4 ms·

Yikes. I didn't realize the population density in Mumbai was near 53k people per sq. mile. Apparently Manila is nearly twice that at 111k.[1] Still, it surpris

by qrendel 11y ago

Yikes. I didn't realize the population density in Mumbai was near 53k people per sq. mile. Apparently Manila is nearly twice that at 111k.[1] Still, it surprises me overpopulation fears are so commonly expressed. Seems like a greatly overblown meme that will end up doing more harm than good. Much like Malthus opposing projects to feed the poor and hungry, I sometimes hear people going as far as saying we (meaning relatively wealthy, white Americans) should just "let them die" when it comes to impoverished people all over the world. Despite the fact that, if energy consumption and environmental damage is the fear, people in industrialized countries use as many resources as dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of lives in the "developing" world. The world could likely support orders of magnitude more people than we give it credit for. We haven't even started harnessing materials from space industry, space-based solar power, or using the oceans and seabed as living space. There's another 70% of the Earth's surface that hasn't even been touched yet, and that percentage grows even more when you consider the vertical spaces available within it. The overpopulation meme seems more dangerous to global welfare than actual overpopulation has ever been thus far. Kevin Kelly's edge.org response is a good read on the entire overpopulation issue: http://edge.org/response-detail/23722 http://edge.org/response-detail/23722 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d...

jzwinck 11y ago
The world probably could support lots more people than it has now. The question is, why? If we believe 30 billion people is possible, should it be a goal? What's better about 30 billion than 6?
- hk__2 11y ago
  You don’t have the choice.
- qrendel 11y ago
  1) Reproduction is a natural right, and some people would consider having children to be a great fulfillment. The evolutionary basis of this desire would make it all the more powerful, and restricting it would only cause the drive to grow stronger over time (as traits evolved to promote the circumvention of the restrictions). 2) If there's no specific advantage to a lower or stable population, why is any particular number preferable to another? 3) There are lots of advantages of large population: larger communities for people with low-frequency deviations from social norms, a broader spectrum of human social and psychological possibilities represented, increased production and creative capacity, greater base of working-age citizens to support the non-working portion (retired, children), more people at the top of the bell curve to draw from for important positions (better leaders, more geniuses, etc)... This is not an exhaustive list. 4) Likely other advantages as well, which would seem to counter the disadvantages of larger population, judging from past human history (and assuming no weird non-linear relationships). If the world is better with fewer people, would you want to go back and live in a world with only 100,000? 1,000,000? Some other specific number?
  - danbruc 11y ago
    1. Reproduction is not a natural right. If you reproduce beyond a sustainable level your offsprings will pay for that with reduced life expectation and being unable to reproduce in consequence. It's essentially the same thing that happens in predator prey cycles. And you don't have to cease reproducing altogether, just limit it to a sustainable level of about one child per human. 2. There are of course advantages to stable population sizes, most importantly resources will last longer and allow sustaining human society for longer. 3.1. larger communities for people with low-frequency deviations from social norms It is not obvious to me why that is a good thing. 3.2. a broader spectrum of human social and psychological possibilities represented, increased production and creative capacity That seems to be the best argument for larger populations besides increased production capacity because that is countered by an increased consumption. 3.3. greater base of working-age citizens to support the non-working portion (retired, children) That is not true for a larger population, the proportion is the same as for a smaller one. It is only true while the population is growing and that is either unsustainable or the effect is unimportant if the growth is marginal. 3.4. more people at the top of the bell curve to draw from for important positions (better leaders, more geniuses, etc) That is essentially the same argument as 3.2. 4. Smaller populations are not necessarily better, you benefit from decision of labor, scale effects, you are more resistant to disasters. The optimum is definitely somewhere in the middle, it is neither one human that can no longer reproduce and will easily go extinct, and it is also not ten to the hundred for obvious reasons. The question is therefore definitely not whether or not we should seek for a stable population, it is where the most desirable level is. And here I argue we should first bring the entire world population to the levels of wealth, education and consumption of the middle class of leading developed countries and then we can have a look at how much resources are left, what happened to environment and climate, whether we need more smart people.
    - ryanwaggoner 11y ago
      Reproduction is not a natural right. Then nothing is. Fortunately for those of us who don't want to see humanity ruled as you suggest, it seems pretty well established that reproduction is a fundamental human right.
legulere 11y ago
I'm not so surprised about overpopulation fears. We have a non-sustainable use of non-renewable resources. The problem is that especially in the wealthy countries this is hardly visible. We add 1 hectare of forest and at the same time somewhere else in the world 10 hectares are destroyed. Basically the argument that Malthus was wrong and thus we shouldn't worry about overpopulation is the same as ignoring upcoming problems and saying that we will solve them when they will come up. We as humans can solve problems but sometimes we're destroying much in the process, we're not fast enough or it's even just not possible. There have been numerous catastrophes and downfalls in human history and the amount of nature we destructed is extreme. Maybe we can have orders of magnitude (10 billion, 100 billion) people living on this planet, but the question is whether it would still be livable, especially without nature.

by qrendel 11y ago

jzwinck 11y ago

The world probably could support lots more people than it has now. The question is, why? If we believe 30 billion people is possible, should it be a goal? What's better about 30 billion than 6?

hk__2 11y ago
You don’t have the choice.
qrendel 11y ago
1) Reproduction is a natural right, and some people would consider having children to be a great fulfillment. The evolutionary basis of this desire would make it all the more powerful, and restricting it would only cause the drive to grow stronger over time (as traits evolved to promote the circumvention of the restrictions). 2) If there's no specific advantage to a lower or stable population, why is any particular number preferable to another? 3) There are lots of advantages of large population: larger communities for people with low-frequency deviations from social norms, a broader spectrum of human social and psychological possibilities represented, increased production and creative capacity, greater base of working-age citizens to support the non-working portion (retired, children), more people at the top of the bell curve to draw from for important positions (better leaders, more geniuses, etc)... This is not an exhaustive list. 4) Likely other advantages as well, which would seem to counter the disadvantages of larger population, judging from past human history (and assuming no weird non-linear relationships). If the world is better with fewer people, would you want to go back and live in a world with only 100,000? 1,000,000? Some other specific number?
- danbruc 11y ago
  1. Reproduction is not a natural right. If you reproduce beyond a sustainable level your offsprings will pay for that with reduced life expectation and being unable to reproduce in consequence. It's essentially the same thing that happens in predator prey cycles. And you don't have to cease reproducing altogether, just limit it to a sustainable level of about one child per human. 2. There are of course advantages to stable population sizes, most importantly resources will last longer and allow sustaining human society for longer. 3.1. larger communities for people with low-frequency deviations from social norms It is not obvious to me why that is a good thing. 3.2. a broader spectrum of human social and psychological possibilities represented, increased production and creative capacity That seems to be the best argument for larger populations besides increased production capacity because that is countered by an increased consumption. 3.3. greater base of working-age citizens to support the non-working portion (retired, children) That is not true for a larger population, the proportion is the same as for a smaller one. It is only true while the population is growing and that is either unsustainable or the effect is unimportant if the growth is marginal. 3.4. more people at the top of the bell curve to draw from for important positions (better leaders, more geniuses, etc) That is essentially the same argument as 3.2. 4. Smaller populations are not necessarily better, you benefit from decision of labor, scale effects, you are more resistant to disasters. The optimum is definitely somewhere in the middle, it is neither one human that can no longer reproduce and will easily go extinct, and it is also not ten to the hundred for obvious reasons. The question is therefore definitely not whether or not we should seek for a stable population, it is where the most desirable level is. And here I argue we should first bring the entire world population to the levels of wealth, education and consumption of the middle class of leading developed countries and then we can have a look at how much resources are left, what happened to environment and climate, whether we need more smart people.
  - ryanwaggoner 11y ago
    Reproduction is not a natural right. Then nothing is. Fortunately for those of us who don't want to see humanity ruled as you suggest, it seems pretty well established that reproduction is a fundamental human right.

legulere 11y ago

I'm not so surprised about overpopulation fears. We have a non-sustainable use of non-renewable resources. The problem is that especially in the wealthy countries this is hardly visible. We add 1 hectare of forest and at the same time somewhere else in the world 10 hectares are destroyed. Basically the argument that Malthus was wrong and thus we shouldn't worry about overpopulation is the same as ignoring upcoming problems and saying that we will solve them when they will come up. We as humans can solve problems but sometimes we're destroying much in the process, we're not fast enough or it's even just not possible. There have been numerous catastrophes and downfalls in human history and the amount of nature we destructed is extreme. Maybe we can have orders of magnitude (10 billion, 100 billion) people living on this planet, but the question is whether it would still be livable, especially without nature.