Overpopulation is a bitch

[Guest Raidne]

Isn't it? I'm thinking about it because it came about it another thread about government authority, and we were talking about whether we would support mandatory limits on children if the need arose.

First, hasn't the need already arisen? Anyone want to comment on that? That is not something I'm prepared to talk about intelligently, nor can I even convincingly make anything up.

For the rest, how appalling of an issue is this? Isn't it inevitable that as more and more humans exist, each individual human life will mean less? If this isn't intuitive to you, bear with me. Conservatives (for the most part) will act like one can choose to just not care about the problem. Not so. There are really two basic choices: (1) take action to collectively do something about it or (2) let the "free market" deal with what will ultimately be resource scarcity.

Speaking of scarcity, we've dodged the bullet on that (or at least, some of the bullets, some places) with farming technology, but it's had a real cost, hasn't it? For one, we have a incredible need for pesticides and efficient farming. We cannot afford to raise all chickens humanely without cutting way, way back on our chicken consumption. For another, everything tastes like crap. Everything is grown for high yield. I was reminded of this when reading a NY Times article about whole wheat pasta - most whole wheat makes terrible pasta because it's high-yield wheat. The stuff that's coming out now which is vastly improved in quality uses different lower-yield (i.e. normal in some other era) wheat strains. They have more gluten. And it's the same with produce. You can't pick produce at maximum ripeness, or it will never travel from the high-yield factory farm to the market. And we just can't feed everyone with local produce in all areas. There are too many damn people.

But enough with the aesthetic stuff.

Here's what really matters: We're running out of a lot of important stuff. More people means we will run out of it even faster. We can do something about it now, or we can let whoever has the most money get what's left. This appears to be the position of the stereotypical financial conservative. But eventually, when you have enough people really suffering, it won't be about money. It'll be about force. It'll be back to that whole nasty, brutish, and short thing (although, ironically, we were probably never really in that before, back when there were a reasonable number of people running around). It'll be about who can use force to take the resources. This is seems to be the position of the tea party Republicans.

Are they looking forward to this stuff, or do they think it's inevitable?

I can understand why rich people think the rich getting everything is a great solution. Duh. But the tea partier-types - why, why, why is continual armed conflict better than just taking serious world-wide measures to quash the birthrate so we can have a hope of continuing to have a decent lifestyle? WTF?

And here's the ultimate thing: more people is going to require a bigger government - roads need to be built more often, more kids going to school, and, at some point, resource allocation of some kind (in favor of the rich, natch). That's the very thing you're afraid of, right? So let's stop it by stopping population growth. Less people = more freedom.

[sologdin]

you're buying into rightwing agitprop by discussing over-population.

the first step is recognize that you're really discussing under-development and maldistribution related thereto.

[kungtotte]

VHEMT. I'm doing my part, are you? Join the VHEMT and save the world. Service guarantees citizenship.

[Fez]

Well, yeah. That's why I support large increases in NASA's funding and massive incentives for private companies to push space technology as well; time to start thinking very-long term and get us the fuck off this planet so we can have some room again.

In the mean time, I'd say there's definitely a need for massive, over-powering government (something I'm in favor of anyway) to start preping for when its the only thinking keeping order anymore. People are going to keep sexing it up, no stopping that. People are also going to keep being selfish as well, that's human nature; and so gotta use force to keep them somewhat in line.

[Guest Raidne]

Well, that's a different subject. I'm not saying that all the ills in India can be cured by fixing overpopulation. Clearly some areas also have an underdevelopment problem. But some areas don't, and they still have an overpopulation problem. The US has an overpopulation problem, for instance. China has both, but they are also doing something about both. No?

But, for the most part, I have always been less informed about the non-western world than I should be, so if someone would care to enlighten me on issues I am not considering in this thread, I would be eternally grateful.

ETA: Also, I am not advocating human extinction, or anything like it. Just low-yield wheat, good tomatoes, and putting off a call to arms to overthrow the totalitarian police state.

[MinDonner]

I'm in favour. As I said in the other thread, in a pinch I'd even support mandatory sterilisation - which, while unpleasant, would still be better than Rwanda-style population control. But then, I've just read Collapse and it scared the crap out of me. We need to plant more trees also!

[Renasko]

Never have this (potentially) bloody problem in 'Civilization'. I'm going back to it. You all be damned.

[Hereward]

The US has an overpopulation problem? Speaking as someone from a country with 51m people stuffed into an area smaller than Alabama and still with tasty food, I would say you don't have an overpopulation problem, you have an agricultural policy/greed problem.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

How does the US have an over population problem?

[Ken Stone]

If all the people who were concerned about over population killed themselves, the problem would cease to exist. Unfortuantely it doesn't appear that the issues concerns them quite that much.

[Dark Knight]

What does it matter? the inevitable approaching nuclear war will take care of all this. It only takes one charismatic lunatic to wipe out humanity :thumbsup: .

[Guest Raidne]

It is precisely because of the increased impact of one American as opposed to one citizen of some other country that we have an overpopulation problem.

The other option would be to choose to have less impact. We should probably do both. But personally, I like steak better than I like living in a country with 307 million people.

In all seriousness, though, having less people takes the edge off some of the other problems - fuel consumption, meat consumption (and thereby grain consumption), etc. But I know it doesn't solve it.

It's just that whenever I think about solving any of it, so much of it would be more easily accomplished, and with less government direction, with a smaller population.

ETA: Ken, let's try this out:

(1) I like steak

(2) If there are less people, I will get to eat steak longer

(3) There will be less people if I kill myself...

Do you see where this doesn't really work out?

[Lord O' Bones]

Good heavens. The world doesn't have an overpopulation problem yet, just regional. The world has plenty of food and nuclear fissionable material, just coupled with a poor delivery system for both. Also trending towards making sure neither are properly implemented for various reasons.

[Guest Raidne]

Yet? We're certainly seeing some effects. You want to what, wait until it's dire enough? When will we know when that is?

I'm not going to lie - quality of life is my major concern. I can't think of a single aspect of quality of life that would not be improved by having less people around.

[Lummel]

Here's what really matters: We're running out of a lot of important stuff. More people means we will run out of it even faster. We can do something about it now, or we can let whoever has the most money get what's left.

Well what's important stuff? Can you define that?

ETA: Also, I am not advocating human extinction, or anything like it. Just low-yield wheat, good tomatoes, and putting off a call to arms to overthrow the totalitarian police state.

If your important stuff is good tomatoes then over population isn't much of a problem, but mabye the structure of agri-business is.

It is precisely because of the increased impact of one American as opposed to one citizen of some other country that we have an overpopulation problem.

That's not an over population problem, that's an over consumption problem. The USA is a big country with a lot of land unsuited to arable so why should there be an American steak shortage?

Well, yeah. That's why I support large increases in NASA's funding and massive incentives for private companies to push space technology as well; time to start thinking very-long term and get us the fuck off this planet so we can have some room again.

I hear that Mars is nice this time of year.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

It is precisely because of the increased impact of one American as opposed to one citizen of some other country that we have an overpopulation problem.

So you're saying that America doesn't have an over population problem. The world simply has too many Americans in it? Cause we use too many resources? I don't see it. We aren't running out of anything, and the things that are a little rarer we are getting better at using less of.

[Exa Inova]

you're buying into rightwing agitprop by discussing over-population.

the first step is recognize that you're really discussing under-development and maldistribution related thereto.

This

The US has an overpopulation problem? Speaking as someone from a country with 51m people stuffed into an area smaller than Alabama and still with tasty food, I would say you don't have an overpopulation problem, you have an agricultural policy/greed problem.

This

Good heavens. The world doesn't have an overpopulation problem yet, just regional. The world has plenty of food and nuclear fissionable material, just coupled with a poor delivery system for both. Also trending towards making sure neither are properly implemented for various reasons.

And this.

We have enough to feed double or even triple the number of people we have.

But like you said: quality of life is also important to you. But I cant shake the notion that that translates to: 'I want to keep consuming'. And to preserve that others have to go.

[Mad Monkey]

How does the US have an over population problem?

It doesn't. The only reason the US population isn't in the same situation as countries like Japan and Italy is because of immigration (legal or otherwise) and good health care prolonging people's lives. Most (if not all) developed countries tend to linger below replacement level due to low fertility rate. Even in developing countries, the rate of population growth is lower than it was during much of this century (although it is still very high, particular in sub-Saharan states such as Mali, which I'm pretty sure has the world's highest recorded fertility rate).

As sologdin said, overpopulation is kind of a "distractor" issue. I'm sure the people who pointing out are doing so in good faith, and there is some legitimacy to it as a concern that everyone is going to have to cope with.

But the "off the deep end" idiocy of so many of the "solutions" to it are barely worth discussing (mandatory sterilization, for instance; if you think about that for even a few moments you can see how that idea would be simultaneously evil and impractical - if we don't have the reliable distribution network to get food aid to the Sudan, for instance, how are we supposed to mass-sterilize people in the numbers needed to actually make a difference? And that's not even getting into the issue of who exactly is going to decide who gets sterilized and who won't? I don't need to remind anyone here of the sordid history of forced-sterilization campaigns...).

[Altherion]

Isn't it? I'm thinking about it because it came about it another thread about government authority, and we were talking about whether we would support mandatory limits on children if the need arose.

First, hasn't the need already arisen? Anyone want to comment on that? That is not something I'm prepared to talk about intelligently, nor can I even convincingly make anything up.

Arisen where? In the US the total fertility rate is either at or just below at replacement level (2.1 children per woman), in many parts of Europe, Russia and Japan it is well below replacement and there are practically no Western nations where it is significantly above 2.5. The reason this conversation will not arise in the West is that it contradicts the traditional values of the right while the left won't have it (see solo's response) because the overwhelmingly large share of population growth comes from the poorest parts of the world.

Regarding your complaints regarding quality of food: this is not a hard constraint of the technology, it's just basic economics. The high yield stuff and shipping of frozen food is the cheapest way to produce it and it would still be done even if the population was half of what it is now. In fact, we can produce a whole lot more food if we wanted to, but it would push the prices down to the point where selling it is not profitable. Even as it is, there are entire fields of corn near where I currently live which are simply left to rot. Aside: based on the same economics, you can get better food if you're willing to pay for it.

The US has an overpopulation problem, for instance. China has both, but they are also doing something about both. No?

The US and China have roughly the same area. Given the populations, I don't think the US has a need to do anything just yet. Also, keep in mind that much of US population growth comes not from birth rate, but from immigration.

[Ken Stone]

ETA: Ken, let's try this out:

(1) I like steak

(2) If there are less people, I will get to eat steak longer

(3) There will be less people if I kill myself...

Do you see where this doesn't really work out?

eh, not really. Do you see where this works out though?

(1) Some people think overpopulation is a problem

(2) Those people kill themselves

(3) Overpopulation is no longer a problem

Maybe it's one of those things where if you live in a highrise efficency in New York, overpopulation seems to be a problem, but if you live on an acerage in Nebraska, it doesn't?