that infant mortality has always been very high in pre-indutsrial societies. It's only because of science, technology, agriculture, medical care, sanitation, and government protection of health and safety that birth rates fell.

You have this very mistaken belief aboout what life was like in pre-indistrial times. The truth is that life was horrible and miserable. People lived short lives of terrible poverty and suffering, and then they died.

Technology can be duplicated in every country. For example, 200 years ago, the world had zero refrigerators. Today the world has millions of refrigerators. And we can build as many as we want. I want every family in the world to have a refrigerator.

Countries with widespread use of modern technology never have famine. It has never happened. It can't happen.

Paul Ehrlich was a butterfly scientist. But what he doesn't understand is that people are different from butterflies. People can invent, built, and use technology to make their lives better.

The world has huge amounts of energy. We haven't even begun to tap into its potential. In 200 years from now, people will be using energy sources that the people of today could never even dream of. Technology is advancing more and more rapidly. Someday, every country will be rich, and famine and third world poverty will cease to exist.

200 years ago, people used wax candles for light. They worried about the world's wax supplies being depleted. It never occurred to them that someday, the light bulb would be invented.

Likewise, in the future, there will be all sorts of new technologies that the people of today can't even comprehend.

I am against war, colonialism, etc. These things are very evil and destructive. I believe it's better to spend money on health care, education, science, research, etc., than on war. War is the worst thing that any government can ever do.

I voted Green Party in the last election, and I voted Libertarian before that. I refused to vote for John Kerry, because he voted for the Iraq War in 2003. For the same reason, I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. I won't vote Republican, unless it's for Ron Paul, because he voted against the Iraq War.

So there are my veiws.Grundle2600 11:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything that is referenced is not POV, even if we were to reference POV statements, if we say Malthus said instead of It is true, we should be fine. Here's a vote for take off the factual accuracy tag, and just add referencesect tags to sections that do not yet have references.66.41.66.213 14:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the article already does a pretty good job of attributing different theories to different people rather than stating them as fact. But more references is always better. bcasterline t 16:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the concept of a "carrying capacity" is "inherently" POV. Virtually all animals evolve in relation to the carrying capacities of their environment, and if they exceed this population loss through famine/starvation and related diseases inevitably ensues (there are many examples of this, some of which are cited in the article). Humans are one of the few animals in nature that can increase (or decrease) the carrying capacity of their environment (ie its ability to support human life). Certainly, resource misallocations exist; but underlying that is the fact that Earth-bound resources are finite, because the Earth is an oblate spheroid of finite volume. Jaganath

If every country was to adopt modern agriculture, desalination, nuclear power, property rights, rule of law, and accurate pricing mechanisms, there would be enough resources for 10 billion people to all have a first world standard of living. When Robert Mugabe seized the farmland in Zimbabwe and created a famine, that's not "overpopulation" - it's communism. Petreoleum was not a "resource" until a person with a brain invented a way to use it. Today's "silicon revolution" is based on something that's in rocks everywhere. Our most important resource is information, and that is a resource that can only get bigger. People who blame famine and poverty on "overpopluation" instead of on communism are making a huge mistake. South Korea and North Korea have similar population densities and resources. But capitalist South Korea is rich while communist North Korea has famine. And blaming water shortages on "overpopulation" is not logical, when we have the technology to desalinize as much water we want. Grundle2600 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply because you say this does not make it so. Particularly if you consider Ecological Footprint calculations, which indicate that we'd need about 3 Earths for everyone to have a "first world standard of living." --Belg4mit 16:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The ecological footprint model does not take into account the existence of things such as nuclear power, desalination, and tree farming. Which resources do you think we don't have enough of? Water? Desalination can take care of that. Energy? Nuclear power can take care of that. Food? Modern argiculture can take care of that. Fertilizer? We can make that out of waste and sewage. Trees? Private tree farmers already plant more trees than they cut down. The trillion dollar silicon revolution is based on something that's found in rocks everywhere. We can't run out of rocks. Information is the most important resource, and that is a resource that can only get bigger. The ecological footprint model does not take any of those things into account, which is why it's not an accurate model. With the right technology, we can provide a first world standard of living for 10 billion people. So please tell me, which resource are you worried about, that we can't solve with technology? Grundle2600 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous technophilic fantasy. Where's the evidence for any of this? Modern agriculture still relies on inputs, largely of fossil fuels. If desalination is such a cheap and effective alternative, then why is Israel in the midst of a major water crisis and still getting such a small minority of its water from the sea? Because the truth of the matter is that desalination is not nearly as cheap or effective as you've made it out to be. Nuclear power is riddled with problems, not least of which that uranium production peaked in the 1980s--it's a good thing nuclear power uses so little uranium, because there's very little of it on earth. Most importantly, humans take up space, and the sprawl of human settlements leads to habitat fragmentation, while the environmental cost of the fantastic "alternatives" you mention that the market has never born, measured in greenhouse gases, dioxin-poisoned rivers, acid rain, soil degradation, and so on, are completely neglected. Ecological footprint is the only model that does take the full impact of our way of life into account.

The fantasy that we can get the whole world to a First World standard of living completely ignores the fact that the First World enjoys its standard of living only because it has a Third World to outsource and externalize its costs to. If the Third World's standard of living ever did begin to approach that of the First World, you'd see the collapse of the First World as a consequence, and it would become, effectively, the "Third World."

I've been watching all of these irrelevant and speculative notions of what technology might be able to do, but hasn't done yet, asserted as facts, and frankly, it looks to me like a perfect example of how you can lie with facts. But as any kind of honest discussion of the issues involved in overpopulation, Grundle2600's additions have greatly degraded the quality of this article. JasonGodesky 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I used legitimate sources to back up everything that I said in the article. The earth has enough uranium to last us until the sun blows up, and I gave a link in the article. You mentioned the need for fertilizer - well, I didn't mention that in the article, but I will add a section on that. We can manufacture as much fertilizer as we could ever need out of sewage, agricultural waste, and garbage. The basic elements in fertilizer, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, get recycled again and again, so we can't run out of them.

When people are free, they create more resources than they consume. Paul Ehrlich and others with his belief don't understand that.

It's not the fault of the U.S. that poor countries are poor. It's their own fault, because they didn't industrialize. Fortunately, they are starting to do that, and it's making them better off. It's too bad they didn't start a few hundred years ago.

We can't run out of uranium. We can't run out of fertilizer, because the basic elements get recycled again and again. Some people might think it's gross to use waste for fertilizer, but the truth is that as long as it's done properly, it's perfectly safe.

All of my additions to the article are accurate, and backed up with sources. For example, I posted to a link that proves that high infant mortality is a function of poverty, not population density. When poor countries become rich, their problems of high infant mortality, absolute poverty, famine, etc., disappear.Grundle2600 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"I used legitimate sources to back up everything that I said in the article. The earth has enough uranium to last us until the sun blows up, and I gave a link in the article. " As I said, a fine example of lying with facts. You cite a shallow analysis from an acceptable source, but read David Fleming's far more complete analysis in, "Why Nuclear Power Cannot Be a Major Energy Source." Both legitimate sources, but only one makes a reasonable argument with evidence to support it.JasonGodesky 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

France gets 80% of its electricty from nuclear power. That's real - it's not imaginary.Grundle2600 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

France is also a fairly small country. Like I said, scale matters. JasonGodesky 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

France is georgraphically small. But it is also very densely populated. If they used coal instead of nuclear power, the air would be very dirty. So it's good that they use nuclear power.Grundle2600 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, instead of dirty air, we have nuclear waste and no clear idea of what to do with it. [8][9] The French like nuclear waste so much because they can send it to Russia[10] in another fine example of how rich countries are wealthy because they have poor countries to pick up the tab.

Oh, and France is #21, ranked by population. They account for most of the world's nuclear power use, but only 0.9% of its population. You'll need to increase France's nuclear capacity a hundred times just to power the world as it is today, nevermind the need for economic growth.[11] JasonGodesky 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"We can manufacture as much fertilizer as we could ever need out of sewage, agricultural waste, and garbage. The basic elements in fertilizer, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, get recycled again and again, so we can't run out of them." Another pipe dream. Where's the evidence? The techniques we've employed to date all cost far too much to be effective. Problems of scale are usually the limiting factors for societies; what works well in your backyard may not work at all on a society-wide scale. Unless and until it's been developed and shown to be cost-effective, statements like these are as worthwhile as 1950s predictions of the future of flying cars.JasonGodesky 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a section on fertilizer to the article, and I gave links to Discover magazine. Yes, that method of making fertilizer is more expensive than using oil, but it can be done on as large a scale as you want. Peak oil is a very serious problem, and that is one way of addressing it.Grundle2600 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's more expensive, then it can't be done on as large a scale as you want, that's what it means to be more expensive. JasonGodesky 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As peak oil causes the price of oil to rise, that other method of making fertilizer will then be a cheaper alternative. And then it will be the new way to make fertilizer on a mass scale. Whatever way is cheaper, that's how it will be done.Grundle2600 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You really don't study history, do you? That's one way of putting it, but do you know what happens when those kinds of "corrections" take place? Yes, oil-based fertilizers could become even more expensive, and then these alternatives get picked up, but those costs come down with the price of food. No famine has ever been about lack of food, but lack of cheap food. People starve to death, or in economists' terms, "demand drops." It's not that their scenario is wrong, so much as it lacks imagination as to how exactly supply and demand get corrected. If billions die in the process from a global famine, that's just one way supply and demand works. What's naive is less the contention that malnutrition is a question of misallocated resources, than the notion that one could eliminate such misallocations. They are systemic. JasonGodesky 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"When people are free, they create more resources than they consume. Paul Ehrlich and others with his belief don't understand that." They don't "understand" it because it's a fantasy. In order for that to be true, you'd need to suspend the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy. I know Julian Simon says otherwise, but why Simon is held with such regard, and not considered insane, is beyond me. Here's another gem of Simon's wisdom: "Copper can be made from other metals."JasonGodesky 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the total quantity of mass/energy if fixed. We used to use copper for telephone signals, but then we swithced to fiber optics. That uses less material, but it carries more information. This is kwown as "doing more with less." The amount of mass does not increase. But we utilize that mass in a more efficient manner. A computer used to be as big as a house. Today a computer fits on your desk, and it's a million times more powerful. Paul Ehrlich does not understand this concept, but I do.Grundle2600 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ehrlich understands the concept just fine; what you fail to understand is that economic equivalence is not limitless. There isn't always an alternative just because you really want there to be. I know that's the way economists generally think of it, but that's just one of the ways in which modern economics is greatly divorced from reality. There's a degree of economic equivalence, but it doesn't stretch infinitely. More expensive alternatives cost more, so they require scaling back. Problems of scale are the most important problems there are for questions like these. JasonGodesky 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Ehrlich does not understand the concept - not at all. My examples of fiber optics and computers show that people create more resources than they consume. So our supply of resources is gettting bigger. That's science and technology.Grundle2600 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's BS. People don't create more resources than they consume, that's impossible, even you admit to understanding that much. Fiber optics and computers do not create energy from nothing. The energy and materials used in their creation are greater than the energy they provide. What they do is they change the form of that energy. What you're referring to is economic equivalence. Ehrlich understands it, he just doesn't spend too much time on it because it's not nearly as powerful a concept as a madman like Julian Simon thinks it is. It has its limits. Not everything can be substituted endlessly. There are limits--not hard and fast, but limits, nonetheless. Our supply does not become bigger and start violating the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy just because we're so gosh-darned clever. Follow it through without the hand-waving, and you'll see that the energy that comes out of any creative process is necessarily some amount less than what you put in. JasonGodesky 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"It's not the fault of the U.S. that poor countries are poor. It's their own fault, because they didn't industrialize." That is unbelievably naive. Why didn't they industrialize? Couldn't have anything to do with their colonial history, or a continuing pattern of neocolonial exploitation, could it? The West was able to industrialize only because of its colonies, and we maintain our current status only because we can force the Third World into such a state where they're better off growing coffee and cotton for us, than food for their own family. If they were to ever fully industrialize, the First World would collapse.JasonGodesky 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and Australia all used to be colonies. And today they are rich. Botswana was a colony until 1966, and since then it's grown its economy very well. Every country can become rich, by adopting property rights, rule of law, science, and technology. You are mistaken in your claim that this would cause the first world to collapse. Science and technology and ideas and inventions can be duplicated everywhere. When poor countries become rich, it does not make the first world collapse. When the Aisan tiger countries became rich, it did not make the first world collapse. Science and technology should be used in every country. The world is not a zero sum game. Compared to 10,000 years ago, the world has way more wealth today. People create wealth. One country's prosperity does not make another country poor. Every country can be rich.Grundle2600 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's insane! The U.S. used to be a colony, too, but like Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and Australia, we had the resources to build an industrialized country. Not every colony did; many that did were stripped of them by colonialism. Neocolonial arrangements keep industrialization from taking place even now.

The U.S. did not get rich because of natural resources. We got rich because of science and technology, and freedom and rule of law and property rights. Japan did the same thing, and they don't have many natural resources. Natural resources don't matter. What matters is science, technology, and a legal system that nurtures freedom.

Every country starts out poor. When some countries become rich, it doesn't make other countries poor. I want every country to become rich. I want every country to use science and technology. We are much richer today than 10,000 years ago. I believe in science, not faith. I am agnostic. The stuff I added to the article is true, and I always cited sources.Grundle2600 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Total B.S. Science and technology arise only when and where there are material resources for them to work on. What, do you think everyone before James Watt was just dumb as a stump? Before the price of coal become so low compared to the price of a human being, there was no reason to invent--inventions just consumed precious fuel in order to save on cheap humans. Pre-industrial Europe was endemically overpopulated, and it made humans cheap, so invention was counter-productive. The United States' economic success can hardly be explained in terms of "freedom and rule of law," either. The United States was one of the very last Western countries to abolish slavery, or to give women the right to vote. Today, we're banning gay marriage while Scandinavia and other European countries permit it. Whatever you think of those issues, there's no denying that by any standard, the United States has been the rear guard of the "march of freedom" almost from its inception (wherein the freedoms scarcely extended beyond those already granted in Britain). So if it's all about "freedom," why is the world's hyperpower the least free Western country? Why do the most free countries, like those in Scandinavia, or the Netherlands, enjoy much more moderate wealth?

It's not that this particular dogma doesn't have many adherents, it's that it's completely bankrupt from any evidentiary perspective. It's an article of faith, utterly unfounded in any conception of reality. The sources you cite are just other members of the choir, equally devoid of evidence. You may call yourself an agnostic, but regardless of how many gods you count, this is nothing more than an article of faith, and one of the most irrational faiths the world has seen at that. JasonGodesky 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The First World hasn't collapsed because the Third World is still there. No, the rise of the "Asian Tiger" countries didn't send the First World into collapse, but it did send the United States into a recession. Today, we're facing rising oil prices because of increased demand from India and China, neither of which have yet reached a First World standard of living. Just moving in that direction is putting the pressure on the First World. You are quite mistaken if you think that the gains of formerly poor nations has left richer nations unaffected.

But you're right, the world's not entirely a zero-sum game. Compared to 10,000 years ago, we are incredibly impoverished. That's much too big a question to hash out here, though.[12][13][14]

At best, these are simply professions of fatih. At worst, as I assert, they are utter delusions. But most of all, as a firm supporter of Wikipedia, it disgusts me to see this article turned into such a hack-job of propoganda. JasonGodesky 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"We can't run out of fertilizer, because the basic elements get recycled again and again. Some people might think it's gross to use waste for fertilizer, but the truth is that as long as it's done properly, it's perfectly safe." Safe, yes, but expensive. And with such overwhelming soil depletion (85% in North America), we're not just using fertilizer as an additive, we're using it in place of the soil that's no longer there. Simple conservation of mass/energy: you put in fertilizer, and some of that energy goes into food, and some of that energy goes into people, and some of that energy comes out as waste--if that's your sole, or even your main source of fertilizer, how are you going to get as much energy coming out as goes in? Where's the magic part where energy is created, and the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy banished for being overly pessimistic? We can run out of these things. In fact, the only way you could say we "can't" is if you're planning on suspending some of the basic laws of physics.JasonGodesky 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The total amount of mass/energy is fixed. With science and technology, we use the mass/energy in ways to make our lives better off.Grundle2600 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"For example, I posted to a link that proves that high infant mortality is a function of poverty, not population density. When poor countries become rich, their problems of high infant mortality, absolute poverty, famine, etc., disappear." That's true, but that's because they export them to other poor countries. It's not a universal solution, it just moves the problem around. You could move it over to the countries currently in the First World if you like, and give the Third World a turn at the wheel, but you can't correct the imbalance--it's implicit to agriculture. JasonGodesky 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Infant mortality and poverty not things that can be "exported." 500 years ago, every country in the world had high infant mortality and poverty. When countries make themselves richer, their infant mortality falls. I want every country in the world to become rich, and have low infant mortality. The world is not a zero sum game. People create wealth.Grundle2600 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, infant mortality, poverty, even violence can very easily be exported. That's at the heart of every empire. The Pax Romana was peaceful only for Italy, because of markedly increased violence in the territories. They exported their violence. Today, we export our poverty and infant mortality to the Third World through systems of debt, neocolonial exploitation, and the occasional backing of despotic strongmen who will see that First World economic interests are placed ahead of a country's own interests. When countries make themselves richer, infant mortality falls; because they make themselves richer by impoverishing other countries, where infant mortality rises. They export their infant mortality.

"The world is not a zero sum game. People create wealth." These are statements of faith, which would be fine in and of themselves, were it not for the long, documented history that flies in the face of them. The world (or at least, the agriculturally-fed world) is a zero-sum game, and even gain in wealth that one place has experienced has been offset by the impoverishment of many others. JasonGodesky 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The stuff that I said is science, not faith. 500 years ago, most people in the world were starving, they had no technology, average life expectancy was 25 years, and infant mortality was 50%. Today, most people are very well fed, most people will live to be 60 or 70 or older, there's technology like refrigerators and light bulbs and modern argiculture, and infant mortality is much lower.

When we trade with other countries, we do not export infant mortality or poverty. The opposite is true. When poor countries trade with us, it makes them richer, and reduces their infant mortality. It happened with the Asian tiger countries, and now it's happening with other countries like China and India. I want every country to have modern health care and low infant mortality.

Technology does not have to be limited to just some countries. I want it to be in every country. Ideas and science and technology can be spread and multiplied and duplicated everywhere. I love science.Grundle2600 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely faith, and not even a well-grounded one. 5,000 years ago, most people in the world were hunter-gatherers, who only periodically experienced hunger, and almost never starved to death. Agriculture creates systemic malnutrition (see Richard Manning, Against the Grain). While your average farmer is lucky to see 30, hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari today regularly live into their 60s and 70s, while their industrialized neighbors still live to an average life span of 33 in Botswana. Today, most people in the world are starving in the Third World.

You can want every country to be rich, that doesn't make it possible. Saying it over and over again like a religious mantra won't change that. The "Asian Tiger" countries, China and India all have taken an economic toll on the First World, because it meant they could no longer be exploited by the neocolonial system. We lost one of the chief importers of our poverty, violence, disease and infant mortality. They still have a long way to go before they reach the living standards of the First World (China suffers from hundreds of revolts every week, and the vast majority of the population still lives essentially as feudal peasants; in India, sweatshops are only beginning to fade as the best possibility available). They've gone from "destitute" to simply "desperate," and just that has been enough to make the First World feel the pinch. If they ever make it up even to what we'd consider just run-of-the-mill poor, it would basically entail economic breakdown in the First World.

So, without resorting to simply reiterating your manta again, how do you expect that to happen, given the convulsions the First World economy suffers just from a few countries improving their economies just slightly? JasonGodesky 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You should probably learn more about EF (and environmental issues in general) before making such statements. Heck you make these bogus statements here, but you just posted questions about whether or not EF does address these details over on that entry's discussion! Contrary to popular opinion you cannot "simply plant more trees (somewhere)" and bam! no more worries about running out of timber or pulp, habitat loss, erosion, micro-climate change etc. Silviculture does not a forest make. The exploitation of any resource at a greater than renewable rate is a concern e.g; fossil fuels, fossil water, timber, etc. Most of the technologies that you seem to think are solutions, are merely inefifcient band-aids. In the long run, relying upon them is like leaving your refrigerator door open to cool your kitchen. Sure you can desalinate ocean water, but that takes energy and infrastructure. Neither of which is zero-impact. --Belg4mit 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the difference between a tree farm and an old growth forest. The earth is big enough for both of them.Grundle2600 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Salvor Hardin, but more imporantly, its not the place of this article to describe whether or not the earth is or will be overpopulated, this should be a description of what the theory of overpopulation is in general. Maybe three words of this article are devoted to non-humans, hardly a unviersal viewpoint. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Overpopulation revert

I recently reverted Alienus who reverted me. I don't intend to get into a revert war. I just think that it is wikipedias place to be NPOV and not to claim that Overpopulation has already happened and been significantly and thoroughly documented, when there is still dispute over whether or not it is happening (didn't the U.N. predict something along the lines of 11 billion by this time? And according to somethings I've read the population while growth is marginal in some countries - they even depend on immigration to keep up the population). Also none of the claims have external links to verify them. Chooserr 18:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you gain a consensus before making further changes of this sort. And if you don't want to edit war, you might want to consider simply not edit warring. Al 05:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I won't revert you out of hand as you do me, however I really would like for someone to contribute here so we can talk about it. Also I agree NPOV isn't negotiable but the sentence you like so much still has the faults that I listed above - maybe more. Chooserr

It is certainly by no means scientifically established that the Earth is "overpopulated" with humans, and the various famines and epidemics currently in progress often stem more from civil war, corrupt government and lack of education (especially in regards to sexual health matters) than from any excess of population over resources. So I concur that Wikipedia should be strictly NPOV on this issue.User: Jaganath

Effects of overpopulation section

I am disputing the neutrality of this section. Not only does it have no references but it is highly controversial to state any of those laundary list of things as "effects" of overpopulation, i.e. implying that overpopulation causes them. There are many authors, geographers, and scientists who would dispute that list as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC) I second that... no references and some obviously false claims. --Jdeely 03:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

section has been totally rewritten and copious references added since the above comments.Cydperez 19:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Article improvement

Yes this article needs improvement. who would like to join me in a systematic set of revisions. Lets start with a "To do" list. I propose the following (please edit or add to my list):

• provide more references for key aspects (bonafide scientific level studies not someones blog)

• partially done as of jun 20 2006 Anlace 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• establish a section on animal overpopulation
• combine some of the short relatively peripheral sections into larger categorical headings to prevent the article from looking ungainly and lacking cohesion.

• mostly done as of jun 20, 2006 Anlace 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• improve NPOV

• mostly done as of jun 20, 2006 Anlace 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• copy edit to get rid of the myriad of one and two line paragraphs and coalesce such short items into appropriate places in the article.

• mostly done as of jun 20 2006 Anlace 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• use subarticles to absorb some of the bulk. at 33kb this article is unwieldy. example subarticles might be Overpopulation social aspects, Overpopulation outcomes, and Overpopulation trivia, the latter could pick up the outer space distractions.

cheers, Anlace 17:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree this article needs work, and I can't stress the second item enough. This article immediately sets a human focus, which is not really appropriate -- "common parlance" is subjective and should not dictate the contents of an encylopedia entry. It would be better to focus the article on the general causes and effects of overpopulation (among all organisms) and then discuss the controversy of human overpopulation and its effects. I'll try to come up with some more specific suggestions and/or a rough draft. -- bcasterline • talk 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, see this part of the World Population talk page. -- Huysman^talk 20:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the history of overpopulation as a term dating to before Malthus (if anyone used it before him) to the post-Malthusian combination of overpopulation with concepts like environmental degredation and security. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Something lighter on the topic

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49186 Procrastinator supreme 09:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we sure this is a joke?

Well, you can never be too sure. However, personally I like leavening my doom-and-gloom with a little humour, just as the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement do. It could be argued that the Onion were making overly light of a serious issue (shock horror), but sometimes a little perspective is helpful. Procrastinator supreme 14:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Biology and Economics

On the other other side of the 'discussion' The two 'sides' of this article are really Biology and Economics. Putting occupations on the people in the 'See also' list (maybe rename people in see also Authors) should be able to sort this out. (if you would like me to do this i already have the page ready, but i figured I would ask first so maybe i wouldn't be reverted....)

I know of NO biologist who doesn't think we have a problem. It's just the economists who are worried about the money. It's true growth increases the wealth of the few that already have wealth, but as far as the masses go, things are getting worse. [except in China]

Only Environmental economics even relates economics to the environment and the Wiki entry on it doesn't mention Overpopulation. Am I detecting a trend here?
Lee Wells 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I envision it as something like this: (alphabetizing by LAST name like the rest of the world)

Authors:

• Virginia Abernethy- professor (emerita) of psychiatry and anthropology Population Politics
• Albert Bartlett - emeritus Professor of Physics
• Paul R. Ehrlich- Bing Professor of Population Studies
• Garrett Hardin- ecologist
• Thomas Malthus- English demographer and political economist
• Julian Lincoln Simon- professor of business administration

See also:

• Birth dearth
• Carrying capacity
• Immigration reduction
• National Security Study Memorandum 200
• Over-consumption
• Population biology
• Population control
• Population density
• Population ecology
• Rientrodolce
• Sub-replacement fertility
• Tragedy of the commons
• Underpopulation
• Urban sprawl
• World Population Foundation

What's everyone's take on this? Is dividing the camps into economics and biology too POV as opposed to for and against?

I think that separating the biological from the economic arguments is a good idea. There will be exceptions to the whole "biologists think it's bad, economists think it's good" trend you're suggesting - there are certainly some economists who think that overpopulation is a problem, and there may be some biologists who think that it isn't. But in the popular consensus, where most people are neither, other factors come into play which I think are also interesting. For instance, I wouldn't be at all surprised if people living in relatively densely populated and resource-exhausted parts of the world, like Europe, were more worried than people living in relatively sparsely populated parts of the world, like the US (the EU has 3.5x the population density of the US - 294 people per square mile versus 83 people per square mile, according to my calculations based on the figures from the CIA world factbook - and it shows). Procrastinator supreme 14:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

ok i found a 'biologist' Barry Commoner I'll find the names of the books also for the Authors section (nationality densities would be good also) However, I disagree most people in the world at large are neutral on overpopulation if that were true we would be at ZPG instead of with a net increase of 2 to 3 every second... ask the majority of the worlds government bodies from local to national level excluding maybe India and China 95% want growth, It's the only way they can keep their Social Security system working.

I didn't mean that most people in the world were neutral on overpopulation. I meant that most people in the world were neither biologists or economists. Procrastinator supreme 06:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

War?

Isn't war throughout history one of the biggest methods of natural population control for homo sapiens? It is only briefly mentioned as a possible result of overpopulation. It is obviously a "cure" in some ways but also maybe even an instigator of overpopulation (demand for workers, soldiers or resulting after-affects like babybooms) but is definately not a "vaccine". Of course, whenever population boomed anytime in history (even somewhat today) resources and space become strained and poverty begins to bear. The people then proceed to do one of three things, move away (colonialism and immigration), fight neighboring peoples for resources (crusades, imperialism), or fight themselves (civil war, revolution, feudalism, anarchy).

Along with disease, the other main control, they both occur when populations are big and confined to a limited area. For now it seems that aggression, killing, and disease (harshly) are the only substantial and effective methods of population control. Maybe self-control (ex. having less babies) may surpass those big controls but it seems unlikely anytime soon. Maybe unconciously we really know we are waging war to kill off excess population but it seems resources, religion, and rivalry conciously replace that reason. That is probably why war is not mentioned in this wikipedia overpopulation article.

I think there should be more mentioning of it in this respects, maybe a new section on "Proposed and Existing solutions to overpopulation" however harsh they may be, totally NPOV. It just seems like this article is missing alot and this may be a missing block among others.
--Exander 08:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You left out famine. To bring back the food supply discussion, famine makes it much easier for disease to take a life. See the Three Years of Natural Disasters for the Chinese famine that probably launched the One-child policy. Also war kills the young males of a population, this is actually weakens the gene pool more than causing depopulation. After all, historically women don't go to war, women have more kids, to make up for the fallen. Look at the 'baby boom' after WWII.

Lee Wells 14:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

War does not check population as much as one might think. In fact, it might not check it at all. It's true that people die in war, but, compared to exponential growth, the numbers are very small. When you consider population explosions (such as the post-World War II baby boom) which usually follow wars, the effect might even be to increase population. War is often closely associated with instability, which also encourages people to have as many children as possible to guarantee their own futures. -- bcasterline • talk 17:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Overpopulation is real

June 22, 2006 Republicans admit to global warming. More poeple = more greenhouse gases. Pretty simple. Reduce global warming, have fewer kids. Hey I made a bumper sticker. Not to detract from the idea that war and overpopulation aren't linked, but the main link is money. Remember the Messerschmitts powered by Rolls-Royce engines? (there's a wikipedia article- money and it's effect on morality) Hungry (overpopulated) people work cheaper than (the relatively few) union laborers (look at Mexico for example, Ford isn't closing any plants there). Just like cheap, abundant labor, global warming makes more money.

So if your method of making money is causing problems, [like selling your book overpopulation isn't real to 6,532,209,557 people] don't change, that takes too much money, just deny it, and buy some scientists to prove it's not REALLY a problem anyway. Look at cigarettes.
--Lee Wells 14:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

yes overpopulation is quite real. its been in effect for some time. there is a great focus on famine, which is quite real, but exhaustion of freshwater resources will probably be the biggest problem of the next two decades. about half the world now does not have adequate clean water for drinking and/or sanitation. more people = more depletion of this finite resource
--Anlace 16:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're talking ideas here, and not strictly about the article, I hope no one minds if I jump in.

What we have is not an overpopulated world, but a maldistribution of resources, a wholly separate issue. If we really put our minds to it, and the rich of the world really sacrificed in an organized and (here's the killer) *efficient* way, with minimal bureaucracy (i.e. ANYTHING but the United Nations) The outsourcing problems you refer to, Lee, are already beginning to correct themselves. Those nations' people don't work for less because there are too many of them flooding the labor market. They work for less because their labor markets are so undeveloped that the markets start out bailing water. Fortunately, the big corporations are getting their comeuppance from outsourcing, not through government regulation, but because of the Laws of Economics: TIME Magazine reported this week that, in the past couple of years, Indian tech workers' average pay has jumped from $6,000 to $7,000, and growing rapidly... leading some corporations to outsource *those* jobs to Romania, where the cycle begins anew! The bottom line here is that a rising tide floats all boats.

As for the lack of adequate freshwater, the ocean, just one possible new water source, could support [i]trillions[/i] of people. It [i]is[/i] where most of the water is, after all. Unfortunately, the countries with the greatest need of water can't afford expensive desalination plants, nor have the infrastructure to distribute that water to the people. There are many other solutions to every other problem of so-called "overpopulation", but the reason none of them gets implemented is not a lack of global resource, but a lack of money and infrastructure, a problem that can only be rectified in the short term by direct aid, and in the long term by an expanding global economy. My two cents. --BCSWowbagger 20:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

yes it's always good to bring up old uninteresting ideas Paul R. Ehrlich put this one to bed 20 years ago.

1. Just for a millisecond pretend you are correct. Pretend it's just bad distribution. So when do you start shipping your Big Macs to Africa? If it's just 'bad distribution' when it will be a 'real' problem, when the population hits 9 billion?

2. The UN has been saying it's 'bad distribution' for at least 50 years! Why are their MORE people malnourished? This really isn't about overpopulation at all it's about money. It's about people giving food to other people as a way to control them. The United States in the 1950s at height of the Cold War, started giving food to Africa to make sure the USSR didn't get a foothold there.

It worked like a dream for about 10 years. The U. S. forgot one thing: when people are well fed they have more kids. So of course the food has been increased ever since. Where does the food come from? Well the farmers don't give it away, the government BUYS it from them.

So you see overpopulation CANNOT be a problem: someone might lose a few bucks without a perfect market. (a perfert market occurs when you can sell all your produce at a guaranteed price). Then you throw in the cultural bias that 'the west knows best' that we can actually help 'the third world' so we don't feel as guilty driving around in our SUVs, and the chaos is complete. We give aid and it makes the problem worse, so we give more aid.

---

I'm very sure all the fish, birds, and every other living thing that humans don't have a use for, will be extremely pleased that we have decided our population size isn't a problem and that we can suck the oceans dry before it is.

---

I really don't see where these are 'ideas' at all. I just don't know where to put them in the article. Just because there is a very definite overpopulation problem it's too POV to say there is. This is only because it is a minority view. When it is a majority view it will, of course, cease to be a problem. ((I forgot where I read that, but it's so perfect, I just had to put it in))
--Lee Wells 11:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lee Wells makes several good points and several points i dont really understand. Let me second the points i can understand. First overpopulation is quite real and it is not POV to say so; its just a fact. As far as the distribution of wealth is concerned, we are using money as a band aid; its not the permanent solution. the permanent solution is when each region can grow adequate food to feed itself. the reason overpopulation is so patently present is that many regions of the world can no longer grow enough food. they simply do not have sufficient arable land and water supply. Next, we are patently and irreversibly destroying our ecosystems. read Holocene extinction event if you have any doubts. this destruction is simply due to overpopulation, with greed of poachers and logger playing a tangible but minor role compared to slash and burn agriculture pratised by native cultures in the tropics. Covalent 20:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is not for discussing the topic. There are numerous forums for that purpose, and you may also exchange emails. This talk page exists only for discussions of the article. Further, it is not the job of encyclopedia editors to decide whether overpopulation is real, or imagined. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. -Will Beback 05:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible terrestrial solutions

I'm moving this from the article. I think it could be rewritten and expanded into a non-POV section, but I don't know how.

"With over population, limited resource runs out so quick. Therefore,we have to find alternative resources. For example people have uwed fossil fuels such as oil, coal, for a long itme and now we are in crisis. Because they may be sed up in the future. For such problem we need to use other energy resources such as electric energy, solar energy, hydro energy, wind powered and so on, which would have unlimited sources.

Women are not well educated in some third world countries. The lack of information about contraceptives makes woman more vulnerable to STD’s and unwanted pregnancy. Proper education will allow more women to make choices about the amount of children they want. STD and Birth clinics would allow woman proper tools to make choices regarding contraceptives. Women need these types of places for their own health as as well as their communities"

TransUtopian 14:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article already refers to limited resources. Education is thought to be an important part of the "demographic transition" but the causes are not certain, but the transition's result is obvious and already in the article. (SEWilco 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

Population reduction movement

Although it's hardly a popular stance (ahem) to take, many people advocate, theorize and pontificate on the advantages of a worldwide human population somewhere south of the present number, some arriving at figures as low as 300 million. After any positive answer to the question, "Are we too many?" -- which the Overpopulation article exists in part to help us answer -- the assumption normally would be that some lower number is desirable. Apologies if this all seems very obvious, but even if skeptics consider the diagnosis "overpopulation" baseless, there are enough people who consider it true and a great danger that proposals for correcting it do belong on Wikipedia.

Should we create a separate article on "Population reduction", considering that the inclusion of proposed remedies in the present article would probably bring vigorous claims of violating NPOV (wrongly, to me, as the discussion flows naturally in the direction: "if this is true, then discuss what could be done")? The stub on "Negative Population Growth" deals only with the organization of that name, and would not serve as an appropriate place to relate the history of this idea.

Pheidias 17:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

just by volume alone this article is already too long. Population reduction should be a separate article if there is enough NPOV data to support it. Anlace 21:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved the following from article to talk

An editor added the following content not properly formatted and in first person. ironically the numbers in the text are much too low compared to actual:

Overpopulation ,a social issue by Jillian Zsolt

We have a disaster, that has killed many people around the world and it is about to hit us. In the next 100 years the worlds population will effect all citizens. The worlds population is going to double to 12 billion by 2035 . It is the biggest political problem of the 21st century. There are 1 billon people in the world that do not have food or water. The problem is that only Americans by 2035 will have produced “200,000 pounds of garbage, consumed 10 million gallons of water and would have drove 1/2 million miles and burned 20,000 gallons of gasoline. Our world is at risk because sooner or later we will have to live with out water, gasoline, and we will be living in garbage. Every place ,person ,and living thing impacts the future of life. We have to save what we have of our earth or nothing will be left.

Looks like someone should have read the article before editing it. (SEWilco 04:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Moving more new stuff from article to talk

The following is text that was recently added to the article. I have cleaned it up in moving it here:

---

The fractional rate of population growth has been declining since 1963. Before the 1960’s, the rate of global population growth was 2.4%, and is now 1.27%. This rate, however, has been influenced by the negative growth of European countries; some other countries have growth rates of over four percent. By 2050, it is estimated that

• Pakistan’s population will nearly triple, going from 142 million to 350 million
  
• India will displace China from first place with a population of about 1 550 000 000
  
• If the world keeps to the average of three children per couple, the global population will be about 10.5 billion people, about 7.7 billion of whom are expected to suffer from illness, hunger, and extreme poverty.

ive edited and placed back only the latter part of this text Anlace 20:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

---

This section also was added recently and needs some work before going on the main page:

---

Environmental Effects of Overpopulation

Overpopulation causes many problems. Not only in developing countries, but in developed countries, too. The growth of urban areas has caused many environmental problems. Each year, an estimated sixteen billion hectares of forest are cut down due to over-urbanization. This destroys the habitats of many animals and plants, and could lead to endangerment or even extinction. The rate of extinction due to overpopulation is ten thousand times faster than by natural occurrences. A big pollutant that has increased due to overpopulation is CFC’s. CFC’s are compounds of chemicals originally made for refrigeration systems, but are often now used in industries. If and when these chemicals are released into the air, they break down and release chlorine, which weakens the ozone layer and has, incidentally, created a hole in the ozone layer.

---

These would seem to need editing and references before they can be incorporated into the main body.--Pheidias 17:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The first link in the links section (U.S. Population Reaches 300 Million, Heading for 400 Million -- No Cause for Celebration) was a false one. It redirected you to a porn site so I deleted it. However the second link has the same title and is the genuine one. Gampie 12:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)