What is the math that is involved in saying that the population of the earth will peak in 30 years and then start to go down?

What on earth is that based on??

What on earth makes the person who came up with this think that "peaking" will be a painless thing?

While it is true that many who have cried overpopulation are doing so out of the wrong reasons/math/whatever... there are very REAL and very CURRENT issues involving uneducated populations that reproduce with no concept of how many is too many. Look at the people living in total poverty around the world. It isn't about the space available to live in, or even about the food available... it is about resources, jobs, and opportunity. Saying that some kid living on the streets of some third-world country with no prospect isn't affected by a type of overpopulation is idiotic.

I find this video just as simplistic as the theories it is criticizing.

Edit: upvote because it is interesting despite all that...

What kind of retarded-ass PSA is this trifle supposed to be?

*fear

Adding video to channels (Fear) - requested by blankfist.

Here's a lot of information on the subject for those interested (UN 2006 World Population Prospects report): http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf

The most "optimistic" (that is lowest fertility) seems to indicate world population plateauing around 2040, not saying that or anything in the report for that matter will come true, but if you are wondering where the numbers are coming from, my guess would be from there.

What ponceleon says is true, but we have also seen that well educated and well developed countries stop reproducing at a high rate (even going into decline). So that seems to speak against any long term overpopulation problem IF we manage to raise the education level and standard of living across the world at a decent rate, which has been happening so far.

[EDIT] According to their website (http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth) that is indeed where they got their numbers: "Where are you getting these numbers? U.N. Population Database. While they provide Low, Medium, and High Variants, the Low Variant is the one that keeps coming true, so the Low variant numbers are the ones used in this video. Check their online database. (http://esa.un.org/unpp/)"

what is this supposed to even promote?
it's like making a psa debunking flowered wallpaper
it may or may not be of bad taste but so what?

The truth or falsehood of the proposition "is the human race going to or has it outbreed the carrying capacity of it's future or current environment?" is not a matter of taste.

Can we add this to *lies?

This is total BS, because people would "fit" into a geographic area does not mean that the Earth can support us, certainly not in the way in which westerners have become accustomed with a new car every 5-10 years and a multitude of new computers and high tech goods every year or two, also, food PRODUCTION has never been a huge issue, lots of crops go to waste every year, it's the distribution that's a problem, but he doesn't even cover the production side, yeah people could fit into Texas, but he said himself that wasn't the issue. And who wants to live in Texas anyhow?

Population-wise I think the Earth is OK, as long as we all consume about 1/10 of what westerners do now, THIS is where the real problem comes up, the world population is not growing that fast but it's places like China where the energy use and consumerism have been exponential (in spite of the one child policy I might add) that are liable to tip the balance towards catastrophe.

I say all this sitting baking in the heat at all time record temperatures, second day in a row we've set the record (2 degrees over the record yesterday, that's celsius so 4 degrees for you Americans), how many of you are also seeing record temperatures where you live?

Invocations (lies) cannot be called by Drachen_Jager because Drachen_Jager is not privileged - sorry.

They're running on some very simplistic logic.

They have the maths as to how they can claim that everyone can fit into a landmass the size of texas, and it holds out if every single house was butt up against each other and there were no roads, parks, transport etc.

So... yeah, you could fit everyone into a space that big.

BUT, the threat of overpopulation is NOT the issue of there being enough space for houses, it's the amount of waste, polution and resources that number of people use.

Pushing out trite figures like being able to fit into Texas will WORK... people will go 'Gee, look at all the rest of the world that's vacant, what are we worried about... COOOONSSSUUUUUME!' It's completely ignoring the real problem with having that many people... it's not about places to Live, it's about keeping that many people alive.

So, let's see who is behind this shite.

The website is http://overpopulationisamyth.com

Which is put out by the 'Population Research Institute' Which... on going there has this as a news point "Obama Bill Bad: Health-care bill very, very bad for pro-lifers"

Ooooh, we're talking a bunch of anti abortionists here... Basically they're all against abortion and population control and all for popping out babies all over the place. They're trying to suggest that the belief in overpopulation is causing mass, brutal and forceful removal of human rights... blah blah blah.

They have a serious chip on their shoulder about abortion, and that's where all of this stems from. Their thinking is that if people don't believe there's any issue with the population of the world, then somehow that'll mean that everyone will say that abortions should be gotten rid of too.

Bah and friggen humbug.

===

Now...

I can hardly talk on the population control front. I just had my fourth and last child (snipped now), so myself and my wife have doubled our footprint. Which is kinda, well... wrong I guess. Although I can justify it somewhat saying that we're raising them in a very eco conscious way. And hopefully that by having them and others like them be more proactive on the front of installing solar power on every home possible, reusing water, having raintanks, having a compost, not being wasteful etc. etc. Well, maybe that'll make more of a positive impact... but really I'm clutching at straws.

I guess I should add *controversy. The projections are primarily based on demographic shifts. As people move from rural to urban areas they have less children. As it's more of a liability on a family's quality of life to have more children generally in an urban area being that in an urban area you have to pay for the education for children to succeed. As opposed to in a rural area where the more children you have to work the field (if you have enough field to work) for you the better you're off. This trend is no longer true anymore for wealthy nations with a lot of infrastructure. That simplistic dichotomy of an example I know isn't sufficient, as no dichotomy can be, I just find it interesting.

The world's population is increasing at a decreasing rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
But as past commentators have suggested we're using more resources per person. As the average person is getting more wealthy per capita. So maybe our biggest problem is taking over the earth and burning up the resources for our short term benefit. I don't have a solidified opinion on the issue. It's obviously multifaceted.

It's interesting to note that Obama's science czar, John P. Holdren, co-authored a book with Ehrlich and his wife back in the 70's about this issue - http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51702

In terms of the peak population issue this : Your text to link... is pretty interesting. If you look at the change in birthrates in the just 8 years since the turn of the century, it's pretty astounding. An overwhelming majority of countries have had a reduction in fertility rates of a statistically significant percent. World fertility rates dropped 7.8%. In just 8 years! The wealthy developed Asian nations dropped drastically. Japan, already well below the rate of replacement in 200 dropped a further 15%. South Korea dropped 40%, while Taiwan's fertility rate almost halved. China is below the rate of replacement and dropping, while Indonesia is getting awfully close to 2.0 as well. The areas still showing significant growth are south Asia and Africa. Once these areas begin to develop to a greater degree, I'd assume there'd be a drop off in fertility rates there. So maybe 2040 peak population could come about without some horrible Madmax-ish battle for the last husk of corn.

Ideal population growth is as close to 0% as you can.

It's not complicated : Birth Rates - Death rates should = 0%~

That says nothing about a current ideal size, just the fact that sustainable growth is an oxymoron, and if we're only dying so fast, we should only ideally be born so fast. The ideal size is calculated from a carrying capacity, which can be calculated when resources are finite and growth rates/consumption rates are known (which is why the census is important data, republicans).

Carrying capacity can change as we find new improved ways to stretch our finite resources, and it's best if processes are implemented in a timely manner with forethought. This requires science and basic day to day efforts.

The idea is simple but it is obviously very difficult to realize in reality... the problem can also turn into one of underpopulation.

balance is the key. education keeps you too busy to make babies. go to school.

OK, lets see if we can all agree on this simple concept:


"Overpopulation" has nothing at all to do with QUANTITY, and has everything to do with QUALITY.

It's not about the number of the people on the planet, it's about how those people BEHAVE. Agreed? For example, earth loving people move out to the country, try to reuse, reduce, recycle everything they touch, they like local farming, etc. Can we all agree that the earth could handle more people who behaved like THAT, as opposed to people who drove hum-vees, eat fast food, worked in a high rise, lived in a ritzy condo, loved foreign wars, drilling for oil, etc.

So talking about the quantity of people on the planet is silly. It's just NOT the problem that needs to be addressed. It's the WAY those people BEHAVE.

We all die anyways. I fail to see the argument either way. Here's praying for a meteor collision by the time i'm 62!

Fox News just told me this is Obama's fault too.

So I can has more babies?

Famine isn't a fake problem, even if it is incorrect to claim it is necessarily the result of overpopulation.

The "imagined, often rescheduled" problem of famine isn't UNFPA's purpose, either.

The video is made by the Population Research Institute, which appears to be a pro-life (read anti-abortion) organization.

As for Malthus, he was right about all of human history...up until he put forth his theory, at which point it ceased to describe the real world, largely because of the industrial revolution.

this video makes me want to violently depopulate.

oh goodie!, now I don't have to stop eating all the fish and cutting down all the trees!
it's like Christmas!, except instead of useless consumer goods I get stupid glazed with ignorance.

I bet people of Easter Island and Maya Civilization said the same thing just before they became history!

population is cyclical...

Too many people, not enough resources, the population decreases

population decreases, renewable resources renew, population is allowed to grow again.

Here is a parametric predator-prey model to show what I mean

I think the focus on population is the fallacy of the argument (either side). If you're talking about the total number of people and the total amount of resources available then we could multiply the Earth's population many times over and still have enough resources for everyone.

The problem is infrastructure. Just because the planet has everything we need doesn't mean that we can get it to everyone who needs it. Wars, inept governments, and transportation costs (including safety) can all prevent delivery of needed supplies. It's difficult to move products around when you're being shot at, for instance. The number of people involved isn't the major limiting factor.

Newer techs will help though. As cheap solar power matures there will be less dependence on power grids (eventually none), and manufacturing processes involving nanotech will reduce the cost of producing necessary items (eventually food too). Such advances will also reduce the need for "dirty" forms of energy like coal and oil.

Most projections I've seen show the total population of Earth leveling off... the specific dates aren't as important as the general trend. Either way, the number of humans alive is not the reason people are starving.

^ NetRunner
Oh My fucking God.
I just looked at the website of the organization that created this video and they seem like complete irrational lunatics.
http://pop.org/

Uh oh Psychologic... You're daring to bring the taboos of logic, common sense, and reason into this discussion. That's going to get you labeled as a neocon. Get ready for it - because the neolibs won't stand for your simple, correct assessment of the world's capacity to generate resources.

One of the fundamentaal premises of the kook neolib left fringe is that the world is hovering on the brink of resource exhaustion. Look at this thread. It is filled to the brim with literal idiots who are talking all kinds of bull about stuff they know absolutely nothing about except what has been spoon-fed them by equally ignorant professors and media hacks. Check out this glittering example...

"Ideal population growth is as close to 0% as you can get..."

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Not only does this dingus believe that he knows what number of humams should/shouldn't be born, he also believes he knows what the Earth's 'ideal' population should be. Based on what math? None of course. It's just his opinion.

The neolib left is chock full of these kinds of psuedo-intellectual dipsticks. They go around spouting complete nonsense on topics they know sod-all about and perpetuate fallacies that any person with two gangelon to rub together can see are patently false at face value. But they LOVE this particular left-wing piece of idiocy (overpopulation) because it lets them engage in their favorite pasttime... Making stupid laws to take away freedom, control people, and limit happiness & prosperity based on junk science treated as 'fact' through no other virtue than faith and the psychological makeup of a lemming.

The famines that occur today aren't because of overpopulation. It's mostly because of resources not getting to people because on inequity.

The famines that occur today aren't because of overpopulation. It's mostly because of resources not getting to people because on inequity

Exactly. Mostly the inequity of freedom. Africa is perfectly capably of growing more food than the United States could possibly grow. Why are they in a state of perpetual famine? Simply because the governments there operate by terror and control. People aren't allowed the freedom to prosper and so they starve. It isn't an issue of resources. Africa is resource rich. The problem is that Africa is FREEDOM POOR, and so the people can't make use of what resources they have.

Africa isn't freedom poor - it's order poor.

Overpopulation is not a calculation of space or resources but of density. Infrastructure has other layers beneath it i.e. social and economic deep structures. And even beneath (or above) the social and economic structure is the story a society tells itself.

Everyone, everyone, calm down.

Keep a level head, and try to remember.


We're all dead in 2012 anyway

We need more scientists and larger economies to fund the scientific community. If you don't advocate that, then don't complain when you're dying of a curable disease.

I'm not sure I have the energy to try and converse back to you Winstonfield. I'm crashing, but anyway.
Colonization and propping up dictatorships has had a result on resource distribution in Africa. You have to admit the Europeans really fucked that continent up.

Hm - I would argue that the CESSATION of colonialism is what messed up Africa. Colonial rulers took away vast resources from native Africans, but at least they maintained a general level of peace, order, and decent (if not luxurious) infrastructures and services.

Today wealthy countries are buying Africa's resources, but the money is going into the pockets of tinpot dictators who use it to oppress their own people. Color me crazy, but could it not be said that Africa (in an overall sense) was BETTER OFF under colonialsm despite the faults & failings of that method?

I'm not recommending a return to colonialism. I'm using this as an example to illustrate that the REAL problem has nothing to do with 'resource distribution'. Africa has the resources to generate everything it needs to both survive and prosper. The real problem is that people aren't allowed to be free and pursue life, liberty & happiness without a brutal dictator and his hired thugs killing them & taking thier stuff. The dictator isn't taking that stuff and giving it to developed nations. He's keeping it for himself to prop up his own power and greed. If there is a 'distribution problem' then the developed nations are like 5 steps removed from it.

Idiot Winston. You don't even know what a growth rate is or how to calculate it

READ:

Ideally, GROWTH RATES would be close to 0%.

0% Perfectly sustains the population at a GIVEN MOMENT. NOT A GIVEN SIZE.

I specifically state that growth rate has NOTHING to do with Ideal Size.

Ideal SIZE is a function of the carrying capacity.

You are one dumb son of a bitch, if you didn't know.


Also, Population may be cyclical, but if you look at data collected over time, you see that it is also quite hard, if not impossible, to reliably predict future numbers. Malthus proved why.

So we deal with reality instead. The Reality of RATES OF PRODUCTION AND CAPACITY over RATES of CONSUMPTION. This utilizes data akin to the census. We need to know What is Using What, How Fast, and thus, simply put, decide what we CAN DO about it.

I really do not like you. You've said before you're not QM's alt.... but that seems unlikely. We haven't even gotten into Logistic Growth, and already you display the same lack of familiarity with basic mathematical concepts....you just use outdated perspectives to inform your already outdated opinion... which is a minor accomplishment in itself, so congrats on being Really Worthless and using those feelings of inadequacy for Evil instead of Good.

Go volunteer at the animal shelter -- the dogs don't care who walks them, and you'll be accomplishing something within your means.

Nice Wilhelm scream at 0:43

"The population will peak in 30 years"

I can make up stuff too - aliens will wipe the earth in 2012.


*nochannel *Science *History *Worldaffairs *Humanitarian *Politics *Fear *lies *Eco

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 7 channels - ignoring all requests by gwiz665.

I find meatbag gwiz665 to be an inadequate command-giver - ignoring all requests by gwiz665.

Yes, it's so much easier to argue against a few daft rich people who lived over a hundred years ago then even bother to understand or address what scientists are saying today about overpopulation.

And his assertion about us all fitting within Texas is truly bizarre. It's like saying "If we put the word's population in coffins and sacked them ONLY 8 deep, we could all fit an area the size of Manhattan! Clearly overpopulation is a lie"

Well done WP, you spouted out a really nice long post up there ranting about how much crap liberal people spout crap without backing any of it up.... without backing up your refutation of any of it... nice work, and a fine example of Right Wing bullshit.

Shout and scream about how wrong the other side is without ever actually providing any viewpoint, facts or figures of your own.

Dick.

And you'll notice that Psychologic has only upvotes while you have only downvotes. Why? Because you're an aggressive 'us and them' dickwad, where Psychologic put across a point of view in a perfectly reasonable manner.