population growth

[fuckemall]

This is an issue which i struggle with as i dont know how we could solve it.

World population 1750 - 791 Million
" " 1800 - 978 "
" " 1900 - 1.650 Billion
" " 1950 - 2.521 "
" " 1999 - 5.978 "
" " 2009 - 6.76 "

Estimated population 2050 - 9 Billion

Anyone see a pattern here ??
My problem here is that if population growth continues unchecked then soon it wont matter what political system we have in place. We simply wont have the space or resources to support the population, and what happens then.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not this shit again. The last time somebody brought up the issue of alleged overpopulation, they turned out to be some kind of primmo fascist nutcase.

But in any case, I really don't see what the problem is exactly. If there's too many people and too little food, then starvation will ensure the excess population is culled. That may sound callous, but if nothing is done about it (or if something is done but it's not enough) then it's inevitable.

It's a naturally self-limiting problem, and is hardly the end of the world as we know it.

[revolution inaction]

My problem here is that if population growth continues unchecked then soon it wont matter what political system we have in place. We simply wont have the space or resources to support the population, and what happens then.

is there any reason to think that population growth will continue unchecked regardless of political system?

[ZeroNowhere]

Two heads are better than one.

[Socialist Scum]

The world is still massively empty of humans. The hole human race could fit on the isle of man...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The world is still massively empty of humans. The hole human race could fit on the isle of man...

I don't think so.

Land area for the Isle of Man is 572 km² (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_Isle_of_Man)). Assuming a world population of 6.5 billion, and a quarter of a square meter for each person, the land area required turns out to be approximately 1.6 million km².

Using the above assumptions, one could fit approximately 9 million people on the Isle of Man. Generously assuming an average height of 1.8 meters for the global population, one would have to stack the global population in a pile 1.3 kilometres tall in order to fit all 6.5 billion people on the Isle of Man.

All of the above is of course not taking into account the fact that people need to be fed, watered, sheltered etc.

Whoops.

While it is almost certainly possible for the human population to be distributed in a far more compact manner, one should be wary of parroting spurious figures that in all likelyhood were not intended as exercises for demonstrating that the world is overpopulated.

[ComradeOm]

is there any reason to think that population growth will continue unchecked regardless of political system?Is there any reason to think that continued population growth is in any way a problem? It has not proven to be so far

[revolution inaction]

Is there any reason to think that continued population growth is in any way a problem? It has not proven to be so far

well eventually assuming no change in farming methods, or in the really long term no mass space travel an colonization. of cause (is that how its spelt?) we can't assume either of those things.
But even the idea that the population will grow is not supported by the facts, which is why i started with that.

[ComradeOm]

well eventually assuming no change in farming methodsWhich is the assumption that underpins all Malthusian doomsaying. This is simply without foundation, as recent history alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution) demonstrates

[revolution inaction]

Which is the assumption that underpins all Malthusian doomsaying. This is simply without foundation, as recent history alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution) demonstrates

Yes, currently more food then needed is produced and in many parts of the world the world modern methods are still not used. And we can improve on those methods too, for example Vertical farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming) .

[Yazman]

Yeah, we do have a massive problem with distribution but therein lies the problem and it is a problem that lifestylists who turn to veganism and vegetarianism always seem to overlook without fail.

Famine in many parts of the world has nothing to do with malthusian catastrophes or there "not being enough for everybody" - its more of a problem with distribution than anything. There was actually a UN report on this before, if I can find it I will post the link.

[griffjam]

The food supply grows before population.

[bretty]

If anyone has read Planet of Slums it discusses the increasingly populated world. However it is false to think that the trend will continue without change. Slavoj Zizek claims in response, and partial agreement to Davis, that this new mass of people living in slums is a revolutionary force with a stark resemblance to the proletariat.

Distribution is essentially the problem here, and poverty encourages population growth. My perspective is that before resources become the issue, there will be first and foremost an issue with this surplus of human population unable to be integrated into the formal work economy (in a capitalist system).

[Hegemonicretribution]

Which is the assumption that underpins all Malthusian doomsaying. This is simply without foundation, as recent history alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution) demonstrates

Exactly, the overpopulation that he supposed can scarcely be found in animals. Let alone humans who have the capacity to increase the resources available.

Even if it reached the point whereby we had more or less maxed-out our ability to improve resource generation, it would be incorrect to say that the political system would not mater....

....Surplus is often agreed to be one of the necessary conditions for any viable, loosely Marxist society. We now generate a surplus, but we don't benifit from it because the means of distribution are so poor. As we approach the point where we can no-longer increase what is available to us (which I don't necessarily believe we ever will) all it means is that methods of distribution become more important.


The world is still massively empty of humans. The hole human race could fit on the isle of man...
:lol: I nearly wet myself when I read that, it gets pretty fucking crowded when TT is on, I don' even think you could fit all the bikers in the world on there.

Noxion, there are a lot of hills and valley's so maybe you could fit in a few more :p

[JohannGE]

It would be good if resorces or at least our ability to increase them through technology were infinate.

I don't share the confidence expressed here that they are though.

I expect that war, famine or perhaps compulsory birth control might compensate for any shortfall. I would not expect anyone with any compasion to glibly cite any of them as an acceptable solution to the potential problem though.

[Picky Bugger]

I expect that war, famine or perhaps compulsory birth control might compensate for any shortfall. I would not expect anyone with any compasion to glibly cite any of them as an acceptable solution to the potential problem though.

The three things you stated could only have a very marginal affect on population growth. I read somewhere that roughly 50-70 million people were killed in WW2 now these numbers will have little affect on population if it becomes an issue (which it wont.) It seems unlikely that something such as birth control could be managed in the West as it barely worked in China where it was controlled by force and it at best would slow any affects, saying that the West is not over populated like India and China.

Malthusian theory is broken and there is definitely no threat from global over population at this point although there may be something to urban over population.

[JohannGE]

The three things you stated could only have a very marginal affect on population growth. I read somewhere that roughly 50-70 million people were killed in WW2 now these numbers will have little affect on population if it becomes an issue (which it wont.) It seems unlikely that something such as birth control could be managed in the West as it barely worked in China where it was controlled by force and it at best would slow any affects, saying that the West is not over populated like India and China.

Please replace the word "expect" with perhaps. Bad choice by me. I did not intend to imply that I was promoting war, famine or birth control as a viable solution to a possible/potential problem.

My point was that even without significant population growth, inevitable depletion of resorces was likely to have lethal effects. I don't share the optomistic blind faith that technology can or would even bother to address those effects.

Most of all I wished to distance myself from the view that relying on culling by means of famine was an acceptable way to address a shortage of resorces.



Malthusian theory is broken and there is definitely no threat from global over population at this point although there may be something to urban over population.

I made no mention of Mathusian theory or any claims of a threat of global overpopulation.

[Picky Bugger]

I never stated that you said anything about Malthusian theory but it has been discussed in the post, I was merely stating my view on it.

I realised that you were not promoting these things but people may think that these are viable, I was stating that they are a pointless exercise. Its seem that actually controlling population growth is improbable at best and most likely impossible not that I am advocating that it should be controlled.

I agree that the depletion of resources could have harmful affects upon mankind but I think this issue is a way off. I do feel that science if not technology could be very important especially in terms of efficiency, surely this is in the interests of industry etc.

[JohannGE]

I agree that the depletion of resources could have harmful affects upon mankind but I think this issue is a way off. I do feel that science if not technology could be very important especially in terms of efficiency, surely this is in the interests of industry etc.

We are not so far apart on this then.

While I agree that science could be very important it doesn't actually produce any resources at all. It is only when science is applied via technology and the technology deployed by industry that any potential increase in production would be gained. The interest of industry is, as we know is profit. Industry might well reach the conclusion that a famine induced cull would suit their interests. It seems to work on that principle at the moment.

Or are we banking on these resource shortages being "way off" enough to allow time for a successful world revolution before they hit?

[Cult of Reason]

Population growth IS a problem. True, improved technology has provided, and still does provide, higher carrying capacity for the human population, but it would be stupid in the extreme to rely on that indefinitely. In many fields you get diminishing returns for improved technology. If population growth is at a rate greater than the increase in crop yields then we are in serious trouble if we do not reduce the number of children we have.

From 1961 to 2007, yields of wheat increased by 156%, of rice by 122%, of maize by 156% and of potatoes by 36%. From 1990 to 2007: wheat 9%, rice 18%, maize 35% and potatoes 10%.

Statistics from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN: http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567

In 1961, the human population was about 3 billion. Currently it is about 6.7 billion. This is an increase of about 123%. From 1990 (population 5.25 billion) the increase has been by 28%. This is greater than all the crops listed except maize, for this period. Assuming firstly that the rates of growth stay roughly the same and secondly that much more rice, wheat and potatoes (in terms of kilojoules of energy provided) can or will be grown than maize (currently much more of them are grown than maize). Due to laziness I will go by FAO's statistics in tonnes: maize is 33%, potatoes 14%, rice 28% and wheat 26% of the maize-potatoes-rice-wheat combination. This would give an average rate of increase of about 20%, unless I have made an error somewhere. This is less than the 28% increase in the population in the same period, which means that if the average diet has remained same (and people eat only or mainly maize, potatoes, rice and wheat...), then 7% more land has had to be used to grow crops with in this period, which obvously cannot carry on forever.

Furthermore, even if food is not regarded as a problem, there are other things people need: decent shelter, sanitation, healthcare and consumer goods. A lot of these things are dependent upon very-much-limited minerals. Even if everything is recycled the materials are finite (and let us not consider entropy either) so increasing population lowers the limit for standard of living.

Now, it is fun to speculate about how technology could improve so that we could feed more people, or give a decent standard of living to more people, but even if it DOES turn out that way this still applies: Increasing the population is risky as technological progress is difficult to predict, but there is no obvious benefit to increasing the population, so why increase the population if it is possible to have a steady state? Letting population increase continue is an unnecessary risk and the cost of stopping population growth (eventually, after the effect of population momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_momentum)) is not that great: surely two children (a girl and a boy, perhaps?) is enough? Is it really necessary to have more?

[Vanguard1917]

Furthermore, even if food is not regarded as a problem, there are other things people need: decent shelter, sanitation, healthcare and consumer goods. A lot of these things are dependent upon very-much-limited minerals. Even if everything is recycled the materials are finite (and let us not consider entropy either) so increasing population lowers the limit for standard of living.

Do you have any evidence of that happening? Such predictions have been around for almost as long as bourgeois political economy has been around, but they have never been backed up by reality.



Increasing the population is risky as technological progress is difficult to predict, but there is no obvious benefit to increasing the population, so why increase the population if it is possible to have a steady state? Letting population increase continue is an unnecessary risk and the cost of stopping population growth (eventually, after the effect of population momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_momentum)) is not that great: surely two children (a girl and a boy, perhaps?) is enough? Is it really necessary to have more?


What do you suggest? State bans?

[Cult of Reason]

Do you have any evidence of that happening? Such predictions have been around for almost as long as bourgeois political economy has been around, but they have never been backed up by reality.

Of what? Actual falling standard of living as a result of overpopulation? Not for the West, certainly, and perhaps not on any large area of Earth. As I said, increasing population lowers the limit for standard of living. I did not say that that limit had yet been met. If we are at 90% of the limit now, and all reductions are evenly distributed, then the 9 billion population forecast for 2050 would have a standard of living of 83% of what we currently have. Personally, I doubt the limit is (currently) that low, but it should be kept in mind that, for as long as we continue to waste our resources through not recycling, through artificial obsolescence etc., the limit will lower even with a stable population.

Also, as I have said elsewhere, as new sources of a mineral are needed they do tend to be developed, but they tend to require more work, which is bad for humans (though I suppose this is quality of life rather than standard of living).


What do you suggest? State bans?

There are more effective ways: improving standard of living, for example or, especially, better education and rights for women, or increased urbanisation (no need for begetting extra farm-hands when you live in a city), though these take a while to take effect. There is also the carrot approach: perhaps child support for the first two children, and none thereafter, with a bonus for female children (to mitigate the effect, seen in China, of female foetuses being aborted more often than male ones).

The thing is, though, that the areas most of us are probably familiar with, the West, has no real need for this policy as fertility rates are already declining (in fact they are below replacement level for non-immigrants, a good thing) and hence population growth as well. In general, fertility is higher among immigrants from poorer countries and among the religious. It is the Third World that are the problem, and I think they should, in the short term, adopt the "carrot" method. The others, education, rights for women, urbanisation and improved living standards will probably happen anyway, as they are good for different reasons.

If all else fails, the Third World governments, who are generally oppressive anyway, could emulate the One Child Policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_child_policy#Effects_on_population_growth_and_ fertility_rate

BTW, what do you think of bans as a collective decision made by referendum?

[Picky Bugger]

In general, fertility is higher among immigrants from poorer countries and among the religious. It is the Third World that are the problem, and I think they should, in the short term, adopt the "carrot" method. The others, education, rights for women, urbanisation and improved living standards will probably happen anyway, as they are good for different reasons.

BTW, what do you think of bans as a collective decision made by referendum?

As you say the Third world and religion pose the largest threat yet these are sadly the hardest to control. I cannot see the majority of Third World especially in Africa having the money or the inclination to vastly improve something such as education and Religion will not budge, the 2.1B Christians may be difficult to control although I am not saying all Christians have massive families.

I don't see increased urbanisation as a solution as the cost of living will be greater in urban environments even in the worst favela's meaning that people will need just as many children as before. The comparisons between industrial era Britain and developing countries in this sense is applicable.

A one child policy could work but i would say that places such as India and Bangladesh are quite different from China making the policy harder to control.

Bans from referendum could work but I think they would be opposed greatly in the West (no need really) and the majority of the Third world have no electoral rights at least not in an active sense.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/%5Bdefault_img_src%5D http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/ad/dictionary.otpmedia/dictionary/ros;tile=1;sz=468x60,728x90;ord=123456789? (http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/jump/dictionary.otpmedia/dictionary/ros;tile=1;sz=468x60,728x90;ord=123456789?) http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-e4m3Yko6bFYVc.gif?labels=NewsAndReference,Educatio nAndEmployment

[Vanguard1917]

Of what? Actual falling standard of living as a result of overpopulation? Not for the West, certainly, and perhaps not on any large area of Earth. As I said, increasing population lowers the limit for standard of living. I did not say that that limit had yet been met. If we are at 90% of the limit now, and all reductions are evenly distributed, then the 9 billion population forecast for 2050 would have a standard of living of 83% of what we currently have. Personally, I doubt the limit is (currently) that low, but it should be kept in mind that, for as long as we continue to waste our resources through not recycling, through artificial obsolescence etc., the limit will lower even with a stable population.

And such talk of pre-given natural limits to growth have been around for many, many years, and have usually been proven wrong.


The thing is, though, that the areas most of us are probably familiar with, the West, has no real need for this policy as fertility rates are already declining (in fact they are below replacement level for non-immigrants, a good thing) and hence population growth as well. In general, fertility is higher among immigrants from poorer countries and among the religious. It is the Third World that are the problem, and I think they should, in the short term, adopt the "carrot" method. The others, education, rights for women, urbanisation and improved living standards will probably happen anyway, as they are good for different reasons.


'It is the Third World that are the problem'? Does that sentence not sound like utterly reactionary crap to you?

In other words, Westerners should be 'educating' -- i.e. indoctrinating -- black and brown people with neo-Malthusian ideology, because they are apparently overbreeding and don't know any better.


If all else fails, the Third World governments, who are generally oppressive anyway, could emulate the One Child Policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_chi...fertility_rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_child_policy#Effects_on_population_growth_and_ fertility_rate)


And thus be more oppressive.

Sorry, but your post shows nothing but disdain for the bulk of the world's people.

For us progressive humanists, the problem has always been the system, not people.

[MarxSchmarx]

If you think overpopulation is inherently disastrous, look at high-density, low resource countries like Japan or Holland that nevertheless get by fine.

It has to do with how resources are produced and allocated, not human density as such.

[Cult of Reason]

If you think overpopulation is inherently disastrous, look at high-density, low resource countries like Japan or Holland that nevertheless get by fine.

It has to do with how resources are produced and allocated, not human density as such.

The Earth is, for all intents and purposes, a closed system in terms of matter with a constant energy input. Japan and the Netherlands are in no way closed systems. If Japan does not have everything it needs (and it certainly doesn't) it can buy it from elsewhere. The Earth as a whole would not have such a luxury if it became overpopulated itself.

Overpopulation is only a problem because of the threat of resources being thinly distributed. For the Earth as a whole, assuming it is not feasible to get a lot of stuff from outside, that threat is certain.

[Vanguard1917]

The Earth is, for all intents and purposes, a closed system in terms of matter with a constant energy input.

The crucial variable is human intervention. The natural resources that we discover and learn to use more efficiently, and then abandoned when no longer desireable or efficient, are not fixed or 'closed' but are subject to human innovation and improvement. The stone age did not end because of a lack of stone and coal-use did not diminish due to a shortage of coal -- change brought about by human activity, our ability to better exploit natural resources, is key.

You argued that oppressive measures may be needed to reduce the population of the developing world, which is the political outcome of the incredibly anti-human logic of the population control thesis.