|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human overpopulation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Daily article pageviews|
|Human overpopulation has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.|
Please modify the color scheme of the first map
The first map, "Map of population density by country, per square kilometer", you can barely differentiate between 75 - 150, 150 - 300, and 300 - 500. Can we have a map with a slightly better color scheme please?
Population clock-going backwards?
 So I checked the link to the "official counter" and it was off what our page give by a lot. I was going to change the number but due to formatting, I decided to provide today's date and the number given at the ref. I have no idea how this gizmo works? Is there some way to sync it up with our page for real or does it just give the day's date? (where/how is it getting the "current population" number?)TeeVeeed (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC) edit fix dif TeeVeeed (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Article seems out of date - doesn't mention that population is leveling off naturally as a solution
The article talks about many possible solutions to over population but doesn't mention that the middle of the range projtection is for it to level off naturally, as families worldwide, in all countries of all political systems and religious views are having less children as they become more prosperous. In some cases the population is already declining. It's not necessary to restrict birth by law. The China One-child policy policy was phased on in 2015 - 2016.
I would need to check but I think most space settlement ideas are projections of large populations off planet but are not usually proposing this as a solution to exponential population growth. It can't solve that problem. Eventually it has to stop. Even if you doubled only once every thousand years, then it's not that long before you run out of matter in the galaxy to make humans, never mind our life support.
Also the technology proposed for space habitats would permit a far larger population on Earth too, as they propose efficient methods of agriculture inside the habitats enough to feed one person from 30 square meters instead of the usual 1 acre, a potential 4,000 fold improvement, and that's for environments less habitable than our harshest deserts.
Anyway - it would be a case of looking for sources, and - of course finding sources that say those things instead of doing it as a synthesis. Is it generally agreed though that this article needs a major rewrite? At the minimum I think it has to mention that our population is leveling off naturally. And I think the extraterrestrial section needs checking. Robert Walker (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah I'd like to see the article re-vamped to make "overpopulation" into WP:Fringe but the problem I guess is the article title itself. I sure would not want to support "overpopulation" as reality in Wikipedia's voice. I agree that the article taken as a whole is sorely outdated and tends to agree that "overpopulation" is a real condition of humankind when it does not look like it is going that way at all (in reality).TeeVeeed (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Politically, there are always optimists who think that technology will help us to survive and pessimists who think the end is near. Biologically, there is a maximum population that the earth can sustain. And make no mistake: we are subject to the same biological imperatives as every other species on this planet. Politics is mutable, biology is not. The question is how long we will hold out before the house of cards comes tumbling down. On the one hand, those new technologies could most certainly help us to survive for a while longer than if we keep on our current path. But during that longer time we will still be continuing to strip the earth of the complex biological systems that support us. And other technologies can also be used to destroy us because competitive aggression is a part of our natural biology.
- It is my personal belief that we are at least 10x overpopulated for long-term survival of the species. Leveling off is not good enough. If we do not greatly reduce our impact on the earth, it will cease to support us. We probably cannot do that voluntarily. But natural rules will always be followed. Disease, famine, war are the three tools which will be used against us. They are not guided by some over-seer, so each individual instance will be isolated by the politics of the time and place and probably lost or ignored in the big picture. Progress happens in fits and starts and so will retrogress. But it will happen. FatBear1 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The article states "Advocates of population moderation cite issues like quality of life, carrying capacity, and risk of starvation as a basis to argue for population decline." I think you should add competition and competition-related aggression to this list. Studies of rats as far back as the 1960s have indicated that this is another possible result of overpopulation pressures in social mammals.FatBear1 (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)