One Finite Planet

If the earth is overpopulated, so what?

First Published:

Yes, the Earth is overpopulated by normal definition of overpopulation: population beyond sustainable carrying capacity. Clearly we are not existing sustainably at this time. The environmental footprint per person, multiplied by the number of people, equals a total footprint that is too large for nature to absorb. However, as is repeated over and over, we can reduce ‘footprint per person’, by a variety of means: Sustainable living…. stop with fossil fuels etc… The elephant in the room is that most people saying such things (David Attenborough aside), is that while all these steps increase to carrying capacity by lowering impact per person, will achieve nothing if the population keeps growing.

The points:

  • Things are not as bad as it may seem.
  • A “Purge” is not needed, and would not help!
  • The Battle: the evil forces.
  • The solution.

Things are not as bad as it may seem.

Fortunately, birth rates are already at a level that would produce population stability, and just a slight nudge courtesy of the correct messages, will reach peak population.

Here is why population control is within humanities grasp:

  • Current population growth is almost entirely due to population lag.
  • Birth rates have already reached a point of stability and are on a downward trend.

A “Purge” is not needed, and would not help!

From time to time people float the idea that as there are too many people, some form of ‘cull’ is required. This very approach fails to recognise that overpopulation is about a ratio: the ratio of people to carrying capacity. Almost any form of cull creates a catastrophe that reduces the carrying capacity of the Earth even more than it reduces the population.

Overpopulation occurs when the environment cannot sustainably support the population. The environment supports the population, just not sustainably. If the environment did not support the population in the short term, then population drops immediately, rather than remaining too high until the environment eventually collapses.

It is important to remember that mankind already does many things to increase carrying capacity of the planet. If society collapses, all those steps to increase carrying capacity break down. An catastrophic event that reduces the population, would also see society break down. We could have a planet with 1/10 the population that is still overpopulated because, for example, farming fails and the remaining people have to hunt and destroy natural fauna to survive.

The Battle: Combating Population Growth Provocateurs.

There is however a battle to control population, with “provocateurs” advocating for maximum population growth. The path to wealth is accumulate some wealth from as many individuals as possible. The wealthiest individuals do not need to concern themselves with overpopulation, as they will always have all the land and resources they need, which means they have no reason for population control to matter to them. On the contrary, it is in the financial interest of the most for population to keep increasing, as their wealth accumulates from as many individuals as possible. Even if population growth is lowering the living standard of the average individual, having more individuals to ‘tax’ or earn profits from still appeals to the most wealthy and powerful. The most wealthy would continue create propaganda claiming ‘perpetual growth is the only path to prosperity’ even if there were 100 billion people on the planet.

Whilst scaling back population can benefit individuals on average, it does not necessarily benefit the largest global businesses and their managers or owners. Nor does it benefit from politicians who see their importance increasing with population and their donations increasing with donations from the most wealth who benefit from population growth.

Another force for ever increasing population is the ‘othering’. The claim that “we” must increase our population or we will be out numbered by “others’.

The Solution.

Overpopulation is about a ratio of two numbers, not a single number. The equation is the quotient of population/carrying-capacity, and if that ration is greater than 1 there is overpopulation.

The fact that the environment is under threat is extremely well recognised. Aside from David Attenborough, surprisingly few people join the dots between the deteriorating environment and overpopulation. However, it is very important those dots are joined, as efforts to lower the ‘footprint’ per person will mean nothing if population is not also controlled.

So the solution is in two parts:

  1. Increase the planets ‘carrying capacity’ of humans by lowering the per ‘footprint’ per person.
  2. Stop population growth.

Step 1 is urgent, and getting a lot of attention.

Step 2 is important, and getting very little attention. Despite that low level of attention, only the mildest push lower in birth-rates is required to produce an optimal solution. It just needs pushing the message that the ideal is not aim for 2, not more. If the people feeling it is their duty to have more kids realised this was not true, it could be enough.


Original 2014 viewpoint:

I have long been of the belief that we have more humans living on earth than is ideal. But what should we do about this?

Well, from my perspective, the main step is to have an awareness out there such that governments seeking to use policy to increase national populations use policy of immigration, not policies to artificially increase birth rates.  This is the big and positive step!

Beyond the change of attitude and increased awareness, there is little that we can do. I will post the logic on my statement that we have moved beyond the ideal population at a future time, but to put that aside for the moment, if that statement is true what can be done?

I recently say a paper entitled 'Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems'.  My immediate reaction is 'oh my!  did they seriously even contemplate it could be a quick fix?'

The only possible fix we can do is to prevent active steps to make problems caused by population get worse by policies to INCREASE population, there is nothing we can seriously contemplate doing to REDUCE population. Perhaps very gradually over time, but the idea of a quick fix seems to me absurd.

I already regard planning the level of human population as the greatest moral challenge of our time. Any suggestion to decrease population quickly sounds like the greatest immoral proposal!

Surely the quickest fix is to reduce the environmental impact per person.  The long range issue is to ensure we do not counteract such steps by then increasing population to undo any positive outcomes.

One Response

  1. There is no overpopulation, only inappropriate consumption. Pass Ahimsa Laws to guide behaviour.
    Habits come from days people were few, nature plenty. It is reversed now. Time for new rules. Impossible? Many habits were banned to build viable community, like duels, marrying relatives, theft, drunk driving , etc. Ahimsa is non-violence and is an old Eastern notion on how to behave. It may need updating, but the gist is that consumers are responsible, consciousnesses respected. Changing habits, the human adventure may have barely started

Comment?

Table of Contents

Categories

Ukraine: Putin and China, method or madness?

What if Russia and China both intended that the invasion of Ukraine would trigger global inflation and food shortages, and a potentially new financial crisis?

That Putin sees himself in the image of Peter the Great and restoring the Russian empire is no secret, and is generally portrayed as evidence that Putin has completely lost the plot. But what if there is a bigger plan involving both Russia and China that starts with triggering a global financial crisis? A dangerous game by two desperate leaders needing to bring others with them as their own economies collapse.

Read More »

Ghost cities and ghost homes: housing finance crisis?

Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet, is either mad or an economist.”

Attributed to Kenneth Boulding in: United States. Congress. House (1973) 

This applies to not just to population growth, but just maybe also to the growth in value of housing.

This page is a look at ‘ghost cities’ and ‘ghost homes’, and the window they provide into how distorted investment can become in the pursuit of growth.

The end result of the distortions can be overvalued assets funded by highly leveraged ordinary citizens. If that is the case, not just with ghost cities but beyond, the correction will clearly present a financial crisis.

Read More »

EV transition: Not fully green and taking until at least 2045.

Its 2022, and only 1 in 8 new car purchases globally is an EV, and as only 1 in 4 car purchases is a new car, so only 1 in 32, or 3% of all car purchases are an EV purchase. While the EV percentage is rising, there will be gas/petrol/diesel cars until at least 2045, and little reduction in emissions prior to at least 2040.

As demand for EVs will continue to outstrip supply, no one will need to choose an EV to save the planet, or run out of other choices any time soon. Bans are to pressure manufacturers, to get them to produce enough EVs to meet demand, rather than force people wanting EVs into ICEVs so makers can leverage their existing assets.

Read More »

Big Oil, AKA Big Fossil: How real, and what about ‘big climate’?

Yes, big oil clearly has a vested interest in arguing against climate change and downplaying risks, but on the other hand, aren’t there also vested interests exaggerating and overstating the risks of climate change? Effectively ‘big renewables’, ‘big science’ or ‘big climate’?

This is a look at the financial might on each side of the argument, and the respective motives for each side to overstate their case.

Is this really a balanced fight, or is it more like the might of ‘big tobacco’ vs ‘whistle blower medical research’ all over again?

Read More »

Can Peter Dutton repair the democracy ‘loyal opposition’.

Democracy is under threat, and a significant part of the problem stems for the distortion of the current model of ‘opposition’. While the politics of division and polarisation of the USA Trump republicans vs Biden democrats attracts most attention on the world stage right now, what happens in Australia following the recent election which saw democracy strike back (page coming soon), has the potential to provide the world with an alternate blueprint for the role of the opposition party, which could reinvigorate democracy and spread to the US and elsewhere.

Is there an alternative to the current Republicans vs Democrats style, where ‘opposition’ is about each party demonising the other?

Read More »