Overpopulation

[GirlinContempt]

Poll question: Overpopulation

Dose the argument of 'overpopulation' bring to mind anything? Do you think it implies anything other than what it very basically says (be it true or false)?

For those voting, I wouldn't mind knowing WHY.

[terrya]

1. I don't think it implies anything other than too many people.

Not to be simplistic about it.

[GirlinContempt]

5. Mm ok

[terrya]

17. My take:

The planet has, currently, 6 billion people. I've read where we will get to 10 billion by 2020.

That's overpopulation. Period. I don't assign anything to it. It's a basic statement of fact.

In my humble opinion.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. too many people.

[GirlinContempt]

6. Ok

[mainegreen]

3. Well, it's meaningless without a discussion of economics and modern food production.

:shrug:

[GirlinContempt]

4. I don't know if it is.

You don't even have to understand the two to think we're overpopulated.

[mainegreen]

13. It's actually debatable whether or not the earth can sustainably support our current population.

If humanity were to wake up and switch to sustainable farming methods using diversified, natural strain crops, elimination of meat and fish to a mere necessary supplement to diet, reorganization of population distribution to dense cities and elimination of suburbs and sprawl, implementation of mass transit and elimination of the right to own polluting personal transportation, and a whole host of other fundamentals, we might find six billion people could live on this planet in balance.

Of course if we continue with our current system I doubt the world can support in a fair manner more than half a billion.

So my point is that overpopulation must be defined by economics and food production. I'd rather see the economic system and food system change, as opposed to birth regulation.

Unfortunately, I'm sure humanity will wait until it's too late, and be forced to implement both.

Yay! :sarcasm:

[GirlinContempt]

15. Thanks for that

My #1 is reduce disgusting levels of consumption

[Blue-Jay]

7. Too many people.

[GirlinContempt]

8. Why?

[Blue-Jay]

9. overpopulation

(ō'vər-pŏp'yə-lā'shən)
The population of an environment by a particular species in excess of the environment's carrying capacity. The effects of overpopulation can include the depletion of resources, environmental deterioration, and the prevalence of famine and disease.

The American Heritage®
Science Dictionary

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved., © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


That's why. It's what the word means.

[GirlinContempt]

10. I'm well aware of the meaning of the word

But when it is used, it can IMPLY (not mean) different things (especially if mis or over used without proper backup). That was the question.

[Blue-Jay]

12. I've never heard it used with such a connotation.

[GirlinContempt]

16. Okay

[matcom]

11. i have no fucking idea what your question even means

:shrug:

how does 'overpopulation' = 'racism' (or any of the others)?

[GirlinContempt]

14. When you look at the disparity in consumption

HUGE disparities, to blame many of the problems on overpopulation can be attributed to racism or classism because it implies that the largest consumers deserve to consume while the poorest do not and should in fact reduce their numbers.

[stuntcat]

20. all I've read

the past few years, from people who talk about overpopulation.. no one's said any certain people should be first to slow down multiplying, whenever they've said who made the biggest mark they talked about the people with the Most, the biggest consumers, the "luckiest" you know?
Maybe this a running-in-different-circles problem, I mean what you're suggesting sounds reasonable, I just don't imagine people for who class or race is an issue showing much concern for the environment and the animals.

[GirlinContempt]

30. Hmmmm

I encounter it. It actually comes off as more of an excuse to continue consumption, cause the REAL problem is overpopulation, etc...
Not everyone who exhibits classism is 100 asshole. At least, not everyone I encounter.

[matcom]

21. if you are going to discuss overpopulation

discuss overpopulation.

if you want to discuss the others discuss them.

apples and oranges.

when I discuss overpopulation, it usually has to do with the depletion of natural resources and overcrowding

again: :shrug:

[GirlinContempt]

26. Well yeah

Of course it has to do with the depletion of resources. But the depletion of resources is caused by a small percent of the population. So it IS the same conversation.

[NewJeffCT]

25. Some people think

That when you give condoms to people in Africa, you are really trying to limit the number of black people in the world. Or, any sort of family planning among minorities.

[GirlinContempt]

27. Except it really doesn't work

Agrarian societies + condoms = what we have now.

[Shell Beau]

46. I don't understand that argument. AIDS is such a problem as

is poverty. I personally think that condoms are helping control the AIDS epidermic. And with the poverty, some of these families can't afford to feed another mouth.

[NewJeffCT]

49. well, I've heard it before

and, it is a common argument from religious people who are against any form of birth control. The way to get a certain ethnic group to support your position is to tell them "The Man" wants them to use birth control because they want to limit the number of that certain ethnic group.

[regularguy]

18. The concept of overpopulation to me

leads to the uncomfortable question of which people shouldn't be here. I think population growth has to slow to avert environmental catastophe, but I welcome every person who is here.

[Midlodemocrat]

24. Great post.

And overconsumption seems to me to more to the heart of the matter than overpopulation. If there was a way to redistribute the wealth, it would make overpopulation a non issue.

Interesting aside: My husband flew home from Orlando last night and was sitting next to a guy who had become very wealthy installing custom made windows in the Miami area. They were discussing how some of the mega wealthy HAVE to have the most expensive of everything, even when a less expensive option will do.

This came up because we are re-doing our kitchen and are trying to decide how to get what we would like to have that is also environmentally friendly without going bankrupt.

[GirlinContempt]

28. Thumbs up

[UncleSepp]

36. Yep. It's not the identification of the problem, but the possible solutions

If the problem is identified as "there are too many people on this planet", then something has to be done to reduce the population. Sounds good so far, but how? Kill people? Nobody proposes this as an active solution, but as a passive one, there are people who are prepared to accept it. As awful as it sounds, "overpopulation" is often invoked by ordinary people as a reason not to care about mass deaths through famine or disease. "Well, it's terrible about the famine in (Ireland/Ethiopia/North Korea/wherever), but that's just nature taking its course." It doesn't matter that the "nature" that causes the famine is mostly human nature. What matters is that the hungry people are "over there somewhere" and "not like us".

Elective birth control is the usual humane solution.

Where elective birth control is widely available and inexpensive, birth rates fall and per capita consumption rises. Birth rates also fall where women usually work to earn money and where the entire financial and planning burden for raising children falls on the parents, that is, where there is no public day care,inadequate family leave, and inadequate public pension for retirement. This obligates potential parents to choose between having a child and having "enough" money. Of course, what is "enough" can sometimes be changed - a couple that makes twice the median family income can become a family earning median and have "enough", but a couple that makes median will put themselves at half of median income by having a child and a stay at home parent. A couple that makes half of median will be making a quarter of median if they have a child and a stay at home parent, and that is not likely to be enough. Birth control in societies without social support for families makes parenting a luxury. Birth rates fall among the wealthier people, and poverty worsens among the already poor.

This leads to the "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" sloganeering, and the idea that child rearing is a privilege, not a right. It also leads to a shortage of workers in developed countries that will not be filled by the native born. This requires immigration, and the immigrant population of such a country often has a higher birth rate than the host country. This then leads to anti-immigrant panic, of (insert host country) is being taken over from (insert country supplying immigrants). If an economic downturn happens during such a time of immigration, and real unemployment rises, the country goes from having the right amount of people to an overpopulated state. The solution becomes to kick out the "foreigners", save the jobs and the resources for the "natives", and so on.

Non-elective birth control has also been implemented as a solution. China's one child policy is the most famous example. (Note: The one child policy does not actually mean that any couple in China will have only one child, and was intended to address primarily urban overpopulation. Extra births are paid for with fees and fines by policy also.) In a culture where boys are worth more than girls, this kind of policy leads to sex selection and eventually, many men who will never be able to find a wife. The population decrease with each successive generation under a uniformly applied one child policy with sex selection would accelerate. Also, in three successive generations, each one adult supports two parents and four grandparents. It's like the problem of the retiring boomers, but one that will worsen with every generation. Where the policy will go is a matter of much debate. There are not enough examples of policies like this to know where it goes.

Other examples of non-elective birth control come from twentieth century eugenics, and have been practiced by most Western countries. In these policies, mostly poor and uneducated people judged as feebleminded were forcibly sterilized, often without their understanding and knowledge. The idea was that chronic poverty (pauperism) was due to a heritable genetic trait, as were a range of social problems. Also, the idea held that the birth rate among the better sorts was low and among the worse sorts, high. To improve the population, the worse sorts needed to be kept from breeding more miserable offspring. It started here in the US, and it would be good to say that it ended in the Nazi concentration camps, but it didn't end there at all.

With the culture of cruelty being what it is today, this sort of eugenics may be an idea whose time is coming again. I think that is why some people have associations of classism and racism with birth control.

[Zookeeper]

38. Well said....

I participated in a discussion with people who, basically, said my third child shouldn't have been born. Well, he's here, he's sweet, smart, kind, creative and compassionate. And he'd be very hurt to know that his birth is considered by some to be a problem.

[The2ndWheel]

19. Overconsumption and overpopulation are the same problem

Overpopulation causes expansion.

Overconsumption causes expansion.

Expansion causes conquest.

Conquest causes either killing or forcing whoever it is that stands in the way of expansion to live by your rules.

Those rules are what have caused the large scale, organized warfare that we've seen for the past few thousand years.

Those large scale organized wars have led to increases in consumption, which require more people to meet the demands of the ever growing population.

However, today we have more and more automation, which causes more and more people to be in the way. But with the increased efficiency and production by automation, we have a greater percentage of resources for more people, so we end up with more people, who in turn consume more.

Each issue is just as important as the other. Neither will have much done about it. We need more people consuming more to have enough money to meet the demands of everyone. It's quite the reality we've created.

[JitterbugPerfume]

22. when some starve , while others waste

the problem is way more complex than population control alone

[GirlinContempt]

31. I like that

Simple and to the point

[swag]

23. I'm glad I had a vasectomy.

[GirlinContempt]

29. Thanks for the heads up

[noamnety]

32. I voted classism

but now I want to switch to all three. It's heavily influenced by racist patriarchal capitalist policies.

"Either they do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it." Thomas Ferguson, former Latin American case officer for the State Department's Office of Population Affairs (OPA).

`The US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries...Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S." -- Kissinger

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3312956#3316135

[InvisibleTouch]

33. Overpopulation will eventually regulate itself.

One way or another. Though it won't be pleasant. Read Malthus - or the Four Horsemen, if you prefer.

[Ms_Dem_Meanor]

34. The Duggar family reminds me of overpopulation:

Remember: This pic is old & #17 is on the way.

[flvegan]

35. Well, to me it's consumption per capita and not just a number.

If we all reduced the ole environmental/carbon footprint AND gave a little more back, I don't think that the number of living folks would matter as much.

Until then...

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. Only that there are too many people...

the human population of the planet is much greater than can be sustainably maintained. Modern agriculture is dependent to a large degree on petroleum (for pesticides, and as a fuel for agricultural equipment) and natural gas (as a nitrogen-fixing agent and fertiliser component). Most discussions of the issue that I've seen tend to agree that a human population around two billion would be sustainable over the long term.

To give a little perspective on the population problem: the human population in the year 1 CE has been estimated at around 200 million. It took about 1200 years for the population to double to 400 million. The next doubling of population took about 500 years; in 1700 there were roughly 800 million humans on the planet. It only took 300 years, until 1900, for the population to nearly double again, to 1.5 billion (close to a sustainable population). Thanks to advances in medicine and agriculture, which meant that a larger percentage of those born would survive to reproduce, the next doubling of population only took 60 years; by 1960, there were 3 billion people. Since 1960, the population has doubled AGAIN, to six billion by 1999; we seem to be nearing an absolute maximum, in terms of utilisation of available resources for food production (which by some estimates has actually DECLINED in recent years), and the rate of growth has declined since the 1970's; most estimates indicate a peak around 2050 followed by decline. The only problem is that this assumes available resources and amount of arable land remain fairly constant; not a safe assumption, given the effects of climate change and resource depletion.

[noamnety]

39. This points, in part, to a problem with modern agriculture

unsustainable agriculture methods is not necessarily the same as unsustainable population.

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. In this case it is, because one has led to the other.

[noamnety]

41. That's entirely possible

The way we live as a whole is unsustainable, and consequences of that ripple through every aspect of life.

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. More than possible;

we couldn't support our current population WITHOUT our current unsustainable agricultural practices. There wouldn't BE six billion people on earth without agricultural methods that have largely been developed post-1940, and which largely rely upon petrochemicals and machinery. More food = more people. Increase the food supply, and the population increases. Any animal species will always reproduce until their population reaches rough equilibrium with their food supply (humans are no exception).

[noamnety]

43. I'm in the camp that believes

a return to subsistence farming/local production could support the current population, though not with our current consumption patterns.

It would require a different approach to land use - both in access to land, and in permaculture rather than agriculture.

But it would require some privileged people handing over some of their privilege, and frankly, they'd rather have others starve than do that.

[Nikia]

44. Sometimes it is classism or racism

Especially when someone with three or more children is preaching against the horrors of overpopulation and it is evident that they are talking about the other "them".
Sometimes though, people who are not classist or racist can sound that way when they are talking about overpopulation in areas that do not have the geography, political system, or economy to support large populations.

[noamnety]

45. I would still call it classist and racist

That view of overpopulation is the product of a classist and racist culture.

The reason some areas do not have the geography, political system or economy to support their populations is often because our rich white colonial powers have stripped their land of its resources and replaced them with toxic waste, diverted or polluted water supplies, and introduced unsustainable agriculture methods which raped the soil of its nutrients, or introduced patented seeds to prevent farmers from saving their seeds - or introduced baby formula in a propaganda campaign to make women stop nursing.

If I'm talking about how other countries are overpopulated, while wearing a wardrobe made by sweatshop labor that exists because we robbed the people of their ability to support themselves as an indigenous culture in their traditional ways, the problem with their economy and geography is not that they are overpopulated. It's that I've used class and race to exploit them to the point where they can no longer survive.

[bridgit]

47. Yes: Classism, via a Protestant-Malthusian dream & treatise sequence no less...

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

http://desip.igc.org/malthus

when asked of he did Prince Philip replied, "Yes." as to whether he believed in reincarnation; when asked what he'd like to be reincarnated as he replied, and i paraphrase, "I'd like to come back as a particularly deadly disease so as to alleviate the plight of over population."

tough stuff, but it is clear over population impacts access to already scarce resources natural or otherwise even if Malthus is yet one more dead, antiquated and so past his prime: white guy

whether dead or alive, perceived as either real or farce; over population will only act as an irritant of well & long established classism :(

[astral]

48. It really depends on who is saying it.

If the earth's population 'needs' to be reduced by 60+%, then the question that was asked is a very good one -- who is to be eliminated, and who is to decide who is to be eliminated?

We have America consuming the highest per capita rate, while Americans think they are special extra-loved by the world, above-average and better lookin' and all that. (Just kidding, but just kinda!)

The whole North American Union, the open Mexican border (which is not a racist comment but the border is open to ALL races, and it's certainly not just Mexicans who are crossing it illegally), the planned / in progress highway 'corridors' -- are all part of getting the people of North America more in balance by eliminating the 'middle class' and leveling the playing field here for those people coming up for a better way of life who are grateful for so much less than many of us have come to -- well, demand.

I certainly see active depopulation activities coming up as well, and we have seen the maps of the controlled population centers and the re-wilding of much of the present United States of America-- it's in progress, right now, and population control is part of the plan, and no I do not think those in power are racist about it -- they know who the winners are and the rest of us are losers -- they don't need us except for those who can be happy slave-laborer types.

It is very possible, then that the illegal aliens coming up are the ones who are **not** going to be targeted. Think about it. They can come here, take social security benefits, and get drivers licenses without all the red tape and hoops citizens have to jump through. Makes me wonder, for sure.

I'm just looking at what's going on over here, and not the whole planetary aspect of it. It's pretty easy to see it if you take a look.