Talk:Overpopulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Overpopulation article.
Article policies
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] This article is very long

I won't repeat too many of the things stated below, but this article has clearly reached the point where one must sift through the article in order to get useful information. In any case, these are good ideas. In the time being, we may want to add a note at the beginning of the page to remind readers that the page has grown long and that they could move parts of this article somewhere else. I know there is a type of message for that purpose, but I'm not sure how exactly to add it. Ohnjaynb (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Disgrace

As I look back at the history of this article It looks to be at least 4 1/2 years old. In all that time has there been no real information added about population's impact on the environment? How can that be? In fact, in the whole article there are only two paragraphs which discuss (not just mention in passing) the issue, both which I introduced fairly recently. Now I'm having to fight to keep in one of them. What's going on here? My gut feeling as I read the talk page is that certain persons of an Adam Smithish persuasion don't want any discussion about it. The issue of population's impact on the environment is (or should be) central to our interests as a species. Instead all I see is discussion about economic impacts and the like. As I said this is a disgrace. 4.246.200.195 08:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You want the article to cover (over)population's impact on the environment? Fine: then write material that covers it. What you've put in (or replaced after being removed) does nothing of the kind. The paragraph I removed said absolutely nothing about how population impacted the environment: it was simply a litany of terrible things happening to the earth. Not that I disagree with any of them: it's simply not helpful or informative in the context of this article (therefore "not encyclopedic").
You gotta do more than just care a whole lot about a subject: this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a call to arms or an op-ed piece. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Um ILTBA, the quote is not from an op-ed piece. It's from a book by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's LEADING science organization. Peter Raven was its PRESIDENT. The book is ABOUT population's impact on the environment. How much more applicable do you want it??? By the way, the first paragraph which you insisted on deleting paraphrased the book's points. I have now done everything you demanded. I deleted the paragraph that you said was "unencyclopedic", I moved it to it's own section, I've added context about population. So do you MIND? 4.246.200.195 08:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Am requesting intervention by others. "ILike2BeAnonymous" has apparently assumed he/she owns the article and is censoring pertinent information without good reason. 4.246.200.195 08:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh Ultramarine, you said "No one is arguing that we should "maximize" human population, straw man". If you look in the section just above Population and environment you will read the sentence "Optimists believe that the 2006 population level of over six billion may be supported by current resources, or that the global population may grow to ten billion and still be within the Earth's carrying capacity". That is maximizing human numbers. The other sentences which you removed are generally acknowledged by most everyone. Still you asked for sources - why not just begin with the article cited in that very same paragraph, the one by Jeremy Rifkin? Please don't vandalize just because you don't like something. 4.246.205.173 15:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. All material not having verfiable sources can be removed. This is not the place for personal essays or opinions. The sentence you quoted above is not cited, not those that you added back without explanation.Ultramarine 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stop repeatedly adding back that same superfluous section. (Directed at anon IP starting w/"4.426" above.) If you want to improve the article, how about writing some fresh material for this section (Population & environment) that clearly shows a link between overpopulation and environmental degradation? Not just the same laundry list about how fucked-up the environment is. Try information versus propaganda. Surely you can come up with some fresh material (referenced, of course). +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How trollish of you two. 24.180.11.170 21:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, though I'm a fan of Wikipedia this is an example of what happens when anyone can edit, especially a science based article. 4.246.200.59 14:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree earlier editors. Reads like a personal essay.Ultramarine 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"Trollish"? And which two? Please explain; the overuse and misuse of this term ("troll") here (WiIkipedia), which has come to mean pretty much "anyone I disagree with", irritates me. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Come now, people. It seems we are merely assuming that population has had disastrous effects on the environment. This claim is UNPROVEN and is certainly in dispute, especially within the scientific community. It has been shown in many claimed cases of environmental degradation caused by population that the actual causes were unrelated to population growth or population density. Often these were traced to bad government policies or abuse by a small group of vested interests. Manny Amador 10:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

to Manny, Since the article seems to be about human overpopulation, and polution is mainly contributed to be humans rather than spiders, birds, tigers, etc, we can safely say that by definition, a human population growth that accelerated polution would instantly be classified as "overpopulation". I don't believe that is even what the debate here is about. Poor government policy can also contribute, as can infinite other factors, but all of them depend on population growth in order to take place. Human growth and it's relation to the given resource or industry most definately affects polution; as an example that goes both ways, vehicle polution has been technologically compensated for in individual vehicles producing far less waste, however has not kept up with the growing demand for cheap vehicles in developing nations without those highly scientific and centralized anti-polution policies, so the polution from vehicles continues to rise OVERALL. Thus, while changes in technology, government policy etc can compensate for overpopulation, the population is the basic root of the capacity to create polution, and if these government/technology defenses break down, it is ultimately the cause. All other factors such as good/bad government, high/low technology, etc being possible SOLUTIONS to polution, not possible CAUSES.... big difference. Give me an example of a government's poor policy causing polution and I'll deliver you a scenario in which the society could curb growth, thus the government not NEED to create a solution, and polution not depend 100% on its policies. Whew..
Now to the anon IP section starter guy, the piece was probably removed due to lack of factual scenarios in which the human population is contributing to polution. If you want the article to remain posted give us some sources covering (off the top of my head), the deforestation that goes hand in hand with the increased cash-crop demand of a growing population, the growing demand for fresh water which will require nuclear power to create cost effectiveness for desalinization thus result in increased nuclear waste, etc. There must be at least 1,000 different paths to this logic, but the article simply won't remain up if it is opinion without verified (linked) examples. I'll be willing to contribute because personally I agree with you and the number of "overpopulation will never happen" financially motivated open-border fanatic websites is scary... Cold polymer 23:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


I must say, this article does not deal with overpopulation but rather with poverty and tries to blame all of mankind's problems on non-capitalist governments. This should not be a political article, or about what bad governance does, or famines, or any thing of the kind. Overpopulation simply means that a certain ecosystem has too many animals (in this case humans) in relation to its resources, whether there these are food, oxygen, water, energy ....

Therefore, one could say that the USA is overpopulated since its a net importer of oil, electricity, natural gas, manufactured goods...: not enough local resources to sustain the population. Of course, one should look at vital necessities such as food. And that even rich (and free-market) countries such as Singapore, the UK, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, are overpopulated since they cannot provide enough food for their own population. So it isn't completely related to wealth. Anyway, I think that this article should be completely rewritten in a much shorter way, and focusing just on overpopulation. AtikuX 11:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I second Atiku's opinion. It's a clear point that you can have overpopulation on the national level in the sense of being non-self-sufficient in key primary resources, as clearly the UK, for example, is and has been for some time judging by its problems with feeding itself during WWII, without economic deprivation. Which doesn't make overpopulation any less real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrastinator supreme (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page is too long and article too unstable

I propose we try to stabilise this page through the following actions:

  • Create subarticles for Extraterrestrial overpopulation and Overpopulation in fiction, with short summary thereof in Overpopulation
  • Create subarticle for World population projections with short summary in Overpopulation
  • Write a good intro and work on that as a priority to avoid edit wars
  • Require that new items added have sources

Peace. Anlace 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Too short for subarticles.Ultramarine 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Article is now 53 kilobytes and expanding rapidly. The edit hatnote says article is too long and should be split. See Wikipedia:Article size policy. The only question is which sections to split off first. I vote for Extraterrestrial and Fiction sections since they are least relevant to the central topic, per wikipedia:article size guideline. Anlace 23:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't be too quick to react to that note, which after all is mechanistic and appears as soon as the article hits a certain size (in bytes, not words). There are plenty of good articles here that happily sit over the size limit with no problems. Besides, if you follow the discussions about article size, you'll see that it is by no means a settled or agreed-on matter. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

...too long and unstable indeed. What of its impact on the environment, or its consumption of resources? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.9.8.21 (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Arizona" section

I removed the section under overpopulated areas headed "Arizona", which had this to say:

There are numerous areas of the world that have wealth and large land area. Paul Ehrlich suggested decades ago that certain areas of the USA, including the state of Arizona, do not have the water resources and or the extent of arable land to support the existing population.

Now, I don't know what Paul Ehrlich had or didn't have to say about this (there were no references at all), but it just doesn't make much sense as it stands. First of all, I'm not sure what whoever wrote this had in mind when they mentioned "wealth". More problematic, though, is that Arizona is just a political division of a large country, not a region with insurmountable barriers to its neighors. No doubt Arizona doesn't grow enough food to feed its population: how many other states is this true of? They can (and no doubt do) simply have it trucked in or sent by rail. Not a very good argument for or against overpopulation. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this example was thought provoking, but it should stay despite its counter-intuitive standing. this example is quite important to illustrate the point of the introduction that density of people per acre is irrelevant. Of course, any state or region can import food if it is wealthy, but that really means Arizona is depleting the thinly stretched food supply now available on Earth. Such importation is actually proof that Arizona is beyond its carrying capacity with respect to arable land. You may want to edit the topic, because, as written, it's provocative in a different way stating the relation to Mexico...but these are the facts. Wikipedia need not hide inconvenient truths. This example of Arizona is probably more important than China, India and Pakistan all rolled together. Let's not play games with political boundaries, because it is fair to analyze any area as big as Arizona and measure how it performs relative to its carrying capacity. I encourage you to read the reference in entirety as well as his book "Extinction" before you edit this section much further. Regards. Anlace 03:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your constructive edits, ILike3BeAnonymous, on the Arizona bit. Your request for cite was on target as well. I have supplied several and think this section is shaping up. I feel we are working together to make this section meaningful. I am certainly open to more tweaking here. But if we want to really accomplish something, we should attack the ===India=== bit, which is not correct. (I didnt write the India piece :)) Cheers. Anlace 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm no expert on Arizona water issue I noticed some stuff on Arizona in a search. "Considerably more water has been committed to users in the Southwest than water sources can adequately supply--even without considering water needs of aquatic ecosystems. In 1990, for the first time, the lower Colorado river basin (Arizona, California, Nevada) utilized its full 7.5 million acre-foot legal allotment. As well, long term groundwater pumping exceeds replenishment in many locations. It has been estimated that average annual groundwater over-pumping in the lower Colorado basin (including Mexico) totals 1.24 million acre-feet, with about 80 percent of that occurring in Arizona alone (Table 1)" [1]. And "In addition, the Central Arizona Project (CAP) was built to augment surface water supplies by importing surface water from the Colorado River, a supply that is renewed yearly by rainfall and snowmelt.... Each year Arizonans use 2.5 million acre-feet more groundwater than can be replaced by nature" [2] Also [3]. Of course the waters of the Rio Grande has also been a source of dispute [4]. 4.246.205.179 07:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "Causes of overpopulation" section

I took this section out again. It's so poorly written as to be an embarassment, and the recent edits to patch it up are basically efforts to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Main problem: it doesn't say what its references purport to say. The statement "Overpopulation is caused or aggravated by poverty and gender inequality with attendant unavailability, and lack of knowledge of contraception, and third world evidence typically bears this theory out.[1]" is not at all what the reference says. The source says, soberly and properly, that there are two causes of overpopulation: a high birth rate and a low mortality rate. (Duh!) It goes on to say that "[high] fertility rates have historically been strongly correlated with poverty, high childhood mortality rates, low status and educational levels of women, deficiencies in reproductive health services, and inadequate availability and acceptance of contraceptives." (my italics). Notice the difference? Not even so subtle ...

I'm a little irritated at one of the edit summaries after I removed this material before, which said something about "assuming good faith" about the intentions of the editor who put this stuff in. This isn't a game, you know, where you "give the other guy a chance" to see how well they can do. The idea is to try to have an encyclopedia here—you know, a credible source of information for those seeking it. The burden of proof is on those who insert material. It's not my responsibility to enable and be a doormat to those who want to insert dubious, unclear, badly-written and disorganized material.

Not to mention one other glaring problem: if this section really deals with the causes of overpopulation, then what's it doing way down at the bottom of the article, almost as an afterthought?

If this were a research paper, you'd be laughed out of the academy. Keep that in mind before adding material, please. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy

"Enthusiasts have also been criticized for failing to account for future shortages in fossil fuels, currently used for fertilizer and transportation for modern agriculture." Does 'enthusiasts' have some special meanings I'm unaware of, because it's a non-senseical subject for this sentence as far as I can tell --Belg4mit 03:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Overpopulation Page is unbalanced.

Malthus' overpopulation theory is based on a socio economic bias. The definition on this page doesn't address so many of the issues that lead to the myth of overpopulation. The dessertification doesn't mention that monocropping is what really caused the problems or that in India overpopulation is not the cause but exploitation of the lands by multinational corporations. Shrimp farming, soy, I.M.F. structural adjustment... where is any of this??? Shouldn't it be linked? This is so biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.67.239 (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

the previous remark was made by an anon user with no edit history. i hope she or he will do a lot of reading before editing. yes, monocultures are bad, but hardly the basis of most of the losses of ag land. most of the rainforests for example are being consumed by slash and burn and other small plot farming of native peoples, which is all understandable when the alternative is starvation. Anlace 04:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
New, anonymous users do suffer from a lack of a reliable history, but I'm afraid I find your comment about "a lot of reading before editing" terribly misplaced, given your comments that follow. You're correct that much of the deforestation in tropical areas is due to "slash and burn" agriculture (or horticulture, as it would be more precisely known in anthropological terms), but to suggest that such an example speaks to "most of the losses of ag[ricultural] land" is simply incorrect. Even in the example of tropical deforestation, logging interests, clearcutting for industrial farms, and clearing land for ranching are all involved to degrees comparable to that of swidden agriculture. Moreover, even with swidden agriculture, we're talking about a system that existed in a careful (if precarious) balance with tropical regeneration until the intervention of First World aid, often in the form of charities, led to rising populations, which in turn led to more deforestation to clear more fields to feed more people.
But of course, none of this speaks to the fact that tropical deforestation is a new kind of agricultural land loss, and a fairly insignificant one compared to other processes, which ultimately are based firmly in the fact that agricultural monoculture destroys its landbase. Richard Manning's Against the Grain presents a very engaging summation of the evidence, and follows the well-established history of agriculture's decimation of the Fertile Crescent where it began, and the process by which farming cultures expanded ahead of the "shockwave" to keep their way of life viable. This is all quite well documented, so I hope you'll do a lot of reading before editing further. JasonGodesky 04:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone attempted to 'fix' the overpopulation page formattinf is screwed up 'authors of a story' is screwed royal it looks like the reference was limited to 2 lines and it looks like the links were removed I don't know what 14 year old did this, but it's *not the way you become a reference work* and i don't know enough about formatting in wikipedia to fix it, but I trust someone does thanks for listening
Lee Wells 12:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crises

This is my first time commenting on Wikipedia so please forgive me if I'm going about this the wrong way. I'd like to agree with the first poster in this section in that the overall article lacks a diversity of views on overpopulation and could be more balanced. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to provide citations of research/ analysis on how traditional arguments about overpopulation ignore economic, social and political realities in the developing world (that's actually why I was looking on Wikipedia in the first place - to try to find good pieces on this topic). I work for a humanitarian relief and development NGO so I know a little about development and humanitarian crises. I would argue that overpopulation as a problem is generally overstated. It seems that poverty, famine, migration and humanitarian crises in developing countries around the world are generally due to other factors such as protracted military conflicts, inequality and social exclusion, poor governance, and human and natural resource exploitation by wealthy countries and multinational corporations (an incomplete list). Africa, for example, is a continent with incredible wealth natural resources and agricultural potential, and it has a far lower population density than most European countries. People are not starving there because of overpopulation. They are starving for the reasons I listed above, which combine in tragic ways to prevent them from creating sustainable livelihoods for their families. I would love to see the contributors to this article include alternative views and academic studies on overpopulation. Thanks for listening

This article is not the place to debate all the causes of world starvation. It is a place for facts. There is no argument that the excessive world population places great pressure on adequate food supply, adequate safe drinking water etc. Wikipedia does not do its readers a great service to offer hope without facts. Anlace 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there a starvation-related article for that topic? (SEWilco 03:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC))
But the argument is whether human population is actually "excessive". An ever-increasing number of studies have shown that the causal relationship claimed by many overpopulation doomsayers simply is not true (e.g. paper by the Department of Economics of the University of Asia-Pacific in the Philippines). The alleged pressure and actual shortages experienced in many parts of the world are often due more to bad governance, war, and corruption than to "excessive" population. These are just as factual as the claims of the population doomsayers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.71.34.138 (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
There is plenty of argument about overpopulation being or not being the cause of famine. No capitalist country has famine, regardless of how high its population density is. Communist countries have famine, even when they have low population density. Western Europe is much more densely populated than Africa. For you to say there is no argument is simply not true. A capitalist country with 500 people per square km will be much better fed than a communist country with only 50 people per square km.grundle2600
I agree with you. Just compare South Korea to North Korea. They have similar population densities and simliar natural resources. But capitalist South Korea is rich and well fed, while communist North Korea is poor and starving. Ethiopia and Zimbabwe used to be self sufficient in food production - but then they nationalized the farmland and created famine. After China nationalized its farmland it created famine - after it swithced back to private farming the famine disappeared. Likewise, overgrazing and overlogging happen because of communal ownership. On private tree farms, owners plant more trees than they cut down. The real cause of the problems is bad government and bad economic policies, not overpopulation. There has never been any correlation between high population density and famine. Africa overall has many valuable natural resources and a pretty low population density, so its famine can't be blamed on overpopulation. Bad government and bad economic policy is the real cause of the famine. Japan has high population density and few natural resources, but it has good government, capitalism, science, and technology, so it's doing very well. grundle2600

All these comments about famine being caused by the type of government seem misplaced. The modern famines in Africa have occurred because the climate has changed - there is less rain. THAT'S A FACT. The shift in rainfall from parts of Africa to Northern Europe is likely the result of Global Warming. And, rising CO2 emission are a direct result of overpopulation in the developed world (fossil fuel consumption) and the third world (deforestation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.252.213 (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] China

Under the 'Overpopulation by world region' section, how come there is no subsection on China's overpopulation. It seems a very important example of overpopulation and its in the world most populous country. It appears a bit biased when Arizona and Guatemala have their own subsection but China doesn't. Raph89 07:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the chinese subsection and i remind India is the second cuontry in the world for population amount and the first one in many cases for density —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauriol (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

High density does not mean there is overpopulation. Is New York City overpopulated? No. Overpopulation is just a theory, nothing more. This article should be talking about "alleged" overpopulation, because there is more than just one viewpoint. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posssible Controdiction

Is it just me, or does Arthur C Clark saying that we cannot ship people into space, and then saying that we will have space colonies by 2050 controdictory? Richardkselby 01:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just you, there's no contradiction (and new topics should be placed at the bottom of the page via the + tab link). His point was that it is not realistic for a few billion people to be launched into space. This does not mean that a few hundred people might not found colonies which could grow larger and "self-sufficient." i.e; stabilize planetary population, and massive growth in space. (Want 7 kids? Okay, but you have to move to Mars. Happy with one or none? Enjoy Manhattan.) --Belg4mit 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human population that continues to decrease until a right balance is achieved

this statement is kind of false it seems. The way a die back works is that it falls well below the "right balance" or ideal carrying capacity. It works like a rubberband evening out, theoretically hitting that one number that is a "right balance." But the problem then arises that we can simply have a die-off to such an extent that we could never recover. Extinction. Entirely a possibility with Overpopulation. Peace.

[edit] Renaming of article

Based on the human focus of this article, it seems that it would be more accurately titled "Human Overpopulation". Consequently, unless there are any objections, I will rename it in a few days. Ultiam 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No objections; just watch the naming convention ("Human overpopulation" vice "Human Overpopulation") --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Object to renaming There is no question that this article is primarily about "human overpopulation". on the other hand when one hears the term "overpopulation", 99 % of the time the inference and meaning is understood to be "human overpopulation". I object to the renaming on the further grounds that this is a long established name and has a huge number of links to overpopulation from other articles. The double-redirects alone would take someone hours to fix. In view of the significance and history of this article i would recommend a minimum of one month of debate on any renaming proposal. Anlace 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
If the article is not going to be renamed (personally I'm mildly in favor or renaming) there needs to be a redirect thoOverpopulation (animals) at the top.Dejvid 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When communists cause famine, they wrongly blame it on overpopulation, OR spinning the issue

Blaming famine on overpopulation doesn't make any sense. Just compare South Korea to North Korea - they have similar population densities and similar natural resources. But capitalist South Korea is well fed while communist North Korea has famine. Ethiopia and Zimbabwe used to be self sufficient in food production, but then they nationalized the farmland and that created a famine. After China nationalzied its farmland it created a famine, and after it switched back to private farming the famine disappeared. Blaming famine on overpopulation is not logical.

Let's say you have a poor communist country where private farming for profit is illegal and everyone is starving. Well, then cutting the population in half won't solve any problems. Because overpopulation is not the problem. The problem is communism.

Overgrazing and deforestation happen because of a lack of property rights. When a resource is communally owned, people overuse the resource and no one takes care of it. When people have secure property rights, they take care of the resource. The owners of private tree farms plant more trees than they cut down.

In a free market, resource scarcity leads to higher prices. This leads to conservation, substitution, and new supplies.

Free people create more resources than they consume. Before the 19th century, pretroleum had no value - it was a nuiseance that got in the way of people who were digging water wells. It was only after someone with a brain invented a way to use the petroleum that it acquired any value. Today's trillion dollar silicon revolution is based on a rock that's found everywhere. A "natural resource" has no value on its own. It's only when people use their brains to invent things that the "natural resource" acquires any value.

Our most valuable resource is information, and this is a resource that can only get bigger.

The doomsayers do not understand this. They do not understand science, technology, innovation, private property, or the function of prices. That's why they wrongly blame problems on overpopulation, and continue to make false predictions about running out of resources.

Private property, economic freedom, market prices, modern agriculature, tree farming, nuclear power, and desalination can provide a first world standard of living for 10 billion people. The only reason that any country has third world poverty or famine is because they choose to avoid these things.

--grundle2600

Good point. In reality, "overpopulation" or high population density hardly ever causes famine on a national scale. In many (if not most) cases, the actual cause of food shortages (or shortages of many other resources) can be traced to bad governance. This is the point made and proven by economists like Julian Simon. Unfortunately, this article continues to remain very biased in fabvor of the "overpopulation" doomsayers. Manny Amador
Thank you! Grundle2600 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, whenever I hear one of these economic spinmeisters make these claims I have to wonder where their heads are at. Ok so you say 10 billion people is a good number. Any limiting before that number would be wrong. So are you saying that 10 billion is the point at which we try to get ahold of population growth? No? What about 15 billion then? 20 billion? 50 billion? 100 billion? What, NO limits? Yes, that's what it usually comes down to. These people who specialize in turning black into white have really only one issue, money. Their economic system is set up in such a way that growth must ever increase else the whole thing may collapse - or so they fear. They don't mention a few inconvienient facts: 1) Capitalist countries are rich in large measure because they are exploiting (read here: sucking up) the resources of the rest of the world, in other words, they are not self sufficient. If they were forced to be their smug self-congratulatoryness would soon evaporate. 2) These capitalist countries use measures such as funding policies at the IMF and the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (all capitalist institutions) to make it difficult for third world countries to themselves become self sufficient. These policies rather make third world countries forever dependant upon first world nations, some say by design [5][6]. 3) Besides this, the reality is that for other reasons third world countries may never reach the level of economic independence of first world countries, thus advocating increased population growth is advocating much more misery and death in these countries. 4) Sure there are still plenty of some resources to go around but what gives us the right to harvest everything for just our generation? How wise is that? Do you hope that when the population is 50,000,000,000 and forests are a thing of the past we'll just magically have created big carbon dioxide recycling and oxygen producing machines to replace them? It is the height of folly to urge human population to grow and grow when projected scarcities of other basic necessities, such as water, are well understood. And what gives us the right to turn a beautiful planet into one big city and thus deny our children and children's children the opportunity to experience a natural earth? And while we're at it, what gives us the right to confiscate all of the living spaces and resources of earth from the other 99.999999999% of species that also live and evolved here, to selfishly take all for ourselves without a thought for those which cannot speak for themselves?
How long do you believe that people will buy the non-scensical idea that, on a finite world with finite resources we can continue to grow and expand forever?
Ok so there should be a limit then? SO then WHEN? As a previously deleted paragraph once stated, there are Quality of life issues to consider here. Just because we have space left in which to put more people, more cities, more roads, reap more pollution etc. do we want to? Is the goal to see just how many people we can cram into a given space with no thought to any limit? If we do plan to eventually limit population do we wait until quality of life is so degraded that it's no longer worth bothering with or do we try to limit population while we still have something worthwhile to save? 4.246.202.198 18:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


You didn't address any of my specific claims about communists causing famine. 10 years ago, farmers in Zimbabwe were growing huge amounts of food. The country was well fed, and grew enough extra food to export it to other countreis. But then President Robert Mugabe seized the farms, and kicked the farmers out of the country. That caused a famine. The same thing happened in Ethiopia a few decades earlier. China also had famine after it nationalized its farmland. After China went back to private farming, food production skyrocketed, and the famine disappeared. Today communist North Korea has famine, and capitalist South Korea is well fed.
The IMF and World Bank should be abolished. They are governemnt agencies. They are not capitalist.
You are mistaken in your claim that third wolrd countries can't become rich. Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Tiawan all used to be third world countries. But then they adopted capitalism, and became rich.
You are mistaken in your claim that there aren't enough resources. The truth is that people create more resources than they use. For example, oil was not a resource until someone with a brain invented a way to use it. Today's trilion dollar silicon revoltion is based on something that's in rocks everywhere. The most important resource is information, and this is a resources that can only get bigger.
With modern argiculture, nuclear power, desalination, tree farming, science and technology, and electric cars like the Tesla Roadster it's possible for 10 billion people to all have a first world standard of living.
You are mistaken to claim that rich countries get rich by making poor countries poor. The truth is that every country starts out poor. When countries adopt capitalism, they create wealth, and they become rich.
When poor countries trade with rich countries, it makes the poor countries better off. That's how Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea became rich. And now today, China, India, and Vietnam are getting richer by trading with rich countries. Voluntary trade is a win-win situation, and it makes all participants better off.
Human beings create more resources than they use. Today the world has more people than ever before. And today, the average person in the world eats more calories of food, has more square footage of housing, has a longer life expectancy, has more access to health and education, and owns more material possessions, than ever before.
What's the maximum number of people that the earth can support? That depends on what level of technology we use. During the hunter/gatherer phase, the earth could only support 50 million poeple. Today with agriculture, it's more than 100 times that amount. And if every country used all the technologies that I mentioned, it could be much higher than that.
But the population will never get that big. The United Nations estimates that world population will peak at about 9 billion around the year 2050 or so, and then start to fall.
Which resources do you think we don't have enough of, that we can't solve the problem with technologies like modern agriculture, desalination, nuclear power, and electric cars?
Do you even know what Prsident Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe? He stole the farmland, and kicked the farmers out of the country. That caused a famine. How can you blame that on overpopulation?
North Korea and South Korea have similar population densities and similar natural resources. North Korea has famine, and South Korea does not. How can you blame North Korea's famine on overpopulation?
When countries become rich, they use governemnt regulation and technology to make their pollution go down. The U.S. population is much bigger today than 40 years, but pollution is much lower today.
Rich countries use modern agriculture to grow more food on less land, so they have more forest, not less.
I am totally in favor of people having access to safe and legal sex education, birth control, and abortion. But none of those things is going to solve the problems that are caused by communsit dictators like Robert Mugabe.
Grundle2600 23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Your comments reflect an uncareful reading of the article, the links therein and my comments above and provided links. Take desalination for example. Did you read the water section? Did you note the study that concluded "Desalinated water may be a solution for some water-stress regions, but not for places that are poor, deep in the interior of a continent, or at high elevation. Unfortunately, that includes some of the places with biggest water problems"? I guess not. Thus you're mistaken.
I've no doubt communism has caused famines. They are not too environmental either [7].
I didn't say that third world countries can't become rich, I said that "for other reasons third world countries may never reach the level of economic independence of first world countries". Thus you are mistaken.
You said "You are mistaken in your claim that there aren't enough resources". Again, what I said was, "Sure there are still plenty of some resources to go around but what gives us the right to harvest everything for just our generation?" Thus you are mistaken. There's no doubt that for the short term we can go on business as usual, but to imagine that we can continue to grow and expand forever while taking the resources from the same finite planet is ridiculous. It's "magical" thinking.
You said "Rich countries use modern agriculture to grow more food on less land, so they have more forest, not less". Again, did you read this comment from the article, "Agricultural conversion to croplands and managed pastures has affected some 3.3 billion [hectares]—roughly 26 percent of the land area. All totaled, agriculture has displaced one-third of temperate and tropical forests and one-quarter of natural grasslands". I guess not. Again you're mistaken.
You also said "But the population will never get that big". Are you a prophet? No? Then you cannot say. But if you understood the concept of carrying capacity you'd know that some respected scientists hold that population continues to rise if the resources are availiable [8] (this information is cited in the article BTW). Now, you've stated that we've plenty of resources left. So then look for population to rise until they run out ... unless we consciously decide to do the mature, no the sane thing and limit our population growth rate.
Finally you said "But none of those things is going to solve the problems that are caused by communsit dictators like Robert Mugabe." I never said they were.
You sound like you're putting a lot of faith in technology, even willing to gamble the future for a big payoff right now. I happen to consider that foolhardy.
I also note that You didn't address any of the moral issues I raised about taking everything for ourselves. 4.246.200.243 06:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten that one does not need to be a prophet to make reasonably accurate predictions. If you disagree,t hen you contradict ANY prediction of the consequences of overpopulation. Grundle's claim that the world's population will never get big enough to outstrip resources is not his own, but made by the UN Population Division, which has far more data and analytical resources than you. The earth's resources may be theoretically finite, but given the productivity of human beings and consumption patterns (even high ones), the resources may as well be infinite. This has been echoed by many respected writers such as Julian Simon and Jacqueline Kasun. This is not some misplaced faith in technology, it is rather a simple recognition of historical fact (which, by the way, has repeated itself many times). 58.71.34.138 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Julian Simon? Sheesh! I give up. Believe what you'd like. 4.246.206.53 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Julian Simon was right - Paul Ehrlich's prediction of 90% of the U.S. population starving to death at the end of the 20th century did not come true. Why do you think Ehrlich was right?Grundle2600 15:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Grundle is correct. If you Julian Simon isn't credible, then kindly show us why he should not be seen as credible. He won his wager against Ehrlich, and Ehrlich has made so so many wacky doomsday predictions that never came true one wonders why he hasn't been committed. Just because you don't like What Simon has to say doesn't mean he's wrong. You have to substantiate your unlikely claim. It's more likely the other way around: that you are wrong and Julian Simon (who has substantiated his claims) is right.58.71.34.138 11:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I find it quite hilarious that the people who attack Simon never criticize Ehrlich. Ehrlich said that by the year 2000, 90% of the U.S. population would starve to death, all the world's resources would be gone, and India would never eliminate its famine. Simon correctly pointed out that Ehrlich was wrong. Yet the doomsayers attack Simon. And they give praise to Ehrlich, and they invite him to give speeches, they give him various awards and 6 figure grants, etc. They attack Simon for being right, and they love Ehrlich for being wrong. It just doesn't make any sense. Grundle2600 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


My basic claim is that human beings create more resources then they use. We aren't "taking" things - we are creating them.

Throughout most of history, oil was not a resource. On the contrary, it had negative value, because it was a nuisance that got in the way of people who were digging water wells. It was only when a person with a brain figured out a way to use the oil that the oil became a resource.

During the 17th century, people worried about the world's supply of candle wax running out. It never occurred to them that someday, someone would invent the light bulb.

We used to use copper wires to carry telephone signals. But today we use fiber optics. Compared to the copper wires, the fiber optics use less material, but carry more informaiton.

50 years ago, a computer was as big as a house. Today, a computer fits on your desk, and it's a million times more powerful.

Today's silicon revolution is based on a material that's found in rocks everywhere.

All of these things are examples of how people create more resources than they use. Paul Ehrlich does not understand these things.

During the 19th century, people in the U.S. cut down almost all of the trees, because they needed land for growing food, they need trees to build houses, and they needed wood for fuel. Today, things are different. Today we use modern agriculture to grow more food on less land. We don't use wood for fuel anymore, because we have better sources of fuel. And the owners of private tree farms plant more trees than they cut down, because they are concerned about future profits. So even though the U.S. has more people today than in the past, we also have more trees today than in the past. "The U.S. Agriculture Department says America has 749 million acres of forestland. In 1920, we had 735 million acres of forest." source

In Niger, people were cutting down the trees for firewood. The forests were disappearing. But then the government changed its policy regarding trees. They started to allow private ownership of trees. People could now make more money by taking care of the trees and selling the fruit, than they could by cutting the trees down for firewood. So the number of trees has been getting bigger. And this has been happening, even as the human populaiton has been growing. By adopting property rights, they increased the number of trees, they increased the amount of food, they made people richer, and they protected the enviornment. source Paul Ehrlich does not understand this kind of thing. He does not understand the benefits of private property.

Paul Ehrlich does not understand any of these things that I just cited.

I agree with you that poor countries can't afford desalination. That's why they need to follow the role models of other poor countries that made themselves rich, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. They need to adopt property rights, industrialize, grow their economices, and become rich. Then they will be able to afford desalination. And they can use pipes to transport the water to anywhere. This could require raising the price of water by as much as one penny per gallon to pay for it, but it would be well worth it.

My basic point is that people create more resources than they use. And also, people need property rights and rule of law, in order to have the incentives to create wealth. Paul Ehrlich does not understand any of these things.

Grundle2600 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No disrespect but your argument above is so full of errors that it'd take too much space to correct. Your citing of John Stossel (and earlier Julian Simon) as an authority is an indication. I'd refer you to the main article itself. You really need to think outside the rightwing spintank. 4.246.205.78 16:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


1) The World Bank and IMF are government agencies, not private agencies. Every person who favors real capitalism believes that the World Bank and IMF should be abolished.

2) John Stossel cited his source for the increase in forest.

3) Julian Simon wrote a book where he explained that Paul Ehrlich's predictions did not come true. Therefore, the people who bash Simon are basically saying that Ehrlich's predicitions did come true, i.e., that at the end of the 20th century, 90% of the world's population starved to death, and all the natural resources were gone. But they are wrong. The reality is that Ehrlich was wrong, and Simon was right.

4) The other stuff that I said is true, and it's based on evidence. Science and technology are indeed very real things.

5) Paul Ehrlich has been consistenlty wrong for 40 years. He does not udnerstand science, technology, invention, innovation, or any other such thing. That's why he continues to make these bogus predictions.

Grundle2600 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Abolish the IMF the WTO and the World Bank and the economic situation in capitalist countries would quickly sprial downhill. This is, as I said before, because capitalist countries that invented these institutions need them to extract the resources of other countries. IOW, these countries are not self-sufficient. A tree farm does not a forest make. Tree farms, or repeatedly clear-cut areas of previous forest, are monocultures with all the trees within of the same age and little or no biological diversity. Sure some species, for lack of anything better and out of desperation will move back into one, but it's still a tree farm. A lot could be said about Simon. He was a skeptic. Skeptical about CFC's damage to the environment, global warming, the hazards of pcbs, pesticides and asbestos (wrong on all counts), but suffice with Ehrlich's comments [9]. I would direct you to Erhlich's book, Betrayal of science and reason: how anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future. BTW, do you have a link that says that Ehrlich stated that that at the end of the 20th century, 90% of the world's population would starve to death? 4.246.200.135 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's my source:

(Ehrlich then switched from predicting an impending Ice Age to predicting Global Warming, saying, "The population of the U.S. will shrink from 250 million to about 22.5 million before 1999 because of famine and global warming.") link to source Grundle2600 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If I could, first there is a difference between the U.S. (what the above quote says) and the world (what you said). Also the source you use is not exactly a good one. While perhaps he did say this, I tried and could not verify it. I did see a claim that he stated "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now" [10]. I would venture to say that if one were to tabulate the total number of deaths from starvation in third world countries by that time, it may well have come to that member. No doubt that some of what he stated was not completely accurate (such things rarely are) but he is a respected scientist. And you have to remember that any controversial stand or person that may impinge upon industry will be attacked. As to the notion resources are unlimited (something I call the "fishes and loaves delusion") I'd give the following example of it's fallacy. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10433 66.14.116.114 18:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Another currently happening with possibly drastic results for humanity is colony collapse disorder [11]. In fact any extinction can be seen as the loss of a resource or potential resource, and we are experiencing them at a faster rate then even extinction of the dinosaurs [12] and it's all due to people. According to Peter Raven, past President of AAAS, the world's leading science organization, the end of this century could see a loss of "the majority of all species". If people are able to navigate their way through "the converging catastrophes of the twenty-first century" it will only be because they got smart real fast and realized it would be to their benefit to shelve the arrogance and start behaving responsibly toward the earth. People may call this "alarmism" but when the experts agree that the house is on fire do we just stand inside the kitcen and rail against the alarmists? 4.246.204.8 14:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Of course there is a limited amount of atoms. What I'm saying is that people can invent, use, and build technology to use those atoms more efficiently. A computer used to be as big as a house - but today a computer fits on your desk, and it's a million times more powerful. We used to use copper wire to carry telephone signals - but today we use fiber optics, and those fiber optics use less material but carry more information. The trillion dollar silicon revolution is based on something that's found in rocks everywere. The people of the 17th century who worried about running out of candle wax never realized that someday the light bulb would be invented. Desalination, modern agriculture, and nuclear power are other things that increase the carryying capacity. The earth cannot support an infinte number of people. But given the right technologies, it is possible for 10 billion people to all have a first world standard of living, and we can do this without wrecking the planet, causing global warming, ruining the environment, or making species go extinct. During the hunter gatherer era, it took thousands of acres of land to support one person. Today with the right technology, one acre can support many people. And we are not going to lose most species. That same prediction was already made for the end of the 20th century, and it didn't happen. The IUCN Red List says about 2 species go extinct each year, not the thousands that some people claim. And here's a great article about the bogus predictions that the doomsayers made in the past. I was gullible when I was younger, but I learned from that, and now I'm no longer gullible enough to give any credibility at all to people who are consistenly wrong. Things are getting better, not worse. People create more resources than they use. That's why Paul Ehrlich was wrong in 1968, and that's why he's still wrong today. His equation I=PAT says that technology makes things worse. He's got it backwards. Technology makes things better.Grundle2600 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this response until today. Certainly things have "smallified" if you will, and yes we've become more efficient, but we are still up using resources that are non-renewable or at least unsustainable for the long term (and not too long at that), an example is oil. Your number of 10,000,000,000 people (compare this to the total number of gorillas in the world which amount to mere hundreds) shows that you finally acknowledge that there must be a limit. Good for you! I would argue for the reasons I've stated above that that number is still way too high. You say And we are not going to lose most species. That same prediction was already made for the end of the 20th century, who made that prediction for the end of the 20th century? You also said The IUCN Red List says about 2 species go extinct each year, not the thousands that some people claim perhaps you are confusing this with the "normal background extinction rate" of one to two species a year. This is the historical rate at which these species go extinct without factoring in the presence of humans.
"Paleontologists estimate the background rate of species extinction--the long-term extinction rate exhibited prior to humanity's influence--at between 1 and 10 extinctions each decade among every million fossil species. Assuming from a variety of estimates that 10 million species are alive today (Stork 1993 and 1997, May 1988, Hammond 1992), scientists can expect from 1 to 10 species to go extinct each year from all forms of life, visible and microscopic. In fact, species are exiting much faster. Based on records of extinction among the best- studied types of animals, ecologist Stuart Pimm and colleagues calculated extinction rates during the past century to range from 100 to 10,000 species per year (again, assuming 10 million species exist). That rate is between 100 and 1000 times faster than the background rate of species extinction (Pimm et al 1995)" [13]. "This is an extremely conservative estimate," says the IUCN "as it does not account for undocumented extinctions. Although the estimates vary greatly, it appears that current extinction rates are at least two to four orders of magnitude above background rates". You have to remember that it is very difficult and time consuming to verify an extinction. That is why there have been relatively few verifications. The IUCN says "proving that a species has gone extinct can take years to decades" [14]. Biota are not added to the list wily nily.
Without reading the entire diatribe of Ronald Bailey suffice to say that he's changed his tune about at least one of these "alarmist" predictions, global warming. Bailey who once wrote the book Global Warming and Other Eco Myths now says Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up [15], and recently in an article titled Global Warming -- Not Worse Than We Thought, But Bad Enough "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable" [16]. This should be a lesson: whenever you hear some spinmeister pontificate on scientific matters (especially if what he is generalizing about is favorable to business and industry), but who does not possess the learning to understand the things on which he holds forth, you should take what he says with a grain of salt. But I applaud Mr. Bailey for his turnaround.
About IPAT, no doubt Erhlich was wrong about things he said in the past (you seem to really dislike him). IPAT was formulated in the 1970s, and though there have been other variations it is still used today. But no one is infallable. Science does the best it can with the information it possesses at the time. Sometimes it is wrong but quite often it is right. I'm not sure how much more of this talk page we should use up on this debate though. Perhaps we'll just agree to disagree? 4.246.202.16 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure we can agree to disagree. Actually, I believe that global warming is real. I like what France did - they stopped mining coal, and now they get almost all of their electricity from nuclear power. I also believe that peak oil is real. The Tesla Roadster and other electric cars mean that we won't need oil for energy. Of course we still need oil to make plastic, but we can use thermal depolymerization to make as much oil as we want, out of garbage, sewage, and agricultural waste. Grundle2600 16:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All these comments about famine being caused by the type of government seem misplaced. The modern famines in Africa have occurred because the climate has changed - there is less rain. THAT'S A FACT. The shift in rainfall from parts of Africa to Northern Europe is likely the result of Global Warming. And, rising CO2 emission are a direct result of overpopulation in the developed world (fossil fuel consumption) and the third world (deforestation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.252.213 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that incompetent government policies can result in famine, and that this has been the case in a number of Communist countries. What does that have to do with the topic of the article - overpopulation? Virtually nothing. These comments are better posted in an article on Communist agricultural policies. Grundle's repeated, off-topic sermons about Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich are irrelevant, and attempt to frame the topic in question as one of economic policy rather than ecology and biological sciences. Appealing to a non-scientist with an extremist economic philosophy that most knowledgeable people rightly dismiss as deluded and simplistic, the way Grundle appeals to Libertarian direct-marketing expert Julian Simon, does nothing to enhance the discussion of this topic. A debate between a libertarian ideologue and a fear-mongering huckster (Simon verses Ehrlich) sheds about as much light on the topic of overpopulation as a debate between televangelist John Hagee and atheist gadfly Sam Harris sheds on religion. A few nuts on either side of the isle might find it entertaining, but it's simplistic and devoid of real information. For the record, Julian Simon was an abysmal failure - the population decline of Russia, the economic implosion and political decline of the United States (at the time when the United States embraced conservative economic policies with rabid zeal), the oil crisis, etc. all stand in stark contrast to Simon's millennialist predictions that capitalism would solve the world's problems or that resource substitutes were always easy to come by - in fact, the period of growing prosperity that Simon thought was the normal progression of human history was just the benefits of cheap oil reaped by a mere three generations. History is full of examples of technological and social decline, population crashes, and climate catastrophes. With each new resource "substitution," we've only come to use oil faster, as the technological improvements demand more energy (and most of these "substitutes" are plastics, which are just another form of the one key resource, oil). It's possible that some enterprising scientist will find a way to extract methane in commercial quantities from the ocean floor, or figure out nuclear fusion - I certainly hope so. But thus far, the market has not worked as Simon predicted in resolving this problem (and remember, Simon boasted that we already had the knowledge to provide from ever-increasing populations for the next 7 billion years), and those working on the problem tell us that there will likely never be a substance that will fully replace oil. People who flopped shouldn't be cited as experts on anything.--ManicBrit (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dainiel Quinn Quote and citation

hello im the person who added the dainel quinn quote sry if its kinda sloppy but im not entirely sure how to cite properly on wikipedia. non the less i feel that this except is an important peice of information to be included with the section on food and population growth.(pls be understanding feel free to make it better)

[edit] This article confuses poverty with overpopulation

Saying that, "X number of people live in poverty, Y number don't have enough food, and Z number drink dirty water," does not say anything at all about overpopulation. Many years ago when the earth only had 1% of its current population, all of those problems existed. In fact, with 6.5 billion people today, the average person in the world is better off than at any time in the past when the population was smaller. So blaming those problems on overpopulation is not logical.

Poverty is natural. Dirty water is natual. Famine is natural.

What's happened is that some countries have chosen to industrialize and modernize to solve those problems, and others have not. For example, compare South Korea to North Korea. The two countries have similar population densities and similar natural resources. But South Korea has chosen to indsutrialize and modernize, while North Korea has not. So why would anyone blame North Korea's poverty, famine, etc., on overpopulation?

Likewise, African famines are caused by dictators like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, who seized the farmland from the farmers.

Meanwhile, Mauritius is the most densly populated country in Africa. It's more densely populated than South Korea, the Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, or India.

But it doesn't have famine. Instead, Mauritius is a rich, first world country. That's because Mauritius is a free country that respects property rights and rule of law.

Almost every problem in this article that gets blamed on "overpopulation" can be cured with industrialization, modernization, property rights, and rule of law. And these problems can be solved, even as the population continues to grow.

With 6.5 billion people in the world, the average person has more calories than ever before. So blaming famine and poverty on overpopulation does not make any sense at all. Grundle2600 19:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Grundle, thanks for your interest in this article. The overpopulation article is not the place to propound your theory that capitalism and industrialization will solve every country's hunger and thirst issues. I, more than most editors on wikipedia, happen to agree with you that there are many advantages to free markets and technological development. However, this article is really an article about the biology of mankind and the associated carrying capacity of the Earth. Most data seem to point to the finiteness of the Earth's carrying capacity. China is a good example of a successful industrial nation; however, China's agricultural production has apparently peaked and it is becoming a net importer of food (fine for China since it can afford to buy food from others). The point is that if every country is "wealthy", someone still needs to PRODUCE the food. The world is maxing out on productivity; the Green Revolution is a historic event, which ended a while ago. Presently Earth's arable land is dwindling from desertification, soil nutrient depletion and water supplies are being overharvested (Best example is Northern China, where water is being mined at an unsustainable rate). I know you are into desalination, but do the math on who can afford it. Another point you seem to overlook is in your discussion of the "average human". Yes the average human consumes more calories than ever, but a lot of that is due to the overconsumption (and resulting obesity) of the Western world); the fact is that at no time in history have so many people (can you count to a billion?) been in famine and without access to safe drinking water, but they may not count in your equation, since they are not the "average human". All in all lets keep our own politics and dreams out of this article and stick to the facts. Regards. Sekolov 02:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the percentage of people who are suffering from famine reached an all time low at the end of the 20th century. And the only reason it's gone up since then is because of Robert Mugabe's seizure of farmland in Zimbabwe, which had previously been the "breadbasket of southern Africa."
My point is that the very idea of "overpopulation" as it applies to humans if false. Unlike butterflies, humans have the ability to use technology to increase their carrying capacity. During the hunter and gatherer phase of human history, the earth's carrying capacity was only 50 million people. Anything above that amount is because we use technology to increase the carrying capacity.
So poor countries are not overpopulated. Instead, they are underdeveloped. South Korea and North Korea have similar population densities and similar natural resources. But South Korea's good policies have made it rich, and North Korea's bad policies have made it poor. Overpopulation has nothing to do with it.
You didn't address what I said about Mauritius. If overpopulation applies to humans, then Mauritius should be in famine. But it's not in famine. It's rich.
Population density has no correlation to how rich or poor a country is. Instead, a country will be rich or poor depending on the kinds of policies that it has.
Niger managed to reverse its desertification and deforestation even while its population was growing. How? By adopting property rights. When the trees were public property, people cut them down for firewood. But after they legalized private ownershup of trees, the people discovered they could make more money by taking care of the trees and selling the fruit. So even while the human population was growing, the desertification and deforestation was reversed, and there were more trees.
A world with 10 billion people who take care of the planet, will be far better than a world with 1 billion people who don't take care of it. Almost all of the problems that the article blames on overpopulation are actually caused by other things.
How else can you explain the difference between South Korea and North Korea?
How else can you explain the things that I said about Mauritius?
When a country like Zimbabwe or Ethiopia has a dictator who steals the farmland and causes famine, how can anyone blame that on overpopulation?
My point is that the article is wrong. The article is factually wrong. The article is wrong to blame those problems on overpopulation. Grundle2600 04:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Here's an example of what I mean. The article says: "More than 4.5 billion of the world's 6.5 billion people live in the developing world, countries beset by poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, unemployment, environmental degradation and social disintegration. Among the inhabitants of developing countries are more then 3 billion people -- one-half the population of the entire world -- who subsist on the equivalent of $2 or less a day; 1.5 billion people who lack safe drinking water or adequate sanitation; 852 million who are chronically malnourished; and 600 million who lack adequate shelter."

That part of the article is wrong.

None of those problems are caused by overpopulation. Illiteracy can be cured by teachers, and the ratio of students to teachers should be the same regardless of population density. Likewise, the unemployment rate is not affected by population density, because it is people who create jobs. Hunger, malnutrition, and poverty correlate to bad government and bad economic policies, not overpopulation. With 6.5 billion people in the world today, the average person in the world today is richer than ever before. When a dictator in Zimbabwe or Ethiopia seizes the farmland from farmers and causes a famine, it's not logical to blame that famine on overpopulation. South Korea and North Korea have similar population densities and similar natural resources, but they have very different standards of living, because their governments and economic policies are very different. Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, the Netherlands, France, Israel, and Mauritius are all very densely populated, but they don't have famine, illiteracy, or any of the other problems that get blamed on overpopulation, because they have freedom, rule or law, property rights, science, and technology.

My point is that much of the article is wrong. Grundle2600 04:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted some stuff from the article because:

1) It wasn't relvant to the subject of overpopulation.

2) It didn't cite any evidence that those problems became worse as the population got bigger.

3) The actual evidence (with sources) that is in the article shows that food production and wealth get bigger as populaiton grows, so it's not accurate to blame famine and poverty on overpopulation.

4) The actual evidence in the article shows that a country will be rich or poor depending on what government and economic policies it has, and that population growth does not cause poverty and famine.

5) Blaming illiteracy on overpopulation is not logical. While a larger population means that there are more students to be taught, it also means that there are more teahcers to do the teaching. So the ratio of students to teachers is independent of population growth. Japan is very densely populated, and it doesn't have any problem with illiteracy.

Grundle2600 14:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Grundle, would I be right in assuming that you are a libertarian? What you are saying is true up to a point. As I stated before, you are right that there are still resources left to exploit. It's kind of like if someone had, say, fifty thousand dollars in the bank with nothing else coming in (just as we have but one earth). Now he's living well, eating at the best resturants, going to Yankee games, partying etc., just spending away. Now his financial experts tell him that he's spending it lots faster than he's replenishing it with interest and that he needs to try to live more sustainably, if he did so he could make it. Nah! he says there's LOTS of money left, UNLIMITED! This one guy over here says so. He says that I can spend without end. But the experts see a different picture. He's living on borrowed time. They warn, he calls them doomsayers.
The experts are all major scientific institutions and the vast majority of scientists (to start see AAAS Atlas of Population and the Environment). His guy is Julian Simon, a guy who thinks that "We now have in our hands in our libraries, really the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years... We [are] able to go on increasing forever." (Myers and Simon, 1994, 65). Now I ask you, is that credible? Is it even sane? What you are espousing is basically one guy's Libertarian political philosophy which science does not happen to agree with. The overpopulation page is not the place to stick personal political philosophies, and there are a lot out there. 4.246.202.37 15:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the earth's resources are limited is simply not open for debate, it's basic physics. Sure we can make things smaller and more efficient but still one needs to consider all of the resources that each person born will use (and waste) in their entire lifetime and then multiply that by the entire expanding population [17]. Yet let's ask another question. Even if Simon were right, which he wasn't, that the earth has unlimited resources, and not even considering the ethical questions of overpopulation on other species posed above or the wisdom of denuding nature, still I ask you, who in their right mind would WANT to live on a planet with tens of billions of people??? As a comparison current estimates for the numbers of Native Americans, by the time that Columbus arrived, average around 40,000,000. That's after 10 - 40,000 years of being here.
"In our every deliberation" says the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy, "we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations". But Since the Europeans arrived a just a few hundred years ago that number has skyrocketed to 300,000,000 +.
Here's what then French explorer Pierre Esprit Radisson, c1652, said in the description of his journey (of what would later become the United States): "The further we sojourned the delightfuller the land was to us. I can say that in my lifetime I never saw a more incomparable country....The country was so pleasant, so beautiful and fruitful that it grieved me to see the world could not discover such enticing countries to live in. This I say because the europeans fight for a rock in the sea against each other, or for a sterile and horrid country. Contrariwise, these kingdoms are so delicious and under so temperate a climate, plentiful of all things, the earth bringing forth its fruit twice a year, the people live long and lusty and wise in their way". You may think that New York city or Los Angeles is model of paradise but I'll take the country anytime. There's another saying that goes, "none are so blind as those who WONT see". 66.14.116.114 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I just did a quick read over and found various errors, slanted and otherwise uncareful writing from, I assume, Grundle. These editing incidents combined with evidence of uncareful reading above on this page tell of someone with a pre-set agenda who is not open to reason. I think someone who has the time should go through the article more carefully and check all the links. 4.246.206.57 08:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I'm a libertarian. But I also think liberals have a lot of good ideas on government health care, education, and worker and consumer safety, and environmental protection provisions.

Yes, the number of atoms on earth is finite.

But poverty and famine are caused by bad government and bad economic polices, not by overpopulation.

There is no correlation between high populaiton density and famine. Instead, famine is caused by bad government policies.

You people make all these generalizations claiming that I'm wrong. But none of you pointed out any specific examples of it.

When a dictator like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe seizes the farmland and kicks the farmers out of the country, and that causes a famine, how can you blame that on overpopulation?

When capitalist South Korea is so well fed, how can you blame communist North Korea's famine on overpopulation?

How can you blame any human famine on overpopulation?

Famine is always caused by bad government. Capitalist countries that use technology never have famine. Countries with per capita GNP of at least $5,000 never have famine. Countries where women have secure property rights never have famine.

A capitalist world with 10 billion people will be much better fed than a communist world with 1 billion people.

Which resources do you people think the world doesn't have enough of? We can desalinaize as much water as we want. The ocean has enough uranium to last until the sun blows up in 5 billion years. There's plenty of iron, silica, carbon, aluminum, copper, etc. The owners of private tree farms plant more trees than they cut down. Modern agricultrue, and even vertical farming if necessary, could grow far more food than is being grown now, if every country was to modernize and industrialize. We can use thermal depolymerization to manufacture as much fertilizer as we could ever need, out of garbage, sewage, and agricultural waste.

Third world poverty and famine are always the result of bad government policies, and are never caused by overpopulatiom.

If I'm wrong, then please tell me what resource the earth does not have enough of, where the problem cannot be solved with technology and good governmewnt policies. What is this special resources that you people say we don't have enough of?

By the way, population growth is not exponential. Instead, populaiton growth is an S-shaped curve. So while the population may reach a few tens of billions (and even the U.N. says 9 billion is a more likely peak), it will never reach the quadrillions that some of you think Julian Simon claimed.

Paul Ehrlich said that by the end of the 20th century, 90% of the U.S. populaiton would starve to death, and all the natural resources would be gone. What Ehrlich doens't understand is that through science, technology, innovation, markets, prices, incentives, property rights, etc., people create more resources than they use. 50 years ago, a computer was as big as a house. Today a computer sits on your desk, and it's a million times more powerful. Ehrlich did not understand this.

I don't think the earth could support quadrillions of people. But I'm sure that the earth could support 30 billion people, if we used enough technology.

Since you people think I'm wrong, then please tell me, what resource is there that the earth does not have enough of, that we can't solve the problem with technology and good government policies? I agree with Grundle. I do think that becouse of problems like global warming the world population growth rate should be slowed down but that the current world population is susstainable with improvments in technolegy. I think that the article is biased in faver of people like Ehrlich and does not give enough counter arguments. Grundle2600 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, Grundle agrees with Grundle (just like at the end of the Crisis section above). I guess that makes it unanimous. Note: if you are going to use a sock, you should be more careful when you hit the "save page" button. 63.196.193.29 (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, this page exists only to discuss the article, not to discuss the topic. Further discussion unrelated to the article will be removed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear Power pros and cons

Removed - irrelevant to overpopulation. Kransky 13:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

Focussing on regions that are not especially overpopulated while ignoring the parts of the world that are (China, Western Europe, El Salvador to name a few) is POV and we need to fix this problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this page is to bias

There are arguements that support the world is not overpopulated which are not fairly represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.196.235 (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Not

Instead of complaining about how the article is wrong, why doesn't somebody just fix it? This page of complaints about how the article is messed up is longer than the actual article. It would be easier to just fix something than to go on and on about how it is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.43.19 (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graph Appears Inaccurate

I am wondering about the graph in the section "Population projections from the 1900's to 2050". Is it just me or are the spaces between the population numbers wildly off? Why are the spaces of about the same width between the various population numbers even though the numbers are doubling (except, inexplicbly, between the 20 and 50, 200 and 500, and 2000 and 5000)? The effect of this is to make the population growth from 1950 to 2050 appear to be a gentle curve. When clicking on the image one finds that the "source" is "self-made" and the author is "Conscious". Under "Description" it says that the data is from this UN site, but I find no such graph there. It appears that "Conscious" created the image based his interpretation of data at the UN site. If so it is unreliable and OR. Now compare the graph to this Census Bureau one [18] (perhaps this should replace it?) or this one [19] or [20]. In actuality, to give people some perspective of what has actually occurred in human population growth a chart like this one or this one ought to be put somewhere on the page. 63.196.193.46 (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, those numbers on the left of the graph, 10 - 10000? WTF? Again compare to the Census Bureau graph [21]. 63.196.193.186 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changed heading for last section...

...from "Overpopulation in Fiction" to "Overpopulation in Literature"--a title which seemed to fit better. Swift's essay, while not meant to be taken seriously, hardly qualifies as "fiction."

(01/30/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.9.8.21 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dose intelligence have to do with overpopulation?

I saw a movie call "idiocracy" which states that families with a lower I.Q. have more kids than a famlies with a high I.Q. If this is true that means that there will be more unintelligent people have more unitlelligent children at a higher rate. This will cause both a population increase and a intlelligenc decrease. CRocco127 (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This topic (the subject of a well known Science Fiction story by C.M. Kornbluth called The Marching Morons) comes under the general heading of Dysgenics, and specifically, Differential Fertility. You can find more under the first heading. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solutions to overpopulation-section

A "Solutions to overpopulation"-section is to be included. It should mention population control. Please include in article.

KVDP (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Update; I already included this text, hope it may be left as is or (even better) improved and added with references.

KVDP (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What rational social scientist suggests these as possible solutions to population control? There needs to be a basis for including these terms under this heading. There also simply needs to be a basis for this heading: what social scientists even support seeking solutions to overpopulation? Not saying they don't exist, but you must give evidence as to why this section (or several others in this article) needs to be in the article.Jd147703 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Overpopulation by world region

I suggest making the "Overpopulation by world region" allot less bulky by only noting an general overview on the page and discussing the subject more in depth in another page (accessible by link).

KVDP (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I already relocated the in depth information of specific countries to another page. The article is far less bulky now, needs additional improvement dough.

KVDP (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current amount of overpopulation

In 2006, WWF's "Living Planet"-report stated that if we all want to live with a high degree of luxury (European standards), we would be spending 3x more than what the planet can supply.[1] In other reports, such as the one cited in the The Planet-documentairy, it is mentioned that we already consume 5x more than that the planet can supply, giving the current population numbers and our standard of living. Aldough there is thus still no real consensus, it is expected that the amount of overpopulation currently lies within this range.

I uploaded this text which I believe is vital for the article. I still need some help on getting the actual report in which the 500% overpopulation is mentioned however. Can someone dig into this (the The Planet-documentairy may supply this information).

KVDP (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they are assuming that nuclear power and desalination don't exist. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cities

Despite this increase in population density within the cities and the rise of more megacities, UN Habitat stated in its reports that if these 2 matters do not negate the fact that city living can be the best solution for dealing with the rising population numbers (and thus still be a good approach on dealing with overpopulation)[2]. This however can only be achieved if urban planning is improved [3] and if the city services are properly maintained.

I also included this text; if its not referenced enough please find more more references, yet it is best not to remove it (it contains vital information for the 'cities'-article section)

KVDP (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why?

its sort of a question if illetiracy is given a solution by just supplying teachers to those who need it then how about those who can't afford education because...well financialy they are incapable of acquiring education. how about if they are deprived from it because they are ignored by the government because of theire lowly status. Since overpopulation comprimises most of those in the lower classes and because some of the lower classes are uneducated will it be possible that lack of education will result to overpopulation? Because education does help in attaining awareness and knowledge to the world and factual events thats happening. ````2/4/08 6:43 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loi brodeth (talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] LET US SEE BOTH GRAPHS =

I like the debate between the % of Africans living in Poverty versue the Absolute number and how this has changed overtime. However, only the graph of the % living on a $1 per day is shown. Let's see the other graph, the absolute number people living on a $1 per day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.252.213 (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain

I moved this section here since it needs some fixes before reinsertion:

A comparison of fertility rates in Italy and Sweden[4] suggest Italy is alleviating overpopulation more than Sweden due primarily to greater gender inequality and fewer social services, similar findings from the same source relate to Japan, Russia and Estonia. First and second world effects of social services and gender equality on overpopulation appear to be the opposite of those found in the third world.

The reference didn't go to the specified article. It doesn't say what the results were for Japan, Russia and Estonia. It doesn't say the effect, just that one was opposite the other. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved US history to here

I moved this piece from Birth control, since I think it rather belongs in some "History of U.S. politics" than here:

On November 16, 2006 George W. Bush announced that the next Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs will be Dr. Eric Keroack. The U.S. Office of Population Affairs advises the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for Health on reproductive health issues, including adolescent pregnancy, family planning, and sterilization, as well as other population issues. Keroack, an anti-abortion, anti-birth control obstetrician/gynecologist, was the medical director of A Woman's Concern, a Christian Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) in Massachusetts. On March 29, 2007, he resigned from his appointment in Population Affairs.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overpopulation Debate

Overpopulation debate redirects to this article. Perhaps this article should be renamed to that. An article about overpopulation should be about just that - period. Arguments about it can be kept in the debate article. Mike 172.131.235.43 (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mauritius and Israel

I've tagged the paragraphs about Mauritius and Israel in the Africa subsection of the Resources section for lack of citation and original research. The content of the Mauritius paragraph is largely unsourced and also violates the wp:No original research policy with the sentence:

The reason Mauritius is doing so well is that it has strong protection of property rights, and because it uses science, technology, industrialization, and modernization.

The premises of this argument are perhaps supported by the cited source but the conclusion is not and is OR.

The Israel paragraph violates wp:No original research in a similar way with the sentence:

One possible reason why Israel does not have famine is because its government respects the property rights of farmers, and encourages them to use modern agriculture and irrigation to grow huge amounts of food.

Here, again, the conclusion seems to contravene OR; and which passage(s) from the cited sources support(s) the claim that huge amounts of food are grown? Beejaypii (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Navbox

I'm thinking of creating a NAVBOX for the subjects overpop, carrying capacity, etc. about population. Are there any other articles that definitely need to be included? StevePrutz (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Started at template:population. I will add to it once I get some more thoughts. StevePrutz (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This navbox is still up in the air. I have begun filling in some blanks... please take a look. StevePrutz (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality disputed tag

The "neutrality disputed" tag has been at the top of the article for quite some time. I don't currently see any issues with the article and will remove it shortly unless there are any objections. Barrylb (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Several editors give reasons why there should be a tag throughout this page. So don't remove it until the issues are addressed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of discussion, but I'm having a hard time working out what those current issues are. Barrylb (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not a reason to remove the tag. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes I know, but I am suggesting that if no-one can summarise the reasons, maybe there aren't sufficient reasons to keep it. Barrylb (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that a request to summarize the issues? --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes please! Barrylb (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

POV issues are discussed in sections 14, 16, 18, and 19. None of these issues have been addressed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)