Overpopulation is a myth

SampanViking · Jan 4, 2013

solarz said:
I strongly disagree with this assessment.

First, virtually all of modern China's challenges, from the education system to tainted food scandals to the deteriorating environment, stems from overpopulation. Teenagers spend their entire 3 years of high school preparing for the university entrance exams, simply because there are way more students looking to enter universities than there are universities capable of accepting them. Similarly, huge numbers of university graduates end up with menial jobs because there are way more graduates than there are positions open.

Milk producers lace their milk with melamine because of demand far outstrips supply, and thus there is huge profit to be made from producing "fake food".

The 30 years of economic reforms have taken a tremendous toll on the environment. The Yang-tze river porpoise, the Northern Chinese tiger, and countless other species, are all but extinct. Entire villages have been poisoned by industrial waste flow. When I was young, Shanghai regularly snowed during the winter. Now, it has snowed maybe 2-3 times in the last 20 years. A near permanent smog covers the sky over the city.

You argue that we have not yet reached the limits of the planet's finite resources, yet the inevitability of Climate Change contradicts this view.

Sure, if we manage to discover cold fusion, or a cheap way to create anti-matter, we could enjoy near limitless energy. However, those we don't have those things right now, and there is no telling when we will make these kinds of breakthroughs, if they are even possible. The current crop of renewable energies all have limitations that makes them unable to support our current population and living standards.

You make a lot of assertions here Solarz, but does either the logic or experience support the arguments?
First of course, the Malthusian theory of overpopulation is global and not national, so events in China alone could never determine the truth or fallacy of the theory. What is true is that while the one child policy has depressed the growth in population in China, other growth in other countries has taken the global population beyond the level that would have existed if China had not implemented the policy. There is still no global material food deficit (actual or potential) so clearly malthusian overpopulation has not been a factor in Chinese demographic planning.
Secondly, the example of adding inappropriate substances to food is another economic action rather than any kind of reflection on supply. The additives were used to increase profit not overall supply volume. Indeed, the fact that producers felt the need to "enhance value" in this way is more indicative of the low value of basic food stuffs. This is surely in contradiction of any malthusian theory as genuine malthusian population would cause prices to go through the roof permanently due to total lack of remedy.
Indeed all the examples you cite are most properly economic failings, through not being prepared to spend the money or resources necessary to protect the local environment.
The assumption as to the effects of climate change again are far too general to make any assumptions. Local changes in climate may well prompt local changes in behaviour or activity, but I see nothing that makes Climate Change an apocolyptic horseman for Malthusianism. I would say to the contrary that the net effect is positive, as a warmer, wetter and more Carbon Dioxide rich atmosphere is far more conducive to increased Cereal production than colder, dryer ones.
Further if you look at one of the main global trends of the day, it is the emergence of the mega agri industry state, of which Brazil is the group leader, but with many other large developing countries moving not far behind. This is the story of the major spread of intensive farming and a massive increase in food production as a consequence.
Farm Gate prices world wide are still falling. High prices to consumers are artificial, being either tariff or distribution and retail system driven.

solarz · Jan 4, 2013

SampanViking said:
You make a lot of assertions here Solarz, but does either the logic or experience support the arguments?
First of course, the Malthusian theory of overpopulation is global and not national, so events in China alone could never determine the truth or fallacy of the theory. What is true is that while the one child policy has depressed the growth in population in China, other growth in other countries has taken the global population beyond the level that would have existed if China had not implemented the policy. There is still no global material food deficit (actual or potential) so clearly malthusian overpopulation has not been a factor in Chinese demographic planning.
Secondly, the example of adding inappropriate substances to food is another economic action rather than any kind of reflection on supply. The additives were used to increase profit not overall supply volume. Indeed, the fact that producers felt the need to "enhance value" in this way is more indicative of the low value of basic food stuffs. This is surely in contradiction of any malthusian theory as genuine malthusian population would cause prices to go through the roof permanently due to total lack of remedy.
Indeed all the examples you cite are most properly economic failings, through not being prepared to spend the money or resources necessary to protect the local environment.
The assumption as to the effects of climate change again are far too general to make any assumptions. Local changes in climate may well prompt local changes in behaviour or activity, but I see nothing that makes Climate Change an apocolyptic horseman for Malthusianism. I would say to the contrary that the net effect is positive, as a warmer, wetter and more Carbon Dioxide rich atmosphere is far more conducive to increased Cereal production than colder, dryer ones.
Further if you look at one of the main global trends of the day, it is the emergence of the mega agri industry state, of which Brazil is the group leader, but with many other large developing countries moving not far behind. This is the story of the major spread of intensive farming and a massive increase in food production as a consequence.
Farm Gate prices world wide are still falling. High prices to consumers are artificial, being either tariff or distribution and retail system driven.

You speak as if the economy was not completely related to population. What you describe as "economic failings" happened precisely because of the challenges of a large population.

Those guys were adding melamine to their milk not to increase the "value", but because they were trying to increase the volume: either because they were using water-down milk, or by directly mixing the melamine powder with milk powder.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You speak of the absence of a global food deficit. What you are ignoring is that with a global economy, there is an ever-expanding industry to meet any supply shortage. However, this expansion does not come without a cost. Forests are being clear-cut for agriculture. Pristine landscapes are being destroyed for tar-sand. In this dynamic, an actual shortage would mean there is no more room to expand, and would be the last stage of an overpopulation crisis.

The symptoms we are seeing right now is Climate Change, a vague term that is meant to encompass the entire dynamic of a changing environment on our planet. You speak of a warmer climate but ignore the fact that rising sea levels would submerge vast tracts of arable land and populated cities. It is simply wishful thinking to believe that Climate Change would not have profoundly negative consequences for the global economy.

Finally, you speak of intensive farming and the temporary increase in food production, but you ignore the cost to the land, as soil nutrients are depleted and future generations are left with barren wastelands!

SampanViking · Jan 4, 2013

solarz said:
You speak as if the economy was not completely related to population. What you describe as "economic failings" happened precisely because of the challenges of a large population.

Those guys were adding melamine to their milk not to increase the "value", but because they were trying to increase the volume: either because they were using water-down milk, or by directly mixing the melamine powder with milk powder.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You speak of the absence of a global food deficit. What you are ignoring is that with a global economy, there is an ever-expanding industry to meet any supply shortage. However, this expansion does not come without a cost. Forests are being clear-cut for agriculture. Pristine landscapes are being destroyed for tar-sand. In this dynamic, an actual shortage would mean there is no more room to expand, and would be the last stage of an overpopulation crisis.

The symptoms we are seeing right now is Climate Change, a vague term that is meant to encompass the entire dynamic of a changing environment on our planet. You speak of a warmer climate but ignore the fact that rising sea levels would submerge vast tracts of arable land and populated cities. It is simply wishful thinking to believe that Climate Change would not have profoundly negative consequences for the global economy.

Finally, you speak of intensive farming and the temporary increase in food production, but you ignore the cost to the land, as soil nutrients are depleted and future generations are left with barren wastelands!

I can see this going round and round and round, but never mind.
Lets start with the basics.
China today - population approaching 1.4 billion - no starvation
China 1960's - population average 700 million - regular starvation

Explain how this supports Malthusian theory?

All human activity puts pressure on the natural environment and the more people you have the greater the potential for pressure. When however discussing Malthusian overpopulation you are discussing hitting the ultimate finite boundary and having no further ability for movement or moderation (remedy). None of the problems in China today are a result of reaching any such boundary but represent a "failure" to spend on effective proactive or post remedial measures to offset the worst effects of mass human activity. There is however plenty of scope to spend retroactively to clean up recent problems, its a matter of cash and the time lag caused by a period of unprecedented transitional change.

As for melamine, your own link simply supports the economic argument, that it gives a false high reading for nutrional protein, which is the basis on which value is determined and the subsequent price paid. For malthusian theory to apply, it would be having to simply provide bulk to minimise any deficit in the level supply. Clearly this is nothing of the sort.

Finally we have the Intensive farming disaster argument.
Of course the most intensely farmed areas are in the developed world, Europe, North America, Australis etc.
Well, only today I was driving across the Somerset and Devon dustbowls and............... hang on a minute!
No these countries are intensively farmed more than any other nations and have been for longer than any other nations and they are doing just fine. The only problems farmers in Europe and North America have is farm gate prices so low that the occupation no longer provides the standard of living to which they aspire, without heavy state subsidy or restrictive import tariffs. The places that suffer the most from poor land management are developing countries with a majority still subsistence farming. If you want environmental degradation, look no further than the Indonesian land clearance smogs, where "indigenous peoples" practice these "traditional techniques" which we are constantly told is sympathetic and in harmony with nature. Well clearly not!

Are the Seas about to devour all current and potential arable land? No and the possible rises of a few meters will have an overall negligible effect on the dry land mass and be easily offset by the increase in natural irrigation and improvement to currently marginal land. Add to that increased general fertility from higher CO2 and the global increase to the growing season, then the gain is net before even looking at technological solutions (of which the maturation of GM must be a major factor.

Poor practice, poor technology can indeed create local bubbles of overpopulation, but these are temporary and can be overcome purely through political and economic will. We are still a million miles away from the Malthusian limit.

solarz · Jan 4, 2013

SampanViking said:
I can see this going round and round and round, but never mind.
Lets start with the basics.
China today - population approaching 1.4 billion - no starvation
China 1960's - population average 700 million - regular starvation

Explain how this supports Malthusian theory?

All human activity puts pressure on the natural environment and the more people you have the greater the potential for pressure. When however discussing Malthusian overpopulation you are discussing hitting the ultimate finite boundary and having no further ability for movement or moderation (remedy). None of the problems in China today are a result of reaching any such boundary but represent a "failure" to spend on effective proactive or post remedial measures to offset the worst effects of mass human activity. There is however plenty of scope to spend retroactively to clean up recent problems, its a matter of cash and the time lag caused by a period of unprecedented transitional change.

As for melamine, your own link simply supports the economic argument, that it gives a false high reading for nutrional protein, which is the basis on which value is determined and the subsequent price paid. For malthusian theory to apply, it would be having to simply provide bulk to minimise any deficit in the level supply. Clearly this is nothing of the sort.

Finally we have the Intensive farming disaster argument.
Of course the most intensely farmed areas are in the developed world, Europe, North America, Australis etc.
Well, only today I was driving across the Somerset and Devon dustbowls and............... hang on a minute!
No these countries are intensively farmed more than any other nations and have been for longer than any other nations and they are doing just fine. The only problems farmers in Europe and North America have is farm gate prices so low that the occupation no longer provides the standard of living to which they aspire, without heavy state subsidy or restrictive import tariffs. The places that suffer the most from poor land management are developing countries with a majority still subsistence farming. If you want environmental degradation, look no further than the Indonesian land clearance smogs, where "indigenous peoples" practice these "traditional techniques" which we are constantly told is sympathetic and in harmony with nature. Well clearly not!

Are the Seas about to devour all current and potential arable land? No and the possible rises of a few meters will have an overall negligible effect on the dry land mass and be easily offset by the increase in natural irrigation and improvement to currently marginal land. Add to that increased general fertility from higher CO2 and the global increase to the growing season, then the gain is net before even looking at technological solutions (of which the maturation of GM must be a major factor.

Poor practice, poor technology can indeed create local bubbles of overpopulation, but these are temporary and can be overcome purely through political and economic will. We are still a million miles away from the Malthusian limit.

1. Melamine is added to milk not because higher protein count fetches a higher price, but because the producers watered down their product and needed melamine to pass the protein tests! I.E: higher volume!

2. Actually, lots of farmers in Canada are millionaires. And no, Canadian agricultural land is nowhere near as intensively farmed as Chinese agricultural land. It's also myth that 3rd world nations do not practice industrial farming. Chemical fertilization is not a sophisticated technology. The difference between those countries and North America / Europe is that the latter have stringent laws to protect their environment. They are able to afford those laws precisely because they don't have a population that puts pressure on their food production industry.

3. I don't know where you get the idea that irrigation can offset rising sea levels. The physics of such an idea is just absurd. Also, people use irrigation for freshwater, not sea water!

There also will not be a "global increase to growing season". Instead, there will be more severe and catastrophic floods, storms, and droughts.

vesicles · Jan 4, 2013

It's not only food that we have to worry about. In fact, food would be the last thing on our mind. It's diseases, finite amount of natural resources, pollution, waste management, etc.

With a decrease in living space, transmittable diseases will be a huge problem. Then health care systems, economy, etc...

There is only finite amount of space available for waste management. How do we take care of that? There is no such thing as complete recycling. As matter of fact, the more advanced nations with advanced technology produce more waste. When we bury our waste, we pollute ground water.

Pollution can fall into the same category as waste, or it can be on its own. The more advanced nations have more serious pollution problems. As we advance as a species, we would expect pollution will get worse. that leads to diseases and global warming.

Then natural resources other than oil, such as trees and minerals, etc. yes, modern people are more conscious about this kind of stuff than our ancestors who only cut cut cut. We now know to plant more trees than we cut down. Good! but with more people and growing urbanization, you will have less space to grow trees.

bladerunner · Jan 4, 2013

Not if , at some point in time, our cities looked like something as portrayed in the "Total Recall" remake. Right now places like Australia and NZ the average sized home has doubled in size over the last 35yrs, while the families that live within them have gotten smaller.

There can also be lifestyle changes such as doing away with space wasting sports stadiums and golf courses.Therefore no football, baseball, etc, which only benefit a few dozen participants but giant multistoried darts and ping pong centres, catering for thousands at any one time.

paintgun · Jan 4, 2013

overpopulation is not only about food (if only it's that simple, thus it is simplistic view at it), but also about social construct and socio economic issues

for every middle class, how many low income people have to work at low wages jobs for the economy and society to function properly
for instance, how many laundry cleaners, kitchen hands, street sweepers, security staffs etc etc needed for each SDF members here?
how many plebs have to be employed to support the equestarians and patricians? while in this globalized world, even the plebeians aspire to have a living condition as good as the class above his work class.

If every person in this world is content with growing potatoes in his backyard and serve it for dinner every day, we will not have any overpopulation issues.

ABC78 · Jan 9, 2013

Here's an interesting blog I read that kind of made a side note that also applies to the overpopulation myth.

NYT story on widespread protests in New Dehli over the apparent gang rape and (eventual) murder of a young female student (23) on a bus. The woman died from her wounds, which included penetration by a metal rod.

Gruesome stuff, to say the least.

The nature of the violence isn't what catches my sense of historical timing. Men in packs will do the most atricious things.

What's interesting here (and it corresponds to a scenario proposed by a Wikistrat analyst at a recent sim we ran) are sociologists linking this growing pack violence against Indian women to a growing disparity in gender numbers - i.e., excess males after years and years of discarding female fetuses. The result is an age cohort where there are too many guys, too few females to court, and a budding social anger among the males that translates into violence against women and implicit attacks on their rights and standing. In short, too few women relative to men = social devaluation of females, making them "fair game" in the minds of angry young men.

I will tell you, I buy excess males turning against governments when jobs are not there, and I buy this too. I've never bought, in the modern context, the bit about having to place excess males in the military and then going to war. That's applying old logic to modern situations.

But the "war" does come, is the point. It's just a war against women.

The upside? It forces women to fight harder and more pervasively for their rights in society, and here the historical timing reminds me of the US in the 1960s and 1970s - a time of seismic and permanent change for women in American society. I was born (1962) into one world regarding the role of women, but by the time I was a young male courting (1982, when I met my wife and started dating her), it was a very different universe. My wife was the only daughter of a woman who divorced her husband and left to pursue her PhD - I mean, really radical stuff in the early 1970s. That experience made my spouse a very different person, and thus forced a different relationship (trivial but telling example: my second middle initial comes from my taking my wife's maiden name of Meussling, thus rendering, in the eyes of the USG, my original name (Thomas Patrick Barnett) as my "maiden name" for all time).

It's a tiny example of how much change happened in the US on womens' issues across the short timespan of my first 25 years of life. I can't possibly guess at the rate of change that older civilizations like India and China will enjoy/suffer. I can just speculate that this awakening is coming, and that it's going to be huge.

Referenced from:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

solarz · Jan 9, 2013

ABC78 said:
What's interesting here (and it corresponds to a scenario proposed by a Wikistrat analyst at a recent sim we ran) are sociologists linking this growing pack violence against Indian women to a growing disparity in gender numbers - i.e., excess males after years and years of discarding female fetuses. The result is an age cohort where there are too many guys, too few females to court, and a budding social anger among the males that translates into violence against women and implicit attacks on their rights and standing. In short, too few women relative to men = social devaluation of females, making them "fair game" in the minds of angry young men.

I will tell you, I buy excess males turning against governments when jobs are not there, and I buy this too. I've never bought, in the modern context, the bit about having to place excess males in the military and then going to war. That's applying old logic to modern situations.

I don't buy it one bit.

Look at China, which also has a large gender imbalance. Far from women being socially devalued, they are becoming more valued than ever. Chinese men literally have to bankrupt themselves in order to marry their sweethearts, as Chinese women right now literally have their pick of men.

You don't see packs of young men roving around gang-raping women in China, do you now?

So it's not just about gender imbalance, it's also about the kind of society where this imbalance occurs.

Geographer · Jan 10, 2013

However the planet is finite, and as such there is an absolute limit to our development, unless we dramatically change the rules by colonizing other planets or artificially creating another earth. No amount of technology can overcome this fact in the foreseeable future. Technology will surely help pushing boundaries, but at some point every new person will demand an infinite increase in resource allocation, at which time it will be practically impossible to increase population or sustain reasonable standards of living. At which point there is overpopulation.

This argument is really the last stand for neo-Malthusians when confronted with an empirical record that overwhelmingly shows food and energy production growing faster than global population.

There is no time frame for this argument. Will this doomsday scenario happen in the next thousand years or next 10 million years? I think we can agree that if we're projected to use up the planet's resources 10 million years from now, we shouldn't give it a second's worth of thought now. I'm concerned with a time frame of 50-100 years. Global demographic decline will be extremely hard to reverse. You can't increase the birth rate like you can increase electricity production. Fertility decisions are very difficult to influence, as the governments in developed countries are finding out.

I'm also concerned with the ethical problems of discouraging child-bearing now in 2013. China and India's birth control policies in the late 1970s and 1980s were ugly and shameful. The officials who put them in place and carried them out ought to be ashamed of themselves, as well as the international organizations that encouraged and aided them. The shaming and harassment of couples with more than the government's quota of children continues in China and must be stopped immediately. China, like all countries, should be celebrating couples with large families, not attacking them.

Overpopulation is a myth

SampanViking

The Capitalist

solarz

Brigadier

SampanViking

The Capitalist

solarz

Brigadier

vesicles

Colonel

bladerunner

Banned Idiot

paintgun

Senior Member

ABC78

Junior Member

solarz

Brigadier

Geographer

Junior Member