Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 152 posts

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#61

Post by lutusp »

seclorum wrote: post #38
fiter wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that neither of the historical trend models are going to be realistic except by chance. Past performance doesn't guarantee future returns. Basically, I'm not sure that the past situations and solutions will be the same as the future situation and non-/solutions. Also, this misses a big part of what's important to me. The standard of living should also be considered. Given that we can support 9 billion people,…

> Past performance doesn't guarantee future returns. You might want to consult the factual record of tens of thousands of years of farmers on that particular point of view. ;) You are right that it doesn't guarantee anything, except to those who carefully apply scientific principles to their management of resources, folks otherwise known as 'farmers'. >he standard of living should also be considered. Given that we ca…

> there are no environmental reasons, at all, why we couldn't manage to sustain life on Earth, indefinitely.

The linked article doesn't say we can sustain our numbers indefinitely, It argues that we can grow our numbers indefinitely. Grow != sustain.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#62

Post by twykke »

seclorum wrote: post #23
hannibal5 wrote: post #17

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 i…

>The main failure of this article is that it assumes that social problems are outside biology and that they are easy to solve. The main point of this article is that the archeological record proves that this is the case. 200,000 years of evidence suggests that, in spite of our superstitions, we humans are capable of managing our resources and replenishing the world from which we derive our sustenance. Are you sure yo…

Can we all agree that the amount of humans which the Earth's (mass/surface area/volume/energy/environment/resources/what-have-you) can support is finite? Can we also agree that the ideal number of humans on Earth is somewhere between 0 and this finite limit?

In this case, I would simply argue that the ideal amount is somewhat lower than the amount of humans which would necessitate covering the entire Earth's landmass and oceans with a planet-sized city, obliterating all natural landforms and all species except those found in factory farms and zoos.

I guess what I am trying to say is, if we consider overpopulation not to be a problem, then we must believe that humans are wise enough to stop multiplying before Earth becomes a monoculture. This is the argument that I find hard to believe.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#63

Post by pyre »

IsThisObvious wrote: post #22
wildtype wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Some other species: things like raccoons, crows, cows, pigeons, rats, mice, dogs, house cats, etc are all likely to thrive.

Depends on what you mean by "thrive." Many of them will "thrive" in conditions that it would be illegal to put a human into. I'm not sure if I call that "thriving."

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#64

Post by smoyer »

antris wrote: post #41
smoyer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been several articles posted here recently on the health of the oceans, specifically how the oxygen levels are decreasing leading to a decrease in sea-life (with the exception of species like jellyfish that thrive in that environment). While I'm sure the human race could survive as vegetarians, I think it's also important to protect the systems that convert CO2 back into oxygen ... we're still going to nee…

Of course, there's the whole global warming debate It's not a debate, it's science.

CO2 levels are increasing ... that's science. The question of whether we can actually stop the trend, much less reverse it is both science and debate. The question of what each person, company and country should do is purely debate. Those of us in rich industrialize countries will not want to give up our way of life. Those burning the rain-forests are (from what I remember) doing it to subsist.

I'm also a steam-locomotive buff (install sl on all your Linux machines), and it's interesting to follow their decline in the US and other first world countries. China used steam power longer than most (http://www.david-longman.com/China.html), since they had vast reserves of coal and other more important infrastructure to build. But it appears China is just now recognizing the types of pollution that led to the 1970s/1980s "super-fund" sites in the US. I suspect that countries that want to join the ranks of the financial superpower will progress through similar stages where they won't be inclined to agree to pollution limits.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#65

Post by fedvasu »

cnorgate wrote: post #53
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".

The reality is that the best way to control population expansion is by bringing good healthcare to a region. People in the third world have huge families for a number of reasons - a few of them include the reality that: 1) Many children will die young, so in order to have at least a few that survive they need to have a large number of them 2) They have no form of birth control available available to them, so even if…

No that is the problem right there. The advent of good(pretty good for a 3rd world country) health care in India ensured explosive growth of population. The only humane way to control population is extensive education of the masses,strongly backed by government(military can be engaged, if required) It means breaking away from religious factions and beliefs. It is impossible in India where minority politics is very important and in an Islamic country like Bangladesh it would be difficult.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#66

Post by seclorum »

hannibal5 wrote: post #52
seclorum wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The main failure of this article is that it assumes that social problems are outside biology and that they are easy to solve. The main point of this article is that the archeological record proves that this is the case. 200,000 years of evidence suggests that, in spite of our superstitions, we humans are capable of managing our resources and replenishing the world from which we derive our sustenance. Are you sure yo…

Yes. I'm 100% sure. If you don't believe me go and look at how we are capable of managing our resources in Sahelin region.

.. okay, fine: then you go and see how we've managed our resources in .. oh, lets just take - The Whole of Europe - and compare.

Just because some humans 'are stupid' doesn't mean all humans are. There is a lot of evidence that we, who choose to manage, will outlive those who choose to be stupid. 200,000 years of it, in fact.

(Stupidity might be contagious; the point is though: so is intelligence.)

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#67

Post by glenra »

fedvasu wrote: post #48
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".

I curse you to live in a country like India or Bangladesh for rest of your life. I hope you survive that environment and die a natural death.These are the places where population increase is severely under-checked due to various political,religious and plain-old(which are not any of the former) dumb reasons. I am not going to predict anything but I believe these two countries will be the example of hazards of overpop…

The population density of Fremont, CA is about the same as the population density of Bangladesh, and it's not a bad place to live.

The population density of Hong Kong is much higher still, and it's also a pretty nice place to live. In short, the countries you name have a poverty problem, NOT a population problem. And the poverty problem is generally declining, last I checked.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#68

Post by chr1 »

cnorgate wrote: post #39

The problem with this thinking is a failure to realize that we are already taxing the Earth far beyond its carrying capacity. To continue supporting even our current population will force us to devastate our planet to the point that we won't recognize it in 50-100 years. What's the point of supporting more people if we bring them into a miserable world? Certainly we COULD continue developing innovations that harness…

To continue supporting even 1/10 of our current population will force us to devastate our planet eventually, if we don't change the way we support it.

More people means more science and better ways of sustaining population.

And we are not stuck on our planet forever, there are more planets nearby waiting to be 'devastated'.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#69

Post by seclorum »

lutusp wrote: post #56
seclorum wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

> Fixed ideas being challenged is exactly what science - not superstition - is all about. Science isn't a political movement. Science can produce very reliable results if conducted efficiently, but it cannot get people to listen. That's the divide between science and politics. > The same area of land, supporting increasingly larger and larger populations, demonstrates that in fact we can manage our population growth…

Remind me, with science: When were we humans last wiped out, again?

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#70

Post by cnorgate »

pdonis wrote: post #49
cnorgate wrote: post #39

The problem with this thinking is a failure to realize that we are already taxing the Earth far beyond its carrying capacity. To continue supporting even our current population will force us to devastate our planet to the point that we won't recognize it in 50-100 years. What's the point of supporting more people if we bring them into a miserable world? Certainly we COULD continue developing innovations that harness…

we are already taxing the Earth far beyond its carrying capacity And your evidence for this is? To continue supporting even our current population will force us to devastate our planet And your evidence for this is? What about raising the standard of living of all those who are already on the planet As the article clearly states, the obstacles to doing this are social and political, not environmental or technological…

You can form your own opinions about global warming, rising ocean levels, the acidification of the seas, the destruction of our rain forests or the unsustainable nature of our carbon based economy (see peak oil). I don't have time to reference the multitude of articles on the subject, but they're abundantly available... there's this great site called Google.com which can help you with that.

Regarding the issue of 'natural beauty' in the world, I see it on a micro-level when I go to a lake in the summer that was once pristine but is now overrun with seaweed due to Nitrogen runoff from farmer fields. I see it on a macro level when I read about things my children's generation might never enjoy, like the beauty of a coral reef.

At the end of the day with so much 'pseudo science' thrown around from fringe scientists, all anyone has is an 'opinion'. You now have mine.

Post reply on HN