DescentBB

I was reading this guy's weblog recently (Dean's World) and he had an interesting entry concerning the planet supposedly being overcrowded.

In his final analysis, he concludes that if there are 7 billion people worldwide in the year 2010 (as predicted) and all of them were forced to lived in Alberta Canada (260,000 square miles), the population density in that relatively small space would be comparable to living in Moscow or New York City, and substantially less than Paris. He provides a little map illustrating how much uninhabited area would be left under those conditions.

I admit I've bought into the "too many people" concept somewhat in the past. I'm re-evaluating currently. Interesting read, I thought: Click Me

Yea, I too used to think the world was getting overcrowded until I saw a similar model that split the current population into units of 6 per half acre lots.
It ended up with everyone able to live the suburban 4 beddroom 3.5 bath home lifestyle and all within the borders of Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Arkansas and I think one other nearby state!

But don't get too happy, did you hear? The sky is falling!

Of course, you also have to account for enough space for offices, and farmland... which stretches you from fitting everyone on earth in just Texas/Oklahoma to fitting everyone on earth in TX, OK, CO, KS, NE, AZ, NM, MO, LA, AK, and maybe a couple more states.

Earth's carrying capacity for people (by my own estimate) is 40-50 billion, at fairly low consumption levels. Current population trends make me think it'll peak at 8-12 billion at reasonably comfortable consumption levels.

Overpopulation is a myth.

Yes, the people who think 7 billion is all that much more then 6.5 need to figure out that the earth is big. Really F$%kin big.

And if the humans live long enough they can, and most probably will, learn to build citys on the oceans surface as well as under the sea, increasing the potential living space quite a bit more considering the ratio of water to land on this planet.

yeah it's all about the farmland, you most land you need would be for that.

all earth's people in one big city however, would be devestating to the local environment (devestate as in... gone, replaced by concrete). that's a LOT of space with no natural environment, it can't be healthy coz you'd have concentrations of all pollutants, especially air pollution.

The population issue isn't primarily about space, it's about resources. on a certain fundamental level space is relevant, yes. If you outgrow your pants, then you have literally become "too big for your britches". However, the most important issue is one of supplying food, clean water, clean air, medical services, a social order capable of supporting the teeming masses, and every other resource imaginable.

Imminently, Africa and India are facing overpopulation at crisis proportions. Japan is facing an under-population crisis. The US is stable only because the fertility rate is balanced. We use more resources than anyone other country by far (though China is gaining on us), which would make us vulnerable to a sharp increase in worldwide need. The third world has rapid population growth and lacks the resources to support them.

You know, there's plenty of space in the area of Mexico City to support all the people that live there. The problem is that 7 million people live in a squater settlement on the outskirts of town, which is not a very healthy or desirable way to live. I'm sure we could fit a trillion humans on the planet if we stood them all asses to elbows, but the quality of life might be impacted just a little bit.

overpopulation is certainly not a myth. it may be a misnomer because it can't be viewed in isolation from other issues. overpopulation is only a sensible concept when considered along with problems like the acquisition of resources, access to resources, distribution of resources, environmental impact, political instability, the 2nd law of theremodynamics, etc.

There was an excellent PBS Nova program that examined the population issues. Read and consider. You can see a lot of info from the program there:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/

overpopulation is certainly not a myth. it may be a misnomer...

It depends very much on who's talking about it in the first place. Most of the statements about overpopulation I personally have dealt with over the years have been pure myth, coming from people who naively assume population will continue to grow without bound until we all die a catastrophic death, or people who assume fertility rates will never decline, or people who assume continued population growth in the US is a sign that population will not level off. In these cases, it is very much a myth. I'm sure there are some to whom it's simply a misnomer -- there are some who understand the issues but use the improper terminology of "overpopulation" to describe what they're seeing. But the most common case seems to be people speaking as if humans are actually growing at such a fast rate that we'll end up with more people than can be sustained, and that is a myth.

You'll notice my own estimates were based not on space but on consumption (which implies "resources" -- food, water, air, medicine, power, infrastructure, etc.) My own estimates are that the earth can sustain ~50 billion people at fairly low levels of consumption, but that we'll reach a population closer to 8-12 billion which will allow people to live somewhat comfortably, though not at current mainstream US levels. (The site you linked to gives their estimate of ~33 billion people at the lowest levels, and 1-2 billion at "prosperity".) It wouldn't surprise me if, after levelling off, population slowly declines and average wealth increases, but that will be well after my lifetime.

overpopulation is only a sensible concept when considered along with problems like the acquisition of resources, access to resources, distribution of resources, environmental impact, political instability, the 2nd law of theremodynamics, etc.

In each of these cases (except the not-really-applicable 2nd law), the problem really isn't overpopulation of the earth -- it's overcrowding of a particular area. So yes, in this case it's not so much "myth" as "misnomer" -- there is a legitimate problem to be dealt with, it just shouldn't be called overpopulation.

The biggest danger in dealing with issues like this, IMO, is the fact that people are so quick to blame "overpopulation". It's almost like, at the start of a war, jumping to blame "religion". All it really does is polarizes the issue, with those who know what's really going on usually not on your side.

Thanks for the link, by the way. Another useful item is Mark Kot's Elements of Mathematical Ecology textbook (which requires knowledge of differential equations.) It's much easier to deal with questions of population growth when you understand the underlying models people are using.

The population issue isn't primarily about space, it's about resources.

I was just addressing the perception that the world is crawling with too many people and we're running out of room ... hence the word "overcrowded". Still, I've got some questions about the too few resources angle as well. Seems more like distribution and economic problem in many cases, as you suggested in part.

Also, as to the resources, sometimes I hear people talk about population problems and starving children in India for example.
Well, if you have starving children and yet cows are considered sacred beings instead of dinner you have a big problem regardless of the ratio of resources consumed by the U.S vs. those consumed by other countries.

Just a little cynical dig at some of the conclusions drawn from the data

Yeah, I was thinking about the cultural reasons for food/resource deprivation, too. Rejecting genetically modified food in African countries where starvation is common came to mind.

Will Robinson wrote: Well, if you have starving children and yet cows are considered sacred beings instead of dinner you have a big problem regardless of the ratio of resources consumed by the U.S vs. those consumed by other countries.

Calorie for calorie, cows are much better served as tools with which to raise crops rather than for food themselves. Eating them wouldn't help anything unless replacement for the work they do came along.

Tetrad wrote:Calorie for calorie, cows are much better served as tools with which to raise crops rather than for food themselves. Eating them wouldn't help anything unless replacement for the work they do came along.

Are you saying that breeding cows for slaughter is a net loss in the food production equation?
Also, why not work the cow, milk the cow, breed the cow, and ultimately eat the cow?

Seems like you could have your steak and eat it too./badpun

Will Robinson wrote:Are you saying that breeding cows for slaughter is a net loss in the food production equation?

Well that's the argument this guy made. You can do a search through the book from there if you want.