6 ms·

Overpopulation is a non-problem. Fertility has fallow to near- or below-replacement rate everywhere in the world, except Afrika (which will likely follow in the

by MC7447a 11y ago

Overpopulation is a non-problem. Fertility has fallow to near- or below-replacement rate everywhere in the world, except Afrika (which will likely follow in the next decades.) A nice talk from Hans Rosling on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
I love Rosling's talks.
- sooheon 11y ago
  This specific talk I feel he panders too much. The British surveys, for example, seem to have been made to take advantage of the anchoring effect to elicit more wrong answers, to the delight of the giggling audience.
s_dev 11y ago
I think perhaps you're conflating world population with the Chinese population. Overpopulation can occur in small areas without the world being too overpopulated as a whole -- most of them in SE Asia. If theres lots of people and limited resources, the math simply won't hold up. It affects issues like the environment and human health.
- eru 11y ago
  Singapore is doing fine at high population density.
  - s_dev 11y ago
    Singapore is very developed. Overpopulation is more a problem for densely populated developing places - Bangladesh, Victorian London, South American shanty towns et cetera.
    - eru 11y ago
      Yes. Though they only developed in the last 50 years.
  - sjwright 11y ago
    Singapore doesn't exist in a vacuum. An enormous amount of foreign low population density agricultural land is sustaining their lifestyles.
tremon 11y ago
You mean, it is not a problem because the planet can support that many? Or do you mean it is a problem, but it will solve itself? I don't think either is correct. The first is only true today because non-First World inhabitants are living on a much smaller ecological footprint than Europe and the US. However, that footprint is increasing rapidly. The second reading at least acknowledges there is a problem, but I think you are underestimating the correction required. I think the correction will not happen (at all, or fast enough) through natural means. We are already at more than twice a sustainable population level. Even the most generous estimates I've seen place the Earth's carrying capacity at 7.7 billion people. But most estimates say that the Earth can support 2-3 billion people at modest levels of first-world consumption. The more our planet will be stripped of its resources now (whether through overfishing, destruction of forests, or climate change), the lower the sustainable planet population will become. Put differently, we need to lose at least 5 billion people in the next decades without replacing them with a younger generation to be able to sustain the emancipation of emerging countries. It's not about population growth stabilizing, we need both massive negative population growth and halving of current energy use in developed countries. The only "natural" means through which I can see that happening is massive food shortages or horrific wars, and I think it's a pretty safe bet that the former will trigger the latter. It's also a pretty safe bet that our global society will disappear in that scenario, so I'd rather we have better solutions before that happens.
- flgb 11y ago
  The earth doesn't have a "carrying capacity" or a "maximum population". The earth has resources that are used more or less sustainably at different times and in different places. If we all still lived like hunter gatherers we would have run out of resources and become extinct thousands of years ago. Luckily we've had social, economic, and technological development. As soon as anyone frames sustainability challenges in terms of the earths "carrying capacity" they are revealing a bias that is unhelpful. Even if you accept the premise that the earth does have some 'maximum population' then so what? It's a useless proposition -- what are you going to do, force everyone to only have one child, that is unsustainable as China discovered. Luckily, as the parent pointed out, overpopulation is not a problem. The rate of growth continues to decrease, and global populations will peak in my lifetime.
ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "Fertility has fallow to near- or below-replacement rate everywhere in the world" What do you expect is causing this? Isn't a large part of the reason for this due to changes in society rather than a synchronised biological trend? For example, couples choosing to have children later, if at all. If the reasons are social rather than biological, then there's no reason why birth rates (I'm using the term birth rates as it's a more general term for what we're considering) can't increase in the future. The view that overpopulation is a non-problem seems to be based on wishful thinking and/or short-sighted analysis.
- MC7447a 11y ago
  > What do you expect is causing this? - enormous reduction in child mortality - increased female emancipation and economic opportunities - (direct and opportunity) costs of child-raising becomes relatively larger when societies get richer I don't expect any of those trends to reverse itself > If the reasons are social rather than biological, then there's no reason why birth rates can't increase in the future. Sure, and there's no reason why the worldwide decrease cant' accelerate further either. The only question is, why do you think some scenario is more likely than the other? > The view that overpopulation is a non-problem seems to be based on wishful thinking and/or short-sighted analysis. To me the view that population increase is/will be some huge problem seems to be continuously redressing the Malthusian nonsense that's been wrong for over 2 centuries
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "- enormous reduction in child mortality - increased female emancipation and economic opportunities - (direct and opportunity) costs of child-raising becomes relatively larger when societies get richer I don't expect any of those trends to reverse itself" Those aren't the only trends that matter. How about: * Reduction in working hours/increased leisure time. * Possibility for development of life extension technology (so long as this comes with an increased window of opportunity for raising kids). * Changes to family structures (for example, an increase in popularity in tribe-like family structures, which reduces the burden on individual carers). The point is if birth rate is only slowing down because of how our society currently is, then birth rate predictions are based on that society staying the same, and we have no guarantee of that being the case. Even if you think it's unlikely to change in the near future, humans will hopefully be living on Earth for thousands of years to come. If you were born 1000 years ago, do you believe you could predict how society would turn out in 2015?

by MC7447a 11y ago

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

I love Rosling's talks.

sooheon 11y ago
This specific talk I feel he panders too much. The British surveys, for example, seem to have been made to take advantage of the anchoring effect to elicit more wrong answers, to the delight of the giggling audience.

s_dev 11y ago

I think perhaps you're conflating world population with the Chinese population. Overpopulation can occur in small areas without the world being too overpopulated as a whole -- most of them in SE Asia. If theres lots of people and limited resources, the math simply won't hold up. It affects issues like the environment and human health.

eru 11y ago
Singapore is doing fine at high population density.
- s_dev 11y ago
  Singapore is very developed. Overpopulation is more a problem for densely populated developing places - Bangladesh, Victorian London, South American shanty towns et cetera.
  - eru 11y ago
    Yes. Though they only developed in the last 50 years.
- sjwright 11y ago
  Singapore doesn't exist in a vacuum. An enormous amount of foreign low population density agricultural land is sustaining their lifestyles.

tremon 11y ago

You mean, it is not a problem because the planet can support that many? Or do you mean it is a problem, but it will solve itself? I don't think either is correct. The first is only true today because non-First World inhabitants are living on a much smaller ecological footprint than Europe and the US. However, that footprint is increasing rapidly. The second reading at least acknowledges there is a problem, but I think you are underestimating the correction required. I think the correction will not happen (at all, or fast enough) through natural means. We are already at more than twice a sustainable population level. Even the most generous estimates I've seen place the Earth's carrying capacity at 7.7 billion people. But most estimates say that the Earth can support 2-3 billion people at modest levels of first-world consumption. The more our planet will be stripped of its resources now (whether through overfishing, destruction of forests, or climate change), the lower the sustainable planet population will become. Put differently, we need to lose at least 5 billion people in the next decades without replacing them with a younger generation to be able to sustain the emancipation of emerging countries. It's not about population growth stabilizing, we need both massive negative population growth and halving of current energy use in developed countries. The only "natural" means through which I can see that happening is massive food shortages or horrific wars, and I think it's a pretty safe bet that the former will trigger the latter. It's also a pretty safe bet that our global society will disappear in that scenario, so I'd rather we have better solutions before that happens.

flgb 11y ago
The earth doesn't have a "carrying capacity" or a "maximum population". The earth has resources that are used more or less sustainably at different times and in different places. If we all still lived like hunter gatherers we would have run out of resources and become extinct thousands of years ago. Luckily we've had social, economic, and technological development. As soon as anyone frames sustainability challenges in terms of the earths "carrying capacity" they are revealing a bias that is unhelpful. Even if you accept the premise that the earth does have some 'maximum population' then so what? It's a useless proposition -- what are you going to do, force everyone to only have one child, that is unsustainable as China discovered. Luckily, as the parent pointed out, overpopulation is not a problem. The rate of growth continues to decrease, and global populations will peak in my lifetime.

ZenoArrow 11y ago

> "Fertility has fallow to near- or below-replacement rate everywhere in the world" What do you expect is causing this? Isn't a large part of the reason for this due to changes in society rather than a synchronised biological trend? For example, couples choosing to have children later, if at all. If the reasons are social rather than biological, then there's no reason why birth rates (I'm using the term birth rates as it's a more general term for what we're considering) can't increase in the future. The view that overpopulation is a non-problem seems to be based on wishful thinking and/or short-sighted analysis.

MC7447a 11y ago
> What do you expect is causing this? - enormous reduction in child mortality - increased female emancipation and economic opportunities - (direct and opportunity) costs of child-raising becomes relatively larger when societies get richer I don't expect any of those trends to reverse itself > If the reasons are social rather than biological, then there's no reason why birth rates can't increase in the future. Sure, and there's no reason why the worldwide decrease cant' accelerate further either. The only question is, why do you think some scenario is more likely than the other? > The view that overpopulation is a non-problem seems to be based on wishful thinking and/or short-sighted analysis. To me the view that population increase is/will be some huge problem seems to be continuously redressing the Malthusian nonsense that's been wrong for over 2 centuries
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "- enormous reduction in child mortality - increased female emancipation and economic opportunities - (direct and opportunity) costs of child-raising becomes relatively larger when societies get richer I don't expect any of those trends to reverse itself" Those aren't the only trends that matter. How about: * Reduction in working hours/increased leisure time. * Possibility for development of life extension technology (so long as this comes with an increased window of opportunity for raising kids). * Changes to family structures (for example, an increase in popularity in tribe-like family structures, which reduces the burden on individual carers). The point is if birth rate is only slowing down because of how our society currently is, then birth rate predictions are based on that society staying the same, and we have no guarantee of that being the case. Even if you think it's unlikely to change in the near future, humans will hopefully be living on Earth for thousands of years to come. If you were born 1000 years ago, do you believe you could predict how society would turn out in 2015?