Is Overpopulation an Important Issue? Examining Solutions

[shashankac655]

The world's population growth rate is definitely coming down, China's population is expected to stop growing by 2025 and India's population is expected overtake China's by 2030 but still demographers are generally confident that by the second half of this century we will be ending one unique era in history—the population explosion—and entering another, in which population will level out or even fall ,after reaching a maximum of around 10.5 billion.
world population.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text/2

 

[Evo]

The world's population growth rate is definitely coming down, China's population is expected to stop growing by 2025 and India's population is expected overtake China's by 2030 but still demographers are generally confident that by the second half of this century we will be ending one unique era in history—the population explosion—and entering another, in which population will level out or even fall ,after reaching a maximum of around 10.5 billion.
world population.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text/2

10.5 billion is about 3-4 times the number of people that can be successfully economically sustained, IMO. We can't find jobs for the people we have now.

January 25, 2004

GENEVA -- The number of jobless people worldwide has reached a record of almost 186 million, while hundreds of millions more are employed but make so little money they can barely survive, the United Nations labor agency said Thursday.

http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Unemployment/unemploy12504a.html

And don't forget "jobless" people are only that fraction of people that are still actively seeking employment or are qualified to seek unemployement benefits. Once you are no longer eleigible for benefits, you drop off the radar.

We can't provide jobs, we can't provide drinking water or food, housing, health services, etc... to hundreds of millions of people. How can anyone say that almost doubling the world population in the next 40 years is *sustainable"? Perhaps by third world criteria. I can't imagine how bad things will get, IMO.

 

[Newai]

A tad old, but I've been hearing about the population explosion since I was a teen. So I think everything in the 12 year old article is still true.

As far as I can tell, the recent genocides are merely really really really really late term abortions. And they won't stop, until everyone understands this, and stops having so many freakin' babies!

IMHO of course.

Where the genocides happen, are the people there even aware of the world's population and rate?

 

[OmCheeto]

Where the genocides happen, are the people there even aware of the world's population and rate?

I don't know. They don't happen around my parts.

All I know, is that 40 years ago, I was aware of the problem of overpopulation.

It would be only a few years later that I was aware of genocide.

And another 40 years before I would end up here discussing it with you.

Are you a good person Newai? I'm old, and am rapidly developing what I would call Alzheimers, and do not even recall if I've ever discussed anything with you.

But today, I like your question.

 

[vici10]

And don't forget "jobless" people are only that fraction of people that are still actively seeking employment or are qualified to seek unemployement benefits. Once you are no longer eleigible for benefits, you drop off the radar.

This is not exactly correct, at least not for US. In US calculation of unemployment also uses household surveys and surveys of employers. So one does not have to be eligible for benefits in order to be count in unemployment statistics.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment and unemployment (of those over 15 years of age) using two different labour force surveys[75] conducted by the United States Census Bureau (within the United States Department of Commerce) and/or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (within the United States Department of Labor) that gather employment statistics monthly. The Current Population Survey (CPS), or "Household Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 60,000 households. This Survey measures the unemployment rate based on the ILO definition.[76] The Current Employment Statistics survey (CES), or "Payroll Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 160,000 businesses and government agencies that represent 400,000 individual employers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#cite_note-ilo.org-66"

But I do agree with you that real unemployment (or underemployment) is probably higher than the official statistics.

We can't provide jobs, we can't provide drinking water or food, housing, health services, etc... to hundreds of millions of people. How can anyone say that almost doubling the world population in the next 40 years is *sustainable"?

I do not think this is a right question to ask, I mean the question about jobs. First, there is a theoretical question, can be people provided with adequate shelter, food, water etc using existing resources and modern technologies, is it theoretically possible? I do not know answer to this question. From what you have written, I guess you say it is impossible. I really would like to see some studies on this, if they exist.

If the answer is no, than the problem of overpopulation should be approached by reducing population. High birth rate is usually a sign of agricultural societies. In such societies people need more children as free labor force in subsistence farming. In industrial societies birth rates are usually low. And there is a correlation between level of education and birth rates. So the approach could be mechanization and increasing education.

If answer is yes, then this means that the problem is not overpopulation but distribution and organization of the process of production. Maybe productive forces of society are so developed that few can provide for many. In this case, the whole notion of distribution according to labor contribution maybe outdated. There is another problem, the problem of “overproduction crisis”, the business cycles, the paradox of misery in the land of plenty, the things that happened during great depression. And this is not a problem of overpopulation, but of social organization.

 

[Evo]

I do not think this is a right question to ask, I mean the question about jobs. First, there is a theoretical question, can be people provided with adequate shelter, food, water etc using existing resources and modern technologies, is it theoretically possible? I do not know answer to this question. From what you have written, I guess you say it is impossible. I really would like to see some studies on this, if they exist.

I'm going by reality, not some hypothetical scenario on paper. Sure you can move people and resources around on paper with no problem. In reality, no.

"Theoretically possible" is like asking "if the moon was made of cheese, could we feed all of Earth's starving population?"

 

[shashankac655]

10.5 billion is about 3-4 times the number of people that can be successfully economically sustained, IMO. We can't find jobs for the people we have now. http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Unemployment/unemploy12504a.html

And don't forget "jobless" people are only that fraction of people that are still actively seeking employment or are qualified to seek unemployement benefits. Once you are no longer eleigible for benefits, you drop off the radar.

We can't provide jobs, we can't provide drinking water or food, housing, health services, etc... to hundreds of millions of people. How can anyone say that almost doubling the world population in the next 40 years is *sustainable"? Perhaps by third world criteria. I can't imagine how bad things will get, IMO.

The governments will need to take some new methods of agriculture seriously like
hydroponics
urban agriculture
We may need large scale desalination projects around the world to meet water requirements. desalination

 

[Gokul43201]

10.5 billion is about 3-4 times the number of people that can be successfully economically sustained, IMO. We can't find jobs for the people we have now. http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Unemployment/unemploy12504a.html

Is there reason to believe this is related to population (assuming that global unemployment rates have been increasing with population - I've seen no evidence of that; for instance, in the US, the population has doubled in the past half-century, but unemployment rates have remained essentially flat)?

 

[Evo]

Is there reason to believe this is related to population (assuming that global unemployment rates have been increasing with population - I've seen no evidence of that; for instance, in the US, the population has doubled in the past half-century, but unemployment rates have remained essentially flat)?

I'd have to look, but the topic is world population. People have suggested that the resolution to overpopulation is to remove restrictions on immigration and allow anyone to move anywhere they want, no restrictions. Just let all of the people suffering in bad parts of the world to move into the good parts. I won't continue with their scenarios.

 

[lompocus]

Others have already mentioned the need to develop agriculture so that a larger population can be supported. Some problems with things as they are now:
*Little actual investment and public interest in developing new agri technology (hydro/aeroponics and everything else that's been mentioned)
*Current agricultural methods pollute EVERYTHING and are, generally, non-sustainable. See absolutely everything about the US Midwest, I.E.: Reliance on aquifers (that are rapidly depleting... few seem to care, of course), runoff and subsequent pollution of freshwater systems (lovely artificially-induced eutrophication ftl), etc.
*I haven't gone through the middle of the thread. Has anyone mentioned the problems associated with the low diversity of most countries' agricultural output?
*Other stuff I can't think of right now. I'll use the catchall that "someone mentioned it earlier."

Anyway, whatever, just wanted to mention that if it hasn't been said before. Unsustainable agriculture practices directly influence whatever number yields a "sustainable" population. Even a region whose population has been reduced to subsistence levels can't hope to survive if they continue to lose farmland and such. So, the sustainable population level tends to reach zero over time. (<-Well, it really probably doesn't so that's worded badly, but for all practical purposes whatever le is, and will be, at a level that can't be obtained without removing huge chunks of the current population. Could we jettison everyone into space and hope our space-guinea pigs survive? I'd love to do and be a part of that, but... well, few people are actually interested soooo...)

 

[WhoWee]

I'd have to look, but the topic is world population. People have suggested that the resolution to overpopulation is to remove restrictions on immigration and allow anyone to move anywhere they want, no restrictions. Just let all of the people suffering in bad parts of the world to move into the good parts. I won't continue with their scenarious.

I watched a documentary recently that reminded me of the difficulties regarding the growth of the US. After the Civil War, roughly 150 years ago, the plains opened up to settlement because of the trans-continental railroad. People in Nebraska (for instance) acquired land (160 acres ?) for $10 under the Homestead Act and about 40,000 took advantage almost immediately. The first problem they encountered was a lack of building materials. Accordingly, they built sod houses and shared their homes with insects, snakes, etc. At first the farming went well aside from the 400+ tornadoes that threatened their earthen homes. Next came a few trillion locust that ate the crops - about half of the settlers returned East. It took another decade to make it work and within 2 decades the plains became the breadbasket of the US - self sufficiency was achieved.

My guess is there are a few war-weary places in Africa (for instance) that have fertile soil and people looking for an opportunity - it could work there as well with a sustained effort, lot's of work, and a little luck.

 

[Evo]

I watched a documentary recently that reminded me of the difficulties regarding the growth of the US. After the Civil War, roughly 150 years ago, the plains opened up to settlement because of the trans-continental railroad. People in Nebraska (for instance) acquired land (160 acres ?) for $10 under the Homestead Act and about 40,000 took advantage almost immediately. The first problem they encountered was a lack of building materials. Accordingly, they built sod houses and shared their homes with insects, snakes, etc. At first the farming went well aside from the 400+ tornadoes that threatened their earthen homes. Next came a few trillion locust that ate the crops - about half of the settlers returned East. It took another decade to make it work and within 2 decades the plains became the breadbasket of the US - self sufficiency was achieved.

My guess is there are a few war-weary places in Africa (for instance) that have fertile soil and people looking for an opportunity - it could work there as well with a sustained effort, lot's of work, and a little luck.

No, they're talking about all of the poor from sub-saharan African countires, India, China, moving to places like the US without any immigration laws.

 

[leontd]

The real question is not if whether over population is an issue but rather how to construct a stability system it will not be a conundrum.

 

[WhoWee]

No, they're talking about all of the poor from sub-saharan African countires, India, China, moving to places like the US without any immigration laws.

One of my friends has been sending back photos from a war-torn place in Africa that is dependent upon foreign aid for food - he's been there about 4 months. The grass and plants are plentiful as are reptiles, apes and many others. There is no excuse for these people to not be able to grow crops of some type to sustain themselves and others in the region.

 

[shashankac655]

Just let all of the people suffering in bad parts of the world to move into the good parts. I won't continue with their scenarios.

people suffering in the bad or poor parts of the world are poor people right? so they can never afford to live in expensive western or american cities or places ,it is the rich or the upper middle class people of these countries who move to the US or other developed countries.

So the poor people actually stay in their own country and it is the middle class and the rich who move around, right?

 

[WhoWee]

people suffering in the bad or poor parts of the world are poor people right? so they can never afford to live in expensive western or american cities or places ,it is the rich or the upper middle class people of these countries who move to the US or other developed countries.

So the poor people actually stay in their own country and it is the middle class and the rich who move around, right?

If someone currently lives in a grass hut with an earthen floor - actually "dirt poor" - why would they need to be moved into a new or expensive city? Why subject them to the culture shock?

An upgrade to a small but secure structure built with wood, steel, plastic, or concrete featuring exposed walls and a floor would be quite appreciated. Running water into a sink basin, a toilet, and a light bulb plugged into the end of an extension cord would be a luxury.

 

[Galron]

I think with equity of wealth and technology population tends to become a less serious problem. Populations in Europe for example are almost stagnant overall. If we could bring other countries up to our economic and socio-political level then there's no doubt that the same trend would be reflected in other populations. Also with technological advance comes lower birth rates, in Pakistan for example this is particularly true. In some areas it's quite startling: average sibling numbers have decreased almost exponentially in line with technological advance and access to contraception etc.

It's not so much a problem with population. Europe has massive food surpluses that go to waste most often because of the inequity of the systems the world has. In the 19th century there were many doom and gloom speculations about growing populations, but as ever technology more than outstripped the demands to feed the populace etc at least in developed nations.

Speaking for the UK immigration trends tend to work in our favour, many people come to our country, pay taxes and invest their time and effort doing jobs quite often we wouldn't and don't want to do, they are rewarded and often return to their country of origin and that's not just North Europeans either. There is also a big skills shortage in skilled trades that immigrants fill.

Emigration and immigration in the UK are roughly equal and have been for some time.

 

[mheslep]

Emigration and immigration in the UK are roughly equal and have been for some time.

I think that is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6194354/Mohammed-is-most-popular-name-for-baby-boys-in-London.html"

Mohammed is now the most common name for baby boys born in London

 

[Galron]

I think that is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6194354/Mohammed-is-most-popular-name-for-baby-boys-in-London.html"

It's a fact overall the emigration/immigration levels balance out. Most people just look at what is coming in and ignore the overall trend. The trend generally shows a stagnation, most people who come in eventually leave, overall it tends to balance out. There is an illusory growth in immigration where the radical and often racist proponents will quote short term stats, but it is nonsense.

If you want me to quote statistics year on year I will.

Taking just high population centres (who incidentally have higher than average immigration rates as an overall in comparison with low population centres or x) into account and then posting a silly anecdotal account, is, frankly worthless. Look at the actual figures over the whole country.

 

[Hells]

Wait, are you saying that net immigration is zero because the immigrants return or that successful people exit UK?

 

[shashankac655]

No, they're talking about all of the poor from sub-saharan African countires, India, China, moving to places like the US without any immigration laws.

I'd have to look, but the topic is world population. People have suggested that the resolution to overpopulation is to remove restrictions on immigration and allow anyone to move anywhere they want, no restrictions. Just let all of the people suffering in bad parts of the world to move into the good parts. I won't continue with their scenarios.

If someone currently lives in a grass hut with an earthen floor - actually "dirt poor" - why would they need to be moved into a new or expensive city? Why subject them to the culture shock?

An upgrade to a small but secure structure built with wood, steel, plastic, or concrete featuring exposed walls and a floor would be quite appreciated. Running water into a sink basin, a toilet, and a light bulb plugged into the end of an extension cord would be a luxury.

that's exactly what i was saying ,there is no question of poor people in the developing world moving into the developed world

 

[MarcoD]

that's exactly what i was saying ,there is no question of poor people in the developing world moving into the developed world

Well, as a policy that wouldn't make a lot of sense. The problem is not what the Earth can sustain at the moment, but what the Earth can sustain the moment we practically run out of oil. All the agriculture of the western world is mechanized, in the end, it just transforms oil into food. I have no idea if we can even feed the western population if oil becomes scarce.

In the long run, these people might even be better off with a, for us, backward model of human-intensive but sustainable agriculture.

 

[mheslep]

It's a fact overall the emigration/immigration levels balance out. Most people just look at what is coming in and ignore the overall trend. The trend generally shows a stagnation, most people who come in eventually leave, overall it tends to balance out. There is an illusory growth in immigration where the radical and often racist proponents will quote short term stats, but it is nonsense.

If you want me to quote statistics year on year I will.

Taking just high population centres (who incidentally have higher than average immigration rates as an overall in comparison with low population centres or x) into account and then posting a silly anecdotal account, is, frankly worthless. Look at the actual figures over the whole country.

The Telegraph story was not an annecdote, but drawn from an ONR announcement. Here's more ONR data:

[UK] Net migration is 239,000 for year ending Dec 2010, up from 198,000 year ending Dec 2009.
Emigration is at its lowest since June 2005 at 336,000. Immigration remains steady at 575,000

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/august-2011/msqr.html

Or 1.5 to 2 million in the last decade, and that reflects only the known immigration.

 

[mheslep]

...Also with technological advance comes lower birth rates, in Pakistan for example this is particularly true.

In what sense do you mean? Pakinstan's birth rate is just under four. Mexico, for instance, has a birth rate near replacement level.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...country:PAK:MEX:BRA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

 

[estro]

Mother Nature will address the problem in due course. It might not be pretty.

Every word is cut in stone.
[Translated hebrew expression [it means I could not agree more], hope it's holds its meaning in English.]

 

[flyingpig]

I thought Japan was encouraging birthrates?

 

[mheslep]

I thought Japan was encouraging birthrates?

The birth rate there has in the last couple years stopped its sharp decline, and was up http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...y&idim=country:JPN&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en" and that will decline must accelerate absent a major birth rate uptick, or a sudden, miraculous "y'all come" change to immigration attitudes.

 

[DoggerDan]

Well, as a policy that wouldn't make a lot of sense. The problem is not what the Earth can sustain at the moment, but what the Earth can sustain the moment we practically run out of oil. All the agriculture of the western world is mechanized, in the end, it just transforms oil into food. I have no idea if we can even feed the western population if oil becomes scarce.

Worldwide,* it looks like we have about 64 years left. However, some countries, like Saudi Arabia, have a lot more oil left than other countries such as the U.S. Our reserves, in terms of years, is just one decade, which is one of the reasons we buy so much foreign oil. Canada, meanwhile, has enough to last them 181 years. If they shared it with us, though, it wouldn't last long.

In the long run, these people might even be better off with a, for us, backward model of human-intensive but sustainable agriculture.

Provided the sun holds out, agriculture will be sustainable. Most people might very well indeed have to become farmers, though!

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_by_country

 

[mheslep]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#Fertilizer", is also needed to sustain modern agriculture. The hydrogen in ammonia is currently obtained from natural gas.

 

[Galron]

Wait, are you saying that net immigration is zero because the immigrants return or that successful people exit UK?

Neither, I am saying overall it balances out. The actual numbers of immigrants in the UK is low compared to somewhere like the US. However the BNP would have you believe that we are being invaded and our culture eroded, it is nonsense.

The Telegraph story was not an annecdote, but drawn from an ONR announcement. Here's more ONR data:

The Telegraph is nearly as bad as The Daily Fail. Question your sources political leanings, The Telegraph is very right wing, there may be some truth to the article but it is spun in a very uninformative and bigoted way usually in The Telegraph. The immigrants, they're tekin r jerbs!

From the wiki:

Political stance

The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative in modern times.[15] The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, along with the paper's influence over Conservative activists, has resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph.[15] Even when Conservative support was shown to have slumped in the opinion polls and Labour became ascendant in them (particularly when leader Tony Blair rebranded the party as "New Labour" on becoming leader after the death of John Smith in 1994), the newspaper remained loyal to the Conservatives. This loyalty continued after Labour ousted the Conservatives from power by a landslide election result in 1997, and in the face of Labour election wins in 2001 and the third successive Labour election win in 2005.

Net migration is 239,000 for year ending Dec 2010, up from 198,000 year ending Dec 2009.
Emigration is at its lowest since June 2005 at 336,000. Immigration remains steady at 575,000
Study remains the most common reason for migration to the UK (228,000). 78 per cent are from outside the EU
People migrating to the UK for a definite job is at its lowest since March 2004 at 110,

This statistic means almost nothing. In a recession people upping sticks and moving out is going to be low, so that will upset the figures. Like I say broad trends are much more informative than short term ones.

The trend may look like there is large immigration and low emigration in the short term, and given a single year but generally overall the populations numbers of immigrants aren't growing at anywhere near the levels some right wing organisations would have you believe if they are to any extent at all. 92% of the country are White British people or of mixed British/x descent (a very small minority). Of the rest only a small minority are from outside of Europe and most of those coming from places like Poland return.

In times of hardship the immigrants are always the first target, it's historically always been true, from Germany to anywhere in Europe. Seldom is there much justification. The only country I can really think of that does have a problem with immigration is the US and mostly that is an illegal immigration problem. Whilst I'm not saying illegal immigration is not a problem in the UK, it is not anywhere near as significant as some tabloids like to make out, although it is definitely an important issue. Legal immigration is a positive benefit to this country.

 

[mheslep]

...
This statistic means almost nothing. In a recession people upping sticks and moving out is going to be low, so that will upset the figures. Like I say broad trends are much more informative than short term ones.

Ok, here are the broad trends. http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...y&idim=country:GBR&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en", roughly coinciding with the rise of the European Union. If you can provide any other references, please do so; anything else is it seems to me is off topic.

 

[Galron]

Ok, here are the broad trends. http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...y&idim=country:GBR&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en", roughly coinciding with the rise of the European Union. If you can provide any other references, please do so; anything else is it seems to me is off topic.

Immigrant numbers as a percentage of UK citizens have remained stagnant for nearly 20 years. There were 86% white nationals with more than one generation living here in 1990, there are exactly the same proportion now. Nothing more needs to be said. You're just buying into racist right wing propaganda. If you care that much vote BNP, it would be a wasted vote but someone's got to do something about the immigrants coming over and stealing our jobs. Increases in immigration don't mean anything, how many of these people will return to their country of origin after say 5/6 years. The fact is a vast proportion of immigrants eventually return home. Your graph doesn't show that, the only thing that does is the ethnic diversity tables, and they are pretty much stagnant and have been for decades.

UK Population has been pretty much stagnant at 60 million for about 30 years also btw.

2001 Census ethnicity results

According to the 2001 Census, the ethnic composition of the United Kingdom was:[14]
Ethnic group↓ Population↓ Proportion of total UK population↓
White British 50,366,497 85.67%

_________________________________

White (other) 3,096,169 5.27%*
White Irish 691,232 1.2%
Mixed race 677,117 1.2%


______________________

Indian 1,053,411 1.8%
Pakistani 747,285 1.3%
Bangladeshi 283,063 0.5%
Other Asian (non-Chinese) 247,644 0.4%
Black Caribbean 565,876 1.0%
Black African 485,277 0.8%
Black (others) 97,585 0.2%
Chinese 247,403 0.4%
Other 230,615 0.4%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom

I'm panicking, the data from 1991 is pretty much identical btw.






*(Mostly North European immigrants most of whom fill job shortages, and jobs that English people don't want to do. Most of whom return home anyway.)

 

[mheslep]

I'm not particularly interested in pursuing ethnic makeup here, other than to establish immigration facts. Regardless of how many may come and leave later, net immigration into the UK is a ~million per year and the trend is increasing at a ~hundred thousand per year.

UK 1991 to 2001

...Data was collected for Great Britain and comparison shows that the ethnic minority population there grew from 3.0 million in 1991 to 4.6 million in 2001, a rise of 53 per cent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England#Ethnicity" and percentage change of each group over that time (my calculation):
White:*British 0.3%
White:*Irish -10.6%
White:*Other 42.3%
Asian*or*Asian British:*Indian 37.5%
Asian or Asian British:*Pakistani 40.2%
Asian or Asian British:*Bangladeshi 39.5%
Asian or Asian British:*Other South Asian 58.8%
Black*or*Black British:*Caribbean 8.6%
Black or Black British:*African 65.5%
Black or Black British:*Other 30.6%
Mixed 48.7%
Chinese*or*Other:*Chinese 99.2%

 

[Galron]

I'm not particularly interested in pursuing ethnic makeup here, other than to establish immigration facts. Regardless of how many may come and leave later, net immigration into the UK is a ~million per year and the trend is increasing at a ~hundred thousand per year.

UK 1991 to 2001http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England#Ethnicity" and percentage change of each group over that time (my calculation):
White:*British 0.3%
White:*Irish -10.6%
White:*Other 42.3%
Asian*or*Asian British:*Indian 37.5%
Asian or Asian British:*Pakistani 40.2%
Asian or Asian British:*Bangladeshi 39.5%
Asian or Asian British:*Other South Asian 58.8%
Black*or*Black British:*Caribbean 8.6%
Black or Black British:*African 65.5%
Black or Black British:*Other 30.6%
Mixed 48.7%
Chinese*or*Other:*Chinese 99.2%

Your not interested in facts, ok, hope that works out well for you.

The net population of the UK has been fairly stagnant around 60 million for 30 years and doesn't seem to be increasing at any particularly worrying rate, populations in Europe are generally stagnant or increasing extremely slowly. That's another inconvenient fact that you aren't interested in as well. You should probably stop reading the Daily Mail and Telegraph at this point. Clearly they are making you jump to silly conclusions based on nothing. Neither is immigration overall significant in the long term, nor is ethnic diversity shifting, nor is our population growing at any real rate. Ovepopulation scare mongerings bark has always been worse than its bite.

http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/...ry&idim=country:GBR&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

Notice the trend for Europe is actually decreasing.

net immigration into the UK is a ~million per year

Who cares?

No no it is not, it is that in the short term.

 

[DoggerDan]

I agree. I think that is why we have moved this conversation from what should we do to what would be an ideal number.

I'm all for minimizing our impact, and am a minimalist camper. According to some, however, the ideal number of humans on this planet is 0. I've yet to see any of these folks recycle 100% within the confines of their 1/4-acre lots. They flush their toilets into municipal waste the same as I do.

I see their point, though, as any number of humans on the planet will have an impact. But so do bears, termites, and algae. Should we eliminate them in the sake of all fairness, as well?

Course not, so let's not paint ourselves out of the picture, either.

The thing about various systems competing for natural resources is that there's no "best" answer. If one system, say, humans, grows larger, the others adjust. If it grows too large you may have extinctions, but hasn't Earth always had extinctions? I read that something like 90% or more of all animal life on this planet has become extinct over time, but we're not exactly hurting for diversity, are we? Sure, diversity is currently down, but it always goes down during times of environmental stress. That's normal, just like when it occasionally snows in Florida.

We'll reach over-population when the effects of our level of population itself causes decreases in our population. That happens on a local basis in various places around the world, mainly through famine and disease, the same as deer populations will hit a ceiling if their numbers are not kept in check through natural predation, or, since we eliminated most of their predators, if their numbers are not kept in check through programmed culling (hunting).

When it begins happening on a global scale, I'll worry. I think we're far from that at this point in time. However, that situation is resting on a fragile presumption involving available means of energy required for large-scale production and transportation of food. Absent oil or a suitable replacement, I think we're beyond a sustainable human population.