Is overpopulation actually a problem?

Question

nightdrot · Accepted Answer

Invariably the overwhelming answer will be "yes." It the conventional wisdom going back to Malthus and which took on a certain cache during the "ecology"/Earth movement of the 60s and 70s.

However, while it may be true that in any given part of the world at any given point in time there may be a period where local population exceeds local resources, the truth is that over time, demographic patterns are such that there is not really a sustained problem of overpopulation. Indeed, if anything, the main problem is that the population is aging and this will apt to leave increasing burdens on the young.

First, to start, in general, fertility rates soar when populations are predominantly rural and the economy is relatively poor and primitive. Children are needed to work the fields and take care of their parents as they get older and can no longer work. The more children, the more work that gets done and later the more evenly the burden of caring for elderly parents is distributed.

Then, as an economy industrializes, modernizes and gets wealthier, birthrates tend to drop. As an economy industrializes, there is no need to have children who can help out on the farm, so to speak. The cost of raising children goes up proportionately as the need to educate them to work and live in a more complex and technologically sophisticated economy increases. Moreover, such economies tend to produce welfare states that take care of the needs of the elderly, meaning that children no longer need care for their aging parents.

The paradox being that a welfare state, over the long run, actually needs more young workers and taxpayers in order to pay the benefits of the elderly. As yet, it is not clear how modern welfare states will work this out as the tax burden on the young will begin to grow exponentially as the population ages. Hence, the aforementioned point about the burden on the young.

Fun fact: In general, especially in the Western world, the older are the wealthier demographic. The young the poorer. As the young decline in relative numbers and yet continue, through taxes, welfare states and the like, to take care of the elderly, the world will see a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. (This is what makes the call in certain Western countries for "health care for all" so ironic. Whatever its merits, it will exacerbate the gap between rich and poor, not narrow it.)

In terms of natural resources, science and modern technology has actually reduced the consumption of raw materials. Hence why coal miners in the United States are increasingly unemployed. As the world economy transitions from an industrial/extractions base to a service/high tech base, the consumption of raw materials - and as the population ages and dies even of foodstuffs and hence farmland - will decline.

This is not to say that there is not a problem. The world's resources and populations are not evenly distributed and in that narrow sense there will be an overpopulation problem. However, that has been a problem since the dawn of man and it will not likely ever be fully resolved.

If there is any irony it is that the future belongs to Africa. The least industrialized continent and the youngest in demographic terms. Right now, the death rate is above the global average and so is the fertility rate. As the African economy improves and societies stabilize that will level out, but it will peak well after the rest of the world.

After which point, no doubt to the great relief of those who are inclined to fret over such matters, global population overall will begin to decline to stabilization point. Thus, solving overpopulation, such as it is. Though that is still a bit of a ways off in case you were worried.

SuperManiac · Accepted Answer

A more pressing problem to me is a large percentage of counter-productive people who don't produce efficiently (ex: too many elderly retirees who don't produce with too few younger producers). This is why declining birth rates are a pressing problem in some developed nations, like here in Japan:

If that 2055 forecast is anywhere close to accurate, then there will be too many elderly people to outnumber the younger ones who can produce required goods and services (electricity, sanitation, healthcare, food, affordable housing, fuel, etc) to sustain the lifestyles we have now. There would be too much scarcity of too many vital resources causing prices to skyrocket if the economic output plummets this way.

I don't see the pressing problem as different in third world nations except on a broader scale, since their economic systems often render the bulk of their population counter-productive. In those cases, even their youngest, brightest, most able-bodied people might not produce much in the way of goods and services. For example, there won't be much in the way of agricultural output if people in a nation are relying on obsolete farming techniques:

Of course if the environment is placed at top priority, more humans on the planet broadly translates to more threat to the environment. But I don't see it as a worthwhile battle to fight against very nature of humanity. What I can observe instead is that capable humans who are free and thrive tend to care more about the environment, compete and innovate and optimize to find more efficient ways to exponentially increase the output of goods and services, focus on reforestation and not merely deforestation, preserve rare specifies of wildlife instead of poaching them, and so forth. So I would find it a more practical battle to promote systems, such as economic ones, which allow a populace to thrive.

weasley8 · Accepted Answer

At the moment it is. But the birth rate is slowing down. When women have the right to control what happens to their bodies, they don't usually have as many children.

In many countries, the death rate has already eclipsed the birth rate, and as women's rights begin to be realized even more, the same thing will soon happen in many others.

So at the moment it is a problem, and if the birth rate were to suddenly stop slowing down in comparison to the death rate, it would become a very serious problem. But social change is happening pretty much everywhere. It won't always be a problem.

Mollynotgemma · Accepted Answer

No! We are overpopulated in some countries and cities but a lot of the world is untouched and has no people
We all want to be in the same place as everyone else and therefore overpopulate a specific area! Some people live in houses that could house 20 people! We are not the issue... it’s the amount of space we feel we need! There is room for many more people

Reptile_095 · Answer

Overpopulation? - No, in terms of Space.

Yes , in terms of over-concentration of areas and allocation of resources.

---------------------

Its not about the space of living for the population.

If you really wanted to , you could fit all the worlds population in LA albeit highly packed like Sardines with almost no space to breathe.

But Realistically ,

If everyone lived as densely as In Manila , we could fit the entire Worlds population in Tunisia (Size - 2/3 size of UK or the State of Georgia in USA )

If everyone lived as densely as In Manhattan , we could fit the entire Worlds population in New Zealand.

If everyone lived as densely as In Bangladesh , we could fit the entire Worlds population in Australia.

If everyone lived as densely as In Alaska , we would need 108 Earths to fit the entire Worlds population !!

But its everything else -like Food , Fresh water , raw materials etc that is the Issue.

-------------------------

Overpopulation is not a space problem.

It's a resource problem.

People consume a lot of resources and produce a lot of waste, but the earth can only regenerate these resources and biodegrade that waste at a certain speed.

As the third world develops their consumption increases from plant to meat , Infrastructure & appliances develops like - Smartphones , Houses etc .

This Consumes Resources & generates pollution faster than the earth's natural processes can make it go away.

This is especially a problem in areas such as China/India, which are stressing the local water and food supply, not to mention the soil runoff/nitrogen waste from agriculture & overmining.

Compounding this problem is overpopulation makes CO2 levels worse.

Ever hear the fact that owning a pet is worse than owning a gas guzzling hummer?

That's because a pet requires food, water, medicine etc. All have an equivalent CO2 cost/energy cost from shipping.

For every child that is born, there is an equivalent CO2 cost, which will get worse as developing countries develop. E. g. car ownership in China.

**"Between 2000 and 2050, the US will add 114 million kids to its population. Africa will add 1.2 billion—but their respective CO2 emissions will be the same.

One American child generates as much CO2 as 106 Haitian kids."**

Yes, the rate of overpopulation is declining, but if everyone in the world were to have a Western style lifestyle: cars, ACs, electricity, iphones, laptops, pets, meat eaters etc.

Then the world is already vastly overpopulated in terms of resource consumption.

(Part 2 in Comment.)

devilman666 · Answer

Not really, we could make more efficient housing if people would give up on the idea if having unnecessary space, specifically lawns, with so many people we need to cut back on the amount of lawns and stick everyone into high density housing like how they do in overpopulated Asian countries (china, india, the metro areas of Japan, etc.)

Beyond that we could start populating other planets relatively quickly, we have most of the required technology, most countries just lack adequate government funding for space programs, that is the issue. Even NASA is heavily underfunded, which is why their continued successes has been a miracle. Regardless Nass has released a plan to head to the moon and use it to refine fuel and use it as a refueling station for space ships since they lose so much fuel leaving out atmosphere (launching from our atmosphere is seriously one of the only things holding us back right now, they have proposed many ideas to work around this problem, including a neat idea called a lunar space elevator.

tartaarsaus · Answer

Yes. As there is scarcity of resources, such as land, a larger population may lead to inadequate distribution of resources.

In other words, it could lead to famines and all that stuff. The severity would depend on the difference between the carrying capacity (apparently between 9 to 10 billion) and the actual size of the population, next to technology.

Theoretically, even at maximum efficiency and everyone being a vegetarian, we still have 1.4 billion acres of areable land. That means we can only produce so much food. Even if distribution is nailed to perfection, we will still have famines. There is also a limited supply of freshwater. Apparently, in 2050 about half a billion people would be subjected to water-stress.

Furthermore, there is a limited supply of phosphorus, which is absolutely crucial for agriculture.

Another dimension would be oceans. Larger population results in larger demand for fishing, which could lead to global overfishing. Human presence also leads to acidification of the oceans, which kills of even more fish and changes the ecosystem of oceans.

Sensmind · Answer

Very good question - The dynamic as I can see it is that there is overpopulation probably even rising population in the poorest countries due to a whole lot of social/religious maybe even household economic reasons then in the wealthier developed world the population is dropping.
Logically it is a problem but you have to break through the societal/religious/ micro economic reasons before you get into logical discourse. It might be politically sensitive but if the wealthier countries helped the poorer countries get on their feet, some of the reasons for overpopulation might decrease but it is such a huge question, I leave it to smarter minds than me to try and work it out

WhiteSteve · Answer

Humans are easily the biggest pest species on Earth in terms of harm done to the planet and the other species we share an equal stake in it with. We’ve come up with some impressive ways to hold off death, but it’s unnatural and therefore invalid. So we, especially in the last two hundred years, mostly, have over-survived, and as you can probably see, it’s fucking everything up.

HungLikeAHorsefly · Answer

As others have said, it depends on what area of the world you're talking about. In the United States, we have a population growth that is below a viable replacement rate, *but* we're also on the tail end of a historic huge spike in population after WWII ended. As such, even with a declining incidence rate one could make a credible case that we still suffer from overpopulation.

As for whether or not it's a problem, we just have to ask a simple question: do we have enough resources for everybody, in a given geographic area? I expect people who believe in the so-called immigration crisis on the U. S. southern border would answer "no" to this question, despite the decline in population growth we've been experiencing since 1971. Others may say yes, since we're actually doing quite well compared to some other places in the world.

Reaperbot666 · Answer

yes and no.

yes - due to more people being born then people dying. rate over about 3 to 1 per hours or so.

no- due to the fact you could fit pretty much everyone in the US into the state of Texas with a decent plot of land and 5 bedroom house.

truly what they should do is just stop all the medically assisted births. ED drugs, fertility meds and invitro. because while it is sad that some people can not have a kids naturally and others have 5+ with minimal effort. there are a lot of kids world wide that need homes and families but get over looked and go hungry.

ZeussLightningBolt · Answer

There is, but the issue isn't as big as the Leftists are making it seem.
The earth isn't gonna run out resources.

"If everyone lived like you, we would need 6.5 earths to sustain the population."

And that's just it, not EVERYONE lives like me.

Just use your resources efficiently, unlike the Rapa Nui people and we'll be fine.

And the droughts in East Africa were the result of natural climate cycles and poor farming methods, not overpopulation.

And don't worry, the rainforest isn't gonna disappear. There is so much of it, that even if we wanted to cut it all. down we wouldn't be able to.

Bananaman177 · Answer

The problem is that millions of retards all want to live in the same city where there's already millions of retards living there.

If people would SPREAD THE FUCK OUT they'd find that we have so much empty fucking land on this planet it's not even funny.

meandane · Answer

It's an enormous problem. Look at what we're doing to this planet, littering, destroying the forests, melting the ice etc.
The fact that we are this many people is catastrophic. And that the population is only growing is terrible!
As it is right now we're using 170% of earths resources every year.

Flamdring · Answer

Not at all. The problem is that we humans do not use our resources efficiently and effectively. By resources I mean: space, time, mineral resources, money etc. Our cities are inefficient, our transport links suck, we as humans just suck and we cannot seem to find a good way to require less resources while increasing our quality of life. I think as AIs begin to take over the economy and politics, humans will finally be able to stop worrying about overpopulation.

oneleggedwonder · Answer

There was a place in Hong Kong where 33K people lived in an area the size of 3 football fields. That would suck. You could put every person on earth in the state of Texas. There are a huge amount of people on earth, but its not the amount of people, its the problems humans create. Pollution, mowing down rain forest that provide oxygen, hunting animal to extinction, and wars. We are not good to each other, and we do not respect mother nature.

englisc · Answer

Yeah it is, but it's not really a problem in the West. Most people who talk about overpopulation seem to tell Western people not to have children, but we already have low birthrates, below replacement level actually. It's more of a problem in less developed countries in Africa and the Middle East where they have 5-8 kids each.

hahahmm · Answer

Yeah, but not because we’ll really run out if food or land. Because there isn’t (currently) enough wealth to go around. This is a problem when poor (er) people are raised to crave the same riches as the better off people have.

The robot revolution (robots replacing human workers) won’t help

hellionthesagereborn · Answer

No. Most nations are having negative birth rates i. e. losing population (only gaining in immigration). The only area that is gaining in population is Africa and that is expected to level out in the next few decades (this is how it happened in every other nation, when you hit industrialization people end up surviving more but the past generation is still producing children at the old rate which was required to offset the high death rate. Once they realize that is no longer necessary (and becomes prohibitively expensive) they stop having as many children and the population growth levels off).

MusicMayhem · Answer

Well it sure doesn't help.

-More competition for jobs
-More people below the poverty line on drugs and more homeless people
-More crime
-People don't like sharing spaces in general so race crimes against immigrants from overpopulated countries
-Longer commute times to/from work means tired employees suffering from burnout as they struggle to fit in personal time with their work lives
-Resouces demand increase

Etc, etc, etc

holograph · Answer

Of course it's a problem. Every resource we have is running out at an alarming rate. We're killing the planet according to 97% of scientists. And conservatives are out there going "It's not a problem, there's some standing room left over in Nigeria, we can squeeze 3 or 4 more in! Look, there is a tree over there, if we cut it down we could fit more humans in that space!"

Grond21 · Answer

No overpopulation is not a actually a problem. Despite the hype, every overpopulation alarmist has made predictions that have turned out to be completely false. She found her of overpopulation and its related series predicted billions starving by the year 2000. Which obviously did not happen. And in fact, in the past 10 years, capitalism has raised over half the world's population out of extreme poverty. And the less poverty that people have the fewer kids they tend to have. Currently, if the poor of the world continue to get wealthier, the population will stabilize around 10 to 11 billion

Iseeyou101 · Answer

No it is not, not i mean it has been predicted MANY times that say the world will be overpopulated, like once it was said to be overpopulated by 2015, and as we all know it wasn't even close to it, then it was said to be overpopulated again in 2018, and once again we know this isn't true, so no this is not a problem at ALL, at least not for right now, and probably won't be for awhile, if anything it would be the resources like food and water and stuff that would be the bigger problem, and if anything, i feel like much later on there will be a fear of under population, so no i do not think that overpopulation is a problem in the slightest,

Piteka5 · Answer

Yes and no, it is a problem, it is real already and only getting worse, here in our western nations we worry a lot about it, but truth is our birthrate has been negative for some time. The countries were the problem is, neither care, or can do much. But at the same time, overpopulation of habitats exists in nature, and it self corrects on its own. So we should also be able to fix it.

As in nature there is the K line wich defines the maximum capacity for a given place, it's the same with countries, the problem here is that they overshoot the line, and then proceed in sending the excess population to the western countries, endlessly repeating the pattern and never stabilising

DizzyDesii · Answer

Even if it is, it won't stop me from having 2-4 kids

Guardian45 · Answer

One could argue that overpopulation is not our problem. Our problem is that Humans are the first and only Apex Super Predator in the Earth's geological history. Add to this that we are at the dawn of a new age, The Anthropocene. So not only are Humans the 'top dog', but we have within our grasp the ability to create the 7th ELE (extinction level event - think the meteor that killed all the dinosaurs!)

Anonymous · Answer

Yup I live in Canada where we have a lot of space and not very many people and we have so much more natural environment than the rest of the world, I’ve been to other countries and there are too many people, it feels dirty and smelly, fuck I just fuckin hate people tbh

bangyourhead · Answer

Not really. There's enough room to put the entire world's population in Texas.

Hispanic-Cool-Guy · Answer

Absolutely not. I'm pretty sure God understands math and measurements then all humans combined.

He made the earth big enough to accommodate billions of humans with plenty of space and food, and water to go around.

In fact, believe it or not, all of earth's population can fit in just the city of Jacksonville FL. alone. It will be super crowded but they can fit.

ronaldo75 · Answer

Not globally, no. The estimates are that the Earth is big enough to comfortably hold about 20 billion people. The problem is that people are crammed into tiny cities and the fact that governments and corporations create economies where food is wasted, resources are wasted and people don't have enough money. even if they work 60 hours a week.

Wharvey98 · Answer

Yes, there are only so many resources on the planet. And they only renew so quickly. Eventually the population will reach a point in which human expansion will require more resources (space, oxygen, clean water, wood, metals, natural gasses) than the earth can feasibly support. And at that point either the population will die back and the earth will recover, or well do enough damage that the earth can’t recover and well all die.

RoxiFromTheDark · Answer

If we lived like animals and lived life how we originally were supposed to we’d be able to keep are planet because it’d be free to be a natural normal planet not the one we have now fighting for it’s own existence thanks to us.

saeyamazaki · Answer

Yes because if the population keeps growing we're going to run out of resources and climate change/global warming could get worse

vald9inches · Answer

We actually have a lot more resources on earth to support way more population but we are so inefficient with our resources and practically throwing it away that we already having “over population” problems.

janna_jcb · Answer

It is. At a certain moment there won’t be enough food for everyone. And who will die from that first? The poor. Do they have less of a right to live than rich people? No. But that’s how the world works nowadays.

SadLittleOctopus · Answer

Yes, of course this is a problem. We will
A. Have to little food (some people already don't have food)
B. To little space for homes and places for people to live
C. Have more people consuming products leading to more global warming.

The list could be longer but I think those are the strongest bits.

retlaw0311 · Answer

Thats a broad question... im assuming you mean is overpopulation of the planet a problem. The answer is probably not yet but i beleive it is about to be looming in the horizon. Computer simulations done by yhe U. N. show the demand for food will surpass the supply the planet can produce around 2028.

MajesticTwelve · Answer

Ever been stuck in traffic on a hot summer day? My answer is yes.

Daniel012 · Answer

I read that (the planet) can support 15 billion people living like jungle natives, 12 billion people living like American Indians, and 2 billion people (approx) living like North Americans...

now as for can we "financially" (as in jobs or taxes) support the number... don't know.

SergeantSmoke · Answer

Well... I've heard that more people die than are born on any given day...

QuestionsOSex · Answer

No. I have some math, but I won't bore you. If someone has no child, that's minus 2 of the population. If someone has 1 child, that's minus 1. 2 children, none. Now, if you have three children, you will have plus 1 population. And honestly, unfortunately most likely we would run out of population instead.

pizzalovershouse · Answer

in some areas of the world yes cuz then where do you put all these people there's no homes or food for that's why. some countries have limits on having kids which is mean but they did it do to over population

H0LLYW00DH0GAN · Answer

Of course it is. Especially with illegals and refugees always coming in plus legal immiigrant and dumbass idiots wanting to ban abortion. If they ban abortion it is over We run out of resources and natural food before long.

e-Ghost · Answer

Nope. There is actually too much food (go check FAO reports) & empty spaces available (technologically speaking). The real problem is most people only want to live in big cities & big cities only. It's a rabbit hole topic.

DeeDeeDeVour · Answer

Personally, it's a problem for me. I don't like crowds.

ecfresh · Answer

Yes, and it trends to be larger each year. We have limited resources

nerms123 · Answer

I heard elon musk said underpopulation is the real problem because everyone is old now

SkipStop · Answer

Overall? Probably not. In some countries? Yes. But it has been going down recently. And will continue unless society changes.

LiMBoH · Answer

Yeah, but noones gonna do anything about it. Unless the govt. starts killing people to make space. Or if we actually find a way to colonize other planets.

Shark_61695 · Answer

I wouldn't say it is currently a problem but it is an issue to be addressed in the not too distant future. There is only so much population the Earth can support at the current level of efficiency and once this is reached, inequality is the only option unless something significant is done. A balance of births and deaths or emigration to another planet would maintain the Earth at maximum population but have you ever tried to fit the maximum number of people in a lift (elevator)?

betaTester · Answer

Overpopulation is, by definition, the condition where the number of existing population exceeds the capacity of the environment containing it.

What kind of brain damage does one need to suffer from to think this is not "actually a problem"?

Better question would be: are we having this problem? if yes can we solve an equivalent problem that would solve this problem? etc.

A-man-22 · Answer

Yes, people often forget we need to balance human living space, farming space and natural space.
Humans are already cutting a bit far into nature's areas.

We have limited resources as well as planet space , we have to put a cap on population or massive resource shortage will occur.

AilsaGourly · Answer

Picture is fake NASA lies because the earth is flat

RationalMale · Answer

Overpopulation depends on the area.

Europe and the USA and Japan, for instance, all have low birth rates and decreasing populations.

Africa, for example, needs mass sterilization to prevent overpopulation consuming the planet.

5_AM_Oracle · Answer

Yes. Our resources will run out eventually and polution worldwide doesn't make it any better

MissDawn7961 · Answer

no for it is Gods world and he will populate it the way he wants to ! Thanks

abc3643 · Answer

Yes. It ultimately is the root cause of all other problems on Earth.

mattdzz · Answer

For resources, and economic development requiring smaller families and smarter people, then yes.

DWornock · Answer

Yes, and elimination 90% of the people, including weirdo’s like me, would a good thing. However, I not volunteering until the after the other 90% goes.

Guanfei · Answer

It is. And it's a problem you can't fix anymore, before it's a problem in specific places, and you can't say it because you're labelled as racist for it.

Surely · Answer

Mother Nature has away of correcting things. Might not be pretty, but she does what she needs to. On the other side of the coin, Us dumb humans will destroy ourselves before Mother Nature.

curiousminded · Answer

Yes I totally think overpopulation is a problem and I feel we are already at it. I hunt and fish etc and every year I see the impact overtime of us humans on nature. It's destroying by not respecting the earth and our resources I think eventually will be hard to keep on continuing.

lacaras · Answer

I don't think so, I think on a large scale human population will stagnate when we reach a point where we don't have enough food/water for more people, much like bacteria cultures stop growing when there is no longer enough nutrients to grow further.

Kru2020 · Answer

Thanos was right.

Is overpopulation actually a problem?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Is overpopulation actually a problem?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.