Talk:Overpopulation/Archive 1

message: I'd like to see something about the various major predictions made during, say, the years 1850-2000 about overpopulation. In particular, has anyone ever predicited that rising world population would lead to famine or fuel shortages? The article could compare those predicitions with what actually happened later.
I recalled dimly that a few major predictions garnered worldwide attention and even some political action, but that each of these predictions was far off the mark. I'd like to see some hard facts to enlighten the gloom of the musty dungeons of my mind... --Ed Poor
Even Malthus was way off. I don't like the tone of this article, which seems to have the same element of despair to it as discussions on global warming with those not ascribing to doomsday scenarios labeled "optimists". The human race has been finding ways to innovate and combat unwarranted overpopulation concerns for 300 years. This article should have a corresponding tone: this was a viewpoint in 1745, this is how it was resolved, 1803, how it was resolved, 1880, etc. --Jd147703 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also seems kind of silly that only one article has a linked rebuttal, and one that is presented in such a blunt tone as to imply that Bjorn is an idiot.128.211.174.100 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past predictions 

message: I wonder why in an article about overpopulation there is no mention
of birth control.
It seems to be a crucial point. Some governments tried (or are trying) to
fight overpopulation with forced (or dishonest) sterilization.
On the other hand the official Catholic church views on birth control
in effect are likely to foster overpopulation and poverty in developing countries. 
Another point is influence of the current AIDS epidemics on overpopulation trends.
::"are likely to foster overpopulation and poverty in developing countries. " - except that those same predictions have failed over and over again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.174.100 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth control 

message: I wrote the initial page here.  I dispute the allegation that simply enhancing the standard of living depresses population growth.  I think it's been demonstrated that this happens ONLY when the status of women is high in the society.  When women are second-class citizens in a highly-patriarchal society, just the opposite happens: population balloons.  See Population Politics by Virginia Abernethy, PhD.
A comparison of fertility rates in Italy and Sweden  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.
Alan Ditmore
Explain Iran, which many view as patriarchal, yet has a declining birth rate.
=== Doomsday predictors ===
And, as far as the doomsday predictors, I have several points:
1. They were seldom wrong in principle.  They simply did not anticipate the technological advances and geographic expansions that made further population increases possible.
2. The expanding populations over the past couple of hundred years have resulted in environmental degradation that's quite beyond the capacity of most people to comprehend.  People who don't understand what HAS happened look out at the world today and see what they think is a healthy world, and they're unaware of the scale of damage that's already occurred.
3. Doomsday scenarios are already here, and are already going on and have been for quite some time.  I can point to many disease, famines, wars, environmental disasters and the like that are directly linked to overpopulation, especially over the past fifty years, and they're getting worse.  The evidence is present and current.
John Knouse
:Thanks for explaining that, John. And welcome to Wikipedia!! Please tell us more about overpopulation, famine and environmental degradation -- especially as it relates to the status of women (equal to men vs. second-class) and technological advances. Another factor is political/economic system, e.g., famine deaths in North Korea and forced collective farming. Oops, I didn't mean to tell you how to write the article, I'm just listing some factors of personal interest. Please tell us anything you'd like! :-) --Ed Poor
:No, the doomsayers were not right in principle. Their predictions were based on the false idea that people are only consumers. The truth is that people produce and consume. In countries with freedom, capitalism, and property rights, people produce more than they consume. The comparison of capitalist South Korea to communist North Korea is the best example. China's switch to collective farming cause famine. When China switched back to private farming, the famine was eliminated. Zimbabwe used to be self sufficent in food production. But then President Robert Mugabe nationalized the farmland and created a famine. Before the 19th century, petroleum had no value. It was a nuisance that got in the way of people who were digging water wells. It was only after someone with a brain invented a way to use the petroleum that it acquired any value. Today's trillion dollar silicon revolution is based on something that's found in rocks everywhere. A "natural resource" has no value until someone with a brain invents a way to use it. Our most important resource is information, and this is a resource that can only get bigger. The doomsayers do not understand this, and that is why they keep making their predictions that will never come true. --grundle2600
Famine and diseases really has NOTHING to do with overpopulation. It has to do with the very unequal distribution of wealth in the world. Capitalism leads to starvation and is the evil that might end all life on this planet. But thats a different topic I guess.
:Capitalism does not cause famine. Capitalist countries grow plenty of food. Famine is caused by communism - see the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Ethiopia for examples. --grundle2600
I thought I saved the world by redirecting the POV-Monster-written "Population explosion" page here. Boy I was wrong, this is blatanly not NPOV. -- Rotem Dan 11:12 21 May 2003 (UTC)
::Well, let's see. Starvation is not rampant in America, and was only close too it during the Great Depression. On the other hand, Russia, North Korea, etc, very communist states, had rampant poverty and starvation. Maybe using logic would work better?
::Capitalism encourages hard work. History has shown that with all the failings of capitalism, it is the system that has worked the best to alleviate suffering.128.211.174.100 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of women 

message: And, as far as the doomsday predictors, I have several points:
1. They were seldom wrong in principle.  They simply did not anticipate the technological advances and geographic expansions that made further population increases possible.
2. The expanding populations over the past couple of hundred years have resulted in environmental degradation that's quite beyond the capacity of most people to comprehend.  People who don't understand what HAS happened look out at the world today and see what they think is a healthy world, and they're unaware of the scale of damage that's already occurred.
3. Doomsday scenarios are already here, and are already going on and have been for quite some time.  I can point to many disease, famines, wars, environmental disasters and the like that are directly linked to overpopulation, especially over the past fifty years, and they're getting worse.  The evidence is present and current.
John Knouse
:Thanks for explaining that, John. And welcome to Wikipedia!! Please tell us more about overpopulation, famine and environmental degradation -- especially as it relates to the status of women (equal to men vs. second-class) and technological advances. Another factor is political/economic system, e.g., famine deaths in North Korea and forced collective farming. Oops, I didn't mean to tell you how to write the article, I'm just listing some factors of personal interest. Please tell us anything you'd like! :-) --Ed Poor
:No, the doomsayers were not right in principle. Their predictions were based on the false idea that people are only consumers. The truth is that people produce and consume. In countries with freedom, capitalism, and property rights, people produce more than they consume. The comparison of capitalist South Korea to communist North Korea is the best example. China's switch to collective farming cause famine. When China switched back to private farming, the famine was eliminated. Zimbabwe used to be self sufficent in food production. But then President Robert Mugabe nationalized the farmland and created a famine. Before the 19th century, petroleum had no value. It was a nuisance that got in the way of people who were digging water wells. It was only after someone with a brain invented a way to use the petroleum that it acquired any value. Today's trillion dollar silicon revolution is based on something that's found in rocks everywhere. A "natural resource" has no value until someone with a brain invents a way to use it. Our most important resource is information, and this is a resource that can only get bigger. The doomsayers do not understand this, and that is why they keep making their predictions that will never come true. --grundle2600
Famine and diseases really has NOTHING to do with overpopulation. It has to do with the very unequal distribution of wealth in the world. Capitalism leads to starvation and is the evil that might end all life on this planet. But thats a different topic I guess.
:Capitalism does not cause famine. Capitalist countries grow plenty of food. Famine is caused by communism - see the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Ethiopia for examples. --grundle2600
I thought I saved the world by redirecting the POV-Monster-written "Population explosion" page here. Boy I was wrong, this is blatanly not NPOV. -- Rotem Dan 11:12 21 May 2003 (UTC)
::Well, let's see. Starvation is not rampant in America, and was only close too it during the Great Depression. On the other hand, Russia, North Korea, etc, very communist states, had rampant poverty and starvation. Maybe using logic would work better?
::Capitalism encourages hard work. History has shown that with all the failings of capitalism, it is the system that has worked the best to alleviate suffering.128.211.174.100 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doomsday predictors 

message: I moved the list of cities to population density: high population density is not necessarily overpopulation (consider an anthill).  I was in New York and London recently: no signs of mass starvation in either as of the time of writing.  The Anome 14:13 21 May 2003 (UTC)
:True, overpopulation is not synonymous with overpopulation. But for example, Tokyo or NYC is sure overpopulated no? -- Taku 14:20 21 May 2003 (UTC)
::But: people choose to live in these places, in preference to the surrounding lower-populated areas where there is also abundant economic activity. Surely if they don't like it, they wouldn't live there? The Anome
I am not sure what you mean. Population density is a simple measure that can tell you the city is in the condition of overpopulation. What's wrong with stating Tokyo is overpopulated? -- Taku 14:41 21 May 2003 (UTC)
: Well, the definition of overpopulation in the opening paragraph is a situation when the population of a given area is greater than the surrounding ecosystem can support. If Tokyo's ecosystem is able to support its population, i.e. it's not running out of food, water, air, etc., than according to that definition it's not overpopulated. On the other hand, it's conceivable that a village of only 50 people in a remote desert may be overpopulated if the limited availability of water and plants will only support a village of up to 30 people. Such a village would be overpopulated, although its population density would be very low. Does this make sense? Or is the definition of overpopulation in error? Wesley 14:48 21 May 2003 (UTC)
::Tokyo, or New York, or most other cities, are overpopulated by this definition. They all require massive inputs of food, water, and power from outside, removal of waste, etc., otherwise the people would be quickly overrun by starvation and disease. Graft 15:39 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Now I see. (To be honest, the opening paragraph doesn't make sense at all to me). I think the trouble is either we talk about overpopulation with Darwinism or simple social issue, in other words, context problem. My definition of overpopulation is a social issue, so overpopulation is in other words, simply too much people. See it's not neither density nor mere number of people. Overpopulation becomes a huge social issue because it causes
* lack of housing or any other place (the same trouble with high density)
* trouble with transporation
* deteriation in life standard
-- Taku 14:57 21 May 2003 (UTC)
:Most people talk about overpopulation in terms of resource strain - housing and transportation don't come into it. People don't give a shit that there's a million homeless living in cardboard shacks in Bombay, they are worried about the fact that all these people are eating and defecating, and thus are using up precious resources. Graft 15:39 21 May 2003 (UTC)
:I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying overpopulation is not an issue of housing or transporation? -- Taku 15:53 21 May 2003 (UTC)
::No, i'm saying it's not treated that way. Most frequently it's treated as an issue of food (see above), i.e., "There's too many people to feed!", or resource consumption, i.e., "We are running out of trees, gas, and arable land to support all these people!". I.e., overpopulation is not treated as a problem for the, err, overpopulating, but for everyone else. Or, anyway, that's how I read it, when people in the first world complain about third-world overpopulation - "those damn brown people are using up our precious resources". Maybe I'm just a bitter, bitter man. It might be nice if it were treated the way you took it, but I don't think that's how most people who write books and such on the subject look at it. Graft 15:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)
:::I don't agree with the allegation of racism in this statement.  Many people are concerned about overpopulation in countries and ethnic groups not their own, not on account of self-interest, but instead on account of the global interest or the interests of the countries in question.  It does not profit the people of Niger that they have over 7 children per mother; it seems to profit the people of China that they have highly effective birth control. Procrastinator supreme 14:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved list of cities 

message: There are some examples from history suggesting that when population pressures become too great, the results may, indeed, include war, famine, epidemic disease, and environmental devastation. On the other hand, in many other cases countries with large populations relative to their resources, such as Japan and the Netherlands, have achieved high living standards with limited immediate environmental impact.
: I took this paragraph out - no examples are given, and Japan and Netherlands have nothing to do with US immigration policy. Mark Richards 16:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved this 

message: As can be seen very plainly from the table below if China (with it's one child policy) is left out of the equation more people were malnourished in 1997-1999 than in 1990-1992.
If the 2 'no data' points were filled in, it would have been seen calories were less also.
Yes I know the PERCENTAGE went down. What that means is that a billion people could be hungry and if that was out of a total population of a 100 billion the percentage would be 1 percent.
My bet is that the billion who are hungry would not think the percent made much difference to them.
I gave references for this table to abide by the Fair Use Doctrine since it's source is the United Nations and it was on the internet I assume it's okay. 
<TABLE BORDER>
<TR><TD rowspan="2">Region/Subregion
</TD> <TD colspan="2">   Total  Population (in millions)  
</TD> <TD colspan="2">Per Capita Dietary Energy Supply (kcal/day)
</TD> <TD colspan="2"> Number of people undernourished  
</TD> <TD colspan="2">Percent undernourished in total population
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD>1990-92  </td> 1997-99</TD> <TD>1990-92 1997-99</TD> <TD>1990-92 1997-99</TD><TD>1990-92 1997-99</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD> DEVELOPING WORLD </TD> <TD> 4,050.0 4,5655</TD> <TD> 2,540 2,680</TD><TD> 816.3 777.2</TD><TD>20  17</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD> DEVELOPING WORLD excluding China	 </TD><TD>2,8805   3,311.7</TD>
 no data   <TD>no data </TD> <TD>623.7   660.9</TD><TD>22 20</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
</TABLE>
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2001.
Food Insecurity: When People Live With Hunger and Fear Starvation.
The State of Food insecurity in the World 2001. Italy: FAO.
Couldn't this table be used as one of Mr. Knouse's references?
Lee Wells 01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''''Food production has outpaced population growth?''''' 

message: For how long and in what capacity? The amount of food that could feed a person comfortably for a month could theoretically be rationed to keep a person alive for year in less comfortable conditions.
    Yeah, something's pretty far off with that statistic. I have no idea what the actual figure is, but I can't 
    imagine any time where it would take 160 acres to feed a single person, even just foraging for wild plants.
      --Julesa 17:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "About 21% of the earth's land is arable. In the past, 160 acres (650,000 m²) of farm land crops fed one person" 

message: I just replaced references to Buckminster Fuller and Barry Commoner with a reference to Bjorn Lomborg in the section on optimist's viewpoint.  In "Critical Path," published in 1981, Bucky claimed that the entire global population could enjoy a materially superior quality of life compared with anyone who lived before now.  I don't think he claimed that "technology could keep up with population growth indefinitely."  I don't think that was Barry Commoner's position either.  Both Fuller and Commoner are a little out of date.  Fuller's optimism was dependent on humanity's following a certain course of action.  In "Critical Path" he mentioned the threat of global warming, but the U.S. government is still largely in a state of denial about global warming.  We have diverged so far from the path envisioned by Bucky that his 1981 prognistication that "100 percent of all humanity will be thus advantaged before 2000 A.D.", while possibly still basically correct, is clearly overly optimistic.  Lomborg is more contemporary, and a better reference for the optimist's position on overpopulation. Jkintree 19:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  optimist's viewpoint 

message: The density of population has an impact on a broad range of social and economic issues, such as land prices and housing costs. For example, relatively densely populated countries such as Japan have higher land prices than less densely populated countries such as Australia, and even in that country, land prices have doubled and redoubled as the population has increased. It is sometimes argued that reducing the populations of some areas, such as large cities, would have positive benefits for these reasons.
Response: No, not at all. Absolute nominal price has no meaning, and certainly has no connection to overall population size. Land price must be seen in the context of the income of the buyers and the productivity of land (such as rental rate plus value-appreciation)from the supply side regarded as opportunity cost. An example is that a square foot of cropland in a certain village in Bangladesh is about taka 9 (I bought it)while a squre foot of land for housing in Gulshan area of Dhaka City is about 5500 taka, namely 611 times more precious. But notice that the Gulshan land is suitable to build skyscrappers with very large income potential per square foot of land surface compared to the village land. My calculation shows that the income potential is over 800 times larger in Gulshan than in my village. Indeed, my investment in rural land is utterly stupid because the income from cropland is actually negative. If I just left the money in a savings account then I would get a lot more than I do get from growing crops. I was forced to buy the land to protect clan prestige as my cousins were selling it to outsiders.
Reducing the city size would be horribly disastrous because it will mean the eliminaiton of the incredibly large economies scale, scope and nearness. Urban areas have concentration of infrastructure and amenities such that any producer can reach his customers and input suppliers at the lowest cost, being located nearest to them. Why do not people of Dhaka buy the much cheaper land in my village and set up factories and offices there? What benefit are the villagers getting from cheapness of land versus the landowners of Dhaka who pay so much higher price? The villagers are becoming ever more destitute while the city dwellers are getting ever richer. It is a mistake to forget the determining factors behind the price of land (or of anything else) and to regard it as a social issue. No, price is by no means a social issue. It is an economic issue.
Let us also remember a land-recovery advantage of urbanization. In my village, about 2100 people have over 187 acres of land  devoted to housing. In Dhaka, the same people could be housed in just 3 acres of land, leaving 2 acres for open space for 21 storied buldings over just 1 acre of building space. This is an extreme example of course, but the point is that urbanization makes use of land very intensively and releases rual land for crops. 
Notice the anomaly. A middleclass Dhaka resident pays over 2000 taka per year in rental for one square foot of living space (circa 2006). But the same person could actually buy (not just rent) one square foot of rural land for less than 10 taka. So why does he rent expensive housing in Dhaka rather than live in the villge on dirt cheap land? He lives in Dhaka because he can earn high income in Dhaka and enjoy everything nearby while he cannot earn much at all in the village and can hardly find anything other than food. Gani 14:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overpopulation as a social issue 

message: []
seems to have lost content if favor of politics.  I don't see how to fix that now.  David R. Ingham 05:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backwards edit 

message: We might want to rephrase the caption on the graphic Image:World population evolution.png to clarify the log scale used on the y axis. I'm not unfamiliar with the concept, but I was confused for a minute. Other users might not understand what they're seeing (i.e., that the total World population is "apparently" not the sum of the populations of the component areas). Anybody have any thoughts on how to say this clearly? -- 200.141.108.170 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recaption Image:World population evolution.png?

message: These seem to be available as fair use under copyright law and authoritative.  Is what Wikipedians say more important than what great men and women say?  Wikiquotes is about what people say, but if it is available for reprocuction and the best information available, it belongs in the body also.  David R. Ingham 07:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a note on your user page. Sets of quotes are generally discouraged. We have a sister project for them, Wikiquote. We can certainly summarize important opinions on the matter. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert non-neutral revert. 

message: This may be the most controversial subject that has ever been.  Are we, as a species, endangered by being too many, or is it still that the more the merrier?  Are there any Wikipedia ways of dealing with controvery that have not yet been invoked, or it this article the precident setter? David R. Ingham 08:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not here to right the world's wrongs, only to write the world's encyclopedia. There hasn't been  much controversy about this article. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Currently, the article reads: "Many authors (eg. Carl Sagan, Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov) have pointed out the obvious absurdity of 'solving' overpopulation through shipping the excess population into space, arguing that (Clarke, 1999) 'the population battle must be fought or won here on Earth'."
I was reading this article to get a better idea of the issues involved and found this sentence to be rather jarring and POV.  The phrase "pointed out the obvious absurdity" and the use of scare quotes around "solving" are unsupported by the previous paragraphs.  This is especially true since the article makes the point that overpopulation is a deficiency of resouces for a given population.  It is not at all obvious that there are insufficient resources outside the earth to support a larger population.--S Roper 15:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that paragraph make more sense as a rebuttal at the end of the existing text about space? It may seem odd because it is arguing against something that is explained subsequently. -Will Beback 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population projections in space 

message: Another point of view on population versus the standard of living is that of Virginia Abernethy in Population Politics, in which she shows her evidence that this effect only holds true in nations where she claims women enjoy a special status. In strongly patriarchal nations, where she claims women enjoy few special rights, a high standard of living tends to result in population growth.
Can anyone back this claim up? I know Iran is now at 1.82 children per couple, far below the replacement rate, and Saudi Arabia is just above the replacement rate (for Saudi citizens, not for non-citizen guest workers). In Iran you cannot live together without getting married, and you cannot get married without taking a course on family planning. If the claim fails in these countries, then where does it hold true?
Yemen and Pakistan yes, but countries with a high standard of living? Brimba 19:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here is not whether the claim is true, but whether Abernethy made the claim. I think that in the text it is quite clear that we are attributing it all to her. -Will Beback 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that new edit covers the topic well. -Will Beback 22:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed-section

message: I'm surprised that there aren't any real plans by the U.N. to send men into space on to get rid of "earths excess population", or if there is that it isn't stated on wikipedia. Can someone please look into this. Chooserr 03:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's just the men.  --Her girlfriend  04:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you serious?  It costs millions of dollars for a space tourist to take a joy ride.  The feasibility of living in space has yet to be demonstrated.  Much more cost effective to promote birth control.  pstudier 05:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overpopulation and space 

message: Yes, this revert seems correct.  May implies less likely than "may not".  David R. Ingham 09:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overpopulation&curid=66541&diff=40484532&oldid=40448316] 

message: Should we perhaps have a discussion of demographic entrapment here, ie what happens when the demographic transition fails?  There doesn't seem to be much peer-reviewed research on this, (although I found one 10-year-old article , plus a website by the author ).  However, the idea might be worth a mention.  Also, how about a mention of past and present attempts to deal with overpopulation, such as China's one-child policy? Procrastinator supreme 14:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographic Entrapment

message: "If a given environment has a population of 10, but there is food and drinking water enough for only 9 people, then that environment is overpopulated, while if the population is 100 individuals but there are food and water enough for 200, then it is not overpopulated."
This doesn't seem to be the definition of overpopulation at all. For example, nearly the entirity of the developed world has to import food or other raw materials. This is certainly true on a local scale. Would you say that Boston and New York are overpopulated because there is not enough food grown there to feed the population? savidan(talk) (e@) 21:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition in second paragraph 

message: "Overpopulation is not a function of the number or density of the individuals, but rather the number of individuals compared to the resources they need to survive."
Followed by:
"In the context of human societies, overpopulation occurs when the population density is so great as to actually cause an impaired quality of life, environmental degradation, or a long-term shortages of essential goods and services."
So which is it? Is density the definition of overpopulation? savidan(talk) (e@) 21:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in intro 

message: Link [1] in the Malthus theory section links to a page that doesn't exist - http://www.ku.edu/~hazards/foodpop.pdf. extraordinary 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that supposed to be Hopfenberg's 2003 paper, "Human Carrying Capacity Is Determined by Food Availability"?  It is mirrored at http://media.anthropik.com/pdf/hopfenberg2003.pdf Jason Godesky 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link in Malthus theory section 

message: I am disputing the neutrality of this section. Not only does it have no references but it is highly controversial to state any of those laundary list of things as "effects" of overpopulation, i.e. implying that overpopulation causes them. There are many authors, geographers, and scientists who would dispute that list as well. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: section has been totally rewritten and copious references added since the above comments.Cydperez 19:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of overpopulation section 

message: Yes this article needs improvement. who would like to join me in a systematic set of revisions.  Lets start with a "To do" list.  I propose the following (please edit or add to my list):
* provide more references for key aspects (bonafide scientific level studies not someones blog)
:*partially done as of jun 20 2006 Anlace 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *mostly done as of jun 20, 2006 Anlace 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *mostly done as of jun 20, 2006 Anlace 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *mostly done as of jun 20 2006 Anlace 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: cheers, Anlace 17:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this article needs work, and I can't stress the second item enough. This article immediately sets a human focus, which is not really appropriate -- "common parlance" is subjective and should not dictate the contents of an encylopedia entry. It would be better to focus the article on the general causes and effects of overpopulation (among all organisms) and then discuss the controversy of human overpopulation and its effects. I'll try to come up with some more specific suggestions and/or a rough draft. -- bcasterline • talk 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, see this part of the World Population talk page. -- Huysmantalk 20:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the history of overpopulation as a term dating to before Malthus (if anyone used it before him) to the post-Malthusian combination of overpopulation with concepts like environmental degredation and security. savidan(talk) (e@) 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article improvement

message: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49186
Procrastinator supreme 09:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can never be too sure.  However, personally I like leavening my doom-and-gloom with a little humour, just as the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement do.  It could be argued that the Onion were making overly light of a serious issue (shock horror), but sometimes a little perspective is helpful. Procrastinator supreme 14:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something lighter on the topic

message: On the other other side of the 'discussion' The two 'sides' of this article are really Biology and Economics. Putting occupations on the people in the 'See also' list (maybe rename people in see also Authors) should be able to sort this out.
(if you would like me to do this i already have the page ready, but i figured I would ask first so maybe i wouldn't be reverted....)
I know of NO biologist who doesn't think we have a problem. It's just the economists who are worried about the money. It's true growth increases the wealth of the few that already have wealth, but as far as the masses go, things are getting worse. [except in China]
Only Environmental economics even relates economics to the environment and the Wiki entry on it doesn't mention Overpopulation. Am I detecting a trend here?
Lee Wells 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that separating the biological from the economic arguments is a good idea.  There will be exceptions to the whole "biologists think it's bad, economists think it's good" trend you're suggesting - there are certainly some economists who think that overpopulation is a problem, and there may be some biologists who think that it isn't.  But in the popular consensus, where most people are neither, other factors come into play which I think are also interesting.  For instance, I wouldn't be at all surprised if people living in relatively densely populated and resource-exhausted parts of the world, like Europe, were more worried than people living in relatively sparsely populated parts of the world, like the US (the EU has 3.5x the population density of the US - 294 people per square mile versus 83 people per square mile, according to my calculations based on the figures from the CIA world factbook - and it shows). Procrastinator supreme 14:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't mean that most people in the world were neutral on overpopulation.  I meant that most people in the world were neither biologists or economists.  Procrastinator supreme 06:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biology and Economics

message: Isn't war throughout history one of the biggest methods of natural population control for homo sapiens? It is only briefly mentioned as a possible result of overpopulation.  It is obviously a "cure" in some ways but also maybe even an instigator of overpopulation (demand for workers, soldiers or resulting after-affects like babybooms) but is definately not a "vaccine".  Of course, whenever population boomed anytime in history (even somewhat today) resources and space become strained and poverty begins to bear. The people then proceed to do one of three things, move away (colonialism and immigration), fight neighboring peoples for resources (crusades, imperialism), or fight themselves (civil war, revolution, feudalism, anarchy).
Along with disease, the other main control, they both occur when populations are big and confined to a limited area.  For now it seems that aggression, killing, and disease (harshly) are the only substantial and effective methods of population control.  Maybe self-control (ex. having less babies) may surpass those big controls but it seems unlikely anytime soon. Maybe unconciously we really know we are waging war to kill off excess population but it seems resources, religion, and rivalry conciously replace that reason.  That is probably why war is not mentioned in this wikipedia overpopulation article.
I think there should be more mentioning of it in this respects, maybe a new section on "Proposed and Existing solutions to overpopulation" however harsh they may be, totally NPOV.  It just seems like this article is missing alot and this may be a missing block among others.--Exander 08:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You left out famine. To bring back the food supply discussion, famine makes it much easier for disease to take a life. See the  Three Years of Natural Disasters for the Chinese famine that probably launched the One-child policy. Also war kills the young males of a population, this is actually weakens the gene pool more than causing depopulation. After all, historically women don't go to war, women have more kids, to make up for the fallen. Look at the 'baby boom' after WWII.
Lee Wells 14:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: War does not check population as much as one might think. In fact, it might not check it at all. It's true that people die in war, but, compared to exponential growth, the numbers are very small. When you consider population explosions (such as the post-World War II baby boom) which usually follow wars, the effect might even be to increase population. War is often closely associated with instability, which also encourages people to have as many children as possible to guarantee their own futures. -- bcasterline • talk 17:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War? 

message: I'm moving this from the article. I think it could be rewritten and expanded into a non-POV section, but I don't know how. 
"With over population, limited resource runs out so quick. Therefore,we have to find alternative resources. For example people have uwed fossil fuels such as oil, coal, for a long itme and now we are in crisis. Because they may be sed up in the future. For such problem we need to use other energy resources such as electric energy, solar energy, hydro energy, wind powered and so on, which would have unlimited sources.
Women are not well educated in some third world countries. The lack of information about contraceptives makes woman more vulnerable to STD’s and unwanted pregnancy. Proper education will allow more women to make choices about the amount of children they want. STD and Birth clinics would allow woman proper tools to make choices regarding contraceptives. Women need these types of places for their own health as as well as their communities"
TransUtopian 14:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article already refers to limited resources.  Education is thought to be an important part of the "demographic transition" but the causes are not certain, but the transition's result is obvious and already in the article.  (SEWilco 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible terrestrial solutions 

message: Although it's hardly a popular stance (ahem) to take, many people advocate, theorize and pontificate on the advantages of a worldwide human population somewhere south of the present number, some arriving at figures as low as 300 million. After any positive answer to the question, "Are we too many?" -- which the Overpopulation article exists in part to help us answer -- the assumption normally would be that some lower number is desirable.  Apologies if this all seems very obvious, but even if skeptics consider the diagnosis "overpopulation" baseless, there are enough people who consider it true and a great danger that proposals for correcting it do belong on Wikipedia.
Should we create a separate article on "Population reduction", considering that the inclusion of proposed remedies in the present article would probably bring vigorous claims of violating NPOV (wrongly, to me, as the discussion flows naturally in the direction: "if this is true, then discuss what could be done")?  The stub on "Negative Population Growth" deals only with the organization of that name, and would not serve as an appropriate place to relate the history of this idea.
Pheidias 17:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just by volume alone this article is already too long.  Population reduction should be a separate article if there is enough NPOV data to support it. Anlace 21:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population reduction movement 

message: An editor added the following content not properly formatted and in first person.  ironically the numbers in the text are much too low compared to actual:
Overpopulation ,a social issue
by Jillian Zsolt
We  have a disaster, that has killed many people around the world and it is about to hit us. In the next 100 years the worlds population will effect all citizens. The worlds population is going to double to 12 billion by 2035 . It is the biggest political problem of the  21st century. There are 1 billon people in the world that do not have food or water. The problem is that only Americans by 2035 will have produced “200,000 pounds of garbage, consumed 10 million gallons  of water and would have drove 1/2 million miles and burned 20,000 gallons of gasoline. Our world is at risk  because sooner or later we will have to live with out water, gasoline, and we will be living in garbage. Every place ,person ,and living thing  impacts the future of life. We have to save what we have of our earth or nothing will be left.
: Looks like someone should have read the article before editing it.  (SEWilco 04:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved the following from article to talk