Talk:Overpopulation

Needs checking!

OK someone needs to proofread better. Nauru does not have 10 million people. And 17->22.6 is not a 33% increase. There's no point in an article that is largely figures if the figures aren't reliable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.17.52 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

17->22.6 is a 33% increase. (22.6-17)/17 = 32.94. EryZ (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Too much/messy data

I think the data tables we have on population are too detailed, messy and not clear and unambiguous. It is too detailed because this is an article on overpopulation, not 'human population over history with respect to individual countries'. Individual population numbers for countries can very well be omitted, for a percentage change table will be shorter, more concise, and conveys the intent of the section better than laborious numbers. We can't really do a percentage change in population table for every country in the world, so maybe just a select few from different continents to give the general gust of 1. population has risen a lot recently, 2. most significant in Africa, not so much in Europe. The huge amount of numbers and countries in the 1960s to 2010 population table is really very messy and doesn't contribute to the article much at all. Countries are seemingly chosen at random, and some countries' data is not very useful anyway because of country merges and splits etc (as described in notes section). Also the intermediate dates are rather redundant, the most important data is the beginning (1960) and the end (2010). http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2Highlights.pdf, pg 85 is most useful here to describe population changes. One of the tables is ambiguous (at least for me): the 'Population (1000 million) and growth 1990–2008 (%)' one. The years linked to the country names don't really make any sense to me and it seems very similar to the 'Population growth 1990–2008 (%)' table, not sure why they are separate tables to be honest. In summary:

1. Remove, merge, and/or shrink tables. Too much data, not contributing to article.
2. Prefer a direct 'date1' to 'date2' format, instead of 'date1' to 'date2' to 'date3' etc.
3. Use percentage change, not population numbers.
4. Choose minimal amount of countries/locations for use here, but still representative of changes in the world.

An example of a good table would be the 'Population growth 1990–2009 (%)' for 'World', 'Asia' etc. P.S. The two green tables for individual countries use the same ref as the green table above it, the one linked above, but the two green tables for individual countries have not been updated to the newer data, whereas the other green table (the one on the world, asia etc) has been. This is evident as the updated one has 1990 to 2009, whereas the non-updates ones still have 1990 to 2008. EryZ (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Per-country data is pretty much irrelevant in the context of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 December 2011‎

I'll see what I can do in the coming weeks. Bit busy lately. EryZ (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is way too long and all contributors have missed the obvious

Think about the definition: "where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat." How is it possible for an organism to exceed the carrying capacity? There is only one way. The organism must consume resources faster than they renew. To put it in simple terms, there must be a pile of food that the organism is eating down faster than food is added to that pile.

Humans have a huge pile of food and are eating it faster than it renews. That bulk of that "pile of food" is fossil fuels. Scientists make the mental error of thinking that oil, coal, uranium, are not food. They are as good as food, because we must burn those resources in order to grow, harvest, package, store, and distribute food for 7 billion humans. If we do not burn those resources, we collectively have no clue how to feed 7 billion. We don't need to figure out what a sustainable population level might be, because this logic proves we are way beyond sustainable. The correct course of action is clear. We humans must get our numbers down to where we are not consuming resources, that are essential to provide for our numbers, faster than they renew. The only way to do that is to ensure we average fewer than 2 children.

In short, if the definition of overpopulation is as stated on the article, then the article should consist of only the above paragraphs. However, my understanding of Wikipedia is that it is supposed to show the conventional wisdom, and that means the article is fine. It correctly shows the confused thinking that happens to be the general consensus on this topic.

We must figure out how to change that reality. We must figure out how to get the scientific community to comprehend the simple logic described above. Please contact me, John Taves, to help figure out how to get this concept peer reviewed and published. My info is on stopattwo.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntaves (talk • contribs) 01:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this subject, and very much far from it. Your explanation does seem solid to me. However, I cannot see how your explanation shows that the article contains 'confused thinking' or is too long. I can see no reason why a section on 'carrying capacity', which is part of the definition which you have supported, is unnecessary. Nor a section on population growths over history and projections, which although I believe was originally too cumbersome with unnecessary tables (see discussion above), but since I have removed those tables, it seems like a much better section now. The article indeed does focus on our consumption of resources and food, there is a large section on 'food' under the heading of 'resources', along with a section on 'fossil fuels'. In fact, I believe this article is near perfectly congruent with the views you have put forward, so I do not see how this article contains confused thinking. I would suggest that you build on this article and improve it yourself; that might make it more clear to us what the problem seems to be for you. Also, please refrain from promoting your cause (however true and just it may be) on Wikipedia talk pages, there are much better sites to do that on. Thanks. EryZ (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The conventional wisdom is the problem, not the article that accurately reflects the pathetic conventional wisdom. The section on carrying capacity is fine, but how can any of these scientists make these estimates? To estimate a sustainable population number, you have to figure out how a world economy that does not burn fossil fuels or uranium would function, and determine how much sustenance can be acquired. Why would any scientist be so arrogant to think they can determine that? What are these estimates? The number of people that can be sustained using today's technology, but without burning oil, coal, gas, uranium, etc? We cannot possibly get to that state, so what is the point of such a silly estimate? We can't wave a wand an shut off the use of fossil fuels. Maybe they are estimating the number of people that can be sustained in the future after those resources have become scarce (or unused), which means they think they know the future technologies that will be discovered and how efficient they will be at providing for our numbers. That estimate would clearly be bogus and thus no peer scientist should give them the time of day to publish that nonsense. You'd have to go back to the late 1800s to see humans not depending on oil to provide their food, and that population level was 1.5 billion, and coal was certainly being used back then. The Global Footprint Network says that in 1987 the Earth Overshoot Day was December 19. The last time I checked, humans were consuming fossil fuels in every country and for the whole year and those fuels were absolutely essential for providing all the meals needed in 1987. How could they possibly estimate that we overshot by only 12 days (3%)? They simply do not comprehend that all fossil fuels and uranium and a host of other resources are off limits.Johntaves (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)