Is overpopulation of the planet a problem?

[editec]

Looking at a map and seeing wide open spaces does not tell you the real story.

Arable land is rather scarce, actually.

 

[xotoxi]

... where are you going to get land for more farming without completely wiping out the ecosystems when our population gains another billion?

At least in this country, most of the ecosystems that are wiped out are not wiped out for "farming".

 

[editec]

It's not just farming...in order to feed billions we need to move water to land which doesn't have enough.

And irrigation seems to destroy that land by salinization over time.

Sooner or later methusian economics does come into play, folks.

Technology can solve many problems, to be sure, but techology doesn't trump basic physics and chemistry.

 

[GHook93]

I say overpopulation is a problem for certain parts of the world and not others! Take Russia, since the fall of the Soviet Union, their death rate has far out-paced their birthrate, they are rich in resources and are one of the most sparsely dense countries in the world. Take Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Oman and you will find some of the least densely populated countries in the world. Not to mention that Canada is the 2nd or 3rd largest country with only 28 million people. Argentina is a large country with I think 30 mil people. Austrailla is also a very large country with 28 million people.

But then you get India, 1.1 billion people! China, who actually recognizes that their large population is unsustainable, is drastically reducing its 1.3 billion population. But you have other countries that are over-populating themselves to death and they funneling their people out to other countries, like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Tiawan, Ethopia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea and even Japan (one of the most densely populated countries in the world).

Do I think the Earth right now is over-populated? No but I think its getting very close to being a huge problem. In 1800 Earth's population was at a 978 million, in 1900 the Earth was at 1.65 billion (only a 68% increase in 100 yrs) in 2009 the Earth's population is at 6.7 billion (that is a 406% increase, 5 billion person increases). If we keep up the same trend, then Earth's will be at 27.2 billion people (the US alone will be at 1.24 Billion) and I definitely think at that population Earth will be more than overpopulated! It would be scary!

GeoHive

 

[Care4all]

Yes, I think we are wasteful people, and a green movement of businesses needs to take place in our country....
When I was on vacay in Bermuda, the roofs of all homes were built in a manner where they harvested the rain for their drinking water...the tiles on the roof with their intertwined covered gutter and filter type system brought the water to a cistern in their lower level basements which was then filtered and purified before being pumped in to the house.

There was no city water and there was no fresh water under ground, this was too salty so every home is built with these Hip Rooves with tile and the water capturing system....

EVERY HOME IN FLORIDA and many others in the south, should have this type of system....capturing a good deal of their drinking water in this manner just from afternoon thunderstorms...

We also should retrofit all of our homes to STOP FLUSHING DRINKING WATER down our TOILETS, a grey water system should be installed.

And cutting back on these bottled water companies taking our own drinking water from us and selling it around the world...

There are many other ways to preserve our water and use our water better and whole industries are out there for the taking in this kind of green industry...we just need to focus on it....

I think we are very overpopulated in other areas of the world, but I also know that cutting back our own population in the USA will solve NONE of those area's problems....though ingenuity could.

Care

 

[Amanda]

Ok, here are my water questions...

Where does it go?

Why can't we get it back from there?


I ask because it's my understanding that unless we shoot something out into space it's here... somewhere.

 

[GHook93]

Ok, here are my water questions...

Where does it go?

Why can't we get it back from there?


I ask because it's my understanding that unless we shoot something out into space it's here... somewhere.

Water is not the problem. Its fresh unpolluted water that's the problem!

 

[Amanda]

Ok, here are my water questions...

Where does it go?

Why can't we get it back from there?


I ask because it's my understanding that unless we shoot something out into space it's here... somewhere.

Water is not the problem. Its fresh unpolluted water that's the problem!

Ok you answered the first question, why can't we get it unpolluted again?

 

[Meister]

For all you doubters...the pyamid effect happens quite rapidly. Here are some sources for this thread. If you would note that the world population has doubled since 1950

World Population Growth History Chart

Population Growth - History of global population growth, Population growth 1950–2050

Population through history maps

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Ok you answered the first question, why can't we get it unpolluted again?

We can, its just that its costly and inefficient. We haven't (that I know of) developed a technology that will purify large amounts of water effectively.

 

[Amanda]

Ok you answered the first question, why can't we get it unpolluted again?

We can, its just that its costly and inefficient. We haven't (that I know of) developed a technology that will purify large amounts of water effectively.

Hmm... ok, then charge what it costs and when it gets to be too much people will cut back until things go back into balance.

 

[Care4all]

Ok you answered the first question, why can't we get it unpolluted again?

We can, its just that its costly and inefficient. We haven't (that I know of) developed a technology that will purify large amounts of water effectively.

I bet ya desalinization plants can be created that run on solar or wind power instead of using fossil fuel made electricity...same with grey water purification plants....

We can stop the sale of bottled water, that is taking billions of gallons a year of our own water supply along with adding alot plastic to our fills and energy to make those bottles....we can capture the rain in certain areas for drinking water and instead of sitting by on our hands, we could go up to the north poll, or the lower artic, where the fresh water ice in the glaciers are melting and capture all of that water before it ends up in our salty seas....etc etc etc....

There is much that can be done...to at least improve the situation....before we call it quits imo!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Ok you answered the first question, why can't we get it unpolluted again?

We can, its just that its costly and inefficient. We haven't (that I know of) developed a technology that will purify large amounts of water effectively.

Hmm... ok, then charge what it costs and when it gets to be too much people will cut back until things go back into balance.

I don't think it will be that simple. The average person needs a gallon of water a day to eat and drink. That doesn't include bathing or anything else. And that is the average person. Those who live at high altitude, or deserts will require more because they lose more water. And those who work physical jobs will need more.

I have had a lot of personal experience with this. I trained in Souther California in the Marines and I hiked the Pacific Crest Trail from Mexico all through the Mojave and Colorado deserts to Lake Tahoe. Often I had to carry gallons of water with me because there wasn't any water for 30 miles or more, and those sources were unreliable at best. I needed two gallons of water a day just to eat and drink walking twenty miles a day. When I spent a summer in Yosemite climbing big walls which required multiple days to do, we had to haul all of our water with us. Two gallons at least a day to drink only (we didn't cook food on big walls because its too much to haul stoves and fuel and spend time cooking).

Here is a paper on desalinization process costs.
http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/132/6.pdf

Here's a paper on public water purification plant costs:
http://www.gwrsystem.com/about/pdf/0503gwrs_cost_paper.pdf

Now imagine water gets to $1 a gallon, which I think is a conservative figure if we ever get into a water crisis considering the above papers. Could you afford that? If you're single, maybe, but just barely. What if you have a family? That could be $5 a day just for drinking. Maybe more depending on where you live. That means your lawn and garden dies, you stink like a hippie, you totally clean you plate for every meal, and you pee and poop outside and bury it. Let's say for a family of three: it's about $90 a month. Let's say they share a small amount of bathwater once every other day, flush the toilet three times a day (for BMs only - let it mellow if its yellow), wash dishes and clothes in a conservative amount of water, and live in rainy Northern California, dude. I approximate that their water bill would be an average of $12 a day (and I'm trying to be conservative about it). That's approximately $360 month!

But now extend that out to all of the products that you use everyday which require water to make, not just as an ingredient but in the actual process. That's just about everything from food to cars to buildings. Those companies will pass along the increased price to the consumer. Everything will cost more. A LOT more.

I don't know what that would mean to people living in the developing world or nations like China or India. A lot of deaths I would guess.

 

[GHook93]

Ok you answered the first question, why can't we get it unpolluted again?

We can, its just that its costly and inefficient. We haven't (that I know of) developed a technology that will purify large amounts of water effectively.

Hmm... ok, then charge what it costs and when it gets to be too much people will cut back until things go back into balance.

One of the things is the rest of the world, particularly the 3rd world doesn't protect its fresh water, doesn't have the resources to adequately purify their water and many of these countries reproduce like rabbits!

Quick Triva: Who might be the main person for making US waterways some of the cleanest and least polluted in the entire world?

President Nixon. He pushed through the Clean Water Act, which has its flaws, but in reality it is very responsible for our clean waters. And the Clean Air Act, which is responsible for stopping acid rain! Not many people know that even to this day Nixon was the best president for the enivronment ever!

 

[Amanda]

We can, its just that its costly and inefficient. We haven't (that I know of) developed a technology that will purify large amounts of water effectively.

Hmm... ok, then charge what it costs and when it gets to be too much people will cut back until things go back into balance.

One of the things is the rest of the world, particularly the 3rd world doesn't protect its fresh water, doesn't have the resources to adequately purify their water and many of these countries reproduce like rabbits!

I don't mean to sound harsh, but they will do what they do and sooner or later balance will be restored. It will work that way whether we like the results or not. In CMM's description of how water could be unaffordable, yes, people will suffer, but when there is no way for people to pay more someone will come up with a way to sell it cheaper, or people will find ways to conserve more, or consume less. It will eventually balance because it has to.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I don't mean to sound harsh, but they will do what they do and sooner or later balance will be restored. It will work that way whether we like the results or not. In CMM's description of how water could be unaffordable, yes, people will suffer, but when there is no way for people to pay more someone will come up with a way to sell it cheaper, or people will find ways to conserve more, or consume less. It will eventually balance because it has to.

Well, that's the idealistic capitalist in you talking, and you might be right. I'd rather we prevented it from becoming a problem, but you know how we humans are: we wait until the crisis is already upon us before taking our heads out of the clouds of blind optimism and complacency and finally taking action. But by then, thousands have already died (i.e. 9/11).

 

[ItsFairmont]

I question the sanity of the one percent who clicked on "no, not ever" in terms of overpopulation.

Of course the planet is overpopulated. And the open areas people talk about? There's a reason they're open: Few resources. Most cities were built in an area that was originally abundant in resources (and on water for shipping purposes).


Having more than three kids expands the population. There are a lot of people out there who think they're dogs and want a litter.


Be fruitful and multiply?

Check. Done.

 

[Toro]

No. We are not even close to any sort of critical tipping point. There are still an abundance of resources, and human ingenuity is making those resources either less relevant or more efficient. There are still vast expanses of this country which are virtually empty.

Farmland is not empty, and we need at least a functional ecosystem to survive, so technically that's not empty either. Don't think the deserts count either, if we covered most of them with cities (what few areas can actually have permanent structures) then we are not only still destroying an ecosystem we are also upsetting the natural environment. It's short sighted to think that just because there are still areas without big cities that there is a "lot of empty space".

There is a ton of empty space on this planet. Ever been to Canada? How about Siberia? Highly dense regions such as Holland and Japan produce sufficient amounts of food to feed their own countries. You could pretty much feed the world by what is produced in the Ohio Valley. Agricultural policy is tremendously inefficient, and the output of food could be much, much higher if efficient farming methods were introduced to much of Europe, let alone to the third world.

As for water, there is an enormous supply of water in the world. I come from a province in Canada that has more water in the north than land, and has so many lakes, most of them are not named.

This is the global price of commodities adjusted for inflation, before oil fell from $147 a barrel. If you were to extend this graph from 1800 to the present day - and somewhere I have such a chart but am too lazy to find it - it would show the same picture of a continuously declining price with the occasional price spike.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Main article: List of countries by population density
For humans, population density is the number of people per unit of area usually per square kilometre (which may include or exclude cultivated or potentially productive area). Commonly this may be calculated for a county, city, country, another territory, or the entire world.

The world population is 6.7 billion [1], and Earth's area is 510 million square kilometers (197 million square miles)[2] . Therefore the worldwide human population density is 6.7 billion ÷ 510 million = 13.1 per km² (34.0 per sq mi), or 44.7 per km² (115.5 per sq mi) if only the Earth's land area of 150 million km² (58 million sq mi) is taken into account. This density rises when the population grows. It also includes all continental and island land area, including Antarctica. Considering that over half of the Earth's land mass consists of areas inhospitable to human inhabitation, such as deserts and high mountains, and that population tends to cluster around seaports and fresh water sources, this number by itself does not give accurate measurement of human population density.

Several of the most densely-populated territories in the world are city-states, microstates, micronations, or dependencies. These territories share a relatively small area and a high urbanization level, with an economically specialized city population drawing also on rural resources outside the area, illustrating the difference between high population density and overpopulation.

Cities with high population densities are, by some, considered to be overpopulated, though the extent to which this is the case depends on factors like quality of housing and infrastructure or access to resources. Most of the most densely-populated cities are in southern and eastern Asia, though Cairo and Lagos in Africa also fall into this category.

City population is, however, heavily dependent on the definition of "urban area" used: densities are often higher for the central municipality itself, than when more recently-developed and administratively unincorporated suburban communities are included, as in the concepts of agglomeration or metropolitan area, the latter including sometimes neighboring cities. For instance, Milwaukee has a greater population density when just the inner city is measured, and not the surrounding suburbs as well.

most of the info on this is biased and way too subjective. what the fuck is inhospitable? we are looking into space colonies yet earth is inhospitable?

 

[KittenKoder]

Ok, here are my water questions...

Where does it go?

Why can't we get it back from there?


I ask because it's my understanding that unless we shoot something out into space it's here... somewhere.

Water is not the problem. Its fresh unpolluted water that's the problem!

Ok you answered the first question, why can't we get it unpolluted again?

Well ... it's not really as simple as that, it's not just pollution. Much of the water supply comes from mountain snow run off (when it melts) since desalinization (removing salt from sea water) is way too expensive to make work on such a level we need it. Salt can't just be cleaned out like everything else. It's not a matter of being too polluted really, that's just hype, there is a limited amount based on the amount of untouched snow left in the mountains or rain water which can be collected in other areas. Western Washington makes a mint selling a lot of our fresh water from the snow run off, since most areas that rely on well water don't get a year round supply on their own. This is one such case in which a lot of space is needed to store it and why spreading out our population is not something we can do. Water table wells tend to be more reliable through the year, but those can also be drained too quickly.

As the sailors chant goes "water, water everywhere ... and not a drop to drink."