Overpopulation a threat or 'Malthusian twaddle?'

Remove all ads!

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Overpopulation, overpopulation!

Various sources:

and

and best o' all:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/010802/010802-10.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2897/increasingreturns.html (a controversial source I gather (never read any other article from it than the one linked) but with enough Nobel prize winners backing it that it sounds legit to me - since it's a non-political article).

 

Overpopulation usually leads to one thing and one thing only... war. It's the human way of dealing with things like that and to reduce the numbers somewhat.

 

I think the point of the above was, 'what overpopulation?' Also, according to the demographics, the idea that there must be war to reduce population is wrong. We're expecting population to peak.

 

I'd say local overpopulation might become a problem, but not worldwide.

If the power to rearrange the places where people are situated was initiated, there wouldn't be a problem, though nobody would like to be moved around either (depends on where you go from and to of course).

Overpopulation would probably be a balance between food and numbers of people to get it. If the number gets so large as the very land is about to be drained of resources in that area, then yes, we're talking a regular overpopulation that aren't healthy.

I agree, play Tetris

 

This topic has been discussed before, or something very akin. The earth can sustain many many many more people than are currently living here. Heck, we dont even need to produce much more than we do now to be able to sustain more or less double the Earths current population. It is all a matter of relocation. We here in the west for instance have immense mountains of food who just rots away while other part of the world starve. That is just one obvious part of it.

If we counted with a continued growth in human produce, the cultivation of previously uncultivated land and some house building on the vast stretches of uninhabited land we do have we will be fine.

As Lokken said, we may get local overpopulation but we probably wont see global overpopulation for many centuries to come, if ever.

 

Okay I would just like to say that your last quote was the greatest and truest thing ever. Since the 1700s, philosophers, mathematicians, and economists have been projecting overworld population. And that was even when they'd just "recently" discovered the Americas. People are always forgetting that even though population grows, new ideas for more efficient ways of harvesting the food for the greater population also grow. For instance, back in the 1700s when Great Britain had its population expansion, a lot of famous economists were expecting major overpopulation but instead a whole bunch of machines were invented to help with the food producing process.

So the entire idea that overpopulation is a problem . . . in any case overpopulation certainly isn't a problem in the U.S. The government is actually paying people NOT to grow corn and we still grow too much of it every year. Of course we could be shipping it out to African countries where there are droughts and idiot politicians who sell of their supply depots of grain to pay of personal debts... the problem with that is that no one will actually do it, and we wouldn't be able to get the country's leaders to agree to it anyways.... *sigh* If the world has a problem, it's the stupidity of humanity in general.

 

I may have this wrong, but I remember an old episode of the Mary Tyler Moore show. In it they are discussing overpopulation with the resident idiot Ted Baxter. Ted's reply is "I hope I enough kids so one of them can figure out how to solve this problem."

 

Underpopulation is the problem in Europe. It will come hunting us in a few years.

And as far as I know, there is a means to prevent population-growth.

But changes in population-numbers are always the cause of a lot of problems and a lot of unrest.

The ovious solution is migration. Which is good for Europe, because the missing babies can be replaced. But increasing immigration on the other hand causes a lot of social unrest. Not to forget, how a lot of people react to immigration and how "anti-immigration"-parties are on the rise.

http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/migration/17501914.html

[ July 30, 2003, 12:41: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

The neat thing about all this is the implication goes well beyond simply food.

For example, I'll try to find it, there is a graph demonstrating pollution on the Y axis and GDP in international dollars (whatever those are) on the X axis.

There comes a point, when people have enough money, that pollution rather than increasing decreases. Since the 70's, though population has risen in the US, pollution has decreased. Same story with Europe and Japan - pollution has decreased (though I'm not sure what their demographics are). This is for purely technological reasons combined with people having the time and energy to care.

Drinking water is one example of this. The quality of water decreases and is dirtier until people start making a certain amount of money and at that point people start insisting on clean drinking water and systems to avoid water pollution.

Something kind of unrelated but revolving around the famine idea. I was reading where a Nobel economist was talking and he said, "Ever notice that most really serious famines don't occur in democratic style nations?" When you have to worry about public opinion you make damn sure people aren't starving to death by the thousands.

 

While I do not trust any projection on matters as complicated as overpopulation, due to the sheer amount of variables involved, I have to disagree on some points mentioned; resources are limited on earth. We only get a fixed amount of energy coming from the sun; the earth surface is limited, vast but limited. And while new energy sources might be discovered, there is an upper limit to the total amount which can eventually be extracted.
While I agree that the potential for creating new ideas is indeed huge, one has to remember that finally ideas stem from our brains, and we need food and shelter.

 

The problem is, history seems to disprove the concept of a zero sum game. Go back far enough and imagine Malthusian concerns - "we're going to run out of wood and then what will we do for heat, we'll all freeze in the winter." They couldn't imagine steam power or electricity then. A short century ago they couldn't have imagined that France would be dotted with nuclear power plants providing energy. We are just now beginning to understand the potential of fuel cells with new research.

You see, we have the ability to create - you are I think operating under the assumption that the only way we can create power - in whatever form, is to take something out of the earth (that's how I understand this quote: "there is an upper limit to the total amount that can eventually be extracted.") But we need not extract anything for power even now so why suppose we will have to centuries down the road when we are advancing faster and faster every day? Examples: wind power, solar power, and hydro electric power extract nothing so why imagine we won't improve?

Also, we have a built in mechanism for forcing innovation and warning us when we will begin to see shortages: it is called the market. Oil reserves decrease but not demand increasing cost and creating an incentive to increase research into alternative sources. because of the way the market operates, this occurs well in advance of any approaching doom.

Also, if you are going to choose to ignore demographic studies by experts that say the world population will peak later this century then it is hardly fair to just suppose and trust that population will always expand unchecked.

 

Obviously, everywhere the industrialization happens, the same pattern as in Europe evolves, after 4-5 generations, people realize that most of their children will survivie childhood and stop making more then 5 of them, because most of them wouldn't die soon anyway. Which obviously stops the population-explosion. So after the population-explosion which is stimulated by indistrulization and technilogical advance, the population adapts and stops making babies. But in between, there's the potential for lot of problems. (And at the end, when people start having only one or none baby).

http://www.xenohistorian.faithweb.com/europe/eu13f.html

 

If this is referred to my previous post, I think a clarification is first needed: I do not discard demographic studies at all, I just do not trust the dates. This comes from the fact that all such studies are forcedly based upon simplifications, simulations and projection of present and past trends into the future. While I praise the idea behind a demographic study, I do not believe into it automatically, and I never take any date as set in stone.
Personally I believe that we live in a sum zero system. Energy seems to be an exception, but consider the fact that we receive a constant supply of it from the sun. And our energy sources either come from resources that are limited (eg. coal, nuclear power) or are provided through the sun either directly (solar energy) or indirectly (wind energy).
I do not think that we are close to reach carrying capacity from this perspective, as the ways we harvest energy still have plenty of space for improvement (especially with respect to solar energy), and, as mentioned,we gain knowledge faster and faster.
But, another thing to keep in mind is that, if you talk overpopulation, energy is not the only variable to consider. Mined materials will not come back. Farmlands destroy valuable long-term assets (amazon forest, just to mention one). There is only a certain amount of water on this planet, and it has to be enough for a lot beside drinking, and the list could go on.
The life-essential resource present in the smallest quantity is the factor limiting growth in an ecological system.
Maybe then talking about energy is not even relevant, as we might reach carrying capacity in some other resource first.
Jeez, this is though talk. I hope I clarified my thoughts.

 

I really like that quote because it points out the difference between humans and other animals - where other animals use their resources and are limited by them, people produce more resources than they use.

I think the point is, there is no such thing as a necessary mineral resource. There are necessary minerals for doing 'x' but there is no reason we need to do 'x' because 'x' is only a means to an end and we can figure out other ways to get to that end.

For example, we will undoubtedly eventually run out of coal or oil for all practical purposes but we can figure out other ways of getting what we want. Once there is an economic incentive, the same will happen with drinking water - if it ever reaches this point, the demographic studies suggest this may not occur.

It is true of course that the Amazon is being reduced and this is tragic - but it won't cause man kind to have a massive disaster. And if S. America were to follow the same trends of other areas in the world eventually less and less land will be used to produce more and more.

I think it more likely that man kind will die off of earth from a meteor or the sun going poof (which I understand is actually long overdue)or some other such cosmis disaster than it is that we will ever get to the point that the planet, with a little help from reason, will be unable to support us.

Maybe I'm just an optimist, *shrug, but I think man is deserving.

[ July 31, 2003, 01:26: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

The question then would be, how long doest it take ? And what happens in between ?

An obvious possibility:

If war would look like the most optimal allocation of ressources. Why not.

War is allocation of ressources.

 

As for the first part, the market tells us when resources first start to become scarce well before it's critical.

As for the second part, huh?

 

I whish I had the same fate in the market. Obviously you are right in saying that the offer-demand game is pretty dynamic and lead to quick reactions when a drop in supplies approaches. Sadly, the market IMO reacts using a a short-term approach. Furthermore, in the case of conflicting interests, it will favour the more cost-effective solution, which is rarely the best long term one as well. Case in point, the amazon forest (sorry if I come back to it): the forest is not only a treasure from a biodiversity point of view, and it is no case that it is been called "the green lung": as part of their photosynthesis, plants produce the oxigen we breath. But, since on the short-term food pays off better that air, locals will go on slash-and-burning the forest. But if you look at the big picture ? I believe we would all be better off keeping the forest as big as possible.

While I find the quote really really cool, when I read it I look in another direction: coyotes cause a negative feedback, which keeps the system stable. Men instead cause a positive feedback with explosive potential. And sheep need grass to eat; once you reach a treshold the sheep will graze quicker that the grass can grow. And in nowadays world you are no longer allowed to just move your herd to the next meadow...
I am not trying to say we are doomed or next to a shortage, I just think that to solve a problem you have to look at it from as many directions as possible and ask as many questions as possible.

 

Food became scarce, but did the market tell before it became critical ? Market only informed the starving that there is no food. Forecasts are made to predict what happens. If their not made or are wrong, market comes with a surprise.

Gold is a resource. To get gold from one person to the next is to allocate that resource (gold). War is a way to allocate it.

From a Scot called Smith:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html

Edit: Oh, yeah, by the way. To the works of Smith, however groundbreaking at his time, applies the same as to Malthus. Time doesn't stand still. Science made progress in the last 2-3 hundred years. Liberal economy too.

[ July 31, 2003, 15:38: Message edited by: Yago ]