The overpopulation myth
Somebody put this video on Facebook:
I never quite understood the overpopulation fear. What does it mean to be overpopulated? That we have too many people living on the planet to feed, and some will die? Well, if some die, doesn't that pretty much solve the overpopulation problem? To me it seems like fearing overpopulation is fearing that the Earth will one day support more people than it can... which really makes no sense. If the Earth can only support, say, 22 billion people, then it can only support 22 billion people. You don't have to worry about it going over because it can't.
In other words, population naturally controls itself. If a baby is born and there aren't enough resources to support its survival, it dies, and that's that.
It's like fearing somebody will grow too old to live... Don't worry, when you are too old to live, you will die. You don't have to do anything to make sure you are dead when you should be. It happens by itself.
I guess what really worries people is the thought that we will, as a species, run out of resources and our species will die. Well... yeah!! That's inevitable! There is no human or species that can live forever.
That isn't to say we shouldn't try to prolong it... but I don't think we should fear it.
That said, I don't like some of the things in the video. The whole Texas thing seems to assume that people only need a plot of land to live. It says nothing about all the resources, both biological and psychological, we would all need to survive in such a place. It's not like a plot of land of a specific size is all we need. It doesn't mention food and water distribution, for example. Maybe it is just trying to make a point about physical space, but are advocates of the overpopulation fear arguing that we will all be squished? I haven't heard that argument...
I'm also not so sure about its prediction of the next 30 years... in fact, I'm not sure there's really any scientific way anyone could make an accurate prediction like that... and why does it matter anyway? If the Earth could sustain 100 billion (perhaps with of technological innovations), would that be bad? I don't think so.
I never quite understood the overpopulation fear. What does it mean to be overpopulated? That we have too many people living on the planet to feed, and some will die? Well, if some die, doesn't that pretty much solve the overpopulation problem? To me it seems like fearing overpopulation is fearing that the Earth will one day support more people than it can... which really makes no sense. If the Earth can only support, say, 22 billion people, then it can only support 22 billion people. You don't have to worry about it going over because it can't.
In other words, population naturally controls itself. If a baby is born and there aren't enough resources to support its survival, it dies, and that's that.
It's like fearing somebody will grow too old to live... Don't worry, when you are too old to live, you will die. You don't have to do anything to make sure you are dead when you should be. It happens by itself.
I guess what really worries people is the thought that we will, as a species, run out of resources and our species will die. Well... yeah!! That's inevitable! There is no human or species that can live forever.
That isn't to say we shouldn't try to prolong it... but I don't think we should fear it.
That said, I don't like some of the things in the video. The whole Texas thing seems to assume that people only need a plot of land to live. It says nothing about all the resources, both biological and psychological, we would all need to survive in such a place. It's not like a plot of land of a specific size is all we need. It doesn't mention food and water distribution, for example. Maybe it is just trying to make a point about physical space, but are advocates of the overpopulation fear arguing that we will all be squished? I haven't heard that argument...
I'm also not so sure about its prediction of the next 30 years... in fact, I'm not sure there's really any scientific way anyone could make an accurate prediction like that... and why does it matter anyway? If the Earth could sustain 100 billion (perhaps with of technological innovations), would that be bad? I don't think so.
posted by Sean Hannifin at
1:30 AM
4 Comments:
interesting. But it is also a question of the quality of survival. If 5 people live in a small house, they might live comfortably. If 20 people live there, they might be miserable, not get enough to eat and everyone suffers. So...............
By
REEK, at 8:09 AM
Besides which (and I notice the weasel words phrasing that Malthus, who was reasonably bright, "styled" himself a mathematician), even if there's enough global food for the global population and probably will be for a long time, ... well, the whole population doesn't have global access. India, for example, or even more specifically, -inserttightlypackedIndiantown-, IS overpopulated - they can't produce enough food there to actually feed all its inhabitants. Most big cities don't. They have to import it! Luckily, there are also many underpopulated places, such as sprawling acres of farmland...
However, if it weren't for modern technology and transportation, we couldn't import this food (so well). We really couldn't support overpopulated metropolises. Some places still can't support... er, quite logically... more people than they have. Isn't that how natural selection works - the most fit young is the one that can eats, since there isn't enough food to sustain all new creatures introduced to an area? (Survival of the fittest rather than of the fit enough.)
I guess by my rambling I mean that it can be localized, since it can be difficult or impossible to use resources from across the globe. Local overpopulation occurs constantly and must be fed by external sources.
By
Luke Anthony, at 9:49 AM
"But it is also a question of the quality of survival. If 5 people live in a small house, they might live comfortably. If 20 people live there, they might be miserable, not get enough to eat and everyone suffers."
Good point. So we can define "overpopulation" not really as "too many people to survive" (which makes no sense anyway), but as "too many people to live comfortably" ... they'll survive, they'll just suffer, either because they don't have any personal space or enough food to ever feel entirely full.
But is that really an entirely new problem? Isn't that a natural problem that has to exist in any life system? With the way most life works, life just breeds as much as possible.
I think the real problem comes down to stupid people who do not have access to the resources to raise a child, but reproduce anyway.
Not really an overpopulation problem, and definitely not a global-overpopulation problem... just a stupid-people-can-still-breed problem... with no solution.
By
Sean Hannifin, at 6:19 PM
"I guess by my rambling I mean that it can be localized, since it can be difficult or impossible to use resources from across the globe. Local overpopulation occurs constantly and must be fed by external sources."
I think you're right... but, and maybe I'm just getting too much into semantics, I'm not sure I'd call that an overpopulation problem... more of a standard-of-living problem caused by localized overpopulation. I mean, the problem isn't that there are too many to feed, as the food does get there... the problem is that the standard of living declines because they don't have the space to spread out.
So the standard of living is low because there are so many people in one area, but the population itself in that localized area still regulates itself. If they want the standard of living to go up, even if by a little, they have to collectively decide to not breed so much, which I reckon is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Or I'm more tempted to say it's really a political problem, as I'm not sure the Indian government makes the best choices...
I'd also say almost-free-market capitalism is probably best for population levels because when people have careers and broader life goals, they tend not to want to breed so much. But I think there will always naturally be some degree of localized overpopulation.
By
Sean Hannifin, at 6:42 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home