Talk:Human overpopulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article seems out of date - doesn't mention that population is leveling off naturally as a solution[edit]

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 I agree that the article taken as a whole is sorely outdated and tends to agree that "overpopulation" is a real condition of humankind when it does not look like it is going that way at all (in reality).TeeVeeed (talk)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)

Suggested addition[edit]

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)

Neutrality concern: lack of critical viewpoints[edit]

The concept of human overpopulation, and in particular the social and political assumptions that inform it, have been subject to critique going back as far as David Ricardo and Charles Dickens, social science discourses of the 20th century (e.g. biopolitics) up to prominent contemporary figures like Jean Ziegler. To give a rather crude summary, the most common point seems to be that there are not too many people to feed, but too much poverty and inequality, i.e. the rich do not content themselves with exploiting the "third world's" resources, but then proceed to declare that the impoverished population is "too many". I would think that these dissenting, but well established viewpoints would deserve a dedicated section, to properly mirror the discourse surrounding this topic.. -- Seelefant (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is fair. The non-malthusian tradition is, if anything, the more widespread position within economics. If you have some suggested edits, I think we can find a place for them. Squatch347 (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Laws regulating history?[edit]

The bullet list that makes up most of the Effects of human overpopulation section currently contains this sentence (with my emphasis): “Laws regulate and shape politics, economics, history and society […] ”

Isn’t it fallacious to assert that laws regulate history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.147.69 (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Depends on point of view, but arguably, laws could be said to at least regulate and shape the recording and presentation of history. Additionally, laws, in and of themselves do provide the basis for historical watershed moments or the manner in which a society is defined for a period (e.g., Jim Crow South, Civil Rights Era, DADT, Partition of India, etc) Trumblej1986 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Sir David Attonborough video[edit]

I don't think it's a good idea to add David Attonborough as most of his claims are based on his personal unsupported speculation. While he is correct that population is a problem his claims on how it started and how to stop it are not based on research but his own personal speculation. He claims woman empowerment results in less births. Germany (where women are empowered) has a population of over eighty million people in contrast to Saudi Arabia, a country which has just around 30 million people and where women are not empowered. Researched evidence shows the fertile land able to support agriculture is the leading factor of unsustainable population growth. Germany can support agriculture; wheras Saudi Arabia can't, which is why there is a low population there. Not because of women empowerment. If anything Attonbroough's speech is misleading despite his good intentions.--76.71.5.251 (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Female empowerment is considered by many social scientists and conservationists as a way to slow population growth, not just Attenborough. He is a notable source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)