Well, let’s try to be a bit more specific about this.
First, what does the claim that “the world is overpopulated” mean? It implies a metric of some sort to which we can point and say “this is too high”, “this is too low”, “this is just right”. I am not sure what this metric might be.
The simplest metric used in biology is an imminent population crash—if the current count of some critters in an ecosystem is pretty sure to rapidly contract soon we’d probably speak of overpopulation. That doesn’t seem to be the case with respect to humans now.
Second, the overpopulation claim is necessarily conditional on a specific level of technology. It is pretty clear that the XXI technology can successfully sustain more people than, say, the pre-industrial technology. One implication is that future technological progress is likely to change whatever number we consider to be the sustainable carrying capacity of Earth now.
Third, and here things get a bit controversial, it all depends (as usual) on your terminal goals. If your wish is for peace and comfort of Mother Gaia, well, pretty much any number of humans is overpopulation. But let’s take a common (though by no means universal) goal of long-term economic wealth. We want to create value and keep on creating more of it for a long time. Given this, you want more humans since that will accelerate the process up until certain limits. Where these limits are is debatable but I haven’t seen much evidence that we are facing them right now.
Fourth, overpopulation is pretty local. Taking the simplest possible measure of land area, it’s hard to argue that countries like Russia or Canada or Australia are overpopulated.
Fourth, overpopulation is pretty local. Taking the simplest possible measure of land area, it’s hard to argue that countries like Russia or Canada or Australia are overpopulated.
There’s a reason they don’t have many people per square mile. It’s really difficult to live in large parts of them.
It implies a metric of some sort to which we can point and say “this is too high”, “this is too low”, “this is just right”. I am not sure what this metric might be.
I agree that a single metric would be hard to define, but I don’t see any problem characterizing it as a combination of various metrics. Is not employment rate vs. population one valid metric, for instance? Or what about worldwide (not just USA, but worldwide average) cost of various foodstuffs vs income?
Second, the overpopulation claim is necessarily conditional on a specific level of technology. It is pretty clear that the XXI technology can successfully sustain more people than, say, the pre-industrial technology.
Absolutely correct. When I speak of overpopulation, I’m speaking in terms of the present. What is the present population, and what are our current technological capabilities?
I entirely agree with you that future technology could make overpopulation moot. But we don’t know enough about future technology and sociology to say for certain.
Third, and here things get a bit controversial, it all depends (as usual) on your terminal goals.
My terminal goal is (if I am allowed to speak in somewhat vague terms here) continuing prosperity for individual human beings. My goal is for individuals to have more wealth and access to more resources, and as we know, increasing wealth is correlated with increasing happiness. Throughout the last couple of centuries, and especially in the last century, the quality of life in the developed world increased by leaps and bounds. But it didn’t increase as much in many other places in the world. It increased a little, but not that much. I want that increase in quality of life to continue in the West, and I also want it to occur everywhere else as well.
By the way, this increase in access to resources is only good up to a limit, of course. What that limit is is the subject of another debate, but I think both you and I would agree that as of the present we are safely below the limits.
Fourth, overpopulation is pretty local. Taking the simplest possible measure of land area, it’s hard to argue that countries like Russia or Canada or Australia are overpopulated.
True, but if you were to disperse the population of India and China around the world, what would be the case then?
Is not employment rate vs. population one valid metric, for instance?
It is not. Is there any correlation between unemployment and overall population across time? I don’t think so. Is there any correlation between local population density and local unemployment? I don’t think so. Is the unemployment in Hong Kong hugely greater than in Mongolia or Greenland?
cost of various foodstuffs vs income?
As with unemployment, look at this criterion over the last few centuries. Even during the XX century I believe the percentage of income spent on food has been steadily dropping in the developed countries.
But we don’t know enough about future technology and sociology to say for certain.
It’s funny how the proponents of the overpopulation thesis have absolutely no problems with linearly extending resource consumption lines far into the future but can’t say anything about the future technology and so conveniently assume that it won’t change.
My goal is for individuals to have more wealth and access to more resources.
So, that’s pretty mainstream. Would you be fine with calling it the total economic wealth of the world?
if you were to disperse the population of India and China around the world
So are you saying that the metrics I suggested aren’t valid at all, or simply don’t make a case for overpopulation existing?
I believe the percentage of income spent on food has been steadily dropping in the developed countries.
That’s why I mentioned the worldwide average, not just developed countries.
Would you be fine with calling it the total economic wealth of the world?
Not total, average.
Anyway, it’s no use going back-and-forth like this, because I feel like I’m seriously straying from my goal of being neutral and unbiased. I liked Manfred’s response because he explicitly mentioned one well-defined issue he thinks I’m overlooking, rather than trying to overcomplicate the discussion.
Well, let’s try to be a bit more specific about this.
First, what does the claim that “the world is overpopulated” mean? It implies a metric of some sort to which we can point and say “this is too high”, “this is too low”, “this is just right”. I am not sure what this metric might be.
The simplest metric used in biology is an imminent population crash—if the current count of some critters in an ecosystem is pretty sure to rapidly contract soon we’d probably speak of overpopulation. That doesn’t seem to be the case with respect to humans now.
Second, the overpopulation claim is necessarily conditional on a specific level of technology. It is pretty clear that the XXI technology can successfully sustain more people than, say, the pre-industrial technology. One implication is that future technological progress is likely to change whatever number we consider to be the sustainable carrying capacity of Earth now.
Third, and here things get a bit controversial, it all depends (as usual) on your terminal goals. If your wish is for peace and comfort of Mother Gaia, well, pretty much any number of humans is overpopulation. But let’s take a common (though by no means universal) goal of long-term economic wealth. We want to create value and keep on creating more of it for a long time. Given this, you want more humans since that will accelerate the process up until certain limits. Where these limits are is debatable but I haven’t seen much evidence that we are facing them right now.
Fourth, overpopulation is pretty local. Taking the simplest possible measure of land area, it’s hard to argue that countries like Russia or Canada or Australia are overpopulated.
Not if Mother Gaia is expansionist.
There’s a reason they don’t have many people per square mile. It’s really difficult to live in large parts of them.
Southern Siberia, for example, is pretty benevolent and pretty empty.
I agree that a single metric would be hard to define, but I don’t see any problem characterizing it as a combination of various metrics. Is not employment rate vs. population one valid metric, for instance? Or what about worldwide (not just USA, but worldwide average) cost of various foodstuffs vs income?
A set of metrics are given in this paper: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/
Absolutely correct. When I speak of overpopulation, I’m speaking in terms of the present. What is the present population, and what are our current technological capabilities?
I entirely agree with you that future technology could make overpopulation moot. But we don’t know enough about future technology and sociology to say for certain.
My terminal goal is (if I am allowed to speak in somewhat vague terms here) continuing prosperity for individual human beings. My goal is for individuals to have more wealth and access to more resources, and as we know, increasing wealth is correlated with increasing happiness. Throughout the last couple of centuries, and especially in the last century, the quality of life in the developed world increased by leaps and bounds. But it didn’t increase as much in many other places in the world. It increased a little, but not that much. I want that increase in quality of life to continue in the West, and I also want it to occur everywhere else as well.
By the way, this increase in access to resources is only good up to a limit, of course. What that limit is is the subject of another debate, but I think both you and I would agree that as of the present we are safely below the limits.
True, but if you were to disperse the population of India and China around the world, what would be the case then?
It is not. Is there any correlation between unemployment and overall population across time? I don’t think so. Is there any correlation between local population density and local unemployment? I don’t think so. Is the unemployment in Hong Kong hugely greater than in Mongolia or Greenland?
As with unemployment, look at this criterion over the last few centuries. Even during the XX century I believe the percentage of income spent on food has been steadily dropping in the developed countries.
It’s funny how the proponents of the overpopulation thesis have absolutely no problems with linearly extending resource consumption lines far into the future but can’t say anything about the future technology and so conveniently assume that it won’t change.
So, that’s pretty mainstream. Would you be fine with calling it the total economic wealth of the world?
Let’s stick to reality.
So are you saying that the metrics I suggested aren’t valid at all, or simply don’t make a case for overpopulation existing?
That’s why I mentioned the worldwide average, not just developed countries.
Not total, average.
Anyway, it’s no use going back-and-forth like this, because I feel like I’m seriously straying from my goal of being neutral and unbiased. I liked Manfred’s response because he explicitly mentioned one well-defined issue he thinks I’m overlooking, rather than trying to overcomplicate the discussion.
Yes, I don’t think they have anything to do with overpopulation.
Ok thanks, at least now I know where the disagreement lies.
And now you’re down-voting me just because you didn’t read my post before replying?
I am not downvoting you. I rarely up- or downvote posts in threads in which I participate, anyway.
Yeah that came out entirely different to what I had intended to ask. Retracted.