Where did this myth come from? When was humanity supposed to end?
Contents
- 1 Did Malthus really say to kill off the poor?
- 2 Malthus thought doctors shouldn’t cure diseases?
- 3 Did Paul Ehrlich really say that famines would devastate humanity in the 1970s?
- 4 What’s the UNFPA? How do they profit from fear?
- 5 No way everyone could fit in Texas …
- 6 Where are you getting these numbers?
- 7 The world’s population will peak in 30 years? Prove it.
Did Malthus really say to kill off the poor?

Yep. In his Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus calls for increased mortality among the poor:
All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons… To act consistently therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. (Book IV, Chap. V) — Read it online.
Malthus thought doctors shouldn’t cure diseases?

“But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. (Book IV, Chap. V) — Read it online.”
Did Paul Ehrlich really say that famines would devastate humanity in the 1970s?

Yep. In his 1968 work The Population Bomb, Ehrlich stated:
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines–hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
What’s the UNFPA? How do they profit from fear?

The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) was founded in 1969, the year after Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. They have been involved in programs with governments around the world who deny their women the right to choose the number and spacing of their children. Their complicit work with the infamous “one-child policy” mandated by the government of the People’s Republic of China, uncovered by an investigation of the U.S. State Department in 2001, led the United States to pull its funding.
The wealthy of the West, in their terror of poverty, have given copiously to the UNFPA and its population control programs. Visit Population Research Institute for more info.
No way everyone could fit in Texas …

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world’s population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).
So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That’s approximately a 33′ x 33′ plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66′ x 66′ plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard — and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it’d basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.

Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There’s plenty of space for humanity.
Where are you getting these numbers?
U.N. Population Database. While they provide Low, Medium, and High Variants, the Low Variant is the one that keeps coming true, so the Low variant numbers are the ones used in this video. Check their online database.
The world’s population will peak in 30 years? Prove it.
According to the U.N. Population Database, using the historically accurate low variant projection, the Earth’s population will only add another billion people or so over the next thirty years, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline. Check their online database.

179 thoughts on “Episode 1: Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth”
The faultiness of your logic…
By focusing entirely on Malthus, you are missing the point completely. Malthus was wrong, yes, but overpopulation is still a problem. Just because Malthus’s notions were wrong, doesn’t mean that overpopulation isn’t a problem or that there aren’t viable solutions to this problem. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Consumers
I question the motives of the producers of this site and film. Of course overpopulation is a problem but it’s an “inconvenient truth” ignored by practically everyone because we want/need more CONSUMERS to support our economies, buy buy buy. The problem is our oceans are over fished, virtually everywhere in the U.S. is on are at risk of being subject to water restrictions that were unheard of 10 years ago. Less people, less stress on the environment.
Overpoulation is a Myth
As an economic demographer by education, I can assure you that you would fail any graduate course at any major university, using the reasoning that you do on this web page. At the time when I was doing my graduate work in population analysis (economic demography), “The Limits to Growth” study out of MIT was one of the hot topics of the day. You can watch the updates of this work, by searching Limits to Growth in Youtube, of note are the presentations by Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers and Lester Brown. This work was based on a highly sophisticated computer model, developed by the first two people just noted and Dennis’ wife Deanna Meadows. Unlike your simplistic assumptions, they developed and continue to refine a highly sophisticated computer model, which estimates the “carrying capacity” of the planet, given limited natural resources (fresh water, farmable land, rare minerals, etc., etc.), finite fossil fuels, ocean acidification, and the impacts of global warming, and pollution. None of these do you consider. We lovingly call your types “the flat earth folks.” You still don’t realize that the earth is round, and that it therefore has limitations on population. You might argue that the planet can sustain 500 trillion people, using your simple assumptions, but at least you would show that you understand what limits are! Most of us would assume that you have no idea how to compute these limits, but at least we would not place you in the “flat earth” group. But alas, you are in the flat earth group. Take for instance the climate change issue, which I am sure you think is wrong. Watch on youtube, “Artic Death Spiral and The Methane Time Bomb.” They argue that the world is likely to warm by 5C by 2050, due to over population of people using too many fossil fuels. This will then release the Artic methane, which is likely to warm the planed another 5c. Life on the planet will not exist at 10c above current levels, is the argument. But not to worry. The business world, and those of you strong supporters of unlimited growth are most likely to win out. The global population is likely to reach 11 billion people sometime in the second half of this century. Good news is that the planet will test your thesis that “over population is a myth.” Bad news is that if the millions of us that are arguing that this level is well over the 4-5 billion carrying capacity of the planet are correct. The world will suffer a massive collapse, due to extreme changes in climate, unstoppable climate change. Massive growing areas, like CA is facing now, may become dry waste lands. The 1 billion people on the planet now that do not have access to fresh drinking water, may rise to 7 billion of the 11 billion. And the mayhem forecasted all too soon by other demographers, may ultimately be reality. But not to worry. If those of you from “the flat world” camp are wrong, you can simply take it as partially your responsibility for the potentially billions of people who die, due to your simplistic and very misleading arguments. If those of us from the “scientific” community, are correct, and the population leveled off at 4-5 billion, and the world transitioned now to wind and solar, what would be the impact if we were wrong on our assumptions and forecasts. We would have a cleaner, less populated planet, where the oceans were filled with healthy coral and sea life. The forests would not be devastated, and the rivers and lakes not polluted nearly as much. So it would appear that the risks of all of you in “the flat earth” group have a much higher risk of causing the death of billions and billions of people if your simplistic assumptions are wrong. Those of us in “The Limits to Growth” camp do not face such dire consequences if our assumptions are incorrect. Quite the opposite, an under populated world may not make as many billions for the billionaires, but it could provide for a much better living for billions of people globally. And the argument that 11 billion people will increase the standard of living of more people than a planet of 4 billion people, with the majority of the energy provided by renewable energies, primarily wind and solar, is also non-science. But hey, you are likely young enough to see the real world implications of your very misleading arguments, if others and I are correct. Too bad those of us that understand the carrying capacity of the planet, and limits to growth, don’t have another planet to move to. That way we could live for thousands of generations into the future, due to our responsible life styles. However, we are stuck on “Planet Titanic” driven by a Right Wing, Radically Wrong group of nuts like your group. We are stuck going down with the ship, due to your very simplistic and inaccurate analysis. God forgive you, for you do not know what you are doing!
for he does not know what he’s doing?
What’s he doing, convincing the world to all live in Texas? LOL. Yes his article can be dangerous, but no one is going to buy this except the ignorant. There is an artificial overpopulation in that the goverments of the world, being evil, mismanage things often, that creates situations for wars, which in turn lead to population reduction. It works out in a way. However God is going to kill many people anyways, apparantly around a billion.
LOL
What are you actually saying? Hes not actually convincing us all to live in Texas… rather the size of Texas. Maybe your the ignorant? cause hes actually providing you with relevant information and your discarding it? Your saying that maybe we should let war kill of the helpless and innocent? And I do believe in God, and where does it state that hes going to kill around a billion people? Miss/Mrs I think you got your facts wrong and should really think before you type.
Tool much?
No one said everyone should live in Teas, you ignorant dolt. The only people who are ignorant are those like yourselves. You continue your march of ignorance over the decades, and in each one preach doom. And every time you are wrong, but you follow it up with “well, we were wrong last time, but we won’t be wrong this time.” It’s a shame you and the poster before you are too stupid to see the forest for the trees.
Are you Hitler?
“God is going to kill many people”, most likely including you unless you repent, God said to pray for those who prosecute you, and yet you want the death of those who never did you harm?
They know exactly what they are doing
These video series are designed to push their agenda obviously.
It is a Religious Anti-Abortion, Anti-Contraception propaganda ad.
It is possible it started with good intentions, but as it does corruption corrupts.
For me, “Fudging” the math, taking quotes out of context, and misrepresenting facts goes against religious ideals as I understand them. Even if their goal is idealistic, end does not justify the means.
It’s the kind of thing their Jesus would be upset about.
You have to trust people with the real facts and then let them choose the proper path for themselves.
If you don’t it’s meaningless.
The Food one is particularly upsetting. Africa can feed the world. Theoretically, Mars could also feed the planet, if we terra-formed it. The Continent of Africa is in no shape politically to be counted on as a resource to feed everyone.
Water is of bigger concern, but of course “technology will solve that problem!!” Because technology is Magic!
Simple human greed will overtake any technological advancement short of Alchemical transmutation (more magic, Yay!)
(Water shortages mean, Water sales==profits)
It is a pet peeve that people think that technology will just solve all the problems, based simply on human narcissism,
Human ingenuity has been, and most likely always be, trumped by greed and corruption.
I beg and plead the people who watch these video to do more actual research than just believing.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!
They have a very
They have a very sophisticated computer model…lol. And how does reduction of the population magically lead people to use renewable energy sources when at a time of more demand for it little has been done? Long rant, little science. I’m very happy to come across this website that makes sense and doesn’t rely on basic assumptions. Save your flat earth comments for yourself.
I guess you understand God and the carrying capacity of Earth
Your right about big business and greed. Raking in Billions!
Ebenezer Scrooge
I love the video. I don’t like your comment. I call your kind the Ebenezer Scrooge types!
“If they’d rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population, Good night, gentlemen.”
Take your “highly sophisticated computer models….”
http://www.gapminder.org/
Oh no!!!!
Oh no, fail any graduate course at a left-leaning college if we don’t tow the line? Wow, I’m so surprised that you would think so. And we all know that colleges have a monopoly on the truth and have NEVER been wrong, right?
Why don’t you do the world a BIG favor and stop taking up resources, help decrease the population by killing yourself now. Ah, but I doubt you have that kind of conviction.
“Non-science”! I will throw that word out and pretend I’ve made a point! If I say it’s non-science then it must be so!
God forgive you, for you’re an idiot.
Next you raise some awesome straw men arguments. But sorry, that’s all they are, straw men. And we call people like you disingenuous.
Why don’t you now tell us about the Drake Equation and how it gives us an estimate of the number of civilizations in the galaxy. It’s just about as accurate as your Limits of Growth study.
Fresh water is NOT a limited natural resource, and this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone but the seriously deluded. It’s limited at any given time. But you might take a moment to realize that the amount of fresh water available to humanity has increased, not decreased, as a limited resource would. Also, water doesn’t run out, or didn’t they teach you that in that ivory tower you’re locked up in?
Your problem, and those like you
Your problem, and those like you, is that you look at the modern world and extrapolate population into the future from this horrifically limited viewpoint. Sure enough we’ve had “experts” and guys like you crying Armageddon for well over 100 years. They always have the same problem, limited knowledge. That’s your problem, and the scientists you reference.
Imagine yourself in the 1920’s, population estimated at right around 2 billion. Your words above would ring “true” just as much then as they do now. And indeed, there was NO way for the world to support the population of >7 billion we have today. But not because it couldn’t be done. It was simply because of your lack of knowledge. It’s REALLY frightening to think that you have any understanding of economics beyond your ability to look at the statistics, because clearly you don’t. But, again, it’s not surprising considering you no doubt graduated from a left-wing school that prefers to teach agenda over education. Even with your so-called education, if you actually look at the data you should be walking away with a much different opinion, but alas, I fear you’re unable to see past your biases.
http://www.gapminder.org/ignorance/
Many of your rebuttals are
Many of your rebuttals are only opinionated insults which cloud your entire argument. Just to say someone is wrong doesn’t necessarily make them wrong. Furthermore, automatically lumping this in with the flat earth conspiracy also costs you points. Don’t worry, this isn’t a biased response, just looking at both sides objectively. However, you cannot say the same. Your response shows that you believe this is utter nonsense but you admit that this could have merit by acknowledging the possibility of either outcome with your comment about us finding out if this is right or not. By doing this, you admit that there is an argument and you’ve already lumped all undecided into a category subordinate to yourself and incorrect. I wonder how many people will be swayed to the myth stance from the arrogance of opposing arguments, with credentials considered, of course.
Would you like to volunteer
Would you like to volunteer yourself and your family to be the first to be removed in order amend the overpopulation problem? Or is it the weak that need to be eliminated? Perhaps the elderly? Those with special needs?
bardam00-1@yahoo.com
The fact that you felt the need to bring politics into this discussion proves global warming and overpopulation are political lobbies and ideologies by now, they have little to do with science anymore. There are plenty of respected scientists who say they’re scams.
As to wind and solar weenies like you, the improvement in the life of humans on the planet is practically a higher energy budget allocated to each human. To deny this is to deny gravity. Energy restriction as a way of life equals death. And the people who are going to die are all in the third world.
Face it, you are an advocate for mass murder.
Permalink…
Wow you are full of yourself. Explain how your concept of the world population leveling out at 4-5 billion is going to happen? At no time did they claim the world will hit 11 billion either or that living standards will be higher. You just like hearing yourself rant. Your concept only works if corrupt governments and billionaires keep pushing wars and fossil fuels for profit. Where you can see the resistance building daily. Take a quick look at Elon Musk to see how quickly things are changing. All you are offering is dooms day info and unfortunately your whining will not change anything either. Enjoy your globe
Myth
The biggest myth of science is the myth of consensus. Overpopulation, Evolution or Global warming, you name it. A real consensus, on any of these subjects, does not exist no matter how often the media reports otherwise.
Utter Bull$h!t.
Your “education” has been controlled by the elite since before you were even born.
So many people come on here with their petty opinions that were planted in their petty minds to begin with.
Clearly, not one of you has any idea how subsidization works.
There is enough farmland in America right now to feed 50 billion, with ease.
Toxic dumping is unnecessary, and the only reason we see such bad conditions is that a daily fine of $50,000 is laughable to a company that makes 3 million the same day. They will continue to dump chemicals in the oceans until We, the people, FORCE our allegedly elected officials to raise that daily fine to $10 Million.
There is enough land already established to support 50 billion. With permaculture, aquaculture and advanced growing techniques, you can feed a family of 4 on a piece of land no bigger than the average garage.
Subsidization CREATES shortages! Add to that the fact that millions of tons of food is dumped into the oceans every year, and you have a manufactured argument for over population.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/10/half-world-food-waste
The dry waste lands you mentioned in CA right now are the result of HAARP and climate control. Deny it all you want, FOOL.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/
100% of you all on here still arguing that we need to kill off a bunch of people, can start by shooting yourselves in the head.
Maybe that will start us in the right direction! Good riddance to all you left wing radical nut case Communists!
Now STFU and go eat your GMO products!
Overpopulation and climate change
I have the article in 1974 (April, Newsweek) in which there was a massive conclusion by the scientific community that a global ice age was upon, so severe that if we didn’t act “now”, so much of the world would be covered in new glacial encroachment that so much of the farmland would be gone forever. People would starve. This article even says that science suggested that if we did not have the “political courage” to act “now”, such as putting soot at the north pole to melt ice (ahead of the coming new glacial age)…and all the terms, phrases and fear that are now the same as global warming. What happened? Ted Danson was on TV more than 2 decades ago saying the oceans had only one decade left…AlGore was on just over a decade ago saying within a decade, if things didn’t change…and now here we are. I’ll leave it at this for tonight.
Overpopulation
Well, I earned a Ph.D. at a major university in population biology. The earth has a limit to the number of people it will support. That number is about 6.4 billion people. Now we are at 7.2 billion with massive immigrations, and you call that a good living???
Eugenics’ lie sidesteps greee, selfishness, abusers
So interesting that the so-called scientific minds here, with all their misleading data and death-hungry mindsets, fail to place blame where blame belongs. The planet suffers bc of greed and abuse. Instead of killing ppl to save the world, how about limit commercial & industrial pollution and ban products that d*** the environment (though these products pad billionaires’ pockets). Those damnable elitist ideas always lessen the value of a person & overvalue all else! THE EARTH CAN SUSTAIN MAN as long as greedy destroyers cease profit-minded manufacturing and unless wealthy selfish ppl and nations cease hoarding land and resources meant for all. Again the lie: save the Earth, empty it of ppl! Kill the poorest most vulnerable residents of the house so that self-proclaimed landlords can roam graciously through every room and exercise their greed and desire for over abundance , the very things that cause the lack noted. Cut off all feet because we are running out of shoes! We only need 2-3 pairs per person but many selfish ppl own thousands!
I know I’m just too simple to
I know I’m just too simple to understand, but if the over population of the earth does cause the cataclysm you speak of, people will die, the population of the earth reduce, problem solved.
Science myth
What is crazy is how you call your view scientific when really it’s just your botched up hypothesis, no more scientific that the view in the article.
Oceans over-fished
That’s why the number of fish farms is growing. Mankind adapts to change.
Not exactly…
Really, what you’re saying is that we focus on everyone who says that the earth is overpopulated, when really, its simpler to explain and understand the theory when only the main or first person who had started the awareness, who, may I add is Malthus.
No
No, it’s just that the doomsayers, like yourself, were, are, and will continue to be wrong.
http://www.gapminder.org/
Sorry, but no
In our country alone (I’m in US), we have people living longer and longer, thanks to modern medicine. Then there are other civilized countries that also have such medicine. Suppose we took all the people past age of childbearing.
https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/statbriefs/agebrief.html
US Census puts these elderly at 1 in 8 of the total population. While young people fret about having too many kids, suddenly all the old people will die, and there will be a gap. If this generation doesn’t make their own kids, this will be the death knell of civilization.
Right and wrong….
You are correct within the paradigm of the market system and banking. The market system actually depends on a single fundamental reality; there must be have’s and have nots. Within this perspective, the earth is way overpopulated. From a materialistic pov (not banking/finance which depends on creating value through scarcity), there is more than enough land and resources for everyone and this is not a theory or a matter of subjectivity.
The argument that we have
The argument that we have plenty of room to keep expanding the population seems somewhat short-sighted. When early Americans began cutting the giant Sequoias, they thought there would always be plenty of wood–surely, they would never run out of trees in the forest.
We may only be a few drops in the bucket, but when the drops keep coming, the bucket will eventually become full. It’s more about quality of life than simply sustaining humans on the planet.
Pardon me, but have I missed
Pardon me, but have I missed something? Have we run out of trees?
try again
http://www.gapminder.org/ignorance/
Do some research on how large
Do some research on how large forests were 100 years ago in the U.S.
Then be amazed to see that they are vastly larger today than they were 100 years ago.
Why do the ignorant always say “what do we do about the trees”. Who cares about trees when it’s people that have the capacity to suffer.
Everyone could fit in Texas…
Yes, it would be true that you can fit the entire world’s population into texas, but how would you feed all those people? 75% of the entire earth’s land mass is dedicated into farmland, to produce the food necessary.
What about Food?
In answer to your question, I suggest you look at the science behind our video “Food: There’s lots of it.”
Enough food..
Technically enough to sustain human life correct, but the first world its overconsumption. Is there not a statisitc of an average american consuming the equal to 32 Kenyans.. So the world reaches ‘overpopulation’ well before this equal food rationing for the world is ever going to have a chance. And finally the point you miss in each video and your eniter ideology is that the FIRST WORLD iis not going to give away the MASSIVE amount it would take to make an equality, wars (like 99% of them) are because one set of people have what you want.. Or are pushing for what you have. Think about it.
99%?
Where is the 99% of wars fought over “what you have”? World War I? WWII? Neither had anything to do with that… WWI was the result of an unsettling arms race & buildup of alliances between the powers of Europe (and Japan, as well) and WWII was caused by a group of governments who wanted to control the world… I can go further. The Civil War (Of America) was caused by a lack of states rights over governmental rights. A government had more power then another government. The Gulf War was caused by a tyrannical leader who abused his power. The Cold War (which could be argued as a conflict, I suppose) was caused by a buildup of nuclear weapons.
I understand where you’re coming from (American Revolution, French Revolution, anything with the word “revolution” in it) but you can’t use statistics if they’re incorrect. Sorry for the rant, but so many people on this feed are incorrectly using statistics and this one sent me over the edge.
wars and stats
actually he’s more than probably right
“the Gulf War was caused by a tyrannical leader who abused his powers” I couldn’t agree more … except that the tyrannical leader wasn’t Saddam but the US … also Saddam (and right after that the US) invaded Koweit because he wanted more ressources (ressources other had)
“WWII was caused by a group of governments who wanted to control the world” and what comes with control of the world? control of the ressources (and actually the so-called group of governments was mostly nazi Germany)
and so on …
also statistics are by definition incorrect (the first thing my statistics teacher told us on our firts lesson) …
(sure they can be accurate for some stuff but are mostly used to extrapolate and thus becoming incorrect)
Purpose of war
The purpose of war is usually to acquire more territory, control more resources. This power makes one country richer at the expense of another. The sheer ignorance and superficiality you exhibit leaves me astounded. With people like you, what hope for the future?
You are being purposefully short-sighted in your argument
ALL wars are ALWAYS fought for “what you have” as you like to term it.It’s the powerful few that instigate that are taking what’s yours.The financiers of the conflict make money. The victors happily pay the sponsors, and then recover their costs from the general population. Hidden in your premise is the assumption that the public reason given for a war is the TRUE and SOLE reason. Wars are rarely, if ever, caused by the public reason. Public support is necessary to get the average individual convinced that traveling to a foreign land, risking injury and death while committing numerous acts of sanctioned murder is a good idea. Whipping people into a frenzy becomes increasingly difficult once they have seen the brutality of a large conflict, so methods have had to evolve to preserve effectiveness. Greed still remains the primary motivator. While any individual is touched by greed aspects at time, on average, it gets balanced by other motivators or desires. The issue is that there is a small, aberrant segment in any population that suffer from a pathological amplification of greed, to the degree that it extinguishes all other balancing traits such as compassion. The irony is that it’s precisely that pathological defect that allows these people to dedicate all of their energy to the accumulation of power or finances or whatever their greed happens to manifest a predilection for. The follow-on effect is that they often find themselves in a position to control larger populations, and in time, they have succeeded in indoctrinating us. With the help of institutionalization (ie religion, nation, government, school, sports team) average people are somehow convinced that abstract beliefs such as “patriotism”, “civic duty”, “homeland” are worth dying for, and never realize that the bulk of what they hold as beliefs actually are the result of others. Most of our societal values are delivered into our brains with such refinement that the average “normal” individual never even questions the sometimes very visible contradiction. For example – the definition of being a patriot is to travel half way around the world, invade a country and kill massive amounts of humans and being unpatriotic is to oppose the starting of a conflict or even question the publicly advertised reasons for a war.
The simple reality is that the majority of the “leadership” class is simply pathological. The numbers were fewer in olden times, but after years and years of accrual of privilege, the pathological power group has grown in both numbers and in it’s capacity for cruelty. Education, media, religion, propaganda and even simple entertainment is engineered as a non stop assault on core principles designed to either convert you to the same pathology(after all, don’t you want to live like the big boys do) or at best, cultivate a state of apathy that keeps you docile (ehhhhh, what can you do, the whole world is nuts).
I don’t agree with much of the story being presented on this site, but i strongly disagree with your naive view about war.
As far as overpopulation, simple math shows the idiocy of denying it as a possibility. That being said, a great deal of what is being publicized today is structured to induce panic. The majority of the public remains uneducated on the majority of today’s topics,out of laziness, ignorance or gullibility. Most people are convinced that watching a few hours of news programming daily actually means they are educating themselves on a topic, and will argue with you till they drop. Not many will seek out the sources of information, because they are often long, dry, boring or difficult to comprehend. A sound-byte is much easier to absorb, and if spoken with aggressive confidence it may in turn convince someone else. Simple reasoning skill and basic science are usually good enough to tip you off when something is being packaged for your digestion, but we don’t even use those any more. Here are a few examples: “the climate” – we started with the word “pollution”. it was specific, and one could tie a harmful practice to specific effects and penalize it.That resulted in companies losing a bunch of profits so they evolved, grew in influence he terms started to change: global warming, overpopulation, carbon footprint etc.. ll of a sudden the individual is carrying the load, with concepts like “eco-friendly”, socially responsible” and we dutifully put out aluminum cans in receptacles so it becomes easier for companies to produce their cans, or drive the carpool lane with some friends, and happily accept that gas prices are rising. Corporations, who have the resources to actually fix the damages they did while exploiting the natural resources for profit, simply form special interest groups and engage in campaign contribution- are those not simply bribery? I mean, euphemisms are great, but are we that collectively stupid that we don’t realize that if Koch brothers willingly donate a billion dollars to a campaign, they do so because they will gain some benefit? If the contributions provided no profitable return, they would be a fiscally irresponsible expenditure. SO…..is that not a bribe? Is not bribery the definition of corruption? Yet, NO MAJOR POLITICAL post can be achieved without major contributions. Which brings the conclusion: We knowingly elect corrupted individuals in ALL political posts, yet expect a lack of corruption in our government. This is just one of the insane realities we live with. There are many more,and they are the result of us accepting our ignorance apathetically.
good grief
Really? You think equality comes from giving away things? Wars are fought because one VERY small group of people can convince a very LARGE group of people that someone, somewhere, is hurting them by keeping something from them. Prosperity, however, and the betterment of mankind is done by trade: where I give you something I value less than the thing I am getting from you.
“So the world reaches ‘overpopulation’ well before this equal food rationing for the world is ever going to have a chance. ” Stop pulling things out of your A. You just made this up. This is NOT, in fact, what is happening: http://www.gapminder.org
I used to be like you people, convinced that overpopulation was a real things dooming mankind to destruction. But good god, how long can you people be consistently wrong and still claim to be right?
75% of the earth’s landmass is being used for farming?
Right now, the best figures say that at most 38% of the world’s landmass is use for agriculture. What percentage of that land is being farmed at anything like the efficiency of U.S. or other developed nations? If half the land currently being farmed in Africa were being used efficiently Africa would become a huge net exporter of food and the rest of the land could be turned to other uses.
What percentage farmed at U.S. efficiencies?
Virtually all of it. African agriculture is far more energy-efficient than American agriculture. America uses 10 calories of energy to produce every calorie of food. Most of that energy comes from fossil fuels, which are a finite resource and need to stay that way, if we’re going to avoid rampant ocean acidification and total collapse of the world’s coral reefs. (Or should I call them the fish nurseries that they are?)
It’s true that American agriculture is space-efficient, but energy is the weakest link in our food chain. One good oil shock and American food prices will skyrocket; and this sensitivity will not change for the foreseeable future, because of the collectivization and privatization of agribusiness into the hands of a few large corporations, and the resulting depopulation of the American countryside. We no longer have the agricultural manpower to replace oil as the caloric basis of our food system, and this entrenched energetic inefficiency will threaten our food security for as many decades as it takes for the locavores and organic-eaters to become economically relevant
necessary food
The answer to the question is to adapt by bringing desalinated water to the 25% of land that isn’t already under agriculture, and quintuple the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (“plant food”) to vastly increase the productivity if the agriculture already in place. The earth has plenty of land and water, and the notion of running out of fossil fuels in nonsense. The Carbon cycle is continuous, and the Earth keeps producing more coal and oil.
Yes, but…
Yes, but the low variant projections kept coming true, perhaps thanks to those infamous “one-child” or “birth-control” policies? So, once you abandon them or even worse encourage more births, the tendency of the population rate will not remain the same.
And by the way, 66’x66′ for a family is really not very comfortable, and Texas is NOT a tiny portion of the INHABITABLE Earth. Well, if you say Sahara or Taklamakan Deserts or Scandinavian highlands or Canadian north are inhabitable, then there is not much to say…
For ****’s sake
A 4,356 square foot home isn’t big enough for a family of 4?
Texas is ONE PERCENT of the total habitable land on Earth (according to this person who’s on your side http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/land.html). So how is Texas not a tiny portion of the habitable land? Do tell.
Yes, there’s not much to say because you’re talking nonsense.
You people are amazing. Did you know that at one time Las Vegas wouldn’t have been considered habitable because it was DESERT!!!!! Take a step out of your safely pampered present and imagine a world that you can’t! Just like people 100 years ago couldn’t imagine that things we have today nor the ABUNDANT resources we have today, neither can you and your kind make the same leap!
I think you have overlooked some important facts
1) You are failing to account for is a biological property known as carrying capacity, the ability of this planet to support (provide food, clothing, shelter etc) is much more constrained than the surface area available to put people.
2) The UN does not estimate a population peak in 2040. The estimate for 2100 is that there will be more than 10 billion people and that we will be adding more than 5.5 million people per year at that point.
3) If you wish to understand population growth rate, I recommend watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY.
In answer to your points
1) I suggest you watch the POP101 video “Food: There’s Lots of It”
2) Those estimates follow the high-variant. Considering the low variant has consistently come out more accurate, 2040 is the estimated population peak.
3) Here I suggest you watch the POP101 video “7 Billion People: Everybody Relax!”
Carrying capacity
I think that the point was just loosely illustrative. However I agree that it is more relevant (though I suspect also more subjective and less empirical or verifiable as it is subject to many variables) to speak in terms of ‘carrying capacities’.
However I recently heard the following (as we’re discussing America): 6% of American Landmass is developed, 3% is classified as urban, 77% of Americans live in the areas classified as urban, the rest is still largely untouched by humans. The same could be said of most of the globe.
Despite the fact that obviously there are areas that are not suitable for farming under any conditions I personally do not believe that we are anywhere near exhausting the carrying capacity of the earth and I would like to see an objective and detailed analysis proving that we are, if that is the contention. Most governments seem to be totally unconcerned about our current ability to produce for our wants and its my experience in England that farming is not encouraged. Based on parts of the video ‘food, there’s lots of it’ I suppose the same is true in the States.
At any rate we cannot simply say that when fossil fuels dry up (a condition that is continually being postponed it seems) that all other current conditions will prevail – human ways of living may neccessarily re-arrange themselves and local and more widespread production may well provide the answer. Many people today are doing not very much (and I’m not just talking about the unemployed – I’m talking about many who earn good salaries and consume a lot).
God Bless all,
Harry Tyldesley
reptilians( thevelon) want get humans off the planet earth
i just find out the real earth population is 3.8-3.9 billion today, the big number the government telling us is for propaganda according to chris thomas(akashic records reader).
Population still peaking based on the selected data
1) I would suggest that the land area illustration is only meant to address one particular myth, and that is the myth that there is simply not enough room on the earth for everyone. In the 1960’s there were pictures of the globe with people falling off it. Many still believe that it is a matter of available land, and this myth must be put to bed before further progress can be made in a discussion. One must define what they mean by overpopulation.
2) The UN gives four different projections, and the one you have cited is what they call the probabilistic mean (medium variant). This is the population growth that is most probable. However, if we agree on using this model, the population is still peaking at about 10.2 billion, rather than 8 billion. The fact that 5.5 million people are still being added to the population in 2100 is true, but it is far smaller than the 48 million per year growth in 1950. So even this model demonstrates a reduction in growth rate and an eventual peak. You can see it visually by looking at the graph they present.
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
3) I watched the video and it was interesting. However, if his point is that the population is growing at a steady rate (exponentially), then he is in disagreement with the UN’s data. None of the UN’s projections are exponential. As I mentioned, the most probable UN model has a peak at 10.2 billion.
A myth indeed
It seems like most of the commenters haven’t watched the other videos. On the food topic specifically, the US currently produces significantly more grain from a smaller amount of land than it did 40 years ago. As time goes on and agricultural technology continues to improve, we will continue to get more bang for our buck.
Consider how much food could be produced if, say, Africa was producing food with the efficiency/agricultural technology of America.
Forever though?
Can we really expect for it to increase the same as it has in the past though? Most of the agricultural breakthroughs have already happened. So expect us to always have a breakthrough allowing us to keep pace is absurd.
Do you see the future?
Do you see the future?
Peak in agricultural output?
Today’s space research indicates that roughly 3.5 sq meters is needed to feed one human being if we have access to energy. Fitting the growing space needed for a small family inside an ordinary apartment in greenhouse book shelf wouldn’t be a problem. We are still very far from any agricultural production limits…
That’s crazy
“Most of the agricultural breakthroughs have already happened. So expect us to always have a breakthrough allowing us to keep pace is absurd.”
No, what’s absurd is believing that we already know almost everything there is to know. Given sufficient time and motivation, there are no limits to human ingenuity.
The Problem of Waste
This kind of argument might mean something if we ignore the amount of food we waste. According to the UNEP 1 in 4 calories is never eaten and industrialized countries waste an amount of food almost equal to the entire net production of sub-Saharan Africa. In the US alone 30-40% of the food supply is wasted. Output is fine; our ethical and rational handling of what is produced is not.
They still call oil a
They still call oil a “fossil” fuel too. Oil is likely abiotic, and peak oil is a myth.
Abiotic??
What on earth makes you believe that oil abiotic?
What on earth makes you believe that oil abiotic?
Chemistry
Look to outer space for abiotic origins
Neptune, urananus. Some moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Meteorites with methane molecules. Russian scientists. Lots of evidence for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
africa
Africa will never pull their heads out of there azzezz because islam is “very peacefully” spreading their bs faith.
What Malthus Missed
Malthus missed the coming of the heat engine, that is, useful work done by exosomatic energy such as coal or oil. The supply of food is limited in one sense by the ability to plow, plant, and harvest. All are processes that require energy. If accomplished by human labor, one could see how that would place an upper limit on how much food could be produced. Give mechanization, fewer people can produce much more food. Add to that natural gas, methane, some chemistry and you can add synthetic fertilizers to the mix. But, we must also remember that fossil fuels are finite resources and as reserves diminish, the rates of production will also diminish. And right now, the Earth’s rate of production of petroleum is peaking, as will coal and nature gas in a few decades. Over the course of several decades we’ll see fossil energy play an steadily decreasing role in the world’s economy. Eventually our capacity to do work, such as the aforementioned plowing, planting, and harvesting will likewise diminish. The projections for the world’s population are for it to peak in a few decades and then decline. The question is whether it will decline fast enough to keep pace with a diminishing food supply. Of course, when all the fossil fuels are gone, they’ll be limited by solar inputs, just as in Malthus’ time. But, that’s just one aspect of modern agriculture. Topsoil loss, urban expansion, fresh water, transport, etc. also figure in the equation. Fifty years from now it might well be anybody’s guess as to whether or not we can feed everyone. If current trends are any indication, it doesn’t look good.
Explanation about the population of China and India (from questi
I’m not a part of this website but I can answer the question about the population of India and China.
China is growing because until recently they had a relatively young population so these people were able to begin having children recently (but only 1 per family due to the one child policy in China). Also their healthcare is getting better so people are living much longer. However their fertility rate is only 1.7 children born per woman. A fertility rate of 2.1 is needed to replace the current population. So they will begin to have a decline in population very soon. Currently they have more than 1.33 billion people, in 2050 they will be down to 1.29 billion, and in 2100 they are projected to only have 940 million! (my source is geography.about.com’s list of the most populous countries) This decline in population will likely continue although projections don’t go out that far.
India will keep growing for a while but will also begin to suffer a population decline before the end of the century. Currently their fertility rate is 2.8 children born per woman which is still above the replacement rate of 2.1 but that is down from about 6 per woman in 1950. Their fertility rate is falling fast and will soon be below replacement levels so their population will start to decline. Today India has 1.24 billion people, in 2050 they will have 1.69 billion, and in 2100 that will begin to fall to 1.55 billion. Again that trend will probably continue into the future.
As far as the target population I wouldn’t think there should not be any target population. We should let individuals decide how many children to have and not seek to artificially limit the population. Although ideally the population should continue to grow and not decline because there are lots of advantages that come with a growing population.
Numbers…
Why do you trust numbers about future population calculated by people who barely understand the past ?
1. All those estimations are based on the very stupid belief that the factors that limited the expansion of population in the western world are absolutes when they’re temporary.
2. All those estimations completely ignore politics and strategies (Islam has vowed to take over the world by population numbers, for example)
3. People with limited vision should never speak about what will happen in a hundred years.
If you have no clue about what factors really limit human population on earth, you can’t possibly figure out population evolution.
Population density off India
Per large scale sample of over million households, India’s TFR is already down to 2.4 and is not 2.8 . http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2013/03/mj-akbar-at-simon-fraser-university-2012.html
Secondly while a TFR. Of 2 .1 is considered replacement level I the developed world, it is likely that India has already reached replacement level given its much higher infant mortality rate and adverse female to male sex ratio. Thus it is likely that India’s population will peak in 1945 instead of waiting until 1960 to stabilize.
Population is the result of fossil fuel
Our bloated world population is made possible by fossil fuels that we are using as if they were limitless. If not for fossil fuel we would not be able to supply food or maintain such large populations with their complex economies and societies. If you don’t believe this, look into how much synthetic fertilizer and pesticides are dumped on food crops to produce the high yields (and ever increasing yields) people refer to on this site. These fertilizers and pesticides are derived from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas, and other nutrients whose manufacture would not be possible on such a large scale otherwise. The world supply of petroleum, on top of which natural gas reserves sit, is peaking as we speak or probably has already peaked according to most experts, even the petroleum industry. Unless we find another way to create these synthetic fertilizers, for which there are no other production methods that are possible on such a large scale in the absense of fossil fuel, we will not be able to maintain the food production that makes our large population possible. The increase in price of petroleum will make farming on such a large scale much more expensive and the price of food will skyrocket. Along with climate change, the erratic effects of which are likely lead to massive yield reductions like those seen this season in the US, these changes to agriculture are likely to greatly impact food supply. Switching to organic methods or draft animal power will mean a drastic reduction in food supply(unless we all become vegetarian), because these non fossil fuel methods are less productive, and will thus require a drastic reduction in food demand.
Look around you and see how everything you depend on is created using or is derived from, fossil fuel. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, and pesticides are made directly using fossil fuel, while everything else, metal, wood, glass, is shaped by the power of fossil fuel. These are the things that make it possible for us to have such a large population. We couldn’t maintain large cities without cars and highways, because people couldn’t get from place to place in them and they couldn’t have their food and other resources shipped to them from far across the world. Population only really began to increase dramatically with industrialization and the exploitation of fossil fuel. It made possible the green revolution that followed WWII and made possible massive increases in crop yield. This led to the increase of meat heavy diets of those in rich countries, because animal feed crops could be grown much more cheaply.
I think you all need to learn a lot more about population to have a website about it. Also, instead of just allowing the comments from people you can easily respond to or who support your ideas to be seen, maybe you could include comments that have good information that fuels a good discussion. This is just a propaganda site using pseudo-science to support its false claims. You leave out much information necessary to actually understand this complex issue.
Regarding the fossil fuel argument…
Could you offer some links in support of the statistics you are laying out here?
Also we are no where near running out of oil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kZotftLE0A
Who cares about oil ?
Am i the only person with a brain here ? Who needs fossil ? the only reason we used fossil energy is because it made a lot of sense in 1900, the rest is purely inertia, fossil hasn’t made sense for years.
Re: Who cares about oil
Since you are the “Only person with a brain here”…. Since fossil hasn’t made sense for years, what alternatives do you suggest? My understanding is that Fossil Fuels currently provide the most energy for the dollar, hence make the most sense. I’m not saying I am correct, I am just saying that is my understanding.
What I would like to see more often is a “Total Cost Calculation”. Folks are always saying how proud they are of their Prius or Nissan Leaf, but the never talk about the cost of battery disposal and heavy metals.
Resource Base Economy
Resourced based Economy is the most clean efficient system that society can run on by use of all Solar, Wave, Wind,Tidal, and most importantly geothermal energy. Geothermal energy ALONE can provide the entire planet with energy for thousands of years Solar Wave, Wind, and Tidal are just extra fossil fuels would be almost phased out we would have very little use for it, Research resource based economy especially Jacques Fresco’s ideas for it “Future By Design”…..
They Delivered
Actually this website responded to both of your objections/requests. 1) Posted your disagreeing statement (in its entirety apparently), and 2)they provided a wealth of data in the 92 second presentation with supporting references you could check out yourself. What more could you ask for?
short sighted
Yes fossil fuel has been the second largest factor in food production right behind human creativity So unless u believe all of mankind is as negative as u I believe we will come up with a much better way to support mankinds needs. If I might add I believe modern day agricultural is one of the most destructive things we’ve ever seen.
which populations does this fossil fuel consumption support?
The current levels of consumption of fossil fuels disproportionately supports a small fraction of the global population. “The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world.” (J Diamond, NY Times, 2 Jan. 2008).
The problem is not the number of people on the planet per se, it’s the rate at which they consume finite resources. If all of our global neighbours consumed like the ‘developed’ world, then you’d be right, but the truth is we shouldn’t be talking about the bloated population before we talk about our bloated consumption, (notwithstanding the fact that the population is an important issue)
If we halved the global population, (and guess which ‘half’ the developed world would vote to ‘disappear’), do you seriously think our consumption would drop proportionately?… or would we just decide that with less pressure on resources, we could still drive 5 litre V8 pick ups and individually eat enough burgers in a week to feed a village in Africa for a month? I wonder…
Who wants to be poor?
I wholeheartedly agree we could lead less materially based lives. But the 3rd world is rapidly urbanizing and repeating the path to development – and concomitant consumption – of the 1st world. And just as humans are evolutionarily predisposed to overeat we are also predisposed to seek out low input ways to get things done IE convenience. We are no more likely to stop wanting “stuff” via self discipline than we are to stop overeating via self discipline.
Ideally I’d like to see scientists create an index of quality of life vs material wealth and technology. Does anyone really believe we are happier in the 1st world than we were in the 60s? I’m not talking recreate the 60s here but pick and choose which of the inventions over history that use resources are really bringing us the most happiness? What we need is a global mean for population and consumption were we have sanitation, medicine, transport, education, information transfer, entertainment at a base level everywhere. No wars over resources, no have-nots, no civilisational jealousy and resentment, just people working as little as possible and finding meaningful things to do with their leisure time that aren’t dependent on burning truckloads of coal.
hmm – fossil fuels
so – the advent of technologies like those developed by the folks at LS9 (ls9.com) – does that make population growth more or less challenging in your view?
Cheers!
uhm..you’ve never heard of
uhm..you’ve never heard of hemp? read a book…
Population growth is all due to longevity
The main cause for population growth since the 1950s is due to better medicine and longer life spans. People in countries like Japan and Scandinavian countries are living to their 80s. At the same time, almost all regions have seen lowered birth rates and in some areas, like Europe, have seen birth rates drop below 2 per family (below replenishment rate). Africa, which had birth rates at around 10/family is seeing a drop down to about 4 or so. Their health is not so high, so longevity is not as great.
Coupling the low birth rate with a 60-40 male-female distribution in China from the 50s through the 90s will mean a big drop in the global population as soon as these people, who would have ordinarily died had we not had better medicine, actually die from old age and old-age related diseases. That is why the prediction is for a decrease of global population in 2040 or so: those who benefitted from modern medicine will eventually die off, and the low birth rates (and large male-female ratio in China) have resulted in lower replenishment of humans.
So the population has very little to do with fossil fuel use (or lack of).
Truth of the matter.
I think that for someone so widely read, you have some research to catch up on, for example, methane clathrate is abundant enough to keep mankind supplied with natural gas for thousands of years, also,I am appalled that on a website so open, as is shown by the fact that your comment was left on the forum, and by the fact that four out of five comments are from the opposition, you would have audacity to act in such a manner. So far, I have not seen a single false claim, and furthermore what you pen as pseudo-science I think is a lot closer to simple-science; it may not be Shakespeare, for a couple minute cartoon, I think it makes a good point 🙂
seriously…
So you blather on in opposition to the blogger’s premise offering NOT ONE reference to your claims then accuse the blogger of spreading propaganda. Good one.
water
The limiting factor on world population isn’t land, so the Texas analogy is faulty.
It isn’t food, at least not directly. It isn’t oil, although peak oil is a major problem.
The limiting factor on world population is water. Even in Seattle (a notably rainy place) we occasionally have drought issues. The situations in many parts of the world is dire.
You cannot grow crops without water, no matter how technologically advanced you may be. You cannot raise food animals without water. You cannot control disease without water. And we need it to drink, too.
Water is key. And no, there isn’t enough water in Texas to support the entire world population. They’re having water wars even with the sparse population they’ve got.
water
As is with land, water is being enormously abused. If it is not being bottled, sold, or horded, it is being atrociously poisoned. Lack of stewardship is the real issue here! Suzanne
Water
human capital and enterprise can solve any and all problems including water – desalinization, berg transport, water purification projects, etc.
Assuming that there is enough
Assuming that there is enough money and resources to back it. Not to mention the enormous amount of time that is associated with each of those processes. And money and the incorporations that fund them are all run on the idea of capitalism. Not natural processes, ideas that just have enough belief in them by the people that they work, for now.
water
God created enough water to sustain the planet. Water is being polluted but He has his own distillation process, called evaporation, condensation, cloud formation, and precipitation. Most of the problems have to do with distribution. Anyhow, everything has changed due to Fukishima, and now we are in the last days. See the book of Revelation
water
Oil pipelines are thousands of miles long so no problem sourcing water from the Colorado river. Enough water sweeps through there in one hour to supply the entire planet for one day.
Water /Colorado river
You state that the Colorado river passes enough water to supply the world many times over. Not even close. The Colorado river used to flow into the Gulf of California. Now the end of the Colorado is almost dry because it is all diverted for drinking and agriculture. Seven states are currently fighting for water rights to the river…
Water
Everyone is blowing their whistles about the effects of “overpopulation” but no one is doing anything to ACTIVELY fix it. Just passively getting angry at others for having “too many” kids.
I’m going to give a crazy, head in the clouds solution to the water issue…
We know what water is made of: 1 Oxygen atom and 2 Hydrogen atoms. So…in theory, we should be able to fuse these three atoms together to “create” water!
But the problem is not that there is not enough water on the earth for every person to have everything that they need. the problem is that too much water gets wasted. I keep seeing the phrase “In order to give everyone an American standard of living…” Well the current American standard of living is extravagant and extremely wasteful. Why should we give everyone that standard of living? I’ll bet we could give plenty of water to a whole third world country just out of the amount that is wasted in 1 American city.
there is water, actually
there is water, actually there is today cheap solution to make drinkable water from the sea…
so water and oil is agenda for today and future wars..
stupid liberal
just like all the other idiots posting on here, everything you’re saying is so totally wrong you should just put a bullet in your brain right now to stop from spreading your absurd idiocy.
zOMBIE aPOCALYPSE
sO WHEN eXACTLY WILL tHE zOMBIE aPOCALYPSE HAPPEN?
Please explain your use of the UN data
You say
“While they provide Low, Medium, and High Variants, the Low Variant is the one that keeps coming true, so the Low variant numbers are the ones used in this video.”
Where do you see that the low variant has been the one that’s historically accurate? This is a pretty important piece of your argument.
Malthus and Ehrlich were pragmatists. Not clairvoyant.
Malthus, as seemingly cold and homicidal as he was, actually was very much on to something. He was correct in estimating that food production increased linearly while human population increased exponentially and that this would one day be very problematic for our species. However, with his lack of a crystal ball or psychic abilities, there was one event that took place that he could never have foreseen. An event that would save us from Malthus’ gloomy predictions that would very likely have otherwise come true. This event was the industrial revolution. Because of industry, we were all of a sudden able to produce more food and ship it around the world, thus averting the famine crisis that Malthus predicted. But how could he have possibly known that such an event would or even could happen? The same with Ehrlich and the technological revolution, which allowed us to bioengineer food that grows bigger and faster. Maybe not the healthiest for you, but it helped prevent some starvation, nonetheless. And how could Ehrlich have predicted that event?
It seems that you are setting up these two forward thinking men as complete misinformed psychopaths to ruin all validity of their scientific predictions thus solidifying your argument. The truth is that you didn’t include all the facts. Maybe you didn’t do this on purpose. But if that’s the case then that means that you didn’t put enough thought into your argument in the first place.
Also, per your “everyone can live in Texas” argument: space isn’t the issue. It never has been. Please refrain from being propagandic.
GMO food
well ….compost grown food is bigger any day!!! NOT genetically engineered food! it is a proven lie that GE food is more in quantity. it ia a proven fact that compost grown food gives better quality and quantity food. nutrient rich food.
Texas
Texas is simply an illustration of the issue. It’s an ILLUSTRATION of the % issue
Take HALF of the earth, and just reserve it for empty space on the planet. No one there.
Everyone still has RIDICULOUS amounts of room, with RIDICULOUS amounts of water, and space and food.
The issue …
Is national borders, municipalities, and geo-politics.
Not the only ones
I haven’t looked around too much on this site yet, but is there anything about the other things living on earth? From what I’ve seen so far, you’re mostly focusing on human beings and not on any animals or whatever. Sure, we can all cram everyone into Texas and use the rest of the space for food and whatnot, but I’m fairly sure land to make enough food for one person is more than 33×33 ft. I haven’t done all the math for it, so if you got the amount of land needed to feed and to provide water for every single person on earth, would it actually fit on the amount of land available, and still leave enough room for places that we want to protect, like rainforests and homes for all those other things that aren’t human? And what about food and water for animals?
I guess that’s all that I have a problem with right now, though.
enough food for all
check out food forest. and how cuba took cae of food security.
good point
good point
Population – the wrong villain
I recently wrote a blog entry exploring this very subject. It occurs to me that when we point at population growth as a dangerous threat that must be corrected, it may be a little like accusing the victim, instead of the rapist. We’re diverting attention away from the real problem – a dysfunctional world order that is not prone to support the continued growth and development of humanity as we are capable of doing. http://www.frogoutsidethewell.wordpress.com
Overpopulation… I think not. Do the math.
I wrote this blog post early 2010.
My math says…
1) The world’s population, laying down, will fit inside the letter “o” in Bolivia on a world map.
2) We grow enough potatoes to feed 10 times the world’s current population.
3) There’s still plenty of room for everyone. See more on my post (not selling anything)
http://gyrogee.blogspot.com/2010/02/overpopulated-i-think-not.html
Do the Math? … How about do history?
Civilizations throughout history have believed that they would survive because of similar reasons you list here. “Things seem to be going well, let’s keep our current rate of consumption and reproduction”. The two, by the way, go hand in hand, so it is ignorant to just say that you are only talking about the increase in human population.
So, back to history, when problems start to arise with status quo (ie, resource levels become scarce) conflicts arise. And using island nations, such as Easter Island or Henderson Island, as a microcosm, the population exterminates itself, resulting from conflict and depletion of resources. And deforested areas in the best climates still take multiple generations to regrow to where they could sustain even a small population. Studies done by Jared Diamond on civilizations from all over the world prove that as population growth spikes, there is soon afterward a dramatic drop due to the natural result of population increases, which is the consumption of resources.
Our view of population rise is much different than the past because we are looking at the entire globe, so the cultural shift to make a significant global change of habits – inherited from our collective human ancestors – is much more difficult today than it was for those nations who had limited resources. But to say that we are in the “end times” is to erase hope. There is hope in our past as well. Japan, at one time, was in danger of being deforested, but they were able to turn around their rate of tree consumption and save their forests for future generations. Granted, there was some importing of resources from outside their boundaries, where today there is no “outside” of the world boundary from where we may extract resources, but at least there was a governmental acknowledgement of the destructive behavior and a firm plan with enforcement put into place. But government action is only part of it. If population is allowed to skyrocket anywhere in the world, the demand for resources will outweigh regulation.
As to whether God would have issue with controlling population, I would say that, in the real world, humans are not created without a physical act between a male and female. Thus, we are given the blessing to be co-creators in life. It is our given free will that we exercise as to how we will use this blessing. Most world religions would have us procreate for similar reasons as corporations want us to – in order to grow to become one of the machine. However, there are also mystical sects to some major religions that even shun procreation in order to live more spiritually, to purify our souls to return to our Creator. I don’t say this to suggest the two balance each other out, but to illustrate that there is a lot in print for major religions and interpretations and points of emphasis may vary, depending on the needs of a community. The world community needs a backlash to consumerism. I think we can fit a few more souls on this planet if this happens. If not, then we must state overpopulation as a concern to monitor and address as needed, as made possible by individual governments.
Numbers don’t matter
It’s not about the numbers or that we could fit into Texas; it’s about feeding and watering everyone given our current infrastructure and resources. There will come a point (if we haven’t already reached it) where there are far too many people to support without changes being made that are, quite frankly, pie in the sky and not going to happen. The west is not going to give up its lifestyle for any third world country and third world countries are not going to limit their own populations when there is simply no incentive to do so. In any case, nature will always find a way to level the playing field; perhaps a pandemic or a war so maybe overpopulation is not the real issue since we are already there or will never really get there (depending on your point of view).
We Can Already Feed the World
Not only does the richest family in the USA have enough money to house and feed the world, we also have the resources to do so.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4525e/y4525e04.htm
Population decreasing
In the video there was no proof that the population will go down after its peak in 2040>
Please include that in a future video.
Thanks…….
I just followed the link you
I just followed the link you provided to the world population, and it is at 9B in 2040 and keeps going up and up to almost 11B in 2100. (using medium variant). Can you explain why you used the low variant in your analysis vs any of the other variants? Thank you!
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp
Animal extinction
Look at how many animal species have become extinct since the turn of the last century and tell us again that overpopulation isn’t a problem mate.
Lynn
Animals have been becoming extinct since the very beginning. The dinosaurs for example and tons of other plants and animals and insects and even some people. I do not deny that some of it has had to do with people not respecting nature and “harvesting” more than they need. Just like we buy more than we need and use.
I don’t think overpopulation is to blame as much as a lack of education on how to live in harmony with others and nature.
God commanded us to take care of the earth and the animals, but also to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth. In the same breath, I’d also like to remind everyone of all the natural disasters that kill an average of about 250,000 people each year and then there are people who kill each other and people who die from cancer and all kinds of diseases.
As many as 50% of all pregnancies end up in miscarriage and how many people end up dying before even being able to reproduce. That’s without including abortions.
So, all in all, I think if we just leave God, our creator, decide how many should be born and when, how many and who should die, then we should be just fine. We were never supposed be in charge of life and death. We were never supposed to create life in test tubes. God gave us a desire for children, even those who cannot have children. They were supposed to help those orphaned children, but that’s a whole different story.
To sum it all up, don’t artificially create people that were never supposed to be here and don’t kill people who were meant to be here. Leave that stuff up to God. Easy peezy 😀
Nothing to do with ‘god’.
Please don’t do that; it is so annoying. We don’t all believe in god, and try telling the war ravaged, the starving, and those who suffer and who have suffered horribly through the ages that “It’s easy peezy”, because god has it in hand. Just ridiculously simplistic as well as untrue. And by the way, most people seem to be killing each other ‘in the name of god’, as they always have, but hopefully won’t always do if evolution of the human race is allowed to progress.
Naive
Hi Lynn,
That sounds very sweet but incredibly naive. If God controls everything than he would’ve had a part in the medical advances. I very much believe in God, but also free will.
Oh my god
Your thought process is terrifying.
indeed. nice one 🙂
indeed. nice one 🙂
>;)
I agree…
Oooo k
No more vacines. No more medications. No more doctors or nurses or EMT’s. No more c-sections. No more prenatal care. Easy peezy. 😀
Lewis
Why dont you substitute the word “chance” for “God” in your commentary. Theyre equally interchangeable as to be meaningless. What irks me is the passivity that is at the core of a childlike belief that somehow God takes care of everything and the God believer does nothing to effect his circumstance but simply accepts his fate, as its Gods will, after all. Cannot you see how this is brainwashing that the flock or sheeple or subjects remain passive in the face of abuses of power by the governance or leadership? Its so obviously a mechanism for victimization Id almost laugh except its not funny. Because, look at where we are today? It is absolutely perilous. Human affairs are tragic and extremely dire as I speak. I live in SF California. The culturevand environment here has been absolutely ravaged by incursion from the central govt who works for the corporate elite who are and have destroyed the SF Bay Area and California. They have made short shrift of this place so violently and so quickly, its shocking. They wiped out the local and indigenous people. Displaced and killed residents covertly for housing here, theyve decimated the water and polluted the sky with biomanipulation creating severe drought. Anyone in tune can see were being deliberately roasted to death with no rain coming and the central valley bread basket of the country is dying now for want of rain. You have to be an idiot to not see how . this was all unleashed very rapidly out of nowhere right after Fukushima. The weather, the imperialist invasion, the no border policy by Obama allowing thousands of foreignors in including huge numbers of orthodox muslims, every goddamm person who wants in can come now and be subsidized destroying our American identity and devouring our dwindled resources here to nothing. Its fucking obvious where this is going for the people here; death and decimation. The powers that be and our state governance are in collusion with destroying this state and forcing mass migration or mass starvation. Theres no other way to see it. People, get off your asses and wake up!! Theyre killing us. Were being burned out and roasted alive by a few who see us best dead. Cant you see the markets are crashing? The dollars about to come to an end and were about to crash? This is all highly orchestrated. All of it. A symphony of destruction against you and I designed to get the upper hand when our leadership comes down like a hammer on the populace within weeks now. Gods got nothing to do with this. Its man. If you dont want to leave it up to God, you might be able to take action and do something about the violence and tyranny levied against the people of America by the few and the corrupt political class. This is a war folks. The stakes now are absolute. It is your imperative to fight for your continued existence, if only you all would feel the true danger in your face to get you going to save yourself and us, collectively from designed decimation.
The issue is not that simple
Animal extinction is a complex issue that relates to the way people manage habitats and wildlife. It is not a function of population size. To give an example, a population of 1000 men with rifles could make brown bears extinct in Alaska in short time, but a population of 1 billion vegetarians could never exterminate the cows in India!
Why the big fuss over extinctions?
Over 95% of all of the sepecies which have ever existed on earth are now extinct. It’s part of evolution.
Oversimplification
“The entire world could fit in an area the size of Texas, with a 33 by 33 feet plot per family.” – overpopulationisamyth.com
Including people’s ACTUAL footprint, we’d need 5 Earths worth of area to give everyone an American lifestyle. Farms, ranches, factories, lifestyle infrastructure, business infrastructure and more. Not to forget the rest of the footprint, ecological damage, messing up the ecobalance, resulting in key species going extinct or expensive, like grain, rice, potatoes, corn, cattle, chickens, etc. Not to forget meteorological damage, as messed up ocean currents get hurricanes both more frequent and hazardous, similar to wildfires. Africa is slowly consumed by the Sahara. Europe is drowned, the US blown away, Australia burned to the ground and Russia/Canada are smelting away. And this is with just the current billion or so people living “developed” lifestyles. Imagine all 7 billion multiplying all these effects by 7. There is more than math to overpopulation. Please do not pretend like it is no big deal.
Overpopulation not the issue
I understand where you’re coming from, but the video was making the point OVERPOPULATION wasn’t a problem. based on the data they found, this holds true. The aspect you have an issue with is instead an issue of overuse of resources by first world countries. This basically means that, if the first world populations lowered their intake (unlikely I know) to a reasonable, more sustainable level, there would be no fear of “overpopulation” issues
Overpopulation IS the issue
The point is that if the earth’s population was reasonable no one would HAVE to lower his or her intake. There is absolutely no rational reason for the earth’s population to be as large as it is but there are endless good reasons to reduce it.
Why would anyone lower his or her standard of living in order for the human race to be a few billion larger? I can’t see any reason whatsoever. There is nothing to be gained by having a large population. The gains involved with having a smaller, easily sustainable population are obvious. Quality health care, food, water, travel, leisure time, etc. These are all benefits that everyone would be able to enjoy if the population was at a reasonable size.
Why have poor or no heath care, dirty water, poor food and the need to work like a slave for most of the human race, just because someone thinks that a large population is a good thing. This person can not even give a rational explanation for why a large population is good.
And regarding the Texas example. It is totally and utterly absurd.
The problem with trying to
The problem with trying to disprove Overpopulation is that although it may not necessarily be the main source of all these problems it increases the size of each problem times the population. Overpopulation is an important thing to accept because now that we have all the information that came along with this massive spike in people we can use that to decrease the amount of people and increase standard of living for everyone at a much more manageable scale. Pointing the finger at a thousand smaller problems does not help anywhere near as much as simply decreasing the size of these problems.
This is False and contains a Fallacy
It’s already been proven that the richest family in the United States alone has enough money to house and feed everyone in the world. This you can easily look up, as it’s a simple statistic. However, if you are arguing that we don’t have the “resources”, you are wrong. Below I have linked to an article over at the Food and Agriculture Organization showing that we have enough food to feed the world. The only thing left that could make your argument partially true is the idea that we don’t have enough resources to provide everybody electricity, cars, computers, cable, and other such “american standards.” This is a fallacy that is called “Appeal to Probability” which essentially means that you take something for granted because it would probably (or might be) the case. There are no statistics that show that we cannot provide the world with that. The only statistics we really have are that of how much energy we produce. This is not sufficient to determine if we have enough for the world, because it is very easy for us to acquire more energy through renewable means
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4525e/y4525e04.htm
Nonsense
Approximately 3 billion people live on less than $2/day. So your richest family is going to be shelling out a minimum of 6 billion dollars a day. Let me think – that’s 2.19 trillion dollars a year – on $2/day. Add in the other 4 billion, who are existing on considerably more, and you have a family that’s worth at least ten trillion dollars. Want to tell me who?
Misquoted
They said “33′ by 33′ per person” and “66′ by 66′ per family of four”
TEXAS ESTIMATE INACCURATE
The statistic about the World’s population fitting into land the size of Texas is grossly inaccurate. It doesn’t take in account the land required for infrastructure, schools, hospitals, leisure, entertainment and agriculture. The latter is estimated to be the size of South America alone given current methods & this can increase with increased population.
Also facture in land masses that are largely or completely inhabitable – polar areas & deserts – plus possible rising sea levels that will reduce land mass and that statistic just bears no relation to fact.
As a last note I don’t get the need to defend rising population. It ultimately means more pollution and damage to nature; the only saving grace being the need to support economic systems. Better to use resources to help those who are living; rather than increase numbers which will mean greater numbers who suffer – that in itself is reason alone to have constraint.
I kind of get the idea to defend the right of freedom to reproduce but ultimately we have enough people in the world and beyond the economic factor that is no sane reason to encourage it.
You’re partially right
You are correct that giving everyone a town home in Texas would ignore a lot of infrastructure. But we humans are rather adept at living in high densities. Taking a current population of 7.146 billion people and putting them in the 268,820 square miles of Texas would yield a population density of 26,583 people per square mile. That’s very dense, but Macau and Monaco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density (not exactly terrible places to live) manage even higher densities.
But of course the real thing that takes up a lot of land is agriculture and resource extraction. Clearly in such a scenario all of that couldn’t fit into Texas or even come close to that. But at the same time, it seems doubtful that we’d need all the land we currently use if all agriculture and resource extraction was done with developed-country levels of efficiency. So in that regard the basic point that we have space to grow still stands.
As to your final point, that’s a bit of a philosophical debate right there. What’s the value of decreased pollution compared to the value of having more people to experience the world? Most lives seem worth living, at the very least only a small portion of the human population ever thinks that ending their life would be good for them so that’s something to consider. I’m not certain of the exact right balance there so that does counsel some caution about actually encouraging population growth (as opposed to simply allowing it).
In addition, I wouldn’t so blithely discount the economic factor. The only reason we’re talking like we are now (or probably even existing to talk in the first place) is because of economic growth. Even relatively small changes in growth patterns can have huge impacts over time. If more population improves the economy that’s really important.
There’s also the question of the value of status quo in nature versus a largely human-driven change. From my perspective, humans are a part of nature and as such simply a natural part of the evolutionary process. That we are disruptive to the current ecosystem is true, but many things have been disruptive to previous ecosystems and without those disruptions we wouldn’t exist (which I selfishly view as a good thing, but if I was more disinterested, I would view as neutral thing). We’re a change yes, but in the grand scheme of things, life is all about change so I’m not convinced that preserving a current natural order is necessarily good (though again from a selfish perspective I would not like a natural order that threatens humanity so while I’m fine with change in nature, I’m less keen on change that actually threatens humanity). Even from the perspective of humans missing the old order I don’t think that effect is too significant. Outside of a few environmentalists, most people don’t really seem to mind that the cities and towns they live in meant the destruction of an old forest. Or if they do, it’s more of an occasional “well that’s unfortunate” followed by going about taking advantage of all their human created environment has to offer. There are a lot of still wild areas of the world and most people seem to prefer to experience them from the safety of their homes with maybe the occasional vacation to the more tame parts.
So ultimately, I think it’s not clear we should prefer current or lower populations, and there are good reasons to prefer higher.
You’re Only Partially Right
You assume most people in the world consider their lives worth living based on your extremely limited cultural perspective. How on could you possibly know that “Most lives ‘seem’ worth living”? A great portion of the world still lives in 3rd world conditions and the majority who don’t live in poverty.
Also, for every increase in density there still exists an increase need for additional land for resources of all kinds. Although it may by much less than a 1 to 1 ratio additional land would still be needed.
I agree that the economy is “really important”. But, if it comes at the costs of more disease/ deaths from increasing pollution and epidemics, then at what point is the trade off too expensive?
Lastly, eliminating wildlife (i.e. plants and animals) is always going to threaten humanity. Most pharmaceuticals are based on plant derivatives. Eliminating could mean elimination of future treatments or cures. Also, we run into monoculture problems, which increase resistant pests and plant diseases devastating crops. This same idea is true for livestock as well.
Given that humans are artificially restructuring the environment we are also destroying natural selection, which is what evolution is based on. We could actually be inhibiting our own evolution.
So ultimately, it is clear we should prefer current or lower populations.
Sustainable life
If ‘most people in the world’ didn’t care about destroying a forest to build cities, you and your fellow narrow minded, thick skulled compatriots who see that way, will all be dead within the next thirty years or might already have been dead.
Overpopulation has very very serious implications and effects on the planet. If you’re going to treat it like a commercial product, to be used like you wish and exploited to its full extent without caring about when you’re going to have to stop, you’re sitting on a time bomb.
The economy isn’t everything. When worse comes to worst and further existence on this planet is threatened, economies aren’t going to be the things on our mind – sustainable living is. And so it should be now. You should be able to see at there are NO good sides to further population in the long run. We need to all work towards ensuring life on the earth can continue for generations to come,and that can only happen if it is sustainable.
Texas Estimate NOT Inaccurate
The statistic has to do with the amount of space PEOPLE take up. The fact is, our ENTIRE current population COULD fit into the state of Texas. Your argument regarding infrastructure, schools, hospitals, leisure, entertainment, and agriculture is made in COMPLETE ignorance. First of all, leisure and entertainment have NOTHING to do whatsoever with land required. You don’t require land for either of those. I’m sure you’ve got a bunch of ridiculous arguments such as fair grounds, so I’ll simply ignore such stupidity as it relates to absolutely NOTHING.
IF everybody lived inside the state of Texas as one large suburb, THINK about ALL the rest of the space that is available for infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and agriculture. MORE than enough. In fact, if you allowed more space per family and included schools, hospitals and your pointless leisure and entertainment, the ENTIRE population could fit in Australia alone. That would also include SOME agriculture, but obviously not enough. However, you now have the REST of the world for agriculture. The fact is, this planet is NOWHERE NEAR over-population. It was predicted in the 60s that in the 70s the population would reach its peak and be unable to sustain itself, suggesting at that point that we should reduce the population to half of what it was. Here we are 40 years later and that prediction was obviously FALSE!
Leave the survival of the planet in God’s capable hands. There is nothing you can do one way or the other to alter His control over it. It will continue as long as HE sustains it. It could end tomorrow or continue another 500 years at current exaggerated models.
REPLY AND MUTUAL RESPECT
I’m not sure why you feel the need to be so disrespectful. We all have a point to make – which in some respects will be valid and in others misinformed, which allows for other people to make constructive correction… Like it or not most of the developed world has and will always demand facilities for entertainment – like cinemas, theme & retail parks, and fairgrounds (!) which will always demand physical land space – albeit not of the greatest size in the scheme of things – but none-the-less a relevant factor.
But you seem to have ignored the rest of my argument and gone off in a blinkered fashion on one point which appears to have deeply offended you.
We all have different reasons for arguing for or against population increase so perhaps there is no right point of view. I myself want the world to be a better place for my daughter and believe a world with less / a controlled number of people would be better than one that is growing out of control.
I guess the lesson for you here is to respect other peoples point of view and respectfully challenge them where necessary. And consider the whole argument presented.
CORRECTION
The statement I made is based upon logic fact and a fair point. Like it or not leisure and entertainment is part of Western/developed world infrastructure (see next sentence), and something that I’m sure that you too profit from yourself. These activities manifest in physical structures such as shops, cinemas, restaurants, parkland, retail parks, holiday parks, theme parks, fair grounds (!); the list goes on. The logic being that the space that these take up leaves less land that people can live on. The more people there are, then the more demand for these facilities, and so the less space left for habitation again.
I, myself would hate to live in a world where there is nowhere where I can go to let steam off – aside from just working – where I can socialise, engage in outside interests and see new lands. So my desire for leisure and entertainment is far from pointless.
The simple analysis you make for available land is all well and good as a simple example, but doesn’t take into account the large areas of earth that are largely uninhabitable – the polar regions, deserts and anywhere affected by ecological disasters (tho this is small – Chernobyl comes to mind) – as well as the potential for rising sea levels that threaten to claim more land mass in the future.
Also factor in the environmental impact of humans and the effect of our habitation on the natural balance. Sure there is space (currently) for more people but do we really want more, and why not take action before it gets out of hand and natural forces come into play to inhumanely redress the balance?
In the end we all have a point of view based upon our hopes for the human population and their future. Personally, I just want a better world for my baby daughter (physically & psychologically) to grow up in & I don’t believe a rising population supports this. In this way perhaps no one’s point of view is particularly wrong?
At the very least let’s respect everyone’s point of view and constructively challenge it where we think it may be flawed.
Unfortunately the future of the human race lies squarely in our hands – God is just an ineffectual bystander – whether or not we are worth being or should be saved is very much a matter of personal opinion.
I wish you a good day sir.
Over Populatin a Myth or are there Limits to Growth
As an economic demographer by education, I can assure you that you would fail any graduate course at any major university, using the reasoning that you do on this web page. At the time when I was doing my graduate work in population analysis (economic demography), “The Limits to Growth” study out of MIT was one of the hot topics of the day. You can watch the updates of this work, by searching Limits to Growth in Youtube, of note are the presentations by Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers and Lester Brown. This work was based on a highly sophisticated computer model, developed by the first two people just noted and Dennis’ wife Deanna Meadows.
Unlike your simplistic assumptions, they developed and continue to refine a highly sophisticated computer model, which estimates the “carrying capacity” of the planet, given limited natural resources (fresh water, farmable land, rare minerals, etc., etc.), finite fossil fuels, ocean acidification, and the impacts of global warming, and pollution. None of these do you consider. We lovingly call your types “the flat earth folks.” You still don’t realize that the earth is round, and that it therefore has limitations on population. You might argue that the planet can sustain 500 trillion people, using your simple assumptions, but at least you would show that you understand what limits are! Most of us would assume that you have no idea how to compute these limits, but at least we would not place you in the “flat earth” group. But alas, you are in the flat earth group.
Take for instance the climate change issue, which I am sure you think is wrong. Watch on youtube, “Artic Death Spiral and The Methane Time Bomb.” They argue that the world is likely to warm by 5C by 2050, due to over population of people using too many fossil fuels. This will then release the Artic methane, which is likely to warm the planed another 5c. Life on the planet will not exist at 10c above current levels, is the argument.
But not to worry. The business world, and those of you strong supporters of unlimited growth are most likely to win out. The global population is likely to reach 11 billion people sometime in the second half of this century. Good news is that the planet will test your thesis that “over population is a myth.” Bad news is that if the millions of us that are arguing that this level is well over the 4-5 billion carrying capacity of the planet are correct. The world will suffer a massive collapse, due to extreme changes in climate, unstoppable climate change. Massive growing areas, like CA is facing now, may become dry waste lands. The 1 billion people on the planet now that do not have access to fresh drinking water, may rise to 7 billion of the 11 billion. And the mayhem forecasted all too soon by other demographers, may ultimately be reality.
But not to worry. If those of you from “the flat world” camp are wrong, you can simply take it as partially your responsibility for the potentially billions of people who die, due to your simplistic and very misleading arguments.
If those of us from the “scientific” community, are correct, and the population leveled off at 4-5 billion, and the world transitioned now to wind and solar, what would be the impact if we were wrong on our assumptions and forecasts. We would have a cleaner, less populated planet, where the oceans were filled with healthy coral and sea life. The forests would not be devastated, and the rivers and lakes not polluted nearly as much.
So it would appear that the risks of all of you in “the flat earth” group have a much higher risk of causing the death of billions and billions of people if your simplistic assumptions are wrong. Those of us in “The Limits to Growth” camp do not face such dire consequences if our assumptions are incorrect. Quite the opposite, an under populated world may not make as many billions for the billionaires, but it could provide for a much better living for billions of people globally. And the argument that 11 billion people will increase the standard of living of more people than a planet of 4 billion people, with the majority of the energy provided by renewable energies, primarily wind and solar, is also non-science.
But hey, you are likely young enough to see the real world implications of your very misleading arguments, if others and I are correct. Too bad those of us that understand the carrying capacity of the planet, and limits to growth, don’t have another planet to move to. That way we could live for thousands of generations into the future, due to our responsible life styles. However, we are stuck on “Planet Titanic” driven by a Right Wing, Radically Wrong group of nuts like your group. We are stuck going down with the ship, due to your very simplistic and inaccurate analysis. God forgive you, for you do not know what you are doing!
Renewables and overpopulation don’t mix so well
I think your language is a little strong and presumptuous, but I do agree that we have and will continue to have a population problem. What I have to pick you up on is your suggestion that renewables are somehow compatible with solving this problem. It is energy density and consumption that dismiss the possibility of renewables solving the climate change problem after all.
Currently a single 5MW turbine requires 1 sqm of land, it physically uses a small percent but they must be spaced as such. Also, they only produce at a rate of about 20%, conveniently meaning you get about 1MW per square mile. To use a similar example as the Texas one above, try work out how much space you’d need to power the world on wind if world energy requirements are approx 14 TW (as believe they are for ALL needs, not just electricity). I’ll cut to the chase it’s about 7% of the world (land or sea) or close to 1/4 of all land. Granted a small percentage of that square mile will actually be a turbine, but these turbines are close to 150-200m tall and have the wingspan of a jumbo jet.
Nuclear on the other hand has no such space issues and is compatible with rising populations and very very safe. This is not a right wing/left wing thing it’s one of life or death.
God forgive you for existing…..
You shouldn’t exist unless you have the wealth to. That’s what I get from this comment on the message board. Explain why the Chinese haven’t died off. Did you know China can feed 25% of the Global Population with 7% of China’s arable land? You must make money shoving out your lies. Your salary must be involved with doom and gloom of overpopulation. I bet your fat too.
It would be funny to find out that low CO2 levels created less folage for the dinosaurs to eat causing the instinction of dinosaurs. Anartica seemed to do just fine with Global Warming, as did the rest of the planet. If the oceans would rise, let’s just move ocean floor sediment to unfertile land to bring the ocean levels down. There’s always a solution. But individuals like you won’t let those solutions happen. If solar is so great, why don’t you put one on your house and invest in Solyndra? Maybe it can be worth while. Don’t preach were you won’t invest your money too…because I won’t buy any of your ideas unless you start there.
Overpopulation is real. Deal with it.
A brilliant reply to someone who clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The creator of this video doesn’t seem to realise that when you talk about population, they don’t just exist. They take up land,need food,produce waste, create industries, pollute the earth and have a massive impact on the planet rather than just taking up space so they can live in Texas.
Drastic population control steps need to be taken in this century to prevent our species heading to doom. This will be a real challenge though as our population and dependence on fossil fuels cannot disappear overnight. Clearly you are right when you say we will be able to have a much cleaner sustainable life on this planet if our population was lesser. If there is a website or forum on which this issue can be discussed, I would be glad if you could tell me, for clearly we need to eliminate dunderheads like this one from important discussions like these.
According to your theory, the
According to your theory, the earth can’t sustain its current population and since we will die eventually anyway, billions need to die now. Is this what I am hearing? Are you willing for you and your family to be eradicated for the betterment of the planet? Also all those who believe like you? That would leave those of us who believe your theory is thoroughly flawed, to let nature take it’s course, and be content with the natural consequences.
overpopulation lies
Yes. well. academia is completely controlled by the humanity haters. As is the business world, which receives it’s instructions from the globalist controllers, the human hating central banking families.
The horrors of malthusian thinking, utilitarianism, environmental fascist etc.. is that encourages an elitism and a constant ongoing a narrative of who deserves to live, and who deserves to reproduce. It turns humanity against humanity in it’s false scarcity induced paranoia. Mr. Academic paints a fearful picture of “what if the flat earthers are wrong.” I lament a society where the concept of “being civilized” means hating humanity itself.
I agree to a point
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-professor-urging-climate-change-activists-to-slow-down/
Although there are some things that need to change, another MIT professor here says catastrophism is not as close as politicians say. He is a leading climate change expert that notes that the catastrophe is not so much a catastrophe and that the government and politicians are using it to control policies and scare the public. I agree we should be cleaner people and find alternative energy sources. However, the thing that will cause the most deaths in the world is greed from businessmen and politicians. If we, as the human race, could be helpful to one another, stop trying to control, and come together as one then we would be better off. Although the author is far right winged, as you would say, that would make you far left. Nothing will change through negative comments and bashing one another for their beliefs. If you are part of the so called “science” community then act like it science is about education and not calling someone dumb. I don’t care if you have your PhD and cured cancer you have no right to say you’re in the science community if you don’t help educate. Einstein would have vouched for that. Get off your high horse and help educate not stop on people’s heads.
LOL
Wind power. You are hilarious.
overpopulation is not the problem, a lack of creativity is
“As an economic demographer by education, I can assure you that you would fail any graduate course at any major university, using the reasoning that you do on this web page. At the time when I was doing my graduate work in population analysis (economic demography), “The Limits to Growth” study out of MIT was one of the hot topics of the day. You can watch the updates of this work, by searching Limits to Growth in Youtube, of note are the presentations by Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers and Lester Brown. This work was based on a highly sophisticated computer model, developed by the first two people just noted and Dennis’ wife Deanna Meadows.”
You speak as if everything is as set in stone as your way of thinking, I do not mean to come off as better than or greater than you, all I wish to share is that there is more to this that you say, your analysis is made on presumption like an unchanging populous who leads a life style of luxury as the first world does. anyone reading know that everyones comments are just one perspective of many and not to limit yourself because of seeming external limitations.
“Unlike your simplistic assumptions, they developed and continue to refine a highly sophisticated computer model, which estimates the “carrying capacity” of the planet, given limited natural resources (fresh water, farmable land, rare minerals, etc., etc.), finite fossil fuels, ocean acidification, and the impacts of global warming, and pollution. None of these do you consider. We lovingly call your types “the flat earth folks.” You still don’t realize that the earth is round, and that it therefore has limitations on population. You might argue that the planet can sustain 500 trillion people, using your simple assumptions, but at least you would show that you understand what limits are! Most of us would assume that you have no idea how to compute these limits, but at least we would not place you in the “flat earth” group. But alas, you are in the flat earth group.”
one thing science does not take into account is spontaneity and incalculable change. what you call limited resources are only limited within a certain frame of reference, limited fresh water is only valid in the frame of reference that fresh water cannot be made relatively available to everyone but some creativity will prove other wise. if you use the internet it is not hard to find ways to create fresh water where it was once limited, rendering your assumption that it is limited valid only from your perspective and limited understanding of future and coming innovation that can be implemented with the same energy you use to write and convince people of the limitations you believe in, i would argue these limitations exist because of a lack of creativity and implementation, i would not say they are limited indefinitely as your way of speaking suggests, here is a link to what we are talking about,http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/desalinizing-water-is-expensive-right-not-with-this-clay-pot/
if we focused on spreading this information rather than the idea that fresh water is limited it would become unlimited and accessable to all rendering this quote invalid as well
“The 1 billion people on the planet now that do not have access to fresh drinking water, may rise to 7 billion of the 11 billion. And the mayhem forecasted all too soon by other demographers, may ultimately be reality.
But not to worry. If those of you from “the flat world” camp are wrong, you can simply take it as partially your responsibility for the potentially billions of people who die, due to your simplistic and very misleading arguments.”
when you speak of farmable land as a limited resource as well we would like to point out that it takes a massive amount of land to raise meat for human consumption. you need the land for the animals as well as the land to grow their food so again farmland is limited from the limited perspective you choose to look from and try to convince everyone else that it is the only perspective. how many people could we feed if we did not consume as much meat as we do now? we could divert the food it takes to feed a 2000 pound cow to feed how many people? requiring how much less farm land? as well, we could change our habits to grow food in as many places as possible like our front and back yards as this person does (john kohler) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNI782zIpz4&list=UUUnFheTbVpASikm0YPb8pSw
again lowering the amount of farm-able land we need because of unused and wasted space.
rare minerals are rare for what reason? we are all alive and well and the minerals we personally need in our bodies comes from the ground so the only feasable rareity of minerals would come from improper nutrient recycling caused by flushing our s*** down a hole and turning it into poison by treating it with toxic chemicals, again only one way of doing things, a presumption your statements reek of is that we will not change there for if our population expands so does the problems we create, problems that could be solved with creativity which your statements and perspective lack.
fossil fuels as well are really mostly made from decaying plant matter, ever heard of composting? we could innovate and be creative in our way of deriving energy from that not to mention the possibilities of biofuels from plant oils or alcohol fuels derived from plant fermentation.
population is not the problem, the way we conduct our lives is the problem especially if everyone on the planet is as uncreative as you presume.
The only limitation that exist in this conversation of the limitation of imaginations.
ocean acidification again a challenge that can be met with creativity, seeing as it is caused by pollution, pollution caused by uncreative unconscious uncaring populations.
We can look at the earths “problems” today like that of pollution, starvation, a lack of energy, a lack of clean energy and say that an expanded population would just exacerbate the problem, the problem is cause by overpopulation anyways right? If there was less of us there would be less of a lack, less pollution right? That is true but totally ignores the fact that it is indeed possible to overcome these challenges by other means besides depopulation and unimaginative thinking that assumes we can only continue doing what we are already doing except on a grander scale.
Let us have a true discussion of how overpopulation is a challenge instead of a problem, a problem must be solved, while a challenge must be overcomed, like the challenge of a lack of imagination.
Let our goal be not to justify the need for a smaller population but instead let us see if the problem is truly overpopulation or just the way we conduct our lives now and how if we multiplied our unconscious ways of living it would indeed cause serious issues for us to overcome. The real challenge is to live on the earth in a natural harmonious way (meaning we do not pollute more that the earth can handle, we do not pollute unnessarily even with the right implementation of imagination and action we could create a scenario where we pollute little if at all, we do not destroy the abundance that is already staring us in the face)
“If those of us from the “scientific” community, are correct, and the population leveled off at 4-5 billion, and the world transitioned now to wind and solar, what would be the impact if we were wrong on our assumptions and forecasts.”
The impact would be that you have denied billions of people of their right to live and have supposed your right to existence over theirs just so that you can continue to lead your life of luxury that would require us to use wind and solar rather than using even more creative ways of making power that would require a greater imagination than would be left on the earth if all the “scientific” community were left alive. If they were left alive we would surely be confined within their assumptions of how “things are” because of their lack of imagination of how things could be which is the first requirement for change followed by action that implements the possible ways that things could be changed in order to achieve what could be.
My points are simple, the point of the website is that overpopulation is not the issue we think it is, when the square footage of texas is enough to provide everyone with 1000 sq each, we still have the rest of the world available for future increased population. The limitations of fresh water, pollution fuel and energy are not set in stone, with innovations in technology, and culture and spirituality, we could lead lives of more meaning and with a less demand on the earth’s natural resources because not everyone needs an iphone ipad prefabed home made from freshly pillaged resources from the earth as well as a nice pool and streets and highways and schools and business building and railroads trains busses cars for everyone computers printers wifi for everyone a mcdonalds wendies taco bell Whataburger on every corner, countless restauraunt so we have something to do with our lives to create meaning because we lack imaginiation to create our own meaning, going to huge football and baseball stadiums consuming countless gallons of beer and alcohol along with our industrially farmed and produced hotdogs and buns and garbage cans to hold the waste we create from such a careless existence.
Overpopulation is a problem if we continue to lead our lives the way we do now and expect every African that is actually in touch with nature and their own bodies to lead the same life as soon as we “civilize” them. Yes there is people starving and dying of thirst but is it really the earths lack of resources that is a problem, or is it how they are distributed? How the meat we unnecessarily eat robs countless people of the food that we feed our meet to feed ourselves to feed our diseases of cancer diabetes heart disease and every other disease causes by our lack of foresight that living outside the laws of nature creates a population not at ease?
Population is not the problem, our way of life is the challenge that must be overcome, and like any challenge it will take new thinking and creativity followed by action that is different than the action that proceeded it that caused us to be in the situation we are in now.
Let us talk about new ways of living rather than issues that are caused by what we are not doing now.
limited vision
What you are you MIT mates are not considering, or possibly purposely trying to brush over, is that the super computer model is programmed to take into account is the market system today (ie, business and profit). If programmed without such an antiquated social management system the results would be completely different. How such intelligent people can be so short sighted is beyond me…
I have read the whole comment
Hats off to you, I have been trying to get this across to everyone I know. Would you agree if I said that mammalian life is not an asset, but rather an expense as per the current lifestyle of man?
Sorry but
When you mentioned Ocean acidification and global warming I stopped reading because it’s just honest undeyable fact the planet temperature increases have halted since 1998(ignoring NASA and NOAA were caught altering temperature data to show 1998 as the hottest year on record when 1935 was, as per the EPA data, NASA and NOAA left up the pre year 2000 chart and the post “new” 2000 historical temperature chart, on their websites for 8 days… oops.
The claim the oceans are acidifying is hilarious. pH fluctuates it always has and always will, the warmer it gets the more CO2 is produced by nature, this is why historically CO2 comes after temperature increases, not causes them, doh. Simple chemistry will show you water releases CO2 as it warms and permafrosts melt, termites multiply exponentially and they release approx 10 times more CO2 than man currently.
Of course the now rehashed Man made climate changing(because temp has stopped rising even though CO2 is 400+ppm) as revealed in Climategate 2.0.. but the earth was in glacial times 4000ppm CO2, geological history totally and utterly debunks the CO2 myth, which was started by Maggie Thatcher who used a disproved report from 1896 and money to East Anglia and the Hadley centre to create a fraud in order to break the coal unions and get the UK on to Nuclear power. Even Tatcher never envisioned it would become the gobal fraud it has.
So forgive me for not taking someone (supposedly being educated by MIT might I add) who fails to even understand basic chemistry and lacks the ability to understand geological history, or willfully pays no heed because of their beliefs, are you a “believer” in the man made climate hoax?
Also, as far as populations go and all of em fitting into Texas, the requirements do not include rare elements, food, water, Energy, sewage removal and waste management are the basics needed to survive, not rare minerals and fossil fuels. We already know fossil fuel energy can already be replaced was there a will to, and no suppression of tech (the us gov bought up many patents and the oil industry bought out and shut down many projects in the past 80 years)
The entire population could live in the US and have their own arable land, all of em, do you realise that Ted Turney owns enough land to feed and home small countries. 1 man owns all of that.
We currently throw out enough food a year globally to feed billions, we produce enough food for about 13 billion people, there are only 7 billion of us. (Monsanto are full of BS they just want to replace nature and therefor be the most powerful corp on earth, by controlling food)
To have so many people in one place would require a paradigm shift for humans and application of technology. It is infinitely possible. Where there is will, without greed.
But pop all of us as we are in one place and we’d eat eath other alive, in many cases literally.
You lost me at 4-5 billion
Twenty years ago the global population was nearing 6 billion. That count has grown without devastating global pandemics, food or energy shortages (of the non-politcal variety). How have India and China made it? I mean shouldn’t these be a microcosm of sustainable population? China does have the one-child policy, but they are actually facing problems because of it. I wouldn’t want to live there as anything but a tourist, because Communism and all. That said, I would think that the limit would’ve been way past breaking point.
Over Populatin a Myth or are there Limits to Growth
Relying on a computer model that takes dozens, if not hundreds of variables into account does not equate to “science.” Input anything you want and you get the result you want. I’m sure you’re one of those people who believed Al Gore when he said the ice caps would completely melt away by 2014. You know he relied on computer models too, and look how that turned out.
That’s right, keep on living on fantasy island.
I’m no one special just another concerned human-being who is troubled by the rate at which our species is not only growing in numbers but at the sheer idiocy of its practicality.
Under no circumstances would the continued unsustainable growth of human population ever benefit everyone. It’s the opposite, more people equals more consumption and the economy that you all think would improve would do the opposite. Monetary inflation due to a higher demand than the the demands present today are, for example. Not to mention as others already have, the drain on fresh water supplies and the finite space for growing crops. What happens when the wells are dry and the population just keeps on growing? All the livable land in the world won’t mean a d*** thing if you can’t grow food on it. People are going to starve to death, and even if there was enough food there won’t be enough jobs for everyone to have, so that they may afford to purchase said food.
No matter how you look at it, the problems of this world all trace back to the population level. Deforestation for example is increasing due to the demands for more paper products, it’s a lot of asses to wipe out there with 7+ billion and growing. Oil reserves will simply run completely out if the population was to reach 11 billion, and a whole lot sooner than people want to believe. Also consider the power plants, more would have to be built to accommodate the electrical demands of a population insanely out of control.
A balanced population that maintains a near equal birth to death rate would be the desired path for the future. Sadly so many people are stuck living a day to day life with little to no concern for what their actions are ultimately going to do to everyone. I guess it’s easier and more fun to lay in bed and procreate versus actually giving a d*** and thinking about your physical actions and the things you as an individual can do to not let the population get out of control.
Instead of trying to have 8 kids for maximum government welfare one should seriously consider an alternative such as birth control and common sense. Does it really make sense to have so many children especially when the parents can barely take care of themselves, if at all. Sex is fine, its how you and your partner choose to deal with the consequences of non birth controlled sexual activities that ultimately matter in the end.
Come on folks this is not a myth, its reality, d*** it. You think it is heartless to control the numbers of new births, well imagine the “heartache” for future generations as they are forced to watch themselves and the ones they brought into this world, die because they can not help themselves. The number of jobs will become so disproportionate to the population of that time that either social welfare will have to step in and pick up the slack (and the rich won’t like that at all) or survival of the fittest will kick in and attempt to correct the problem naturally.
However the “powers that be” will step in and do something that no one will agree with, such as water or food poisoning to reduce the load and the demand such a large population would require to function normally. You think I’m making this stuff up? Hardly, the rich will allow this charade to continue and pretend there is nothing wrong, until it starts to affect their bottom line. Then they will try to fix it, but it may all be to late to be of any use. A complete redesign of our current economic system would have to take place and honestly do you really think the rich and powerful are going to allow that to happen?
A life style of very high standards of living for all is not only impossible but dangerous to disseminate this information as your doing here. It gives people a false sense of security and misleads them in to thinking that all is well and we should go on and “eat up” everything as fast as possible.
The good news is, that as long as everyone is ignorant to the issues of overpopulation they won’t even see it coming. They’ll wake up on day and the harsh reality will finally come flooding in, but it will be to late in my opinion. The damage to our planet and its life support systems will be irreversible and then you can take your myth straight to the grave along with the rest of us on this sinking ship.
everyone on earth living in texas
33′ x 33′??? In order for us to live sanitarily amongst each other, u need 5 acres per person. No if you live in a city you’re not depending on nature, or God anymore. Plus where are we gonna grow the crops and raise the livestock? Texas with the rest of us? WOW that would stink to heaven!!! Lol Reality and God are more than mathematical equations. To think the answer is that simple and easy is so short sighted its ridiculous. PLEASE STOP PREACHING YE OF LITTLE FAITH.
> where are we gonna grow the
> where are we gonna grow the crops and raise the livestock?
Simple,just put them around the town.
> Lol Reality and God are more than mathematical equations.
There was nothing in that article about God or math.
> 5 acres per person.
I could live happily with 4 acres per family.We don’t need a major space like that per PERSON.A large house like that,with some places having apartments,would easily allow for the entire population to happily live in a small area the size of western USA.But,due to greed,we have completely taken over all of the land.
Texas point is wrong
You could also build a tower and fit everyone in it, but what point does that make? It’s nonsense to say because people live in places where THEY CAN SURVIVE and not be miserable. There needs to be an infrastructure, such as sewage plants, farms, office buildings, manufacturing builds, other wise you end up with extreme inefficiences and bottle necks. Like the Bible says, one person can’t do it all.
http://www.eternian.wordpress.com/evidence (for the Bible’s truths)
Logistic growth model, anyone?
Learn it. Love it. And find out what happens when you exceed k. We could only possibly be considered overpopulated if we all want to continue to consume resources like food at a buffet while also taking economics and ownership of said resources into consideration (which introduces further limiting factors). But that’s not what this myth was addressing in the first place.
Oh, you again…
Will you stop wasting our time with this ridiculous idea of yours? As has been amply and clearly stated by people on this thread and elsewhere all over the internet, you are way, way off base. Just because you can pack everyone into a small space means nothing on the overpopulation issue. The question is not ans has not ever been about how small of a space people need to sleep in, it’s about what it takes to support a population. Carrying Capacity. K strategy rather than R strategy.
I wish you’d get off my internet and come back when you have clearer thinking.
A subconscious support for Abortion and genecide
I realize that most “educated” people have a backwards thought that humans take up space and the world is better off with one less human. This is a scary thought and we should not be afraid to populate. Pollution is a real concern but technological advances are working on it along with advances on how to extract fresh water. This subversive and often subconscious thought of overpopulation is what makes people support abortion, genecide, and even plagues and war. Every human is important even if they don’t contribute because they force those who do contribute to think of ways to support others thereby garanteeing the future of everyone including the ones that contribute. More people equals more ideas.
Why decline?
Why will the population begin to decline? Why won’t it stay somewhat static?
Why will the population decline
The population will decline because as the average age of the world´s population increases there will be more deaths than births globally. An older population limits reproduction; biologically younger people are needed to conceive and, if required, provide surrogacy. I suppose that through technology we could create a massive test tube reproduction system but fertilized eggs are still required, and it is rare that a woman over 50 can provide them. Likewise, a lack of a significant younger population (because they have been planned “away”) will stagnate the physical, intellectual, creative, and emotional energy needed to invent the technology necessary for current and future global problems. Finally, the global economic power will shift geographically to societies that are more youthful, as older geriatric populations will be producing far less in the twilight of their lives, which is normal for an older, more sedentary population. In many regions – Russia, China, Europe – the graying native populations are quickly approaching demographic decline (Russia and Europe are already there, and China will follow suit in less than 15 years). As a side note, the economies in these regions will find it increasingly difficult to support their older populations so I see the trend of active euthanasia, always couched in political and moral double speak, increasing. Ample empirical evidence exists supporting these demographic trends in the UN databases, not to mention the plethora of researchers that document similar trends (Eberhart and Silva to name two). The demographic dividend is a short term reality, the long term reality is a average older population which does not bode well for the future of global well being. I predict the beginning of a golden age for the Americas and Africa in 40 years.
Population decline?
Population doesn’t have to decline, it can just as easily stabilise in a century or so and stay at 11-12 billion. Our present aging issues are the result of the higher fertility of past decades: as we approach replacement fertility over the next century or so the proportion of elderly will settle at a sustainable level: it may rise in terms of a fixed cut-off age (say 65 or 70) as life expectancy rises, but our notion of what constitutes “old” will also change as health improves in later life. Women’s reproductive years will also increase, meaning that a constant replacement birth rate can continue indefinitely. People may of course decide for cultural or socio-economic reasons that on average they want fewer children than the standard replacement 2.1, but that will be down to choice rather than nature.
A agree about an African golden age, though my prediction is for later in the century. What happens after that will depend on our collective ability to generate a “soft landing” into sustainable stable numbers rather than the “baby crunch” of past experience.
overp
“As an economic demographer by education, I can assure you that you would fail any graduate course at any major university, using the reasoning that you do on this web page. At the time when I was doing my graduate work in population analysis (economic demography), “The Limits to Growth” study out of MIT was one of the hot topics of the day. You can watch the updates of this work, by searching Limits to Growth in Youtube, of note are the presentations by Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers and Lester Brown. This work was based on a highly sophisticated computer model, developed by the first two people just noted and Dennis’ wife Deanna Meadows.”
You speak as if everything is as set in stone as your way of thinking, I do not mean to come off as better than or greater than you, all I wish to share is that there is more to this that you say, your analysis is made on presumption like an unchanging populous who leads a life style of luxury as the first world does. anyone reading know that everyones comments are just one perspective of many and not to limit yourself because of seeming external limitations.
“Unlike your simplistic assumptions, they developed and continue to refine a highly sophisticated computer model, which estimates the “carrying capacity” of the planet, given limited natural resources (fresh water, farmable land, rare minerals, etc., etc.), finite fossil fuels, ocean acidification, and the impacts of global warming, and pollution. None of these do you consider. We lovingly call your types “the flat earth folks.” You still don’t realize that the earth is round, and that it therefore has limitations on population. You might argue that the planet can sustain 500 trillion people, using your simple assumptions, but at least you would show that you understand what limits are! Most of us would assume that you have no idea how to compute these limits, but at least we would not place you in the “flat earth” group. But alas, you are in the flat earth group.”
one thing science does not take into account is spontaneity and incalculable change. what you call limited resources are only limited within a certain frame of reference, limited fresh water is only valid in the frame of reference that fresh water cannot be made relatively available to everyone but some creativity will prove other wise. if you use the internet it is not hard to find ways to create fresh water where it was once limited, rendering your assumption that it is limited valid only from your perspective and limited understanding of future and coming innovation that can be implemented with the same energy you use to write and convince people of the limitations you believe in, i would argue these limitations exist because of a lack of creativity and implementation, i would not say they are limited indefinitely as your way of speaking suggests, here is a link to what we are talking about,http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/desalinizing-water-is-expensive-right-not-with-this-clay-pot/
if we focused on spreading this information rather than the idea that fresh water is limited it would become unlimited and accessable to all rendering this quote invalid as well
“The 1 billion people on the planet now that do not have access to fresh drinking water, may rise to 7 billion of the 11 billion. And the mayhem forecasted all too soon by other demographers, may ultimately be reality.
But not to worry. If those of you from “the flat world” camp are wrong, you can simply take it as partially your responsibility for the potentially billions of people who die, due to your simplistic and very misleading arguments.”
when you speak of farmable land as a limited resource as well we would like to point out that it takes a massive amount of land to raise meat for human consumption. you need the land for the animals as well as the land to grow their food so again farmland is limited from the limited perspective you choose to look from and try to convince everyone else that it is the only perspective. how many people could we feed if we did not consume as much meat as we do now? we could divert the food it takes to feed a 2000 pound cow to feed how many people? requiring how much less farm land? as well, we could change our habits to grow food in as many places as possible like our front and back yards as this person does (john kohler) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNI782zIpz4&list=UUUnFheTbVpASikm0YPb8pSw
again lowering the amount of farm-able land we need because of unused and wasted space.
rare minerals are rare for what reason? we are all alive and well and the minerals we personally need in our bodies comes from the ground so the only feasable rareity of minerals would come from improper nutrient recycling caused by flushing our s*** down a hole and turning it into poison by treating it with toxic chemicals, again only one way of doing things, a presumption your statements reek of is that we will not change there for if our population expands so does the problems we create, problems that could be solved with creativity which your statements and perspective lack.
fossil fuels as well are really mostly made from decaying plant matter, ever heard of composting? we could innovate and be creative in our way of deriving energy from that not to mention the possibilities of biofuels from plant oils or alcohol fuels derived from plant fermentation.
population is not the problem, the way we conduct our lives is the problem especially if everyone on the planet is as uncreative as you presume.
The only limitation that exist in this conversation of the limitation of imaginations.
ocean acidification again a challenge that can be met with creativity, seeing as it is caused by pollution, pollution caused by uncreative unconscious uncaring populations.
We can look at the earths “problems” today like that of pollution, starvation, a lack of energy, a lack of clean energy and say that an expanded population would just exacerbate the problem, the problem is cause by overpopulation anyways right? If there was less of us there would be less of a lack, less pollution right? That is true but totally ignores the fact that it is indeed possible to overcome these challenges by other means besides depopulation and unimaginative thinking that assumes we can only continue doing what we are already doing except on a grander scale.
Let us have a true discussion of how overpopulation is a challenge instead of a problem, a problem must be solved, while a challenge must be overcomed, like the challenge of a lack of imagination.
Let our goal be not to justify the need for a smaller population but instead let us see if the problem is truly overpopulation or just the way we conduct our lives now and how if we multiplied our unconscious ways of living it would indeed cause serious issues for us to overcome. The real challenge is to live on the earth in a natural harmonious way (meaning we do not pollute more that the earth can handle, we do not pollute unnessarily even with the right implementation of imagination and action we could create a scenario where we pollute little if at all, we do not destroy the abundance that is already staring us in the face)
“If those of us from the “scientific” community, are correct, and the population leveled off at 4-5 billion, and the world transitioned now to wind and solar, what would be the impact if we were wrong on our assumptions and forecasts.”
The impact would be that you have denied billions of people of their right to live and have supposed your right to existence over theirs just so that you can continue to lead your life of luxury that would require us to use wind and solar rather than using even more creative ways of making power that would require a greater imagination than would be left on the earth if all the “scientific” community were left alive. If they were left alive we would surely be confined within their assumptions of how “things are” because of their lack of imagination of how things could be which is the first requirement for change followed by action that implements the possible ways that things could be changed in order to achieve what could be.
My points are simple, the point of the website is that overpopulation is not the issue we think it is, when the square footage of texas is enough to provide everyone with 1000 sq each, we still have the rest of the world available for future increased population. The limitations of fresh water, pollution fuel and energy are not set in stone, with innovations in technology, and culture and spirituality, we could lead lives of more meaning and with a less demand on the earth’s natural resources because not everyone needs an iphone ipad prefabed home made from freshly pillaged resources from the earth as well as a nice pool and streets and highways and schools and business building and railroads trains busses cars for everyone computers printers wifi for everyone a mcdonalds wendies taco bell Whataburger on every corner, countless restauraunt so we have something to do with our lives to create meaning because we lack imaginiation to create our own meaning, going to huge football and baseball stadiums consuming countless gallons of beer and alcohol along with our industrially farmed and produced hotdogs and buns and garbage cans to hold the waste we create from such a careless existence.
Overpopulation is a problem if we continue to lead our lives the way we do now and expect every African that is actually in touch with nature and their own bodies to lead the same life as soon as we “civilize” them. Yes there is people starving and dying of thirst but is it really the earths lack of resources that is a problem, or is it how they are distributed? How the meat we unnecessarily eat robs countless people of the food that we feed our meet to feed ourselves to feed our diseases of cancer diabetes heart disease and every other disease causes by our lack of foresight that living outside the laws of nature creates a population not at ease?
Population is not the problem, our way of life is the challenge that must be overcome, and like any challenge it will take new thinking and creativity followed by action that is different than the action that proceeded it that caused us to be in the situation we are in now.
Let us talk about new ways of living rather than issues that are caused by what we are not doing now.
fitting in Texas
Im glad u made it through school with such a grate learning experience. The question is can the world population fit in Texas. All the rest of your speculations are just that.
I did the math, am I wrong? Somebody help . . . thanks
I saw the video and something that caught my attention was the claim that all the world population fits in the state of Texas, so I decided to do my own math (like the video challenges the viewers to do), and if this one claim alone is wrong then I am very suspicious of their other assertions:
India population 1,280,090,858
China population 1,400,577,209
World population 7,311,029,727
The area of Texas is 268,820 mi² (696,241 km²)
If we divide the area of Texas by the world population we get that each person, at this one second (a couple of minutes later the answer would be different because every second there are a number of new births greater than deaths)
each person would get .0000367691 mi²
— In feet that would be (1 mile is 5280 feet) 0.1914140848 feet² – which is not enough to live comfortably.
If we divide the area or Texas by the population of India then each person would have 0.0002100007 mi² or 1.108803696 feet² which is a bit better but still not enough . . . and that is just India, without China.
Therefore, I disagree with the statement from the video that the whole Earth’s population can be accommodated in Texas – – – and is that with or without pets?
Please do the math again
According to the numbers you provided of the area of Texas and the world population, your calculations are incorrect. There are 27,878,400 square feet in a square mile. If Texas has 268,820 square miles, we can times that by the square feet in each mile (27,878,400) and get the number of 7,494,271,488,000 square feet in Texas (that’s almost 7 1/2 Trillion square feet). If we divide the number of square feet in Texas by the estimated world population of 7,311,029,727 that provides about 1,025 square feet per person just in Texas. Granted, none of these numbers are exact, but they are close enough estimates to show that the world is clearly not overpopulated. A family of 5, living responsibly, could comfortably survive on 5 acres of land- possibly even less.
Conversion is off
To convert to the square feet you would need to multiply 268,820 by 5280 squared. So 268,820 * 5280 * 5280 = 7494271488000 sq ft.
7,494,271,488,000 / 7,311,029,727 = 1025 sq ft per person
http://www.asknumbers.com/square-mile-to-square-feet.aspx
More people???
Why oh why do we need more and more people on planet earth?? 1025 sq ft per person is a plot of land 32 feet on a side. That is totally insane. WHY do we need to cram more people on planet earth, mush less into the state of Texas? See:
http://www.overpopulationhoaxhoax.net
Truth
Don’t you idiots f***ing get it? The low variant is statistically accurate all the time… because the true population of the world is under 3.5Billion f*** heads…. And in 1804 the worlds population wasn’t 1 billion… dumb a**es
Absolute truth
Over population is a lie… There is more land in the unexplored Antarctica… OH And for you f***ing asshole fake intellectuals… The low variant is consistently correct because the true population is much less then you think it is…. fool
The earth is actually flat [not an oblate spheroid or pear shaped you d*** parrot dogs LOL ]
Astrology is true
I am one in 10 trillion.. You are not.. I am unique.. you are not
Home?
Anybody catch that new animated movie Home? You know the one where the entire population of the earth is abducted and moved to Australia, and then the aliens move in to inhabit the rest of the planet. Interesting movie. Total fiction, but then again much of science fiction is based on science fact or so we are told, the real problem is discerning the fact from the fiction, and sadly much of what we call science dwells in the same realm as science fiction.
Reading these comments gave
Reading these comments gave me a hernia.
Not many seem to define what
Not many seem to define what they mean when they say “overpopulation” but still seem to be able to know what they are discussion.
This is somewhat my definition:
A species is overpopulated when it cannot live in harmony with other species in a closed system world.
We do not live in harmony with other species. Some yes, but most of them are livestock which are consequently contribute even more to the disharmony because of emissions of green house gases and so on. Which leads me to the (man-made(yes it is)) global warming. The atmosphere cannot even take care of our emissions which is leading to melting ices->rising sea levels and so on.
And yeah, if people forgot about it, there is still (in my opinion) a widespread famine. So apparently we cannot even feed all people on this planet today.
And yeah, the latest news I’ve heard about was that the marine life in the oceans have declined with 50% since the 70’s. Don’t know how accurate and trustable that is though. Here’s the report if you’ve got more time then me to read: http://ocean.panda.org.s3.amazonaws.com/media/Living_Blue_Planet_Report_2015_08_31.pdf
These were just a few examples of our unsustainable disharmonic way of life. And this is today. Not yesterday or tomorrow, but today. The consequences of a human overpopulation is already here. These are problems we’re trying to solve right now. Let us keep on inventing new techniques and methods to raise the efficiency of everything we do so we don’t waste this planet completely. But at the same time, let us not level out that increase in efficiency with more people. There is not one single simple solution to the problems in the world but there are slower and faster solutions. The faster solutions includes technology development, education AND family planning.
And I do see fallacies with my definition of “overpopulated” as for example “closed system world”. The planet is more of an semi closed system since it is depends on the sun and its radiation . Fuel cells would be nice, but we’re not there yet(if ever?) so we have to work with what we can here and now. And planning for tomorrow.
And yeah, of someone missed it. UN has revised the prognosis. The estimated median growth will still be going in 2100 and by then we’ll be more than 11 billion people on this planet. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/
Ah well, you chose whatever you want to believe.
FarmLand
Your Texas size area to house 7 billion could be OK if you completely discount for Texas being half desert, the need for streets, space between homes to stop fires, factories, storage, forests to build wood townhouses, etc – but you could build up even though most humanity lives in 1 floor living spaces. However; it takes about 1 acre of land to feed one person. There are only 171 Million acres in Texas; even if it was all usable farmland you’d need over 5 Texas areas to feed 1 billion; and hence you’d need 35 Texas size areas to feed 7 billion. If you take Texas to be typical; half the land is not viable to grow food; so you may well need 70 Texas size areas to feed 7 billion people. Now take a look at a world map, eliminate the permafrost/glaciers, deserts, high mountains, salt marshes,infrastructure. It looks like at a rate of many Texas’s per Billion people you are going to be running out of earth fast. Marine life is already being pushed beyond limits; we might eat plankton and insects but even that will not help for long. Sure, we might increase yields, we might continue burning down the rain forests, we could keep putting every acre to food production; but we are already seeing environmental impacts which would increase. Lets hope the population self limits – but can you bet humanities future on that? We could destroy ourselves particularly if we are blind to the problems we face.
Question is, how true is the population number?
I’d suggest, before making any conclusions, to look into how realistic the generally available population numbers really are.
Thing is, there is interesting graph. World population explosion statistics coincide with mass media growth. Roughly towards the end of the 19th century and so forth. Suspicion is that population number is artificially infltaed for various purposes. One of them – donations to “poor countries” that are based on country population. Hence, country ruling elite has vested insterest in “population growth”.
Just a food for thought.
ok
ok
Seriously?
I believe that the writer was simply making a rhetorical statement by claiming that all of the human population could fit into the state of Texas. Is he or she actually implying we all move to Texas and live in a space of 33 by 33? No. It’s a number like the average number of children per family is 2.1. There aren’t two and a tenth of a child hanging out by itself in a family of four.
Don’t be so quick to doubt.
This is a classic example of a general confusion between causation and correlation. People agree with the idea that the world’s problems are consequential of too many people existing on the planet for two reasons: the first is that we’ve all been conditioned to think that way, having been introduced to the “overpopulation issue” early in life in school, and the second reason is because it’s a simple method to divert public attention from whats actually driving the forces of global pollution, income disparity, and starving populations. Overpopulation is a convenient “truth” for corporate interests who stand to gain much in a world with abounding resources and lacking any restraints for its taking. Spend enough time looking into how much of the planet’s wildlife is being ravaged by industry, and you’ll quickly get a picture of what unsustainable business practices lead to. Its a problem that affects every facet of society in the developed and developing worlds. 5 pounds of by-catch gets thrown in the trash for every 1 pound of fish consumed by people. Most of the rain forests in Brazil and Madagascar are wiped out, and they account for only two of the 5 or 6 countries that retain all the world’s rain forests.
Higher chemical exposures in fish and land animals from toxic industrial waste is breaking apart food chains and allowing for the accumulation of toxins in the bodies of predatory animals, including people. People as part of populations experiencing rising percentages of diseases and cancer should take into account how the food and pharmaceutical drug industries have changed in the last few decades and how what people are in-taking on a daily basis could be adversely affecting their biology. Overpopulation is a convenient “truth” because to people it immediately appears to be an issue beyond their ability to fix and politically its an acceptable excuse for the world’s problems. How could it be the fault of corporations when people are reproducing so quickly? At least thats the mindset of these people, but I think its ridiculous. There’s more than enough food and other necessities to provide for the entire planet but there’s no monetary incentive to do it. In most 3rd world countries, labor and resources are heavily exploited by business interests anyway and trying to feed everyone in them would disrupt their ability to profit so well at their expense. It’s a morally outrageous society we find ourselves in today, people.
Resources
I think over population poses a problem because of the fact there are limited resources not limited space. Like Limited water(which is huge problem because we need it for all sorts of things.), limited foods, limited materials, limited medicines, limited technology. You can have a room full of kids that are comfortable but unless you have snack, water, or toys those kids are gonna die.
UN variants / UNFPA
I agree with most of your points here, but the UN low projection is far from being “the one that keeps coming true”. In fact it’s been consistently wrong (but then it’s offered as a realistic minimum, so the probability of its being wrong isn’t a problem, rather it’s implicit in the variant architecture). Instead its peak has already (2015 revision) been shifted to over 8.72bn in the 2050s, nearer the medium projection of just a few years ago. The medium variant has been broadly reliable (with 6.1bn in 2000 predicted as early as 1970) but even its projections have had to be revised upward repeatedly in recent years, with the 2050 estimate rising from 8.92bn (2002 revision) to 9.73bn (2015) and the eventual peak rising from 9.2bn in the 2070s little over a decade ago to 11.3bn (extrapolated) around 2120: that again is no disaster – they are projections after all, and subject in the long run to the cumulative impact of small changes in current trends. But since we’re already (Oct 2016) at 7.47bn and still growing by 82m (1.1%) a year, we clearly aren’t going to stop at 8bn. My projection is a peak of 12bn some time after 2150, but we’ll cope with that as we coped with every previous billion. You can’t fight alarmism with bad numbers, because they’ll be shown to be in error in only a few years.
And it isn’t fair to attack the UNFPA which has been valuable in assisting countries seeking to limit population growth in the face of social or resource constraints. Ehrlich’s sensationalist nonsense may have boosted donations, but that’s not the UN’s fault. The organisation has generally offered sound and reasonable projections and policy recommendations and provided support where it’s wanted rather than imposing the anti-poor (and often covertly racist) agenda of doom-mongering western anti-population fetishists. The UN an its agencies should be supported as part of an integrated agenda of assisting vulnerable communities and undoing the inequality which is the driver of poverty and hunger.
I think your math is Very off.
The total land surface area of Earth is about 57,308,738 square miles, of which about 33% is desert and about 24% is mountainous. Subtracting this uninhabitable 57% (32,665,981 mi2) from the total land area leaves 24,642,757 square miles or 15.77 billion acres of habitable land.
That divided by 7 billion means that we will have 2.25 acres of land per person. So yeah, your math failed to add that most of the world is ocean and that 57% of land is inhabitable.
so 2.25 acres per person, being nice. We aren’t even adding the risk of deforestation or that we have a moral need for natural reserves for animals, plants and wild life to flourish. We also need space for agriculture, crops and live crops. The US alone has 370 million acres of land out of its 1.9 billion acre total for agriculture. There also many others factors that take away good fractions of the space we have to work with.
While I agree overpopulation is over reacted, I think your facts over react towards the other side of the coin.
What overpopulation proponents are missing…
What overpopulation proponents are missing is that each new person born is not simply a consumer. The more people born, the more workers and producers we have. They aren’t just takers. And we’re not running out of food or space anytime soon, so what’s the problem?
I feel your arguements flawed and designed to cause suffering
The problem here is that you are assuming things about people which place potentially uncomfortable limits on them. Not everyone wants to live in a townhouse like your “we could all live in the size of Texas”. Also you didn’t account for those 7 billion Texans having any food, water, garbage disposal or anything else. For everyone to live like the average American there is only space on Earth for 2 billion at most. Personally I want to live BETTER than the average American by a long shot. I’m already suffering from overpopulation, I want a huge estate and it’s so overpopulated that land isn’t free anymore! I want to be living in a large castle built personally by my ancestors and myself and passed down to their 1-2 children every generation. There isn’t room for that in your Texas-townhouse world.
Earth and population are a Zero-sum game.
The problem here is that you are assuming things about people which place potentially uncomfortable limits on them. Not everyone wants to live in a townhouse like your “we could all live in the size of Texas”. Also you didn’t account for those 7 billion Texans having any food, water, garbage disposal or anything else. For everyone to live like the average American there is only space on Earth for 2 billion at most. Personally I want to live BETTER than the average American by a long shot. I’m already suffering from overpopulation, I want a huge estate and it’s so overpopulated that land isn’t free anymore! I want to be living in a large castle built personally by my ancestors and myself and passed down to their 1-2 children every generation. There isn’t room for that in your Texas-townhouse world.
Water?
There are a s*it ton of water in our planet. Don’t even tell me we don’t have the basic technology to separate salt from sea water. Crooked government “institutions” give you a load of nonsensical and confusing explanations as to why we can’t do this so you shut up and nod your head in submission. This whole overpopulation BS agenda is to herd all the sheep into tiny prefectures and control them so they shut up and do what they’re told to do.
Population Sanity
Finally, a website with a breath of sanity on this long-abused topic. The key barrier to prosperity is selfishness and the bankers and globalists who push the Population Control agenda with eugenics, euthanasia, abortion and other forms of murder are full of that selfishness — to the point of suppressing development in nations that need it the most.
Human ingenuity continues to astound me. One African-American has a video which shows how food production for one could be smaller than the rooftop of that hypothetical Texas house for each family in the world. With improvements it might supply sufficient food for a family of four. With prosperity, population pressures diminish. Birthrates go down.
Equally ironic is the fact that though Westerners may be living longer, they’re enjoying it less. The Medical Industry outlaws cures and pushes Disease Maintenance instead of Health Maintenance. It’s all about profits.
Keep up the good work, here. I’ll be sending my fans your way.
Rod Martin, Jr.
https://globalwarmthblog.wordpress.com/