Overpopulation is defined as "the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash."

People are always talking about overpopulation in the media, in the news. However, there are some who think that the whole "overpopulation" idea is a myth, that there really is no problem with the exponential growth and that it does not cause problems in the environment, etc.

So is overpopulation a problem?

Yes. As it is, it would require several earths' worth of land in order for every human on earth to eat as an average American.

This is why I hate nukes. We cant have good ole fashion wars which also serve as population control

Debs wrote:

Yes. As it is, it would require several earths' worth of land in order for every human on earth to eat as an average American.

I would love love LOVE to see even a smidge of evidence to prove this.

Uh, well we have one earth now, and it doesn't provide enough food for everyone to eat like an American now, ergo what I said.

some of the places with the lowest standard of living are also the most sparely populated.

Debs wrote:

Uh, well we have one earth now, and it doesn't provide enough food for everyone to eat like an American now, ergo what I said.

Uh, prove it.

eynon wrote:

some of the places with the lowest standard of living are also the most sparely populated.

and therefore...?

Debs wrote:

eynon wrote: some of the places with the lowest standard of living are also the most sparely populated. and therefore...?

the world probably isn't over-populated.

this subject has been covered numerous times in the past and it always ends with the neomalthusians getting their asses pwned.

No, take a drive across the U.S. and see how over populated we are.

I don't believe over-population is a problem, it's how we're using our resources and the area's humans live at that is the problem.

Overpopulation would probably be a problem if everyone was to attain first world standards of living (including first world levels of consumption) - I doubt we could sustain it.

The intensive farming methods currently being employed to provide food for the people we have now are killing the soil. If the population of the Earth continues to grow at its current rate, we will see millions of people starving.

I'm beginning to think that some major setback to world population numbers will come in a few years, possibly a pandemic which will annihilate most of Humanity.

Quote:

This is why I hate nukes. We cant have good ole fashion wars which also serve as population control

The total death toll of World War II for all combatant nations (inclduing China), counting military and civillian deaths, is estimated at just over 48 million. ABout 25.5 million people are born just in India every year. A good old-fashioned war would scarcely make a dent.

It's not as if devastating wars aren't still happening. The deadliest conflict since the Second World War was the Second Congo War from 1998 to 2003. Despite this deadly conflict going on, population in the Dem. Rep. of Congo has continued to rise, almost doubling since the 80s.

eynon wrote:

some of the places with the lowest standard of living are also the most sparely populated.

This sort of thing's difficult to count, but if it was it would suggest that the reason these places are sparsely populated is because they are very difficult areas to live in. People congregate in the areas with resources they need to get by - the middle of nowhere often tends to be quite inhospitable, and home only to the adventurous or desperate.

Either way, I doubt it is true. Here are the top 5 (in blue) and bottom five (in red) countries according to the Human Development Index rankings, listed in order of population density (highest at the top, lowest at the bottom):

Sierra Leone - 217/sqmi
Ireland - 153/sqmi
Liberia - 82/sqmi
Congo - 72/sqmi
Mozambique - 65/sqmi
Norway = 39/sqmi
Central African Republic - 18/sqmi
Canada - 9/sqmi
Iceland - 8/sqmi
Australia - 7/sqmi

I'm not seeing the correlation you imply. It's true that there are some sparsely populated areas with poor standards of living. But it's also true that Bangladesh and the Gaza Strip are very crowded and also have poor standards of living.

The important question is how much population can an area support - different resources means different numbers of people. You can't have too many people in Australia, as much of it is simply uninhabitable desert and they already have problems with water supply. There are several places in the world, such as India and northern China, where fresh water is being extracted faster than it is replaced, and that's not sustainable.

It's always possible that future technological innovations will dramatically increase the carrying capacity of the earth. But it's also true that population is still growing and we are already overusing some resources in the more populous areas of the world. Of course overpopulation is a real problem.

Debs wrote:

Yes. As it is, it would require several earths' worth of land in order for every human on earth to eat as an average American.

However, the average American eats way too much.

perdidochas wrote:

Debs wrote: Yes. As it is, it would require several earths' worth of land in order for every human on earth to eat as an average American. However, the average American eats way too much.

Nevertheless, a first world standard of living requires that people aren't unsure whether they will be able to eat tomorrow. To get the entire population of the world to that situation would require far more fertile land than we have on this planet.

Also, people seem to think that all the unoccupied land on Earth is habitable, ans could be used for farming. This is clearly nonsense.

Clarino wrote:

Nevertheless, a first world standard of living requires that people aren't unsure whether they will be able to eat tomorrow. To get the entire population of the world to that situation would require far more fertile land than we have on this planet. Also, people seem to think that all the unoccupied land on Earth is habitable, ans could be used for farming. This is clearly nonsense.

Good point. Here are the least densely populated territories on earth:





What are we supposed to grow there?

caffeine wrote:

Clarino wrote: Nevertheless, a first world standard of living requires that people aren't unsure whether they will be able to eat tomorrow. To get the entire population of the world to that situation would require far more fertile land than we have on this planet. Also, people seem to think that all the unoccupied land on Earth is habitable, ans could be used for farming. This is clearly nonsense. Good point. Here are the least densely populated territories on earth: What are we supposed to grow there?

True. But let's take it one step further - we are propping up societies where environmental changes has ravaged the land. Setting up for failure?

Not to mention, that we pay farmers to either destroy their produce or grow less of it to maintain "market value."

LilithIshtar wrote:

I don't believe over-population is a problem, it's how we're using our resources and the area's humans live at that is the problem.

bingo!

cept maybe India, they seem overpopulated.