With the World's population projected to reach 8 billion people later this year, and estimated to top 10 billion by the end of the century, the question is;

Is the World overpopulated, and if so, what should be done about it?

If the answer is yes, then the simplistic solution is some form of birth and death control, but such intervention can be radical in the extreme.

A good article on the subject was published in "The Guardian' late last year.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/12/is-our-planet-overpopulated-we-ask-the-expert

Dear Paul,

Prof. Tor Hundloe in his book, "From Buddha to Bono:
Seeki9ng sustainability," pointed out that -
"Humans have the intelligence, the tools, and the
natural resources to provide for a good sustainable
life as long as there are not so many of humans that we
exceed the globe's carrying capacity."

All the evidence suggests that we must turn around
population growth and aim for a much smaller population
than we have today. The experts who measure human
demands on the planet suggest if - by some miracle
of economics - everyone living today was to have a
middle-class life-style we would immediately need two
or three more planet earths.

We need to recognise serious overbalance as an inevitable
consequence of human population growth. The only choice we
have is sensible birth control - the less environmental damage
we will need to repair. We can do this. Population decline
is already occurring in the First World.

A better world is possible. It won't be easy - but it can be
done.

And it will be done, probably by more wars for starters and then a turn to genocide by the victors to even things out.

Its true that the UN has and still predicts 10 billion by 2100. But better analysis shows that the population 'problem' is already effectively resolved. The UN has a vested interest in making the problem seem immediate and dire since that means more money for them.

But other analysis shows the population peaking much earlier and falling precipitously by the end of the century. And even that is probably now out of date.

Previously it was estimated that China's population would halve by 2100 but new revelations about their census shows that they have over-estimated their population by about 100 million and that their numbers could have from 1.4billion to 750 million by 2060.

Populations are falling all over the world. China, Japan, Russia, almost every country in Europe. Places like the US and Australia only maintain or increase numbers because of immigration.

The only place where numbers are and are predicted to rise is sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria is predicted to be second only to India in numbers by 2100. Tanzania, Egypt, Congo and Ethiopia will all move into the top ten by population by 2100.

So its an African problem. Nothing needs to be done elsewhere, because elsewhere the problem is already resolved. So what to do about the African problem? Development. As nations move from underdeveloped to developing they move to low population growth. Every single time.

Of course, even seeing more people as a problem is the wrong way to look at it. The greatest resource the world has is the human brain. Having more of them is always good, never a problem. Places where numbers are indeed falling, are now coming to see THAT as the problem.

If the question is of survival and proper feeding, then technology allows human population to increase further and further, possibly even into new orders of magnitude. Science can deal with that.

But if we ask about the quality and purpose of life, then squeezing so many people together takes away the taste and reason to live.

Survival in overpopulated conditions requires two things: technology and regimentation, and humanity has been doing just that, along the path of least resistance. Regimentation takes away our freedom and independence, thus leaves us with no real purpose: if we are all to be uniform, merely numbers, then just one of us will suffice - why then have many?

Most of the technology we now have (with the notable exception of medicine) is not intended to, and indeed does not improve, the quality of our lives - only to cope with the numbers: look carefully beyond the shiny presentations for this is what it does. Technology is also used as a drug to distract us with entertainment in the service of regimentation, to take away our free time and free thinking, to lull us into becoming couch-potatoes rather than live our own lives, so we create less trouble to those in control.

So to restore our freedom and purpose, human population must be cut drastically. For reasonably worthwhile living, the number of humans on this planet should not exceed 100-200 millions.

But how to get there? Since we don't want to become murderers, the solution must come from the other end: birth-control. Ideally everyone who is sexually active should get sterilised over the next several generations. Culturally, having children should become a source of shame, not pride and there should also be no financial incentives to reproduce, only disincentives: even then, the fertility "accidents" which are bound to still happen will remain more than enough to prevent human extinction.

Forced sterilization as a result of pandemic vaccines

It's interesting but also a bit frightening to realise there are twice as many people alive on Earth today than there were when we first landed on the moon.

In fact there are more people alive today than have ever existed - both lived and died - throughout all of human history. That's the nature of exponential growth and a concept some people can't seem to grasp.

Meanwhile we are depleting non-renewable resources at an unsustainable rate with no thought for the generations yet to follow so we may face a future where we mine old garbage dumps for basics. Those dystopian movies may be an indication of what may be ahead if no action is taken.

Considering the resistance to something like human-induced climate change things will need to get critically worse before meaningful action is taken.

For the Gaia enthusiasts, maybe nature will take care of it and radically thin out the herd with a virulent pandemic or global famine but it's more likely that population control measures will need to be introduced, like China's earlier "one child policy" but first they'll have to get that past the religious zealots.

I wonder what Soylent Green will taste like?

A massive problem facing the world, something that will be even harder to solve than climate change has proven to be, the opposition to any proposal which involves redistribution of resources is going to be vigorously opposed by the "Haves" in no uncertain terms. A stabilisation of the population to "net zero by 2050" is something that would require massive change through government intervention. Under an authoritarian regime such as in China population control through government policy has been both possible and successful. The Chinese "one child policy" although somewhat successful in stabilising population growth it presented other problems, not the least the problems of an ageing population, something all countries with a low birth rate suffer from, including Australia. An increase in wealth and its mass distribution has created a growing middle class in China, and this has contributed as much as anything to population stability.

Under populated countries like Australia with massive resources will need to increase their numbers through migration, while other overpopulated countries stabilise growth through intervention, both economically and physically. We could do worse than lean from the China example.

The ONLY way to change is to start educating the educators ! Too many non-thinkers are being leashed upon non-thinkers !

The most primeval instinct of every single living being is to survive & when its existence is threatened it will retaliate until it or the other is discouraged or even eliminated, depending on the need. Which has more Right to remain alive ? In nature it's the strongest, fittest or most callous ! Nature generally has no 'sorry' ! There are exceptional cases where wild predators shield what is normally their prey but only in very rare instances.
Humans are no different ! Animals will not over-populate Earth, humans have done it already.
Many humans don't give a hoot about millions of humans starving to a premature death, many millions do care & that's when conflict starts.
Would it not make the most sense do prevent so much suffering by preventing so many humans being born ? Birth control should be made available to those who want it & it should be enforced on those who either breed indiscriminately or who want to out-breed another race at the expense of everyone else. If a group of humans can not support themselves then they should have to be able to reduce their birth rate to eliminate human suffering.

Paul,

The other problems with the one child policy is the forced abortions and sterilizations that are a huge human rights problem. The aging issue is huge problem as China will soon have a vast retiree population with a relatively small work force to support them. With China's nearly non existent welfare and retirement system there is a good chance that many elderly will die in poverty.

P.S. China has one of the worst wealth distributions in the world even worse than the USA.

With the rising unemployment and Banks failing, things are not going well there at all.

Look it up.

When people think of growing world population numbers, they immediately think in terms of birth control measures in third world countries. Birth control alone is shown to be counter productive, as demonstrated by the China 'One Child' policy. Over time birth control used as the only form of reduction or stabilisation of numbers will lead to an ageing population, a less proportion of younger productive people in society, and in fact a lowering of living standards for the majority. This human problem facing the world needs to be looked at from another perspective, that of one, resource consumption, two, population distribution, and three, birth control measures.

Those with the most to lose from an equability program to alleviate poverty throughout the world, and raise living standards for the majority, are those high consumers of resources, in other words the rich. Those with the most to gain are the vast majority who are low level consumers in countries with rapidly increasing populations where most are presently living in poverty. The answer is known, but the implementation of the solution on a world scale is the real problem!

SM,

You have a lot to say about China, but nothing about India, which has an even bigger problem. As my Old Man would say; "I'd rather be the average Chinaman, than the average Indian." That was 50 years ago, but it still applies today.

I agree, in their headlong race to embrace sudo-capitalism, combined with authoritarianism, I don't call it Communism, China has made many mistakes. Overall they are better off, but a small minority of elites have gained disproportionately at the expense of the majority. China, like the West have realised that without the creation of a substantive middle class there is nothing to be gained for the majority from increased national wealth.

The earth is not overpopulated, a minority of us take up too much room. In any case, birth rates are mostly high in places with a low footprint on the earth, as a form of retirement insurance. In the west, birth rates are plummetting.

Anyone who wants to make a stand on the issue of 'world overpopulation',
- Can put their beliefs where their mouth is and volunteer to demonstrate suicide booths.

Don't wait, DO IT NOW!

When the world does start to reduce in population due to lower birth-rates
More and more of the worlds wealth will continue to fall into the hands of the few, not the many.

Paul,

You keep raising India as a foil to China as if by comparison this will wipe clean all the problems that China has.

India has many problems of which corruption is a major one. However, what we can say about India is that it hasn't been threatening its neighbours, trying to annex the territory of other countries, oppressing and persecuting its citizens or using trade to punish countries it doesn't like. India's economy is also now growing faster than China's, it has a far younger population which now equals China's. It has a working democracy and a judiciary that is independent of the state or religion.

China as a semi-capitalist autocracy most closely resembles a fascist regime whose state meddling in the economy is the prime cause of all its present troubles.

SM,
"threatening its neighbours"

India has been involved in several wars since independence, mainly boarder wars with Pakistan and China. India joining with Australia, US and Japan in whats called the Quad, should be of great concern to its neighbours as America tries to instil its dominance in the region.

India makes decisions based on what's best for India.
That's why they've been pushing back on America's pleas to reduce purchases of Russian oil.

Putin must be grateful for these sanctions.
The ruble is doing well,
Spain is buying more Russian gas than ever,
France is importing more Russian gas than ever before
India is buying Russian oil and gas and selling it to Germany.

Dear America, you have no business interfering in India's oilonomics
http://youtu.be/BUQQRezdG2o

Putin and China just did the unthinkable and the West is in big trouble
http://youtu.be/hsuMW4yQT64

Kamala Harris: We need a way to stop people getting pregnant
http://youtu.be/SRa8USvMUKI

Hi AC,

We could cut off penises with axes without anaesthetic, that should be an incentive. What do you think?

Paul,

So that's what happened to you?

Paul,

That China was the one to attack India seems to elude you. India is busy decoupling from China.

and Poland attacked Nazi Germany, your man Adolf said so. AND your point is?

You and your Nazi friends were wrong.

The point I was making a couple of posts back was that China has been threatening its neighbours with the result is that it has few friends and none of any substance.

Financially, Chinese companies are generally crooked. An investigation into Chinese big tech companies in India has found many $bns of fraudulent transactions to avoid paying tax. The US and other western countries are de-listing Chinese companies that have been cooking the books and amazon has dropped 1000s of Chinese companies that have been using click farms.

Along with the illegal South China sea island etc China has pretty much burnt through any political capital and goodwill it had a decade ago.

Interesting discussion- sorry I missed it. I've had difficulties logging onto OLO in the last few days.

The Lefties here on OLO are finally admitting openly to the population issue- but their solution seems to be an opportunity to push socialists agendas such as the short sighted policy of world equality.

World population has been increasing by a billion people every 13 years for a while- India's population increased by 100M every 10 years between 1950 and 2000- in 2003 the CIA world fact book said that half of India's population was under the age of 15 years- these under 15's have now passed their 20's and are forming their own families- and they are seeing the crippling crush that they have created- are they going to pass on their problems to others in a cowardly attempt to avoid the natural result of their actions- or are they going to face them bravely. India and Africa seem to the biggest threats but South America also seems problematic. I won't be satisfied that the world population is decreasing till long after it is heading south.

This will increase the per capita resources of everyone. Those nations that have huge populations need to remember their mistake by taking responsibility for it- not by taking handouts from more responsible nations. As Ayn Rand says "if the guilty don't pay for the crime the innocent must". Those cultures that have behaved responsibly should keep the benefits. Those cultures that have engaged in an aggressive "population arms race" should realize the error by fixing it- it's painful- but necessary.

The resultant high male birthrate in China as a result of the one child policy can be partially attributed to Chinese culture- and it's effect may not behave similarly in other cultures.

At this stage we can expect 9 billion by 2035 and 10 billion by 2047. The data I originally had suggested that we wouldn't reach 8 B until March 2023 but it's coming about 4 months early-

perhaps it's a Corona effect- but it doesn't give much hope to the notion that our population growth is slowing down to reverse in the near future.

Even if our population does reduce- man being intelligent can adjust the birth rate as the population declines- harder when managing animal populations.

Chaos theory talks about population equations and the frequency effects as the R Value (birth rate) increases- at R Values above 3 population becomes very unstable in artificial modelling environments- usually based on Markov Matrices as I understand.

Thanks Shadow Minister for your comment ""

Interesting Paul1405's reference to "sudo" rather than "pseudo" Capitalism- implying a simmering "class warfare consciousness"- apparently pseudo is occurring on multiple levels. As far as "lean"ing from the China example- I suppose there are those that are lean and those that lean. At least he is able to admit grudgingly that "The Chinese one child policy (was) somewhat successful in stabilising population growth".

Even Rache said "likely that population control measures will need to be introduced, like China's earlier "one child policy" but first they'll have to get that past the religious zealots". Personally I don't think that the religious people will be so much of a problem in the Christian world at least- but Rache couldn't help perhaps taking a swing at the hated ideological enemies.

As the Club Of Rome discussed- The problem with an event that kills even a billion people we will be back in the same position in 13 years probably even less.

As for mhaze's comment on the brain being a resource- it can be in the right context- the movie "Idiocracy" (Idiot-cracy) looks at this question.

Shadow Minister- Interesting comments on China.

The Georgia Stones are dead- long live the Georgia Stones.

From memory the Georgia Stones propose a long term human population of 500 million- some say even this is too much for long term stability and environmental neutrality. Man's damage to the planet is inevitable for a few reasons but it would be good to reduce it- for our own benefit too.