Is Overpopulation an Important Issue? Examining Solutions

[mheslep]

Percent of available agricultural land seems to be holding about steady worldwide, with some countries noticeably up, others down.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...98324800000&tend=1279512000000&hl=en&dl=en_US

 

[edpell]

http://www.agro.basf.com/agr/AP-Internet/en/content/competences/health_and_nature/index

Evo, I see you are into gardening. How much land does it take to feed one person per year let say on a no meat, no milk and no eggs if that helps diet? I guess this varies by latitude and water supply (nothing is simple).

 

[Evo]

Percent of available agricultural land seems to be holding about steady worldwide, with some countries noticeably up, others down.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...98324800000&tend=1279512000000&hl=en&dl=en_US

Evo, I see you are into gardening. How much land does it take to feed one person per year let say on a no meat, no milk and no eggs if that helps diet? I guess this varies by latitude and water supply (nothing is simple).

I garden, it doesn't make me an expert on agriculture, which is why I defer to offical results. It depends greatly on what the crop is. Some crops take a great deal of land and provide little food and vice versa.

mheslep, here is the current map showing what percentage of a countries land is arable. Deforestation of rainforests temporarily increases arable land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arable_land_percent_world.png

 

[mheslep]

It's actually almost 7 billion right now, and the population is increasing, so what is your point?

The OP wants to determine sustainable population which must have a complex answer, dependent on many factors. Solving complex problems using means breaking them down into solvable parts. One has to start someplace, and the OP (or you?) mentioned arable land. Well, looking only statically at the problem we know, visibly, that the current amount of land available today supports the population today.

We can't control weather, arable land is decreasing.

Perhaps you mean per capita arable. http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex..._US&dl=en_US&uniSize=0.035&iconSize=0.5&icfg". And even if it was declining, once one allows a dynamic variable we have to ask about other dynamic variables such as food production per capita, which has increased almost every year since 1950, as the Science reference above indicates (Table 2)

 

[mheslep]

You forgot Nigeria and Pakistan

Yep, thanks. Nigeria 158M and fertility rate 5.6. Trouble ahead there.

 

[edpell]

from http://tinyfarmwiki.com/index.php?title=How_much_land_to_feed_one_person?
we have this calculation
"An interesting article on agricultural land use takes this approach. It's assumed that humans need 3,000 calories per day. That figure is applied to a study of agricultural land used for all the food eaten in the Netherlands. For example, potato is the most efficient crop, and according to the study requires 0.2 square meters to produce 1kg, which contains 800 calories. It would therefore take 274m2 to produce enough calories for one person for one year. That's an area less than 10m x 30m (about 33 x 100 ft). To get 3000 calories from vegetables other than potatoes requires 1314m2, eggs 2395m2, and at the high end, beef 8173."

Using the 274m2 and the total land area of the planet (yes some is unusable but on the other hand there are food resource from the oceans this is just an order of magnitude calculation) 1.5E14m2 we get 5.5E11 or 550 billion. Can we accept this as an upper bound?

 

[edpell]

Well, looking only statically at the problem we know, visibly, that the current amount of land available today supports the population today.

If there is no soil erosion, no depletion of nutrients in the soil from use, no pollution of the soil from any source and similar statements for the fisheries then you have a point the carrying capacity is at or above today's 7 billion. Your statement is that today 7 billion are feed. Do you feel this can be continued for say 100 years?

 

[mheslep]

If there is no soil erosion, no depletion of nutrients in the soil from use, no pollution of the soil from any source and similar statements for the fisheries then you have a point the carrying capacity is at or above today's 7 billion. Your statement is that today 7 billion are feed. Do you feel this can be continued for say 100 years?

Looking at the past and projecting it forward, yes, I think so, barring politically driven economic upsets (e.g. Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, etc).

BTW, the amount of effort and land it takes to feed someone has changed over time, drastically.
Example: labor hours require to produce 100 bushels of wheat, US:
1830: 250-300 labor-hours (5 acres)
1890: 40-50 labor-hours (5 acres)
1930: 15-20 labor-hours (5 acres)
1955: 6 1/2 labor-hours (4 acres)
1965: 5 labor-hours (3 acres)
1975: 3-3/4 labor-hours (3 acres)
1987: 3 labor-hours (3 acres)
and in 2007, 100 bushels of wheat were grown organically on one acre.

So while the US population increased 25x, the labor productivity increased 300x plus.
http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farm_tech.htm
http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=5704

 

[Evo]

Looking at the past and projecting it forward, yes, I think so, barring politically driven economic upsets (e.g. Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, etc).

BTW, the amount of effort and land it takes to feed someone has changed over time, drastically.
Example: labor hours require to produce 100 bushels of wheat, US:
1830: 250-300 labor-hours (5 acres)
1890: 40-50 labor-hours (5 acres)
1930: 15-20 labor-hours (5 acres)
1955: 6 1/2 labor-hours (4 acres)
1965: 5 labor-hours (3 acres)
1975: 3-3/4 labor-hours (3 acres)
1987: 3 labor-hours (3 acres)
and in 2007, 100 bushels of wheat were grown organically on one acre.

So while the US population increased 25x, the labor productivity increased 300x plus.
http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farm_tech.htm
http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=5704

That's due to machinery, pesticides and fertilizers. It's not going to continue to get better. Imo, the push towards organic produce is pushing yields back a century. The refusal of countries to use GM seed is counterproductive.

Look at the worldwide starvation, it's obvious that we have neither the means nor the desire to feed the current world's population.

Not to mention, how will people find jobs? Where are they going to get money? Where are they going to get medical help?

Answer - we can't support the current world population. It's not happening.

Once the current world's problems are solved and we have an excess of everything, then come back and we can rationally discuss if we can handle more people.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think it will ultimately depend on the availability of cheap energy. once cheap energy becomes scarce, so will crop yields. food spoilage will also go up. but if energy continues to be plentiful, the current population is sustainable for some time.

 

[WhoWee]

Aquaculture may prove to be a long term solution.
http://www.fuelthemind.com/health/n...es/benefits_of_seaweed_nutrition_article.html

 

[Evo]

Are we really thinking that the only problem of too many people is how to feed them? Heck, we can set them up in warehouses with a feeding tube to support life if that's the only problem.

Food is only one of many problems, how will people find jobs? Where are they going to get money? Where are they going to get medical help? Where are they going to live? How can we wipe out natural environments without destroying the planet?

 

[davidj89]

as we are able to live longer and longer we will certainly start having very serious problems I think. Especially when we get to the point when people will be able to live for as long as they want essentially, when that happens we will have to start shooting people into space or something.

 

[Proton Soup]

maybe the question is really what population of hipsters can the planet support?

 

[edpell]

The diversity of positions surprises me. It is clear we will reach no consensus. Time will tell.

 

[Evo]

The diversity of positions surprises me. It is clear we will reach no consensus. Time will tell.

I don't think we need more time to know that we can't support more humans. We clearly can't support the numbers we have.

 

[Proton Soup]

I don't think we need more time to know that we can't support more humans. We clearly can't support the numbers we have.

so what is the op's question? what population can the planet maintain? or what population can the planet maintain at a certain measure of quality of life? if so, what yardstick to use for quality of life?

 

[Evo]

so what is the op's question? what population can the planet maintain? or what population can the planet maintain at a certain measure of quality of life? if so, what yardstick to use for quality of life?

Since they don't set any parameters, I am assuming they mean realistically, considering lifestyles today would be maintained.

If they meant what the bare minimum to sustain human life would be, without thought to employment, health, well being, environment, or other realistic scenarios, then this thread would be meaningless.

 

[Ken Natton]

Once again, I sleep one night and it is astonishing to find how far behind I am on this thread. But reading through it, I confess I am surprised to find that the main line of argument appears to be that the extent of the problem is overstated. I can only say that Evo has made a very tenacious and excellent job of standing up the real issues in the face of what seems to me like unwarranted complacency. It is worth making the point that the current population explosion is traced to about 1750. Understand, I am pointing out just how recent that is. In less than 300 years the world population has gone from fewer than one billion to over seven billion. To me, it is like watching a balloon slowly expanding as it fills with air. You are not sure exactly when it is going to go bang but there is nothing more certain than that it is going to go bang sooner or later. And in case anyone feels that a population collapse might only affect other parts of the world, it should be clear that some cataclysmic event – I shall not speculate on what form it might take – that led to a massive reduction in the world population would lead to political destabilisation that could take decades to settle down. The cold, hard reality is that the lifestyle that we enjoy and take for granted today is far more fragile than some appear to realize. My point is not actually to be a prophet of doom, but it is clear to me that real and tangible action is required, today, but that such a thing is highly unlikely while the underlying attitude remains so complacent.

 

[drankin]

Ok, let's assume the world is over-populated and unsustainable. Solutions?

 

[Ken Natton]

Ok, let's assume the world is over-populated and unsustainable. Solutions?

Okay, I don’t pretend that the solution is easy, and unfortunately it might sound like airy-fairy moralising, but it seems to me that the heart and soul of the real solution is the education and empowerment of women. All the evidence indicates that when a woman has a real choice, has real options, very few choose to spend their adulthood in an endless cycle of pregnancy and childbirth. The practical implementation of such an idea would require a fundamental shift in the balance of the world economy. Hopeless to think that such a thing could happen? The prospective consequences mean that sooner or later it has to.

 

[drankin]

Education only goes so far. For example, how many of us are overweight but know exactly how not to be? How many people know smoking will most likely be the thing that kills them but smoke anyway?

Cultures would need to change. Many cultures live to have large healthy families. Regardless of their wealth. Give them condoms and they will make balloons for their kids with them.

 

[WhoWee]

Why do we assume that in the future we will be restricted to living and farming on land only?

 

[Evo]

My personal opinion is that something needs to be done now, that the means to stop the population explosion (enforcement of limiting the number of children born per person) is not popular with politicians or religions, so it's not going to happen.

IMO, we're doomed until we become engaged in another world war or there is a massive epidemic we can't control, or we breed ourselves out of existence by destroying the planet with our numbers. I don't see a bright future for our great grand children.

 

[Evo]

Why do we assume that in the future we will be restricted to living and farming on land only?

If you are talking about living over water, where would this be that would not be quickly wiped out by storms or large waves?

 

[davidj89]

Ok, let's assume the world is over-populated and unsustainable. Solutions?

Honestly I think it may be colonizing other planets. I'm under the impression that in a fairly short amount of time (40-50 yrs) people will be able to choose to live for a much longer amount of time and people will still want to be popping out baby's. This means that we will either force people to die or shoot them into space haha

 

[edpell]

The prospective consequences mean that sooner or later it has to.

It has not been the case for homo sapiens for the last 2 million years so I do not see that "it has to". I know of no top predator in the world that self limits its population.

 

[Evo]

It has not been the case for homo sapiens for the last 2 million years so I do not see that "it has to". I know of no top predator in the world that self limits its population.

We've been lucky that the last ice age, the Black Plague, genocide and constant wars, lack of medicine, etc... managed to keep the human population down and in some cases nearly wiped out. We don't have that any more. Many species will control population naturally. A duck, for example, will lay more or less eggs depending on the amount of food available. Many animals are part of the food chain, so that limits their population. Humans on the other hand have invented ways to protect themselves from predators, to vaccinate themselves against disease, change our environment to the detriment of wildlife and the ecosystem, and successfully save and prolong lives through medical means. Even worse, (I never claimed to have popular opinions) we now artificially create life where it naturally would not have happened.

 

[WhoWee]

If you are talking about living over water, where would this be that would not be quickly wiped out by storms or large waves?

I'm not certain how many years into the future we're projecting? However, in 100 to 200 years, it might be possible to live below the surface - or perhaps even design surface oriented structures to submerge (full or partial) during periods of extreme weather?

 

[Evo]

I'm not certain how many years into the future we're projecting? However, in 100 to 200 years, it might be possible to live below the surface - or perhaps even design surface oriented structures to submerge (full or partial) during periods of extreme weather?

I don't know how feasible that is, how much energy would it take to operate a large scale operation? Where would the waste from a small city go? And wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to just put reasonable population controls in place now rather than try to find places to stick more humans and displace more of our ecosystem?

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know how feasible that is, how much energy would it take to operate a large scale operation? Where would the waste from a small city go? And wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to just put reasonable population controls in place now rather than try to find places to stick more humans and displace more of our ecosystem?

Real estate has a limited supply. As prices increase and choice locations diminish and given the attraction to the water - it seems reasonable people will want to live on the water. I'm thinking luxury living - not public housing.

 

[drankin]

I don't know how feasible that is, how much energy would it take to operate a large scale operation? Where would the waste from a small city go? And wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to just put reasonable population controls in place now rather than try to find places to stick more humans and displace more of our ecosystem?

I think we are a long way off from this. We are talking about denying a free people from being able to reproduce as they see fit. China does this but they are not a free society. Convincing a free people to adopt such a social control that limits their reproductive liberty just doesn't seem possible. At least not in the US.

Here, at least, I would be in favor of some sort of restriction dependent on a persons ability to provide for their children and not be relient on government assistance. But, how would it be enforceable?

 

[Evo]

Real estate has a limited supply. As prices increase and choice locations diminish and given the attraction to the water - it seems reasonable people will want to live on the water. I'm thinking luxury living - not public housing.

Like that World boat. It advertises capacity for 200 residents. Two hundred very rich people. With all of the imported luxury foods, I wonder how sustainable that is. Oh look at the maid looking out the window. I guess perhaps the extrremely wealthy will take to these kind of boats, although they might be afraid to debark for ritzy outings amongst the overpopulated starving masses at the ports.

http://www.aboardtheworld.com/reside

 

[Evo]

I think we are a long way off from this. We are talking about denying a free people from being able to reproduce as they see fit. China does this but they are not a free society. Convincing a free people to adopt such a social control that limits their reproductive liberty just doesn't seem possible. At least not in the US.

Here, at least, I would be in favor of some sort of restriction dependent on a persons ability to provide for their children and not be relient on government assistance. But, how would it be enforceable?

On income tax, only the first two children can be claimed as dependents and a tax penalty for each additional child. That way people can still pop them out, but there won't be a financial incentive for it.

Or no tax break for any dependents.

This would act as both a deterrant and would also increase tax revenue.

 

[drankin]

On income tax, only the first two children can be claimed as dependents and a tax penalty for each additional child. That way people can still pop them out, but there won't be a financial incentive for it.

That's a start. Or how about doing away with such a credit altogether?