[wildman]

First of all thanks for all the responses. Right or wrong at least we are thinking about it.

There seems to be an over-all tone to the posts that overpopulation is something that is caused by others somewhere else and who's effects will be born by these "others"- not "us".

I wonder.

The net burden put on the world's resources by the average American compared to the average Indian is a ratio of approx 80 to 1.

From the viewpoint of the world's carrying capacity where is "overpopulation" really occurring?

Also there has been increasing problems of states in the developed world trying to control there own borders. Short of a fortress like siege mentality I wonder what the border situation is going to look like in Europe and N. American with a world population of 10 billion with most of the people trying to get in under educated, poor, economic refugees?

---

Last edited by wildman; 05-06-2011 at 12:15 PM.

[GeneV]

First of all thanks for all the responses. Right or wrong at least we are thinking about it.

There seems to be an over-all tone to the posts that overpopulation is something that is caused by others somewhere else and who's effects will be born by these "others"- not "us".

I wonder.

The net burden put on the world's resources by the average American compared to the average Indian is a ratio of approx 80 to 1.

From the viewpoint of the world's carrying capacity where is "overpopulation" really occurring?

Also there has been increasing problems of states in the developed world trying to control there own borders. Short of a fortress like siege mentality I wonder what the border situation is going to look like in Europe and N. American with a world population of 10 billion with most of the people trying to get in under educated, poor, economic refugees?

Again, I think it mixes two distinct issues to bring consumption into the discussion. I also wonder what that statistic really means. I've seen other estimates that had the ratio of per capita consumption much lower. The figure I see most is 30 to 1.

Consumption needs to be addressed, but if a nation is controlling its population and maintaining a higher standard of living, then that will raise the per capita consumption. I suspect that is what people in India want, as well.

The entire exercise of comparing per country, per capita consumption is fraught with difficulties. It depends greatly upon which American and which Indian. Comparing countries is also tricky and misleading in a global economy. Nevertheless, the average Indian lives in a density of 12 times that of the average American. If all areas of the earth had roughly equal resources and nations were self-sufficient, then increasing the density of the population by 12 fold means the people have 1/12th the resources per capita available. Now, if you divide the 30:1 ratio by 12 you still have a 2.5 to one ratio in per capita consumption not accounted for by density, but the effect of the population density alone could be huge. Regardless of how much less per capita the average Indian may consume, increasing the population is not a benefit to India or the world.

[Ratmagiclady]

That competition may play some part, but most of these are norms primarily designed to keep men in a dominant position based upon ancient custom and belief. They seem to persist when there is no scarcity and then eventually cause the scarcity.

True enough, Gene, but the good news is that that dynamic is *just not as powerful as claimed.*


Empowered women and food security vastly overwhelm those notions: usually the Fundies advocate irresponsible breeding to *prevent* these things from happening, (in effect, anyway, if not intent) and to appeal to fears, thus men's desire for more control.. thus more oppression, overpopulation, scarcity, 'hellish worlds' to be 'saved from,' ... The real way to make a *positive* spiral is to start with food security and availability of real knowledge.

[redrockcoulee]

Cultural norms against birth control have little to do with hoping that enough children will survive--at least not now. They are actually causing more children to die by multiplying beyond the local capacity to feed and support them. Populations are exploding in the developing world and not in the developed world. That indicates that the reproduction is beyond what is needed for stasis. Overconsumption may be the west's problem, but overpopulation is not, so, yes, it is appropriate to worry about how fast people are breeding.

I don't know where you get the opinion that the world will support 7 to 10 billion people. What else will disappear in the face of 10 billion humans? The pie the west is gulping is largely a pie the west is producing, while the growth in population is from the "south." There are some dastardly issues with seed producers, and there are some things we could do to help them with food production; however, it is hard to see how a bushel of wheat produced in Kansas keeps a bushel of wheat from being produced in some other country. And what benefit is served by keeping women as second-class childbearing machines? What benefit is served by growing a population that is already beyond the capacity of local resources to support?

From what I have heard is that subsidized food sold in Africa actually displaces some of the farmers as they cannot sell their crops for enough to allow them to live on hence they stop farming and move to the cities in search of employment of which there is little. Some aid groups claim that the cost to Africans of trying to compete with subsidized foods exceeds the foreign aid they receive. Hence the subsidies distort our food prices and food growing practices, trade with other countries and poverty in the third world. All at a cost to taxpayers.

[GeneV]

From what I have heard is that subsidized food sold in Africa actually displaces some of the farmers as they cannot sell their crops for enough to allow them to live on hence they stop farming and move to the cities in search of employment of which there is little. Some aid groups claim that the cost to Africans of trying to compete with subsidized foods exceeds the foreign aid they receive. Hence the subsidies distort our food prices and food growing practices, trade with other countries and poverty in the third world. All at a cost to taxpayers.

As I understand it, it is not just that our food is subsidized to a low price, but that it is purchased with foreign aid and charitable contributions. I doubt that the "subsidized" price for which the food is sold here would undercut the locals. This is a complex problem. Charity finds that U.S. food aid for Africa hurts instead of helps - The New York Times

It is better in the long term for locals to develop the means to grow food, but it does not feed those that are currently hungry. Aid programs need to be implemented with more care.

[wildman]

Again, I think it mixes two distinct issues to bring consumption into the discussion.

What is this discussion about if not necessarily at least to some extent about consumption mixed or not?

I also wonder what that statistic really means. I've seen other estimates that had the ratio of per capita consumption much lower. The figure I see most is 30 to 1.

OK. To avoid getting into some long-winded wonky discussion about consumption ratios let's split the difference - say 50:1 maybe 40:1? At the end of the day does it really matter other than to say the difference is stunning.

Could the worlds' natural systems sustain indefinitely a population of 10 billion all consuming at the level of an average American? That would seem to be the third worlds ideal.

[shooz]

Make real jurasic park.
Feed the world.
Bring on the gene splicing.
Dinosaurs are birds, so they taste just like chicken.
Yum........

PS. PETA can't whine 'cause they're extinct.

[ihasa]

It is better in the long term for locals to develop the means to grow food, but it does not feed those that are currently hungry. Aid programs need to be implemented with more care.

Maybe instead of subsidising our agribusiness and dumping the huge surpluses on the third world we should just directly subsidise third world producers? Subsidies could be targeted to encourage more sustainable agriculture, rather than encouraging surpluses, and could be conditional on African governments becoming more transparent and democratic.

Of course this would mean a financial hit to EU and USA famers and consumers, which is probably why it would never happen!

[redrockcoulee]

Maybe instead of subsidising our agribusiness and dumping the huge surpluses on the third world we should just directly subsidise third world producers? Subsidies could be targeted to encourage more sustainable agriculture, rather than encouraging surpluses, and could be conditional on African governments becoming more transparent and democratic.

Of course this would mean a financial hit to EU and USA famers and consumers, which is probably why it would never happen!

Some claim that if we stopped dumping subsidized food in Africa we could also more or less stop aid. I do not have the figures but the people making the argument seemed more intent on getting Africa out of poverty than in saving the west money.

[GeneV]

What is this discussion about if not necessarily at least to some extent about consumption mixed or not?

OK. To avoid getting into some long-winded wonky discussion about consumption ratios let's split the difference - say 50:1 maybe 40:1? At the end of the day does it really matter other than to say the difference is stunning.

Could the worlds' natural systems sustain indefinitely a population of 10 billion all consuming at the level of an average American? That would seem to be the third worlds ideal.

The discussion was about population. I thought that was the 800 pound gorilla. There seems to be an attempt to make overpopulation elsewhere America's fault for overconsuming. I don't buy it. There are a lot of things you can fault Americans for, but it is not unrealistic population densities elsewhere, except, perhaps, that we have not pushed the population issue enough. Linking the consumption from a higher lifestyle to population control is how you never get anything done. It also seems that the population control has to be exercised at some point no matter what the consumption level per capital. Why not sooner rather than later?

I'm curious why you took the time to dismiss about my question on the statistics for consumption per capita, but not to address my example of how population density might contribute to that statistic. In truth, land is different and capable of different sustenance levels depending upon the resources and the levels of sophistication in its use. Putting more people on the same amount of land, which is utilized using a less sophisticated technology is not helpful. If resources are finite, simple math shows an increase in population density results in a lesser amount of resources available per person.

There really is no upside to putting another 3-4 billion people on the earth. It is also a problem that has a solution under current technology. It contributes to the imbalance in resource consumption, and stands in the way of development. It is self-defeating if areas where population is growing faster than the ability to support them in the style of the west were to say "we won't stop what we are doing to ourselves unless you come down toward our standard of living."

I don't know if the world can support 10 billion people in the American lifestyle in 2100 (or what that lifestyle would be). I don't want to try. I'd rather aim to support 3 billion at a higher average standard of living than the world experiences now. Since I am alive and well after an accident last year as a result of modern neurosurgery, I am not at all interested in bringing the standard of living down to that of the poorest countries. I'd rather see conditions everywhere improve.