3 ms·

It seems to me that overpopulation is presently a reality. As far as I can tell there are way too many humans given our level of consumption. At the rate we k

by sykh 8y ago

It seems to me that overpopulation is presently a reality. As far as I can tell there are way too many humans given our level of consumption. At the rate we kill off other species, destroy ecosystems, pollute, and generally make large portions of the planet toxic I think it's clear there are too many people.

ericschmidt 8y ago
Incorrect, we have a huge surplus of resources by any measure. We're simply not very good at distributing and allocating those resources, which gives people the illusion of overpopulation. The world is not overpopulated — resources are just under-distributed. As for your environmentalist remarks, you're just being pessimistic. Al Gore in "inconvenient truth" predicted the ice caps would be melted by 2017. Didn't happen. Tech will save us from whatever Doomsday scenarios you're imagining, bro: it's already saved us a million times before— and history rhymes and repeats. The "Modern Religion of Environmentalism" (as Peter Theil refers to it in Zero to One) is really just pessimism in disguise. I'm an optimist so I'm more of a member of the Technology Religion. ️
bryanlarsen 8y ago
There are several definitions of overpopulation, making you both right. The first definition refers to a population so large that resources get depleted so much that the population crashes. The canonical example is lemmings. Another definition refers to a population so large that it causes widespread harm to the ecosystem. So it's a myth by the first definition and a reality by the second.
brobdingnagians 8y ago
This is generally what people in major cities and heavily urban areas like California, east coast of China, northern Europe think when they look around them, but then when you actually go look around the world, you suddenly discover that the earth is mostly vast, unpopulated tracts of land. Just traveling around can give a vastly different view of things. Do humans put out toxins and eliminate species? Sure they do, but in terms of consumption, the carrying capacity of the earth has grown dramatically over the last 200 years because of innovation and research driven by population growth, and there is still plenty of room *(https://www.quora.com/If-the-entire-world-had-the-population-density-of-New-York-how-much-would-the-global-population-be https://www.quora.com/If-the-entire-world-had-the-population...). The more people you have, the more minds and resources you can throw at a problem. There's also the interesting fact that my parents raised 7 children on the same amount of resources that most people raised 2; we were _way_ more efficient per capita than most households. Oddly enough, we were raised to be more resource efficient than most people. We knew resources were scarce, so we tried to be more efficient. Maybe the solution is to have more children, not less, then teach them to find solutions to any problems encountered. Heck, mine the moon if you need more resources, invest in hydroponics for food if you run out of space, don't start getting rid of the poor people. Then you'd just end up with a bunch of rich folk sitting in panda refuges. EDIT: I only bring up the last sentence because the question always encountered when someone says "There are too many people." is "Who do you think we should get rid of, how and when?" EDIT 2: I do agree that we should do better with taking care of the environment and avoid catastrophic issues from bad decisions, and I agree with the post below about both being able to be right. :D
- sykh 8y ago
  Yes there is lots of room. There is plenty of food. But what kind of place will the planet be in 100 years on our current trajectory? Pollution is being done on a grand scale. Deforestation too. What good is it to have all that land when it's polluted? As the world gets richer and people consume more it seems clear to me that the present path is not sustainable. In my short lifetime I've seen drastic changes. I've been to many countries and to many national parks. I've seen the degradation and I know it constitutes anecdotal evidence. In the 70s things were not so bad. Now, it's terrible. Trash a much more common sight in the ocean and in reefs. Micro plastics everywhere. Deforestation. We have room, we have food but soon we won't have a decent place to live in. It'll be too polluted I'm not smart enough and don't have enough moral insight to be able to determine who should be gotten rid of as you put it. That's too great a power for me to responsibly wield. I don't think anyone should be gotten rid of. I think people should breed less. But even though I haven't enough insight to say how to get to the desired outcome, less people, I know that it's the outcome we need.

by sykh 8y ago

ericschmidt 8y ago

Incorrect, we have a huge surplus of resources by any measure. We're simply not very good at distributing and allocating those resources, which gives people the illusion of overpopulation. The world is not overpopulated — resources are just under-distributed. As for your environmentalist remarks, you're just being pessimistic. Al Gore in "inconvenient truth" predicted the ice caps would be melted by 2017. Didn't happen. Tech will save us from whatever Doomsday scenarios you're imagining, bro: it's already saved us a million times before— and history rhymes and repeats. The "Modern Religion of Environmentalism" (as Peter Theil refers to it in Zero to One) is really just pessimism in disguise. I'm an optimist so I'm more of a member of the Technology Religion. ️

bryanlarsen 8y ago

There are several definitions of overpopulation, making you both right. The first definition refers to a population so large that resources get depleted so much that the population crashes. The canonical example is lemmings. Another definition refers to a population so large that it causes widespread harm to the ecosystem. So it's a myth by the first definition and a reality by the second.

brobdingnagians 8y ago

This is generally what people in major cities and heavily urban areas like California, east coast of China, northern Europe think when they look around them, but then when you actually go look around the world, you suddenly discover that the earth is mostly vast, unpopulated tracts of land. Just traveling around can give a vastly different view of things. Do humans put out toxins and eliminate species? Sure they do, but in terms of consumption, the carrying capacity of the earth has grown dramatically over the last 200 years because of innovation and research driven by population growth, and there is still plenty of room *(https://www.quora.com/If-the-entire-world-had-the-population-density-of-New-York-how-much-would-the-global-population-be https://www.quora.com/If-the-entire-world-had-the-population...). The more people you have, the more minds and resources you can throw at a problem. There's also the interesting fact that my parents raised 7 children on the same amount of resources that most people raised 2; we were _way_ more efficient per capita than most households. Oddly enough, we were raised to be more resource efficient than most people. We knew resources were scarce, so we tried to be more efficient. Maybe the solution is to have more children, not less, then teach them to find solutions to any problems encountered. Heck, mine the moon if you need more resources, invest in hydroponics for food if you run out of space, don't start getting rid of the poor people. Then you'd just end up with a bunch of rich folk sitting in panda refuges. EDIT: I only bring up the last sentence because the question always encountered when someone says "There are too many people." is "Who do you think we should get rid of, how and when?" EDIT 2: I do agree that we should do better with taking care of the environment and avoid catastrophic issues from bad decisions, and I agree with the post below about both being able to be right. :D

sykh 8y ago
Yes there is lots of room. There is plenty of food. But what kind of place will the planet be in 100 years on our current trajectory? Pollution is being done on a grand scale. Deforestation too. What good is it to have all that land when it's polluted? As the world gets richer and people consume more it seems clear to me that the present path is not sustainable. In my short lifetime I've seen drastic changes. I've been to many countries and to many national parks. I've seen the degradation and I know it constitutes anecdotal evidence. In the 70s things were not so bad. Now, it's terrible. Trash a much more common sight in the ocean and in reefs. Micro plastics everywhere. Deforestation. We have room, we have food but soon we won't have a decent place to live in. It'll be too polluted I'm not smart enough and don't have enough moral insight to be able to determine who should be gotten rid of as you put it. That's too great a power for me to responsibly wield. I don't think anyone should be gotten rid of. I think people should breed less. But even though I haven't enough insight to say how to get to the desired outcome, less people, I know that it's the outcome we need.