Do you think that Earth overpopulated?Posted by: minny
With humans, that is
31 Total Votes
Sorry, do you think that Earth IS overpopulated?
We have tons of ocean and desert to place people on.
Good thinking! Our world needs more dreamers like you
Minny: And the sky and even underwater :O
It's boggling my mind how so many people are voting "no"
Why would people say no? If people are starving, that's Mother Nature's way of saying STOP HAVING SO MANY KIDS
To Minny: Me having kids does not take away food from kids in Africa, as they starve from living in a harsh climate and while it isn't their fault entirely, it isn't my fault either.
I'm not saying your fault. I'm saying that humans as a whole need to have fewer children. It puts so much strain on our environment
Getting there but stats show it will begin to go down in the future as more developed countries enter stage 5 development and their populations decrease as people have less children, Its already happening in Japan and Italy.
Minny , we have a lot of food to spare. The problem is the distribution of the food.
Comrade, that's not to say we should continue reproducing at a rapid rate. Food runs out eventually
No. I actually support a 3 child limit if anything. But we produce enough food to feed about 11 billion people a year. Yet 1 billion people starve. Its actually really embarrassing for humanity if you think about it. Much to go around, but its based on your material wealth.
You know how vehemently some people oppose redistribution...
Yea, I know. Its sad though on a species wide image. Sort of dystopian.
@carriead20 You could of worded what you said better.I can easily think of one species that's in it's trillions.
Reece, that is true! If we were a low-impact species, our numbers wouldn't be as much of a problem. But unfortunately, we destroy everything we touch. Lol
Easter Island is the grand example of what happens when humans exceed the carrying capacity of their environment - total extinction. With only 1.15 acres of arable land per person (the Earth's carrying capacity is dropping and our population is increasing at the same time), our population is kept alive tenuously by the agricultural revolution. All it takes is an oil shortage (peak oil), or an environmental disaster like the dust bowl, and mass shortage/starvation can occur. We are lemmings running straight towards the cliff when it comes to human reproduction. Dr. Albert Bartlett's lecturers on arithmetic population and energy sum up the looming disaster quite nicely. If after watching one of his lectures a person is still willing to maintain that the earth is not over populated and that we should still keep pumping out babies, they and their children deserve to starve (and will).
I think we can manage the population we have already. I can agree that these days less people would be nice, but that will happen with the turning of Africa into first world countries. Child limits in Asia as well.
If we share our tech and wealth there is resources and room for billions more. We won't though, so there is the problem.
Hello Kreakin. The myth that technology can or will solve our population problems was debunked 30 years ago by Dr. Bartlett. Yes, fairly distributing the world's technology and resources would reduce poverty and suffering, but it would do nothing to delay our inevitable catastrophic collision between decreasing global carrying capacity and increasing human consumption/need. Your statement is a philosophical ideal worth striving for, but false as an argument against overpopulation.
But the question was, are we overpopulated NOW. We are not. However I agree we do not have infinite space on Earth in the long term.
I disagree Kreakin. In order to maintain current levels of human consumption with our current population (even with 0% growth), we would need more than 1.5 earths (according to The Earth Policy Institute). That is, we are currently consuming at a rate vastly greater than the Earth's ability to provide for us. We thus have two choices; reduce population or cut our consumption of resources dramatically. If we don't make the choice for ourselves, nature will choose for use and it won't be pretty. So if we are consuming at a rate of 1.5 earth's of production/capacity, I would argue that we have been overpopulated and/or having the impact of an overpopulated species for quite awhile already. The only reason why we haven't fallen over the cliff yet is because population collapse doesn't occur when the limits of carrying capacity collides with the consumption of an organism; there is a delay effect that is well documented/studied.
Interesting, got any links? "when the limits of carrying capacity collides with the consumption of an organism; there is a delay effect"
Yes, what I am referring to is known as "Overshoot" or population overshoot. Http://www.Footprintnetwork.Org/en/index.Php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_day/ The following is Dr. Bartlett's (who died in 2013 unfortunately) lecture 's on population growth, energy and the exponential function. Https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=VwzqlVZJ410&list=PL1cUCcB25EPFOX-LG-RPvVbUxkExBo-v1
We won't know what 12 o'clock is until it has likely already happened. It will likely coincide with an energy crisis (peak oil or the like). In my opinion, 12 o'clock will occur anywhere between now and 2030. The only thing that could briefly delay 12 o'clock is a significant new source of oil or energy (highly unlikely). If I was a betting man, I would vote for approximately 2020 for the big crunch.