Will human population and economic activity exceed the Planets carrying capacity?

[ruby sparks]

What does OVERpopulation mean?

That there's overpopulation. Of itself it doesn't distinguish between for example hugely overpopulated or slightly overpopulated. It certainly does not imply that overpopulation is the only problem.

 

[skepticalbip]

What does OVERpopulation mean?

That there's overpopulation. Of itself it doesn't distinguish between for example hugely overpopulated or slightly overpopulated. It certainly does not imply that overpopulation is the only problem.

You still didn't define "overpopulation". What criteria is used to distinguish "current population" and "overpopulation"? How is the term, "overpopulation", not a value judgement that it is a problem?

 

[ruby sparks]

How is the term, "overpopulation", not a value judgement that it is a problem?

Well, for example, because it seems to be fairly well accepted by many scientists that the world is overpopulated in relation to it's current carrying capacity, which is related to things like economic activity and so on. And it's not so much a value judgement that it's a problem, it's based on scientific analysis.

By the way, you have switched from 'main if not the only problem' to 'a problem'. That is not raising the same question.

 

[steve_bank]

When it all comes to a herad I will be dead and buried. If you are in your 40s or younger the future when you are older may be grim. Diminished food and water supplies. I watched a show a few years ago that covers all of climate dynamics and changes. There is current along the European coast that acts as a weather moderator. The local cold warm water convection currents mix nutrients in the water. The current ultimate is riven by cold water falling at the poles. If that current stalls the weather of Europe could change drastically and quickly.

There are other aspects. Deserts and good farmland are determined by the Earth's rotation, Coriolis Effect, and temperature. A slight change in the overall air currents globally and what is now productive farming can be destroyed. Monssons become drought.

A University Of Washington study predicted the Columbia River will drop due to reduced mountain snow packs due to global warming. Eastern Washing is in large part high plains desert. It is a rich agricultural area watered d in large part by the snow pack spring melts.

The UN study says the most marginalized people are already seeing increasing food insecurity due to climate change. The US govt is predicting the USA will eventually stop being a net food exported due to climate change.

So, if you are young...good luck you may need it. The problem is we are born into a comfortable well fed reality and grow up thinking it will last forever regardless.

 

[skepticalbip]

How is the term, "overpopulation", not a value judgement that it is a problem?

Well, for example, because it seems to be fairly well accepted by many scientists that the world is overpopulated in relation to it's current carrying capacity, which is related to things like economic activity and so on.

By the way, you have switched between 'main if not the only problem' to 'a problem'. That is not raising the same question.

Yes, and many scientists don't believe that. You have just assumed the conclusion of the argument you want to make. The term, "overpopulation" is a value judgement. It makes the judgement that population exceeds carrying capacity which was the point of one side of the "debate". The debate was what is the Earth's carrying capacity so using the term, "overpopulation", to describe "current population" is an argument technique known as "poisoning the well".

 

[ruby sparks]

You have just assumed the conclusion of the argument you want to make. The term, "overpopulation" is a value judgement. It makes the judgement that population exceeds carrying capacity which was the point of one side of the "debate". The debate was what is the Earth's carrying capacity so using the term, "overpopulation", to describe "current population" is an argument technique known as "poisoning the well".

No I didn't, no it isn't, no it doesn't, no it wasn't and no it isn't. In that order.

 

[skepticalbip]

You have just assumed the conclusion of the argument you want to make. The term, "overpopulation" is a value judgement. It makes the judgement that population exceeds carrying capacity which was the point of one side of the "debate". The debate was what is the Earth's carrying capacity so using the term, "overpopulation", to describe "current population" is an argument technique known as "poisoning the well".

No I didn't, no it isn't, no it doesn't, no it wasn't and no it isn't. In that order.

Fine, if that makes you feel that you are actually objective.

 

[repoman]

I wonder if an "Ender's Game" method of having the analyzer think that the planet being studied is just a simulation would be effective.

Basically, it would take away much of the bias from analysis.

What are the biases that we can have about whether there is underpopulation, underpopulation or moderate population levels?

Note, some of the biases may be actually helpful to the whole population in my opinion. But probably most only helpful for your kin.

The bias from being alive now and not thinking about distant past or future
The political biases related mostly to economic dogma
Biases related to ethnic conflict, racism or anti-racism
Short human lifespan, compared to geologic time, bias
Bias of looking for tech fixes, which often can pull through but sometimes not (thinking that tech fixes never work is also a bias)
Religious biases mostly thinking that god will fix it for us or it doesn't matter since heaven is the final destination.

 

[ruby sparks]

You have just assumed the conclusion of the argument you want to make. The term, "overpopulation" is a value judgement. It makes the judgement that population exceeds carrying capacity which was the point of one side of the "debate". The debate was what is the Earth's carrying capacity so using the term, "overpopulation", to describe "current population" is an argument technique known as "poisoning the well".

No I didn't, no it isn't, no it doesn't, no it wasn't and no it isn't. In that order.

Fine, if that makes you feel that you are actually objective.

No prob. Yes, it is true that some scientists do not think there is overpopulation or that it is a problem.

Look, let's just say that I am currently fairly happy in my non-expert opinion that overpopulation is at least 'a' problem (in conjunction with other issues, of which it may or may not be the main problem and allowing that there may not be much we can effectively do about it or that if we did it would only have limited impact) based on what studies and views I have read, some of which I have already posted. So, I have at least made an attempt at a case. You are not obliged to agree with me.

Now, if you want to make a case that overpopulation is not a problem, or that there is no overpopulation, or that climate change is independent of population, or whatever your case actually is, go ahead. I'll give it due consideration and we can have a discussion about it.

 

[steve_bank]

There are credentialed scientists who reject evolution. Anyone with a science degree can have an opinion. Having a degree and an opinion doesn't necessarily add weight to the opinion.

There may be some who reject climate change and are sdecular. I expect as with evolution those with a scince background who reject climate change are likely to be Christian and conservative.

I would expect the same simulation models used to predict local weather and track hurricanes are used in climate change simulations which lead toma min and max case scenario..

The debate is not over the existnce of climate chnage, except the few you reject actual meauremnt of rising ocean levels.

The debate is over wether or not we can do anything about it. And that leads to man made or natural.

I watched a show on North African desert. There was a long stinging anthropological question as to how early humans migrated north out of Africa without water.

Someone discovered a cave with pictures of water and wildlife. It turns out the desert gets water maybe every 40,000 years. Natural sun and orbital variations. Earth's rotational wobble. I believe all that has been ruled out.

The idea that what we have now is sustainable is like theists rejecting evolution. To accept mass pleasurable consumerism has to be curtailed for humans indoctrinated in the consumerism culture is like trying to get atheist to believe in evolution.

If you want to take away my video game you will have to pry it from my cold dead fingers, paraphrasing Charleton Heston's comments on his guns.

Hell with the future, all I care about is immediate gratification.

 

[steve_bank]

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...CK2ELY/s1600/alfred_e_neuman.jpg&action=click

An apt avatar for some.

 

[Politesse]

Actually even the word "overpopulation" makes the assumption that population IS a major if not the problem.

No it doesn't.

Then why is it "OVERpopulation" rather than "current population"? What does OVERpopulation mean?

Well, for one thing, it's a bit like describing inflation as "over-monetization". Like sure, situationally there might be too much cash flowing around, but calling it that implies that the money is at fault, rather than the other many potential causes of inflation. If the problem is "over-monetization" it sure sounds like reducing the overall amount of money would help. But, of course, it almost certainly wouldn't, at least not by itself.

 

[DBT]

What does OVERpopulation mean?

That there's overpopulation. Of itself it doesn't distinguish between for example hugely overpopulated or slightly overpopulated. It certainly does not imply that overpopulation is the only problem.

You still didn't define "overpopulation". What criteria is used to distinguish "current population" and "overpopulation"? How is the term, "overpopulation", not a value judgement that it is a problem?

Overpopulation is generally taken to be a situation where population numbers exceed the carrying capacity of their environment or ecology.

If we are currently using up natural resources, dismantling whole ecosystems (Amazon rain forests, etc) faster than they can be replaced or replenished, it could be argued that the Earth is currently overpopulated by humans.

 

[steve_bank]

That is too narrow. Overpopulation has to include quality of life. What would England be like with the population density of NYC?

 

[DBT]

That is too narrow. Overpopulation has to include quality of life. What would England be like with the population density of NYC?

Of course. I was just focusing on ecology for the moment.

 

[bilby]

That is too narrow. Overpopulation has to include quality of life. What would England be like with the population density of NYC?

Why, is NYC uninhabitable? Is quality of life there so awful that people need to be forced to move to the city at gunpoint or something?

England with the population of NYC would be like NYC only far bigger. It would probably be a fabulous place to live (just as NYC itself is today).

At that density England would house about 1.31 billion people - taking a lot of the load off the rest of the world.

Is there a good reason to imagine that mega-cities with densities similar to today's large cities would be fundamentally different (and far worse) to live in than large cities today? Because I can't see it myself.

 

[bilby]

You still didn't define "overpopulation". What criteria is used to distinguish "current population" and "overpopulation"? How is the term, "overpopulation", not a value judgement that it is a problem?

Overpopulation is generally taken to be a situation where population numbers exceed the carrying capacity of their environment or ecology.

If we are currently using up natural resources, dismantling whole ecosystems (Amazon rain forests, etc) faster than they can be replaced or replenished, it could be argued that the Earth is currently overpopulated by humans.

That's a circular argument though. The question is whether overpopulation is a problem for the environment; But according to you, overpopulation is defined as 'a population level that is a problem for the environment', and so the question has been beggared.

The current population might be a problem. But by framing that as 'overpopulation might be a problem' you leave no possibility that it also might not.

 

[ruby sparks]

Then why is it "OVERpopulation" rather than "current population"? What does OVERpopulation mean?

Well, for one thing, it's a bit like describing inflation as "over-monetization". Like sure, situationally there might be too much cash flowing around, but calling it that implies that the money is at fault, rather than the other many potential causes of inflation. If the problem is "over-monetization" it sure sounds like reducing the overall amount of money would help. But, of course, it almost certainly wouldn't, at least not by itself.

So.....I'm confused...are you saying that reducing the population would not help?

 

[DBT]

You still didn't define "overpopulation". What criteria is used to distinguish "current population" and "overpopulation"? How is the term, "overpopulation", not a value judgement that it is a problem?

Overpopulation is generally taken to be a situation where population numbers exceed the carrying capacity of their environment or ecology.

If we are currently using up natural resources, dismantling whole ecosystems (Amazon rain forests, etc) faster than they can be replaced or replenished, it could be argued that the Earth is currently overpopulated by humans.

That's a circular argument though. The question is whether overpopulation is a problem for the environment; But according to you, overpopulation is defined as 'a population level that is a problem for the environment', and so the question has been beggared.

The current population might be a problem. But by framing that as 'overpopulation might be a problem' you leave no possibility that it also might not.

I said ''overpopulation is generally taken to be a situation where population numbers exceed the carrying capacity of their environment or ecology.''

I did no mean to suggest that this is a complete definition of overpopulation.

As SB pointed out, another definition may be were the population of a City exceeds the infrastructure of a City, where its citizens live in crowded condition, feeling under stress by the conditions, perhaps unable to move for financial reasons, or whatever.

This could be a temporary state of affairs, the city has room to expand but this will take time, or it may be long term. Whatever the case, while conditions remain as they are, that City, being crowded, being congested, is overpopulated.

 

[ruby sparks]

How can numbers of humans be disentangled from human activity? In the real world, the actual state of affairs is that more people has resulted in more pollution and damage to the environment. It doesn't have to be that way and it's not 'just the numbers' which have caused it, obviously. It's (roughly speaking) numbers in conjunction with their activity. In theory we could have twice as many people if on average they all drastically reduced their carbon footprint or what have you, but that's a hypothetical. In reality, more people is creating and has created more pollution and damage and as a result, it seems we are on course for something not very nice.

Sorry, but I'm still not getting this objection to citing population as a factor, or overpopulation indeed. I agree it can be overstated, yes, and that it's not easy to do something about and that because of that we might be better focusing on other countermeasures, and I don't think anyone here, even those including population in their points, are setting aside other factors and countermeasures, but isn't it just a matter of emphasis and we could be promoting both or all? It's not either or, surely.

I think it's a bit of a straw man that anyone here is pushing population or overpopulation as THE cause above all others. What has happened, I think, is that the issue of population has come to the fore in the discussion because of the suggestion that it is not a relevant factor or concern, and some have been disagreeing with that, that's all.