Talk:Overpopulation/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Overpopulation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I removed the section under overpopulated areas headed "Arizona", which had this to say:

There are numerous areas of the world that have wealth and large land area. Paul Ehrlich suggested decades ago that certain areas of the USA, including the state of Arizona, do not have the water resources and or the extent of arable land to support the existing population.

Now, I don't know what Paul Ehrlich had or didn't have to say about this (there were no references at all), but it just doesn't make much sense as it stands. First of all, I'm not sure what whoever wrote this had in mind when they mentioned "wealth". More problematic, though, is that Arizona is just a political division of a large country, not a region with insurmountable barriers to its neighors. No doubt Arizona doesn't grow enough food to feed its population: how many other states is this true of? They can (and no doubt do) simply have it trucked in or sent by rail. Not a very good argument for or against overpopulation. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this example was thought provoking, but it should stay despite its counter-intuitive standing. this example is quite important to illustrate the point of the introduction that density of people per acre is irrelevant. Of course, any state or region can import food if it is wealthy, but that really means Arizona is depleting the thinly stretched food supply now available on Earth. Such importation is actually proof that Arizona is beyond its carrying capacity with respect to arable land. You may want to edit the topic, because, as written, it's provocative in a different way stating the relation to Mexico...but these are the facts. Wikipedia need not hide inconvenient truths. This example of Arizona is probably more important than China, India and Pakistan all rolled together. Let's not play games with political boundaries, because it is fair to analyze any area as big as Arizona and measure how it performs relative to its carrying capacity. I encourage you to read the reference in entirety as well as his book "Extinction" before you edit this section much further. Regards. Anlace 03:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive edits, ILike3BeAnonymous, on the Arizona bit. Your request for cite was on target as well. I have supplied several and think this section is shaping up. I feel we are working together to make this section meaningful. I am certainly open to more tweaking here. But if we want to really accomplish something, we should attack the ===India=== bit, which is not correct. (I didnt write the India piece :)) Cheers. Anlace 06:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm no expert on Arizona water issue I noticed some stuff on Arizona in a search. "Considerably more water has been committed to users in the Southwest than water sources can adequately supply--even without considering water needs of aquatic ecosystems. In 1990, for the first time, the lower Colorado river basin (Arizona, California, Nevada) utilized its full 7.5 million acre-foot legal allotment. As well, long term groundwater pumping exceeds replenishment in many locations. It has been estimated that average annual groundwater over-pumping in the lower Colorado basin (including Mexico) totals 1.24 million acre-feet, with about 80 percent of that occurring in Arizona alone (Table 1)" [1]. And "In addition, the Central Arizona Project (CAP) was built to augment surface water supplies by importing surface water from the Colorado River, a supply that is renewed yearly by rainfall and snowmelt.... Each year Arizonans use 2.5 million acre-feet more groundwater than can be replaced by nature" [2] Also [3]. Of course the waters of the Rio Grande has also been a source of dispute [4]. 4.246.205.179 07:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I took this section out again. It's so poorly written as to be an embarassment, and the recent edits to patch it up are basically efforts to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Main problem: it doesn't say what its references purport to say. The statement "Overpopulation is caused or aggravated by poverty and gender inequality with attendant unavailability, and lack of knowledge of contraception, and third world evidence typically bears this theory out.[1]" is not at all what the reference says. The source says, soberly and properly, that there are two causes of overpopulation: a high birth rate and a low mortality rate. (Duh!) It goes on to say that "[high] fertility rates have historically been strongly correlated with poverty, high childhood mortality rates, low status and educational levels of women, deficiencies in reproductive health services, and inadequate availability and acceptance of contraceptives." (my italics). Notice the difference? Not even so subtle ...

I'm a little irritated at one of the edit summaries after I removed this material before, which said something about "assuming good faith" about the intentions of the editor who put this stuff in. This isn't a game, you know, where you "give the other guy a chance" to see how well they can do. The idea is to try to have an encyclopedia here—you know, a credible source of information for those seeking it. The burden of proof is on those who insert material. It's not my responsibility to enable and be a doormat to those who want to insert dubious, unclear, badly-written and disorganized material.

Not to mention one other glaring problem: if this section really deals with the causes of overpopulation, then what's it doing way down at the bottom of the article, almost as an afterthought?

If this were a research paper, you'd be laughed out of the academy. Keep that in mind before adding material, please. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Enthusiasts have also been criticized for failing to account for future shortages in fossil fuels, currently used for fertilizer and transportation for modern agriculture." Does 'enthusiasts' have some special meanings I'm unaware of, because it's a non-senseical subject for this sentence as far as I can tell --Belg4mit 03:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Malthus' overpopulation theory is based on a socio economic bias. The definition on this page doesn't address so many of the issues that lead to the myth of overpopulation. The dessertification doesn't mention that monocropping is what really caused the problems or that in India overpopulation is not the cause but exploitation of the lands by multinational corporations. Shrimp farming, soy, I.M.F. structural adjustment... where is any of this??? Shouldn't it be linked? This is so biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.67.239 (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

the previous remark was made by an anon user with no edit history. i hope she or he will do a lot of reading before editing. yes, monocultures are bad, but hardly the basis of most of the losses of ag land. most of the rainforests for example are being consumed by slash and burn and other small plot farming of native peoples, which is all understandable when the alternative is starvation. Anlace 04:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New, anonymous users do suffer from a lack of a reliable history, but I'm afraid I find your comment about "a lot of reading before editing" terribly misplaced, given your comments that follow. You're correct that much of the deforestation in tropical areas is due to "slash and burn" agriculture (or horticulture, as it would be more precisely known in anthropological terms), but to suggest that such an example speaks to "most of the losses of ag[ricultural] land" is simply incorrect. Even in the example of tropical deforestation, logging interests, clearcutting for industrial farms, and clearing land for ranching are all involved to degrees comparable to that of swidden agriculture. Moreover, even with swidden agriculture, we're talking about a system that existed in a careful (if precarious) balance with tropical regeneration until the intervention of First World aid, often in the form of charities, led to rising populations, which in turn led to more deforestation to clear more fields to feed more people.

But of course, none of this speaks to the fact that tropical deforestation is a new kind of agricultural land loss, and a fairly insignificant one compared to other processes, which ultimately are based firmly in the fact that agricultural monoculture destroys its landbase. Richard Manning's Against the Grain presents a very engaging summation of the evidence, and follows the well-established history of agriculture's decimation of the Fertile Crescent where it began, and the process by which farming cultures expanded ahead of the "shockwave" to keep their way of life viable. This is all quite well documented, so I hope you'll do a lot of reading before editing further. JasonGodesky 04:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone attempted to 'fix' the overpopulation page formattinf is screwed up 'authors of a story' is screwed royal it looks like the reference was limited to 2 lines and it looks like the links were removed I don't know what 14 year old did this, but it's *not the way you become a reference work* and i don't know enough about formatting in wikipedia to fix it, but I trust someone does thanks for listening
Lee Wells 12:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Arthur C Clark saying that we cannot ship people into space, and then saying that we will have space colonies by 2050 controdictory? Richardkselby 01:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just you, there's no contradiction (and new topics should be placed at the bottom of the page via the + tab link). His point was that it is not realistic for a few billion people to be launched into space. This does not mean that a few hundred people might not found colonies which could grow larger and "self-sufficient." i.e; stabilize planetary population, and massive growth in space. (Want 7 kids? Okay, but you have to move to Mars. Happy with one or none? Enjoy Manhattan.) --Belg4mit 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

this statement is kind of false it seems. The way a die back works is that it falls well below the "right balance" or ideal carrying capacity. It works like a rubberband evening out, theoretically hitting that one number that is a "right balance." But the problem then arises that we can simply have a die-off to such an extent that we could never recover. Extinction. Entirely a possibility with Overpopulation. Peace.

Based on the human focus of this article, it seems that it would be more accurately titled "Human Overpopulation". Consequently, unless there are any objections, I will rename it in a few days. Ultiam 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No objections; just watch the naming convention ("Human overpopulation" vice "Human Overpopulation") --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Object to renaming There is no question that this article is primarily about "human overpopulation". on the other hand when one hears the term "overpopulation", 99 % of the time the inference and meaning is understood to be "human overpopulation". I object to the renaming on the further grounds that this is a long established name and has a huge number of links to overpopulation from other articles. The double-redirects alone would take someone hours to fix. In view of the significance and history of this article i would recommend a minimum of one month of debate on any renaming proposal. Anlace 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If the article is not going to be renamed (personally I'm mildly in favor or renaming) there needs to be a redirect thoOverpopulation (animals) at the top.Dejvid 16:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

hello im the person who added the dainel quinn quote sry if its kinda sloppy but im not entirely sure how to cite properly on wikipedia. non the less i feel that this except is an important peice of information to be included with the section on food and population growth.(pls be understanding feel free to make it better)

Saying that, "X number of people live in poverty, Y number don't have enough food, and Z number drink dirty water," does not say anything at all about overpopulation. Many years ago when the earth only had 1% of its current population, all of those problems existed. In fact, with 6.5 billion people today, the average person in the world is better off than at any time in the past when the population was smaller. So blaming those problems on overpopulation is not logical.

Poverty is natural. Dirty water is natual. Famine is natural.

What's happened is that some countries have chosen to industrialize and modernize to solve those problems, and others have not. For example, compare South Korea to North Korea. The two countries have similar population densities and similar natural resources. But South Korea has chosen to indsutrialize and modernize, while North Korea has not. So why would anyone blame North Korea's poverty, famine, etc., on overpopulation?

Likewise, African famines are caused by dictators like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, who seized the farmland from the farmers.

Meanwhile, Mauritius is the most densly populated country in Africa. It's more densely populated than South Korea, the Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, or India.

But it doesn't have famine. Instead, Mauritius is a rich, first world country. That's because Mauritius is a free country that respects property rights and rule of law.

Almost every problem in this article that gets blamed on "overpopulation" can be cured with industrialization, modernization, property rights, and rule of law. And these problems can be solved, even as the population continues to grow.

With 6.5 billion people in the world, the average person has more calories than ever before. So blaming famine and poverty on overpopulation does not make any sense at all. Grundle2600 19:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Grundle, thanks for your interest in this article. The overpopulation article is not the place to propound your theory that capitalism and industrialization will solve every country's hunger and thirst issues. I, more than most editors on wikipedia, happen to agree with you that there are many advantages to free markets and technological development. However, this article is really an article about the biology of mankind and the associated carrying capacity of the Earth. Most data seem to point to the finiteness of the Earth's carrying capacity. China is a good example of a successful industrial nation; however, China's agricultural production has apparently peaked and it is becoming a net importer of food (fine for China since it can afford to buy food from others). The point is that if every country is "wealthy", someone still needs to PRODUCE the food. The world is maxing out on productivity; the Green Revolution is a historic event, which ended a while ago. Presently Earth's arable land is dwindling from desertification, soil nutrient depletion and water supplies are being overharvested (Best example is Northern China, where water is being mined at an unsustainable rate). I know you are into desalination, but do the math on who can afford it. Another point you seem to overlook is in your discussion of the "average human". Yes the average human consumes more calories than ever, but a lot of that is due to the overconsumption (and resulting obesity) of the Western world); the fact is that at no time in history have so many people (can you count to a billion?) been in famine and without access to safe drinking water, but they may not count in your equation, since they are not the "average human". All in all lets keep our own politics and dreams out of this article and stick to the facts. Regards. Sekolov 02:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the percentage of people who are suffering from famine reached an all time low at the end of the 20th century. And the only reason it's gone up since then is because of Robert Mugabe's seizure of farmland in Zimbabwe, which had previously been the "breadbasket of southern Africa."

My point is that the very idea of "overpopulation" as it applies to humans if false. Unlike butterflies, humans have the ability to use technology to increase their carrying capacity. During the hunter and gatherer phase of human history, the earth's carrying capacity was only 50 million people. Anything above that amount is because we use technology to increase the carrying capacity.

So poor countries are not overpopulated. Instead, they are underdeveloped. South Korea and North Korea have similar population densities and similar natural resources. But South Korea's good policies have made it rich, and North Korea's bad policies have made it poor. Overpopulation has nothing to do with it.

You didn't address what I said about Mauritius. If overpopulation applies to humans, then Mauritius should be in famine. But it's not in famine. It's rich.

Population density has no correlation to how rich or poor a country is. Instead, a country will be rich or poor depending on the kinds of policies that it has.

Niger managed to reverse its desertification and deforestation even while its population was growing. How? By adopting property rights. When the trees were public property, people cut them down for firewood. But after they legalized private ownershup of trees, the people discovered they could make more money by taking care of the trees and selling the fruit. So even while the human population was growing, the desertification and deforestation was reversed, and there were more trees.

A world with 10 billion people who take care of the planet, will be far better than a world with 1 billion people who don't take care of it. Almost all of the problems that the article blames on overpopulation are actually caused by other things.

How else can you explain the difference between South Korea and North Korea?

How else can you explain the things that I said about Mauritius?

When a country like Zimbabwe or Ethiopia has a dictator who steals the farmland and causes famine, how can anyone blame that on overpopulation?

My point is that the article is wrong. The article is factually wrong. The article is wrong to blame those problems on overpopulation. Grundle2600 04:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I mean. The article says: "More than 4.5 billion of the world's 6.5 billion people live in the developing world, countries beset by poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, unemployment, environmental degradation and social disintegration. Among the inhabitants of developing countries are more then 3 billion people -- one-half the population of the entire world -- who subsist on the equivalent of $2 or less a day; 1.5 billion people who lack safe drinking water or adequate sanitation; 852 million who are chronically malnourished; and 600 million who lack adequate shelter."

That part of the article is wrong.

None of those problems are caused by overpopulation. Illiteracy can be cured by teachers, and the ratio of students to teachers should be the same regardless of population density. Likewise, the unemployment rate is not affected by population density, because it is people who create jobs. Hunger, malnutrition, and poverty correlate to bad government and bad economic policies, not overpopulation. With 6.5 billion people in the world today, the average person in the world today is richer than ever before. When a dictator in Zimbabwe or Ethiopia seizes the farmland from farmers and causes a famine, it's not logical to blame that famine on overpopulation. South Korea and North Korea have similar population densities and similar natural resources, but they have very different standards of living, because their governments and economic policies are very different. Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, the Netherlands, France, Israel, and Mauritius are all very densely populated, but they don't have famine, illiteracy, or any of the other problems that get blamed on overpopulation, because they have freedom, rule or law, property rights, science, and technology.

My point is that much of the article is wrong. Grundle2600 04:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted some stuff from the article because:

1) It wasn't relvant to the subject of overpopulation.

2) It didn't cite any evidence that those problems became worse as the population got bigger.

3) The actual evidence (with sources) that is in the article shows that food production and wealth get bigger as populaiton grows, so it's not accurate to blame famine and poverty on overpopulation.

4) The actual evidence in the article shows that a country will be rich or poor depending on what government and economic policies it has, and that population growth does not cause poverty and famine.

5) Blaming illiteracy on overpopulation is not logical. While a larger population means that there are more students to be taught, it also means that there are more teahcers to do the teaching. So the ratio of students to teachers is independent of population growth. Japan is very densely populated, and it doesn't have any problem with illiteracy.

Grundle2600 14:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Grundle, would I be right in assuming that you are a libertarian? What you are saying is true up to a point. As I stated before, you are right that there are still resources left to exploit. It's kind of like if someone had, say, fifty thousand dollars in the bank with nothing else coming in (just as we have but one earth). Now he's living well, eating at the best resturants, going to Yankee games, partying etc., just spending away. Now his financial experts tell him that he's spending it lots faster than he's replenishing it with interest and that he needs to try to live more sustainably, if he did so he could make it. Nah! he says there's LOTS of money left, UNLIMITED! This one guy over here says so. He says that I can spend without end. But the experts see a different picture. He's living on borrowed time. They warn, he calls them doomsayers.

The experts are all major scientific institutions and the vast majority of scientists (to start see AAAS Atlas of Population and the Environment). His guy is Julian Simon, a guy who thinks that "We now have in our hands in our libraries, really the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years... We [are] able to go on increasing forever." (Myers and Simon, 1994, 65). Now I ask you, is that credible? Is it even sane? What you are espousing is basically one guy's Libertarian political philosophy which science does not happen to agree with. The overpopulation page is not the place to stick personal political philosophies, and there are a lot out there. 4.246.202.37 15:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the earth's resources are limited is simply not open for debate, it's basic physics. Sure we can make things smaller and more efficient but still one needs to consider all of the resources that each person born will use (and waste) in their entire lifetime and then multiply that by the entire expanding population [5]. Yet let's ask another question. Even if Simon were right, which he wasn't, that the earth has unlimited resources, and not even considering the ethical questions of overpopulation on other species posed above or the wisdom of denuding nature, still I ask you, who in their right mind would WANT to live on a planet with tens of billions of people??? As a comparison current estimates for the numbers of Native Americans, by the time that Columbus arrived, average around 40,000,000. That's after 10 - 40,000 years of being here.

"In our every deliberation" says the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy, "we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations". But Since the Europeans arrived a just a few hundred years ago that number has skyrocketed to 300,000,000 +.

Here's what then French explorer Pierre Esprit Radisson, c1652, said in the description of his journey (of what would later become the United States): "The further we sojourned the delightfuller the land was to us. I can say that in my lifetime I never saw a more incomparable country....The country was so pleasant, so beautiful and fruitful that it grieved me to see the world could not discover such enticing countries to live in. This I say because the europeans fight for a rock in the sea against each other, or for a sterile and horrid country. Contrariwise, these kingdoms are so delicious and under so temperate a climate, plentiful of all things, the earth bringing forth its fruit twice a year, the people live long and lusty and wise in their way". You may think that New York city or Los Angeles is model of paradise but I'll take the country anytime. There's another saying that goes, "none are so blind as those who WONT see". 66.14.116.114 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I just did a quick read over and found various errors, slanted and otherwise uncareful writing from, I assume, Grundle. These editing incidents combined with evidence of uncareful reading above on this page tell of someone with a pre-set agenda who is not open to reason. I think someone who has the time should go through the article more carefully and check all the links. 4.246.206.57 08:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a libertarian. But I also think liberals have a lot of good ideas on government health care, education, and worker and consumer safety, and environmental protection provisions.

Yes, the number of atoms on earth is finite.

But poverty and famine are caused by bad government and bad economic polices, not by overpopulation.

There is no correlation between high populaiton density and famine. Instead, famine is caused by bad government policies.

You people make all these generalizations claiming that I'm wrong. But none of you pointed out any specific examples of it.

When a dictator like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe seizes the farmland and kicks the farmers out of the country, and that causes a famine, how can you blame that on overpopulation?

When capitalist South Korea is so well fed, how can you blame communist North Korea's famine on overpopulation?

How can you blame any human famine on overpopulation?

Famine is always caused by bad government. Capitalist countries that use technology never have famine. Countries with per capita GNP of at least $5,000 never have famine. Countries where women have secure property rights never have famine.

A capitalist world with 10 billion people will be much better fed than a communist world with 1 billion people.

Which resources do you people think the world doesn't have enough of? We can desalinaize as much water as we want. The ocean has enough uranium to last until the sun blows up in 5 billion years. There's plenty of iron, silica, carbon, aluminum, copper, etc. The owners of private tree farms plant more trees than they cut down. Modern agricultrue, and even vertical farming if necessary, could grow far more food than is being grown now, if every country was to modernize and industrialize. We can use thermal depolymerization to manufacture as much fertilizer as we could ever need, out of garbage, sewage, and agricultural waste.

Third world poverty and famine are always the result of bad government policies, and are never caused by overpopulatiom.

If I'm wrong, then please tell me what resource the earth does not have enough of, where the problem cannot be solved with technology and good governmewnt policies. What is this special resources that you people say we don't have enough of?

By the way, population growth is not exponential. Instead, populaiton growth is an S-shaped curve. So while the population may reach a few tens of billions (and even the U.N. says 9 billion is a more likely peak), it will never reach the quadrillions that some of you think Julian Simon claimed.

Paul Ehrlich said that by the end of the 20th century, 90% of the U.S. populaiton would starve to death, and all the natural resources would be gone. What Ehrlich doens't understand is that through science, technology, innovation, markets, prices, incentives, property rights, etc., people create more resources than they use. 50 years ago, a computer was as big as a house. Today a computer sits on your desk, and it's a million times more powerful. Ehrlich did not understand this.

I don't think the earth could support quadrillions of people. But I'm sure that the earth could support 30 billion people, if we used enough technology.

Since you people think I'm wrong, then please tell me, what resource is there that the earth does not have enough of, that we can't solve the problem with technology and good government policies? I agree with Grundle. I do think that becouse of problems like global warming the world population growth rate should be slowed down but that the current world population is susstainable with improvments in technolegy. I think that the article is biased in faver of people like Ehrlich and does not give enough counter arguments. Grundle2600 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, Grundle agrees with Grundle (just like at the end of the Crisis section above). I guess that makes it unanimous. Note: if you are going to use a sock, you should be more careful when you hit the "save page" button. 63.196.193.29 (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, this page exists only to discuss the article, not to discuss the topic. Further discussion unrelated to the article will be removed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Focussing on regions that are not especially overpopulated while ignoring the parts of the world that are (China, Western Europe, El Salvador to name a few) is POV and we need to fix this problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There are arguements that support the world is not overpopulated which are not fairly represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.196.235 (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As I look back at the history of this article It looks to be at least 4 1/2 years old. In all that time has there been no real information added about population's impact on the environment? How can that be? In fact, in the whole article there are only two paragraphs which discuss (not just mention in passing) the issue, both which I introduced fairly recently. Now I'm having to fight to keep in one of them. What's going on here? My gut feeling as I read the talk page is that certain persons of an Adam Smithish persuasion don't want any discussion about it. The issue of population's impact on the environment is (or should be) central to our interests as a species. Instead all I see is discussion about economic impacts and the like. As I said this is a disgrace. 4.246.200.195 08:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You want the article to cover (over)population's impact on the environment? Fine: then write material that covers it. What you've put in (or replaced after being removed) does nothing of the kind. The paragraph I removed said absolutely nothing about how population impacted the environment: it was simply a litany of terrible things happening to the earth. Not that I disagree with any of them: it's simply not helpful or informative in the context of this article (therefore "not encyclopedic").

You gotta do more than just care a whole lot about a subject: this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a call to arms or an op-ed piece. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Um ILTBA, the quote is not from an op-ed piece. It's from a book by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's LEADING science organization. Peter Raven was its PRESIDENT. The book is ABOUT population's impact on the environment. How much more applicable do you want it??? By the way, the first paragraph which you insisted on deleting paraphrased the book's points. I have now done everything you demanded. I deleted the paragraph that you said was "unencyclopedic", I moved it to it's own section, I've added context about population. So do you MIND? 4.246.200.195 08:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Am requesting intervention by others. "ILike2BeAnonymous" has apparently assumed he/she owns the article and is censoring pertinent information without good reason. 4.246.200.195 08:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh Ultramarine, you said "No one is arguing that we should "maximize" human population, straw man". If you look in the section just above Population and environment you will read the sentence "Optimists believe that the 2006 population level of over six billion may be supported by current resources, or that the global population may grow to ten billion and still be within the Earth's carrying capacity". That is maximizing human numbers. The other sentences which you removed are generally acknowledged by most everyone. Still you asked for sources - why not just begin with the article cited in that very same paragraph, the one by Jeremy Rifkin? Please don't vandalize just because you don't like something. 4.246.205.173 15:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. All material not having verfiable sources can be removed. This is not the place for personal essays or opinions. The sentence you quoted above is not cited, not those that you added back without explanation.Ultramarine 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop repeatedly adding back that same superfluous section. (Directed at anon IP starting w/"4.426" above.) If you want to improve the article, how about writing some fresh material for this section (Population & environment) that clearly shows a link between overpopulation and environmental degradation? Not just the same laundry list about how fucked-up the environment is. Try information versus propaganda. Surely you can come up with some fresh material (referenced, of course). +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How trollish of you two. 24.180.11.170 21:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, though I'm a fan of Wikipedia this is an example of what happens when anyone can edit, especially a science based article. 4.246.200.59 14:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree earlier editors. Reads like a personal essay.Ultramarine 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Trollish"? And which two? Please explain; the overuse and misuse of this term ("troll") here (WiIkipedia), which has come to mean pretty much "anyone I disagree with", irritates me. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Come now, people. It seems we are merely assuming that population has had disastrous effects on the environment. This claim is UNPROVEN and is certainly in dispute, especially within the scientific community. It has been shown in many claimed cases of environmental degradation caused by population that the actual causes were unrelated to population growth or population density. Often these were traced to bad government policies or abuse by a small group of vested interests. Manny Amador 10:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

to Manny, Since the article seems to be about human overpopulation, and polution is mainly contributed to be humans rather than spiders, birds, tigers, etc, we can safely say that by definition, a human population growth that accelerated polution would instantly be classified as "overpopulation". I don't believe that is even what the debate here is about. Poor government policy can also contribute, as can infinite other factors, but all of them depend on population growth in order to take place. Human growth and it's relation to the given resource or industry most definately affects polution; as an example that goes both ways, vehicle polution has been technologically compensated for in individual vehicles producing far less waste, however has not kept up with the growing demand for cheap vehicles in developing nations without those highly scientific and centralized anti-polution policies, so the polution from vehicles continues to rise OVERALL. Thus, while changes in technology, government policy etc can compensate for overpopulation, the population is the basic root of the capacity to create polution, and if these government/technology defenses break down, it is ultimately the cause. All other factors such as good/bad government, high/low technology, etc being possible SOLUTIONS to polution, not possible CAUSES.... big difference. Give me an example of a government's poor policy causing polution and I'll deliver you a scenario in which the society could curb growth, thus the government not NEED to create a solution, and polution not depend 100% on its policies. Whew..

Now to the anon IP section starter guy, the piece was probably removed due to lack of factual scenarios in which the human population is contributing to polution. If you want the article to remain posted give us some sources covering (off the top of my head), the deforestation that goes hand in hand with the increased cash-crop demand of a growing population, the growing demand for fresh water which will require nuclear power to create cost effectiveness for desalinization thus result in increased nuclear waste, etc. There must be at least 1,000 different paths to this logic, but the article simply won't remain up if it is opinion without verified (linked) examples. I'll be willing to contribute because personally I agree with you and the number of "overpopulation will never happen" financially motivated open-border fanatic websites is scary... Cold polymer 23:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I must say, this article does not deal with overpopulation but rather with poverty and tries to blame all of mankind's problems on non-capitalist governments. This should not be a political article, or about what bad governance does, or famines, or any thing of the kind. Overpopulation simply means that a certain ecosystem has too many animals (in this case humans) in relation to its resources, whether there these are food, oxygen, water, energy ....

Therefore, one could say that the USA is overpopulated since its a net importer of oil, electricity, natural gas, manufactured goods...: not enough local resources to sustain the population. Of course, one should look at vital necessities such as food. And that even rich (and free-market) countries such as Singapore, the UK, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, are overpopulated since they cannot provide enough food for their own population. So it isn't completely related to wealth. Anyway, I think that this article should be completely rewritten in a much shorter way, and focusing just on overpopulation. AtikuX 11:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I second Atiku's opinion. It's a clear point that you can have overpopulation on the national level in the sense of being non-self-sufficient in key primary resources, as clearly the UK, for example, is and has been for some time judging by its problems with feeding itself during WWII, without economic deprivation. Which doesn't make overpopulation any less real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrastinator supreme (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose we try to stabilise this page through the following actions:

• Create subarticles for Extraterrestrial overpopulation and Overpopulation in fiction, with short summary thereof in Overpopulation
• Create subarticle for World population projections with short summary in Overpopulation
• Write a good intro and work on that as a priority to avoid edit wars
• Require that new items added have sources

Peace. Anlace 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Too short for subarticles.Ultramarine 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Article is now 53 kilobytes and expanding rapidly. The edit hatnote says article is too long and should be split. See Wikipedia:Article size policy. The only question is which sections to split off first. I vote for Extraterrestrial and Fiction sections since they are least relevant to the central topic, per wikipedia:article size guideline. Anlace 23:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be too quick to react to that note, which after all is mechanistic and appears as soon as the article hits a certain size (in bytes, not words). There are plenty of good articles here that happily sit over the size limit with no problems. Besides, if you follow the discussions about article size, you'll see that it is by no means a settled or agreed-on matter. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

...too long and unstable indeed. What of its impact on the environment, or its consumption of resources? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.9.8.21 (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is my first time commenting on Wikipedia so please forgive me if I'm going about this the wrong way. I'd like to agree with the first poster in this section in that the overall article lacks a diversity of views on overpopulation and could be more balanced. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to provide citations of research/ analysis on how traditional arguments about overpopulation ignore economic, social and political realities in the developing world (that's actually why I was looking on Wikipedia in the first place - to try to find good pieces on this topic). I work for a humanitarian relief and development NGO so I know a little about development and humanitarian crises. I would argue that overpopulation as a problem is generally overstated. It seems that poverty, famine, migration and humanitarian crises in developing countries around the world are generally due to other factors such as protracted military conflicts, inequality and social exclusion, poor governance, and human and natural resource exploitation by wealthy countries and multinational corporations (an incomplete list). Africa, for example, is a continent with incredible wealth natural resources and agricultural potential, and it has a far lower population density than most European countries. People are not starving there because of overpopulation. They are starving for the reasons I listed above, which combine in tragic ways to prevent them from creating sustainable livelihoods for their families. I would love to see the contributors to this article include alternative views and academic studies on overpopulation. Thanks for listening

This article is not the place to debate all the causes of world starvation. It is a place for facts. There is no argument that the excessive world population places great pressure on adequate food supply, adequate safe drinking water etc. Wikipedia does not do its readers a great service to offer hope without facts. Anlace 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a starvation-related article for that topic? (SEWilco 03:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC))

But the argument is whether human population is actually "excessive". An ever-increasing number of studies have shown that the causal relationship claimed by many overpopulation doomsayers simply is not true (e.g. paper by the Department of Economics of the University of Asia-Pacific in the Philippines). The alleged pressure and actual shortages experienced in many parts of the world are often due more to bad governance, war, and corruption than to "excessive" population. These are just as factual as the claims of the population doomsayers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.71.34.138 (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

There is plenty of argument about overpopulation being or not being the cause of famine. No capitalist country has famine, regardless of how high its population density is. Communist countries have famine, even when they have low population density. Western Europe is much more densely populated than Africa. For you to say there is no argument is simply not true. A capitalist country with 500 people per square km will be much better fed than a communist country with only 50 people per square km.grundle2600

I agree with you. Just compare South Korea to North Korea. They have similar population densities and simliar natural resources. But capitalist South Korea is rich and well fed, while communist North Korea is poor and starving. Ethiopia and Zimbabwe used to be self sufficient in food production - but then they nationalized the farmland and created famine. After China nationalized its farmland it created famine - after it swithced back to private farming the famine disappeared. Likewise, overgrazing and overlogging happen because of communal ownership. On private tree farms, owners plant more trees than they cut down. The real cause of the problems is bad government and bad economic policies, not overpopulation. There has never been any correlation between high population density and famine. Africa overall has many valuable natural resources and a pretty low population density, so its famine can't be blamed on overpopulation. Bad government and bad economic policy is the real cause of the famine. Japan has high population density and few natural resources, but it has good government, capitalism, science, and technology, so it's doing very well. grundle2600

All these comments about famine being caused by the type of government seem misplaced. The modern famines in Africa have occurred because the climate has changed - there is less rain. THAT'S A FACT. The shift in rainfall from parts of Africa to Northern Europe is likely the result of Global Warming. And, rising CO2 emission are a direct result of overpopulation in the developed world (fossil fuel consumption) and the third world (deforestation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.252.213 (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the 'Overpopulation by world region' section, how come there is no subsection on China's overpopulation. It seems a very important example of overpopulation and its in the world most populous country. It appears a bit biased when Arizona and Guatemala have their own subsection but China doesn't. Raph89 07:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the chinese subsection and i remind India is the second cuontry in the world for population amount and the first one in many cases for density —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauriol (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

High density does not mean there is overpopulation. Is New York City overpopulated? No. Overpopulation is just a theory, nothing more. This article should be talking about "alleged" overpopulation, because there is more than just one viewpoint. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of complaining about how the article is wrong, why doesn't somebody just fix it? This page of complaints about how the article is messed up is longer than the actual article. It would be easier to just fix something than to go on and on about how it is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.43.19 (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering about the graph in the section "Population projections from the 1900's to 2050". Is it just me or are the spaces between the population numbers wildly off? Why are the spaces of about the same width between the various population numbers even though the numbers are doubling (except, inexplicbly, between the 20 and 50, 200 and 500, and 2000 and 5000)? The effect of this is to make the population growth from 1950 to 2050 appear to be a gentle curve. When clicking on the image one finds that the "source" is "self-made" and the author is "Conscious". Under "Description" it says that the data is from this UN site, but I find no such graph there. It appears that "Conscious" created the image based his interpretation of data at the UN site. If so it is unreliable and OR. Now compare the graph to this Census Bureau one [6] (perhaps this should replace it?) or this one [7] or [8]. In actuality, to give people some perspective of what has actually occurred in human population growth a chart like this one or this one ought to be put somewhere on the page. 63.196.193.46 (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, those numbers on the left of the graph, 10 - 10000? WTF? Again compare to the Census Bureau graph [9]. 63.196.193.186 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The scale of the graph is logarithmic, so it's ok the way it is. Maybe there should be an explanation of this somewhere. There should also be an explanation that the scale is in millions of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.208.239 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

...from "Overpopulation in Fiction" to "Overpopulation in Literature"--a title which seemed to fit better. Swift's essay, while not meant to be taken seriously, hardly qualifies as "fiction."

(01/30/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.9.8.21 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw a movie call "idiocracy" which states that families with a lower I.Q. have more kids than a famlies with a high I.Q. If this is true that means that there will be more unintelligent people have more unitlelligent children at a higher rate. This will cause both a population increase and a intlelligenc decrease. CRocco127 (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This topic (the subject of a well known Science Fiction story by C.M. Kornbluth called The Marching Morons) comes under the general heading of Dysgenics, and specifically, Differential Fertility. You can find more under the first heading. Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A "Solutions to overpopulation"-section is to be included. It should mention population control. Please include in article.

KVDP (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Update; I already included this text, hope it may be left as is or (even better) improved and added with references.

KVDP (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What rational social scientist suggests these as possible solutions to population control? There needs to be a basis for including these terms under this heading. There also simply needs to be a basis for this heading: what social scientists even support seeking solutions to overpopulation? Not saying they don't exist, but you must give evidence as to why this section (or several others in this article) needs to be in the article.Jd147703 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest making the "Overpopulation by world region" allot less bulky by only noting an general overview on the page and discussing the subject more in depth in another page (accessible by link).

KVDP (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I already relocated the in depth information of specific countries to another page. The article is far less bulky now, needs additional improvement dough.

KVDP (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In 2006, WWF's "Living Planet"-report stated that if we all want to live with a high degree of luxury (European standards), we would be spending 3x more than what the planet can supply.^[1] In other reports, such as the one cited in the The Planet-documentairy, it is mentioned that we already consume 5x more than that the planet can supply, giving the current population numbers and our standard of living. Aldough there is thus still no real consensus, it is expected that the amount of overpopulation currently lies within this range.

I uploaded this text which I believe is vital for the article. I still need some help on getting the actual report in which the 500% overpopulation is mentioned however. Can someone dig into this (the The Planet-documentairy may supply this information).

KVDP (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they are assuming that nuclear power and desalination don't exist. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite this increase in population density within the cities and the rise of more megacities, UN Habitat stated in its reports that if these 2 matters do not negate the fact that city living can be the best solution for dealing with the rising population numbers (and thus still be a good approach on dealing with overpopulation)^[2]. This however can only be achieved if urban planning is improved ^[3] and if the city services are properly maintained.

I also included this text; if its not referenced enough please find more more references, yet it is best not to remove it (it contains vital information for the 'cities'-article section)

KVDP (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

its sort of a question if illetiracy is given a solution by just supplying teachers to those who need it then how about those who can't afford education because...well financialy they are incapable of acquiring education. how about if they are deprived from it because they are ignored by the government because of theire lowly status. Since overpopulation comprimises most of those in the lower classes and because some of the lower classes are uneducated will it be possible that lack of education will result to overpopulation? Because education does help in attaining awareness and knowledge to the world and factual events thats happening. ````2/4/08 6:43 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loi brodeth (talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the debate between the % of Africans living in Poverty versue the Absolute number and how this has changed overtime. However, only the graph of the % living on a $1 per day is shown. Let's see the other graph, the absolute number people living on a $1 per day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.252.213 (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved this section here since it needs some fixes before reinsertion:

A comparison of fertility rates in Italy and Sweden^[4] suggest Italy is alleviating overpopulation more than Sweden due primarily to greater gender inequality and fewer social services, similar findings from the same source relate to Japan, Russia and Estonia. First and second world effects of social services and gender equality on overpopulation appear to be the opposite of those found in the third world.

The reference didn't go to the specified article. It doesn't say what the results were for Japan, Russia and Estonia. It doesn't say the effect, just that one was opposite the other. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved this piece from Birth control, since I think it rather belongs in some "History of U.S. politics" than here:

On November 16, 2006 George W. Bush announced that the next Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs will be Dr. Eric Keroack. The U.S. Office of Population Affairs advises the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for Health on reproductive health issues, including adolescent pregnancy, family planning, and sterilization, as well as other population issues. Keroack, an anti-abortion, anti-birth control obstetrician/gynecologist, was the medical director of A Woman's Concern, a Christian Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) in Massachusetts. On March 29, 2007, he resigned from his appointment in Population Affairs.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Overpopulation debate redirects to this article. Perhaps this article should be renamed to that. An article about overpopulation should be about just that - period. Arguments about it can be kept in the debate article. Mike 172.131.235.43 (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the paragraphs about Mauritius and Israel in the Africa subsection of the Resources section for lack of citation and original research. The content of the Mauritius paragraph is largely unsourced and also violates the wp:No original research policy with the sentence:

The reason Mauritius is doing so well is that it has strong protection of property rights, and because it uses science, technology, industrialization, and modernization.

The premises of this argument are perhaps supported by the cited source but the conclusion is not and is OR.

The Israel paragraph violates wp:No original research in a similar way with the sentence:

One possible reason why Israel does not have famine is because its government respects the property rights of farmers, and encourages them to use modern agriculture and irrigation to grow huge amounts of food.

Here, again, the conclusion seems to contravene OR; and which passage(s) from the cited sources support(s) the claim that huge amounts of food are grown? Beejaypii (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

- The reference on the Mauritius article is to a ideologically derived index on property rights. It is true that this index do measure the enforcement of property rights to some extent, but it do not in any way establish any evidence of causation. I suggest that it be totally removed, but I am sorry, I do not know how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.241.4 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of creating a NAVBOX for the subjects overpop, carrying capacity, etc. about population. Are there any other articles that definitely need to be included? StevePrutz (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Started at template:population. I will add to it once I get some more thoughts. StevePrutz (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This navbox is still up in the air. I have begun filling in some blanks... please take a look. StevePrutz (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The "neutrality disputed" tag has been at the top of the article for quite some time. I don't currently see any issues with the article and will remove it shortly unless there are any objections. Barrylb (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Several editors give reasons why there should be a tag throughout this page. So don't remove it until the issues are addressed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion, but I'm having a hard time working out what those current issues are. Barrylb (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a reason to remove the tag. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know, but I am suggesting that if no-one can summarise the reasons, maybe there aren't sufficient reasons to keep it. Barrylb (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that a request to summarize the issues? --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes please! Barrylb (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs the tag. Instead, what matters is that the article shows both sides, i.e., the Paul Ehrlich side and the Julian Simon side. And the article does a fine job of presenting both of those opinions. Personally, I think Ehrlich was wrong, wrong, wrong - but I still think the article should include his stuff for balance. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

POV issues are discussed in sections 14, 16, 18, and 19. None of these issues have been addressed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The following info is not correct according to the source used.

• By 2050, India will have 3.8 billion people, China 2.6 billion, United States 880 million, Indonesia 857 million, Pakistan 792 million, Nigeria 689 million, Bangladesh 554 million, Brazil 454 million, Democratic Republic of the Congo 387 million, Ethiopia 383 million, Philippines 341 million, Mexico 332 million, Egypt 321 million, Vietnam 320 million, Russia 308 million, Japan 303 million, Iran 300 million, Turkey 299 million, Uganda 293 million, Tanzania 285 million, and Kenya 285 million.
• 1900
  • Africa - 133 million
  • Asia - 946 million
  • Europe - 408 million
  • Latin America & Caribbean - 74 million
  • Northern America - 82 million
• 2050
  • Africa - 5.9 billion
  • Asia - 9.2 billion
  • Europe - 974 million
  • Latin America & Caribbean - 890 million
  • Northern America - 845 million^[5]

I commented it out. I can work on updating this later tonight but if somebody want to fix it now, that would be great. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It was recently changed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I only went back to the last edit and forgot to check the others.I corrected the changes. Thanks again --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The article does not contain a single shred of evidence that third world poverty and famine are caused by overpopulation.

Here is a List of countries by population density. If you look at the list, you will see that there is no correlation between population density, and third world poverty and famine.

Here is the Corruption Perceptions Index. If you look at this list, you will see that there is a huge correlation between government corruption, and third world poverty and famine.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, government corruption is highly correlated with many other things than famine. How can you know that "these other things" are not the reason for the famine? You would not know the causation here. Corruption could work as a proxy for something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.241.4 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the corruptipon causes many other problems too, not just famine. My point is that it's the government corruption, not the population density, that is the factor. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking to and agreeing with yourself again Grundle? For others, see the bottom of the "This article confuses poverty with overpopulation" section above, comments by 63.196.193.29. I only point this out to make newbies aware. 4.246.207.171 (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't post anonymously. And you didn't answer my question. Where is the evidence that famine is caused by overpopulation? The most densely populated countries are western Europe, Japan, the Asian tiger countries, and Israel. But they don't have famine, because they have low levels of government corruption. Among countries with low levels of government corruption, there is zero famine. It's government corruption, not overpopulation, that causes famine. 10 years ago in Zimbabwe, farmers were using modern farming equipment to grow huge amounts of food. The country grew and exported so much extra food that it was known as the "breadbasket of southern Africa." Since then, President Robert Mugabe decided that the farmers were too rich and too greedy and making too much money, so he seized their land. Now the country has famine. Some people call this "overpopulation," but they are wrong. It's not overpopulation. It's government corruption. And the same is true for all famine. Countries with low levels of government corruption never have famine. Please see List of countries by population density for proof that here is no correlation between population density and famine. And please see Corruption Perceptions Index for proof that there is a huge correlation between government corruption and famine. Where is the evidence that famine is caused by overpopulation? There is none. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Claiming corruption always causes famine is a dreadful oversimplification. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Corruption Perceptions Index. Among the countries with low levels of government corruption, there is zero famine. And this includes the super densely populated countries of western Europe, Israel, Japan, and the Asian tiger countries. This proves that no matter how densely populated a country is, if there is a low level of government corruption, the country is guaranteed not to have famine. The proof is overwhelming. Famine is caused by government corruption, not by overpopulation. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"No, I don't post anonymously." Well let's see, at the end of the "Crises" section above (second to the last paragraph - you didn't date it) you wrote in response to your own post "I agree with you." At 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC) above you wrote "I agree with Grundle." Wait a minute, I thought you were Grundle? Now just above is an anonymous post that sounds a lot like you, which you then you agree with. Seems to me that you are trying to conjure up non-existant support.

But again as stated below "I have to wonder about the objectivity of that Corruptions Perceptions Index page which is "the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians". I note that the United States is, according to the image there, mostly perceived to be incorrupt. I would suggest that that is out of sync with how the world and even most Americans perceive and have perceived the Bush Administration for the last eight years [10]. And are you claiming that all those red countries are starving? Really, I wish you would keep your Libertarian politics off the page."

Anyway, you've got it backwards Grumble, a large reason, unacknowledged by you, as to why first and even second-world countries are not seeing starvation is not at all because they have become self-sufficient or because there is no government corruption but because they have learned how, through a variety of means, to obtain the resources of third-world countries. Just because they are delaying their own demise at the expense of other countries does not at all equate to self-sufficiency or no-corruption (note that the Corruptions Perceptions Index is "the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians". Economically well off people will take less notice of it than those directly suffering). If first-world countries had to rely just on their resources to survive they would likely soon be in just as dire a state of affairs. They survive in large measure by parasitizing less powerful countries. Just one example: "The US now imports over 90 per cent of its so-called 'rare earth' metals from China, according to the US Geological Survey. If China decided to cut off the supply, that would create a big risk of conflict, says Reller" [11]. Certainly there is government corruption in third-world countries, the places are usually in chaos anyway due to resource depletion and resultant starvation. It's a vicious downward spiral. For a primer on the subject I'd suggest hat you get ahold of a copy of Third World Health: Hostage to First World Wealth by Prof Théodore MacDonald [12]. 63.196.193.110 (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused; are you possibly saying that famine is caused not by overpopulation, but by government corruption ? Claverhouse (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Just compare South Korea to North Korea. South Korea has a higher population density, but it's rich and well fed, because it has a well run government. North Korea is poor and starving because it has a very corrupt government. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Grundle2600, I think you should point people to good external references (eg United Nations reports) on the matter, otherwise it seems like "original research" or an empty claim. Barrylb (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I cited Julian Simon's book, which is certainly a more credible source than Paul Ehrlich's book. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone care to note that overpopulation is only a relatively short-term problem? There have been articles both in the Washington Post and Newsweek pertaining to the impending population bomb of low fertility rates--in all countries, not just developed ones. Even countries in Africa that have fertility rates well above the replacement level of 2.1 are seeing their birth rates drastically decline (albeit still remaining high--for now). And while it is true that the world population is expected to increase to over 9 billion by 2050, maybe more people should look into what happens in the second half of the 21st century: a crash in the world's population as death rates from higher fertility now and in the past far exceed the increasingly lower fertility rates of the world's nations.

Not to mention that while this will be bad enough for wealthy nations that have the GDP per capita to give incentives for new and growing families to slow (or possibly reverse) the decline and prevent the deterioration of the social welfare (fewer workers putting taxes into the system with more retirees taking out) and social fabric (a culture ever more depleted of its youth has proven to be a stagnant one as Japan and many nations of Europe are beginning to find out), what about poor nations that are struggling to raise their HDI as it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Lucas Aubrey (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as you cite your sources you can add that to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This explains why Paul Ehrlich was wrong. The introduction needs this paragraph for balance. Funny how Paul Ehrlich is allowed to remain as a source, even though he was wrong, but the sources that explain why he was wrong are not allowed. Of course I think both sides should be allowed, even the one that's wrong.

"Some countries have managed to substantially increase their carrying capacity by using technologies such as modern agriculture, desalination, and nuclear power. Some have argued that poverty and famine are caused by bad government and bad economic policies, and that higher population density leads to more specialization and technological innovation, and that this leads to a higher standard of living. These people claim that if you look at a list of countries ranked in order by population density, there is no correlation between population density, and poverty and famine, and instead, if you look at a list of countries ranked in order by government corruption, there is a huge correlation between government corruption, and poverty and famine." Grundle2600 (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've removed 3 of the 6 sources, and placed the 3 remaining ones in better locations. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed this because, in addition to sounding ridiculous, the references do not seem to support what it said here:

Scientists ^[who?] report that nature might have, thus, started its own solution by spreading infertility amongst humans through viruses (such as Adeno-associated virus) that are otherwise unharmful ^[6][7] and believe that technology cannot adress the problems and that population should be reduced ^[8]

--Xris0 (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Accordingt to the FAO China remains a net grain exporter. Pointing to a few old stories from the worst years in 50 years does not support the allegation. In 2007 and 2008 China had bumper harvests mean that "China... is practically sufficient in grain production to meet domestic demand". ( http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JE13Cb01.html ). According tot he FAO "in the current season (2007/08) neither China nor India are playing a major role as cereal importers on world markets. In fact, China continues to export maize.." ( http://www.fao.org/giews/english/faq_hp.htm ). "China has maintained normal import and export trade of grain and has gained a position as a net cereal exporter. In 2007, China’s net cereal exports recorded 8.354 million tons, up 2.3 times over the previous year. Net cereal exports have reached 505,000 tons in the first quarter of 2008." (http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/foodclimate/statements/chn_sun_e.pdf).

So much for China having a grain deficit. It is a net grain exporter according tothe FAO. This is the world's peak body on food production. Asidemes you have developed a habit of posting refercnes that don't actually suport what you put on the text. So far 9 outof every 10 of your references that I have followed haven't said what you claim they say. I'm not sure if you genuinely misundertstand or you think nobody will read them, but when the statement made directly contradicts what is known to be true base don the peak body in the world then you can be sure that somebody will check.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The idea of this post is to get us talking and posting in a new direction

1. 1 Margaret Sanger is not mentioned sufficiently @all: her involvement w/ the top eugenics scientist of Hitler (who corresponded w/ her many times), planned parenthood, International planned parenthood, the UNFPA, her views on black people, the fact that black people in the USA have an abortion rate disproportionately higher than any other race, likewise Hispanic people have been targeted/have an abnormally high abortion rate, etc... she has had a huge impact on present ideas and policy concerning the world's population. These issues are all linked to her and Planned Parenthood (which she effectively founded/created).

1. 2 greying population, and/or population decline will inevitably lead to financial crisis due to the lack of an able bodied work force capable of paying 4, or caring 4 the elderly in their own country. This threat is already looming in Japan, parts of Europe, etc....

1. 3 materialism and selfism, show a direct correlation to regions w/ population decline & often high abortion rates

1. 4 alternative views on the earth's carrying capacity

1. 5 being up front about the fact that much of the idea of human overpopulation is based on assumption and theory. No one on earth has ever lived at a time when the population was much bigger than it is as of 2008. So, there is no experiential evidence, or experimental proof that we are presently in danger of "overpopulation"

1. 6 the fact that qualified secular researchers, the Catholic Church, many other Christian churches, some Orthodox Jewish rabbis, most Muslim leaders, as well as many other non-religious and religious organizations disagree that we R in danger of overpopulation (the Catholic Church alone represents over 1 Billion people) .... So, there are about 2-3 billion people who may disagree that we R in danger of overpopulation, our view shall not be discounted.

... much more can be said

Peace, JEM

This isn't really the place for big discussions about the issues, so I suggest you be bold and include your information in the article with appropriate references. Also remember to abide by the neutral-point-of-view policy. Barrylb (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The current article reads like a doomsday pamphlet. Overpopulation is being discovered to be an unfounded myth by more and more scientists around the world and even the UN itself [World Population Monitoring 2001] says that the real danger is UNDERpopulation that will occur in the next few decades, and none of the ecological problems we've been encountering in the last century are a result of overpopulation, but mostly of bad economic means of production, which can be rectified and the same output kept with the same population growth while minimizing the effects on the ecology. This article is in need of some serious rewrite to be an NPOV and not just another statement of the ecological fear mongers. Good start would be to include the books and articles that come up when you google "overpopulation myth" Capricornis (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Where in the UN report you cite does it suggest there is a problem of UNDER population in coming decades? My interpretation of the report is quite different. For example, the closing sentence of the Introduction quotes a 1994 Cairo conference resolution, recognising the

“crucial contribution that early stabilization of the world population would make towards the achievement of sustainable development”.

The end of the Conclusions section says:

"... population pressures are contributing factors to environmental stress. Population and development policies — especially those relating to the size, growth and distribution of population — are necessary and vital components of the constellation of actions needed to ensure sustainable development and to safeguard the environment during the twenty-first century and beyond."

This to me says there is a clear UN recognition of the overpopulation problem and I cannot see that the general content of the article can be changed based on the citation you have given. Barrylb (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

---

well maybe you should read the entire paper then?

here are a few quotes:

pg 30 "The long-range projections of population include a constant fertility scenario, which “shows the absurdity of assuming a continuation of current fertility levels, for such assumption results in a world population of 256 billion persons in 2150” (United Nations, 2000b, introduction, sect. B, third paragraph). Ansley Coale calculated in 1974 that, if then-current population growth rates were to continue, within 6,000 years humanity would form a mass expanding outward from Earth at the speed of light (Coale, 1974)."

ibid. "The estimates of Earth’s carrying capacity range from under 1 billion to more than 1,000 billion persons. Not only is there an enormous range of values, but there is no tendency of the values to converge over time; indeed, the estimates made since 1950 exhibit greater variability than those made earlier (figure IV.1)." (so much for any notion of carrying capacity being scientific, it is just fear-mongering by eco-zealots)

pg 31 "While the environmental problems discussed in this report are largely the result of human activities, they vary in the degree to which they can be linked directly to population size, growth or distribution. For example, increases in some types of pollution are primarily the by-product of rising per capita production and consumption in richer economies, where population has generally been growing slowly. Some types of pollution, such as the release of chlorofluorocarbons, which harm the planet’s ozone layer, are linked to particular technologies much more than to either population change or overall economic growth.4"

ibid. "Even for those environmental problems that are concentrated in countries with rapid population growth, it is not necessarily the case that population increase is the main root cause, or that slowing population growth would make an important contribution to resolving the problem."

pg 34. "According to most recent assessments, environmental problems will not limit the ability to produce enough food at the global level for the foreseeable future"

ibid. "Human population growth is likely to have played a role in increasing demand for fish, but most of the explanation for the rapid global rise in overfishing surely lies elsewhere"

ibid. "In the 1990s, known reserves of many natural resources were more abundant and prices lower than they were 20 years previously, despite rising consumption (Livernash and Rodenburg, 1998). Price rises, when they occurred, have as expected prompted substitution of less costly alternative inputs or switching to more efficient processes"

etc. etc. I have no time to comb the entire document again. Have in mind that this is document written from the OPPOSITE side, that is they are trying to prove that overpopulation DOES influence the environment in a major way, and they found quote a few things to the contrary. There are plenty of sources that started from the direction that population growth DOES NOT significantly influence environment, and their findings are WAY more startling. I will post some of them here when I have time. cheers Capricornis (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"more and more scientists around the world and even the UN itself World Population Monitoring 2001 says that the real danger is UNDERpopulation that will occur in the next few decades, and none of the ecological problems we've been encountering in the last century are a result of overpopulation" You are grossly distorting the report.

Some quotes from the Conclusions. Note, "conclusions" are usually where all the preceding information together is summed up.

"Relatively rapid and uneven population growth and economic development are occurring simultaneously with degradation of aspects of Earth’s physical environment. For example, according to J. R. McNeill (2000), the twentieth century experienced topsoil loss equal to that of the previous 1,000 years. Total energy use during the 100 years of the twentieth century was 10 times that of the previous 1,000 years. World food production has increased at a faster rate than population and more food per capita is available now than ever before in world history; but the increasing scarcity and degradation of agricultural and other environmental resources cast serious doubts as to how long food production can surpass population growth. Throughout the world, many fragile, biologically unique ecosystems, and the many species of plants and animals they contain, are threatened. Forest areas are diminishing, especially in tropical areas. Industrial pollution and harmful run-offs from agricultural production threaten the quality of water and air. Fresh water is already in short supply in some regions—approximately one third of the world’s population lives in countries classified as experiencing moderate to severe water stress or scarcity—and future population growth will only increase the pressure on this renewable, but limited, resource. Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continue to mount."

"The need to feed a growing population is placing mounting stress on water supplies in many parts of the world."

"In rural areas of low-income countries, rapid population growth has often resulted in added pressures on agricultural land, resulting in land fragmentation and the reduction of yields. Such a process is at the root of a further cycle of environmental damage as the people who lack adequate land in one region migrate to ever more environmentally fragile areas in search of better chances of subsistence. Although the rural population of developing countries is expected to increase more slowly in the future than it did over the past 30 or 40 years, several regions already have very high population densities relative to available agricultural land. Consequently, even low levels of rural population growth are likely to result in added pressures on the rural environment. In those regions, the continued destruction of natural resources as a result of attempts to extend the agricultural frontier is very likely to continue or to accelerate in the future. When considering responses to environmental problems it is necessary to recognize that social-institutional factors can be as important as, if not more important than, technological ones. The general problem of managing locally scarce or fragile resources is not new. Many examples can be found where traditional societies developed communal rules for managing a scarce resource. Population growth has the potential to destabilize such communal arrangements, since rules that functioned adequately at a low population density may lead to overexploitation and/or pollution at a higher density."

"In his message to the Global Ministerial Environment Forum (Malmö, Sweden, 29-31 May 2000), the Secretary- General noted that: 'Technological breakthroughs that are unimaginable today may solve some of the environmental challenges we face. But it would be foolish to count on them and to continue with business as usual' (United Nations Environment Programme, 2000). Government domestic programmes and effective international agreements to curtail environmentally harmful activities are essential. However, population pressures are contributing factors to environmental stress. Population and development policies—especially those relating to the size, growth and distribution of population—are necessary and vital components of the constellation of actions needed to ensure sustainable development and to safeguard the environment during the twenty-first century and beyond."

It's true that they say that it is hard, in some cases, to tie a certain negative feature directly to population growth but note also this statement: "Sorting out the interactions between population, environment and economic development needs more and better data." That's as of 2001, eight years ago. More and better data has been delivered since and is included as studies in the main body of this article, specifically under the Resources subtitle. The Millenium Ecological Assessment was a project that ran from 2001 to 2005. Two Global Environment Outlook reports have been published since 2001. The latest in 2007. It's hard to see how your statement that NONE of our environmental problems is related to population growth can be taken seriously when you look at the trends they document [13]. 4.246.201.17 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You are taking my words to the extreme. I never said that the growth of the human population does not influence the envrionment. Of course it does, as :would the growth of any other animal group. However, the fear-mongering and doomsday predictions that overpopulation zealots and this article would like us :to believe are definitely NOT true. Again read my note above, the paper I a quoting is trying to PROVE that overpopulation influences the environment in a :MAJOR way, that WILL cause CATASTROPHE. However that is simply NOT true. Capricornis (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit this article unless you understand the scientific underpinnings. Capricornis, i would hope you would study the phenomena associated with the ongoing Holocene extinction event, in which man. by overpopulating, has caused extinction of up to two million species. If this is not a MAJOR environmental impact, pray tell, what is? Plumpurple (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am definitely going to continue to edit the article, with proper references and sources, until the article is balanced and shows both sides of the question and is not a fear-mongering, doomsday page out of the eco-zealot book. Species have dissapeared long before the first human appeared, remember the dinosaurus? Maybe humans should be blamed for that too? Species will continue dissapear and new ones appear - that is called evolution, and although modern human activity obviously affects the rate and speed of this dissapearance, it is the activities like exploatation, modes of production, technology etc. that are the major culprits, and definitely not overpopulation. You would do better to read BOTH sides of an issue when you do your research and not just the side you feel good about. Capricornis (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The article already contains a lot of balance, and many parts could be criticised for not articulating the problems of overpopulation with sufficient emphasis. Capricornis, your response above betrays the shallowness of your understanding of the underlying issues of this scientific topic. The Holocene extinction has seen ongoing extinction rates orders of magnitude higher than in eras when man was not present in large numbers. This is a scientific topic and is not a forum for those with points of view regarding "doomsday" or "plenty". Please feel free to edit when you comprehend the science of the topic and can be objective. Regards. Plumpurple (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"You are taking my words to the extreme. I never said that the growth of the human population does not influence the envrionment. Of course it does, as :would the growth of any other animal group". Um, YOU are the one who originally claimed that "none of the ecological problems we've been encountering in the last century are a result of overpopulation".

About extinction: "Paleontologists estimate the background rate of species extinction--the long-term extinction rate exhibited prior to humanity's influence--at between 1 and 10 extinctions each decade among every million fossil species. Assuming from a variety of estimates that 10 million species are alive today (Stork 1993 and 1997, May 1988, Hammond 1992), scientists can expect from 1 to 10 species to go extinct each year from all forms of life, visible and microscopic. In fact, species are exiting much faster. Based on records of extinction among the best- studied types of animals, ecologist Stuart Pimm and colleagues calculated extinction rates during the past century to range from 100 to 10,000 species per year (again, assuming 10 million species exist). That rate is between 100 and 1000 times faster than the background rate of species extinction (Pimm et al 1995)" [14].

"If we substantially diminish biodiversity on Earth, we can't expect the biosphere to just bounce back. It doesn't do that. The process of diversification is too slow", "The planet would be biologically depleted for millions of years, with consequences extending not only beyond the lives of our children's children, but beyond the likely lifespan of the entire human species" [15]. See also [16] If you do do some editing I hope that you rely on what mainstream science as a whole is saying and not some contrarian individual or group like the Cato Institute which has a vested interest in anti-environmental positions. 4.246.204.99 (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

From the article: "Says Peter Raven, former President of AAAS (the American Association for the Advancement of Science) in their seminal work AAAS Atlas of Population & Environment, "Where do we stand in our efforts to achieve a sustainable world? Clearly, the past half century has been a traumatic one, as the collective impact of human numbers, affluence (consumption per individual) and our choices of technology continue to exploit rapidly an increasing proportion of the world's resources at an unsustainable rate. ... During a remarkably short period of time, we have lost a quarter of the world's topsoil and a fifth of its agricultural land, altered the composition of the atmosphere profoundly, and destroyed a major proportion of our forests and other natural habitats without replacing them. Worst of all, we have driven the rate of biological extinction, the permanent loss of species, up several hundred times beyond its historical levels, and are threatened with the loss of a majority of all species by the end of the 21st century".

With regard to balance, a lot of garbage has been conflated with science in the name of balance. Creationism with evolution, astrology with astronomy, flat-earth notions with round-earth theory etc. By the way your added section "Overpopulation not a major cause of environmental degradation" mischaracterizes the conclusions of the report and the conclusions of science in general as I pointed out above. I'm not going to get into a revert war with you about it but maybe someone else will deal with it. 4.246.206.105 (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything I have added to the article I have sourced properly. The example of the 'consant fertitly rates' for which I added an example that shows how absurd such predictions are, goes to show that when the fear-mongering is taken on a large enough scale, it is obvious to everybody how absurd it is. Watch some of the 60s and 70s SF movies lke Green Soy and see how they imagine the future (our present), people stacked on top of each other, absence of light and air and with institutionalized canibalism. Is that how it is today?

All I am saying is: lets take a break here and really assess the situation objectively. Are things as bad as some overzealous scientist (to get attention and publish their books) are claiming? And is it our fault? And in the context of this article - is the overpopulation (and the associated doomsday predictions) the real problem (if a problem at all) or maybe some other human activities are to blame.

I am definitely pro-choice, pro-evolution (ID and Creationism is same crap), pro-science, pro-environment (within reason), etc. however some scientist and ecologist are taking things to the extreme, waving this spectre of imminent destruction above our heads, and that is just a bunch of bull, no better than conspracy theories. It is a fad. Just like the Ozone Hole scare two decades ago. Do you hear about the ozone hole anymore?

What I would like to see in this article is to separate the facts from the doomsday fiction, possibly get rid of ALL population predictions (all such predictions have been historically wrong), separate OVERPOPULATION from OVERCROWDING (two very different things), and add some more data from reputable scientist (many of them out there) which are saying that although not perfect, the situation right now and the forseable future are fine from the point of population growth, food supply, resources, etc. Is that unreasonable? Capricornis (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No offence but your comments betray someone who is not that familiar with the issues and thus probably should not be editing a science article until you do. You say that concern over CFCs was "just a fad" and "Do you hear about the ozone hole anymore?". Are you aware of why the ozone issue has receded? Look up the Montreal Protocol and you might discover why.

You say "All I am saying is: lets take a break here and really assess the situation objectively. Are things as bad as some overzealous scientist (to get attention and publish their books) are claiming?" What you are proposing, Capricornis, is OR. Because you personally don't believe that population is a problem you'd like to silence or alter the voices of the scientific community or "balance" them with a relatively few contrarian voices. The 'constant fertility rates' comment from decades ago is a red herring. Look, if you think that carrying capacity is a "bunch of bull" from "eco-zealots" fine but it stays in because it is well a established fact. If you doubt that then try an experiment. Invite a few dozen people to your house and let them stay for, oh, say a year. Now don't bring home much more food than normal. Let's see how long things stay sanguine. IOW, the earth is finite - meaning it has limits. So where do we draw the line on human numbers, when there's nothing left worth saving? Sure, we still have room left to increase food production to feed still more human mouths as the article states but that will come at increasing environmental cost, a cost that's already exacting a stiff environmental toll. Eventually it will come back to bite us personally since we are intimtely dependant on, even a part of, on a complexly evolved living environment. The great consensus of science accepts the facts of overpopulation and is warning us of its consequences. Thus that needs to be conveyed as such in the article. Anyway, this talk page is not the place to argue them. 4.246.206.251 (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right on at least one thing: this talk page is not the place to argue the issue, nor is wikipedia a place for mine or your personal opinion. That's why all the edits I've done/will do are sourced from reliable sources. I am of the opinion that the view of overpopulation as a non-issue currently is terribly misrepresented in this article. The UN itself said that carrying capacity estimates vary so widely, they really cannot be taken with any seriousness. You say that the earth is finite and we can reach those limits. I completely agree with you, however what everybody seems to be ignoring is that we are currently very, very far from reaching that limit, and if the trends of lower fertility from the last 2 decades continue - we never will. This is not my opinion, but a summary of the research I've done. Capricornis (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So then we can expect that you will now embark on a quote mining operation? A reminder, what you include in a science article as science must include the consensus view of the scientific community not something from a contrarian individual or group or a bunch of quotes taken out of context as you did above with your reference to the World Population Monitoring 2001 report. You'll find lots and lots of sources to start from here and [17]. "what everybody seems to be ignoring is that we are currently very, very far from reaching that limit" you say. What YOU are ignoring is that our current population is ALREADY having a pronounced negative environmental impact according to science, and while the rate of growth may wax and wane at times and people can speculate about it reversing in the future the unavoidable trend is still UP, UP, UP. And as I stated above, some respected scientists hold that population continues to rise if the resources are availiable [18] Now, you've stated that we've plenty of resources left. So then look for population to rise until they run out ... unless we consciously decide to do the mature, no the sane thing and limit our population growth rate. Unfortuantely, I have other things to do and can't spend lots more time arguing about this. 4.246.205.228 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see that you are passionate about this, and that is great. I live in Vancouver, and this is where Greenpeace was founded in 1976, so that should tell you about the mindset of the people here, and which I find too eco-extreme. I disagree about the consensus scientific opinion though. 150 years ago consensus scientific opinion was that doctors don't have to wash their hands. The only guy who said they should, was put in an asylum where he died. 250 years ago consensus scientific opinion was that the earth is flat and the center of the universe. Bruno was burned on stake for claiming otherwise. So, while consensus scientific opinion is important, the other voices should be given space as well, especially if they have something reasonable to say. This does not hold for obvious fallacies like ID and Creationism, of course. The bottom line is: we are doing pretty good so far. Yes, we’ve made mistakes; yes, we’ve destroyed large swathes of land, many species, but nothing to suggest doomsday scenario. With proper technology and a certain level of eco-consciousness (definitely not Greenpeace-style eco-fascism/militarism) we can have our cake and eat it too. The planet will be ok, most of the species will be ok, maybe there will not be as much wilderness as there is today, but definitely there will not be a total destruction of all ecosystems. Capricornis (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, somehow your obviously uninformed, unsourced assurances aren't comforting. I always find it so frustrating when people expound and hold forth on things they clearly know nothing about. You've heard of the web of life? Break enough strands and the whole thing will collapse. Every year people drive farther and farther into the wild evicting the animals that have called the area home for millions of years, and every acre we confiscate from nature is an acre less for the other 99.9 percent of species that also inhabit the planet. An old Italian saying I read somewhere says "feather by feather the goose is plucked". Just my two cents worth. 72.29.170.201 (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been observing the conversation here as well as editing the article. I'd like to say that the topic of overpopulation is extensive and continually developing and there are no definite answers. Our task is to explain all the aspects of the subject: population growth projections, resource limitations, technological advancement, possible scenarios, government policies, etc all need mentioning because that is part of the subject. We don't leave out things just because some people think it is B.S. Explain everything and leave the conclusions up to reader. So lets work on the article. For one thing, the Population Growth section needs updating to the latest projections ((9.2 billion in 2050 etc). Barrylb (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Barrylb. However not all sides in this issue, as with other issues that have political or economic ramifications like climate change, have equal weight in the scientific community [19]. While nothing is ever absolutely certain in science and one can always find skeptics, the consensus view is that human population is growing too large and is dangerously affecting the environment we and other species depend on and that should be stated as such. 4.246.204.0 (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)