Almost in every stripe of society’s challenges and problems we hear the horrible fenomenon of over-population. I’d like to find out what it actually means and how concerned should I be?
Overpopulation: Excessive population of an area to the point of (1) overcrowding, (2) depletion of natural resources, or (3) environmental deterioration. (Dictionary on Answers.com)
So let’s examine the word following the three numbered points.
The first segment of the definition is “overcrowding.” This means the planet would be overcrowded with humans. I think this is a pretty easy one to crack.
So let’s examine the word following the three numbered points.
The first segment of the definition is “overcrowding.” This means the planet would be overcrowded with humans. I think this is a pretty easy one to crack.
Let’s imagine: Australia has 1,882,431,360 acres. The planet has 6,800,000,000 people. If the whole population of the world moved to Australia and were given even and divisive amount of land each person would be entitled to more than a 1/4 of an acre to live on. The rest of the planet would be deserted of human life. So I believe it is safe that the earth is not overcrowded, we might just as well have 80 billion and still be very confortable.
The second segment gives us the effect of “depletion of natural resources.” We know our natural resources are scarce. So depletion of these would be an over-consumption leading to the extinction of these resources.
So we just call it over-consumption. A couple questions... Where and what are the limits? I understand this argument but are there numbers, statistics, or theories? For each single resource? Is there an actual limit proportion between population and resource consumption? Are we at a limit right now? Let’s think food where an average American can eat to 6 or 7 plates of nice food for 6 dollars in an all-american buffet, while at the same time, a Zimbabwe dreams with some fish or rice. Is the solution to stop people from having children in Zimbabwe? Is it so serious that some would give reason to start wars, diseases, etc. so some of us can keep up the amount of natural resources we consume? Because technically the only place we are going to cut population growth is in the poorest places on earth. All developed nations have a negative nativity rate of under 2.1.
These poor places where we will cut population growth are the same areas where access to natural resources is scarce and poor. Doesn't make much sense does it? The doomsayers will come and talk about places like China and India. Ok, what will happen when all these Chinese and Indians are driving cars and eating food at the same quality and quantity as Americans and Europeans? “It will be the end of the world!” Not really. Just like everything, if resources do become scarce prices will go up and quantity supplied will lower. This will actually equilize the quality of life throughout the world just like the quality of life between the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, and Australia is more or less equalized. It wasn't always so... Now we will have more people living equalized with all us. Is this not what we all are always saying we want? I rest my case on the fact that I can’t find any cause and effect relationship between overpopulation and depletion of natural resources.
Now to the third point and maybe more complex: Environment deterioration.
This argument does make sense. I mean, if the environment and the planet earth are in imminent danger, or instead the human race is in imminent danger from them, because we are currently deteriorating the planet to a high degree and there is an addition of hundreds of millions of polluters, then we can conclude that this will itensify the problem to fatal proportions.
“The air is polluted, the rivers and lakes are dying, and the ozone layer has wholes in it.”
- Ann Landers
“Most environmental, economic and social problems of local, regional, and global scale arise from this driving force: too many people using too many resources at too fast a rate.”
- Blue Planet Group
“Overpopulation drains world resources.”
- Roman Catholic Bishops, 1991
This is a hard one because there is a demand for lots of hard data and information. What we do know is that the environment in developed nations is gradually getting better. Forests, rivers, oceans, air, pollution, etc is gradually getting better in the US, Europe, Japan, and Australia. The argument that more people will degrade the environment is not necessarily true. It is all about responsabilities, distribution, and quality of life (= development). In poor countries where personal and economic freedom is very limited people don’t have the wealth or time to worry about the environment. It is only when countries arrive at a certain quality of life like the above developed nations that people have time and wealth to clean up their environment. It is logical to say that China and India will follow the same trend after there people have attained a certain degree of wealth.
The only last argument, still part of environmental deterioration, is global warming. The more people the more pollution the more danger to our race and the planet. People love drama that is for sure. The truth is that there is no concrete proof that neither global warming is happening nor even that CO2 is damaging to the ozone. There are for sure many interpretations and theories from both sides of the argument. This will probably be proven to be one more great scare to our society just like the millenium bug, just like the acid rains of the 90’s, the global cooling of the 70’s, the oil or coal scarcity of the 1850’s and 1900’s, etc. For the last ten years the planet has been cooling, the overall ice is growing in the world, polar bears are found to be growing again, the astronomical sea level rise theories have been disproven, etc. However, like always, there are many people making a lot of money off the hysteria.
What is my solution to overpopulation?
Eliminate all subsidies, price controls, tax reliefs, public aids, etc. and let every person on the planet know the real cost of having and raising children. Eliminate free health care, free food, free diapers, etc. Without all these methods practices all across the globe, people would have children naturally and more responsibly and I really think of it to be arrogant and racist for any such person to think that there are too many people on the planet. Support free abortion, don’t have children, influence others to not have children, and oh yeah, go ahead and kill yourself. :)
The second segment gives us the effect of “depletion of natural resources.” We know our natural resources are scarce. So depletion of these would be an over-consumption leading to the extinction of these resources.
So we just call it over-consumption. A couple questions... Where and what are the limits? I understand this argument but are there numbers, statistics, or theories? For each single resource? Is there an actual limit proportion between population and resource consumption? Are we at a limit right now? Let’s think food where an average American can eat to 6 or 7 plates of nice food for 6 dollars in an all-american buffet, while at the same time, a Zimbabwe dreams with some fish or rice. Is the solution to stop people from having children in Zimbabwe? Is it so serious that some would give reason to start wars, diseases, etc. so some of us can keep up the amount of natural resources we consume? Because technically the only place we are going to cut population growth is in the poorest places on earth. All developed nations have a negative nativity rate of under 2.1.
These poor places where we will cut population growth are the same areas where access to natural resources is scarce and poor. Doesn't make much sense does it? The doomsayers will come and talk about places like China and India. Ok, what will happen when all these Chinese and Indians are driving cars and eating food at the same quality and quantity as Americans and Europeans? “It will be the end of the world!” Not really. Just like everything, if resources do become scarce prices will go up and quantity supplied will lower. This will actually equilize the quality of life throughout the world just like the quality of life between the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, and Australia is more or less equalized. It wasn't always so... Now we will have more people living equalized with all us. Is this not what we all are always saying we want? I rest my case on the fact that I can’t find any cause and effect relationship between overpopulation and depletion of natural resources.
Now to the third point and maybe more complex: Environment deterioration.
This argument does make sense. I mean, if the environment and the planet earth are in imminent danger, or instead the human race is in imminent danger from them, because we are currently deteriorating the planet to a high degree and there is an addition of hundreds of millions of polluters, then we can conclude that this will itensify the problem to fatal proportions.
“The air is polluted, the rivers and lakes are dying, and the ozone layer has wholes in it.”
- Ann Landers
“Most environmental, economic and social problems of local, regional, and global scale arise from this driving force: too many people using too many resources at too fast a rate.”
- Blue Planet Group
“Overpopulation drains world resources.”
- Roman Catholic Bishops, 1991
This is a hard one because there is a demand for lots of hard data and information. What we do know is that the environment in developed nations is gradually getting better. Forests, rivers, oceans, air, pollution, etc is gradually getting better in the US, Europe, Japan, and Australia. The argument that more people will degrade the environment is not necessarily true. It is all about responsabilities, distribution, and quality of life (= development). In poor countries where personal and economic freedom is very limited people don’t have the wealth or time to worry about the environment. It is only when countries arrive at a certain quality of life like the above developed nations that people have time and wealth to clean up their environment. It is logical to say that China and India will follow the same trend after there people have attained a certain degree of wealth.
The only last argument, still part of environmental deterioration, is global warming. The more people the more pollution the more danger to our race and the planet. People love drama that is for sure. The truth is that there is no concrete proof that neither global warming is happening nor even that CO2 is damaging to the ozone. There are for sure many interpretations and theories from both sides of the argument. This will probably be proven to be one more great scare to our society just like the millenium bug, just like the acid rains of the 90’s, the global cooling of the 70’s, the oil or coal scarcity of the 1850’s and 1900’s, etc. For the last ten years the planet has been cooling, the overall ice is growing in the world, polar bears are found to be growing again, the astronomical sea level rise theories have been disproven, etc. However, like always, there are many people making a lot of money off the hysteria.
What is my solution to overpopulation?
Eliminate all subsidies, price controls, tax reliefs, public aids, etc. and let every person on the planet know the real cost of having and raising children. Eliminate free health care, free food, free diapers, etc. Without all these methods practices all across the globe, people would have children naturally and more responsibly and I really think of it to be arrogant and racist for any such person to think that there are too many people on the planet. Support free abortion, don’t have children, influence others to not have children, and oh yeah, go ahead and kill yourself. :)
Here's John Lennon on it "It's a myth" he tells us.
Posts
