Overpopulation Is Not the Problem • Hacker News Board

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#11

Post by hnhg » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:10 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #4

This is the most purblind, misguided editorial opinion I have read in weeks. It repeats an old saw often repeated by people who don't understand the Logistic function and its role is describing biological systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function The Logistic function concisely describes the behavior of biological systems that don't have any control over their numbers, as humans most certainly do not. A…

You mention an event in 1932. Aren't you forgetting that several years later, millions of people were wiped out systematically and there were reports of it coming back and they were largely ignored. We have greater than ever communication of the world's problems and without the benefit of hindsight, it's impossible to tell if that's had any positive effect.

EDIT: it also sounds to me like you're conflating our media with our ability to self-reflect and learn as a society. That might not be the case

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#12

Post by lutusp » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:12 PM UTC

clicks wrote: post #2

I think they're looking over the social aspect of this. Areas with highest birthrates tend to be the most uneducated ones, and thus you will have a greater amount of people who will more likely make irresponsible decisions for the planet's sustainability. Look at how many people still don't believe in global warming, and how fiercely they're opposed to the government taking initiatives to solve these problems. Look a…

Anyone who think the problems caused by overpopulation are limited to the uneducated, is himself uneducated. It's a classic case of self-reference.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#13

Post by lutusp » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:14 PM UTC

hnhg wrote: post #11

lutusp wrote: post #4

This is the most purblind, misguided editorial opinion I have read in weeks. It repeats an old saw often repeated by people who don't understand the Logistic function and its role is describing biological systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function The Logistic function concisely describes the behavior of biological systems that don't have any control over their numbers, as humans most certainly do not. A…

You mention an event in 1932. Aren't you forgetting that several years later, millions of people were wiped out systematically and there were reports of it coming back and they were largely ignored. We have greater than ever communication of the world's problems and without the benefit of hindsight, it's impossible to tell if that's had any positive effect. EDIT: it also sounds to me like you're conflating our media…

> To me it sounds like you're making a mistake.

My example was meant only to show the size of the public reaction to a single death. Today, that would be impossible.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#14

Post by ddorian43 » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:14 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #8

bayesianhorse wrote: post #3

Good to hear that I'm not the only one with this opinion. While I'm all for keeping resource-consumption in check and keeping sustainability in mind, I don't like what people say about overpopulatiion. Sometimes I would hear people hoping that population numbers would decrease by natural catastrophies or diseases. Or they caution the expansion of health services in Africa "because it would make the problems worse".

> While I'm all for keeping resource-consumption in check and keeping sustainability in mind, I don't like what people say about overpopulatiion. That's your argument? That you don'e like it? I don't like it either, but mass death is how nature deals with species who exceed the carrying capacity of their environments. > Sometimes I would hear people hoping that population numbers would decrease by natural catastrophi…

what are the first stages?

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#15

Post by wildtype » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:16 PM UTC

bayesianhorse wrote: post #7

lutusp wrote: post #4

This is the most purblind, misguided editorial opinion I have read in weeks. It repeats an old saw often repeated by people who don't understand the Logistic function and its role is describing biological systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function The Logistic function concisely describes the behavior of biological systems that don't have any control over their numbers, as humans most certainly do not. A…

The logistic model especially assumes that the carrying capacity is constant. Which it's not, for humanity.

Carying capacity for human increase, while decreasing carying capacity for other species.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#16

Post by IsThisObvious » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:17 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #8

bayesianhorse wrote: post #3

Good to hear that I'm not the only one with this opinion. While I'm all for keeping resource-consumption in check and keeping sustainability in mind, I don't like what people say about overpopulatiion. Sometimes I would hear people hoping that population numbers would decrease by natural catastrophies or diseases. Or they caution the expansion of health services in Africa "because it would make the problems worse".

> While I'm all for keeping resource-consumption in check and keeping sustainability in mind, I don't like what people say about overpopulatiion. That's your argument? That you don'e like it? I don't like it either, but mass death is how nature deals with species who exceed the carrying capacity of their environments. > Sometimes I would hear people hoping that population numbers would decrease by natural catastrophi…

> We're already seeing the first stages.

Can you support this?

We're not seeing any mass deaths which are sufficient to even slow the population growth rate, and instead, seem to simply be seeing more statistically unlikely events as the population grows larger - which is what we would expect.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#17

Post by hannibal5 » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:17 PM UTC

The main failure of this article is that it assumes that social problems are outside biology and that they are easy to solve.

Currently world produces enough food for everyone. Then why do we have 700 - 800 million malnourished people, even more people facing food insecurity, why we are destroying farmland and why are we wasting the primary macronutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K).

Overpopulation is real because we as species are not distributing resources equally and we are not rational.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#18

Post by lutusp » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:18 PM UTC

bayesianhorse wrote: post #7

lutusp wrote: post #4

This is the most purblind, misguided editorial opinion I have read in weeks. It repeats an old saw often repeated by people who don't understand the Logistic function and its role is describing biological systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function The Logistic function concisely describes the behavior of biological systems that don't have any control over their numbers, as humans most certainly do not. A…

The logistic model especially assumes that the carrying capacity is constant. Which it's not, for humanity.

> The logistic model especially assumes that the carrying capacity is constant.

Yes, but the model easily accommodates scenarios in which more and more sustenance is squeezed out of the environment, which is the primary argument of the deniers. Finally, though, because big loaves of bread don't give birth to little rug-rat loaves of bread, the Logistic function predicts the same outcome -- mass birth balanced by mass death.

I'm not saying there's a solution to this problem -- there isn't -- only that people who deny that it's a problem are living in a fantasy.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#19

Post by seclorum » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:18 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #4

This is the most purblind, misguided editorial opinion I have read in weeks. It repeats an old saw often repeated by people who don't understand the Logistic function and its role is describing biological systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function The Logistic function concisely describes the behavior of biological systems that don't have any control over their numbers, as humans most certainly do not. A…

Fixed ideas being challenged is exactly what science - not superstition - is all about.

The point of the article is we wouldn't be here today at all if we hadn't been able to manage our resources. The science demonstrates this, over and over: land re-use is the key to it. The same area of land, supporting increasingly larger and larger populations, demonstrates that in fact we can manage our population growth, and have done so for 200,000 years.

But what does your superstition have to do with this? Malthusian theories super-posit that we will perish, but the archeological record demonstrates that we are capable, as a species of dealing with this.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#20

Post by foobarbazqux » Sat, Sep 14, 2013, 3:18 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #4

This is the most purblind, misguided editorial opinion I have read in weeks. It repeats an old saw often repeated by people who don't understand the Logistic function and its role is describing biological systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function The Logistic function concisely describes the behavior of biological systems that don't have any control over their numbers, as humans most certainly do not. A…

> By contrast, when the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped in March 1932, it made national headlines for years -- years -- until the perpetrator was apprehended, tried, and executed in 1936. It's the story of one family, one child, one murder. Today that story wouldn't be able to compete with the latest mass murder account. "Oh, Bashar Assad has killed 1,500 people in a nerve gas attack. Oh, well, they're not anyone I know personally. What else is in the news?"

There was more "mass death" in 1932 +/- 20 than 1993 +/- 20, in fact more than the world has ever seen and hopefully more than the world will ever see.

Also, all that needs to happen for death to balance birth is that mortality rates need to go up and birth rates need to go down, it doesn't mean that there needs to be some Malthusian die-off localized in space and time, nor does it need to involve people going crazy.