Overpopulation

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Lets say in 10 years cures for cancer and a variety of the worlds major killers are eradicated. Than what? Is the idea of overpopulation bullshit, will we need to relocate to superstructures in order to farm the countryside or should 2 child policies be considered in certain areas until we finally get off this rock?

[helot]

The notion of overpopulation is bullshit. Our powers of production increase at a faster rate than population. The more densly populated an area the greater their productive capabilities.

There is no need for restrictions of amount of children. At present we don't need to use more land for food production as there's already enough food being produced to secure everyone with over 2700 calories a day (according to the UN Food & Agriculture organisation in 2002)

The problem humanity faces isnt population it's exploitation and oppression.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

The notion of overpopulation is bullshit. Our powers of production increase at a faster rate than population. The more densly populated an area the greater their productive capabilities.

There is no need for restrictions of amount of children. At present we don't need to use more land for food production as there's already enough food being produced to secure everyone with over 2700 calories a day (according to the UN Food & Agriculture organisation in 2002)

The problem humanity faces isnt population it's exploitation and oppression.

Cramped apartment complexes aren't that fun to live in. Are you saying that people living in post rev societies should live in barracks like complexes

[helot]

Cramped apartment complexes aren't that fun to live in. Are you saying that people living in post rev societies should live in barracks like complexes


I did not imply in any way anything to do with the desirability or undesirability of cramped living spaces nor that people should live in such cramped quarters. All i'm saying is that within a particular area the more people there the more they're capable of producing.

The entire basis for claims of overpopulation are faulty. They fail to take into account the productive capabilities of the population and also fail to take into account the dispossession of the vast majority of people.

[Vanguard1917]

Cramped apartment complexes aren't that fun to live in. Are you saying that people living in post rev societies should live in barracks like complexes

When we consider that no more than a few per cent of mother earth's land is currently urbanised, i think there are more pressing matters to worry about ATM. In fact, such fears are wholly unjustified.

[ind_com]

Overpopulation theories are just a bourgeois trick of implying that the poor are guilty for poverty and other problems.

[hetz]

Ind Com wouldn't you say that Bangladesh for example is overpopulated?

[Comrade #138672]

When the full capacity of the Earth is finally used up, which will still take a very long time, then at that point I'm sure we will be able to colonize other planets, moons, asteroids or so-called Bernal spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernal_sphere).

[Vanguard1917]

Ind Com wouldn't you say that Bangladesh for example is overpopulated?

In my opnion, the problem with Bangladesh is not that it is overpopulated at all, but that it is poor. It's true that it has a relatively high population density, but so does the Netherlands - yet we don't seem to be seeing many Western NGOs rushing to Amsterdam to discourage breeding. If we focus merely on population statistics, we overlook the actual social and historical causes for the poverty of countries like Bangladesh. As ind com says, we shift blame away from the global economic system, and on to the impoverished masses.

[NGNM85]

'Overpopulation' is kind of a loaded term. (Especially around these parts.) Obviously, the earth's carrying capacity is finite, however; this is highly variable. For example; the earth could support an enormous number of humans living an agrarian, preindustrial lifestyle. (Although; there are a number of reasons why it would be extremely unlikely for such a civilization to grow to such numbers.) If we're talking about modern, industrial societies, I'd say there's definitely reason for concern. We're presently decimating the biosphere at a catestrophic rate. Without some kind of drastic, fundamental transformation of industrial society; it's likely to assume that, as the population of the industrialized world grows, as the few remaining preindustrial, or barely industrialized, populations adopt modern industry, that the pace of this ecological devastation will continue to increase, accordingly. To paraphrase Stephen Hawking; if this is how we're going to treat our planet, we need to be investing serious resources in finding another one.

[hetz]

It's true that it has a relatively high population density, but so does the Netherlands - yet we don't seem to be seeing many Western NGOs rushing to Amsterdam to discourage breeding.
Yeah but Bangladesh is only 4 times the size of Netherlands with 10 times the population. China is also very densely populated in statistical terms but it has huge areas with hardly any people there, while almost the whole of Bangladesh is densely populated.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WJsFkVQ1ERM/Sq5g2le7pdI/AAAAAAAAABk/buB8GEH_wvY/s400/Population+Density+Map+of+Bangladesh.jpg

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I see distinct likely outcomes based on either a) the continuation of capitalism along, roughly, its current trajectory, or, b) the realization of an emancipatory communist project. Obviously, since neither of these things is likely to occur in absolute terms, I suspect that the actual realities of (over)population will vary wildly from place to place.
The first outcome, which we are already beginning to see take shape, is likely to mean mass migrations due to displacement, food shortages, epidemics, and, eventually, catastrophic die-offs at the periphery of the world system, and the intensification of disparity at the core between entrenched elites living within hyper-securitized metropolitan centres at the expense of a class of hyperexploited displaced workers on an increasingly exhausted landbase, dependent on mass inputs, until eventually that runs out and we live in some sort of post-civ feudal desert hell.
The second outcome would mean a massive technological reorientation toward localized high-intensity bio-regionally specific modes of communist production that would necessarily be accompanied by a leveling out of human populations according to specific local conditions. With migration being unshackled from the thoroughly violent demands of the market economy and the thoroughly unsustainable consumption within the imperial metropole, the movement of people(s) will probably occur in such a way as to make better use of existing landbases which are currently "nonviable" within the logic of capital. As such, both mass die-off and a hyper-centralized technocratic police state could be subverted as the "realistic options".
Of course, since the first one of these things is already happening, and the latter is hardly emerging as a meaningful counterpower, I expect that what will "really happen" is a lot of the former with the communist possibility emerging sporadically, and likely in a sort of perverse relationship with collapse.

Eh?

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

I see distinct likely outcomes based on either a) the continuation of capitalism along, roughly, its current trajectory, or, b) the realization of an emancipatory communist project. Obviously, since neither of these things is likely to occur in absolute terms, I suspect that the actual realities of (over)population will vary wildly from place to place.
The first outcome, which we are already beginning to see take shape, is likely to mean mass migrations due to displacement, food shortages, epidemics, and, eventually, catastrophic die-offs at the periphery of the world system, and the intensification of disparity at the core between entrenched elites living within hyper-securitized metropolitan centres at the expense of a class of hyperexploited displaced workers on an increasingly exhausted landbase, dependent on mass inputs, until eventually that runs out and we live in some sort of post-civ feudal desert hell.
The second outcome would mean a massive technological reorientation toward localized high-intensity bio-regionally specific modes of communist production that would necessarily be accompanied by a leveling out of human populations according to specific local conditions. With migration being unshackled from the thoroughly violent demands of the market economy and the thoroughly unsustainable consumption within the imperial metropole, the movement of people(s) will probably occur in such a way as to make better use of existing landbases which are currently "nonviable" within the logic of capital. As such, both mass die-off and a hyper-centralized technocratic police state could be subverted as the "realistic options".
Of course, since the first one of these things is already happening, and the latter is hardly emerging as a meaningful counterpower, I expect that what will "really happen" is a lot of the former with the communist possibility emerging sporadically, and likely in a sort of perverse relationship with collapse.

Eh?

So Cyberpunk Capitalism?;)

[Vanguard1917]

Yeah but Bangladesh is only 4 times the size of Netherlands with 10 times the population. China is also very densely populated in statistical terms but it has huge areas with hardly any people there, while almost the whole of Bangladesh is densely populated.

So if the Netherlands had the same population density as Bangladesh, would it experience the same social and economic problems?

[hetz]

No. Because it's the Netherlands.

[NGNM85]

When the full capacity of the Earth is finally used up, which will still take a very long time, ..

Not that long, at this rate.

Furthermore; there are a number of reasons why we would not want to exhaust this planet's capacity for life. First; because we live on it. Second; because trillions of other organisms also live on it. Third; because it has, for lack of a better word; spiritual significence to the human race. The earth is our mother, in a sense. She has nourished us through our infancy. Nomatter how long the human race lasts, (I'm finding it increasingly difficult to be optimistic about this.) I think the earth will always be; 'home', on some deeper level. In the extremely unlikely event that the human race still exists in roughly 5 billion years, when the sun goes red giant and turns our blue planet into a flaming cinder, I should think that this would be seen as a great loss. Like the death of a loved one. Nomatter how far we've come. Nomatter how many worlds we inhabit, (Again; I'm not optimistic.) I think it's safe to say this one will always have a unique significance to humanity.


then at that point I'm sure we will be able to colonize other planets, moons, asteroids or so-called Bernal spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernal_sphere).

It's possible, but we have to survive long enough. Colonizing the moon, terraforming mars; these are fairly doable. Escaping this solar system, which we must do, if the human race is to survive, will be a bit trickier. It will most likely require generational ships, that will travel for decades, at a time. Using the best availible technologies, such as a nuclear pulse rocket, or fusion ramjet engine, it will take generations just to get to the nearest star systems. Many of these ships will probably be lost, as there are no small problems in space, and the cosmos is a dangerous place. It will be a hard life. If mankind manages to spread beyond this solar system; we should endeavor to spread ourselves wide to maximize the probability of survival of the species. Besides; it's not like we're going to have to fight anybody for the territory; there's billions upon billions of uninhabited rocks out there.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Lets say in 10 years cures for cancer and a variety of the worlds major killers are eradicated. Than what? Is the idea of overpopulation bullshit, will we need to relocate to superstructures in order to farm the countryside or should 2 child policies be considered in certain areas until we finally get off this rock? Well, what other advances have taken place?

Total carrying capacity can only be determined under constant conditions, and even then one only determines the carry capacity for those specific conditions.
With that said, if we consider relevant technology to be perpetually progressing, then one may as well say that the limits of our population is also perpetually rising.

[Jason]

The right wing loves to bring up overpopulation as an excuse to ignore oppression. On this thread, one person stated that overpopulation doesn't exist. Even if overpopulation does exist, then that's still not an excuse.

[Tjis]

Overpopulation isn't real, at least for the current order of population size. It is just a particular framing of the problem at hand: a widespread lack of adequate living conditions. It is terribly opportunistic to blame these conditions on the poor, while they're not in a position to do anything about it.
In many places, having no children is in many cases a death sentence. When one becomes too sick or old to work, who'll care for them? Not the government or the capitalists, that's for sure. Also, having a large family with multiple incomes lowers living costs for all family members. So a large family is an insurance against crippling poverty. Enforcing a one-child or two-child policy while doing nothing about the structural circumstances that cause such a huge population growth in the first place can only result in more poverty.

However, I'm convinced that a world with free access to food, housing and healthcare would see its population growth diminish rapidly, even without such one-child or two-child programs, as structural causes for large families disappear. Socialism is a far more worthy endeavor than population growth reduction.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The effects linked to "overpopulation" are definatlty real, but "overpopulation" is an abstraction that takes for granted that the way things are produced currently is unalterable. It's like if you rented a house from someone and they filled 3 rooms with old newspapers and made the 4 tenants share 2 other rooms - is the problem that there are too many people, or that the way the space in the house is distributed that's the problem?

So the effects attributed to overpopulation (environmental destruction, poverty/overcrowding) are obviously real, but there's no magic number of people that causes this: rather the real force behind these issues are A) the way things are produced and arranged and how resources are used B) inequality and the irrational (profit-motive) way things are organized in our societies.

"Overpopulated" industrial cities have problems of crowdedness, traffic, waste, and pollution. But mining or logging or industrial-agricultural regions many of these same features despite having very low populations. Miners and migrant ag. workers live crowded together in bad conditions in regions with little population but industry ends up killing rivers, erroding the earth, strip-mining/hydro-mining, depleating fish or resources etc. Of course these industries are producing for the larger population, but the dust bowl, strip-mining, destruction of ecosystems also happened at a time when the population and popular consumption of products were no where near the levels they are today.


'Overpopulation' is kind of a loaded term. (Especially around these parts.) Obviously, the earth's carrying capacity is finite, however; this is highly variable. For example; the earth could support an enormous number of humans living an agrarian, preindustrial lifestyle. (Although; there are a number of reasons why it would be extremely unlikely for such a civilization to grow to such numbers.)Actually I think in many ways this would be more harmful for the environment and we would hit problems of "carrying capacity" sooner than in industrial society. Induvidual farms are not very efficient because it requires more labor to produce less output, labor is duplicated on induvidual farms, resources such as water are scattered, etc. So an agricultural society of this kind needs to have a relativly low and scattered population. In capitalist society, more surplus is produced and so labor can produce more for the effort, production can be more centralized which can potentially reduce waste. By the reasons and the methods of production under capitalism are a fetter on using this surplus in a less harmful way or fufilling potential absolute need. So industrial methods are potentially more efficient and can satisfy more needs with less land-use, but because industry is run in the interests of profits, that means that the short-term return is always going to beat out the need for sustainable (and more pleasant) production processes.

[I'm Gay.]

All this talk of interplanetary colonization is pointless. It won't happen any time soon. It'd be hundreds of colonists, not some mass exodus of billions.

To say that overpopulation is bourgeois theory is guilt by association. Yes they have used it against the poor, just as they did with Darwinism. But that doesn't mean we should deny Darwin. Don't make the Lysenkoist mistake.

Far from denying ecological concerns, we should take them as a call for a more equal and efficient system. Google "the oil we eat". Be a watermelon!

[NGNM85]

Actually I think in many ways this would be more harmful for the environment...

That's ridiculous. The greenhouse gas emissions, and pollution generated by hunter-gatherer societies are virtually nonexistant. I'm not arguing that we should abandon industrial society, I'm not a primativist. However; it is certainly true that this would be the best course of action for the biosphere, as a whole.


...and we would hit problems of "carrying capacity" sooner than in industrial society. Induvidual farms are not very efficient because it requires more labor to produce less output, labor is duplicated on induvidual farms, resources such as water are scattered, etc. So an agricultural society of this kind needs to have a relativly low and scattered population. In capitalist society, more surplus is produced and so labor can produce more for the effort,

That's one of the reasons, equally, if not more important is the lack of clean water, and sanitation, or of antiobiotics. This is why it's, essentially, impossioble for a hunter-gatherer type society to expand to such a large size. Before the advent of technology; mankind's growth was kept in check by disease, predators, exposure to the elements, and, admittedly, also; limited production capabilities. Technology is precisely what allowed mankind to thrive, and prosper. I was just proposing a hypothetical to demonstrate to the OP that; 'overpopulation', is relative.


production can be more centralized which can potentially reduce waste.

It can; yes.


By the reasons and the methods of production under capitalism are a fetter on using this surplus in a less harmful way or fufilling potential absolute need.

Granted.


So industrial methods are potentially more efficient and can satisfy more needs with less land-use,

Land use is just one negative impact on the biosphere. I would argue it's actually one one of the least important. Of greater primacy, I would argue, is pollution, particularly (but not exclusively) greenhouse gasses, which industrial socities tend to produce in vast quantities.


but because industry is run in the interests of profits, that means that the short-term return is always going to beat out the need for sustainable (and more pleasant) production processes.

That's true, because under capitalism, industry is driven by profit, acquired from extracting surplus value.

However; you're making an at least equally egregious, if not more egregious, error, than the OP, by calculating every variable, except population. This variable is not irrelevent, as much as you'd like it to be. As I was saying; certain amount of pollution, including greenhouse gasses, is probably going to be inevitable, as long as we're determined to continue the project of industrial civilization. Whatever threshold we want to set, be it setting atmospheric concentration of Co2 at 350 ppm, or whatever, generally speaking; the more our population grows; the more difficult it's going to be to stay below that threshold. Taking this into account, along with the catestrophic damage that we have already wreaked upon the environment, likely orders of magnitude beyond what we would conclude to be a tolerable limit; there is certainly some incentive to keep the population from expanding much further. In any case; probably, the best thing you can ever possibly do, from an ecological standpoint, is to not have a child. That probably beats a lifetime of recycling.