Overpopulation bullshit.

[CynicalIdealist]

My Environmental Biology professor is a liberal who overemphasizes overpopulation concerns. He tries to act neutral by saying that he believes in avoiding too much population growth AND "sustainability" in the way we take care of our environment, but the whole blame the victim and not capitalism thing is so self-defeating.

However, I have trouble articulating that to the class. I could throw out platitudes about how we have enough to feed everyone and that the capitalist system doesn't prevent us from achieving a better world society but such would be just that: a platitude. How can I actually convince classmates that the whole overpopulation concern is exaggerated bullshit?

Also, any articles/research I should read on the subject?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think it is exaggerated.

I agree it's a problem when people use the issue of national overpopulation for their own anti-immigrant ends. But the world in context, is becoming overpopulated, that much is clear.

The problem is that, short of Malthusian idiocy, there's nothing that can be done really. Oh well.

3rd rate answer, sorry.:lol:

[GPDP]

The problem is that, short of Malthusian idiocy, there's nothing that can be done really. Oh well.

My ass there isn't. It's called development and raising people's living standards.

[Nox]

he believes in avoiding too much population growth AND "sustainability" in the way we take care of our environment

I don't see what's so bad about that...

[Vanguard1917]

My Environmental Biology professor is a liberal who overemphasizes overpopulation concerns. He tries to act neutral by saying that he believes in avoiding too much population growth AND "sustainability" in the way we take care of our environment, but the whole blame the victim and not capitalism thing is so self-defeating.

However, I have trouble articulating that to the class. I could throw out platitudes about how we have enough to feed everyone and that the capitalist system doesn't prevent us from achieving a better world society but such would be just that: a platitude. How can I actually convince classmates that the whole overpopulation concern is exaggerated bullshit?

Also, any articles/research I should read on the subject?


Lots of good articles here (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/issues/C164/).

A good summary of why the overpopulation thesis is straightforward nonsense: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9867/


I agree it's a problem when people use the issue of national overpopulation for their own anti-immigrant ends. But the world in context, is becoming overpopulated, that much is clear.

The problem is that, short of Malthusian idiocy, there's nothing that can be done really.

You talk of 'Malthusian idiocy', but you yourself clearly haven't been able to avoid it. There is no evidence whatsoever that the earth is 'becoming overpopulated'.

[Tenka]

How is overpopulation determined anyway -- where is the line drawn beyond which we can say there are "too many people"? I don't believe "overpopulation" even resembles a concern outside of the framework of capitalist artificial scarcity.
However, if it's not a matter of resources but rather one of space, the simple answer would be to build more glorious tower blocks and the like (as opposed to single-family sprawl housing) to minimise our encroachment on surrounding "nature", or whatever the supposed issue would be.

[thefinalmarch]

As a side note, are the arguments presented in the videos on http://www.overpopulationisamyth.com/ valid?

[Ism]

Overpopulation is only a matter of lifestyle, not the number of people on the planet.

Since I can't post links yet, I'd recommend you to do a Google search for 'Overpopulation is a myth', click on the top result, then find a movie called 'Episode 1: Overpopulation: The making of a Myth' when on the webpage. Even though this webpage does not blame capitalism for the soon ecological disaster than possibly can occur to this planet, the movie that you can watch claims that if every family on the planet lived in a house with a small yard, it would only be the size of Texas.

Texas makes up for 696,241 square kilometers, which is only 0,47 % of the total land mass of the Earth, the latter which is 148,939,063.133 square kilometers. 0,47 % is 1/200 of the total land mass. Of course, some of that land mass is inhabitable like the Antarctic etc., but you get the point. There is enough room for everybody as of right now, and there sure as hell is enough room for a lot more people.

It all depends on lifestyle. While it's true that the current development of the economy is completely unsustainable, a planned economy would be able to produce and allocate the ressources in a sustainable way as the main driving force would not be profitability but sustainability and solidarity. As revolution is the answer to quite a bunch of the problems that we are facin to day, so is it the answer to 'overpopulation' which is just a masked term for 'unsustainable lifestyle that is derived from the economic system which we know as capitalism'.

In short, the problem is not overpopulation but capitalism. The answer to this is not birth control and other fascistoid initiatives, but socialist revolution. It's really simple, actually.

EDIT:
As a side note, are the arguments presented in the videos on [the website which I cannot yet link to] valid?

I certainly believe so. Why would they lie? What agenda could they have?

[thefinalmarch]

The Myth of Overpopulation
http://theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/overpopulation1.gif?w=460&h=272 (http://theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/overpopulation1.gif)
The Global Economic System, Not A Lack of Resources, is to Blame for So-Called "Overpopulation"

What people who say that “population explosion is a phenomenon within itself” might not have considered is that most problems attributed to overpopulation are actually caused by political, social and economic conditions. The “overpopulation” movement is a disguise for the wealthy in their Malthusian attacks on the poor. Population is not the root cause of poverty in the Third World; it is a symptom. It is not population size that causes poverty, but rather economic and social conditions, including distribution of resources.

Thomas Malthus, the man who is more or less responsible for the myth of “overpopulation,” was a clergyman in the 1700s who made an unscientific observation—he proposed that while human population grew exponentially (2, 4, 16, 32…) production grows in a straight, linear line (1, 2, 3, 4…). He argued that humans would eventually outgrow the “carrying capacity” of the Earth. Malthus’ methods and research have been thoroughly debunked thousands of times by other scholars, as well as common sense, which shows that in reality people can produce many times what they consume through work, production and the development of technology. Despite this, the “overpopulation” myth continues today.

No one, even “cornucopianists,” believes that the resources of the planet Earth are unlimited. Usually the position they take is that there are more factors involved in the issue of overpopulation than simply the idea of too many people and not enough resources. The real problem is how those resources are distributed. This is the real problem–this class division among human beings and the uneven development of nations due to the global imperialist system.

The widespread ownership of land is also a major problem to be combated. As land is a natural product, it should not be a commodity to be bought and sold. If one person owns a huge plot of land, far more acreage than any single man—no matter how rich—should ever need to own, that complicates the possibility of building proper housing, schools, hospitals, etc. When the concept of land ownership is not in question, it becomes apparent that little land is actually needed to give most people comfortable living space. The figure below illustrates the land area per person in nations that the popular opinion labels as “overpopulated”: (1)
http://theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/overpop2.gif?w=398&h=444 (http://theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/overpop2.gif)
And this figure from the same source illustrates how land distribution factors into “overpopulation”: (1)
http://theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/overpop3.gif?w=460&h=253 (http://theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/overpop3.gif)
Yes, there are cities that are overpopulated, crammed to the brim with people. However, the Earth is not overpopulated in area—most of the land area is empty. While the earth does have a finite number of resources and a finite area with which to cultivate those resources, again, most of it is political and economic, i.e., the world’s supply of crude oil running out due to the financial interests of those in charge of the oil companies, the lack of an alternative being developed due to capitalist interests holding back science, the crises of overproduction and waste due to the market, international conflicts and of course, poverty.

There is also the matter of pollution. Political and social writer Joseph Barter says that, “At the very least, human overpopulation and increasing industrial activity are causing the extinction of large numbers of other species, and could potentially lead to the biological death of the planet. This destruction began with the advent of modern technology several centuries ago, and accelerated tremendously with the advent of the petroleum age” (2).

The ecological harm caused by the increase of industry is not directly due to the number of people, but rather the methods with which these resources are produced. If more sensible and environmentally-friendly options were adopted by developed nations as well as developing ones, the carbon footprint of the average person and the pollution of the air, water and food could be drastically reduced.

Womens’ rights must also be a central issue when addressing the “population explosion.” As they become more empowered in the home and workplace, women have fewer children, as reproduction and homemaking is no longer considered their only purpose for existing. Phillip Longman, writer for Foreign Affairs, says that, “Today, the average woman in the world bears half as many children as did her counterpart in 1972” (3). Some blame the “explosion” in population for problems such as environmental degradation, the crises of overproduction and the widening gap between the rich and poor, but the problem is not so much overpopulation as it is distribution of resources.

Works Cited:
(1) Image: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3046/overpop.htm Originally researched: Gale Lyle Pooley, Environmentalism and the Gospel, Analytica, Sun Valley, Idaho, 1995, p. 92
(2) Phillip Longman (2004). The Global Baby Bust;. Foreign Affairs, 83(3), 64-79. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 629530201).
(3) Joseph Barter (2000). Global war and the human population problem. The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 25(2), 241-250. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 58392241).
http://theredphoenixapl.org/2009/03/01/the-myth-of-overpopulation/

[La Comédie Noire]

The bigger question is why the liberal left and to some extent the radical left have adopted the overpopulation narrative? In fact there is an overall sense of despair and defeat on the left, with people at every rally I attend saying "there is no alternative" over and over again. Almost like organizing and direct action are just a means of self satisfaction rather than a means to an end. I've had people straight up admit to me they have no idea why they are politically active, that "the world is just gonna end in ten years anyways."

I think the left has just suffered so many defeats and set backs in the late 20th century that this is the fall out from it. We just go along with the logic of capital, that some people are extraneous and that the only sensible question is "who to get rid of first?"

[Klaatu]

I have to disagree, we DO have an overpopulation problem. But this does not exist in developed countries,
rather it exists in the poorest countries, those least able to deal with it.

Eventually, all population growth will level off at some point (it has to, because this is a natural outcome)
Consider the growth of microbes in a closed environment: rapid at first, due to the readily-available
resources needed to survive (food) and then leveling off due to lack of food, even dying off, due to
the presence of ever-increasing waste from the organisms (which poisons them) In human terms, this would
be pollution and radioactive waste, for example.

And if you think we have an atmospheric CO2 problem now, just wait until all people in China and India
own gas-guzzling SUV's, just like many energy-gluttonous Americans now do. The Earth is but a giant petri dish.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________


Bounded geometric growth
http://billharlan.com/pub/papers/logistic/logistic.html

Growth in a petri dish

Let us consider the bacteria in a petri dish. This is an easy way to create a logistic curve in nature, and the mental model is a simple one.

A petri dish contains a finite amount of food and space. Into this dish we add a few microscopic bits of bacteria (or mold, if you prefer). Each bacterium lives for a certain amount of time, eats a certain amount of food during that time, and breeds a certain number of new bacteria. We can count the total number of bacteria that have lived and died so far, as a cumulative sum; or more easily, we can count the amount of food consumed so far. The two numbers should be directly proportional.

At the beginning these bacteria see an vast expanse of food, essentially unlimited given their current size. Their rate of growth is directly proportional to their current population, so we expect to see them begin with exponential growth. At some point, sooner or later, these bacteria will have grown to such a size that they have eaten half the food available. At this point clearly the rate of growth can no longer be exponential. In fact, the rate of consumption of food is now at its maximum possible rate. If half the food is gone, then the total cumulative population over time has also reached its halfway point. As many bacteria can be expected to live and die after this point as have gone before. Food is now the limiting factor, and not the size of the existing population. The rate of consumption of food and the population at any moment are in fact symmetric over time. Both decline and eventually approach zero exponentially, at the same rate at which they originally increased. After most of the food has disappeared, the population growth is directly proportional to the amount of remaining food. As there are fewer places for bacteria to find food, then fewer bacteria will survive and consume a lifetime of food. Although the population size is no longer a limit, their individual rates of reproduction still matter.

The logistic function can be used to describe either the fraction of the food consumed, or the accumulated population of bacteria that have lived and died. The first derivative of the logistic function describes the rate at which the food is being consumed, and also the living population of bacteria at any given moment. (If you have twice as many bacteria, then they are consuming food at twice the rate.) This derivative has an intuitive bell shape, up and down symmetrically, with exponential tails. The logistic is the integral of the bell shape: it rises exponentially from 0 at the beginning, grows steepest at the half-way point, then asymptotically approaches 1 (or 100%) at later times. The time scale is rather arbitrary. We can adjust the units of time or the rates of growth and fit different populations with the same curve.

[citizen of industry]

Nationalism/i.e; the nation state is a problem. The population of Japan is declining so dramatically that by 2050 we will need something like 30 million immigrants to sustain the current economy. Will that happen? No, because most people don't want "non-Japanese" coming into the country by droves. The aging population is dramatic. Already the hospital and pension system is overwhelmed. But there's still unemployment, imagine that:rolleyes:

On the other hand, you have dramatic overpopulation in developing countries.

[Vanguard1917]

I have to disagree, we DO have an overpopulation problem. But this does not exist in developed countries,
rather it exists in the poorest countries, those least able to deal with it.

There is no 'population problem' in poor countries. There is a poverty problem in them. For instance, the Netherlands has a greater population density than India. Belgium has a greater population density than Sri Lanka. The UK has a greater population density than Pakistan. Belgium has a greater population density than Vietnam. Germany and Italy have greater population densities than most of the countries in Africa (a continent where the Malthusians particularly like to concentrate their anti-procreation attentions).

Two of the least densely-populated countries on earth are Mongolia and Namibia.

In other words, there is no consistent correlation between population size and levels of poverty. The problem in poor countries is not population, but the lack of large-scale economic development, something which capitalism has been unable to provide for the bulk of humanity. By focusing on population, what the Malthusians do is shift the blame for poverty away from the system, and on to the masses themselves.

[Hit The North]

Make humans not war.

[Arlekino]

Baltic States or other ex Soviet countries are almost empty, so we got plenty spaces to live, only individuals whom got too much land and don't wish to share with poor people. About food, food is throwing at us as long we can afford there is plenty of that as we know when we got to supermarkets. Wealthy wasting more food than poor people is obviously is cheap argument. I think more we talk about overpopulation more some kind of liberals or right wingers will be agree with that and drown ideas more entire population and you know this lead to Nazis, fascist ideas. So I wish those talks in media would block.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The increase of population means the increase of land use and resource accumulation. So yes, we do live in a overpopulated planet, because we have too many people to provide equal living standards.

At least, if not now, we'll be there soon, given the rate of population growth.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The increase of population means the increase of land use and resource accumulation. So yes, we do live in a overpopulated planet, because we have too many people to provide equal living standards.

No, we don't. Unequal living standards have nothing to do with resources.

[Vanguard1917]

The increase of population means the increase of land use and resource accumulation. So yes, we do live in a overpopulated planet, because we have too many people to provide equal living standards.

Someone's not been reading the thread...

[Decolonize The Left]

You could read a bunch of articles from Spiked via the Spiked mouthpiece on revleft, or you could just learn about the issue yourself: Carrying Capacity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity).

- August

[Luisrah]

I think overpopulation depends not that much on the number of people, but on economization of resources.

For example, in a highly consumerist capitalist society, overpopulation is a risk, like it probably is today. This doesn't mean people can't live well (eventhough most live very poorly), it means that for the consumption of resources, there are too many people.

But if ecological things are done, then it's no longer a problem. For example, if good research was done on renewable energies, we could completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels, thus making it possible to have more people since we use less resources. Same thing with all the packages that exist. Whenever you buy a friggin box of cereal it has the box, the bag, and sometimes even those little toys for the kids.
So many things where resources could be saved and recycled, allowing for more people to have a good living standard without endangering future generations' living standards.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Some sad shit in this thread.

Overpopulation is absolutely a myth. There have been many threads on this, even in the last few months. Do a search.

Billionaire Ted Turner: 'adopt global one-child policy'
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/billionaire-ted-turner-t146568/index.html?t=146568)
We all complain about capitalism, but what about overpopulation
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/we-all-complain-t154407/index.html)
How many people can the earth support?
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/many-people-can-t148400/index.html)
Where does it come from? The inability of the system to meet human need, the need for it to attack the living standards of the working class to keep its system going, the need for more profit, the need to curtail development / competition, paternalism, etc., etc., etc.

My posts from recent threads:

Tertullian made the argument in the year 200. Malthus made it in the 1800s. Neither were correct.

Resources are fluid.

Examples: Many years ago, iron was used to basic tools by humans who couldn't fathom that the same material would one day be used to build skyscrapers and bridges that span huge distances. Coal was once used for jewelery by people who never thought it would later power the industrial revolution, and once the industrial revolution came it was used to produce steam power by people who had no idea that power would one day come from uranium. That's because uranium was used to color glass, not as an energy source.

Get it?

The human species is truly brilliant. We continue to find ways to move forward with the things available, and create them where they don't exist.

The problem is not and has never been that there are “too many people,” or “not enough resources.” The problem is social: the capitalist minority controls the tools and technology used to produce the things we want and need.

In a modern society, the labor of 1 person can feed and house more than 1 person. Because of that, and because resources are fluid, there's no excuse for the wants and needs of all to go unsatisfied. There are simply obstacles (i.e. capitalism) in the way.

The Malthusian doomsday prophecies have been around since ... the days of Malthus, and in fact much earlier than that. They always fall flat.

Of course they're useful for powerful people -- who want to maintain their positions of power by restricting the development of everyone else -- and religious hucksters.

* * *

Carbon fuel is controlled by massive corporations that have done everything from limit research to initiate wars to scrap plans for public transportation. Anything that gets in the way is attacked, including the very environment we live in. Profit is their concern, so that's what they pursue.

Do you honestly think a human community wouldn't focus the necessary time and resources on developing the best sources of energy? On maintaining the environment necessary to preserve our species?

* * *

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fOORhFmbA6s/TJjSQcnKMvI/AAAAAAAAB7Y/dPU9eoHCcVY/s1600/Overpopulation+and+Texas.png

[Klaatu]

There is no 'population problem' in poor countries. There is a poverty problem in them.

Well, yes. But there is much more than a poverty problem there; there is a starvation problem. A lot of people competing for scarce food.
To say that there is not a population problem in poor countries is to not see the big picture.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

1. Capitalism is global. The economy is global.

2. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone.

3. There is enough productive capacity in the world to feed everyone what they like and have leftovers to boot.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You could read a bunch of articles from Spiked via the Spiked mouthpiece on revleft, or you could just learn about the issue yourself: Carrying Capacity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity).

- August

With human populations, one variable with regards to carrying capacity is how effectively a population can make use of available and known resources. Without the sort of planned economy that revolutionaries desire actually existing yet, we can't get empirical data on how efficiently such a population would make of available resources. But we can also recognise that such planned economies would have fundamental structural differences that serve to reduce "waste" from the perspective of providing the largest possible amount of people with the most comfortable possible lifestyles.

So, it's one thing to recognise that the current socioeconomic order cannot deliver a comfortable lifestyle to the world's people for various reasons, but that doesn't seem to be quite what most advocates of the idea of "overpopulation" understand. Rather, all too many of them point the finger at the poorer parts of the world with higher birthrates, or engage in authoritarian fantasies ostensibly intended to mitigate the "crisis".

[Zav]

Overpopulation is indeed an issue. Too many people for a certain amount of resources will certainly result in serious problems. The question however, is, of course, 'how many is too much?'. Under Capitalism, we are currently in serious danger of running out of resources. In a more just Communist system, and with healthy environmental awareness, Earth can most assuredly support the 7 billion people that are here now, perhaps even 10 billion. Your teacher is failing to question why scarcity exists in the form it does today because ze, like almost everyone else, is a victim of Capitalism and its control of the media.

EDIT: Sure, everyone could fit in Texas, but an area that size can certainly not support that number. It takes much much more than 1000 ft^2 to support a person.

[La Comédie Noire]

Just my two cents:

This argument reoccurs every few months and it always ends in a deadlock because when you get right down to it it's a question of faith. There are those who believe human ingenuity will continue to sustain global civilization and there are those who doubt we will be able to sustain global civilization.

Belief and doubt are opposite ends of the same spectrum and depending , on your out look, you can furnish convincing evidence for both conclusions. Either we are "totally fucked!" or "we are going to be just fine!"

As I've said before the world doesn't work that way, things are never just black and white, but different shades of gray. Personally, how dark I feel the gray is depends on what I'm reading and what mood I happen to be in at the time. Although I am admittedly biased towards optimism.

[Decolonize The Left]

With human populations, one variable with regards to carrying capacity is how effectively a population can make use of available and known resources. Without the sort of planned economy that revolutionaries desire actually existing yet, we can't get empirical data on how efficiently such a population would make of available resources. But we can also recognise that such planned economies would have fundamental structural differences that serve to reduce "waste" from the perspective of providing the largest possible amount of people with the most comfortable possible lifestyles.

So, it's one thing to recognise that the current socioeconomic order cannot deliver a comfortable lifestyle to the world's people for various reasons, but that doesn't seem to be quite what most advocates of the idea of "overpopulation" understand. Rather, all too many of them point the finger at the poorer parts of the world with higher birthrates, or engage in authoritarian fantasies ostensibly intended to mitigate the "crisis".

Indeed. The whole issue isn't "overpopulation," as this idea in itself is flawed. Rather, the point is to seriously address the realities of the planet's carrying capacity and what this entails for the human species and our use and abuse of resources.

- August

[Mr. Gorilla]

Given my (Admittedly quite limited, so don't quote me on anything and feel free to correct me) understanding of physics and entropy, the amount of useable energy gradually decreases over time, lost as heat to the environment. Even if we have enough food to feed everyone in the world, that does not guarantee it will remain that way (It can't remain that way, no matter how big or small our population is), and that will not prevent the inevitability of this planet becoming uninhabitable (Either due to the slow process described or something more concrete, such as the sun going red giant or the planet getting smacked with a meteor).

The question isn't "how to deal with population growth;" the question is "what to do when we eventually use up all of the available energy (Or resources) on our planet." The answer is to explore the cosmos and harvest resources from and colonize other worlds, at least until maximum entropy is reached and universal heat death occurs.

[thriller]

Overcrowding in industrial areas, yes. Overpopulation of the whole planet? Please. If you believe in Darwin and evolution, how can overpopulation even exist if we are to become the dominant species?

[ColonelCossack]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Gz0buYT4Zdc/S0d1OrQjhDI/AAAAAAAAADc/n9pKQjsB8X8/s320/grain.jpg

^EU surplus grain.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Overpopulation? The world is around 7 billion people, and we easily put out enough food to feed about 11 billion, which a lot goes to waste. A lot of people are still starving because they don't have access to it, not because there's a food shortage. Remember the rice "shortage"/problem a few years back? That was artificial, there was a concern of shortage, there wasn't an actual shortage. The only problem was companies were wanting more profit, so prices shot up over nothing.
If there's any "overpopulation" it's because people are forced to live in these cramped, terrible slums in third-world countries, even though there is a lot of habitable land to live on that goes to waste.
We put out enough food for the current population, and we have enough land, so I don't think we'll be in trouble anytime soon.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Given my (Admittedly quite limited, so don't quote me on anything and feel free to correct me) understanding of physics and entropy, the amount of useable energy gradually decreases over time, lost as heat to the environment. Even if we have enough food to feed everyone in the world, that does not guarantee it will remain that way (It can't remain that way, no matter how big or small our population is), and that will not prevent the inevitability of this planet becoming uninhabitable (Either due to the slow process described or something more concrete, such as the sun going red giant or the planet getting smacked with a meteor).

Entropy only increases in closed systems, which the Earth is not, since the Sun dumps about 4 tera-tons of energy on its face every day.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If there's any "overpopulation" it's because people are forced to live in these cramped, terrible slums in third-world countries, even though there is a lot of habitable land to live on that goes to waste.

The actual density in slums is often not all that high with some exceptions, and the actual density is not really the problem even there: high density is good and allows higher standard of living to more people if executed properly, that is to say, with proper infrastructure and services provided. Slums are over-populated in the sense that they are areas with no services and infrastructure, cut-off from the rest of a city and existing in very precarious a context.

A vast housing construction program with flats for everyone and proper infrastructure and service would probably decrease the physical dimensions of most cities all the while increasing public spaces such as parks and similar and revolutionising the living conditions of the masses.

[Klaatu]

The anti-overpopulation arguments here seem to center around the ability to feed seven billion persons.

But let us also consider the carbon emissions of seven billion persons. (not only their own respiration, but the fact that they all raise and eat animals (which breathe CO2) cook them on fires (which emit CO2) heat/cool their homes (emitting CO2) drive or take transport (emits CO2) and then there is industry and shipping (big CO2 emitters)

The question becomes: what to do with the CO2?

[CynicalIdealist]

The anti-overpopulation arguments here seem to center around the ability to feed seven billion persons.

But let us also consider the carbon emissions of seven billion persons. (not only their own respiration, but the fact that they all raise and eat animals (which breathe CO2) cook them on fires (which emit CO2) heat/cool their homes (emitting CO2) drive or take transport (emits CO2) and then there is industry and shipping (big CO2 emitters)

The question becomes: what to do with the CO2?

What to do with the Co2? Punch the auto industry in the face that's what.

Under socialism we can engage in collective economic planning that factors in sustainability.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The anti-overpopulation arguments here seem to center around the ability to feed seven billion persons.

But let us also consider the carbon emissions of seven billion persons. (not only their own respiration, but the fact that they all raise and eat animals (which breathe CO2) cook them on fires (which emit CO2) heat/cool their homes (emitting CO2) drive or take transport (emits CO2) and then there is industry and shipping (big CO2 emitters)

The question becomes: what to do with the CO2?

Mitigate it by phasing out fossil fuels in favour of nuclear and renewables, increasing electrification of our primary transportation networks, and by replacing diesel engines in shipping with thorium-fueled reactors. There are many promising designs for nuclear and renewable power schemes, so it's not like we're short of ideas. Whether there is the will to do it in the right people is another matter.

[CommunityBeliever]

Whether there is the will to do it in the right people is another matter. The contemporary social-organisation of terran civilisation, global capitalism, doesn't seem capable of overcoming its dependence upon fossil fuels and transitioning to type-1, hence the need for revolutionary social organisations.

We live in a dangerous era and there will be ever more crises in our lifetimes, so we need revolutionary-leftist organisations to confront this so that we can progress rather then revert back to barbarism or fascism.

[griffjam]

E.6 What is the population myth? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secE6.html)


The idea that population growth is the key cause of ecological problems is extremely commonplace. Even individuals associated with such radical green groups as Earth First! have promoted it. It is, however, a gross distortion of the truth. Capitalism is the main cause of both overpopulation and the ecological crisis.

Firstly, we should point out that all the "doomsday" prophets of the "population bomb" have been proved wrong time and time again. The dire predictions of Thomas Malthus, the originator of the population myth, have not come true, yet neo-Malthusians continue to mouth his reactionary ideas. In fact Malthus wrote his infamous "Essay on the Principles of Population" which inflicted his "law of population" onto the world in response to the anarchist William Godwin and other social reformers. In other words, it was explicitly conceived as an attempt to "prove" that social stratification, and so the status quo, was a "law of nature" and that poverty was the fault of the poor themselves, not the fault of an unjust and authoritarian socio-economic system. As such, the "theory" was created with political goals in mind and as a weapon in the class struggle (as an aside, it should be noted that Darwin argued his theory of natural selection was "the doctrine of Malthus applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdom." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Nature's Web, p. 320] In other words, anarchism, indirectly, inspired the theory of evolution. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the form of Social Darwinism this was also used against working class people and social reform).

As Kropotkin summarised, Malthus work was "pernicious" in its influence. It "summed up ideas already current in the minds of the wealth-possessing minority" and arose to combat the "ideas of equality and liberty" awakened by the French and American revolutions. Malthus asserted against Godwin "that no equality is possible; that the poverty of the many is not due to institutions, but is a natural law." This meant he "thus gave the rich a kind of scientific argument against the ideas of equality." However, it was simply "a pseudo-scientific" assertion which reflected "the secret desires of the wealth-possessing classes" and not a scientific hypothesis. This is obvious as technology has ensured that Malthus's fears are "groundless" while they are continually repeated. [Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 77, p. 78 and p. 79]

That the theory was fundamentally ideological in nature can be seen from Malthus himself. It is interesting to note that in contrast, and in direct contradiction to his population "theory," as an economist Malthus was worried about the danger of over-production within a capitalist economy. He was keen to defend the landlords from attacks by Ricardo and had to find a reason for their existence. To do this, he attacked Say's Law (the notion that over-production was impossible in a free market economy). Utilising the notion of effective demand, he argued that capitalist saving caused the threat of over-production and it was the landlords luxury consumption which made up the deficit in demand this caused and ensured a stable economy. As Marxist David McNally points out, the "whole of this argument is completely at odds with the economic analysis" of his essay on population. According to that, the "chronic . . . danger which confronts society is underproduction of food relative to people." In his economics book, the world "is threatened by overproduction. Rather than there being too little supply relative to demand, there is now too little demand relative to supply." In fact, Malthus even went so far as to argue for the poor to be employed in building roads and public works! No mention of "excess" population there, which indicates well the ideological nature of his over-population theory. As McNally shows, it was the utility of Malthus's practical conclusions in his "Essay on the Principles of Population" for fighting the poor law and the right to subsistence (i.e. welfare provisions) which explained his popularity: "he made classical economics an open enemy of the working class." ["The Malthusian Moment: Political Economy versus Popular Radicalism", pp. 62-103, Against the Market, p. 85 and p. 91]

So it is easy to explain the support Malthus and his assertions got in spite of the lack of empirical evidence and the self-contradictory utterances of its inventor. Its support rests simply in its utility as a justification for the inhuman miseries inflicted upon the British people by "its" ruling class of aristocrats and industrialists was the only reason why it was given the time of day. Similarly today, its utility to the ruling class ensures that it keeps surfacing every so often, until forced to disappear again once the actual facts of the case are raised. That the population myth, like "genetic" justifications for race-, class- and gender-based oppression, keeps appearing over and over again, even after extensive evidence has disproved it, indicates its usefulness to the ideological guardians of the establishment.

Neo-Malthusianism basically blames the victims of capitalism for their victimisation, criticising ordinary people for "breeding" or living too long, thus ignoring (at best) or justifying (usually) privilege -- the social root of hunger. To put it simply, the hungry are hungry because they are excluded from the land or cannot earn enough to survive. In Latin America, for example, 11% of the population was landless in 1961, by 1975 it was 40%. Approximately 80% of all Third World agricultural land is owned by 3% of landowners. As anarchist George Bradford stresses, Malthusians "do not consider the questions of land ownership, the history of colonialism, and where social power lies. So when the poor demand their rights, the Malthusians see 'political instability' growing from population pressure." [Woman's Freedom: Key to the Population Question, p. 77] Bookchin makes a similar critique:
"the most sinister feature about neo-Malthusianism is the extent to which it actively deflects us from dealing with the social origins of our ecological problems -- indeed, the extent to which it places the blame for them on the victims of hunger rather than those who victimise them. Presumably, if there is a 'population problem' and famine in Africa, it is the ordinary people who are to blame for having too many children or insisting on living too long -- an argument advanced by Malthus nearly two centuries ago with respect to England's poor. The viewpoint not only justifies privilege; it fosters brutalisation and degrades the neo-Malthusians even more than it degrades the victims of privilege." ["The Population Myth", pp. 30-48, Which Way for the Ecology Movement?, p. 34]

[Klaatu]

...it's not like we're short of ideas. Whether there is the will to do it in the right people is another matter.

I think there is a public will to adopt alt-energy, but Big Corporate Money says "no way." We need to attack the problem at the source:
and this is capitalism itself. Let us start by banning ALL private money in politics. That would be a good start.

[piet11111]

http://www.kurzweilai.net/alloy-and-catalyst-allow-for-low-cost-generation-of-hydrogen-from-water-and-air-stable-reusable-storage

Hydrogen to power cars would be nice.

[Vanguard1917]

Well, yes. But there is much more than a poverty problem there; there is a starvation problem. A lot of people competing for scarce food.
To say that there is not a population problem in poor countries is to not see the big picture.

There is no absolute scarcity of food. As NHIA pointed out, the world produces more than enough food to feed everyone. So yes, the problem is poverty, not population.

But, by all means, feel free to continue telling the world's poor that they themselves are the root cause of their poverty. But don't try to pass that nonsense off as radical or leftwing. In reality, there are few lines of argument more reactionary.

[Fopeos]

People are hungry in the "third world" because the most productive land is used to produce commodities to sell on the world market. There is no population problem, it's a distribution problem. I know it's cliche' but here in the States, we throw away enough food to feed the rest of the world EVERY day. Grains are stock-piled or fields go uncultivated just to manipulate world prices. There are plenty of resources to sustain our growing population. There are not enough resources for everyone to live like wastefull, decadent Americans

[Klaatu]

There is no absolute scarcity of food. As NHIA pointed out, the world produces more than enough food to feed everyone. So yes, the problem is poverty, not population.


Rebuttal:



People are hungry in the "third world" because the most productive land is used to produce commodities to sell on the world market. There is no population problem, it's a distribution problem. I know it's cliche' but here in the States, we throw away enough food to feed the rest of the world EVERY day. Grains are stock-piled or fields go uncultivated just to manipulate world prices. There are plenty of resources to sustain our growing population. There are not enough resources for everyone to live like wastefull, decadent Americans

Well-said. Double-thanks. ;)

There IS scarcity, in certain places; Fopeos has nailed it

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't believe "overpopulation" even resembles a concern outside of the framework of capitalist artificial scarcity.

This the key.

Many of things we struggle against are due to the framework capitalism has enclosed us in.