Talk:Human overpopulation

Demographic transition

Many critics point out that, in the absence of other measures, simply feeding the world's population well would only make matters much worse, quickly causing the population to quickly balloon to absolutely unsustainable levels, and resulting in mass famine, disease and other human misery on a scale unimaginable even today.

....although in fact, within a generation after the standard of living and life expectancy starts increasing, family sizes start dropping: the demographic transition. That's why every estimate of maximum global population since the 1960s, when the "population explosion" became a worry, has been significantly lower than the previous estimates. Popularisers of overpopulation doomsday like to quote the famous overcrowded breeding rats experiment: feeding rats might make their populations balloon, but human beings aren't rats, and don't breed like rats - the ecologist Paul Colinvaux points this out very readably in Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare, and The Fates of Nations. Interestingly, the Limits to Growth computer study of the early 1970s, amongst other counterfactual elements in their model, assumed that people will have more children as their standard of living rises. They actually have less; Western European population would now be steadily declining if we didn't have any immigration. Malcolm Farmer

Something like the above should be incorporated into the article, since there's clearly more than one POV on the subject. Wesley

• Done. -- April 10:19 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

Past predictions

I'd like to see something about the various major predictions made during, say, the years 1850-2000 about overpopulation. In particular, has anyone ever predicited that rising world population would lead to famine or fuel shortages? The article could compare those predicitions with what actually happened later.

I recalled dimly that a few major predictions garnered worldwide attention and even some political action, but that each of these predictions was far off the mark. I'd like to see some hard facts to enlighten the gloom of the musty dungeons of my mind... --Ed Poor

Birth control

I wonder why in an article about overpopulation there is no mention of birth control.
It seems to be a crucial point. Some governments tried (or are trying) to fight overpopulation with forced (or disonest) sterilization. On the other hand the official Catholic church views on birth control in effect are likely to foster overpopulation and poverty in developing countries.
Another point is influence of the current AIDS epidemics on overpopulation trends.

Status of women

I wrote the initial page here. I dispute the allegation that simply enhancing the standard of living depresses population growth. I think it's been demonstrated that this happens ONLY when the status of women is high in the society. When women are second-class citizens in a highly-patriarchal society, just the opposite happens: population balloons. See Population Politics by Virginia Abernethy, PhD.

Doomsday predictors

And, as far as the doomsday predictors, I have several points: 1. They were seldom wrong in principle. They simply did not anticipate the technological advances and geographic expansions that made further population increases possible. 2. The expanding populations over the past couple of hundred years have resulted in environmental degradation that's quite beyond the capacity of most people to comprehend. People who don't understand what HAS happened look out at the world today and see what they think is a healthy world, and they're unaware of the scale of damage that's already occurred. 3. Doomsday scenarios are already here, and are already going on and have been for quite some time. I can point to many disease, famines, wars, environmental disasters and the like that are directly linked to overpopulation, especially over the past fifty years, and they're getting worse. The evidence is present and current.

John Knouse

Thanks for explaining that, John. And welcome to Wikipedia!! Please tell us more about overpopulation, famine and environmental degradation -- especially as it relates to the status of women (equal to men vs. second-class) and technological advances. Another factor is political/economic system, e.g., famine deaths in North Korea and forced collective farming. Oops, I didn't mean to tell you how to write the article, I'm just listing some factors of personal interest. Please tell us anything you'd like! :-) --Ed Poor

Famine and diseases really has NOTHING to do with overpopulation. It has to do with the very unequal distribution of wealth in the world. Capitalism leads to starvation and is the evil that might end all life on this planet. But thats a different topic I guess.

I thought I saved the world by redirecting the POV-Monster-written "Population explosion" page here. Boy I was wrong, this is blatanly not NPOV. -- Rotem Dan 11:12 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Malthusian catastrophe history

The article states:

Over the two hundred years which followed, Malthusian catastrophes have overtaken numerous individual regions.

Can you please give some examples, with cites? Karada 11:21 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Whatever for? History is littered with examples, and they are to be seen right now in action. Looked at Mauritania lately? Or Sudan? Or indeed any of the countries where population control by mass starvation is a regular thing. PS: please do not be misled by the placement of a heading in the middle of a sentence a while back. I have corrected that. It would be good to discuss some examples in this entry, of course. I've got far too much on to take this article onto my to-do list anytime soon, but as it stands it's a disgracefully lightweight entry for such a major issue, and I hope tht someone will take it on board and expand it. Tannin

OK, that's two examples. This article would benefit by expanding on them, with cites to WHO statistics, etc. Actual facts are always better than assertions. What about Amartya Sen's theories of famine? Karada 11:48 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I agree. It's far too short and light on detail.

Alas I am knee deep in work right now, so we will have to hope for another volunteer. I haven't read Sen and only know of him by reputation. I'm not sure that this article would be the best place to go into his work, but (if in doubt) I always say "write it to start with, and then figure out the best place to put it when it's finished and you can see what shape it's in". So by all means, write it up. I'll read with interest. But first .. I have to get some sleep. Tannin

Whooah there Karada. You now have the article defining "Mathlusian catrastrophe" as "mass death by famime", and then saying "there have been lots of mass deaths by famine but maybe they weren't Mathlusian catrastrophes because a Mathlusian catrastrophe is a mass death by famine, but these were mass deaths by famine. Tannin

Overpopulation is not a theory

RD: Overpopulation is not a "theory". Overpopulation is a condition or a phenomenon. There is no theory about it. The question is not "can there be such a thing as overpopulation?" Of course there can. It doesn't matter how much food you can produce on the planet, because for any amount there is a number of people such that it is insufficent to feed them all. (Overpopulation is not just about food, of course, but that will do as an example.)

The question is "do we have this thing called overpopulation", or "are we going to have this thing called overpopulation?"

There are theories about population and overpopulation, but the thing itself is a theory only in the same sense that other abstract concepts like "length" or "weight" are "theories". Tannin

Yes I know, checked other encyclopedias google, etc.. I'm no scientict (check out my summaries), be bold, correct it.. I have been awake for 26 hours weeee :) (check out my contribution-list if you don't believe) -- Rotem Dan 13:24 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Done. -- Rotem Dan 13:37 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Definitions

I think we need to change the definition here. A quick Google search on animal overpopulation gives over 40,000 hits. Most deal with spaying or neutering your pet. Rmhermen 13:44 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I think the ambigious term "overpopulation" and "population explosion" is overused:

• A City is said to be "overpopulated" (e.g. tokyo)
• Dogs, cats et al are "overpopulating" the streets (nice, let's sterialize/eliminate them)
• humans are supposedly "overpopulating" the world
• School classrooms are "overpopulated" (yes it's used around israel, at least)
• china, india are "exploding"
• everything that looks crowded is "exploding"
• a 5 room apartement with 6 people is "overpopulated"
• a 5 room apartement with 9 people is "overpopulated"
• a 5 room apartement with 12 people is "exploding"
• etc. etc.

Excellent example of using language as a way of extracting pitty and sentiments from others, no insight for an encyclopedia (what's on the dictionary is enough for a definition) -- Rotem Dan 16:07 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Moved list of cities

I moved the list of cities to population density: high population density is not necessarily overpopulation (consider an anthill). I was in New York and London recently: no signs of mass starvation in either as of the time of writing. The Anome 14:13 21 May 2003 (UTC)

True, overpopulation is not synonymous with overpopulation. But for example, Tokyo or NYC is sure overpopulated no? -- Taku 14:20 21 May 2003 (UTC)

But: people choose to live in these places, in preference to the surrounding lower-populated areas where there is also abundant economic activity. Surely if they don't like it, they wouldn't live there? The Anome

I am not sure what you mean. Population density is a simple measure that can tell you the city is in the condition of overpopulation. What's wrong with stating Tokyo is overpopulated? -- Taku 14:41 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, the definition of overpopulation in the opening paragraph is a situation when the population of a given area is greater than the surrounding ecosystem can support. If Tokyo's ecosystem is able to support its population, i.e. it's not running out of food, water, air, etc., than according to that definition it's not overpopulated. On the other hand, it's conceivable that a village of only 50 people in a remote desert may be overpopulated if the limited availability of water and plants will only support a village of up to 30 people. Such a village would be overpopulated, although its population density would be very low. Does this make sense? Or is the definition of overpopulation in error? Wesley 14:48 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Tokyo, or New York, or most other cities, are overpopulated by this definition. They all require massive inputs of food, water, and power from outside, removal of waste, etc., otherwise the people would be quickly overrun by starvation and disease. Graft 15:39 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Now I see. (To be honest, the opening paragraph doesn't make sense at all to me). I think the trouble is either we talk about overpopulation with Darwinism or simple social issue, in other words, context problem. My definition of overpopulation is a social issue, so overpopulation is in other words, simply too much people. See it's not neither density nor mere number of people. Overpopulation becomes a huge social issue because it causes

• lack of housing or any other place (the same trouble with high density)
• trouble with transporation
• deteriation in life standard

-- Taku 14:57 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Most people talk about overpopulation in terms of resource strain - housing and transportation don't come into it. People don't give a shit that there's a million homeless living in cardboard shacks in Bombay, they are worried about the fact that all these people are eating and defecating, and thus are using up precious resources. Graft 15:39 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying overpopulation is not an issue of housing or transporation? -- Taku 15:53 21 May 2003 (UTC)

No, i'm saying it's not treated that way. Most frequently it's treated as an issue of food (see above), i.e., "There's too many people to feed!", or resource consumption, i.e., "We are running out of trees, gas, and arable land to support all these people!". I.e., overpopulation is not treated as a problem for the, err, overpopulating, but for everyone else. Or, anyway, that's how I read it, when people in the first world complain about third-world overpopulation - "those damn brown people are using up our precious resources". Maybe I'm just a bitter, bitter man. It might be nice if it were treated the way you took it, but I don't think that's how most people who write books and such on the subject look at it. Graft 15:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Consecutive sentences

I think that the consecutive sentences on The Limits to Growth and Global warming are potentially misleading without clarification. IIRC, in the early 1970s at least as many people feared that potential further gains from the Green revolution might be threatened by cooling as by warming. -- Alan Peakall 17:00 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Decrease and education

Anyone have references to the studies that population growth decrease has the greatest correlation to the level of education in an area?

Everyone in Texas

Population density, land area... move everyone to Texas. Do the math.

Moved this

There are some examples from history suggesting that when population pressures become too great, the results may, indeed, include war, famine, epidemic disease, and environmental devastation. On the other hand, in many other cases countries with large populations relative to their resources, such as Japan and the Netherlands, have achieved high living standards with limited immediate environmental impact.

I took this paragraph out - no examples are given, and Japan and Netherlands have nothing to do with US immigration policy. Mark Richards 16:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Sierra Club

I'm afraid that the references to the Sierra Club may end up in a POV dispute that would require a lot of extra text to resolve. To avoid overburdening the overpopulaiton article with a tangential issue, I suggest reducing that graf to a sentence simply mentioning that the issue has come up in the Sierra Club. The person who has been making the changes won't get a username, so it's hard to discuss the matter. Willmcw 09:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Sierra Club reference, as currently written looks NPOV to me. Leaving out the fact that the Sierra Club was on record on the issue prior to 1996 would falsely imply that immigration reductionists are outsiders and the immigration debate is a new one within the Club. Kaibabsquirrel 04:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The implication is that because it was the position in 1996 that it the position that the Sierra Club has always taken. To clear that up means adding more history about policy changes within the club. And if you want to get into identifying the people who have been involved in the issue, well, then we're talking about another few hundred words. Nobody wants to get vote counts from elections in an article like this.

This is an article about overpopulation in general, and tangential issues shouldn't overwhelm the main topic. For this article it's probably sufficient to write that environmental groups across the world agree that overpopulation is an environmental problem, that there is disagreement within and between organizations on how to integrate that issue into their missions, and that the Sierra Club in particular has changed its policies over time and may do so again. If you think that civilization needs a detailed description of the Sierra Club elections then that should go in its own article. Willmcw 04:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it probably should be shortened to a one-sentence mention. Done. Kaibabsquirrel 06:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Willmcw 18:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rockefeller Commitee

What about all the research the Rockefeller committee did back in 1972... Did a complete study on how over populated we were, with suggestions. Problem is though that this would increase the controversial nature of this article, tie it into Aids_Reappraisal, and mean we would need a Rockefeller Committee page, and well there have been a couple dozen or so 'committees' on different things.

In the end they recommended many new policies, research, open birth control policies etceteras.. But, the research used to come to these conclusions may be pertinant to this topic.

Will wait for feedback before I do any damage :)

Committee's Recomendations The full report from the Minnesotans for Sustainability MaxInux 08:04:20 Apr 8 2005 (PDT)

Citing an over 30 years old study is uninteresting. Much new data has changed projections. The UN projections has constantly been lowered as more new evidence has emerged that birth rates are falling all over the world. Regarding Aids, it is a horrible disease, but it affects to few victims to have any large effect on overall world population growth, even if it can have a large effect in some countres. Ultramarine 15:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While this is all quite true, but the evidence sited then made bases for many things today that are now researching it. It was the outcome of this committe that caused the UN to look into it at all. So it is relevant IMHO, but this is why I posted here rather than in the article itself. MaxInux

Ultramine- please do not delete the "food supply" topic.

You may have been well-intentioned, but it seems that you misunderstood the concept.

The theory that population is a function of food supply is not "another version" of a Malthusian theory, it is in fact the opposite of Malthus' hypothesis.

Malthus stated that one day, population would 'fly away' from available food- even if the available food remained constant- resulting in shortages of resources. In this manner, Malthus views food and population as two INDIPENDANT VARIABLES.

There have certainly been 'Malthusian Catastrophes' in the past and present. However, these only happen when a food supply FAILS the population that it was origionally supporting. There has and will never be a Malthusian catastrophe in which a population skyrockets in the midst of resource (food) scarcity--- because every population is MADE out of the resources it consumes. The "No food, no people" link works BOTH in the growth and decline of populations.

As it turns out, populations can no more 'escape' their food supplies any more than a car can 'escape' the need for gasoline. This is why the theory of population and food supply is new: it suggests that populations themselves can be DEPENDANT variables.

I'm going to repost the topic, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't delete it again on the grounds of 'redundancy'. If you'd like to talk about the differences between this theory and those of Malthus, I'd be willing too. Perhaps these might help clarify the differences for you between these ideas:

'The Opposite of Malthus' (Jason Godesky) 'Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply' (R. Hoppfenberg, D. Pimentel)

Clarification of theory

"Food production has outpaced population growth, meaning that there is now more food available per person than ever before in history. Studies project that food production can continue to increase until at least 2050. Using modern agricultural methods, FAO has predicted that developing countries could sustain a population of 30 billion people [2] (http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/perspectives/youdecide/pop/overpop/2yes.html). At the same time, world population is predicted to voluntarily stabilize at 9 billion. [3] (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm)."

This is a counter to a Malthusian argument, which is not the premise of this theory.

Malthus stated that food production would eventually not be able to keep up with population.

The Pimentel/Quinn theory states that if food production is increased, population will increase. As quoted, world food supply is increasing, as is world population. The fact that population is declining in the First World distracts from what is occuring on a global scale.

Population is declning in several nations with abundant food supply. Regarding the global scale, population growth is declining while the amount of food/capita is increasing. The theory is falsified. Ultramarine 15:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is true that birth RATES are undoubtedly decreasing. Nevertheless, food production is increased every year hand in hand with the global population- which grows by 80 million people annually. Even the most conservative estimates of population plateauing indicate the global population is going to increase for another half century, at least. To 'falsify' this theory, a population must be observed growing amidst a lack of food, an ecological impossibility.

Another factor that is not being accounted for is that in developed nations, weight-control is a multi-billion dollar industry. Fewer people are consuming MORE calories, per-capita. Development of a society leads to a reduction in population growth, while contributing to an increase in population girth. KevinHFeeley 02:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Food production has outpaced population growth, meaning that there is now more food available per person than ever before in history. Studies project that food production can continue to increase until at least 2050. Using modern agricultural methods, FAO has predicted that developing countries could sustain a population of 30 billion people [2] (http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/perspectives/youdecide/pop/overpop/2yes.html). At the same time, world population is predicted to voluntarily stabilize at 9 billion. [3] (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm).

Talk about missing the point. Your statistics have nothing to do with this theory, and should be posted as counter arguments to Malthus, who predicted that food PRODUCTION would one day level off. This is not relavent to the food-availabilty theory, which I suggest you actually read. It's OBVIOUS that food production will outpace population, because populations can ONLY grow if their food supplies grow, as proven biologically. History shows that EACH TIME the food supply is increased to a population, the population responds by a mirror increase. To understand this point of view of this theory, it helps to look at global population trends, instead of those of countries, which are really arbitrary divisions into sub-populations.

"About 21% of the earth's land is arable. In the past, 160 acres (650,000 m²) of farm land crops fed one person"

For how long and in what capacity? The amount of food that could feed a person comfortably for a month could theoretically be rationed to keep a person alive for year in less comfortable conditions.

the "Soylent green scenario"

Some references about overpopulation in movies and science fiction could be made.