How Overpopulated Are We, Really?

[RedHammer]

Now, this comes from the Archdiocese of Washington, a religious institution and, therefore, to many of you, this is an irrelevant opinion. But still, I found it rather an interesting analysis:


But really! How overpopulated are we? What kind of a physical footprint do we really have on this planet? Try this on for size.


There are currently about 6 Billion people on this planet.
Lets put them, four to house on a quarter acre of land. This is the typical size of a traditional suburban lot.
Now, physically, how big is the suburb of houses we’ve created?
Let’s see, 6,000,000,000 four to a house is 1.5 Billion houses.
1.5 Billion Houses on a quarter acre each is 375 Million Acres.
What does 375 Million Acres compare to? Well lets see, The state of Texas is 171904640 acres. 375 Million Acres is just over twice the size of the State of Texas (2.18 Texases to be exact). It also equates to 3.6 Californias. Why Alaska at 420 Million Acres could hold them all and still have 45 million acres left over.


http://blog.adw.org/2010/09/are-we-really-over-populated/

Based on what I know about environment and sustainability, I tend to agree that we are not absolutely overpopulated in the sense that the earth cannot sustain us. Rather, much of the poverty in the world today is due to the irrationality of capitalist production.

Now, while it may be true that the earth can sustain a larger population - perhaps tens of billions more - I'm not quite as worried about the environmental impact of a large population as the social impact.

I feel that there are simply too many people in the world for any positive social relations to develop between individuals outside of the immediate vicinity; and this is the case in the realm of media, science, literature, art, and all aspects of human culture. There are simply too many of us. I think a good population for the world would be 500 million, give or take a few million.

Still, what is the Marxist perspective on population? Would a communist society have population control measures in place? What do you think should be done about the world's population?

[cynicles]

I think the environmental issue has more to do with the unintended consequences that we can't predict, we just don't know enough about how much the earth will spiral out of control. Also desalination is very energy intensive and has reperussions as well. Too many things to account for and too many small things that can have big implications.

[RedHammer]

What about the social conditions of larger populations?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I can't speak for Marxists in general, but I can give my own opinion. I personally find the idea of population control to be barbaric. Without the barriers to adequate food and housing distribution that capital creates, we will be able to house and feed a growing population with no problem. I also don't see any social cost beyond what capital creates (ex, psychological effects of poverty). Whether or not Nebraska is crowded has no bearing on my psychological health.

Scientific research will also no longer be limited to what is either immediately profitable or what governments can afford to sponsor. This will lead to the development of, for example, better, more efficient nuclear reactors to provide electricity and better methods for safe disposal of nuclear waste products. Any problems we will be faced with, we will be more adequately able to respond to.

[RedHammer]

I can't speak for Marxists in general, but I can give my own opinion. I personally find the idea of population control to be barbaric. Without the barriers to adequate food and housing distribution that capital creates, we will be able to house and feed a growing population with no problem. I also don't see any social cost beyond what capital creates (ex, psychological effects of poverty). Whether or not Nebraska is crowded has no bearing on my psychological health.

Scientific research will also no longer be limited to what is either immediately profitable or what governments can afford to sponsor. This will lead to the development of, for example, better, more efficient nuclear reactors to provide electricity and better methods for safe disposal of nuclear waste products. Any problems we will be faced with, we will be more adequately able to respond to.

I agree, we can certainly overcome the economic challenges of larger populations, but I'm concerned about the social impact. I want a world small enough that all people can know each other. That's not going to happen, I know, but I'd like to see smaller communities and more focused media and culture.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Overpopulation is a myth. 20% of the human population consumes 80% of the world's produced resources while 1 Billion humans starve. The poor of the world see rising birth rates, the persons with sufficient human rights, material and social security are not having too many offspring. Japan, Germany and Cuba all have a smaller population than ten years ago. The fact is though, that the current global industrial capitalist production is depleting, over-using resources since fourty years. The future socialist global economy will inevitably need to be focused on mass recycling and the production of efficient goods and not profitable goods.

[RedHammer]

Workers-Control-Over-Production, I'd love to see a more detailed analysis of population, economy, and society & culture, if you could provide one. I understand that the earth can sustain larger populations, but what of the social impact?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

People, we need not be re-treading ground that is already well-trodden. RedHammer is asking about the social implications of a planet with billions of people living on it.

RedHammer appears to be taking the position that people are getting "lost in the noise" of a civilisation with billions of members, where even the most rich and powerful individuals can only have a small overall impact on the world.

I would have to disagree. I think having billions of people in the world is mostly a positive thing. Not only do more people represent more opportunities for human achievement, but the more people there are the harder it is for a single entity to control the world.

Sure, we're new at this. We're going to screw up at some point. But the important thing is that we survive and learn from our mistakes. That's not going to happen if we all live in little villages.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Within the field of population economics, it's generally agreed that the world can hold a population of between 9-13 billion (pessimistic and optimistic estimates). Since the 1960s, apparently, the population growth has slowed in the world, and it is expected that the population will top off at no more than about 9 billion. So I wouldn't worry.

Overpopulation is a scare story invented by the bourgeoisie of the developed countries to divide the working class along national lines, i.e. your country's population is increasing, (false) ergo it's getting overpopulation, (false) ergo the world is overpopulated.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Within the field of population economics, it's generally agreed that the world can hold a population of between 9-13 billion (pessimistic and optimistic estimates). Since the 1960s, apparently, the population growth has slowed in the world, and it is expected that the population will top off at no more than about 9 billion. So I wouldn't worry.

Overpopulation is a scare story invented by the bourgeoisie of the developed countries to divide the working class along national lines, i.e. your country's population is increasing, (false) ergo it's getting overpopulation, (false) ergo the world is overpopulated.

Again, I don't think that's what RedHammer is trying to start a discussion about. It's not about whether we can feed and clothe and house those teeming billions (indications are that we can), but the overall social effects that a world with billions of individuals has on its members.

It's entirely possible to have enough food, have a roof over one's head and clothes on one's back, and still have major problems.

[Lynx]

Social effects have more to do with how many people are living in your vicinity. Bangladesh, with poor infrastructure, is overcrowded, making life there not so swell.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Again, I don't think that's what RedHammer is trying to start a discussion about. It's not about whether we can feed and clothe and house those teeming billions (indications are that we can), but the overall social effects that a world with billions of individuals has on its members.

It's entirely possible to have enough food, have a roof over one's head and clothes on one's back, and still have major problems.
In any case, post-capitalism I don't see why we wouldn't be able to allocate resources to relocate people from overcrowded areas to improve conditions while at the same time improving infrastructure (and access to hospitals, clean water, what-have-you) to help prevent future overcrowded conditions. There is undoubtedly a shifting threshold between "populated" and "overcrowded" that is dependent on infrastructure and resources.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To put it perhaps too simply: how many people can the planet generate oxygen for?

[Ostrinski]

What about the question of natural, non renewable resources? This is one thing I've wondered about. Sure food, clothing, and shelter are not problems because we can effectively control all or most aspects of the productive process of these things.

Wouldn't a larger population stretch our non renewable resources thinner and thinner?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

To put it perhaps too simply: how many people can the planet generate oxygen for?

Not too many if we continue to destroy oceans and cut down forests. The problem that worries me is that humanity has been using up resources faster than can regenerate themselves since the 1970's. Sure inventions can replace them, but things like copper, nickel etc. are not easily replaceable. Generally what can be said though is that the persons whose income is over 100,000 need to be liquidated as a class or have their profession take wage cuts (not a lot of wage earners earning more than 100,000 a year).

Average incomes USA 2010 Forbes Magazine

Originally posted by Forbes:
Top 1%: $380,354

Top 5%: $159,619

Top 10%: $113,799

Top 25%: $67,280

Top 50%: >$33,048

Note that the income of the top 1% is only a marginal part of the wealth that they actual annually make off of investments which they don't take off the bank. The global top 1% of humanity own 45% of the world's wealth. This wealth would nearly double workers wages if the parasites of private capital are rid, making the the median income of american employed eventually go from the current ("U.S. Median Annual Wage Falls To" Huffington post december 2011) $26,364 to over 40,000 dollars.

This raises the question, how could this be done? This kind of redistribution is impossible so long the major means of production are under private control for reasons of TFRP, but it would not even necessarily raise the consumption levels all too much, because the last decades workers, and especially the "middle classes" of the top 20% have taken on increasing debt for the necessary rising consumption of capital's necessary increasing amounts of commodities.

But overall global consumption of resources needs to be decreased not increased, in fact needs to be cut by around 1/4 to be sustainable. Corporations today though do not produce for efficiency, they produce for profit, so it is profitable for corporations not to have to invest into sustainable and long-lasting goods because their goal is to produce as many commodities as possible. Technology exists for Light bulbs to glow for years instead of months now, methods exist to make televisions last a lot longer for not too much costs, insulation to reduce energy loss, new energy sources, and above all recycling structures exist which, if put into effect, would ruin large production sectors of the capitalist economy. Recycling and 3D printing will make the whole consumer industry radically change the foundations of production and resource allocation.

Overall though, consumption for the top 20% which consumes 80% of the world's resources needs to be cut, not by us, but naturally by capitalist crises itself, to increase the consumption of the bottom toiling and oppressed 80%. The upper 1% are responsible for 30% of the US' consumer economy spending. This 1% obscenely wealthy minority need to be expropriated of all their wealth, offered a job in their former factories or sent to exile. The expropriation of wealth towards consumer alignment needs to be as well a progressive tax, with the top 0.1% having a 100% tax, the 1% having a 99.9% tax, the top 5% a 95% tax, the top 10% a 90% tax etc. the workers' living under the poverty line have their wages raised and workers wages raised gradually with rising workers productivity.

On an immediate national scale this would take on a more progressive tax, nationalisation of corporations to focus them towards the production of low resource usage, efficient (not profitable) goods, establishment of an intricate recycle system, and employment programs with minimum- and top-income wage laws.

[Comrades Unite!]

There is no such thing as Over-Population.

This Earth IS WELL CAPABLE of taking care of over 6 billion, but of course we need to make sure little middle classers in the first world are taken care of first with their Ipads and whatnot instead of people out their starving to death.

There is simply more than enough resources for us all.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

What about the question of natural, non renewable resources? This is one thing I've wondered about. Sure food, clothing, and shelter are not problems because we can effectively control all or most aspects of the productive process of these things.

Wouldn't a larger population stretch our non renewable resources thinner and thinner?

Natural non-renewable resources such as copper, nickel, lithium etc. are though in fact not renewable. Disassembling sectors take apart old parts and send them to be melted to be used again. This system is though rather expensive, and capitalism relies on those sectors of production for its survival.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Aha, i think i get the OPs question now. I think that the more humans live on a smaller space the more social it is. In fact, having a substantial amount of humans living comfortably on a small space is most likely an important factor to developing socialism/communism. I personally prefer the countryside because i grew up there, but i think that city life is a lot more social and this is good.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

To put it perhaps too simply: how many people can the planet generate oxygen for?
That I can't answer exactly, and I couldn't find much in the way of raw numbers. But here's an article from Yale that addresses the issue of anthropogenic climate change and how it relates to oxygen content of the sea and, by extension, the atmosphere. What I can gather as a layman is that we may not need to worry about oxygen content of the atmosphere as of right now, but that anthropogenic climate change will potentially affect oxygen concentrations.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_looming_oxygen_crisis_and_its_impact_on_worlds_o ceans/2301/


What about the question of natural, non renewable resources? This is one thing I've wondered about. Sure food, clothing, and shelter are not problems because we can effectively control all or most aspects of the productive process of these things.

Wouldn't a larger population stretch our non renewable resources thinner and thinner?
Sure, we will almost certainly run into roadblocks with this postcapitalism. We cannot currently allocate enough resources into research to compensate for natural resource scarcity. The problem won't go away postcapitalism, but we will be much better equipped to address the issue. Whereas now, we're kind of screwed.

However, don't forget that with increased access to education, increased female participation in the workforce, and a restructuring (or, ideally, elimination) of gender roles comes a drastically lowered fertility rate. Today's booming birth rates will not necessarily continue indefinitely.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think for some time we are safe in the oxygen department.

Using wet biomass (a very crude estimate, admittedly), humans with about 6 billion of us probably take up about half as much biomass as our livestock put together and are probably comparable to termites in terms of our effect on the world oxygen supply; even Antarctic krill (tiny shrimp in the waters of Antarctica) currently pwn us in this department.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)#Global_biomass

That probably gives you a sense for how much room there is to grow.

The amount of people that would be required before we start having to worry about global O2 supply is so stupendous, my suspicion is that humanity would be long doomed before that becomes our primary limiting resource.

[Blake's Baby]

The OP's question is about society not oxygen or biomass.

And as WCOP says, the more people we have, the more 'social' things are - the more creative, the more human. Humans are humanity's greatest treasure. The more people there are the more connections people will make, the more ideas will be passed around and improved, the more skills we will have, the more labour-power we have to accomplish our dreams and schemes.

Increased population is a pre-requisite for the recreation of the world. And that's both 'creating again' and 'playing', in case anyone wants to play linguistic games.