Jump to content

Talk:Human overpopulation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Unbalanced article (Fossil fuels)

This article could do with some drastic culling. It is far too long. It is also illuminating that the subsection on the rather preposterous notion of extra-terrestrial settlement is longer than that on the critical issue of fossil fuels. The fossil fuels subsection doesn't have a named main article (I presume there is one). Nor does it mention perhaps one of the most illustrating statistics showing how overpopulated Earth is, namely that the planet's oil supply is being consumed at 1,000,000 times the rate at which it was originally produced.1812ahill (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Causes

The section on Causes includes a couple of paragraphs that present a single, poorly-referenced hypothesis that seems to be over-interpreting the facts/references presented: "Human psychology and the cycle of entrenched poverty, as well as the rest of the world's reaction to it, are also causative factors."

"Parents and siblings who have experienced calamitous conditions suffer from a kind of post traumatic stress syndrome about losing their family members and overcompensate by having 'extra' babies." (This is an obscure and poorly supported opinion that is being presented as fact; needs reference)

"These extra babies and calamities fuel a vicious cycle and only in the small minority of cases does it cease." (This is an interpretation/opinion; needs reference)

A lengthy and perhaps inappropriate example is then given of how the AIDS crisis in Africa and the foreign aid provided as a result could be blamed for sub-Saharan Africa's population explosion. Specifically, the article mentions that 150 million more people are alive in Africa today than would have been expected had the HIV/AIDS crisis never occurred (these figures need reference). Also, pejorative phrases like "feeding the population explosion" used in context of such a terrible tragedy as the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa seem unbefitting the neutrality of this article. Fieldgeologist (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Overpopulation and Population Health

The general impression is that Human Overpopulation is a bad thing for many reasons related to the environment and the poor conditions of a substantial portion of humanity. Human population health implies the value of all people being healthy enough to do what they want, which means, procreate as much as you want. You can't have it both ways. Population Health should also include the interaction of humans with all other populations and the environment The importance of Overpopulation remains controversial. Environmentalist feel the world will implode soon. Conservatives, Christian Fundamentalist, Mormons and catholics think there is no need to even think about population limits. I can't get a clear statement/ consensus that Overpopulation represents poor population health as a phenomenon or a policy Mmach1 (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've modified the capitalisation of "population health" in Mmach1's post, so that the wiki-link works. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Should we include this article that claims the human population will be 6 billion by 2082?

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html

Any reasons why it's information is refuted would be great. 124.169.86.57 (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Harlequin

"Self-published media ... are largely not acceptable as sources". Is there any reason to believe that the author is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Critical Information Source

http://academicearth.org/courses/global-population-growth/ You are welcome. If anyone finds an updated version, or a different lecture series that is newer, please let me know. I know that the un-cited Black Death stat is in here for sure, as well as many aspects of the "Demographic Transition" and Globalization later on afterwards.Gödel's Prodigal Apprentice (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Water supply

These edits added a large paragraph about water under Human overpopulation#Resources. The text appears relevant (although the refs need formatting) but it's probably in the wrong place. If nothing else, it should be under Human overpopulation#Fresh water, but probably needs to be merged into the existing text rather than just moved from its current location. I don't have the time to do it now, but perhaps someone else might take on the task. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Economics

Shouldn't something be mentioned about the economics in the text ? Appearantly, every 1$ invested in birth control saves 4$ on other areas. See http://populationaction.org/data-and-maps/the-economics-of-birth-control/ 109.133.76.181 (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Birth regulations

I added this:

A similar approach to Michael E. Arth's "choice-based, marketable birth license plan" is financial compensation or other benefits (free goods and/or services) by the state (or state-owned companies) offered to people who voluntarily undergo sterilization. Such compensation has been offered in the past by the government of India.[1]

I was wondering whether any governments or organisations have ever proposed to provide a Basic_income for people that agree to undergo sterilization. If the basic income is only say 1/2 of the required Living_wage, so that motivation to also still work as well doesn't get eliminated, it seems like a just compensation for people that help the state (by not propagating and thus make it necessary for the state to continuously grow the city/add more personnel/equipment to supply schooling, waste collection, food, water, electricity, ... ) Tests in Omitara, Namibia with basic incomes that were lower that the living wage have found that a basic income works, so that (together with the need to volunteer for sterilization) will be sufficient to persuade politicians (and the public) to agree with this population control method. In comparison to unemployment benefits, a basic income is also more valuable to the member of the public, as with unemployment benefits, the monthly wage can be even lower than 1/2 of the living wage, even decrease over time and one is also required to still look for work and be able to prove you've searched for work. No such requirements exist with a basic income, and so there is indeed incentive/motivation for the people to engage in this proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.102.242 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

NPOV 2

Sorry if this is the wrong way to introduce a new section here--feel free to merge this into another.

There is a massive POV problem in this entry. Note the following paragraph from the introductory section:

"Attempts to mitigate adverse effects associated with overpopulation have historically included eugenic efforts in the early 19th century. This focused on forcefully sterilizing people thought to have undesirable traits. Almost all developed countries developed laws and regulations around this theme of reducing the reproduction of undesirables. Besides sterilization, the methods included forced abortions, birth control, marriage restrictions according to race, limited genetic testing, racial segregation and segregation of the mentally disabled. The eugenics concept was expanded in Nazi Germany during World War II to forcibly exterminating anyone thought to be undesirable, most notably the Jews. Genocide is the process of reducing the population of a race or ethnic group by murder.[14] Most countries have no direct policy of limiting their birth rates, but the rates have still fallen due to educating people about family planning, increasing access to birth control and contraception. Only China has imposed legal restrictions on having more than one child. Extraterrestrial settlement and other technical solutions have been proposed as ways to mitigate overpopulation in the future."

This is straightforward propaganda. Problems:

1. This is an attempt to establish guilt by association by falsely associating concerns about overpopulation with eugenics.

2. You'll note that almost none of this makes any sense at all. There is no plausible sense in which anti-miscegenation laws were attempts to control population.

3. If anything like this belongs here at all, it belongs in a "criticisms" section. Though at most there should be a link to the eugenics entry.

4. Extraterrestrial settlement? Really?

I don't see any way to construe this as anything but propaganda pushing a particular extremist POV. The whole paragraph simply needs to be deleted. I'll wait a few weeks before doing so to see whether more seasoned editors have anything to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.240.141 (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that most of the last paragraph of the lead sentence should be deleted. I suggest this:

Attempts to mitigate adverse effects associated with overpopulation have historically included eugenic efforts in the early 19th century. This focused on forcefully sterilizing people thought to have undesirable traits. Almost all developed countries developed laws and regulations around this theme of reducing the reproduction of undesirables. Besides sterilization, the methods included forced abortions, birth control, marriage restrictions according to race, limited genetic testing, racial segregation and segregation of the mentally disabled. The eugenics concept was expanded in Nazi Germany during World War II to forcibly exterminating anyone thought to be undesirable, most notably the Jews. Genocide is the process of reducing the population of a race or ethnic group by murder. Most countries have no direct policy of limiting their birth rates, but the rates have still fallen due to educating people about family planning, increasing access to birth control and contraception. Only China has imposed legal restrictions on having more than one child. Extraterrestrial settlement and other technical solutions have been proposed as ways to mitigate overpopulation in the future.

As you suggested, the part about eugenics is complete nonsense in this context.

As to Extraterrestrial settlement, there is a whole section on that in the article, with references, so it's appropriate to mention it briefly in the lead section. If you think that entire section should go, I suggest creating a new talk page section for that - the "eugenics" and "Extraterrestrial settlement" issues are independent, so it may be better to discuss them separately. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the NPOV template, because the article presents overpopulation as a real threat to mankind, even though no such threat exists, many say the threat is the opposite - women aren't having enough babies, so the world population will start declining in less than 50 years. But none of this is presented in the article.--194.228.11.228 (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It would help your case if you provided references for the "many [who] say the threat is the opposite". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
For example.-90.177.109.196 (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
At best that says that Human overpopulation may be a problem that may be averted. Perhaps you can clarify whether the writer is stating the view that it hasn't already arrived. I live in the UK and we lost the ability to feed ourselves, without imports, many decades ago. Populations are expanding rapidly elsewhere and for some reason they think our overcrowded and already over dependant island is a good place to come. We are beyond sustainability and I see no plateau. Gregkaye (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

There should definitely be a "criticisms" section. There are many people, including academics, intellectuals, scientists, statisticians, etc. who believe overpopulation, as a threat, is a myth. There is a new documentary about it, called "Misconception", and it is done by Yu (the same woman who believed it previously and won an Oscar for her documentary on "clean water shortage"). She has since debunked her own former ideas about overpopulation being a problem on Earth. I'm not linking you anything...do it yourself, if in fact you seek knowledge. Having this article with no criticisms section is just one-sided as hell, and ignores tons of evidence to the contrary. 2001:5B0:23FF:3CF0:0:0:0:32 (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree that there should be a platform for reply. The article is called human overpopulation which is a title that is suggestive of a problem. Not surprisingly the article begins by presenting perceptions of that problem. I'd say that section on criticisms was a good idea. On the point of debate I was thinking of developing the related content on wikiquotes which I have only just found. Please refer to the new setion below. Gregkaye (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikiquotes and quoted arguments

In the section NPOV above the issue of reply to stances taken regarding overpopulation was raised. On the point of debate I have now got to thinking that wikiquotes might be a good forum for the presentation of arguments. I have only just found the content that relates to Human overpopulation which is currently at: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Overpopulation . I had proposed on the talk page there to move content to "Human overpopulation" so as to make a parallel this article. Now with debate in mind I'm wondering if there could be two pages. Here are two sets of suggestions - we could either use titles: "Present and/or future population levels as being a problem" and "Present and/or future population levels as not being a problem" or we could use titles "Concern regarding present and/or future levels of human population" and "Present and/or future levels of human population as not being a concern". I prefer the second option as it widens inclusion and maybe there are other title suggestions. whichever titles are used there would then be places where views could be gathered from either side of the argument and then compared.Gregkaye (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggest move from "Human overpopulation" to "Overpopulation" consistent with all other Wikipedias

I took a look at the wikidata on linked articles to "Human overpopulation" (which I did by accessing "edit links" as found below the article's languages side bar) and found that parallel articles, as far as I could see, were simply titled "Overpopulation". All but one of the many items in Category:Lists by population refers to human population through the term "population" and everyone knows what is described. The only item specifying non-human populations mentioned on the list is " Lists of birds by population" and, in this case, we need to be told of the type of population described through the use of the word birds. (In any case I am thinking of creating an alternate "Category:Lists by population (non-human)". if someone else would prefer to go into all related articles and change category tags then go ahead. In the meantime I would like a create a space where important articles like Lists of organisms by population can be listed without getting lost in a sea of other "population" articles).

The majority of the content of Wikipedia's Template:Population speaks of population in ways that predominantly talk of human population. I don't see any way to get all the other Wikipedias to change their titles to an equivalent or "Human overpopulation". I thought it might aid consistency to change things on this side. Perhaps the current article on Overpopulation could be adapted into something like "Overpopulation (biological)", "Overpopulation (Species)" or "Overpopulation (general concept)" Gregkaye (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There are a few Wikipedia articles that are troll magnets. This is one. Some people feel, very strongly, that you can't possibly have too many humans. God won't allow it. So, this article has to bend over backwards to be clear that we're talking about human overpopulation, and not too many cats.Rick Norwood (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There are Major POV Issues in the first few paragraphs of an otherwise great article

The first few paragraphs sounds like it could have come straight from a pamphlet handed out by a environmental nut - you know, the ones who view evolution's crowning species as parasites leeching off mother earth that should simply go away. The quote by some professor that human population should be 1/1000 of what it currently is sounds ridiculous. If the human population should be a certain number, it would be. Evolution is not some ideal set of factors that leads to bliss and progress. 74.104.16.130 (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

your opinion..maybe you have never experienced the evil man brings into the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.102.242 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the quote "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be" is grossly misleading in this context and I have removed it. If you look at the context of the quote - an article about human evolution, not overpopulation - what Jones is saying is that "Humans are 10,000 times more common than [we would be if we had not developed farming]", not "10,000 times more common than we can sustain" (which is what is implied by the quote's inclusion in our article).
However, other than that, I don't see that the lead section is POV. It states the facts, with references. Is there any other specific sentence or phrase that you think is not neutral? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, if you're looking for the article about the people who "view [humans] as parasites leeching off mother earth that should simply go away", it's Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The entire thing makes it sound like there is a scientific consensus that overpopulation has either already happened or is inevitable. The article focuses on global human overpopulation. This article is very, very slanted toward the "problem" of overpopulation. 92.78.155.233 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
What sorts of things would you put in a "Benefits [of increasing population]" section? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't. I would remove the unsourced claim that overpopulation is caused by declining mortality rates. I would qualify weasely statements like "...are causing concern." I would find more reliable sources demonstrating that it is not the mainstream consensus that we are globally overpopulated. To balance the information that policies are in place to limit population growth I would include sourced information that developed countries have polices to encourage childbirth, South Korea even praising its people on their good work on raising their birthrate. And for goodness sake, there is no need to refer to Thomas Malthus as an "intellectual" in this article, and at the very least tell people that his predictions were all wrong. If you really did want to have such a section, which is probably a bad idea, consider finding reliable sources on the link between population and economic growth. As it stands, the POV in this article is pretty overwhelming. 188.192.152.225 (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Better sources would, of course, improve the article. But I don't understand most of your objections. Fewer people dying obviously is one of two things that increase population, the other being more people being born. Certainly, some people have expressed concern about overpopulation. It would be good to have citations, e.g. social scientists x and y have expressed concern. You ask for sources expressing the idea that there is a mainstream consensus that we are not overpopulated. I do not know of any such sources, but please provide them if you do know of them. Yes, we should mention (with sources) that in some developed countries with an aging population, there is a reaction against the idea that limiting the population is a good thing. That's an important thing to note. Thomas Malthus is almost universally considered to be right in his prediction that populations always increase to the limits of subsistance in the absence of external forces that limit population. Since this is true, it would be hard to find a reputable source that says it is all wrong. I assume you mean that he recommended abstinance rather than birth control, and I think it would be easy to find sources say that he was wrong in that. But otherwise his prediction is true for most life, certainly true for humans. The correlation between population and economic growth changed direction with the invention of the birth control pill. Before the pill, better medicine led to longer life, which led to increasing population. Since the pill, the greater the economic growth the slower the population growth in most countries. There are a few exceptions: India, Isreal and Saudi Arabia for example. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is not protected so the unregistered user(s)/IP(s) could just make their suggested improvements. However:
  • While the IP(s) make some valid points, it appears that others (Mitch Ames, Rick Norwood) don't agree with all of them. It might be prudent to offer specific suggestions for changes (eg quote "before and after" paragraphs, post specific references) on the talk page first.
  • It's not obvious to me whether the IPs in the conversation above are all different people, all the same people, or a bit of both. It's not necessary to create an account to contribute to Wikipedia, but it would be easier to hold a "conversation" if the person/people were logged in, so we could link talk page posts (and article edits, if necessary) to a specific entity.
Mitch Ames (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand the reasons given above for amending things for the sake of amending POV but there are still some question marks for me. The following sentence – 'Quality of life issues, rather than sheer carrying capacity or risk of starvation, are a basis to argue against continuing high human population growth' – seems to be an odd one. Resource stress and things like carrying capacity seem like perfectly valid concerns so why is more weight given to quality of life? There have been plenty of reports to suggest that while current population levels are acceptable, we cannot assume resources and resource efficiency will always grow to match, particularly in light of other potentially population related issues such as climate change adding additional pressures. Quality of life is an issue but it's not somehow a more important issue, just because a drop in quality of life may the be first appreciable impact we feel if overpopulation does begin to take a toll. For this reason, I'm going to be bold but feel free to revert if there is a reason for this I've overlooked. 5.70.124.31 (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I have changed: "Quality of life issues, as well as sheer carrying capacity or risk of starvation, are a basis to argue against continuing high human population growth." to "Advocates of population moderation cite issues like quality of life, carrying capacity and risk of starvation as being a basis to argue against continuing high human population growth." Feel free to reword this in any other suitably neutral way but I think this now presents a position that may be taken regarding an "argument". It isn't itself doing the arguing. Good enough??
There is a talk heading further down the page, titled: "Causes", that points to a number of uncited claims in a single long paragraph that are viewed to be breaking neutrality. I have added a few citation needed notes to a verification needed note that was already there. I would like suggest that the POV claim gets moved to that specific section of the page so that any issues can be dealt with there. Gregkaye (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

COI

Per the connected contributor box above, a contributor has cited his own work in this article. Needs to be reviewed for NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I toned down the WP:PROMO in this diff and removed the tag. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Infectious agents

The mitigation method mentioned in the version of this article on 6 December 2014, deleted by Mitch Ames, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_overpopulation&action=historysubmit&oldid=636975411&diff=636975045 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_overpopulation&oldid=636975045#Infectious_agents should be reinstated. It can be reworked a bit and references added, but deleting in just because it doesn't seem like a thing anyone would really practically consider is I believe unjust. After all, there are even far worse methods (i.e. war/genocide) and these too are frequently employed by the human race.

Please reinstate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.102.242 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for speculation or original research - and that's all the "infections agents" section (that I deleted) was. It said, in essence, that "The release of [...] diseases [that sterilise people] could thus potentially be used as a mitigation measure" with no reference to indicate that either:
  • anybody was considering the idea
  • it would have any significant effect
If you can provide some references from reliable sources to indicate that anyone has seriously considered the possibility, and/or that it would work, then it could be worth reinstating the section. (Per WP:BURDEN the onus is on the editor providing the material to provide the references.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Appearantly, it has been done all ready, by the apartheid regime's Chemical and Biological Warfare (CBW) unit. They created "infertility toxins" to sterelize the black population. They called it btw a "bioweapon". See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plague/sa/

I think that if you search on the "bioweapon" term, there should be even more references/cases to be found. I even found some references to GMO corn that appearantly also has a sterilizing effect, see articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/22/jeffrey-smith-interview-april-24.aspx [unreliable fringe source?] , https://caps.fool.com/Blogs/gmo-corn-andsterilization/599683 and https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/video-gmo-ticking-time-bomb-the-bankers-want-you-sterilized-and-then-dead/ I doubt the latter is an intented effect, and think the effect is rather marginal, if it exists. Still, the latter outlines that it is a serious possibility to reduce the overpopulation, and the PBS article shows that targeted release of agents has indeed occured. So perhaps the text can be reincluded and updated to hold this latest info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.130.200.135 (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reincluded it with the new references, rewritten section a bit. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_overpopulation&oldid=659480315 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:121E:A900:2E0:FF:FE9A:D00D (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Human overpopulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Mention opposition?

World population#Overpopulation skepticism mentions opposition to the concept by a group calling itself the Population Research Insitute, but it strikes me as counter to Wikipedia's principles to mention it in a more general article but not in the specialised one; if anything, it should be the other way round. Is this kind of opposition even notable enough to be worthy of mention? In view of the anti-abortion activism of the group, their position appears to be motivated by outright denialism, rather than fact-based scepticism, and the responses indicate that the group's position is fringe. (Only notorious cornucopians Simon and Lomborg are mentioned in this article, and even that is a huge concession in view of their questionable or, in Lomborg's case, nonexistent scientific status.) So, if that's the reason why it's not mentioned here, neither should it be in World population#Overpopulation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Immigrant law

It is such a pity that only limited countries have immigrant law where most country do not have . In case it is a common acknowledged law , guess the world will be much better ! Question me if you doubt about it ! Icedawan (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

How is immigration even relevant to the issue of overpopulation? Preventing immigration to wealthy countries does nothing to stem population growth in the world. Sounds like a barely coherent racist troll bait. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Photos of cities?

Isn't it kind of weird to show pictures of traffic on city streets in this article? It's irrelevant. If there were only 10,000 people on Earth and they lived in a small enough area, there would still be heavy traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.118.91 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

growth chart

The linear chart showing the population growth is uninformative. Growth should be shown using a log chart.

Learjeff (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The chart is also inaccurate... we did not reach 7 billion people until around 2011. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ Mr. Spink talk★contribs 15:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Unprecedented Population Fallacy.

The first graphic is a statistical fallacy. If you presented the Dow Jones Industrial Average as a linear chart like that, it would appear as if the last few years was "unprecedented", too. The chart should be logarithmic, at which point the variance in population growth would appear more even. I'd make one, but I'm a bit busy...but we should serious consider removing that very PoV image until we can replace it with a statistically valid one that presents the same data in a plausible format. —Kaz (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your above statement is a fallacy. The last few years[decades] are unprecedented i.e. market deregulation, dotcom bubble and 2008 crash, the growth of China and more examples than I can chuck at you from memory. Charts should only be logarithmic when the target audience can understand them, which is not the case with most people. Yes, our sensitivity to sound and light is logarithmic, but our conceptual minds don't work that way. Log graphs by their very nature hide the reality of the population growth insanity that mankind is embarked upon.(sorry i know its not a forum-cant help myself).1812ahill (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that if the caption is to describe "growth", the graph should use a logarithmic scale for the population value. In the mean-time, I've changed the caption to be simply "Graph of human population from 10,000 BC – 2,000 AD" - which is what it is - so it makes no claims about indications of growth. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether a graph should be linear or logarithmic is a question of display. Logarithmic graphs are useful for displaying large and small numbers on the same graph, as in displaying the distances of planets from the sun. But, for a mathematically unsophisticated audience, logarithmic graphs can also be used to confuse people into thinking the numbers are all about the same size. Thus, most people think a million, a billion, and a trillion are all about the same, all big numbers, rather than understanding that each is a thousand times more than the one before. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Log graphs also have the characteristic that exponential growth is displayed as a straight line (with a linear time axis). So if population grew throughout history at a fixed x% per year, the graph would be a straight line (at constant slope), representing a "constant" increase. If (as the earlier version of the graph's caption suggested) the growth rate increased from the 19th century, eg to x+y%, the graph would illustrate that by becoming steeper, indicating a higher growth rate. And that is exactly what I see when I plot the numbers on a log scale. The alternative would be to calculate and plot the percentage increase per year and plot that. Then we see a flat line (constant % growth) up until about 1800 after which the graph goes up. As you say, for a mathematically unsophisticated audience, almost any graph has the potential to mislead. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
A logarithmic chart wouldn't be nearly as confusing as the sheer deceptiveness of showing a chart that seems to have the population flat until just a few years ago. At best, it's meaningless, but in reality, it gives a false sense of massive population explosion. Everyone who's ever read a Dow or other stock market history chart, gold price chart, or even other population growth charts has been exposed to logarithmic graphs, and they've been just fine. The alternative would be removing this chart entirely, because it's the opposite of informative. A good editor doesn't just delete, he fixes...and so that's what I'm saying we need to do: Fix this chart, so we don't have to remove it entirely.—Kaz (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone can find the original data series, I can easily assemble a high-quality log chart for us to use. —Kaz (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Kaz: it is not clear why you object to a graph that shows rapid populaion growth, when in fact rapid population growth has occurred. The derivative of an exponential graph is an exponental graph, so if the number of people is exponential, the rate of growth is also exponential. By taking the logarithm, you make exponential growth appear linear, which serves no purpose but to hide what is really happening. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
A log graph clearly shows when the growth rate (percentage per year) changes. I thought I'd explained that clearly in my previous post, but evidently not... Mitch Ames (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand log graphs. Most people don't. Rick Norwood (talk)

Both the title and the first post in this section show that we are looking at the figures from a POV of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If people want to use a log graph to demonstrate kinks that mark the start of the industrial revolution, or whatever, then that's fine as long as what we say about that graph is well sourced. But there is no way that the headline, simple graph that states the facts in a way that no one could misunderstand should be replaced by such a project. --Nigelj (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We have an exponential growth here so we should use a logarithmic display. That people are supposedly too stupid to understand log graphs is not an acceptable argument for using an inappropriate display that does well on looking scary but not so well at conveying exact numbers. -- Seelefant (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether the graph looks scary or not is irrelevant. The problem, as I see it, is that the graph is difficult to read. It covers 12,000 years, but is only remotely readable for the last 2,000 years, and even then the information is all crammed into a corner. A logarithmic plot would be easier to read, would be more informative, and more appropriate. It is also worth pointing out that the growth rate DID increase around the industrial revolution, so a logarithmic plot would still show a rapid increase in recent history. If anyone is concerned about people not being able to read log plots, then provide them with a link to the Logarithmic scale page. 150.203.179.56 (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand the debate here. The graph shows population growth, not the rate of population growth. The former is perfectly valid as long as it doesn't pretend to be the latter. As for trying to load the data to present various interpretations, I think that will cause more harm than good. The point of the graph is that population is increasing exponentially and that should be the take away. If you don't find this alarming, great. If you do, that's your call. But the graph presents the plainest view of population growth: it is exponential and all debates about population growth need to be understood from that starting point. 5.70.124.31 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As per my earlier comment, the graph shows population, not population growth. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The arguments given on both sides of the debate indicate that the graphs should be removed, and the article rewritten. It should not be Wikipedia's stand to create articles that are opinionated editorials, but rather to present facts. This article is filled with too many "alternative facts". 120.29.75.193 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Human overpopulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The link that was removed is a very good link. It contains essays, articles and peer-reviewed papers by several experts on human overpopulation. Thanks. Ijon Tichy (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Difficult to see what information different from the article is contained in those site links and list. It impresses me as redundant, WP:ELNO, and in several cases, outdated. --Zefr (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Human overpopulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

CO2 emissions of people

Perhaps useful to write something about this in the current article ? See Talk:Greenhouse_gas#Sectors KVDP (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional reading

Editors have been adding redundant, WP:CITEBLOAT for years, many of which are out of date or dead. Removed for review, if needed. --Zefr (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Virginia Abernethy, Population Politics, (1993)
  • Michael E. Arth, Democracy and the Common Wealth: Breaking the Stranglehold of the Special Interests, (2010), Chapter 35: "Overpopulation"
  • Albert Allen Bartlett, Arithmetic, Population, and Energy: The Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis, (1978)
  • Mathew Burrows, The Future Declassified: Megatrends that Will Undo the World unless We Take Action (2014)
  • Joel E. Cohen, How Many People Can the Earth Support? (1996)
  • Barry Commoner, Making Peace with the Planet (1990)
  • Eileen Crist and Philip Cafaro (eds). Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation. University of Georgia Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0820343853
  • Herman Daly, Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Economics (1999)
  • Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, (1968) The Population Explosion, (1990) The Population Bomb, (1995) reprint
  • Ehrlich, Paul R.; Ehrlich, Anne H. (9 January 2013). "Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?". Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 280 (1754). doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2845.   Comment by Prof. Michael Kelly, disagreeing with the paper by Ehrlich and Ehrlich; and response by the authors
  • Stephen Emmott, Ten Billion (2013)
  • Suzanne Goldenberg (24 September 2015). Pope's climate push is 'raving nonsense' without population control, says top US scientist, The Guardian
  • Fred Guterl, The Fate of the Species: Why the Human Race May Cause Its Own Extinction and How We Can Stop It (2012),
  • Allen Hammond, Which World? Global Destinies, Regional Choices (1998)
  • Garrett Hardin, Living Within Limits, (1995) reprint
  • Rob Hengeveld, Wasted World: How Our Consumption Challenges the Planet (2012). Focuses on the interrelationships and interactions between human overpopulation and most of the key challenges facing global society, and the pressures that overpopulation and resource consumption place on the natural environment
  • Steven LeBlanc, Constant battles: the myth of the peaceful, noble savage, (2003) ISBN 0-312-31089-7
  • Stanisław Lem (1971), The Futurological Congress
  • Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail? (2011) ISBN 1907166637
  • James Lovelock, The Vanishing Face of Gaia (2009), A Rough Ride to the Future (2015)
  • F. L. Lucas, The Greatest Problem (1960).
  • Andrew Mason, Population change and economic development in East Asia: Challenges met, opportunities seized (2001)
  • Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers, Dennis Meadows, Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update (Paperback) (2004)
  • Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, (1798)
  • William G. Moseley (July 2007). "A population remedy is right here at home: U.S. overconsumption is a bigger issue than fertility." The Philadelphia Inquirer (article freely available online).
  • J.R. McNeill, Peter Engelke, The Great Acceleration: An Environmental History of the Anthropocene since 1945 (2016)
  • Safa Motesharrei, et al. A Minimal Model for Human and Nature Interaction. University of Maryland, (2012).
  • Dmitry Orlov, The Five Stages of Collapse: A Survivors' Toolkit (2013)
  • Godfrey Reggio (1982). Koyaanisqatsi: Life out of Balance
  • Karen Shragg, Move Upstream: A Call to Solve Overpopulation (November 2015). ISBN 978-0988493834. Part 1 of an interview with the author, and part 2 (August 2016)
  • Julian Lincoln Simon, The Ultimate Resource 2, (1998)"
  • Scientific American Editors, Lights Out: How It All Ends (2012)
  • Ben J. Wattenberg, The Birth Dearth (1989) ??? Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future, (2005)
  • Alan Weisman. Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth? Little, Brown and Company, (2013) ISBN 0316097756
  • Ozzie Zehner, The Environmental Politics of Population and Overpopulation. University of California, Berkeley.
  • CK-12 Agriculture and human population growth
  • "Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot" (2014), a free book of photos of the social and ecological impact of human overpopulation. The Population Institute, Washington, DC
Quite a few of these should be restored, in particular works published by university presses or academic journals that aren't used as citations in the article. For example, see 7 and 10 on that list. There are still many others, such as Alan Weisman's book, which is specifically on the issue of human overpopulation.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
So why aren't these cited in the article - which already is heavily referenced (over 300 sources in considerable excess of similar articles, imo far exceeding what is needed)? --Zefr (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Some of them are, others are not; pretty much like many other articles. I don't see any problem with a further reading list included in an article with lots of citations. Should the list be trimmed? Sure. But I don't agree with purging it from the article entirely. And it is not unusual for articles to have this many citations, as the articles on the Grenfell Tower fire, capitalism and socialism demonstrate.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree with C.J. Griffin. In my view, if any of these sources are not relevant to or related to human overpopulation, then these particular sources should be removed, and then the 'further reading' section should be restored back to the article. The subject of human overpopulation is extremely complex and complicated and the topic is very deep and broad in scope, and I have no problem with the article containing as many hundreds, or even more than a thousand, of sources as are needed to provide citations in the main body of the article, and, in addition, as many hundreds of sources, in the 'further reading' section, as are relevant and related to the topic of the article, all in the service of building a high-quality encyclopedic article. Ijon Tichy (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I have begun the process of restoring the further reading section by adding the three items I mentioned above. I would recommend to anyone who wishes to make contributions to this list to not include items that a) are already used as citations and b) do not pertain directly to the subject of the article. Outdated items should also be avoided unless notable.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on the list, although I have some difficulty about how notability is judged. Per WP:RS AGE, can't we remove any item not published within the last decade? How unique can older publications be on a topic so thoroughly covered? I would also question items not published online for such a well-referenced subject. I recommend further winnowing per WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Zefr (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay I removed outdated sources and those referenced in the body of the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Zefr, thanks for your recommendation and for the links you provided to WP essays, guidelines and policies.

Regarding your question on items not published online, in my experience there are several great, highly informative and insightful books on human overpopulation (H.O.) that regretfully are not freely available online ...

By the way, as a side note, please note that if the title of a source (e.g. book, paper or video) does not contain the word 'overpopulation,' then that does not automatically imply the source is not about H.O. The topic of H.O. is extremely unpopular among the vast majority of global human society, including also practically almost all so-called 'politicians' and 'leaders' and 'authority figures,' and the vast majority of people globally don't want to know about H.O. (an "ignorance is bliss" type of preference), and many authors and editors feel that having something like the phrase 'overpopulation' in the title of their work is, more likely than not, to directly result in significantly reduced readership, viewership or sales of their work and thus some (not all) authors try to avoid using the term 'overpopulation' in the title of their work even when their work is directly relevant to H.O. Ijon Tichy (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and several of the sources I insisted on keeping do not contain any mention of "overpopulation" in the title. I think the section is looking better. My one request would be to have this restored to either further reading or external links: ( Why we should have fewer children: to save the planet (September 2016), The Guardian) It is a column in the Guardian (reliable source) which I believe makes important points regarding the issues of family size, overpopulation and climate change. I'll leave it here for discussion.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I find the Guardian piece (which is an op-ed, i.e., not a very good secondary source) to be superseded by the section on birth regulations. If you feel strongly about including it, let's work it into the article, but overall, imo it is weak. --Zefr (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Even though it is an op-ed, I feel that readers of this article might find some of the information useful and interesting. It's not a big deal though if it is not restored.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the Guardian piece should be restored, and preferably worked into the section on birth regulations, or into the external links section. The author appears to be "a research scholar at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University."
Zefr, I disagree with most of your deletions. For example, your removal of the YouTube videos. I have had this same discussion with you in the past but apparently I have not been able to get through to you the first time, so I will repeat what I said previously. Just because a video is posted on YouTube, does not automatically imply it is a low-quality video below the standards of WP, or that it automatically implies it is a copyright violation, or that it automatically violates WP:YT. In this case, the videos are interviews with a book author, discussing her recent book on human overpopulation. The videos are posted on the official YouTube channel of the media organization that conducted the interviews. Thus I do not see a good reason for removing the videos from the 'further reading' section, or if you removed the videos from the 'fr' section, you should have added them to the 'external links' section.
(Zefr, when you respond to this comment, or any future comment, please refrain from carpet-bombing the page with links to various WP essays and policies, and instead try to explain your perspectives using your own words. I am aware of WP guidelines but some of them sometimes are purposely written slightly vaguely in order to allow editors some leeway and freedom in interpretation and understanding, subject to the usual consensus process, and thus I strongly prefer to hear your own interpretation and your own specific reasoning for your personal perspective on an issue.) Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see any unique interpretation or insight from the 2 Youtube interviews, and on my screen, a Russia Today news ticker ran continuously. I think that's inappropriate for Wikipedia's policy on spam. Even if Youtube content is deemed of interest, it remains an opinion, and therefore not a very good secondary source. In general, following WP:YT and remaining skeptical and exclusive of most Youtube videos is the best policy for an encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Karen Shragg's background makes her qualified to discuss the topic of H.O. on an expert level. Her book is well-researched and supported by the best available scientific evidence. And in my view she provides several unique interpretations and insights. For example, among other things, her experiences and insights on dealing with people - anywhere from average persons in the street to leaders of the mainstream environmental NGOs (non-profit organizations) to powerful political and religious leaders and other authority figures - who ignored, neglected, ridiculed, minimized, or rejected the evidence about the impact of H.O. and/or did not want to do anything about addressing the issue of H.O. in their communities ... I also don't like the RT news ticker, but there is another video, without a ticker, in which Karen Shragg talks about her book. Ijon Tichy (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Population Bomb a stupid source needs to be explained for what it is if used in article

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_overpopulation&diff=prev&oldid=800248058 I was not the editor who used this 1968 book that was even said to be as much as garbage by it's alleged author. I am the editor who added facts about the ref and then I was undone and accused of POV for my encyclopedic edit there. I rv my undoing and am requesting further collaboration/discussion here rather than edit war-thanks.****Edit ooops TeeVeeed (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive editing, or you will be blocked. Stop edit warring. And stop your POV-pushing. Paul and Anne Ehrlich have written dozens of books since 1968, as well as dozens of peer-reviewed papers, and given dozens of academic talks at the best universities around the world (many of these talks are freely available on YouTube). All of which were generally very well received. Your obsessive focus on the 1968 book is a clear evidence of your agenda. Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
How dare you. The book used as the source was the 1968 one. It also was NOT a source for what was said in the article until I added the additional content. WHY would someone want that hidden anyhow? (WP:POV??)If I am fixated on the source, maybe the text needs to go or something referenced better should be used.TeeVeeed (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
May I just ask if mentioning this book is critical to the topic? Samsara 17:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that the failed predictions should be included to give the topic perspective somewhere in the article. But my main dispute is using the 1968 book as a source for what appears as current information. IF it is to be used it should be thoroughly discredited and noted as a failed theory since the original alleged author admitted that global starvation since 1979 as warned about in The Population Bomb did not happen.
Why would it be used as a source or reference and be cherry-picked to leave out the fact that it was wrong? TeeVeeed (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The book is half a century old. In a lot of fields, that would disqualify it unless it was considered seminal, hence my question. Samsara 18:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Also-I object to the way this ref-"Erlich-books" is formatted. It is used SIX TIMES in the article and how is anyone supposed to check the source with no page number listed and just a litany of books????? Am I supposed to read ALL of them to see where OUR text is wrong or right? (copied what the ref looks like: Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (1968), The Population Explosion (1990), The Population Bomb (1995) reprint, One With Nineveh: Politics, Consumption, and the Human Future (2004), The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment (2008), Humanity on a Tightrope (2010, with Robert E. Ornstein))TeeVeeed (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

TV has violated 3RR. (He has reverted me 3 times and Nigelj one time). He needs to self-revert immediately, or else he will be reported to AN/I and could receive a block or topic-ban, especially given his long history of edit-warring, sock-puppeting and other disruptive editing. He must try to build a consensus on this talk page for the inclusion of his (irrelevant, outdated) content *before* the content is added; it is a violation of WP policy to add the content and re-add it and force it into the article in clear violation of WP:BRD and WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Consensus while the discussion on the TP is still on-going. Ijon Tichy (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I've put it on full protection. Can we have a calm discussion about the subject matter now, please? The question I asked was, does this particular book need to be mentioned at all, or can the whole debate be avoided by removing the bone of contention? I noted the book is old. Are its contents still considered valid today? Samsara 19:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
No, definitely not - Ehrlich's book was extremely sensationalist/alarmist and it's now very out of date. It should probably be discussed, but only as key point in the development of the study (or at least public awareness) of human overpopulation. It was an important and definitely a notable book but it's not a good source for factual information today. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Fyddlestix.
The 1968 book does not need to be mentioned with regards to the content in dispute, specifically the following content: "Several scientists (including e.g. Paul and Anne Ehrlich) proposed that humanity should work at stabilizing its absolute numbers, as a starting point towards beginning the process of reducing the total numbers. They suggested the following solutions and policies: following a small-family-size socio-cultural-behavioral norm worldwide (especially one-child-per-family ethos), and providing contraception to all along with proper education on its use and benefits (while providing access to safe, legal abortion as a backup to contraception), combined with a significantly more equitable distribution of resources globally.[75]"
The above content is not supported by the 1968 book, but is supported by Ehrlich's relatively more recent books.
The above content is also supported by several of Ehrlich's relatively more recent talks, for example this recent talk at an Australian university. Ijon Tichy (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I would not have a problem if all six instances of the above-mentioned citation were removed, and the text properly cited or discussed for removal or possibly labled cn. And yes The Population Bomb was a seminal publication, but at the very least I think we need to include the fact that it was published in 1968, and debunked by actual events. (ie:world did not starve by 1979)TeeVeeed (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like we have a solution as far as the use of the book as a reference goes. I've unprotected the article so you can implement it. Samsara 20:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The 1968 book was not "debunked." It contains some predictions and future scenarios that have not materialized. Today the majority of serious scientists, including Paul Ehrlich himself, agree that most of the predictions and future scenarious were a mistake, but they also agree that the predictions were the least important portion of the book, and they also agree that the remainder of the contents of the book were largely correct and still relevant today, at least directionally. Thus in my view any mention of the predictions or future scenarios in the book should be discussed on the talk page of The Population Bomb to arrive at a consensus regarding inclusion in that article but not in Human overpopulation. Ijon Tichy (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Well I would not have a problem with not discussing the problems of the book if it were not used as a source for unrelated text. But-if Ehrlich's work is used I would like his standing mentioned, (failed scenario-maker what have you) because, WHY NOT? Again I have to ask, are we pushing an agenda here or building an encyclopedia? TeeVeeed (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I am currently gathering up several additional sources by Ehrlich in support of the content in the article. So yes, in my view Ehrlich's work (post-1969) should continue to be extensively used in this WP article. However, I agree with Fyddlestix that Ehrlich's 1968 book "should probably be discussed, but only as key point in the development of the study (or at least public awareness) of human overpopulation. It was an important and definitely a notable book but it's not a good source for factual information today."
Ehrlich's current standing in the scientific community is outstanding (no pun intended). The vast majority of serious scientists consider his mistakes in the ancient 1968 book to be unimportant today, relative to the remainder (i.e., relative to the non-predictive part) of the 1968 book which was excellent and still relevant today, and relative to the dozens upon dozens of well-received books and peer-reviewed papers he published from 1969 to date, as well as his many well-received talks that he gave from 1969 to date. And he is still frequently invited to talk at prestigious universities, research institutions and other scholarly organizations (several of his recent talks are posted on the official YouTube channels of these institutions).
Thus, in my view, the issue of discussing his incorrect predictions and future scenarious from almost 50 years ago is a problem of giving undue weight to some unimportant, irrelevant, outdated, indeed trivial factoid(s). But this is only my opinion based on my interpretation of WP policies and guidelines, and I admit I could be wrong. Thanks. Ijon Tichy (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay--I am going to leave the six citations and related article text alone for now while you find or change the cites, thank you. There is a "time" problem in the article aside from the "1968" problem, and I am looking over sections to help clarify/update/correct. This article needs some work. I still maintain that if we use sources and/or authors that have been academically criticised/proven incorrect/disputed--our readers deserve to know that and it is more encyclopediac to include reviews of our sources work and the only reason NOT to include criticisms/failures/disputes would be to WP:POV push an agenda which is not good. I am only looking at this in sections right now and I don't even know if we have a "criticism" type section? We probably need that here to make the article better in my opinion. (being careful not to duplicate the article The Population Bomb). Also some sections may need to be merged into other sections--like this "psychology" section unless there is something substantially related to psychology.TeeVeeed (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
My understanding of the consensus reached is that the references to the 1968 book would be removed, and the book mentioned only briefly for its contribution to establishing a framework, with the detailed discussion of the book being confined to its own article. Samsara 02:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
That is a pretty good wrap-up of it. I guess the problem is the way that the 1968 source was used in six places in the article citations and Ijon Tichy asked for a little time to reconfigure? When I looked at the problem, (the 1968 source is included with basically a list of books by Ehrlich et al-an improper citation afaik).... I realised that simply rm the cites would leave big chunks of unsourced text in the article, which could create further problems with the article? I must say that some sections of this article are pretty good-(no problems), but there are some problems specifically related to sourcing so I am willing to wait for the 1968 parts to be cleaned-up, but if that cannot be done in a timely manner should we just go ahead and remove the sourcing and the associated text or just the incorrect sourcing?TeeVeeed (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I would propose to just remove the incorrect sourcing without removing the associated text. I am confident various editors (including but not limited to myself) will provide the more precise, more specific sourcing (not only limited to Ehrlich's work) sometime in the near future. Ijon Tichy (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay-I think I just did that here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_overpopulation&diff=prev&oldid=800454554 could use another look TeeVeeed (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Reversions. I THOUGHT I conformed with sources but I was reverted. Please help review-thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_overpopulation&diff=prev&oldid=800751905

I undid this and asked the rv editor to discuss here please. Okay, so for the 1st one--I put that there and (I think) rearranged the placement of the cite to include the cited source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_overpopulation&diff=next&oldid=800580307 Note my citation template does not work so It's a pain for me to include quotes etc, must do everything manually. The second change----same thing.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_overpopulation&diff=next&oldid=800581149 Rapid population growth was not said to be entirely CAUSED by agriculture, rather that agriculture sustained population increase. Trying to head-off warring here, so any help would be great.

The first change should say page 73 in Techno-fix. From the text on page 73 https://www.amazon.com/Techno-Fix-Technology-Wont-Save-Environment/dp/0865717044 "despite the fact that hunger and starvation may not be due to food shortages ....due to political..." TeeVeeed (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The second disputed change I COPIED WORD FOR WORD "Agriculture and Human Population Growth by CK-12 //At Grade How advances in agriculture have been able to sustain larger human populations." (our text said that agriculture was wholly responsible for fueling growth which I think is untrue but definitely NOT refe'd there) and also in my edit summary questioned if this is an acceptable source. But since it was being used there I decided to go with what the source currently said.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I updated to fix the first one to add quote from page 73 in the source. The second disputed edit----I have no problem with a rewrite and re-source there. But it would have to be both.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Section Blanked

I just del the entire section, "Extremes". WP:OR, based on ??? source did not even conform to what was said there. It could be a good section but needs to be done from scratch.TeeVeeed (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Population "explosion" pejorative

So the term "population explosion" is used in article six times. Following WP:NPOV I suggest that alternative terms are substituted there. Also-it appears that the use of the word "explosion" in this subject is heavily related to author Ehrich who used the phrase as a book title so use here implies Wikipedia's endorsement of marketing/spam.TeeVeeed (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

According to the Mirriam-Webester dictionary, the phrase originated in 1903, so I don't think you can blame Ehrich for the usage. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/population%20explosion Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes-I like the phrase there " increased survival and exponential population growth", especially use of the word exponential and even how they use :pyramid. Not "blaming" Ehrlich but it was used as a title (The Population Explosion Hardcover – April 26, 1990
by Paul R. Ehrlich (Author), Anne H. Ehrlich ). I'd like to use "exponential" as a substitute for "explosion" in some instance(s). Regardless of how it :was coined, it, "population explosion"----should maybe be in quotes if used in article? That's one reason I would like to see it replaced because it :maybe should be in quotes, but then it could be perceived as "scare quotes" which we don't want either. Also-I'm not sure that a natural process of :exponential population growth could be considered "explosive"? Expansive-yes. Using the metaphor "explosion" multiple times just implies something that :maybe we don't want to appear dramatic or take literary license with on multiple occasions here?TeeVeeed (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The phrase is in common use so I don't see a problem. I would consider "exponential population growth" to be an acceptable colloquial synonym for "population explosion", though neither is, strictly speaking, literally true. A more accurate description would be "unsustainable population growth". Rick Norwood (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I would not object to "unsustainable population growth" if it were used in the right context and sourced and credited to says who. That would be preferable to "explosion" imo.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • unsustainable population growth
  • exponential population rise
  • increased survival and population expansion growth

Okay there is a problem with this list and using other terms. "Global population growth peaked long ago

The chart below shows that global population growth reached a peak in 1962 and 1963 with an annual growth rate of 2.2%; but since then, world population growth was halved.

For the last half-century we have lived in a world in which population growth has been declining. The UN projects that this decline will continue in the coming decades." from https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth/ So---using "growth" in article could be a big problem. Just noting this here for substitute-watchlist ideas AND something to look at throughout the article.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You need to be careful to distinguish between population growth, population has increased and continues to increase, and the rate of population growth, which has declined. They are two different things. I even published a science fiction story on this subject, titled "Empty Earth", and there have been other sf stories about this important topic. On the other hand, human overpopulation is still a problem in many parts of the world, especially India and its neighbors. It will continue to be a problem as long as large numbers of human beings die of starvation. No doubt, in the short term, you are also correct to say that most starvation is political rather than technological. But to append this observation to a paragraph describing population growth over tens of thousands of years is misleading. I'll continue to try to work with you, and to produce a good article. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes that was exactly my point and shock actually at how "population growth" means something in the academic sense other than what it intuitively/literally means. Further down in the article growth/"transition" explains (or trys) to explain it better, but yeah I'm now very wary about "growth" used in article. And you may have noticed that I templated the entire article to hopefully get some TLC for it. I am almost at the point where I don't want to look-at or touch the article any further myself and thinking about working on it in sandbox mode because I fear chopping it up worse than it already is. TeeVeeed (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human overpopulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Again with "explosion"

My change of explosion to rise was undone with an odd recommendation in the edit summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_overpopulation&diff=next&oldid=801848855 . Sorry if someone does not like it but we do not copy metaphors word for word as a rule here. In fact we try to avoid that right? Besides the fact that I feel it needs to be edited for WP:NPOV reason, (it is sensational and pejorative), and promotes the work of a specific academic, (academic promotional spam), it is redundant and excessive. I do not believe that it should be used anywhere in article unless it is self-explanatory, (paraphrase) IE:"Author Ehrlich has called increasing population an "explosion". I will be changing all uses of explosion in article and if anyone has a problem please discuss it here-thanks. TeeVeeed (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If the source uses explosion, then we need to use explosion, but we can put it in quotations, to signify that the source says explosion. This way, we will not create the wrong impression that WP says that the population exploded, but we will correctly communicate the fact that the source uses "explosion."
You are fully entitled to your personal views. Your personal opinions are valid, and should be respected. However, I do not share your personal views that "explosion" violates NPOV, I do not feel "it is sensational and pejorative" by any stretch of the imagination, and I disagree with your personal opinion that it "promotes the work of a specific academic," and I do not share your view that it is "academic promotional spam" by any stretch of the imagination nor that "it is redundant and excessive."
You also appear to be incorrect when you say "specific academic." The vast majority of Ehrlich's peer-reviewed papers and books are written with co-authors, all of whom are first-rate scientists working at first-rate research and/or teaching institutions.
I suggest you go back over the edits you have made in recent days, and revert back all your modifications of the term explosion to restore the term (whenever the term was used by the source), but I also suggest that you add quotations around all occurrences of the term, i.e., use "explosion" everywhere instead of simply explosion. Thanks. Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong that if the source uses explosion we must use explosion! In fact we strive to not. see WP:DoF. I do not want to use "scare quotes" in the article but I do not object to using the term where it may be appropriate and as you stated correctly attributed to the author. I have only changed it one time recently, in the section: Causes. Thank you for respecting my opinions on this, but I hope that you will also respect that we simply do not use the same word throughout an article without allowing editors to change the word. TeeVeeed (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Putting this here for editor reference. MOS:QUOTE and this Use–mention distinction (not saying I personally have practiced editing this way consistently and that it is not somewhat confusing, but these are good guidelines.)TeeVeeed (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with MOS:QUOTE. I think MOS:QUOTE makes sense and is reasonable. However, please note that MOS is a guideline and not a WP policy.
Reading several peer-reviewed papers and books on human overpopulation, the word 'explosion' occurs frequently. I don't think you will be able to get away with whitewashing the article entirely of all occurrences of "explosion." In my view this WP article should correctly represent the sources, many of which use the word "explosion." Ijon Tichy (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean about "whitewashing"? Has anyone NOT related to Erhlich used the term "explosion"? (seeing as how it is the title of a few of his things--things that have been proven wrong FWIW). Even if we are using Erlich's work as source for the article, we do NOT have to repeatedly use his metaphors. We actually SHOULD NOT. Maybe used sparingly in direct ref to the source maybe in italics if you bothered to read Use–mention distinction I posted above? MAYBE this entire article should be merged with Erhlich? IDK but the way you are POV pushing it sure looks that way. Also, "long-term"--WHY do you keep undoing that?TeeVeeed (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I templated it for cleanup

So, running into problems everywhere in article. I actually FOUND a source (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781829/) to some unsourced material that I deleted yesterday, at the time that I deleted the (marked as CN since 2016 I think) info., the thing that I just came across was not listed AFAIK in the ref cite sources...and it was a kind of weird statement about AIDS in Africa and population rise. Over-editing and the time situation is probably the main cause of problems along with POV stuff. I am hoping that some more eyes can help bring this Level 4 VITAL article up to better standards.TeeVeeed (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So far, I've read the Lead and the Overview. The only thing I might object to is the idea that space colonies can reduce overcrowding. I'm a science fan, and favor space colonies, but the idea that space colonies can effect overpopulation seems unlikely and is certainly not referenced. I would favor removing that sentence. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
There are some sections that are okay. Space colonization has been disputed repeatedly (for and against including) if you look at edit history and the archive. Living on artificial islands is probably more realistic in terms of finding more usable space but I'm so burned-out from checking the refs/cites that I am inclined to not expand anything until some of the problems are solved. The "time" one is pretty bad since the article reads like a moving-target due to it's longevity and updated/revised info. EX: info. sourced from edits made in 2008 but when you check the source the info. has been updated or proved incorrect such as the 1968 info. We have cites using 1990 figures that have been updated to reflect more recent. We use the word "recent" to refer to cites found in 2008 et Al when more "recent" info. contradicts the info. So one thing could be to make very clear and not use "recent" but change that to exact times such as: In 2011 there were X many people.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've done some work on the article. There is still a lot to be done. Taking the templates one at a time, what sections of the article do you see as unclear? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I like what you did so far. The can not/cannot bugaboo might be better served by changing the sentence to "impossible" where "cannot" s/b used? Only asking because it pops-up in my grammar editor as a rl and I think I changed it both ways myself and it could be a continuing unintended dispute? As far as synthesising data-well we have to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH here, and it is SO tempting when the numbers are there and it is a matter of simple math, but really we must use a source that has done the math. I think I was seeing some OR with the images etc. So the reader can click on our cites and see where we got the info. but I think we can put a few sourced sentences so the user can do their own math although then it could get to be like one of those articles that has MULTIPLE countries listed-(which may not be a bad idea--or it could be a bad idea and make the article more messy)TeeVeeed (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with most of the templates you have added recently. I think most and probably all of them can be removed.
I also disagree with your persistent efforts to change the article into one in which human overpopulation is some theoretical future possibility. This push on your part is not in line with the sources. The best scientific sources, by several first-rate scientists, including but not limited to Paul Ehrlich, say the planet has been overpopulated for decades, even centuries. The article is going to represent the consensus of the scientific community, despite the fact that you obviously just don't like it. As I said before: your personal views, opinions, emotions and perspectives are valid, are important, and must be fully respected at all times; however, per WP policies, your personal thoughts and feelings, or my personal thoughts and feelings or those of any WP editor, will receive no weight at all in WP article content. Ijon Tichy (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
You are attributing a false agenda to my edits here. Since you have stooped to editor behavioral issues, I'll just say here that your WP:OWN andWP:SPA and author/professor/academic SPAM editing behavior has me questioning what YOUR agenda is here? I am trying to help build an encyclopedia. I have been personally willing to overlook some of your behaviors, especially the personal slights and lies where I am concerned because you have asked for some time to help improve the references-but your continuing POV pushing over trivial edits has me doubting my decision NOT to pursue asking you to take a voluntary or even request an administrative break from this topic.
Per WP:BRD and WP:Consensus and WP:Tagging pages for problems, I am removing most of these tags. There is no consensus on this talk page to deface this article with a giant wall of confusing and ambiguous tags. Furthermore, this wall of tags is also ugly, un-attractive, hideous, and repulsive. This article is a work in progress (just like all WP articles, to one degree or another), and new sources are being provided every few days (as I'm continuing to re-read books and papers and lectures by Ehrlich and other scientists), and old sources are being updated, and, overall, work is being done in an on-going effort to continue to improve the article. If anybody would like to retain this disgusting, overly-long, overly-massive, unsightly list of tags, they would need to first find consensus for it on this talk page, per WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. Ijon Tichy (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Removing all of those unsightly tags is definitely an improvement.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Examples of countries that are overpopulated

TeeVeeed, you asked for examples. I provided an example but I self-reverted per BRD because I am not sure if that is what you are looking for? Please note that Ehrlich and his co-authors say that the planet, overall, is overpopulated. They are much more focused on the overall planet than they are on specific countries, because, according to them, the effects of human overpopulation are global-wide, i.e., they are interested primarily in global issues such as global warming, global loss of species population and global species extinctions, global loss of biodiversity, global damage to fertile soils and other global life support services, etc. Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

For example, in One with Nineveh, top page 92 says "a planet that is already overpopulated," and top page 110 says "global population overshoot." Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I del this due to it being WP:SYNTH and confusing regionally with globally as per sources. If human overpopulation is defined by global or regional resources being "all used up" causing human life to be unsustained, what I am looking for if you insist on continuing to rv a very MINOR yet clarifying from what I see as a MISLEADING statement, I am going to need a rock-solid example, sourced of an incident of human overpopulation, very simple. If human overpopulation is PROJECTED or predicted, we need to be CLEAR and say it like that not assume that it has or "will" definitely happen because WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL. It is a grammar usage thing and you seem to be trying to make it a POV thing? TeeVeeed (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It is customary on WP to maintain the long-term, stable version of the article - especially the lead section - while the discussion is still on-going on the talk page. Please stop modifying the stable lead while we are awaiting the input of other editors on this issue. Thanks. Ijon Tichy (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The Lede is misleading please help

So I have continually had my intended to be helpful grammar edits in the lede reverted. The problem is that it keeps getting reverted back to a version which is in dispute--(by myself at least). I propose that the lede and first sentence needs to be collaboratively changed to something that does not make FALSE implications and misleading statements. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_overpopulation&diff=prev&oldid=802673111

I am asking that the grammar in the bold areas please be discussed also again, "long term" s/b long-term? I say the words used be changed to something like "can occur if" instead of "occurs when", but I could be wrong it may not even BE a good opening sentence/definition? IF something "occurs when" when has it occurred before is my question? Do we EVER use a perfect future tense on WP? THAT is what I have been trying to edit but it keeps getting undone.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Human overpopulation (or population overshoot) occurs when the ecological footprint of a human population in a specific geographical location exceeds the carrying capacity of the place occupied by that group. Overpopulation can further be viewed, in a long term perspective, as existing if a population cannot be maintained given the rapid depletion of non-renewable resources or given the degradation of the capacity of the environment to give support to the population. Changes in lifestyle could reverse overpopulated status without a large population reduction.[1][2][3]

The term human overpopulation refers to the relationship between the entire human population and its environment: the Earth,[4] or to smaller geographical areas such as countries. Overpopulation can result from an increase in births, a decline in mortality rates, an increase in immigration, or an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources. It is possible for very sparsely populated areas to be overpopulated if the area has a meagre or non-existent capability to sustain life (e.g. a desert). Advocates of population moderation cite issues like quality of life, carrying capacity, and risk of starvation as a basis to argue for population decline. Scientists suggest that the human impact on the environment as a result of overpopulation, profligate consumption and proliferation of technology has pushed the planet into a new geological epoch known as the Anthropocene.[5][6][7]

It is customary on WP to maintain the long-term, stable version of the article - especially the lead section - while the discussion is still on-going on the talk page. Please stop modifying the stable lead while we are awaiting the input of other editors on this issue. Thanks. Ijon Tichy (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
TeeVeeed, I don't mean to be rude or to attack you. I am just asking because I honestly don't know. Here is my question: do you truly understand the concept of carrying capacity? It is " ... the maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, ..." The key word here is indefinitely. Paul Ehrlich and his co-authors as well as other scientists are saying that many specific countries, and more generally and much more importantly the planet as a whole, have now (in fact, decades ago) exceeded the maximum population size of humans that the environment can sustain indefinitely i.e. that can be sustained for infinite time into the future. These scientists are not saying that agriculture in e.g. the US has been exhausted now and has collapsed now, they are not saying the US government has collapsed and the rule of law has collapsed and the US is now in now a mad-max-like dystopian state (although these scientists very strongly have criticized all US governments from the 1960's to date, including both so-called 'Republicans' and so-called 'Democratic' governments). They are saying human overpopulation has occurred - and is occurring now - because e.g. the US, and many other countries, cannot feed, house, cloth, provide fresh water, etc. for their human populations, sustainably, forever into the future, without destroying their natural ecosystems and the ecosystem services that nature provides. These scientists are saying the condition of human overpopulation has already occurred; they are saying we live today in an overpopulated world; they are also saying human overpopulation is today a key contributor to today's poverty, today's climate change and global warming, today's wars, bad governments, traffic jams, overdevelopment, today's extinction of populations and species of wildlife and flora and fauna, today's destruction or degradation of ecosystems, etc. Today.
Yeah no let's just say that I don't understand "carrying capacity" and I want to look it up on WP. I am interested in the WP user experience. I tagged the article about contradictions with "carrying capacity" because the carrying capacity article has been tagged since 2014 saying that there is a conflict with the Human overpopulation article. Just because you think that you know something does not mean that you WP:OWN the topic. I keep trying to tell you that the article as it is does not present in a factual encyclopediac way. You are editing it in a POV way as someone who thinks they know something. I am looking at it as someone who is trying to learn something and explain something and verify something and it does not work with the "humans ruin everything" or whatever agenda it is you believe or want to defend there.TeeVeeed (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but may I respectfully disagree with you. I am assuming good faith on your part but I don't think you have a monopoly here on writing the article with the intent of providing the best user-experience. I always try to do my best to contribute based on strict adherence to WP editorial policies as well as behavioral policies. (For example, that's why I did not exceed the 3RR limit when you did. Your 3RR violation was a blockable offense, and moreover, your citation from the 1968 book by Ehrlich has violated several WP key policies e.g. NPOV and perhaps even BLP, your citation was grossly overly-simplistic and partially - but significantly - misrepresented Ehrlich's work. I will comment on your nuance-free and complexity-free citation from 'the pupulation bomb' further later on your user talk page. And by the way your work on e.g. Fidel Castro about 10 months ago also suffered, in my view, from gross over-simplicity.)
I don't feel that I am behaving like I WP:OWN the article or that I am trying to push a POV. Like you, I am also here mostly to learn, not to assert my knowledge. And I readily admit that I have learned some things from you too (some of your behavior and edits on this article were bad, but also some of your behavior and your contributions good and informative and I learned from those. Overall I am glad that you are here and that you are providing a fresh new pair of eyes to look at this article.) And I also admit I could be wrong. If I did not think I could be wrong I would not bother spending large amounts of time talking with you on this talk page to try to address your concerns, and trying to provide the sources/ citations you requested, etc.
Your idea that my "agenda" is that "humans ruin everything" is grossly overly-simplistic and grossly incorrect. My only "agenda" is to contribute to WP while strictly adhering to all key WP editorial and behavioral policies and guidelines. My personal views of the problem of human overpopulation are irrelevant and are of no value whatsoever to Wikipedia. Please don't turn this into a personal dispute. Instead, please try to stay focused on content and not on me, or else you could be accused of ad-hominem attacks (e.g. that you are accusing me of being a misanthrope or something like that, which, by the way, could not be further from the truth --- I don't think that you, or anybody else on the planet for that matter, loves people/ humanity more than I do). Ijon Tichy (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I hope this helps. I'm just trying to be helpful, and not to attack you. If you feel that I have attacked you please understand this is not my intention. Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Scientists also give some examples of regions where the ecosystems have collapsed completely resulting in starvation and sharp population reduction, e.g. Easter Island, ancient Nineveh, etc. They also give examples of regions where the ecosystem has collapsed but the region appears - misleadingly appears - to the average observer/ tourist like the region still has a healthy ecosystem, e.g. the Comoro Islands. Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
In summary, the scientists are trying to say that human overpopulation has been a big problem for decades and even centuries or even millenia, is a very big problem now, and is extremely likely - all but certain - to be an even bigger problem in the foreseeable future, and that the detrimental effects of human overpopulation will continue to just get worse in practically every passing year. At least this is my understanding from reading the books and papers.
In my view one of the problems is that space is very limited on WP and we cannot write page after page after page in just the 'lead' or 'intro' sections to explain the basics of the idea of human overpopulation. We have to find a reasonable method, however imperfect and imprecise, to succinctly summarize several introductory book chapters (in e.g. Ehrlich's books) into one or two short paragraphs. The scientists are saying that the issue of human overpopulation is extremely complicated and that this issue strongly interacts with, impacts and is impacted by practically all key aspects of life on the planet, and very significantly overlaps/ intersects/ interacts with all key aspects of global human society and individual human lives and the lives of non-human beings on the planet as well as the health/ state of all key aspects of the biosphere.
In summary, I don't think it is possible to come up with a simple, neat, clean, elegant, perfect introductory phrase in the lead that is going to satisfy all WP editors and all WP users/ readers. That's why I'm OK with the stable long-term version of the first sentence of the lead, i.e. the lead that reads "human overpopulation occurs when the ecological footprint of a human population in a specific geographical location exceeds the carrying capacity etc ..." Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
See that is where you and I are having trouble. Is Human overpopulation a topic/subject as defined by Erhlich or is it something else? (concept idea theory...) . The topic has been revised numerous times through history so I am having trouble giving the entire lede over to Erhlich's ideas and definitions. You seem to want to make the article lede define the subject as where it is now by Erlich's terms even though there are current conflicts with his predictions? Maybe some of the Ehrlich stuff would fit better in a section about the environment or specifically devoted to his ideas? I am looking more at the "big picture" for the lede and looking for a clear definition of what human overpopulation is and maybe if it is still a prediction or if it has already occurred or is currently occurring and I don't think we should be wishy-washy or misleading about what we are saying. I also think that in a lede we should include both sides since it is not a fringe view to say that the topic is disputed/contentious. I tried reading articles in other language editions of WP to see if there is a "better" international version and the Mexican WP has a whole different approach for example. Superpoblación TeeVeeed (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was an edit conflict, TeeVeeed your comment was posted while I was in the process of editing my last comment. I have now posted my revised comment which may hopefully be more clear. Ijon Tichy (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, my knowledge/ understanding of human overpopulation, and very closely related issues (such as e.g. the predicament of the massive over-complexity that the global human society finds itself in, due largely although not exclusively to the enormous human overpopulation, and the predicament of the powerful and massive interaction/ intersection between human overpopulation and many key aspects of the prevailing global order/ 'capitalism'/ the global industrial economy/ private property/ consumption and over-consumption etc) comes from reading not only the work of Ehrlich and his co-authors but also books, papers and lectures by many others, including e.g. Catton, Rob Hengeveld, Jan Lundberg, Lindsey Grant, Joseph Tainter and other scholars/ authors.
I have also read the work of scientists who claim there is no human population problem. However, first-rate scientists such as Ehrlich and his co-authors as well as other scientists have shown repeatedly and very convincingly that the work of these overpopulation-denying scientists is of poor quality and that the work of the denialists suffered from many serious flaws, indeed fatal flaws. And the work of these denialists is generally not very well received by the objective, independent scientific community. Which opens the question/ discussion of whether we want to begin to cite relatively poor-quality scientific work in this WP article, or whether it may be a better idea to try to limit the citations to high-quality works by first-rate scientists ... But I am going to keep an open mind and I am open to discussing this issue as well as other issues you may deem worthy of a conversation. Thanks for your contributions. Ijon Tichy (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Well I'm not saying that we should edit the article in favor of "denialists" (of human overpopulation posing problems) POV OR those who claim that it is. If we are using high-quality sources, demographers should be included of course and demographers have consistently proven Erhlich wrong. Also. I tend to favor demographic resources because although they do make mistakes, they have real numbers and facts which is more encyclopedic. Erhlich did not invent the idea of Human overpopulation, so I object to making his work the focus of this article. The article does not have a politics section, but what you mentioned could maybe be expanded into a politics section? Separating regional-local from global is another thing that is wrong with our article, and our definitions. I'd like to see that cleared up.TeeVeeed (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

See also climate change

Climate change was mentioned a lot in the article, maybe adding the climate change article in the see also tab? WingRiddenAngel (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Human overpopulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleting some stuff from this- sources are dead links or non-existent ref. Could use some more eyes here especially the red-links in the article ref section. TeeVeeed (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's a link to the GEO-4 report whose pages have now gone at the UNEP (possibly because the GEO programme is ongoing and is at least at GEO-5) ... GEO-4 report (English). While I can find some of the quotes in this PDF, I can't find all of them, so perhaps the report is missing some material that appeared on the original website (which, from the Wayback link, seems rather comprehensive). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Human overpopulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Population clock-going backwards?

[1] 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)

Nevermind. It was incorrectly attributed. I found where the data was coming from and added the source and noted the discrepancy between US pop. clock. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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?

Suggested addition

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)

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)

Neutrality concern: lack of critical viewpoints

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?

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

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)
But that's an Appeal to popularity fallacy. In either case neither of these groups would qualify as reliable sources.--76.69.47.149 (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect person is linked to in this article

The agricultural scientist David Pimentel[2] is referenced in this article. The link to David Pimentel is incorrect, as that person is a Mexican weightlifter. A new article for #REDIRECT Draft:David Pimentel (Scientist) has been proposed but is currently awaiting decision on acceptance. Myndwalk (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed the links. No matter what the result of the proposal is, these links are wrong. Good job spotting this. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

exponential rise

"It (the picture) shows exponential rise in world population that has taken place since the end of the seventeenth century."

Humanity has grown exponentially since its speciation, not only "since the end of the seventeenth century". The growth can be seen in that image since about 2000-1000 BCE and it can be guessed/estimated that it's exponential. It would be more obvious with a logarithmic population scale, where exponential growth would be linear. Then we could see that it is not actually a single straight line, as the exponent/growth constant varies e.g. due to technology like agriculture, industrialization, the contraceptive pill or factors that limit growth. There are also dips, e.g. from the plague. Darsie42 (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Kissinger Report?

The History section jumps from "19th century" to 2017, then back to 2014. The Kissinger Report, published December 10, 1974, was the first internal document of the US government to call attention to the global ramifications of explosive human growth. The fact this document is omitted from this article is bewildering. Many of its predictions in regards to malnutrition, famine, and deforestation have come true. It even warned of "the need for large expenditures for services such as dependency support, education, and health which would be used for more productive investment" which is fundamentally driving the argument for universal Basic income. It also stresses that the desire for better standards of living are inversely connected to population growth. --FordGT90Concept (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@FordGT90Concept: give me a day or so to look at it and then i'll add it to the appropriate section if acceptable.--Buzles (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Criticism?

There doesn't appear to be any criticism of overpopulation in this article, and as such it seems a rather one-sided article. Wandavianempire (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that came out wrong, I meant criticism of the concept of overpopulation, or disagreement over whether the Earth is overpopulated yet. Wandavianempire (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wandavianempire: please look at this section.--Buzles (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Now I feel stupid. Thanks. Wandavianempire (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal 14 May 2020

Overshoot (population) → Human overpopulation – Obviously, both of the concepts are same. Therefore, we should merge Overshoot (population) to Human overpopulation. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hiya, I've been working on the Overshoot article recently. I'm not opposed to your suggestion, but would like to wait to see what others say. My plan was to edit the third paragraph in a bit. The third reference is different than the others and defines the term to explain livestock population fluctuations up and down towards an equilibrium when putting them in a new pasture. I was planning to expand that and split it from the rest of the text. All the other references are about Human overpopulation, this is clear, and might be better to move here.
I'm especially uncomfortable about how the concept "carrying capacity" (K) from ecology is being used incorrectly in these environmentalism articles. In ecology, by definition "overshoot" over K is not exactly possible, nor can the mathematical constant K change, and these equations hold equally for systems with finite resources. If the sources are using it as such, okay, but I'm finding that the imprecise wording is often not found in the sources. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose overshoot can happen anytime and can refer to any species. Human overpopulation specifically refers to the overpopulation of humans. Human overpopulation already has so much content as it is.--76.69.117.20 (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Closing (no merge) given the uncontested objection and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Resolved

Very poor article

The article does not appear to cite any evidence base to any established scientific theory of 'overpopulation'. The introduction appears completely subjective. This article would be lucky to get a pass if submitted as undergrad work 88.110.96.172 (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT GirthSummit (blether) 07:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not my job to try and fix someone's pseudoscience. My preference would be to nuke the article from orbit! 89.242.188.218 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of overpopulation being a reality is already mentioned in one section and another subsection and there is plenty of scholarly citations arguing for it to be a reality. You are obliged to address the specific issues when tagging the article like that.--Buzles (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I tagged the article because it includes an awful lot of unconnected or tangentially connected rationalization for the claims about overpopulation -- instead of talking about the topic itself. Some of these claims are strung together to make arguments many of which, as the IP notes, are more like a student research paper argument -- rather than a summary of the scholarship. I started removing some of the content, but you would have to do an awful lot of fine toothed removal of content to make it a decent quality article, Sadads (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I have removed a fair amount of content, but it still meanders all over the place and is really kindof awful -- I am partially thinking this needs a full refresh, and some really heavy edits, (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Sadads, why not leave it in and start another article discussing criticism of the overpopulation hypothesis. As it is there is repeated mention at least twice of criticism against this theory. A separate article would be better if people are concerned for collective point of view.--Buzles (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that the article as it currently stands doesnt actually describe overpopulation in any comprehensible way, it wanders all over the place and shifts back and forth between original research, argumentation and non-nuetral summaries of loosely connected research. The content I removed yesterday helps a bit, but it still is a terrible mix of topics and arguments and poorly handles the main subject of the article (the current state of thinking on what human over population is). The article right now is all wrapped up in the history of human population, negative environmental consequences of humans, and doesn't talk much about humanity (its just a bunch of numbers strung together). Sadads (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It needs focus and/or structure. Imho overpopulation is a concept that allows basically to discuss any impact of human population. I think discussing it in differentiation to ocerconsumption (imho what is really meant by the term), could help. Nsae Comp (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
PS: I fully agree its a mess and very onesided. Nsae Comp (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
E.g.: imho it should be earlier discussed as a variant of the Malthusian catastrophe and that school of social science. That again would help focus and connect it with what it tries to say. I introduces some focus in the past. At the moment I dont have the time to dig in, sry. Good dynamic/editing-discussion going on though! Nsae Comp (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Per @Nsae Comp: I restored my version -- @Buzles: -- too much of what you have added back is OR examples and analysis -- please be selective, and rewrite, instead of adding back unprecedented content -- you can restore individual parts of this content, but it needs to be verifiable and not original research, Sadads (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Sadads, I've made specific edits to ensure that personnel commentary is not mistaken for authority. I already stated I am not a fan of Attonborough. I edited his commentary to verify that he is giving own anecdotes and it not an authority on it. The problem with you removing large bodies of texts is it's making the article very, very messy and difficult to navigate, not to mention the pictures are falling out of place into the wrong sections. Please alter or replace the texts instead. Do not remove so much content like that.--Buzles (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
That's the thing, I removed the content over many small edits (something like 20), you keep adding everything back en mass -- messiness is not the reason to restore the whole edit. In particular, the history of human population section is excessive and unnecessary there is a whole another article about that. See edit by @C.J. Griffin: by example. However, unsourced claims or random insertions of sourced claims that are not explicitly about overpopulation is WP:SYNTH. Sadads (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sadads, please tag the sections you have concerns about. I will correct/replace them accordingly. I have already begun the process. Please read WP:CLUTTER and WP:NOBLANKING before removing large bodies of texts.--Buzles (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buzles: Neither of those links, point to anything related to what you are talking about...The problem is not a matter of replacing sections or content -- its that the sections include a lot of random, random content better included in other articles or not included at all. I am removing the content that is not about overpopulation -- if you want to expand or fix sections, please do so incrementally as well. The goal is to do small back and forth edits to improve the articles -- that is the standard process for editing. Sadads (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Sadads I have corrected the link shortcut and also ask you to read WP:PRESERVE.--Buzles (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please tag the sections you have concerns about

I am in the process of making some corrections and have already made mentioned of certain individuals giving anecdotes and not substitutes for researches. Please tag further sections so they can be edited/replaced. Please be mindful of WP:CLUTTER and WP:NOBLANKING when aiming to remove large bodies of texts, which will indeed be replaced where required.--Buzles (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sadads, go ahead and tag them so readers are informed that they are dubious sources. I will replace them where required.--Buzles (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop, you are acting like you have Wikipedia:Ownership of content -- I am simply systematically, and small incremental ways, removing content per: WP:IRRELEVANT and WP:USI. You have now violated the three revert rule. @Nsae Comp and C.J. Griffin: The consensus is that this article is a mess right?Sadads (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
We have tagged it. I am not owning the article. You need to stop with such allegations and remain WP:CIVIL. You are already engaged in an edit war elsewhere and have been warned. I have tagged sections that need updating and so have others. I explained to you that you're removing large bodies of texts and to read WP:CLUTTER and WP:NOBLANKING as well as WP:PRESERVE. You certainly did not remove in "small and incremental ways." We need to tackle this one step at a time without messing it up so badly.--Buzles (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing to preserve for some of this content though: its not in scope of the article. Also, if you want me to tag problems on the article so you can address them, then don't remove them.... The problem with the article is not that its salvagable content: its that it is out of scope content... its something that belongs in other articles (like random statistics about megacities). The only subject being covered in the article should be the study of overpopulation itself (causes, expected consequences, solutions, critiques) -- anything else is WP:SYNTH. Sadads (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not what WP:PRESERVE states. You are advised to replace what is incorrect, to keep the article intact. Please be mindful.--Buzles (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
So two things:
  • First PRESERVE doesn't apply when the content is not using WP:Summary Style to share the expert opinions (hence WP:SYNTH) or out-of-scope statistics that the original source was not analyzing in light of the question "what is human overpopulation?" (such as the price cost of desalination? Why would this be heavily discussed in an article about overpopulation, who knows). I am removing argumentation and unclear/unhelpful written content. Remember the policy is Wikipedia:No original research
  • Second, WP:Preserve doesn't apply when something is already covered in another article. Most of the information in this article (such as the history of human population) is covered in other articles (population by country, region, and human population to just name a few). Most of this is out of date (most of the sources are older than 10 years) -- the out of dateness of the whole article, means that the people who can update the information are not doing so -- because its being maintained in multiple places creating Wikipedia:Content forking. We don't want to do this, especially when that forking is designed to create an WP:UNDUE focus on a very specific point of view.
The edits we have made so far are generally uncontroversial, and please stop acting like we are ruining the article -- trying to make it understandable at a basic level, Sadads (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, good writing includes cutting poorly written content so that the main elements are understandable -- each time I read the article, I am more and more confused by it -- its an onslot of statistics and random examples, and I only feel like I actually have a little bit of understanding of what is talked about, Sadads (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
And ALSO, the article is 129kbs of prose which is WP:TOOBIG per the definition, and shouldn't all be contained in one article -- so trimming is a must, Sadads (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I dont think quantity is the problem. It just lacks structure and focus. Lots of the things taken out sofar are better handled by the dedicated article. E.g. green revolution. Nsae Comp (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed there is simply too much information about the history of population growth, much of it not connected to the actual article. Sadads (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Goods for sterilization
  2. ^ "David Pimentel". Cornell University. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_overpopulation/Archive_1&oldid=1136805287"