5 ms·

Yet nobody wants to talk about overpopulation. It's the herd of elephants in the room. USA is poised to be a net food importer next decade, at least in dollar t

Yet nobody wants to talk about overpopulation. It's the herd of elephants in the room. USA is poised to be a net food importer next decade, at least in dollar terms. How absurd is that?

jonah 11y ago
Or, better yet, consuming less. There's plenty to go around if we all don't try to live the heavily over-consumptive lives of middle-class Americans...
- a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
  How exactly is that "better yet"? Lower standard of living sounds precisely worse.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Because everyone eating meat everyday isn't sustainable? Your idea of quality of life will need to be compatible with the carrying capacity of the physical world.
    - a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
      Eating meat every day is totally sustainable without overpopulation.
      - crpatino 11y ago
        That statement can mean pretty much whatever you want if you carefully choose your definitions of "sustainable", "overpopulation" or even "meat". I wouldn't go as far as to tinker with the definition of "Eating", but could tamper with the implicit size of the daily ration, which is almost as good. In conventional terms, though, no. You cannot expect to have 7+ billion people to eat as much beef as the average American on a daily basis for any meaningful length of time without causing severe environmental damage. Maybe the 1 billion at the top of the global economy can, but if this comes at the cost of having the 1 billion at the bottom starve, not because actual lack of food, but because they get priced out of the market by the cattle... I don't see it as an overpopulation problem, but a wealth distribution problem.
        a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
        Well, yes, the total sustainable population of Earth is down toward 2.5 billion. Nobody said anything about accommodating 7 billion as sensible policy.
        crpatino 11y ago
        You are correct about that, maybe even in the upper limit. Given that you are aware of that, it makes even less sense to pretend that 1 billion people can keep eating the amounts of meat that are currently considered "normal" in the US. Some people can eat that much, or even more. Those people probably live in an environment where the land cannot produce that much vegetable calories that are eatable by humans, but do produce the low grade, cellulose rich stuff that was typically used to sustain cattle. In different geographies, where grain can be grown in big quantities, people would be better off eating the grain rather than feeding the grain to animals and then eating the animals. Meat can still be raised in that environment, as a complement, but probably not in the amounts we have gotten used to.
  - rodgerd 11y ago
    Reducing consumption to the point where first-worlders aren't suffering increasing rates of obesity-related health disorders doesn't sound like a lower standard of living to me.
  - desdiv 11y ago
    Lower consumption != lower standard of living. My life would be much better if I didn't have to consume a few cups of gasoline just to be able to get to work.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    I = P x A x T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT Human Impact (I) on the environment equals the product of P= Population, A= Affluence, T= Technology. This describes how growing population, affluence, and technology contribute toward our environmental impact.
vinceguidry 11y ago
US population is growing, but only because of immigration. The birth rate was at 1.88 per woman and falling, well below replenishment. We're growing at .7% per year, somewhat below the world average. Domestic food production is rising much faster than population is, causing rising exports. Imports are going up as well, due to increased appetite for variance in our diets. You must've missed the memo. What's going to be the big problem in the medium term is de-population, not overpopulation. We're going to find our workforce resembling Japan's in 30 or so years unless we overcome our political resistance to immigration. We should be begging Mexico to send their best and brightest over here.
- a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
  Without the 1965 immigration act U.S. population was on a course to permanently level out at a quite sustainable ~230 million level. Immigration levels of recent decades clearly play a roll in suppressing native fertility to below replacement levels. If the problem really was not enough population, it is actually not very difficult to pursue policies that increase native fertility. Japan is way over-populated. There is a myth that they face some sort of crisis as they deliberately pursue policies that bring population to sustainable levels. This is actually mostly immigration lobbyists in the west shrieking. Japan is being sensible and will be fine. Certain elements hate the Japanese example.
legulere 11y ago
The united states actually is one of the less populated places on earth.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  It's the third largest country by population. Trailed by Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan. By population density, it's lower, but by total resource consumption intensity, overall impacts of the U.S. are hugely outsized.
jessaustin 11y ago
USA is poised to be a net food importer next decade, at least in dollar terms. With ten minutes' googling, I confirmed my initial suspicion of "bullshit". Several low-content pieces on alternet, grist, etc. with that exact "poised" phrase, from 2005, 2009, 2011, etc. Some cite "data from the US Department of Agriculture", but none actually link to this purported data. What political or philosophical position commits one to such opposition to reality?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Yet nobody wants to talk about overpopulation. It's the herd of elephants in the room. USA is poised to be a net food importer next decade, at least in dollar terms. How absurd is that?

jonah 11y ago

Or, better yet, consuming less. There's plenty to go around if we all don't try to live the heavily over-consumptive lives of middle-class Americans...

a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
How exactly is that "better yet"? Lower standard of living sounds precisely worse.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Because everyone eating meat everyday isn't sustainable? Your idea of quality of life will need to be compatible with the carrying capacity of the physical world.
  - a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
    Eating meat every day is totally sustainable without overpopulation.
    - crpatino 11y ago
      That statement can mean pretty much whatever you want if you carefully choose your definitions of "sustainable", "overpopulation" or even "meat". I wouldn't go as far as to tinker with the definition of "Eating", but could tamper with the implicit size of the daily ration, which is almost as good. In conventional terms, though, no. You cannot expect to have 7+ billion people to eat as much beef as the average American on a daily basis for any meaningful length of time without causing severe environmental damage. Maybe the 1 billion at the top of the global economy can, but if this comes at the cost of having the 1 billion at the bottom starve, not because actual lack of food, but because they get priced out of the market by the cattle... I don't see it as an overpopulation problem, but a wealth distribution problem.
      - a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
        Well, yes, the total sustainable population of Earth is down toward 2.5 billion. Nobody said anything about accommodating 7 billion as sensible policy.
        crpatino 11y ago
        You are correct about that, maybe even in the upper limit. Given that you are aware of that, it makes even less sense to pretend that 1 billion people can keep eating the amounts of meat that are currently considered "normal" in the US. Some people can eat that much, or even more. Those people probably live in an environment where the land cannot produce that much vegetable calories that are eatable by humans, but do produce the low grade, cellulose rich stuff that was typically used to sustain cattle. In different geographies, where grain can be grown in big quantities, people would be better off eating the grain rather than feeding the grain to animals and then eating the animals. Meat can still be raised in that environment, as a complement, but probably not in the amounts we have gotten used to.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  Reducing consumption to the point where first-worlders aren't suffering increasing rates of obesity-related health disorders doesn't sound like a lower standard of living to me.
- desdiv 11y ago
  Lower consumption != lower standard of living. My life would be much better if I didn't have to consume a few cups of gasoline just to be able to get to work.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  I = P x A x T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT Human Impact (I) on the environment equals the product of P= Population, A= Affluence, T= Technology. This describes how growing population, affluence, and technology contribute toward our environmental impact.

vinceguidry 11y ago

US population is growing, but only because of immigration. The birth rate was at 1.88 per woman and falling, well below replenishment. We're growing at .7% per year, somewhat below the world average. Domestic food production is rising much faster than population is, causing rising exports. Imports are going up as well, due to increased appetite for variance in our diets. You must've missed the memo. What's going to be the big problem in the medium term is de-population, not overpopulation. We're going to find our workforce resembling Japan's in 30 or so years unless we overcome our political resistance to immigration. We should be begging Mexico to send their best and brightest over here.

a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
Without the 1965 immigration act U.S. population was on a course to permanently level out at a quite sustainable ~230 million level. Immigration levels of recent decades clearly play a roll in suppressing native fertility to below replacement levels. If the problem really was not enough population, it is actually not very difficult to pursue policies that increase native fertility. Japan is way over-populated. There is a myth that they face some sort of crisis as they deliberately pursue policies that bring population to sustainable levels. This is actually mostly immigration lobbyists in the west shrieking. Japan is being sensible and will be fine. Certain elements hate the Japanese example.

legulere 11y ago

The united states actually is one of the less populated places on earth.

dredmorbius 11y ago
It's the third largest country by population. Trailed by Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan. By population density, it's lower, but by total resource consumption intensity, overall impacts of the U.S. are hugely outsized.

jessaustin 11y ago

USA is poised to be a net food importer next decade, at least in dollar terms. With ten minutes' googling, I confirmed my initial suspicion of "bullshit". Several low-content pieces on alternet, grist, etc. with that exact "poised" phrase, from 2005, 2009, 2011, etc. Some cite "data from the US Department of Agriculture", but none actually link to this purported data. What political or philosophical position commits one to such opposition to reality?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]