Overpopulation

[fishbob]

These things you mention are not a result of over-population. They are a result of the prevailing ignorance, arrogance, and negligence of our modern society. Thus, a societal issue.

These are people we are talking about here.
More people = more ignorance, more arrogance, and more negligence.

 

[Tubbythin]

Overpopulation is certainly a problem. But I'm inclined to think that if there were fewer of us, fossil fuels would be cheaper so we'd use more and we'd be in exactly the same situation with regard to global warming. There's certainly no one-to-one correspondence between population and fossil fuel consumption (though admittedly I think China now is the biggest).

 

[Bikewer]

Science Friday had an interview with the fellow who wrote The Population Bomb, Paul Erlich, in August:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200808155

Ira Flatow (the host) pointed out that Ehrlich's predictions for the consequences of overpopulation made in the original book had not come to pass. Ehrlich indicated that in fact, for much of the undeveloped world, they had.
Further, as nothing of any consequence had been done about the situation, we could well expect not only nasty effects on human populations but mass die-offs of species that would rival any of the great extinctions.

 

[casebro]

No, not overpopulation or overindulgence.

Planned Obsolescence is what eats resources. Thing like selling new cars when old ones can be fixed. Plastic buckets that last a year in the sun when wooden buckets last 50 years. Particle board furniture made to be disposable, instead of solid wood furniture that lasts hundreds of years. Stone washed jeans that are half rotted in an acid bath, so last only 1/3 as long (that's the dumbest, pay extra for an intentionally wrecked product).

Ever hear any thing advertised as "Our Product lasts longer than our competitors"? Or only "It's New", "It's HOT", "Ours is CHEAPER", "Everybody is buying OURS"?

 

[Moochie]

Global warming, rain forest depletion, over fishing, energy-crisis, water shortage, food shortage, etc.

They're fundamentally caused by overpopulation.

when will the world wake up and face this fact?

I've been thinking this since the 60s, and occasionally saying it out loud, only to be shouted down by nay-sayers who tell me the planet can cope with billions more people. My fear of where the planet's headed is a major reason my wife and I chose not to reproduce. Everything I've seen in the 58 years I've been around hasn't made me change my view.


M.

 

[Moochie]

Well if your talking about the current human generation, then maybe never for us. We might be long gone when the effects of humanity's stupidity cause mayhem.

Or, if we play our cards right, mankind can possibly find a solution for these environmental crises.

....

Who are we kidding, were doomed.

Stephen Hawking says the human race must colonize space (ie, get off this planet) in the next 200 hundred years if it is to survive.


M.

 

[Ziggurat]

They're fundamentally caused by overpopulation.

If we're suffering from overpopulation, what is the right population?

Every single problem of the human race is due to overpopulation.

Surely not.

 

[technoextreme]

Overpopulation is certainly a problem. But I'm inclined to think that if there were fewer of us, fossil fuels would be cheaper so we'd use more and we'd be in exactly the same situation with regard to global warming. There's certainly no one-to-one correspondence between population and fossil fuel consumption (though admittedly I think China now is the biggest).

Two words to prove that you are right. Whaling and Buffalo.

Stephen Hawking says the human race must colonize space (ie, get off this planet) in the next 200 hundred years if it is to survive.

That is argument from authority unless it's taken out of context.

Thing like selling new cars when old ones can be fixed.

In what manner? I need you to elaborate before I could comment on this.

Particle board furniture made to be disposable, instead of solid wood furniture that lasts hundreds of years.

Did you think about that one before you wrote that sentence? You are complaining about furniture that very well likely was made out of garbage. The casual oversimplification fallacy strikes again.

Plastic buckets that last a year in the sun when wooden buckets last 50 years.

Uhhhh.... I don't see your argument in that point. How is this in any way shape or form obsolescence? In some regards I agree with you but you certainly can come with better examples than what you came up with (IE Ipod-Though I don't know if that was just sheer stupidity).

 

[technoextreme]

Are you really that naive or dumb?

Attack the argument, not the arguer, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: tim

What argument? In all seriousness there is no argument. There is no arguer. It's just a person saying something over and over again. I know I'm an idiot for continuing on with him but please don't treat me like a fool and say there is something for me to attack in one word answers.

 

[Ziggurat]

Planned Obsolescence is what eats resources. Thing like selling new cars when old ones can be fixed.

If the old ones can be fixed but people don't bother too, that's not planned obsolescence, that's just plain old ordinary obsolescence.

Plastic buckets that last a year in the sun when wooden buckets last 50 years.

Don't leave plastic buckets in the sun, and they'll last 50 years. But you let that wooden bucket stay wet too long? It'll rot.

Particle board furniture made to be disposable, instead of solid wood furniture that lasts hundreds of years.

As mentioned, particle board is made from what is otherwise waste. That's why it's cheaper, and why it gets used. And that's a good thing, because the use of particle board reduces our consumption of wood.

Stone washed jeans that are half rotted in an acid bath, so last only 1/3 as long (that's the dumbest, pay extra for an intentionally wrecked product).

This is the only example of yours which makes the point you're trying to make.

Ever hear any thing advertised as "Our Product lasts longer than our competitors"?

Yes. For example, those Dyson vacuum cleaners: "never loses suction". Or Maytag: for years their advertising campaign has centered around the conceit that their repairmen have nothing to do.

 

[casebro]

In what manner? I need you to elaborate before I could comment on this.

Things like a transmision reverse clutch can be repaired for much less environmental impact than replacing the whole car. Ditto an engine, etc... The world does have an unemployment problem. Train a bunch more mechanics and put hem to work.

Did you think about that one before you wrote that sentence? You are complaining about furniture that very well likely was made out of garbage. The casual oversimplification fallacy strikes again.

Made out of garbage, destined to return to being garbage shortly. Only a temporary sequestration of the garbage.

Uhhhh.... I don't see your argument in that point. How is this in any way shape or form obsolescence? In some regards I agree with you but you certainly can come with better examples than what you came up with (IE Ipod-Though I don't know if that was just sheer stupidity).

Let me say "More re-usable stuff, less recyclable". Handkerchiefs instead of 'facial tissue'. Cotton diapers, instead of cutting down trees to fill the land fills with cellulose. Bring back razor blades instead of disposable razors- make the new blades of long lasting ceramic, have you ever heard a razor company sell on the basis of longevity, or only the the number of blades? Outlaw trash bags- there's a product that proves my point- buy it just to throw it away!

Things like prefinished hard wood flooring- easy to put down, top is plastic finish. edges unfinished. dog's water bowl overflows, water seeps into crack, flooring bubbles up and is ruined - the top veneer is too thin to refinish. Cut down more forest to make another batch of disposable flooring... gee, the solid hardwood flooring in the rest of the house is 60 years ols and counting...

 

[Ziggurat]

Things like a transmision reverse clutch can be repaired for much less environmental impact than replacing the whole car.

Such cars are rarely thrown away. I had a car that developed transmission problems, and I sold it because it cost more to fix than the car was worth. But it didn't get junked: the dealership was going to fix it up and sell it to someone else. There's no environmental difference between me getting it fixed and someone else buying a new car and me getting a new car and someone else getting it fixed.

Made out of garbage, destined to return to being garbage shortly. Only a temporary sequestration of the garbage.

No, it's also cheap furniture which gets use out of it. Not everyone can afford all-hardwood furniture (I certainly couldn't when I was starting out), and all-hardwood furniture would be a lote more expensive if there weren't alternatives like particle board.

 

[CapelDodger]

Of course they are caused by overpopulation. No overpopulation, no global warming, no loss of habitats for our fellow creatures, no over-fishing, etc.

Global warming : the carbon footprint of a small proportion of global population.

Over-fishing : factory fleets to supply a small proportion of global population.

Loss of habitat : deforestation for soya and palm-oil, produced for the benefit of a small proportion of global population. Mangrove destruction to farm shrimp for a small proportion of global population.


What was your argument again?

 

[tesscaline]

Things like a transmision reverse clutch can be repaired for much less environmental impact than replacing the whole car. Ditto an engine, etc... The world does have an unemployment problem. Train a bunch more mechanics and put hem to work.

Even if the car was junked, you seem to think that it's left to rot in a junkyard somewhere. That's not the case any longer. Junked cars are broken down and recycled -- the metal is melted down, re-smelted, and turned into new cars. This is a responsible use of resources.

Made out of garbage, destined to return to being garbage shortly. Only a temporary sequestration of the garbage.

Do you actually understand what particle board is? Particle board is made up of the wood scrap from creating larger pieces of lumber. By saying "don't use particle board" you are actually advocating wasting trees.

Let me say "More re-usable stuff, less recyclable". Handkerchiefs instead of 'facial tissue'. Cotton diapers, instead of cutting down trees to fill the land fills with cellulose. Bring back razor blades instead of disposable razors- make the new blades of long lasting ceramic, have you ever heard a razor company sell on the basis of longevity, or only the the number of blades? Outlaw trash bags- there's a product that proves my point- buy it just to throw it away!

You seem to be ignoring the environmental impact of having to wash cloth with your first two examples. It is actually a larger waste of resources to have to maintain cloth than it is to put a tissue into a compost heap, or wait for a diaper to degrade (and many now are made of fibers that are much more eco-friendly instead of straight plastics that take a long time to break down). As for the razor blades, yes, I buy the brand I buy because they last longer, and they were advertised as such. There are also devices out there that can sharpen "disposable" razor blades.

You see... The problems you are talking about here are not problems with the actual products, but problems with how humans treat those products when they are finished with them. If everyone recycled everything they possibly could, instead of throwing them away, even the more resource heavy items would not make much of an impact.

Even your complaints about denim jeans are misplaced because the issue is not how long the item lasts as "usable" but instead:

1) How are the resources necessary to make that item obtained (i.e. is the cotton grown in a sustainable way? How much waste occurs as a part of production? etc)

2) Is the most made of the item even in it's disposal (Is it recycled in some way? Even if it is not, is it's disposal "eco-friendly" -- did it get put in a compost heap?)

Things like prefinished hard wood flooring- easy to put down, top is plastic finish. edges unfinished. dog's water bowl overflows, water seeps into crack, flooring bubbles up and is ruined - the top veneer is too thin to refinish. Cut down more forest to make another batch of disposable flooring... gee, the solid hardwood flooring in the rest of the house is 60 years ols and counting...

With this last example, you seem to be confusing two types of flooring. Pre-finished hardwood flooring, which does have water damage issues, and veneer flooring, which does not. Pre-finished flooring is just like regular hard-wood flooring in that it can be sanded down and re-finished. And even if it can't, it can then be recycled into other items, such as particle board and paper. Veneers cannot be sanded down and re-finished, but neither do they "bubble up" or get ruined because of a water spill. Now -- Should you even be using wood flooring in the first place, or should you be using a flooring made of a material that has less of an impact on the environment and is more sustainable? Why did you opt for wood (knowing that trees had to be cut down to make it) instead of using tile made from recycled materials? Hmm?

Again I point out that the issue is not precisely with the product, but with our choices about that product. And our choices (as a society) about how to use the products offered us are based upon: ignorance (we don't know that something can be recycled, for example), arrogance (we don't feel we need to recycle -- thats something other people do), and negligence (we know we can recycle something, and know that we need to recycle to take strain off the environment, but don't do it).

 

[Miss_Kitt]

"Overpopulation" is a tricky concept, since identical population density in a given area can be Third World Poverty or apartments and family homes on small lots. P J O'Rourke wrote a book called "All the Troubles in the World" (IIRC) that argued rather cogently that most people who are concerned about "overpopulation" are actually concerned about non-white people expanding their populations. He compared South San Franciso, California, with a dismal, overcrowded city slum in India: they had the same population and land area, but the US is wealthy, and India is poor. The issue is more one of how that density is achieved, not how many people there are.

I support, overall, the notion discussed by several posters that most "human-caused" issues are actually issues for short-sightedness, ignorance, or greed. Interestingly (and rather counter-intuitively) sometimes the easiest way to protect a "natural resource" is to assign it ownership. When the rights to a percentage of the take of a given fishery are (enforceably) assigned to specific parties, they each have a vested interest in treating that resource in way that makes it not only renewable, but expanding. Thus the halibut fishery off of Alaska has rebounded since the fishermen started owning a share of the take. (There was a great article on this in a recent Economist.)

I think that--with the exception of sharks, which are slow to reproduce--most of the world's food fisheries could be restored within a decade IF enforceable ownership of harvest was agreed upon. Most people are smart enough to figure out that if their 0.5% of the total allowed harvest is twice as big in three years, that's good for them--better than trying to make a small advantage this year, and have diminishing returns until the fishery is exhausted. We now have the technology (between GPS, cellphone/radiophone links and computing power) to coordinate a worldwide limit on fish harvest of given species. And if national governments have a stake in making their citizens comply, they will.

This is just one example of a way in which stewardship, planning, and movement of information avoids what is called the "tragedy of the Commons" in which no one has incentive to protect a common resource--so they don't. It was true of grazing sheep on common land in England two centuries ago, and it remains true today. The same is true of the human component of global warming, and of recycling, petroleum use, etc.

It is demonstrably true that wealthier, more technologically advance societies have lower fertility rates. When kids are no longer the labor, domestic help, and retirement plan of a couple, they will have fewer kids. When the medical ability to HAVE fewer kids is available, people will use it--if the economic incentive for more children isn't there.

I am guarded hopeful of the future. We have the capacity to help developing countries "leapfrog" around the dirtier, more wasteful forms of development directly into a more prudent, clean, and long-term way of being much richer. However, we do need to convince the people in office that their political futures depend upon being wise, not promising a chicken in every pot and a college education for everyone (without raising taxes).

Just my thoughts, MK

 

[Fiona]

This is just one example of a way in which stewardship, planning, and movement of information avoids what is called the "tragedy of the Commons" in which no one has incentive to protect a common resource--so they don't. It was true of grazing sheep on common land in England two centuries ago, and it remains true today.

That is not quite true. Interesting programme about the Enclosures in England here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20080501.shtml

 

[Cainkane1]

Global warming, rain forest depletion, over fishing, energy-crisis, water shortage, food shortage, etc.

They're fundamentally caused by overpopulation.

when will the world wake up and face this fact?

What is there to be done? Make people quit making babies? Yeah right. The problems going to get worse instead of better and maybe this will bring put the extinction of the human race along with most major vertebrates.

 

[AWPrime]

Yes. I happen to think that your presumption is fatalistic and a vast over-generalization -- one that lumps human beings (who have infinitely more control over their own environment than anything else on the planet) in with every other sort of animal

The human species isn't fully self-conscious, we are still being controlled by our instincts.

These things you mention are not a result of over-population. They are a result of the prevailing ignorance, arrogance, and negligence of our modern society. Thus, a societal issue.

These instincts drive us to reproduce/consume until we hit a limit (disease, food, water). So even if we fight ignorance, arrogance, and negligence the human species would still strive to maximize the use of resources (with each culture competing with another).

 

[CapelDodger]

Overpopulation is certainly a problem. But I'm inclined to think that if there were fewer of us, fossil fuels would be cheaper so we'd use more and we'd be in exactly the same situation with regard to global warming. There's certainly no one-to-one correspondence between population and fossil fuel consumption (though admittedly I think China now is the biggest).

That, of course, is not due to increased numbers but to increased prosperity (unevenly distributed), which provides more opportunity to mess the world up at a distance. An opportunity which is gleefully taken up, of course, people being what they are.

 

[Fiona]

The human species isn't fully self-conscious, we are still being controlled by our instincts.

These instincts drive us to reproduce/consume until we hit a limit (disease, food, water).

How, then, do you account for the falling birth rates in europe and (I think) the US?