Overpopulation and Economy

StillBallin75 · Jul 18, 2011

makkam said:
What is a negative population growth; more people die than are born on average? Have we really ever been at that stage?

If it weren't for immigrants, yes our population would be falling.

A number of European countries are already experiencing this, to their chagrin.

StillBallin75 · Jul 18, 2011

Kandahar said:
How does banning immigration solve the alleged problem of global overpopulation, anyway? Are the immigrants coming from Mars?

I laughed at this lmfao.

I guess the implication was that the world is being overpopulated, therefore we should impose limits on immigration to keep overpopulation away from America?

Risky Thicket · Jul 18, 2011

Overpopulation is a relative concept. For the resources we are taking out of the planet, for the destruction we are doing to the planet, availability of clean, fresh water and food, no the planet will not be able to sustain population growth. It is a natural process and in the natural order of things it will right itself. Unfortunately the process has begun and there isn't a hell of a lot we are going to do about it. As the largest consumer nation on earth I don't know that we will feel the changes too terribly much for a while, but already droughts and floods are making food less available. Not to Americans, not yet. What we will see is large prices increases as a result of a plague of market speculation. Pollution and starvation, the poor man feels it first. History repeats itself. Or as a history professor of a class I was taking once said at the beginning of the semester, "History repeats itself, especially if you fail it." :shock:

Alyssa · Jul 18, 2011

Kandahar said:
The median global household income is about $7,000 (adjusted for purchasing power parity). That's poor by American standards, but it's hardly destitute. Besides, this line of thinking overlooks the fact that there has ALWAYS been poverty...but until recently, it was virtually universal. The average African lives better today than the average American/Briton did 200 years ago.

Causes of Poverty

Almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.
Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.
1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (or roughly 29,000 children per day).

Paschendale · Jul 18, 2011

The world is, actually, becoming overpopulated. The overpopulation, however, is mostly limited to the truly poor countries. The more prosperous ones have better education and standard of living, and that tends to lead to smaller families. What will really bring down the birth rate is wealth and medicine. When families can expect all of their children to live to adulthood, realize how expensive it can be to raise children, and have access to birth control, birth rates will drop.

Kal'Stang · Jul 18, 2011

The world may be becoming overpopulated. But I don't think anything major needs to be done about it (such as controlling birth rates). Things will sort itself out eventually.

I figure a few things will happen which will make the point moot.

1: The population will even out naturally to where its a 1:1 birth/death rate...or less of a birth rate but which will pick up again eventually as the need warrants it.

2: World War which will make the last two pale in comparrison thereby reducing the world population drastically. (hopefully in such a way as to not destroy humanity all together)

3: We will expand into space in which case overpopulation just will not be able to happen as people will go to other places which has more room. Perhaps even make generational ships to travel to other star systems. (assuming that we haven't cracked some way around FTL travel)

I consider #2 to be the most likely to happen with #3 running a close second depending entirely upon situation. #1 being possible but not likely.

Kandahar · Jul 18, 2011

evanescence said:
Causes of Poverty

Almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.
Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.
1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (or roughly 29,000 children per day).

This proves that there is poverty, not that there is more poverty now than in the past. Would you like to compare any of these statistics to other periods in human history? In 1820, the US and UK were among the wealthiest nations on earth and yet most of their people still lived in grinding poverty. In 1820, the per capita GDP in the UK (in today's dollars and adjusted for PPP) was $1,706...about where Bangladesh is today. The US was even worse off, with a per capita GDP of $1,257...on par with Haiti today. And it wasn't just in terms of money; in 1800 the life expectancy in the US was a mere 39 years (worse than every country in the world today).

Life was pretty horrible for nearly everyone for most of human history. That isn't the case today; most of humanity is able to live a tolerable (if not extravagant) lifestyle today, despite the fact that there are so many more of us today.

List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
‪Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four‬‏ - YouTube

Alyssa · Jul 18, 2011

Most of humanity lives in poverty. Those who disagree are in denial. Have things improved? Sure, for some people. Others still have a pathetic existence, and the rest of the world simply ignores that fact.

Canell · Jul 19, 2011

I like self-sufficiency. Imho, everyone should consider his specific local conditions and live accordingly. If you live in the desert and have 8 children, it's not my problem that they starve and die. If you live in India and barely have a cloth on your back, it's not my problem that you marry and have 5 children. If you cannot keep it in your pants, it's not my problem. If you want to conquer my land because you are out of yours to feed your large family, it's not my problem, you will be killed.

Moral of the story: stay put and be local.

Kandahar · Jul 19, 2011

Canell said:
I like self-sufficiency. Imho, everyone should consider his specific local conditions and live accordingly. If you live in the desert and have 8 children, it's not my problem that they starve and die. If you live in India and barely have a cloth on your back, it's not my problem that you marry and have 5 children. If you cannot keep it in your pants, it's not my problem.

This is an ignorant view of population economics. Large families (usually) have nothing to do with the inability to "keep it in your pants." I know plenty of Americans who can't keep it in their pants, who nevertheless don't have large families.

The conditions in the least-developed countries naturally result in high birth rates: Lack of access to modern contraception, or knowledge of how to use it properly. A low opportunity cost in foregone wages for having children. High infant mortality rates, which cause parents to have more kids to hedge against the possibility that some will not survive. The fact that in agrarian societies children are a net financial gain for parents, whereas in developed societies they are a net financial loss. Lack of women's rights (in SOME of those countries). THESE factors cause high population growth...not a lack of sexual self-control. In order to end the high birth rates, countries need to get these root causes under control.

Canell · Jul 19, 2011

Kandahar said:
This is an ignorant view of population economics. Large families (usually) have nothing to do with the inability to "keep it in your pants."

OK, I'm ignorant then.

India has millions of people who starve but give birth to several other people thus contributing to the overall misery.
It's simple, 1 ha of land can provide for X number of people to have "decent" life.
Besides, it's a matter of culture to have (more) kids, not just what you write
Well, I'm sorry, the culture will have to change, otherwise I won't give a **** for dying Indian and African children.

Kandahar · Jul 19, 2011

Canell said:
OK, I'm ignorant then.
India has millions of people who starve but give birth to several other people thus contributing to the overall misery.

Microeconomics strongly indicates that it reduces misery for the parents, because children are a financial asset. So it's a prisoner's dilemma: everyone would be better off if birth rates in general were lower, but no one wants to be the sucker who forgoes having a large family (and therefore a larger income) themselves.

It's simple, 1 ha of land can provide for X number of people to have "decent" life.

Except people make family-planning decisions individually (or not at all), not collectively as a society. And the individual incentive in poor societies (especially in rural areas) is for each family to be large.

Besides, it's a matter of culture to have (more) kids, not just what you write

"Culture" is merely a reflection of those economic trends I wrote about. Having large families was once part of American culture too, but as our economy developed and people became wealthier, that aspect of our culture changed.

Well, I'm sorry, the culture will have to change, otherwise I won't give a **** for dying Indian and African children.

You're an ignorant racist. :2wave:

Canell · Jul 19, 2011

Kandahar said:
Except people make family-planning decisions individually (or not at all), not collectively as a society. And the individual incentive in poor societies (especially in rural areas) is for each family to be large.

Not quite agree. For example, if parents have enough land to feed 4 children why would they have 8?

Kandahar said:
"Culture" is merely a reflection of those economic trends I wrote about.

Yeah, every begger in India wants to have children.

Kandahar said:
Having large families was once part of American culture too, but as our economy developed and people became wealthier, that aspect of our culture changed.

There was plenty of land at the time to expand to the West. Cannot say that about Africa and parts of Asia now. Japanese are cool, they know their island limits and don't pack themselves to extinction.

Kandahar said:
You're an ignorant racist. :2wave:

Hahaha, you're right, I am.

Kandahar · Jul 19, 2011

Canell said:
Not quite agree. For example, if parents have enough land to feed 4 children why would they have 8?

The very premise of this question is ethnocentric. You are looking at it from the perspective of the US economy, where children are a financial burden rather than an asset. That isn't the case in many poor countries. A better way to phrase that question: If parents need the income of 8 children in order to make ends meet, why would they only have 4?

There was plenty of land at the time to expand to the West. Cannot say that about Africa and parts of Asia now.

People don't have large families just because there is land available in some distant part of the country. In the 19th century United States (and many parts of Africa/India today), people had large families because the children could help provide for the parents and because the chances were pretty good that some of them would not survive to adulthood.

Japanese are cool, they know their island limits and don't pack themselves to extinction.

Japan is a developed country where the opportunity cost of having children is high. Uganda and India are not.

Canell · Jul 19, 2011

Kandahar said:
The very premise of this question is ethnocentric. You are looking at it from the perspective of the US economy, where children are a financial burden rather than an asset. That isn't the case in many poor countries. A better way to phrase that question: If parents need the income of 8 children in order to make ends meet, why would they only have 4?

We will finally get to the limits of the land. How many shepherds, bakers, reapers, carpenters, masons or whatever, could a village sustain? They cannot multiply indefinitely. Surely, the "excess" of people can go to some factory in the near town but that would last only if Americans buy Chinese and Indian crap. What if they stop for whatever reason? The workers and locals are too poor to afford these good anyway.

Lord Tammerlain · Jul 19, 2011

If everyone one on earth lived a lifestyle like that of Americans and Canadians, the world would not have the resources to support the population we currently have.

If everyone on earth lived a lifestyle like that of a vegatarian Indian living in a small shanty style home, the world could probably support more then double the number of people we currently have ( the US could under such conditions support a population of over a billion people easily)

It truely depends on the living conditions that people would generally want to live under.

I would rather live a lifestyle similar to that of what we have in Canada and the US then of the poor in India, I bet the poor in India would generally live a lifestyle similar to that of what we have in Canada. So under that premise, we are overpopulated

Ockham · Jul 19, 2011

Kal'Stang said:
The world may be becoming overpopulated. But I don't think anything major needs to be done about it (such as controlling birth rates). Things will sort itself out eventually.

I figure a few things will happen which will make the point moot.

1: The population will even out naturally to where its a 1:1 birth/death rate...or less of a birth rate but which will pick up again eventually as the need warrants it.

2: World War which will make the last two pale in comparrison thereby reducing the world population drastically. (hopefully in such a way as to not destroy humanity all together)

3: We will expand into space in which case overpopulation just will not be able to happen as people will go to other places which has more room. Perhaps even make generational ships to travel to other star systems. (assuming that we haven't cracked some way around FTL travel)

I consider #2 to be the most likely to happen with #3 running a close second depending entirely upon situation. #1 being possible but not likely.

I'll give more creedance to #1 as the eventuality of a super-bug which is resistant to modern medicines is probably inevitable. Just the widespread use of antibiotics and those same drugs being found in almost everything we eat or drink will lead to something that will run rampant sooner or later. Sure a World War is possible but too costly at the current level and mitigation of nukes.... more like smaller regional wars rather than one big one like in the past. As far as space, we're 1,000 year out IMO of going anywhere. We need breakthroughs in energy, propulsion and physics like never seen before in our history - otherwise, we're stuck on this rock looking out the window.

Lord Tammerlain · Jul 19, 2011

Ockham said:
I'll give more creedance to #1 as the eventuality of a super-bug which is resistant to modern medicines is probably inevitable. Just the widespread use of antibiotics and those same drugs being found in almost everything we eat or drink will lead to something that will run rampant sooner or later. Sure a World War is possible but too costly at the current level and mitigation of nukes.... more like smaller regional wars rather than one big one like in the past. As far as space, we're 1,000 year out IMO of going anywhere. We need breakthroughs in energy, propulsion and physics like never seen before in our history - otherwise, we're stuck on this rock looking out the window.

Even in wars, disease is a far bigger killer then the fighting (generally)

Alyssa · Jul 19, 2011

Ockham said:
I'll give more creedance to #1 as the eventuality of a super-bug which is resistant to modern medicines is probably inevitable. Just the widespread use of antibiotics and those same drugs being found in almost everything we eat or drink will lead to something that will run rampant sooner or later. Sure a World War is possible but too costly at the current level and mitigation of nukes.... more like smaller regional wars rather than one big one like in the past. As far as space, we're 1,000 year out IMO of going anywhere. We need breakthroughs in energy, propulsion and physics like never seen before in our history - otherwise, we're stuck on this rock looking out the window.

We are overdue for a pandemic. The last one happened in the early 1900s (Spanish Flu), and usually there is a major pandemic each century.

makkam · Jul 19, 2011

Tell people humans are rich in anti-oxidants.

Kal'Stang · Jul 19, 2011

Ockham said:
I'll give more creedance to #1 as the eventuality of a super-bug which is resistant to modern medicines is probably inevitable. Just the widespread use of antibiotics and those same drugs being found in almost everything we eat or drink will lead to something that will run rampant sooner or later. Sure a World War is possible but too costly at the current level and mitigation of nukes.... more like smaller regional wars rather than one big one like in the past. As far as space, we're 1,000 year out IMO of going anywhere. We need breakthroughs in energy, propulsion and physics like never seen before in our history - otherwise, we're stuck on this rock looking out the window.

Actually we have a propulsion system right now that can get to Mars in about 6 months. And they are currently developing an ion engine that can get us to Mars in just 39 days called VASIMR. (which also means about a half hour flight to the moon) Note that less powerful ion engines have already been used in a few of NASA's programs. Including the DAWN spacecraft which is currently heading out to the asteroids Vesta and Ceres.

We also have a biosphere that could work on Mars that only cost 200 million over the period of 22 years currently residing in AZ.

Living on another planet is closer than you may think.

PzKfW IVe · Jul 19, 2011

More people = more demand.
More demand = economic growth

The world is more than capable of supporting the number of people on it, and more - the issue isn't global capacity, but distribution.

Ockham · Jul 19, 2011

Kal'Stang said:
Actually we have a propulsion system right now that can get to Mars in about 6 months. And they are currently developing an ion engine that can get us to Mars in just 39 days called VASIMR. (which also means about a half hour flight to the moon) Note that less powerful ion engines have already been used in a few of NASA's programs. Including the DAWN spacecraft which is currently heading out to the asteroids Vesta and Ceres.

We also have a biosphere that could work on Mars that only cost 200 million over the period of 22 years currently residing in AZ.

Living on another planet is closer than you may think.

Perhaps in the next 100-200 years locally --- moon, mars, maybe as far as Io. But until we approach or surpass the speed of light... it's all basically moot.

Alyssa · Jul 19, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
More people = more demand.
More demand = economic growth

The world is more than capable of supporting the number of people on it, and more - the issue isn't global capacity, but distribution.

Yes, the unequal distribution of resources.

For example, the US has less than 4% of the world's population, but uses 25% of the world's resources. The concentration of wealth and resources causes more suffering than most people realize or will admit.

Goshin · Jul 19, 2011

Moderator's Warning:

Please note that calling a poster a derogatory name, let alone two together, can be construed as a personal attack and infracted for.

Overpopulation and Economy

Is the world becoming overpopulated? Should we do something about it?

The world is becoming overpopulated; we should take action, by imposing birth limits

The world is becoming overpopulated; we should impose birth limits and not allow immigrants

The world is becoming overpopulated, but we should not take action; let things work themselves out

I do not think the world is becoming overpopulated; this is just a myth

Salty Specialist

Salty Specialist

Sewer Rat

¡Selah!

Uncanny

Enemy Combatant

¡Selah!

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Noblesse oblige

¡Selah!

Noblesse oblige

¡Selah!

Burned Out Ex-Mod