For those who don't see overpopulation as a problem...

[Taverner]

And believe that its nothing to worry about:

- As population continues to grow in the US, that will mean more will own cars, use fossil fuel products, etc
- That will mean we will need more land to grow food for those new people
- With China and India industrializing, overpopulation in those countries will lead to more fossil fuel use as well
- Cities will become more and more cramped, leading to more crime, more aggression, etc
- Our highways are already overtaxed, and we really can't make them any wider. We will have to start making double and even triple decker highways like Japan. And we see what those look like after an earthquake.
- Projections show the population leveling out around 8-10 billion, however these estimates leave a lot of things out of the equation (exponential growth in developing countries, exponential growth in the US among the hidden underclass, etc) I find their numbers to be a bit skewed.
- Our oceans are being depleted of resources, and dead zones are popping up everywhere. With demand rising (due to more people, of course) we are on a runaway train, leading to disaster food wise

[RKP5637]

1. Yep, all true!!! n/t

[loudsue]

2. Very true. But we will run out of potable water before we run out of food.

Population growth has got to stop all around the world, or we are all toast.

[arcane1]

3. You beat me to it!

:toast:

[Taverner]

16. I've never heard the potable water crash problem explained

Is it because rainwater can't be trusted anymore, the poisoning of the water table?

[cutlassmama]

Supposedly it's due to climate change, but I suspect it has more to

do with big corporations buying up potable water and poisoning of what good water is left.

[Taverner]

26. Well if the rain is safe to drink

and even with 'acid rain' its still safe to drink if treated right so that's a win

Ogalala (sp?) Aquifer will run out soon, if it isn't poisoned by all the synthetic fertilizers first so that's a loss

De-desalination technology has gotten better and better, and you can even do it in your back yard (just make a still: boil the seawater and collect the steam into another container.) so that's a win

But then we have the mountains that used to provide us freshwater from melting as not so much an option given the uptick in global temperature. so that's a loss

[texastoast]

4. It's the really big elephant

Of which no politician dare speak.

[Thrustin]

107. China has taken action!

They've known this for a while now.

[Gregorian]

5. Dictator!

Please don't discuss this. It's uncomfortable for those who either want children, or already have produced them. It's negative. It isn't true, because we can just grow our own food, and live with less. We can engineer our way out of this. The planet can sustain billions more people. We don't want to hear about limits. It should be a limitless planet. We can all drive Priuses. We can all screw in compact fluorescent bulbs. Then everything will be just fine.

[tabatha]

6. Nope, the population should be half of what it is now.

Climate change will eventually resolve that problem - a really stupid way to fix it.

[Pisces]

11. Or a plague will hit that reduces the population. This is a huge fear, hence swine flu pandemonium.

We are overusing antibiotics and creating stronger MRSA bugs, stronger flu strains etc. There are so many things we can't control. We could also all go sterile from overuse of chemicals and hormones
ala "Children of Men".

I think we will be constantly be surprised how the earth cleanses itself of the locusts and parasites that feed off of it.

[MH1]

112. To the planet, the human race is a self-limiting problem

Might not work out so well for some individual humans, or other species who get in the way.

[JuniperLea]

8. This is how Idiocracy is born...

Intelligent people know that we're having too many babies, and stop. The rest continue to procreate... and the average human IQ suffers.

[Gregorian]

17. I know.

I've been agonizing over this lately. I guess that's devolution.

[underseasurveyor]

19. Anyone that's been around here for a while knows

That you have been on the forefront of this issue ever since you've been here.
:toast:

And you have taken more than your fair share of shit for it.
:hug:

[Gregorian]

27. Wow.

I didn't think anyone had noticed. Honestly, thank you.

I've really suffered over this issue. Sometimes it feels like I'm all alone on planet earth. Your words really help. I wish I could convey what I've been through. I've owned some of the nicest ranches on the western coast of this country. I've tried to find that place of beauty, only to discover that wherever I go there is destruction due to massive numbers of people using up resources. But unless one actually experiences it firsthand, it's only words. You have to see the massive clearcuts, and streams with silt, and on and on, in order to get a sense of what the multiplicity of demand has done. Sometimes I feel selfish for broadcasting my laments on this board. But it has to be a reflection of the truth. It is what I've experienced.

[Taverner]

28. I've seen this first hand in my short life (I'm 40)

Take my town of birth: San Jose

Used to be you saw farms every so often, we had a quarry lake to swim in (that no one ever went to but us, it seemed) and nights were silent.

Now, wall to wall strip malls, the quarrys was turned into a park that fills up every sunny afternoon, and the nights have the constant sound of the highway in the distance.

[Gregorian]

34. I grew up in Palo Alto.

There were diary farms. And Los Altos was apricots. And Stupidvale was cherries. I left in 86, but came back in 90 to be an engineer in Silicon Valley. Four years later I bought a cabin in the woods up in Los Gatos hills. And it has been a journey ever since.

I came down to SF for the first time in 15 years, a month ago. When I drove through Satan Rosa, I couldn't believe it. I still can't. It was silent there. Now it's like LA.

How can one feel good about that. I wanted to live in Palo Alto. I loved biking those hills of the peninsula. It feels like I was excommunicated. Shit. I can't complain. I'm jumping on my tractor to go do some logging right now. Yippee. I get to have a little fun in my guilded cage.

[underseasurveyor]

81. I have experienced and seen what you speak of.

I have been here (DU) long enough and I know you not as a selfish person but quite the opposite. A selfish person cares not for the earth or her resources. A kind, thoughtful, CONCERNED, sensitive person like you does.

Yes I have seen with my own eyes what over population is doing and it is my hope that you never silence your voice because more people need to hear and should listen to you and others. If only they can set their ego aside for only a moment and think.

You are not alone my friend :hi:

[Gregorian]

82. I'm so grateful.

You have brightened my day so much. More than just my day. I needed this. Some say I am too sensitive. I don't think there is such a thing. Some of us are canaries.

Cheers to you!

[underseasurveyor]

83. Perhaps you've heard of OSP.

Overly Sensitive People?

Look it up for I would venture to bet you are.

I am :-)

To you:toast: and for you:hug: my sensitive friend

[MH1]

114. Me too, although I confess I don't post about it much.

It seems almost like whistling into the wind. Or some days on DU, spitting into the wind, or worse. And then there's the right-wing elements in my family and associates :(.

The overall idiocy of the path we are on is profoundly disturbing. The lack of appreciation by the masses for what has been lost, also disturbing. But then I ride the train into Philly, look around me and realize that there are large numbers of people who have probably not experienced nature as I have. How can I expect them to understand, or care? particularly given the immediate difficulties of their own situations.

It's a paradox.

Sometimes it helps a little just to find that one isn't alone.

thanks for spreading the word and I hope you continue to do so!

[JuniperLea]

25. Me too...

But 1984 is just a book, right? And art doesn't imitate life, or visa versa, right?

I'll never forget the flush of hysteria I felt the day I realized that my cell phone looked a lot like a Star Trek communicator. Now I wonder how many square feet it would take in 1975 to hold the processors needed to run my laptop's capabilities.

The more things change, the more things change... exponentially.

[vim876]

55. The solution to that is to

have 1 or 2 kids. Lower than replacement rate, but smart people aren't responsible-ing themselves off the face of the Earth.

[csziggy]

85. Or some of us can opt to have none

To make up for the breeders who have a dozen.

Nature will adjust the population somehow, though humans will work to keep increasing the numbers. I have no prediction for what the outcome will be. I've read enough science fiction to see a lot of possibilities conjectured that I chose to not add to the numbers.

[Hello_Kitty]

69. Every time I hear this argument I think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqtcb66Yeyo

[Taverner]

33. I must confess: I have 2 kids

Although not growing exponentially, we are still replacing ourselves instead of lowering the number

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. In the UK, The Optimum Population Trust has "Stop at Two" as it's slogan

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

If most people had just one child, you'd end up with an unbalanced population - a lot of people past retirement age compared to the generation(s) below, which brings economic problems (if a country did that unilaterally, rather than the whole world, you could solve that with immigration, though). If families stop at two children, the population will slowly decrease, because there will always be some people who have no children, and some who have just one. And most people who have siblings think it gave a lot to their childhood, I think (I do), so saying people ought to have only one child is quite controversial.

[Gregorian]

51. I like the slogan.

It's better than nothing.

As for the one child argument, I don't buy it. Economics be damned. That's like saying that you can't cut your limb off because even though you've got gangrene, if you removed the leg you wouldn't be able to walk. There are ways around having kids support older people. That's a much easier problem to solve than destruction of the ecosystem due to billions of people all trying to live off of dwindling resources.

[JuniperLea]

7. Water and other utility systems are antiquated too...

Some of these systems were built 100 or more years ago, updated in the 1950s, and populations continued to grow and tax already over-burdened systems.

[aquart]

9. You begin with "if" and that's where it collapses.

Global climate change isn't an "if." Overpopulation isn't the problem. Famine is, however. We're about to go through one of those genetic bottlenecks where so many of us die, it will be a wonder that any survive.

We have reports all over DU about rising food prices due to flood and drought and snow, dead birds, dead fish, dead bees, and it still isn't sinking in that people will be starving to death and we are massively unprepared to protect our own people, let alone help others.

[Taverner]

14. Changed 'if' to 'as'

happy?

well me neither :(

[HereSince1628]

10. Simple math, really

per capita impact on the environment times the number of individuals present = total impact on the environment caused by humans.

Every reduction of additional human pressure (i.e. one less birth) means less of EVERY human impact on the environment. There is no more widespread or significant payback among any other possible controllable variables. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

[Newest Reality]

31. That's a reasonable formula

However, I wonder if variables on the type of lifestyle those humans live is not a significant factor, as well.

While I can agree that each new human born brings with it an impact, the lifestyle they live would determine the degree of that impact and that could vary widely.

Hypothetically, wouldn't a large tribe of indigenous people who live closely with the land and with simple necessities have an insignificant negative impact? In an ecosystem, the impact of the lifeforms can be negative or imbalance, but they actually are an integral part of it for the most part. So, yes, the vast numbers of humans has a major and detrimental impact, though how they live and they way they impact the environment is at issue, as well.

[HereSince1628]

36. The thing is humans have multiple impacts, pick any value to represent that

and given that level of impact the total will always be most affected by population size.

With respect to different technologies having different impacts, one of the problems that humans have is that technology has created something of an artificial bridge into the space of the unsustainable. To get this far, we have effectively canabalized the earlier traveled part of the bridge.

Going forward means using less per capita and polluting less per capita, and early civilizations and primitive societies were actually very poor at doing that. That seem counter-intuitive, but at this point civilization is in many ways much more efficient than what humans were doing 10000 years ago.

To go back in technology is to require a large population reduction. As hunter-gatherers we demanded several square miles per family (obviously depending on the quality of habitat). Today even average agricultural technology would allow a square mile to feed several dozens of people.

Shrinking global population is a very hard sell; our social functions are built around growth and based on pyramids that require either ever more babies or ever greater efficiencies.

[tama]

70. Gardening species

Before agriculture (ie coevolution with few hay plants aka 'civilization') we were allready a gardening species. We know how, intensive small scale gardening and especially multilayered forest gardens give many times more per patch of land compared to mechanized industrial farming that is notoriously ineffective and destructive and done only for most stupid reasons.

[HereSince1628]

76. I think I need to know what you think gardening means.

Gardening seems to imply selective human intervention to promote favorable outcomes and to suppress plant and possibly animal competitors.

Burning grasslands in America was done by native people to suppress woody growth and promote grazing for large herbivores like elk and bison...was that gardening?

[tama]

77. Yup

and good example. Indian fires were creative participation of gardening species in an ecosystem to make it more favourable to that gardening population - by maximizing the energy flows in a local ecosystem (whole California as a forest garden in that case).

California burns easily and local flora and fauna are adapted to fire, as you know, but when a tribe burns the grassland in controlled way, bushes dont grow big and so no big fires to destroy trees that survive indian fires (unlike White Mans fires in today's California) - and all the good edibles and other usefull plants.

Permaculture philosophy is good introduction to gardening as organic participation in an ecosystem.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. In terms of long-term sustainability, the population should probably be around 2 billion people.

That's probably about what the "carrying capacity" is; that was roughly the population level reached around 1940, before post-WWII advances in agriculture, fertilisers and pesticides led to the so-called "green revolution" that increased crop yields to levels able to support greatly increased populations. Population control probably isn't enough; there's going to be some serious pain in store for a lot of people as the knock-on effects of peak oil are felt (lest we forget, it's oil and natural gas that are responsible for modern agriculture and which form the chemical feedstock for fertilisers and pesticides as well as fuel for agricultural machinery, enabling more output with less labour). Things are going to get very ugly, and I would imagine it's probably going to be within the next 50 years or so. The problem will take care of itself, I suspect, but...it's not going to be pleasant for anyone. Widespread famine, food riots, civil war...all of those are probably on the horizon, within the lifetime of most people here.

[gratuitous]

13. There are solutions

1. We can solve this ourselves and voluntarily reduce our population. This is probably the cheapest, easiest and most accessible solution, which means that it's totally unworkable. Certain populations around the world are justifiably suspicious anytime another group, tribe, nation or people suggest we need fewer individuals running around on the planet. This has been the prelude to genocide and war and all sorts of misery in the past.

2. We can solve this problem ourselves through involuntary methods, namely, the aforementioned war and genocide. It's not a pretty option, and isn't likely to win too many supporters who aren't ruthless thugs, and why should we prune our population by leaving the worst elements alone?

3. We can let outside forces solve this. Nature can be remarkably efficient in reducing overpopulation, but it may not suit everyone. However, if we don't do anything, by default, we're going to let natural forces reduce our population. Natural forces will be starvation, disease, and other unpretty methods. It will be psychologically devastating for the survivors (and note that there's no guarantees on who that will be) to watch as nature takes its inevitable toll.

So what do we do? The clock is ticking and time is running out on us. Do we have the will to voluntarily reduce our population ourselves? Can we withstand the inevitable clamor from those frightened by the familiar specter of genocide? Can we overcome the bigotry that will surely manifest itself to dictate that these here survive, while those there are marked for extinction? Can we come up with an equitable solution?

[Xenotime]

123. There is the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement...

I suggest many people look into this as an option.

http://vhemt.org/

[sinkingfeeling]

15. Let's just cut to the bottom line. Overpopulation will cause the death of the planet and species.

[Gregorian]

20. It may. It is. But I have always thought it would be a slow agonizing crash into

a much less diverse world.

Meanwhile, some of us are already dying. I have just spent the last 15 years moving from place to place in search of just a few criteria that were easily obtainable in 1940, but no longer. Only because of population combined with our modern lifestyle has this happened. I do like Novocaine. And an occasional trip to the store in a car in the rain. So I don't condemn a modern life. But we can't do it with this many. Just try finding a place that isn't totally isolated, or undesirable, that is silent. Just silence alone is impossible now. Today I'm looking up at a sky that was an hour ago, blue. But now is gray with fake clouds. Water vapor from jets. Most people don't see it. Most people are working all day. They don't have the chance to even experience the sadness. Or they're the kind that can't appreciate, thanks to our dull Fox news existence. But now I'm just cynical, and should stop typing here.

[stuntcat]

50. ditto

I have so much Disgust for people who give babies the rest of this century that I hardly have any heart left for pitying the little tots.

Well odds are these kids will have much harder hearts than mine anyway, considering who's raising them.

[The2ndWheel]

18. Every institution that we've built has had,

as its foundation, the promise of more people doing more things. We're not going to voluntarily deal with overpopulation until we change the way that governments, corporations, and really any organized effort, functions.

Those institutions aren't even the problem. They're the result of there being more people with needs, wants, desires, etc. There being more people isn't even the "problem". That too, is the result of something else. That something else might be our collective success at creating an environment where more people can exist. Getting rid of predators. Eradicating various diseases. More food available. Manipulating the environment to such an extent that people can move to places where humans would not normally live in such large numbers. The list can go on and on for a while.

We have to take the good with the bad. We don't get to pick out the good parts, and throw the rest away. Everything that we have that we enjoy, exists because there are so many people. Everything we have that we don't enjoy, exists because there are so many people. If there are fewer people, there will be things that we enjoy because fewer people exist. However, there will also have to be things that we don't get to enjoy because fewer people exist.

[Taverner]

21. I agree with most of your very eloquent response

However, I do think there's a way to solve the problem with less pain on the world as a whole. China was able to do it (however, it had some VERY nasty side effects. ex: the drowning of baby girls to keep up with the 'one child policy')

We need to take a similar stance, without the authoritarian angle.

[InvisibleTouch]

22. If you remember Thomas Malthus...

...you can rest assured that the problem will eventually be taken care of. One way or another.

I'm just sad that by then, humans will have poisoned the planet for so many others.

[Taverner]

24. People are too quick to discount Malthus because of the green rev

But the so called "green revolution" is temporary, as it is based on finite resources

Start space mining (just what it sounds like) and perhaps we can go back to huge amounts of food produced, then wasted

[GliderGuider]

41. The GR ended in 1980. So did exponential population growth.

Coincidence? I think not.
Malthus has been right all along.

[tama]

23. The basic assumption

of OP and other posters is simply wrong. Namely that the level of consumption per capita has to remain the same - or grow. Seeing only quantity and no thought for quality - especially that less quantity of possessions and consumption spells better quality of life. Au contraire, consumption per capita has been going down and that trend will continue to escalate.

We can try to keep on playing the numbers game - and blame other numbers for consuming what should belong to MY number in a win-lose game wich in the end means just a lose-lose game. Or we can start adapting to post growth and post oil era on individual and communal level, taking responsibility in a win win game called LESS CONSUMPTION FEELS BETTER.

[Taverner]

29. So let me get this right

You are saying that everyone is suddenly waking up to the idea of 'less is more'?

That seems like as faulty assumption

The population is still growing in the USA

The population is still growing in Europe (just not by those of European ancestry)

Those who think it will 'level out at 8-10 billion' are wearing some serious rose-tinted glasses

And when we run out of oil, we will have to fertilize our crops the old way...same with keeping the bugs away

[tama]

53. You said that, not me

What I'm saying is that thinking and worrying about what OTHERS do and don't do is not really helping anyone. Change starts from within, liberating one-self from sociocultural conditioning that is no longer evolutionally adaptive.

And yes, we are waking up. Not suddenly everyone, but gradually as is the natures sticky way. Those who feel they have most to lose, being possessed by their possessions, fear most and wake up latest.

Also good to remember we are gardening species, having natural talent for coevolution with other species and all the know-how needed available to satisfy all our basic needs, no matter what our number is. Doomerism is just a phase of waking up, the sooner we get over it, the better company we are to others. :)

[Gregorian]

30. I would like to agree with that. But here is what I see as one of the problems.

Beside the fact that our consumption can be decreased geometrically, and our growth is exponential, there is an entire infrastructure that sustains a modern life. If we had not made the choice to become agrarians, we would have remained hunter gatherers, and not been able to reproduce in such numbers, as well as been healthier. And that is probably an options, except for the loss of animal diversity now. But the big issue with sustaining a modern life is that any one of the things we enjoy requires an entire choreographed series of destructive events. If we have bad teeth, for example, Novocaine is something we'd like to enjoy. That requires manufacturing, transportation, sterility. A better example is to just look at transportation. Billions of people most likely cannot sustain horses. It takes vehicles. Vehicles need metal, or the equivalent. Metal takes mining, or recycling. Both of those take a myriad of production techniques that just go against anything sustainable in large numbers. Most of what we enjoy in the modern world is not sustainable in the numbers we have at the moment. When one billion people want just one piece of lumber alone, we're looking at a big number of trees. And that's renewable. But unfortunately trees don't grow fast enough for the demand. That's why there are huge areas of deforestation around the world right now.

My point is, there is no in between. We either live in smaller numbers, and enjoy a modern lifestyle, or strip the planet of oops UPS is here...Got to go

[Taverner]

32. Just take a look at what would happen if a city doubled its population

- Highways become inadequate. Case in Point: I-5 in Seattle during the 90's
- Food supplies become inadequate - partially because the highways are so backed up, new food shipments get backed up too
- Gas goes up in price across the board
- Home prices skyrocket, as does rent
- Undue strain on already overcrowded schools
- Inadequate waste treatment services, the sewers back up and flow into the streets to make:
- Rampant spread of diseases due to the sewage backup and the new illnesses carried from where the new residents came

[Gregorian]

35. I know an engineer at the Marin sewage treatment facility.

First, I'd like to say how nice it is to know someone who gets it. We're in the minority, unfortunately.

There are a bunch of cities in the Bay Area that are still using the old redwood timber sewer, and water, pipe infrastructure. These towns are going to be seeing massive disruption soon. Not to mention the huge amount of energy and upgrading that has to be done in order to process both water runoff from developments, and sewage.

And yes, what do we do when we need to build more and more housing? Trees? Some magical material that comes from nothing? I have arguments with bright people who think they know, and then I run into people who have experienced the nightmare of China. On one hand China has a dictator who can make decisions. But on the other hand, growth seems to be inevitable. Those Chinese villages 20 years ago are now high rise cities. There's a lot of suffering going on in the name of growth.

[Taverner]

44. So much of the bay area infrastructure is taken for granted

Most people don't know the Bay Bridge could collapse at any moment

Back in the 30s, when they built it, they had it posted to the floor of the bay with wooden struts (?)

When the Loma Prieta quake happened, many of those struts moved. Since the bridge stayed up, everyone went on with their business. Ignorance is bliss.

[GliderGuider]

40. A small correction - population growth is no longer exponential, because of the food supply

Population growth has been linear, at around 80 million per year, for the last 30 years or so, since the Green Revolution petered out:



However:

• If food and fossil fuel production are as tightly tied as they seem to be; and
  
• If food production and population growth are as tightly tied as they seem to be; and
  
• If the fact that we've hit Peak Oil means that our fossil fuel production is about to start declining; then
  
• It's a very short chain of logic to the realization that outright population declines are probably in our immediate future.

Because of food supply limits triggered by oil supply limits I don't think we'll ever see a world population over 7.5 billion. We have at most 9 or 10 more years of population growth, then over the edge. World population will probably be declining by 2020.

[Gregorian]

45. It's exponential by virtue of it's biological process, no?

But yes, I agree with your sentiment regarding how the fuel behind population has slowed. And that it may never be able to see growth like it was.

I'd like to see more discussion regarding these issues. From math, the exponential has a coefficient, if I recall, that takes all of these things into consideration. Birth rate and death rate, essentially. All of what you posted goes into that.

There is still room for grave concern, unfortunately. We're not exactly stagnant, even if the birth/death ratio were one. This really IS more than just about population, although population is the more important factor. The two billion in India and China are just now "turning on the hot water". When one thinks of the damage the western world did with it's small population, one has to cringe thinking about 2 billion living that way.

[GliderGuider]

46. No, actually it's not.

To be a mathematical stickler about it, "exponential" means that the population grows by a constant percentage each year. Our population is growing by a constant number each year, which means the percentage declines each year. Mathematically our population growth is linear, not exponential.

But yes, it's still a problem, because we are still growing and a growing human population is bad for all other life on the planet (and for us too). I just don't expect it to remain a problem for more than another 10 years.

[Gregorian]

52. I think that model is called logistical growth.

Interesting, if what you say is true. Because I've spent literally 40 years agonizing over this. Not too unlike the Bush years, I have been sitting on a bus that is going into a ditch. And it's hard to just sit still and watch.

I have thought that even people who want children have altered their behavior. My thought on this relates to feedback systems. The sensors that are feeding back are eyes. People see the mess, and are tailoring their behavior. I haven't seen nearly as many baby carriages in the last 20 years as I saw in the previous 20. That's at least some indication of things, at least in California. Not very scientific.

Another thing that I think is happening is that like the curves you posted, the degree of difficulty of extracting resources has an effect on usage. Even though we're years behind the curve, we're already starting to gear up for a world with less availability of oil.

Interesting points you've made. Very helpful for me, on a personal level. Sometimes we don't know what evidence there is to show that things may not be growing without bounds.

Even after all of this is said, just a 4% rate of growth results in doubling over an 18 year period. That's pretty dramatic. And I hope we don't end up going much higher in population than we are already.

[GliderGuider]

62. In logistical growth the increase diminishes more and more

as the function approaches a saturation point, beyond which it is a constant (more or less). Species populations don't tend to follow logistical functions AFAIK, they oscillate or do an inflate-overshoot-crash cycle. The idea that our population growth might be a logistical function is yet one more example of the blindness brought on by exceptionalism. Ten seconds of serious thought reveals the idea that we might reach some level (whether 7.5, 9.3 or 85 billion) and then simply hang there in perpetuity as we chewed the ecosystem supports out from under our own asses, as being utterly, self-centeredly absurd.

Our population will decline, there is no question about it. The questions are when, how much damage will we do in the meantime, and how profound will the decline be?

I'm betting on 7.5 billion people by 2020, then a decline to two billion by 2100 brought on by food supply failures, with a metric assload of planetary damage between now and then.

[tama]

74. Betting

on a self-fulling prophecy? In that case, be carefull what you wish for. Let's wish more skillfully than what you are betting on... :)

[Gregorian]

79. Are you basing some of this upon the Bosch Haber cycle?

I've thought that once we reached a level of population which the "natural" planet could not sustain, we began to supercharge our farms. I know there are many other factors involved. But that one seems to be important from the standpoint of feeding people.

I'm curious what other factors you base your decision upon. By the way, I think you know me. I'm asking this because I want to know. Not because I am adversarial. I also feel this population cannot be sustained. But I have questions regarding the different lifestyle modes in which we engage. I met someone recently who lives without a refrigerator. I'm still in a state of disbelief. But he is living pretty well. He does use a car. And that has huge ramifications. We had a discussion yesterday regarding the carrying capacity of the planet under the conditions of which people live a more natural lifestyle. I don't buy it. I'm of a mind that we burned that bridge.

This is too important a subject for us to not have a forum in which to discuss it. Yet is just doesn't get the light of day, except for a post here and a thread there. It's just so full of ego and emotion. I think the more we talk the more fluid it will become. I'm grateful just for this thread.

[GliderGuider]

88. No, my analysis isn't that detailed - it's less about the trees and more about the forest.

Global agriculture has been built into an industrial model based on fossil fuels that's going to be very hard to break free of within a decade or two. I think we only have a decade before the decline in net oil exports is going to be biting a lot of oil importing nations like the USA, Australia, China and India in the ass big time. Those nations are all major global grain producers. I expect the decline in oil exports to accelerate, and with the rate of decline surpassing 10% per year by the end of the decade. My high-level view of the problem says that such a decline would overwhelm any other effect given how closely tied modern agriculture is to FF.

In the same time frame, more extreme weather events driven by global warming global warming are going to be afflicting various parts of the world, further reducing grain production. I expect these reductions to offset any regional increases that might come from local changes in farming practices.

Over the next 20 years, the combined impact of declining oil exports and extreme weather events on grain production will become the most serious crisis that modern civilization has ever faced. I don't think the problem is solvable within that time frame, and could lead to major reductions in world population starting within two decades due to the suppression of birthrates and rising death rates due to famine.

[Gregorian]

91. That is exactly what I meant.

Thanks. We're on the same page.

Not only that, but in the meantime, we ship steel to China so they can make stuff that they then ship back. That is not sustainable in the slightest. And that alone is going to have a big impact on economies.

But the food issue has me very worried. I'll tell you about just my personal experience. As I've moved from ranch to ranch on the coast of California and Oregon, I've witnessed less and less water in the streams and rivers over the 20 years. I have had two properties that were important farms. I've almost bought another. One supplied much of the salmon for San Francisco, in it's day. There are no fish in the river that runs through it now. There were fifty elk on one property, where there were once a thousand. There were hundreds of salmon where one could walk across them back in the 50's and 60's. From the old timers I've talked with (and I won't take up time with the stories, but they are incredible), the 60's were the pivotal period when wildlife took a decline. Even the fog on the coast has dramatically changed. All I am saying is, without the fossil fuels used to keep our food production pumped up, we cannot go back. There's nothing to go back to. As I sit here, I am working on trying to find another property. I'm totally at a loss to find a place where I can actually live off of the land in any sort of way like one used to. They shot the ducks and geese. Man, I have to apologize for blabbing, and for being so down sounding. But when so many people are so blind to something so drastic, the vigilant can hardly help but be histrionic.

I appreciate your comment on this forum. Thank you.

[GliderGuider]

94. The effects I talk about are in addition to the ones you've noticed

The drop in wildlife due to human encroachment and habitat loss, the diversion of rivers, the draining of fossil aquifers, the increasing loss of soil fertility that ties industrial farmers ever more tightly to fossil fuels, the loss of alternative approaches through knowledge loss, the streamlining of other species' genomes into a few "useful" lines, the acidification of the oceans, the loss of ocean fish species...

It's enough to give a thoughtful person the dry heaves.

[Gregorian]

97. Yes.

Just seeing that Oregon had become a tree farm. Monoculture. as enough to send me packing.

I should share something. I just hired a "landscaper" to help me with my ranch. I bought a seriously messed up timber property. Clearcut three times in the last century. This man is from Germany. He was taught by the old school artisans who lived through WW1. We're taking areas that are completely bare, and eroding, and turning them around. It's the most amazing schooling I've had in a long time. I'm taking pieces of forest from a healthy section, and transplanting them into other more vulnerable areas. We're working to stop erosion, and rebuild the forest. At least this little piece of it. This man lives without refrigeration, I think I already mentioned in another post. That alone is pretty amazing. But he has a philosophy. To begin living properly on a personal level. And to begin turning the planet around one tiny bit at a time. I am convinced there is no way in hell we're pulling out of this without massive suffering. But this little ray of light is the first I've seen. I've never met anyone who can do this. Landscaping in the western way of thinking is just brute force. Jam a plant here and there. This man has vision. He sees what is already there. He simply follows what is already there. It's not that what he's doing will even have an impact that will do any good. But it's that I see someone doing good stuff. Being and doing good. Not stuffing a stupid CFL into a socket. It's a reversal of where we have been going. It's the direction that he's going. Rather than trying to sustain what isn't working, he is turning around and saying that we can go back, and we can survive without ruining this phenomenal place.

I don't know. It's just a good feeling. But more than that, at some point we will have to begin living in a way that has less impact. It may be just a few people left after some disaster. People trying to farm lands with limited water, and higher temperatures. Billions already gone. Somewhere along the line we will be surviving. This is just a glimpse into how that might work out.

[GliderGuider]

99. It's wonderful to have men like that acting as examples.

"To begin living properly on a personal level. And to begin turning the planet around one tiny bit at a time."

Amen, brother. Amen.

[tama]

101. I have good friends also

One has been living self-sufficiently without money in rural northern Finland, proving in practice that five ares (10*50 m²) of gardening patch together with gathering mushrooms and berries etc. is enough to satisfy all basic material needs - with only four hours of work per day!!! Here's a pamphlet written by him: http://www.ymparistojakehitys.fi/susopapers/Lasse_Nordlund_Foundations_of_Our_Life.pdf
And a newspaper article: http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Self-sufficient+family+enjoys+simplicity+during+Christmas/1135242280499

Another friend, who is just visiting our community, is a musician also living in city by his own choise without bank account and home and any other formal status in the system, dumpster diving and staying with friends.

Third friend is a master gardener who talks with plants, has learned to survive in forest with nothing but wild plants (when avoiding draft) and has now founded many forest gardens and teaches others his skills and knowledge.

And many other magickal people, most of whom I've become friends with after I abandoned my old way of life in the city and my career as a professional translator - also destroyed my 20 year marriage in the process and dived deep and was in much pain for a long time. Now I feel deep gratitude for all my experiences and especially all the people who have helped and guided me on my path and given me confidence that all is and will be fine, we face our fears in order to learn what life has to teach us. Learning to learn and keep learning.

[Gregorian]

106. I'm amazed at the article you have posted here.

I have met less than a handful of people who get the concepts he is discussing. I've been saying over and over how the entire infrastructure of this modern lifestyle works. He get's it. I'm really blown away this morning as I read it.

I'll admit that I'm still addicted to the modern life. I like my technology. My movies. My espressos. But I have to thank you profusely for sharing your story and this article with me. It has helped me take yet another step in the right direction.

Today is the Super Bowl here. To me that means there will be few cars on the road. So I am going on a long bike ride today. It's the only good thing I can say about football in the USA. One day a year is a bit frustrating. I wish it were every day. But that's a totally different subject.

Thanks so much. I feel a sense of optimism after reading your post.

[tama]

111. Thank you for being :)

I've got nothing against good movies and coffee either, like them very much, and generally enjoying life. TV is another thing, happier without it. IMHO the value of those exemplary ways of life is not about following their example in every detail and jumping into totally self-sufficient and sustainable way of life right away, but proving in practice that it works and is fun, giving hope and confidence. What matters most is understanding that the transition is a process - of many generations, and building new sense of community. taking care of friends and neighbours and accepting their love for you - which is often the most difficult thing, accepting that you are loved as you are and change. We are all in the same boat, Mothership Earth, all of us members of our organic tribe where nobody is outsider.

[tama]

117. A poem by Cavafy

GOD ABANDONS ANTONY

When suddenly, at midnight, you hear
an invisible procession going by
with exquisite music, voices,
don’t mourn your luck that’s failing now,
your work that failed, your life's plans
all proving deceptive—don’t mourn them uselessly.
As one long prepared, and graced with courage,
say goodbye to her, the Alexandria that is leaving.
Above all, don’t fool yourself, don’t say
it was a dream, your ears deceived you:
don’t degrade yourself with empty hopes like these.
As one long prepared, and graced with courage,
as is right for you who proved worthy of this kind of city,
go firmly to the window
and listen with deep emotion, but not
with the whining, the pleas of a coward;
listen—your final delectation—to the voices,
to the exquisite music of that strange procession,
and say goodbye to her, to the Alexandria you are losing.

[Gregorian]

120. I have been lucky.

By virtue of my failures, I have experienced more than most ever will. I quit a high paying job as an engineer in Silicon Valley to buy a tiny cabin in the woods. There a feral cat gave birth to kittens. I watched the whole thing as they grew. Then I moved from property to property. Six in all over the last fifteen years. And another coming up soon. All in a search for beauty that failed. Yet from reading your poem, didn't fail. I did experience beauty. And a ton of freedom to do whatever I wanted with all of my days. And variety. And truth. While riding my bicycle all over the logging trails of northern California, I found that the department of Fish and Game was really the police officer for big logging corporations. They didn't want us seeing the deforestation. But I saw it. And now I know where a piece of lumber comes from. It really woke me up to see the devastation. So it's easy to be upset. Now my cats are gone. And I still yearn for a home. The one I've been trying to find for over 15 years. I guess life was never easy. \

But after reading the entire paper you sent, I am still in a state of excitement. For 40 years I've been trying to tell people that when they look at a car, they don't see the entire infrastructure that went into making it. I completed a degree in machine tool technology before I became a mechanical engineer. I know what is going on behind the scenes. That paper is stunning in it's sense of clear and complete communication. I haven't been able to communicate so completely ass Lasse does. I'm absolutely inspired. I already sent the paper to a close friend. One who happens to be Finnish, by the way. I want to post it in other places, and hope it isn't too flagrant to do so. After all, I didn't find it. You did. I want to thank you again. This is not an insignificant moment in my life. I've spent 40 years yearning to see what is in that paper. It has brought a kind of liberation to me. I feel legitimate after reading it. I can't really put my finger on it, except that Lasse has done a brilliant job of communicating what I can't.

[tama]

125. By all means

share the article. It's copyleft, of course.

You might also like another Cavafy's poem, called 'Ithaca'. I'll let you find it yourself. :)

[tama]

57. Consumerisim

and the whole pyramid fraud of current system is incredibly wastefull and ineffective. Food supply limits in terms of production are much less problematic than socio-economic reasons of malnutrition. Take a look how much perfectly good food goes to waste bin from local supermarket and home, just the last links of the supply chain.

Cubans had lean years, but no famine when they lost practically all oil in one night. In Russia, which has experienced many social collapses without famine, half of food produced still comes from small private gardens.

[tama]

68. To put it short

1) there is no sustainable infrastructure that will sustain unsustainable modern way of life.

2) adaptation to sustainable way of life will happen any case in the process of evolution

3) how painlesly we manage to adapt starts with individual of the population - you and me, not "them others' - taking responsibility and starting to adapt - first mentally.

4) as social beings we adapt best socially - by building confidence in each other (whole global tribe and all that belongs to Mother Nature) and cooperating for common good.

5) confidence can be found only by facing and overcoming fear.

[Gregorian]

92. Thanks

That's really good stuff.

I'm failing in a couple of those areas. It's me against the world. And in a way it almost is. But I know what you said about building confidence, and being social is true.

I'm especially facing that this morning. I'm on the verge of selling yet another property, and moving on. But to where? Am I trying to find a beautiful place to live, or is beauty in itself nothing without the social aspect? I've changed my life to reflect what I want to see in the world. And I'm offended by most people's lives. I want to get away from them. But I'm human. Any property, no matter how beautiful, is nothing more than a pretty cage. I have begun to realize that after many years of moving from place to place. It's a long discussion. And it's more about me as I type. But it boils down to whether we want to live like we do in Phoenix, Denver, San Jose, Chicago, or live like they do in Tuscany. One is a village of people who live as a unit during one part of the day, and then migrate out to their gardens for another part. A functioning society, without the need for extreme energy generation. The others are bizarre in that they are totally disconnected, dysfunctional in terms of nurturing of the soul and spirit. I honestly believe that we are diseased just from the guilt associated with the knowledge of the damage we are doing from our huge footprints on the planet. People think nothing of a 100 commute.

I'm rambling. And there are plants to be worked this morning. The wind blows through the redwood trees. I feel them calling me. Thank you for your comments. They all help.

[tama]

95. Collective mental disorder

That self-diagnosis helped me a lot - especially my hatred of the system and them others, "me against the world"-syndrom. As a part of this society, of course I'm also suffering from mental disorder. Healing can begin only after I stop denying that I'm ill, together with my fellow men, and becoming aware of the roots of our problems, and that getting better is both individual and collective process.

I lived last summer in an ecovillage in the deep countryside, experienced wonderous beauty and gradually started to feel much better. In September I moved to to a new community (1,5 hectares garden and few old buildings by the see) in suburban area near oldest city of my country, the middle ground between rural and city life. Wonders are still happening. :)

[Gregorian]

98. That's so good to hear.

I'm trying to do that right now. That is my goal. And I'm quite frustrated and frightened. But that is because I've set huge goals. I don't want to visit that farm. I want to own it. Plus I'm unhappy with the American lifestyle, and it's impact upon mine. Such as car and jet noise. But I don't think I can have it all. I don't want to live in isolation. Nor do I want to live in a conservative community.

I sure hope you enjoy what you do. And I dream of good things happening in my near future. I'd love to share that things worked out, and I owned a farm, and was growing mushrooms and things. I'm quite close to achieving it actually.

I think it's harder, like I think you were saying, to feel like wanting to be a part when one is in pain. I can't wait for something good to happen like your story. I'd love to hear more, if you feel like telling.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. But, for the world, consumption per capita is increasing, not decreasing

To take the most measurable value - primary energy consumption per capita - you can get figures here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/energyconsumption.html

Taking the average trend over the last 10 years in the data (1997 to 2006), world per capita consumption has gone up about 0.88 million btu per person per year - more than 1.2% each year. Every continent has increased in that time, except North America - and that has only gone down by 0.2% per year, and is still far above the figure for any other continent.

Yes, we ought to consume less, but the level of consumption the world seems to be converging on looks to be well above what the planet can bear.

[tama]

59. AFAIK (from other stats)

Global energy (or exergy, to be exact) consumption per capita peaked in 1979 and has been on plateau or slowly decreasing since that. Decreasing much more quickly since 2008, at least in the so called 'developed world'.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. That data goes from 1980 (63.7m btu/person) to 2006 (72.4m)

with the increase being mainly since 2000 (when Asian, in particular Chinese, use took off). The USA has not had a noticeable trend since 1980 - 343.1 in 1980, down to 311.7 in 1983, up to 350.6 in 2000, down to 334.6 in 2006. It's believable that the 1979 US figure was the highest ever; perhaps that's what the other stats you saw said?

Certainly the global CO2 figures showed a drop from developed countries after 2008, but that was due to the recession which western governments try to avoid, and China continued growing.

[tama]

72. It's not a recession

but the Final Depression, beginning of the end of growth economy (capitalism as we know it), as global oil production has peaked. Chindia can consume only what West in Depression leaves unconsumed, and not even that.

[Spyderama]

37. Issue of the Millennium

It's about damn time somebody began discussing this topic! All our politicians are total cowards.

<http://palinbabygate.blogspot.com/2011/02/boogedy-boogity.html>

[Celeborn Skywalker]

38. I don't disagree with most of your post.

I will say however, that Europe is much denser than the USA and doesn't have particularly high levels of agression or ultra-crowded highways (crowded, yes). And the 3rd world are the biggest offenders as far as population increases go.

What Americans have a problem with is CONSUMPTION. We are using much more than our fair share of resources. So is Europe, Japan, Mexico, and parts of South America.

[Taverner]

43. Yes, you are correct there

But consider who consumes? people. Less people, less consumption.

Part of our aggression here has a lot to do with our culture, our religion and our values. We do not value communitarian ideals, instead we value individual ideals. Therein lies part of the problem.

[Hannah Bell]

119. global fertility rate = 2.5 children per woman & declining. US, with about 5% of world population,

consumes about 1/8 to 1/4 of global resources used yearly.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=global+fertility+rates



22% of the oil in this case:

[raccoon]

122. Great post. nt

[leftstreet]

42. If the Ruling Class stopped profiting off energy and food....

[GliderGuider]

47. I think it's a problem, but I don't think it will be a problem for much longer.

Here's a recent article that details why I think we're about at the end of population growth:
Connecting the Dots: Food, Fossil Fuel and Population

[alterfurz]

49. geezer here...

...living out his final days in a country with twice as many people in it now compared to when he was born, and 3X as many in the world. How much longer can such multiplication go on? As James Kunstler says: We'll keep doing what we do until we can't, and then we won't.
Edward Abbey also comes to mind:
Of all our privileges, the license to breed is the most grossly abused.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
For this world that men have made, none is bad enough; for the world that made us, none is good enough.

70s bumpersticker: Mother Nature bats last. Recently seen bumpersticker: The Mayans were optimists.

[seabeyond]

54. number of children decreasing in u.s. higher educated and wealth, fewer children. you want to go

after certain groups in this society?

[WildEyedLiberal]

93. That's the 800 lb gorilla in the corner, isn't it?

NO ONE who wants to talk about overpopulation wants to really have a frank discussion of which populations are responsible for higher-than-average birth rates because that starts to get into VERY thorny territory. So instead, they neuter their own arguments by generalizing about "Americans," who are not really the problem as far as global population growth is concerned, if anyone wants to be honest about the issue. And even if you are narrowing the discussion to America, to talk about population growth without even MENTIONING the impact of immigration is disingenuous at best. A conversation about population growth either involves discussing some very unpopular and politically sensitive topics, or it involves a circle-jerk of aversion to actually talking about WHO is responsible for population growth (hint: it's not "Americans," whose birth rate hovers at or below replacement level: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/27/us-birth-rate-sets-record_n_697131.html )

I mean no disrespect to the OP, who I am sure posted this thread with honest intentions. I just hate this topic on DU because no one wants to admit that it's not a problem that can be blamed on Americans, or fixed by Americans.

[seabeyond]

96. exactly. and note, you are the first to respond, lol. better to "pretend" otherwise.

we have a couple topics on du that we arent exactly honest about. but i like this point of yours too. something we tend towards.

"no one wants to admit that it's not a problem that can be blamed on Americans"

[AngryAmish]

103. Therein the eugenics discussion enters the room

As it must whenever this topic comes up.

So which undesirable groups do you wish to cull?

[WildEyedLiberal]

116. I don't want to "cull" anyone

But I'm not the one wailing about the EEEEEVILS of population growth, am I?

You're damn right eugenics is inevitably a part of this conversation. But you should be asking all the people who wail and gnash their teeth about population growth which groups THEY would like to cull. Clearly, Americans having too many babies isn't the problem - our birth rate is under the rate of replacement. So who, exactly, are they addressing their concerns about population growth to? Who needs to stop "breeding"? People can't complain about population growth without explaining who exactly is having so many babies - not without being hypocrites, anyway. So, why doesn't anyone ever ask the "zomg population growth is the biggest problem in the world" folks who they feel needs to be eliminated?

[arbusto_baboso]

56. It's at the base of most of our other global problems.

Without population pressures, competition for resources would decrease, as would their use.

[leftstreet]

60. No. Without competition for profit, our resources would be just fine n/t

[arbusto_baboso]

63. "Without competition for profit"....

Might as well ask the sky to stop being blue. Not gonna happen.

[tama]

75. Every sunset, every night

sky goes red and then black.

[tama]

61. For those who don't see quantitative thinking

as problem...

I suggest most scrupulous logic based on common experience: IF you see others as the problem and compete AGAINST them, they will see you the same way. Then you fight and most likely destroy in your resource war what you were fighting for in the first place.

Instead of that old lose-lose game of manic competition we need a win-win game where everybody wins by cooperation and compassion. And applying the same scrupulous logic, you know you can't force others to start playing a win-win game, you can only change your own way of life. And when you change (into more confident, happy and healthy once you get rid of excess burden and fears) others react to your example and kind heart.

[arbusto_baboso]

64. Given that the majority of people are fear-based in their decision making...

How is it possible for win-win scenarios to replace the zero sum assumptions the majority now have?

And really, it's not possible to play win-win unless you get most people signing on to it.

[tama]

73. Just more quantitative thinking

'majority' and 'most' other people... :)

What should be self-evident is that as long as you wait most or majority to start playing win-win before you start yourself, it's not going to happen. But if you start from yourself, you're giving it at least a chance instead of letting fear of fear of others keep you down on the path where no one really wants to go.

I've been discussing these issues for many years, and now I see that on DU the age of collective denial is coming to end. I have all the confidence that this is the year of facing fears. Been there, done that, and from my experience I know that facing fears - mentally, because they exist only in mind - leads to overcoming them and positive change.

Fears are just future scenarios making here and now miserable. And there's no real need to feel miserable right now, happier we feel and less we fear, the more creative we behave and less painfull the transition will be.

[DLine]

58. Somebody tell the Duggars...

[customerserviceguy]

66. The solution to overpopulation is clear

Come up with some sort of pill that virtually guarantees the conception of a male child. Sell it subsidized on the black market in the Third World.

Eventually, the most sexist and backwards societies will breed themselves out of existence. Those societies that value girls/women will survive.

[stuntcat]

87. lol's I like it

:thumbsup:

[RC]

67. Over population is the basic problem to most all our troubles.

We are a most arrogant species. We think our shear numbers are not the problem. We blame the weather, politics, bad luck, anything but the root cause, us.
We are destroying all other life forms on this planet, except what we grow for food... and the pests species which reproduce so fast, we can't kill them off no matter how hard we try. We humans belong in that category, pests. We are depleting the earth non-renewable resources, so that any intelligent species that may come along after we are long gone doesn't have much chance to become 'Advanced'. Which may not be a bad thing. If nothing else, it will stop us from polluting the rest of the universe.

We think we are supreme. No, we are not. We are of this planet, as are all the other life forms here. Out intelligence is destroying us.

[Shagbark Hickory]

71. There should be tax incentives for not breeding, yet it's the other way around. Plus,

free schooling, free daycare, free food, free healthcare for kids.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

78. So you think kids shouldn't get all that?

Especially disadvantaged ones? I think we all should have that which you listed above, but if not, then at least kids and elderly should get all that.

[Shagbark Hickory]

80. Well........

I know it's a republican philosophy to deny the essentials to children but when it comes to the subject of overpopulation, in my view, people have children who can't afford to have children.
I'm not saying children should just be for the wealthy, but you should be able to provide the basics at least, without relying on assistance. And it's common knowledge that there are some benefits that become available to parents of disadvantaged children that people without children would not be eligible for.

I'm not saying there should be any assistance for people that are down on their luck.
What I am saying is there should be far fewer financial rewards for having children.
If we are to find real solutions, we must go head to head with this tough subject.

[vim876]

102. Or...

we could just develop a social safety net for everyone. Then having kids wouldn't be a doorway to any special benefits.

[Shagbark Hickory]

104. That might be a solution but obiviously that's a pretty general statement without much detail on how

exactly that would work or who would pay for it.

Don't get me wrong, I am a social-safetynet-kind of guy. But if there's anything that we've learned from closely looking an such systems overseas lately, we know that they come at a cost.

[TroubleMan]

84. I'm a reluctant Malthusian myself.

I know the problem, and it's the biggest problem that mankind faces. I just don't like any of the solutions. IMHO mankind won't find a solution on its own. We're not mature enough. It will have to be mass war, mass starvation (or lack of water) or mass disease unfortunately. The politicians won't act until it's way too late, if they even act at all.

[Jokinomx]

86. Yep... I have been saying it for years... we have to stop growing... but the capitalist system

requires it. We (the world) are growing so fast the graph now is nearly vertical.

Since man has not evolved past the state of an animal, we will be subject to the law of animals and that is survival of the fittest. Nature will lower the population since we won't. Millions if not billions will most likely starve. As the climate change continues to progress, it is inevitable that it will have an effect on food production.

This along with inadequate water sheds to meet demands millions will perish if not in my lifetime certainly in my childrens lifetime.

:cry:

[stuntcat]

89. yes.

too bad we can't go back to the first "alarmist tree-hugger bullshit" and start some changes. Instead we built this trash world where everything we have, do & eat depends on energy, especially oil.
I should just be happy to have a bed and food.. I suppose that's the animal I am from now on, luckily lucky :eyes: :cry:

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. The population in the US is only growing because of immigration.

The fertility rate of women in the US is 2.01 children. 2.1 is the replacement rate. If the borders were closed tomorrow, population would slowly decline.

The total US population growth rate is 0.9% - Due to immigration.

If it's something to be so terribly worried about, make it stop.

A better case for population control can be made worldwide.

[Taverner]

100. Look - it doesn't matter where it comes from

Numbers WORLDWIDE need to recede rather than grow

[KillCapitalism]

105. As has been said, climate change will take care of the problem.

There will be a severe shortage of food when anywhere beyond 10* lattitude of the equator becomes an uninhabitable snow covered wasteland.
Huge crop producintg regions like California, the Midwest, the Ukraine, etc. will be buried under snow and ice.

[Mudoria]

108. the planet could do with 5 billion less humans

[AngryAmish]

118. Who do you wish to kill? Or at least sterilize?

[jcboon]

109. Soylent Green is people

[Odin2005]

110. We must reduce our population or Mother Nature will do it for us.

And she is not a kind mother.

[AngryAmish]

115. Rev, Malthus, you have been proven right so many times.

[Warren DeMontague]

113. Tell the Pope.

Places with high standards of living and access to birth control limit populations on their own.

[raccoon]

121. People in industrialized nations use a heckuva lot more resources than those in

Third World nations.

I've heard it estimated 25 times as much.

Many Americans live in humongous houses where everyone has their own room, as well as central heat & air. In Third World nations, many people live in a tiny shack with a dirt floor.

While I agree that too many people is part of the problem, a small percentage of the world's population are the ones responsible for depleting the world's resources.

[Xenotime]

124. Americans have the largest carbon footprint in the world.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. overpopulation as it pertains to reproduction rates IS a problem in certain parts of the world.

Perhaps you should find the equivalent of DU in Guinea-Bissou, and address the OP to them.