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

21–30 of 152 posts

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#21

Post by IsThisObvious »

lutusp wrote: post #13
hnhg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Michael Jackson's death drew a worldwide audience.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#22

Post by IsThisObvious »

wildtype wrote: post #15
bayesianhorse wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#23

Post by seclorum »

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 you're not just harboring a fixed superstition on the subject, which has just been challenged?

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#24

Post by lutusp »

wildtype wrote: post #15
bayesianhorse wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that's true, but it's a temporary adjustment, always followed by mass death. This is easily shown in the laboratory -- in the first phase of a multi-species model, one species wipes out all the others. Then the winners turn on themselves.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#25

Post by aaron695 »

If they have a valid point they are not telling it well or at all.

They seem to think current food supplies can via efficiencies be increased magically by a 100% or something.

They don't even seem to be looking at non food issues like oil use or the fact the 1st world (And it's mega resource use) is tripling.

Let alone technologies that might increase the life span by years which'll cause 9 billion to seem like a small figure.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#26

Post by lutusp »

IsThisObvious wrote: post #21
lutusp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Michael Jackson's death drew a worldwide audience.

Lindbergh's baby wasn't an international superstar before someone grabbed him out of his crib.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#27

Post by seclorum »

lutusp wrote: post #12
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.

Its a projection of Malthusian ethics: "Humans are stupid".

Actually the point of this article is: "Evidence suggests that despite what we think: Humans are smart".

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#28

Post by IsThisObvious »

lutusp wrote: post #26
IsThisObvious wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Michael Jackson's death drew a worldwide audience.

Lindbergh's baby wasn't an international superstar before someone grabbed him out of his crib.

The child's parents were, a fact you seem to be ignoring in your analysis; I expect we'd see international headlines at the kidnapping of Michael Jackson's child or the kidnapping of the new son of the Duke of Cambridge.

Do you really contend that we wouldn't?

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#29

Post by genofon »

The way I see is that technology goes with the money. The demographic boom is happening mostly in the third world which company will invest in technology to make resources available to all the people? and these countries that are facing the challenge of an increasing population will exploit the resources that they have too fast? that's what append in Easter Island: the population cut all the trees and they disappeared from the face of the heart.

Re: Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

#30

Post by smoyer »

IsThisObvious wrote: post #16
lutusp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 need to breath.

Of course, there's the whole global warming debate (which I won't get into) as well ... what effect will that have on plant-life and agriculture?

P.S. I like seafood, so I'd also prefer we manage to keep the oceans habitable.

Post reply on HN