Growing World's Population: is it a problem?

[Manic Impressive]

The estimated population of the world is around 6.4 billion people and it will continue to grow as more scientific advancements are made. I have some right-wing friends who use this as an argument against socialism. They argue that "With the improved conditions socialism would bring the world's population would grow much faster. This is why the world needs wars and famine" My only response to this is usually just to tell him to stfu he's crazy. On the other hand the worlds growing population is not something that I have a constructive argument against as I can see that it has the potential to be a problem especially in a stateless society.

So my question is, is it a problem?
This is not exactly an issue I spend much time worrying about but if anyone has any thoughts or could recommend some literature I'd be grateful.

[Zanthorus]

The birth rates are much lower in advanced industrial societies. Betterment of material conditions tends to come along with all sorts of thing like better education for men and women about birth control, and the means to acquire it. The only counter-argument I've heard for the statement that better material conditions decrease birth rates is the argument of nineteenth century aristocratic reactionaries that the aristocrats had lower birth rates simply because they were hereditarily superior to the unwashed masses. Make of that what you will.

[Magón]

Yes, the Population size now, and what it's getting to be, is a problem. Mainly because the Right-Wing that's in control is pretty trigger happy when it comes to abusing natural resources, lands, etc. to take over and populate. Population size, is a serious problem I think for the Left, if we're to achieve the true goal of Communism/Anarchism. Mainly because if people don't understand population control, we'll never have more resources than our population numbers, so we can never have a non-monitary society where things are able to be freely taken.

I often think that if the world now, in 2010, had the same sized world population of 1870 (with modern medicines, etc. of course,) we might already have a truly Communist or Anarchist Society. Population Control is a problem no doubt, and I don't see very many Leftists analyzing or looking at it very much. I often do personally, and am actually taking a class on population growth, etc. at my University. I often get shouted over though in debate, when trying to bring up the actual seriousness of this current unkept population size and what it means for all Human beings.

I often disagree with those who call themselves "Zero Population Growth" advocates, who often just say that families should have no more than 1-2 kids. I think that even that's pushing it with the population growth and size we have now.

[Zanthorus]

Population Control is a problem no doubt, and I don't see very many Leftists analyzing or looking at it very much.

You can start with Marx and Engels' refutation of Malthus' population theory, which you seem to have half-swallowed.

[Quail]

The estimated population of the world is around 6.4 billion people and it will continue to grow as more scientific advancements are made. I have some right-wing friends who use this as an argument against socialism. They argue that "With the improved conditions socialism would bring the world's population would grow much faster. This is why the world needs wars and famine" My only response to this is usually just to tell him to stfu he's crazy. On the other hand the worlds growing population is not something that I have a constructive argument against as I can see that it has the potential to be a problem especially in a stateless society.

The population size doesn't necessarily have to be unsustainable. It depends on how efficiently resources are used, and at the moment, resources aren't being used as efficiently as they could be. For example more renewable energy and more efficient food production would make the population size less of a problem.
Plus, as someone has already pointed out, as living conditions improve, so does access to contraception and education about family planning, so the birth rate should decline.

[Manic Impressive]

The population size doesn't necessarily have to be unsustainable. It depends on how efficiently resources are used, and at the moment, resources aren't being used as efficiently as they could be. For example more renewable energy and more efficient food production would make the population size less of a problem.
Plus, as someone has already pointed out, as living conditions improve, so does access to contraception and education about family planning, so the birth rate should decline.

I completely agree that the way resources are used now is more of a problem but there is still the question of increased demand for fresh water for people and for crops especially in countries with hot climates. With the better conditions this will mean better dietary requirements of the world population leading to more meat being produced. Cutting out waste is the most drastically needed solution but will it be enough to solve the problem? The earth's resources are finite and the potential of the world's population isn't even with the better culture and conditions leading to a lower birth rate.

[Quail]

Personally I see meat production as, potentially, quite a big problem for the environment and the future, because animals are quite wasteful (something like 80-90% of the resources put into them is wasted). Perhaps developing our ability to produce meat in vats could help alleviate that problem, but as far as I know, making good tasting meat that way isn't yet possible. This is one of the reasons I don't eat meat, but I understand that most people probably would choose to eat meat/continue to eat meat so a vegetarian world isn't a viable solution!

The population size/growth (although I'm not convinced that in a communist society it would grow) is a problem that we need to respond to by finding more efficient ways of using our resources. I don't see any other way of doing it without letting people die or killing people. The main problem I see is that capitalism is a barrier to sustainable living, but I don't imagine the system will be overthrown any time soon.

[Magón]

You can start with Marx and Engels' refutation of Malthus' population theory, which you seem to have half-swallowed.

I was talking about more modern day Leftists, not people in the past. And even then that's just one little tidbit of the past which hardly says anything, even by those standards then. Like I said, the Left hardly seems to look into Population Control, which is a serious issue if we're to be able to do what Communism/Anarchist Societies are truly meant to be.

Reading Marx/Engels will hardly give him an idea of what is happening in todays current population. And that's what's most important now, what's happening in the present, not the past.

[Zanthorus]

Reading Marx/Engels will hardly give him an idea of what is happening in todays current population. And that's what's most important now, what's happening in the present, not the past.

Except Malthus' arguments about the population outstripping the numbers that can be sustained on Earth's natural resources is continually being brought up in the modern day, and Engels comments are still relevant:


...so as to deprive the universal fear of overpopulation of any possible basis, let us once more return to the relationship of productive power to population. Malthus establishes a formula on which he bases his entire system: population is said to increase in a geometrical progression – 1+2+4+8+16+32, etc.; the productive power of the land in an arithmetical progression – 1+2+3+4+5+6. The difference is obvious, is terrifying; but is it correct? Where has it been proved that the productivity of the land increases in an arithmetical progression? The extent of land is limited. All right! The labour-power to be employed on this land-surface increases with population. Even if we assume that the increase in yield due to increase in labour does not always rise in proportion to the labour, there still remains a third element which, admittedly, never means anything to the economist – science – whose progress is as unlimited and at least as rapid as that of population. What progress does the agriculture of this century owe to chemistry alone – indeed, to two men alone, Sir Humphry Davy and Justus Liebig! But science increases at least as much as population. The latter increases in proportion to the size of the previous generation, science advances in proportion to the knowledge bequeathed to it by the previous generation, and thus under the most ordinary conditions also in a geometrical progression. And what is impossible to science? But it is absurd to talk of over-population so long as “there is ‘enough waste land in the valley of the Mississippi for the whole population of Europe to be transplanted there” [A. Alison, loc. cit., p. 548. - Ed.]; so long as no more than one-third of the earth can be considered cultivated, and so long as the production of this third itself can be raised sixfold and more by the application of improvements already known.

If you're really that interested, I should add that John Bellamy Foster goes into the whole population debate in Marx's Ecology, which was published in 2000, which is hopefully close enough to the present day to satisfy those looking for "new" perspectives.

[Vanguard1917]

No, it isn't a problem. Malthusian predictions have been around for a very long time, and they have always been proven wrong by actual events, often spectacularly wrong. There is no factual basis to the idea that population growth is a problem.

Additionally, Malthusianism is an immensely conservative ideological outlook. It argues that society's problems (poverty, hunger, etc.) aren't caused by the way that society is organised, but by the existence of humanity itself. Thus capitalism is let off the hook, and blame for everything from food shortages to pollution is shifted on to the masses.

[Lyev]

The news website Sp!ked (spiked) writes some good stuff on the subject. They have a whole section on "population" here: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/issues/C164/. From one article entitled "Too many people? No, too many Malthusians", here is an excerpt:
The first mistake Malthusians always make is to underestimate how society can change to embrace more and more people. They make the schoolboy scientific error of imagining that population is the only variable, the only thing that grows and grows, while everything else – including society, progress and discovery – stays roughly the same. That is why Malthus was wrong: he thought an overpopulated planet would run out of food because he could not foresee how the industrial revolution would massively transform society and have an historic impact on how we produce and transport food and many other things. Population is not the only variable – mankind’s vision, growth, his ability to rethink and tackle problems: they are variables, too.

The second mistake Malthusians always make is to imagine that resources are fixed, finite things that will inevitably run out. They don’t recognise that what we consider to be a resource changes over time, depending on how advanced society is. That is why the Christian Tertullian was wrong in 200 AD when he said ‘the resources are scarcely adequate for us’. Because back then pretty much the only resources were animals, plants and various metals. Tertullian could not imagine that, in the future, the oceans, oil and uranium would become resources, too. The nature of resources changes as society changes – what we consider to be a resource today might not be one in the future, because other, better, more easily-exploited resources will hopefully be discovered or created. Today’s cult of the finite, the discussion of the planet as a larder of scarce resources that human beings are using up, really speaks to finite thinking, to a lack of future-oriented imagination.

And the third and main mistake Malthusians always make is to underestimate the genius of mankind. Population scaremongering springs from a fundamentally warped view of human beings as simply consumers, simply the users of resources, simply the destroyers of things, as a kind of ‘plague’ on poor Mother Nature, when in fact human beings are first and foremost producers, the discoverers and creators of resources, the makers of things and the makers of history. Malthusians insultingly refer to newborn babies as ‘another mouth to feed’, when in the real world another human being is another mind that can think, another pair of hands that can work, and another person who has needs and desires that ought to be met.

We don’t merely use up finite resources; we create infinite ideas and possibilities. The 6.7billion people on Earth have not raped and destroyed this planet, we have humanised it. And given half a chance – given a serious commitment to overcoming poverty and to pursuing progress – we would humanise it even further. Just as you wouldn’t listen to that guy who wears a placard saying ‘The End of the World is Nigh’ if he walked up to you and said ‘this time it really is nigh’, so you shouldn’t listen to the always-wrong Malthusians.

[Magón]

Except Malthus' arguments about the population outstripping the numbers that can be sustained on Earth's natural resources is continually being brought up in the modern day, and Engels comments are still relevant:



If you're really that interested, I should add that John Bellamy Foster goes into the whole population debate in Marx's Ecology, which was published in 2000, which is hopefully close enough to the present day to satisfy those looking for "new" perspectives.

Engel's comments are semi-relevent today, I'll grant you that much. Things have changed drastically since his days though, (obviously) and so has the way/production of things being done. Back then, the Industrial Age wasn't like what it is today, and obviously no Western, Eastern, or Southern Nations have taken population into account. Sure you hear it on the news, but I've never actually heard any sort of Leftist Group (today) talk about the seriousness of Population Control, and the future of a post-revolutionary place. Plus, back then, the amount of resources available and being consumed was minuscule compared to what most individual Americans (and America as a whole nation) consume every year. (And that's excluding what other places like China and the EU Nations take nowadays, compared to what they did.)

Like many things the Left has failed to really look into, and there has been those times, Population Control is another one of these that has to be put at the top of the list of things to make sure gets done properly, and looked at.

[Lyev]

No, it isn't a problem. Malthusian predictions have been around for a very long time, and they have always been proven wrong by actual events, often spectacularly wrong. There is no factual basis to the idea that population growth is a problem.

Additionally, Malthusianism is an immensely conservative ideological outlook. It argues that society's problems (poverty, hunger, etc.) aren't caused by the way that society is organised, but by the existence of humanity itself. Thus capitalism is let off the hook, and blame for everything from food shortages to pollution is shifted on to the masses.Yes, I think this is a very important point actually. Neo-Malthusians are very condescending towards "uncivilized" peoples. Again, from that Spiked article:
In 1971 there were approximately 3.6billion human beings on the planet Earth. And at that time Paul Ehrlich, a patron of the Optimum Population Trust and author of a book called The Population Bomb, wrote about his ‘shocking’ visit to New Delhi in India. He said: ‘The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people. As we moved slowly through the mob, [we wondered] would we ever get to our hotel…?’

You’ll be pleased to know that Paul Ehrlich did make it to his hotel, through the mob of strange brown people shitting in the streets, and he later wrote in his book that as a result of overpopulation ‘hundreds of millions of people will starve to death’. He said India couldn’t possibly feed all its people and would experience some kind of collapse around 1980.

Well today, the world population is almost double what it was in 1971 – then it was 3.6billion, today it is 6.7billion – and while there are still social problems of poverty and malnutrition, hundreds of millions of people are not starving to death. As for India, she is doing quite well for herself. When Ehrlich was writing in 1971 there were 550million people in India; today there are 1.1billion. Yes there’s still poverty, but Indians are not starving; in fact India has made some important economic and social leaps forward and both life expectancy and living standards have improved in that vast nation.I think the way the writer of the article, Brendan O’Neill, deals with Ehrlich in the second paragraph is quite amusing. In fact, this passage (I haven't read the rest of his book) has some racist connotations, like in the way he describes the people of New Dehli as a "mob", for example.

[Magón]

Yes, I think this is a very important point actually. Neo-Malthusians are very condescending towards "uncivilized" peoples. Again, from that Spiked article:I think the way the writer of the article, Brendan O’Neill, deals with Ehrlich in the second paragraph is quite amusing. In fact, this passage (I haven't read the rest of his book) has some racist connotations, like in the way he describes the people of New Dehli as a "mob", for example.

Has Brendan O'Neill taken into consideration, the amount of Gasoline/Oil that's taken up in todays world, compared to what it was in 1971, or even 1980? How more grazing lands for nomads in Nepal have been dying, and will eventually turn into deserts because of over grazing and not enough time to revitalize? How obviously because of that boom in population, India is becoming a major player in the world's resources, just like China and Russia are. It's no surprise, that an increase of population will make it so lands for people to grow things will gradually shrink. And it doesn't look like people are changing their minds, or even seem to care. (Just as an example, most Russians think that Global Warming/Climate Change is made up, not actually a real thing. So obviously, by this, people aren't ready to change their minds to something new. Sure people can change, but with what we have now, it's not likely to happen in a good amount of time to change things around for the better.)

[Vanguard1917]

How obviously because of that boom in population, India is becoming a major player in the world's resources, just like China and Russia are. It's no surprise, that an increase of population will make it so lands for people to grow things will gradually shrink.


It would certainly suprise me, since trends clearly show that as a result of agricultural advances we are able to produce more and more food with less and less land. In fact, China and India are very good examples of vast increases in population going hand in hand with rises in living standards and food supplies -- as a result of economic development.



How more grazing lands for nomads in Nepal have been dying, and will eventually turn into deserts because of over grazing and not enough time to revitalize?


If Nepal was not impoverished, and was a modern developed society, it would never have to face any such problems. Yours is a classic case of blaming the poor for the problems caused by the capitalist system. There's nothing remotely radical or leftwing about that.

[Magón]

It would certainly suprise me, since trends clearly show that as a result of agricultural advances we are able to produce more and more food with less and less land. In fact, China and India are very good examples of vast increases in population going hand in hand with rises in living standards -- as a result of economic development.

No they're not, because they use up the energy too fast, and obviously that's why they're heavily polluted. If they were reasonable on how fast they produced things, maybe they would be better than they already apparently are. Neither of those nations are efficient, and release many gasses such as CO2 into the atmosphere, which just makes it harder for things to grow, because then you get more radiation and heat coming down, etc. and things can't grow. No nation in the entire world, has taken into consideration, that everything is interconnected, and if they have, in very, very limited ways. That everything people do now, in the way we are in industry, effects the world we live in.


Also, if China and India have such great living standards, why are most of their populations who work in factories and whatnot, working in overly cramped work places, having to pump out ridiculous amounts of product? These don't make for ideal living conditions, when the people are at their jobs most of the day, and not at home where these living conditions are so much better.



If Nepal was not impoverished, and was a modern developed society, it would never have to face any such problems. Yours is a classic case of blaming the poor for the problems caused by the capitalist system. There's nothing remotely radical or leftwing about that.

I'm not blaming the poor? Where did you get that ridiculous idea? Beef, as I understand it, is a big thing in Nepal, or at least big enough that most Nomads in the country survive of off their beef. And since they survive on such a resource, that resource needs a lot to take in, a lot of food itself to become a good piece of steak or whatever. That causes over grazing, and because the government doesn't give them a good amount of living, they're forced to over graze when they probably know they shouldn't do so. I'm not blaming the poor for anything, I'm blaming the matter of having to over graze because it's a double edged sword. No matter what way you swing it, the grazing lands of Nepalese Nomads is getting smaller and smaller, and getting dryer and dryer.

[Vanguard1917]

Also, if China and India have such great living standards.

I didn't say they have good living standards. I said that living standards and food supply in China and India have increased. And they have increased at the same time that the populations in those countries have radically increased -- thus making a mockery of Malthusian theory, a theory which has existed for roughly two centuries has never been proven to be right. That's an immense failure for any theory.



I'm not blaming the poor? Where did you get that ridiculous idea? Beef, as I understand it, is a big thing in Nepal, or at least big enough that most Nomads in the country survive of off their beef. And since they survive on such a resource, that resource needs a lot to take in, a lot of food itself to become a good piece of steak or whatever. That causes over grazing, and because the government doesn't give them a good amount of living, they're forced to over graze when they probably know they shouldn't do so. I'm not blaming the poor for anything, I'm blaming the matter of having to over graze because it's a double edged sword. No matter what way you swing it, the grazing lands of Nepalese Nomads is getting smaller and smaller, and getting dryer and dryer.


In other words, basically, the problem isn't population but poverty and the fact that there are people still 'grazing' for survival in this day and age.

[Magón]

I didn't say they have good living standards. I said that living standards and food supply in China and India have increased. And they have increased at the same time that the populations in those countries have radically increased. Thus making a mockery of Malthusian theory, a theory which has existed for two centuries has never been proven to be right. That's an immense failure for any theory.

I never claimed Malthusian Theory was correct 100%, nor did I ever mention my interest or thoughts in Malthusian Theory. I was just going off of what it currently the facts of the world we live in. Much has changed, since Engel's or Malthus' lives, and I don't think any of them could have expected such polluting machines such as cars, trucks, planes, etc. Like I said, both those countries use up energy too fast and inefficiently. No country has ever in history been efficient in producing things, and nowadays it's just gotten worse. Or maybe it's the same, and we're just doing it in a more polluting way, but the same? I also don't think that either of those men, could have expected the Baby Boom of the 1950s, and what problems that brought us, such as more people to burn energy faster than we can produce it.

The more people you bring into the world, the more it's going to get worse in the matter of how we produce things nowadays. In todays world, we live in a highly polluting, energy grabbing world, not comparative to the world of the 1800s or even the turn of the century in the 1900s. The reason people are going green, is because they're just now getting the idea that shit on Earth isn't going good, and that we've got to do something to change it around. Sadly, these people are far and few between, because we obviously still see people driving around in large SUVs, Trucks, etc.

Another thing people fail to understand, is that Earth is not a fast acting recovery patient. That's why most people, who speak out on population growth, see the human race nowadays (how we produce and act) as a cancer. Because cancer patients aren't fast acting recoveries. They take time, and that's what the Earth needs, which is sad that we're just realizing it now, because we've fucked shit up so bad. Another way that people describe what's happening, is a science fiction, spaceship way. In the idea, that there's this large space ship full of food, you wake-up on the trip, and realize that those before you ate all the food and there's little left to take.

So is the same, of what we're doing to the Earth with an ever growing population. To have a good sustained world, that can produce enough food for everyone in the world, and be like as a true Communist/Anarchist Society says, the Human Race must stop, take a breather, and realize what it's really doing. Not just wake up and say what kinda weird dream was that, and start pondering.

It's just the same, as when Leftists talk about people, and having to change people's mindsets on their class, etc. So do people have to rethink what they're doing to the Earth, and how much it can sustain. If nobody realized on here, the birth/death ratio isn't what it should be. We're cranking out more children, then the old are dying. (World wide, and that's another reason why we have such terrible famines and droughts.


In other words, basically, the problem isn't population but poverty and the fact that there are people still 'grazing' for survival.

No, wrong again. The problem isn't that they graze for survival, I don't care that they do, in fact I respect people who can do that for a living. The problem is however, the exploitation of those who graze. I'm sure that if those Nomads didn't have to support everyone, and everyone else found a better way to get their own beef, and allow the Nomads to use their cattle for themselves (sort of autonomously I guess,) then you wouldn't have these problems of over grazing because there would be a knowing of who grazes where, for how long, and obviously for good reason so over grazing doesn't happen.

[Vanguard1917]

I never claimed Malthusian Theory was correct 100%, nor did I ever mention my interest or thoughts in Malthusian Theory. I was just going off of what it currently the facts of the world we live in. Much has changed, since Engel's or Malthus' lives.

There have been many more Malthusian predictions since Malthus himself. Paul Ehrlich, for example, made a number of pessimistic predictions in the 1970s which proved to be utterly false. But do feel free to give me a contemporary example of poverty or food shortage being caused by the size of population and not by underlying social, political and economic problems.



No, wrong again. The problem isn't that they graze for survival


Lol. What's the problem then? You've been saying that the practice of grazing is causing environmental problems. I said that grazing is a product of economic backwardness and poverty. Now you're saying that there's nothing wrong with grazing.

What does this have to do with population growth anyway? With a population of around 30 million, Nepal is not a particularly heavily populated country. In fact, it has a lower population density than a number of rich countries, like Italy, Germany, the UK, Japan, Belgium and the Netherlands. What Nepal is is a poor country. Its problems have nothing to do with its population size.

[ZeroNowhere]

No they're not, because they use up the energy too fast, and obviously that's why they're heavily polluted. If they were reasonable on how fast they produced things, maybe they would be better than they already apparently are.From what I recall, the book 'Energize' had pointed out that this pollution mainly originated from outdated practices. I don't currently have access to it, unfortunately.


That's why most people, who speak out on population growth, see the human race nowadays (how we produce and act) as a cancer.No, that's because they're misanthropic. And the reason for that is essentially that a large amount of their contact with other humans has come from contact with each other.

[Amphictyonis]

Malthus was an idiot.

[Magón]

There have been many more Malthusian predictions since Malthus himself. Paul Ehrlich, for example, made a number of pessimistic predictions in the 1970s which proved to be utterly false. But do feel free to give me a contemporary example of poverty or food shortage being caused by the size of population and not by underlying social, political and economic problems.

Not everything involving poverty or pollution or population growth, is Malthusian.


Lol. What's the problem then? You've been saying that the practice of grazing is causing environmental problems. I said that grazing is a product of economic backwardness and poverty. Now you're saying that there's nothing wrong with grazing.

Maybe you should read farther than what you quoted me on. Maybe then you'd get a good idea and an answer to what I stated as I see the problem being. Mis-quoting or not reading something fully makes you look like a fool.


From what I recall, the book 'Energize' had pointed out that this pollution mainly originated from outdated practices. I don't currently have access to it, unfortunately.

Exactly, out dated practices. That's what I've been trying to this whole time. The world is operating in an outdated practice. Not just socially, but productively in the field of production of goods. (Also, Energize is a good book. Had to read it for a class. :thumbup1: )


No, that's because they're misanthropic. And the reason for that is essentially that a large amount of their contact with other humans has come from contact with each other.

Not necessarily. That's like trying to demonize every group you disagree with. Claiming they're in some sort of circle jerk cahoots! No, these people learn from each other, yes, obviously, so does every Anarchist learn from another Anarchist, every Marxists a Marxist, etc. But they don't just rehash the same ideas, saying the same thing. They rehash the same idea into fitting with the current state of things. (Such as we have nowadays with everything. Of course, some ideas no longer work for the world we live in, and is obviously why we're where we are now.)

But never the less, it's not always led to some circle jerk.

[Amphictyonis]

The birth rates are much lower in advanced industrial societies. Betterment of material conditions tends to come along with all sorts of thing like better education for men and women about birth control, and the means to acquire it. The only counter-argument I've heard for the statement that better material conditions decrease birth rates is the argument of nineteenth century aristocratic reactionaries that the aristocrats had lower birth rates simply because they were hereditarily superior to the unwashed masses. Make of that what you will.

you know whats funny, I live in one of the most advanced capitalist societies and I can't afford to have kids.

[ZeroNowhere]

Not necessarily. That's like trying to demonize every group you disagree with. Claiming they're in some sort of circle jerk cahoots! No, these people learn from each other, yes, obviously, so does every Anarchist learn from another Anarchist, every Marxists a Marxist, etc. But they don't just rehash the same ideas, saying the same thing. They rehash the same idea into fitting with the current state of things. (Such as we have nowadays with everything. Of course, some ideas no longer work for the world we live in, and is obviously why we're where we are now.)Nay, I meant no such thing. All that I was attempting to communicate was that misanthropes breed misanthropes, and that they are thus self-perpetuating, making them in some ways similar to a cancer. Hopefully this clarifies things.

[Magón]

Nay, I meant no such thing. All that I was attempting to communicate was that misanthropes breed misanthropes, and that they are thus self-perpetuating, making them in some ways similar to a cancer. Hopefully this clarifies things.

Which it does. My apologies.

[ContrarianLemming]

You could put the whole popular of the world in an area the size of texas and every individual person would have room for a large two floor house

so thats how much space we take up, it really isn't a problem yet, places where people are crammed in small apartments are not having trouble due to to many people, but due to poverty.