Happy Atheist Forum

So I saw this poll today and took it.  It asked "Should People Have Fewer Kids to Help Save the Planet?  I was shocked to see the numbers - 51% of respondents thought that the idea of family planning is asinine to discuss. (http://www.livescience.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2143)  Then I read through the comments.  Holy crap!  (Sometimes literally religious junk.)  I had known there were people who think that overpopulation is a myth but I didn't know there were so many of them!  Nor did I know that they were as racist and venomous about it as many of the replies in the comments are.

There were the expected "go forth and multiply" bits but I was surprised by how many people mentioned "preservation of the white race" as a reason to not limit their reproductive activities.  

Are those people really a majority?  If they are, I'm deeply disturbed by it.  

So, to cash in on the controversy and maybe collect a few nuts, er... gems, of my own I created a duel page entitled Is Overpopulation a Myth? (http://www.squidoo.com/isoverpopulationamyth)

Have you encountered any of these "overpopulation is a myth" folks?  Or does anyone here believe that overpopulation is a myth?  As far as I can tell, it seems to have a direct correlation to religiosity.

I don't know what possesses people with absolutely no money to pump out scads of kids.  Religion, ignorance, whatever it is, is irresponsible if you can't afford to put food in their mouths.

The concept of overpopulation is correct. At a certain point, it's possible that a species can grow so much that it's requirements for survival exceed the resources of a given environment. We've seen it happen, actually. The real question is, "What does global human overpopulation look like?" I know to a layman it seems simple: we're running out of oil, we're running out of fish, we've turned to incredibly unhealthy farming and livestock habits in order to support our population, etc. etc. etc.â€"it seems that way to meâ€"but this kind of thing needs hard science. I'm not qualified to make this determination, and I don't know if there's anyone out there that's expert enough in the concept of human ecological global homeostasis to really give us an indication.

I guess my answer is: we need to get our best minds on this asap, just in case we're in trouble and don't know it.

That's interesting. I was just talking with my wives about this the other day. The seven of us agreed that we should do our part to reduce the population of the Earth, so we are going to give condoms out to all those heathens in Third World Countries like Mexico, India, and North Jersey. Our kids are going to help us distribute them, since all but twelve of them are over the age of 18.

We figure a few years of this type of mission work, and showing them some German Animaporn should about take care of that whole Godless reproduction stuff they do.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forumammo.com%2Fcpg%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10062%2Fpolar_bear_failure.jpg&hash=4692c26a31b004a524084f21cea15b7aa36461c1) (http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10062/polar_bear_failure.jpg)

Quote from: "Will"The concept of overpopulation is correct. At a certain point, it's possible that a species can grow so much that it's requirements for survival exceed the resources of a given environment. We've seen it happen, actually. The real question is, "What does global human overpopulation look like?" I know to a layman it seems simple: we're running out of oil, we're running out of fish, we've turned to incredibly unhealthy farming and livestock habits in order to support our population, etc. etc. etc.â€"it seems that way to meâ€"but this kind of thing needs hard science. I'm not qualified to make this determination, and I don't know if there's anyone out there that's expert enough in the concept of human ecological global homeostasis to really give us an indication.

I guess my answer is: we need to get our best minds on this asap, just in case we're in trouble and don't know it.

Malthus was someone's who's population theories we discussed in my environmental ethics class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus)

wiki on carrying capacity of earth:  

QuoteAround two-thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion, with a median of about 10 billion, approximately the size that will be reached by 2200

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopula ... g_capacity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Carrying_capacity)

QuoteAs of 27 August 2009, the Earth's population is estimated by the United States Census Bureau to be 6.78 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)

So...we are either already overpopulated or some of the estimates need to be reworked.
Either way....looks like our great great grandchildren are going to be in for a very rough time.

I think that the year 2200 estimate is too conservative an estimate for when we may reach a 10 billion population. We're supposed to reach 7 billion by 2011.  That's an increase of a billion people from 1999 to 2011.  Even if we "only" increase our population by a billion every twelve years we'll hit 10 billion by 2050.

Wow... reading some of those comments makes me literally ill.  It's amazing how people can just cover their eyes, plug their ears and just hum their way through life while the rest of us really CARE about the world and her resources.  I gotta go "no news" again.

I was reading, got halfway down the page, when suddenly...


Noooo!  A racist Fry Man... and immediately after... A Hitler reference!  My only weakness!!!.... How -- how did you know????

The stupid... it burns....  

Mama, I'm coming!  I'm coming mama!  Jim, tell my wife I love her....

*choke*
Goodbye, world.  You'll be coming with me soon, no doubt...
*bleaaah*

Quote from: "McQ"I was just talking with my wives about this the other day.

Wives? Dude, that's sweet. One of my friends that lives up in Canada is in a relationship with two women and they're all really happy.

Thanks for the information, Whitney! I have to start reading up on this.

Hm, I'd have take a split stance on this. On the one hand, racist and religious motivations for thinking we should reproduce without even thinking about it are disturbing, and based on the way the world currently works, excessive population growth seems like a bad idea. However, like Will alludes to, I think there needs to be hard science about whether or not the world is actually becoming overpopulated, like maybe a photo from space of people starting to fall of the planet from overcrowding    . But seriously (oh, and that was just a cheesy joke, I was serious about what Will said), if the human race could be more efficient, I'd wager that we could have 20 billion people and still maintain a balance. Of course, this would require a 180 degree turnaround in the way we utilize/produce resources, the way governments work, the way people consume, etc. Personally, I think the human race might be too selfish and self-serving to accomodate such a population.

You're right Kylyssa, presently it is estimated that by 2050 the population will be 9-10 billion. And unless huge changes are made, roughly half of those people will not have their basic needs met. I don't think we're doing much better right now, to be honest. For all intents and purposes, I'd say we are overpopulated already.

And about the "preserve the white race" thing...what does that even mean? I mean, when you say "black" it's generally understood that you're talking about people of African descent. But "white" is so vague and could include italians, many hispanics, jews, etc. And I hate the word "race" being used to reference a single ethnic group of people; we're the HUMAN RACE! I don't refer to certain breeds of dogs as "the chihuahua race" or "the collie race"; this type of linguistic separation only seems to apply to humans, and I'd imagine it helps stupid douchebags to feel like if an ethnic group they don't belong to is oppressed or destroyed it's OK, because that group wasn't part of their own "race".

However, I'm also going to play devil's advocate here and say that,  dismissing my personal distaste for the way humanity divides itself, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to want to maintain your ethnicity if there aren't any white supremicist agendas motivating such a thing. It seems like if a member of a minority wants to preserve their genetic heritage through their children, it's OK, but if I "white person" expresses a desire to do the same they might be accused of rascism. Personally, I think it would be rascist, but then I'd have to say the same for the minority's desire to do the same. I don't know, it just makes me think of one of those ultra-liberals who might say "Oh, that's a wonderful thing to do, preserving your ethnic heritage is very important!" to a minority (btw, i hate that word too, it's very misleading) and then say "You rascist scum!" to, say, an Irish person for wanting to do the same thing.

Quote from: "rlrose328"Wow... reading some of those comments makes me literally ill.  It's amazing how people can just cover their eyes, plug their ears and just hum their way through life while the rest of us really CARE about the world and her resources.  I gotta go "no news" again.

Why should they care when they know they have a cozy afterlife awaiting them? The Earth is but a stepping stone to them. They'll happily soil it as much as possible before they kick the bucket...

 

It's still quite a topic for debate whether the Earth is overpopulated or not. As I would argue that it doesn't matter if the Earth can provide for 10 billion, we are almost at 7 billion and billions of those people still don't get their basic needs met. So I would say we are overpopulated until we can provide for everyone's basic needs at the very least.

It scares me though that people like in those threads believe they should continue to reproduce to keep their family trees/ethnicities going though. The majority of these people will be living in well off countries, with good health care and support. Whereas in some countries people have to have many children simply because many of them will almost certainly die. And really, there are only usually 2 factors influencing people to large families in well off countries. Firstly if you have a situation, such as here in the UK, where many kids on benefits just see it as a way to get paid more benefits. And secondly, where religion encourages it, I come from an extremely large family (I have more then 30 first cousins, and I can't count the number of people I'm related to by my families marriages), and a large portion of it is Mormon (or at least used to be, it's about half and half Mormon/atheist now). If people truly want large families because it's what they want, then I have nothing against that, especially if they can provide for them without requiring an excessive amount of benefits. However in my own family, the people who still follow the Mormon traditions are having 4-6 kids at times in their lives when they have no chance at being able to adequately provide for all of them and for no other reason then to make their God happy. All it's doing is encouraging poverty, and overpopulation, and that's not a good thing.

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "rlrose328"Wow... reading some of those comments makes me literally ill.  It's amazing how people can just cover their eyes, plug their ears and just hum their way through life while the rest of us really CARE about the world and her resources.  I gotta go "no news" again.

Why should they care when they know they have a cozy afterlife awaiting them? The Earth is but a stepping stone to them. They'll happily soil it as much as possible before they kick the bucket...

 

I realize that... But it's the reasons they are giving for having as many kids as they damned well please.  That's the part that really bums me out.  

"We NEED to have more people on earth because if we don't, we'll have fewer doctors and other scientists..."

"I have 8 kids and I taught them out to recycle, volunteer and all of that, so that's being responsible."

"People with only 1 or 2 kids are more wasteful because they can afford the big SUV, eating out every day, and the big house with the huge electric bill.  If you have more kids, you can't afford all of that."

WTF!!!!  

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "rlrose328"Wow... reading some of those comments makes me literally ill.  It's amazing how people can just cover their eyes, plug their ears and just hum their way through life while the rest of us really CARE about the world and her resources.  I gotta go "no news" again.

Why should they care when they know they have a cozy afterlife awaiting them? The Earth is but a stepping stone to them. They'll happily soil it as much as possible before they kick the bucket...

 

There actually is an christian/theistic environmental view that God made us stewards of the earth and so even if we knew the end of our existence were exactly 50 years from now it would still be our responsibility to care for the environment.  It's just really hard to get the fundamentalists to adopt that fundamental view of the bible because they tend to only care about their own salvation and will spin the Word to be fundamentally true in the way they desire it to be.

Overpopulation is a scary term, but holds little weight in reality, as long as agricultural research continues humans will multiply exponentially, if agricultural research stops, then the top will be hit and third world nations will proceed to starve, if you are inhabitant of an industrialized nation you should not be remotely concerned.

Quote from: "-43-"Overpopulation is a scary term, but holds little weight in reality, as long as agricultural research continues humans will multiply exponentially, if agricultural research stops, then the top will be hit and third world nations will proceed to starve, if you are inhabitant of an industrialized nation you should not be remotely concerned.

:bananacolor:  

... but seriously, thats like saying we shouldn't be concerned about the people in the Middle-East.

The middle east is filled with third world religious zealots who depend on a resource that will disappear in a couple centuries, they have little access to ingenuity, and use whatever weapons they can get thier hands on, which is generally a poor selection. The Middle East is low on my list of concerns.

One day the world will be damaged beyond repair and it will reset, and only the strong will survive.

They will learn from their mistakes and overpopulation will never happen again.

Quote from: "Ninteen45"One day the world will be damaged beyond repair and it will reset, and only the strong will survive.

They will learn from their mistakes and overpopulation will never happen again.

hehe, nice one.

Quote from: "-43-"The middle east is filled with third world religious zealots who depend on a resource that will disappear in a couple centuries, they have little access to ingenuity, and use whatever weapons they can get thier hands on, which is generally a poor selection. The Middle East is low on my list of concerns.

This attitude is part of the problem, if there is a leak in your pipe it is only going to continue to erode further until the pipe busts and becomes destroyed. The #1 mentality is the reason the USA is in the state it's in now.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"So I saw this poll today and took it.  It asked "Should People Have Fewer Kids to Help Save the Planet?  I was shocked to see the numbers - 51% of respondents thought that the idea of family planning is asinine to discuss. (http://www.livescience.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2143)  Then I read through the comments.  Holy crap!  (Sometimes literally religious junk.)  I had known there were people who think that overpopulation is a myth but I didn't know there were so many of them!  Nor did I know that they were as racist and venomous about it as many of the replies in the comments are.

There were the expected "go forth and multiply" bits but I was surprised by how many people mentioned "preservation of the white race" as a reason to not limit their reproductive activities.  

Are those people really a majority?  If they are, I'm deeply disturbed by it.  

Any time you get too fixated on picture of the world painted by internet comment sections, just remember this: before the 2008 presidential primaries, Ron Paul won nearly every online poll in a landslide. What did he get in the actual primary? 1%. The internet is not reality.

QuoteSo, to cash in on the controversy and maybe collect a few nuts, er... gems, of my own I created a duel page entitled Is Overpopulation a Myth? (http://www.squidoo.com/isoverpopulationamyth)

Have you encountered any of these "overpopulation is a myth" folks?  Or does anyone here believe that overpopulation is a myth?  As far as I can tell, it seems to have a direct correlation to religiosity.

The direct correlation to religiosity isn't automatically a point for the truth of overpopulation. People rationalize their emotions, even atheists. Secular people are more concerned with matters of Earth and reality. So if an atheist is naturally an anxious person, they're gonna find something to project their anxiety onto.

The truth is the world can certainly overpopulate. This will be terrible if all land is owned in common. But as long as there's private ownership, the price of resources will go up as the supply relative to population decreases. In a free market this signals to producers of resources to invest in that resource, or in alternatives to that resource. As the price of oil goes up, alternative energies become more feasible. As real estate gets tighter, technology will look for ways to spread people out into less currently-habitable environments.

Not if everything is monopolized the way things are. There needs to be a healthy amount of competition for capitalism to work that way which doesn't seem to exist anymore, the big corporations like it that way and Washington won't fix it because their pockets are being lined with gold. Money needs to be taken out of politics and fast.

This is an old thread but related to world population, a subject that has popped up recently elsewhere.

There are too many variables to consider in regards to over population. With continuous technological advances we can sustain greater numbers of humans. 200 years ago, any major U.S. city today would have been immensely over populated. Skyscrapers allow for large segments of a population to live and work in small area's.  Perhaps we begin mining other planets for resources we run low on, future advancements in agriculture allow us to produce more food at cheaper prices, taller skyscrapers further expand limited land skyward, etc, all would influence the over population equation.

It is far easier to judge overpopulation on a local scale, like Japan. They currently have a limited amount of space on their island and their are fewer variables.

Ultimately, there are still major parts of the earth that are uninhabited. Humanity has the option to spread civilization out to the sea, underground, in the sky, or throughout space.

The bigger problem seems to be how humanity sections itself off from other portions of the population with imaginary borders. The potential growth of civilizations are being limited by imaginary lines in the sand. To escape overpopulated areas, you have to jump through hoops in order to move to another part of the world. Some nations even forbid or make it very difficult for their citizens to emigrate. Other nations make it extremely difficult for immigrants.

I simply think people look at overpopulation far to narrowly, as if it's a black and white issue.

There is also no certainty regarding the "ideal" number of people, nor is there anyway to maintain that ideal number without totalitarian measures.