Is Earth overpopulated with humans?

[Compassionist]

Source: http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... t-or-myth/

The article states that parts of the Earth are overpopulated with humans but not the whole Earth. If people were distributed fairly then the Earth could support even more humans.

[VINDICATOR]

Dear Compassionist,
What is the meaning of "over populated"? If people are willing to live like chickens on a chicken farm, all the chickens in cages stacked up in walls to the ceiling, and fed by automatic feeding machines that ensure the necessary nutrition and with forced ventilation and automatic manure disposal etc. I guess that the Earth could could easily support as many as 50 billion people. Although it won't be too much trouble to house and feed so many, however, due to depletion of natural resources and pollution of the environment, the seas will become huge cess-pools, and the land which has not yet been submerged by the melt of the polar ices will be huge garbage land-fills! Tourism will be a memory seen only on closed TV! They must spend their whole life existing (not "living") in these cages! Don't take those science-fiction stories seriously when they say we can emigrate to another star. Except for a few explorers going to the moon and perhaps Mars, as a race we are stuck on this planet Earth!

[Nick]

Hi Compo, nice to see you back!

If its any comfort to you, I think this debate has been answered. With the continuing growth in prosperity (esp. since 1995, with the death of socialism) the rate of population growth has declined dramaticlly so that, globally, we are no longer replacing ourselves.

As we become richer, we are able to address more of the earth's problems, be it pollution, famine, respect for our sisters and much else besides.

Sure, problems will continue, but the Malthusian trap has proved to be a myth.

[Compassionist]

Thank you for your replies Vindicator and Nick. Nice to see you, too, Nick. By overpopulation I mean more people than the number of people who can live comfortably on Earth. Population distribution is very uneven currently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density

Nick I agree that going to other stars will be difficult without a faster than light transport system. I also agree that standard of life has improved a lot. The rich have gotten much richer, the poor have gotten a bit richer.

[Nick]

Without measures which I regard as impossible to justify, I don't think we can reduce the world population any time soon. As for the distribution of people, yes, there are certain things we can do, not least make it more attractive to live in the more sparsely populated areas of the world. We achieved that over the past few centuries, and I think new ideas and initiatives may well develop in future which indirectly address these issues.

[animist]

Hi Compo, nice to see you back!

If its any comfort to you, I think this debate has been answered. With the continuing growth in prosperity (esp. since 1995, with the death of socialism) the rate of population growth has declined dramaticlly so that, globally, we are no longer replacing ourselves.

As we become richer, we are able to address more of the earth's problems, be it pollution, famine, respect for our sisters and much else besides.

Sure, problems will continue, but the Malthusian trap has proved to be a myth.

I agree with a lot of this (maybe not the dig at socialism, though the types of "socialism" which have found power so far have not been good, I agree). What a good phrase, "respect for our sisters". Only thing is, not only is population unevenly distributed (and always will be, as the Poles are not going to be good places to live - unless global warming goes unchecked!) but income and wealth are, and I do see a role for sensible socialistic measures in certain situations. The poor will not get richer simply by allowing the rich to get richer still. But female empowerment seems to be the main key to the problem, and religious dogma/prejudice still seems to be a big impediment to this vital and just process

[Nick]

I agree with a lot of this (maybe not the dig at socialism, though the types of "socialism" which have found power so far have not been good, I agree).

Ah, yes! The "wrong sort of socialism!

What a good phrase, "respect for our sisters".

Glad you like it. I find it so much easier to support than labelling everything as "rights", besides implying a change in attitude because it is the right thing to do, not because of someone's idea of rules.

Only thing is, not only is population unevenly distributed (and always will be, as the Poles are not going to be good places to live - unless global warming goes unchecked!)

There are plenty of empty places in the world without using the poles. Not very habitable at the moment, true, but then nor was Vegas until the water arrived, and arabia wasn't much of a holiday destination before the money arrived.

but income and wealth are [unevenly distributed], and I do see a role for sensible socialistic measures in certain situations.

On a global scale, not nearly as much as it used to be. The world is changing dramatically. and we see the richer world looking after more of its citizens than they used to. Over 40% of our collective income is spent on our behalf by the state. And that is better achieved without the socialism, the key to which is control over the means of production.

.

The poor will not get richer simply by allowing the rich to get richer still.

Yes, they will! That is exactly how it will happen! That is exactly how it has happened, too. It is only once people are free to advance themselves, that total wealth increases. Adam Smith made that point over 200 years ago. It was only after China and India abandoned socialism that their economies improved. Cuba, meanwhile, is still poor. Like Venezuela, despite sitting on the world's largest oil reserves.

[Compassionist]

I agree with a lot of this (maybe not the dig at socialism, though the types of "socialism" which have found power so far have not been good, I agree).

Ah, yes! The "wrong sort of socialism!

What a good phrase, "respect for our sisters".

Glad you like it. I find it so much easier to support than labelling everything as "rights", besides implying a change in attitude because it is the right thing to do, not because of someone's idea of rules.

Only thing is, not only is population unevenly distributed (and always will be, as the Poles are not going to be good places to live - unless global warming goes unchecked!)

There are plenty of empty places in the world without using the poles. Not very habitable at the moment, true, but then nor was Vegas until the water arrived, and arabia wasn't much of a holiday destination before the money arrived.

but income and wealth are [unevenly distributed], and I do see a role for sensible socialistic measures in certain situations.

On a global scale, not nearly as much as it used to be. The world is changing dramatically. and we see the richer world looking after more of its citizens than they used to. Over 40% of our collective income is spent on our behalf by the state. And that is better achieved without the socialism, the key to which is control over the means of production.

.

The poor will not get richer simply by allowing the rich to get richer still.

Yes, they will! That is exactly how it will happen! That is exactly how it has happened, too. It is only once people are free to advance themselves, that total wealth increases. Adam Smith made that point over 200 years ago. It was only after China and India abandoned socialism that their economies improved. Cuba, meanwhile, is still poor. Like Venezuela, despite sitting on the world's largest oil reserves.

Shouldn't the more fortunate help the less fortunate? I think everyone should receive according to needs and contribute according to abilities.

[Nick]

Shouldn't the more fortunate help the less fortunate?

They do. That's what the 40% government expenditure is largely about.

I think everyone should receive according to needs and contribute according to abilities.

A nice idea, but there are limits beyond which it ceases to be effective. We are, after all, human.

[Compassionist]

Shouldn't the more fortunate help the less fortunate?

They do. That's what the 40% government expenditure is largely about.

I think everyone should receive according to needs and contribute according to abilities.

A nice idea, but there are limits beyond which it ceases to be effective. We are, after all, human.

Aren't humans mostly good?

[Nick]

Aren't humans mostly good?

A very good question!

The short answer is that humans are mostly human. A slightly longer answer is that evolution has given us a number of characteristics which have ensured the continuation of the human species. One of those characteristics is the development of the human brain, which has allowed us to consider matters in an intellectual way, using abstract concepts such as "good" and "bad".

I'm also a bit skeptical that humans can devise the "best" solution, partly because of limits to knowledge, and partly because humans have not necessarily evolved enough to meet the situations they find themselves in. Examples? State direction of economic activity (eg nationalisation of the car industry, say) tends not to work well. And people tend to over-eat, driven by urges generated through evolution, whereas they may be happier in the longer term with a bit of self-denial.

[Compassionist]

Aren't humans mostly good?

A very good question!

The short answer is that humans are mostly human. A slightly longer answer is that evolution has given us a number of characteristics which have ensured the continuation of the human species. One of those characteristics is the development of the human brain, which has allowed us to consider matters in an intellectual way, using abstract concepts such as "good" and "bad".

I'm also a bit skeptical that humans can devise the "best" solution, partly because of limits to knowledge, and partly because humans have not necessarily evolved enough to meet the situations they find themselves in. Examples? State direction of economic activity (eg nationalisation of the car industry, say) tends not to work well. And people tend to over-eat, driven by urges generated through evolution, whereas they may be happier in the longer term with a bit of self-denial.

I see. How can I get everyone to live and help live?

[Nick]

How can I get everyone to live and help live?

You can only do what you can do. It doesn't help if you try to do more than you can do. And the first place to start is with yourself and your family. It is by taking care of yourself and those nearest to you that you can gain the strength and means to help others. Setting at example for your children, your friends and neighbours and giving what you can, is all most of us can achieve on our own.

Luckily you are not alone; others are there to help too. Little by litle we progress.

[Compassionist]

How can I get everyone to live and help live?

You can only do what you can do. It doesn't help if you try to do more than you can do. And the first place to start is with yourself and your family. It is by taking care of yourself and those nearest to you that you can gain the strength and means to help others. Setting at example for your children, your friends and neighbours and giving what you can, is all most of us can achieve on our own.

Luckily you are not alone; others are there to help too. Little by litle we progress.

I agree. Thanks for sharing your wisdom.

[Nick]

I agree. Thanks for sharing your wisdom.

I've never been called wise before! Thank you Compassionist!

[Compassionist]

I agree. Thanks for sharing your wisdom.

I've never been called wise before! Thank you Compassionist!

You are most welcome Nick.