Overpopulation Fear Overrated?

[Drachir]

According to this article fears of overpopulation may soon be laid to rest. It points out that in most of the world's nations, including some of the most populous, the current birth rate is too low to replace the population and in the rest the rate has declined considerably. As a result the fear that the world's growing population would lead to resource depletion, famine, and other problems may soon be shown to be unwarranted.

BTW don't worry about Diane Francis - she writes for the right wing National Post and puts economic development before everything else.

Cure for overpopulation may be worse than the problem itself

[Moonbat]

I've always wondered about the 'aging population' problem. Surely there isn't a simple solution. they always talk about bringing in more workers, but surely those workers will age and retire and then there wont be enough workers for them, so they'll bring in more workers, but they will age and retire too.
I know the age of retirement is rising, maybe, in this endless loop, the age of retirement will eventually be higher than the age of death.
am I missing something, is there some simple twist to this story I've missed, or am I right in thinking that we will always require more workers than retirees.

[j. d. worthington]

Whilst I would be loath to adapt such a measure, the idea that overpopulation isn't something to be concerned about is nonsense. Between the various things which have extended lifespans and increased aid for fertility, virtually eliminated death from childbirth in industrialized countries (and reduced it in many others), severely reduced fatalities from numerous "childhood" diseases, and the like, the population of humans has nearly tripled in the last century... and more than doubled in just the last 35 years (it was around 3 billion when I was in school, as I recall; now it is approaching -- or perhaps has passed -- 6.5 billion)... all of which tends toward confirming that it is at least something to ponder and attempt to find solutions for, rather than doing the "burying-your-head-in-the-sand" act of ridicule...

[Tillane]

I agree, JD. Overpopulation is a tricky one, not least because it's usually worked out as how many people the can world sustain at given levels rather than as an absolute. Depending on the standard of living you want to maintain, the world may already be overpopulated - and given that (according to the most recent figures I've seen) we're headed towards a figure of 9-9.5 billion in the next forty years or so, I certainly wouldn't be writing it off as an overrated problem.

[Ursa major]

In a place the size of Canada, a country whose population is also made up mostly of immigrants and the descendants of immigrants (including some of my relatives, just in case you think I'm picking on anyone), it's easy to see that producing or importing people might look like a solution to an ageing population. But as Moonbat says, people wherever they come from, age and the overwhelming majority will eventually require younger folk to look after them (if only financially).

(As as aside, I am always amazed by people in power - who, at the moment, are at least meant to be left-of centre (don't laugh) - who see, say, economic migrants only as workers** or (worse) workers who won't ever mind being given low wages and the worst jobs.)

In many parts of the world - Bangladesh is the most obvious example (it has a very high population density, a high fertility rate and a lot of agricultural land in danger of flooding, whether the cause be storms or sea-level rise) - countries do not have wide open spaces on which to build ever more housing. In countries like the UK, where there is still a lot of space (which is perhaps why Scotland is relatively keen on inward migration), migrants tend to go to existing areas of economic development***. (In the UK, this is the south east of England****, where land and water - to drink/for industry - are in the shortest supply.)

On top of that, in the developed world, more and more folk are being educated to degree level. While this could be seen to be economically beneficial, it does reduce the proportion of those paying for the rest.

I would never want to suggest that any country go down the road that China has. I have no solution for those countries that cannot (ever) support the populations they'll have in the (very?) near future.

As for advanced economies, the only answer is to skew the balance between working and supported population in favour of the former; and the only long-term way of doing this is to greatly increase the retirement age. Endlessly increasing the population (whether through fertility or migration) does not give a long-term solution except in countries that have plenty of room for (environmentally-sound) development.





** - In ministers' eyes, these folk not only work, they pay tax. (Those in power seem to ignore the fact that they're just ordinary people, with hopes and dreams the same of the rest of us, with all that implies for the spending side of the government budget, not to mention a growing desire for better work and wages.)

*** - Of course they do. Wouldn't you? I certainly would.

**** - The south west of England is far nicer.

[JDP]

I don't believe we're ever going to get the population gradient to tip the other way, into a reducing phase*; it's just not in the psyche of the majority of people.

IMO the way forward is to change the ratio of resource vs standard of living. Who's going to be at the forefront of achieving that? Our kids; tomorrows scientists, thinkers and philosophers. We just need to last long enough until those unborn geniuses open up the rest of the solar system for us and we can start migrating from our little rocky island

*not in a controlled way anyway - global thermonuclear war/transcontinental famine/apocalypse might do it.

[dustinzgirl]

Nature will even itself out. Either by lowered birth or increased death rates. I don't see why we worry so much about over population. We should worry more about a healthy population.

[Sparrow]

If China had not worried about overpopulation decades ago there would have already been mass starvations and perhaps the kind of civil unrest you only read about in trashy doomsday novels.

Where you have overpopulation you get poverty, disease, and usually intense civil unrest. Nature is like the Free Market, we let it go it's merry way at our own peril. There is no such thing as a Balance of Nature. Nature is in continual flux and as we, humanity, are the greatest stress on Nature, it's our responsibilty to live within our means.


"If resources required to sustain the organism are being consumed by the organism faster than the resource can be renewed, then the organism is overpopulated."


We're already there, folks.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

If China had not worried about overpopulation decades ago there would have already been mass starvations and perhaps the kind of civil unrest you only read about in trashy doomsday novels.

In the last year or so, I read in the Economist** a report that suggested that China's One Child policy might lead to civil unrest in the future. The writer's reasoning was as follows:

1. More parents seem to want a male child than a female child.
2. The are (or will be soon; I forget) millions, perhaps tens of millions, of males without any prospect of having a family, simply because males outnumber females.
3. In the past, an excess number of single males in China has led to revolts, exacerbating other conflicts (such as economic problems).

It seems hard to believe that China would resort to counselling to solve such unrest; I'm thinking it would be more along the lines of the PLA waving (and firing) guns and "the kind of civil unrest you only read about in trashy doomsday novels".


Which isn't to say that there's no problem - there is - only that the one child policy may not be the best solution to it.







** - Sorry, but I can't recall the date of publication and the Economist is not at all keen on non-subscribers reading their reports online.

[Sparrow]

That's why it's necessary for future humans to come into the world with both packages, male and female.
I once watched a video that had these sort of people in it, so I know it's possible.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

Nature will even itself out. Either by lowered birth or increased death rates. I don't see why we worry so much about over population. We should worry more about a healthy population.

That's just it, Dustie: without some precautions taken, with a limited sphere in which to develop resources (and that is simply an irrefutable physical fact unless we get our butts out and colonize other planets, which produces major problems of its own, including the simple orneriness of human beings in what will necessarily be prolonged confined spaces even once they get there), we are coming uncomfortably close to releasing the four horsemen on ourselves by our own lackadaisical attitude to such problems. Worry? Perhaps not. But being concerned enough to seek workable solutions... unless we wish to increase the incidence of plague, famine, war, and horrendous death in the not-too-distant future, we'd damned well better start putting in some effort....

I, for one, would much rather see a sane and rational solution to avert such taken, which would necessarily require a fair degree of education to lever people out of blind prejudicial thinking on such issues to at least examine the evidence openly rather than through acquired biases, rather than have a repeat of what we have seen throughout history when too many humans were forced into too small an environment (and its attendant limited resources). A healthy population includes mentally healthy as well; and you aren't likely to have either when an increasing number of people are going without vital necessities for survival....

Sparrow: if you are referring to hermaphrodites, the problem is that, in addition to certain psychological pressures attendant on such a condition (and yes, it is more common than most people realize, though still quite rare), they would usually face horrendous societal attitudes which result in such things as doctors choosing which gender they will be to outright murder as "monsters" or "freaks". This may be a barbaric practice, but the existence of these things makes promotion of hermaphrodism an unviable proposition in our current state.... (Who knows, though, it may eventually become otherwise.....)

[Sparrow]

JD ~Sparrow: if you are referring to hermaphrodites, the problem is that, in addition to certain psychological pressures attendant on such a condition (and yes, it is more common than most people realize, though still quite rare), they would usually face horrendous societal attitudes which result in such things as doctors choosing which gender they will be to outright murder as "monsters" or "freaks". This may be a barbaric practice, but the existence of these things makes promotion of hermaphrodism an unviable proposition in our current state.... (Who knows, though, it may eventually become otherwise.....)

Yeah, that's why I was just joking about it.
Aside from the prejudices they would face, hermaphrodites, generally have loads of mental problems, a poor fashion sense, and an unholy desire to listen to Liza Minnelli show tunes.

As we're just beginning to tinker with human biology and colonizing space is hundreds if not thousands of years off, we (humanity) will need to do something in the meantime about overpopulation and pollution. In this regard we're lucky, the science and technology we need to combat these two things is mostly already here. I doubt we'll appreciate just how perilous our position is in time to make these changes, but at least we have a fighting chance.

[j. d. worthington]

I rather gathered you were; still, there's something rather nifty (to me, at any rate) about an hermaphrodite... (though I'll admit I can do without the Liza Minelli bit).....

And yes, we are lucky in that we have a lot of the tools necessary to at least give us a half decent chance. Now, if only we can get people to realize that there's a reason for actually working on solutions, we might just have something there....

[chrispenycate]

The argument of needing young people to tax so the money can pay for the pensions of the old is seriously flawed; it is in fact just an excuse by governments who spent the money that had been coming in instead of investing it (if they had been private insurance firms this would have been called theft).

All that really matters is wealth production, and that can be handled by considerably fewer people, as is demonstrated by massive unemployment despite half the workforce being in essentially unproductive jobs, like administration or advertising. How much would the world's agricultural and industrial production drop if we shot all the lawyers? And how much extra free wealth would there be? (Not that I am seriously suggesting this as a solution – well, not very seriously, anyway.)

Almost all the major problems in the world stem from an excess of humanity; a full scale plague would probably improve the health of our environment immensely. We don't merely need to stop population rising, we need it to fall, and not in fifty years time, but soon; and it's not going to happen. I'm certainly not in favour of trying to bring infant mortality backup to the levels of a century ago, or reintroduce famine, and genocide (which I disapprove of too) seems merely to be a tribal rebalance, no long term help at all.

While the major religions on the planet are anti birth control, governments measure their power by the total number of governed, there is a social pressure in a majority of the countries on the planet for a woman's value to be measured in terms of the number of living offspring she can breed, then the world needs to have a way of killing a very much higher percentage of its inhabitants than now, even considering wars and the way modern transport methods are so efficient at distributing diseases.

Where's my lawyer gun?

[Sparrow]

JD ~And yes, we are lucky in that we have a lot of the tools necessary to at least give us a half decent chance. Now, if only we can get people to realize that there's a reason for actually working on solutions, we might just have something there....

I would doubt it though.
Here we are on a sf f forum where you might at least expect some broad consensus, and yet the majority are still in the denial phase. To think that there are those who believe mankind's effect on the planet stops where Climate begins, is beyond my reckoning.