Why the Myth of Overpopulation is Bogus

[EpicDweeb]

Why I'm writing this take.

Here's a little backstory that may explain the why behind my writing this take. I am the youngest of 8 kids. My mom was pregnant 12 times and had 4 miscarriages. After finding this out people give a lot of different responses. Some jokingly ask if I'm Catholic (which I'm not), others just look astounded and are like "wow that's a lot of kids," some make jokes about how big family reunions must be. I enjoy seeing these reactions and seeing how something I've always felt is normal is seen as so odd to other people. However, there are a few responses that make me angry.
1. "Didn't you ever tell your mom to keep her legs shut?"
2. "Your mom is contributing to overpopulation."
3. "Your mom should be ashamed of herself."

My first cousin

The worst of these came in the form of a rant that showed up on my mom's wall on facebook from her cousin. The woman accused my mom of essentially being a complete moron for having so many kids and told my mom she needed to stop having kids and stop encouraging her kids to have kids. Keep in mind... my mom is in her 60s and I'm her youngest child. She hasn't been pregnant in over 15 years and she hasn't had any children in 17 years.

The rant bothered me for a few reasons.

1. My first cousin doesn't know me, we've never met and yet her rant assumes I should never have been born, am a waste of space, and that I'm actively killing the planet.

2. I'm not okay with anyone insulting my mom like that for obvious reasons.

3. Her argument was absurd.

Overpopulation: The Great Myth

I doubt there's a single person living in first world countries that has not heard someone say "overpopulation is a serious issue." Most people just assume it's true, especially when they hear that, supposedly, the current population of the earth is about equal to the entire human population of human history leading up to now. But this is a horrible misunderstanding.

The current population of the globe is estimated at around 7.3 Billion people according to the World Population Review (http://worldpopulationreview.com/continents/world-population/) that sounds like a big number right? But allow me to put this into perspective...

How much land is needed?

According to Smallfootprintfamily.com (https://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/how-much-land-is-needed-to-be-self-sufficient) a 2-acre plot of land is all that would be needed for a family of 5 to be completely self-sufficient including both food and electricity. If food was the only thing required, it's estimated a family of 5 could survive using a mere 1/5 acre of farm land.

How much land is available?

Short answer is... more than enough. For perspective on just how much more than enough is available, the state of Texas has been estimated to be about 15.77 billion square acres (of HABITABLE LAND). Let's do a little math.

15.77 Billion acres divided by the current population of the earth (a little over 7.3 billion) would leave each person on earth with 2.16 acres of land. Again... a family of 5 would be able to live self-sufficiently with 2 acres of land (which is thought to be a high estimate) and, just within the state of Texas, would be able to have about 13 sq/acres of land total providing them with more than enough space for farm land, area for solar panels, etc.

Now, again, that is only including the habitable areas of texas. Large portions of the globe aren't habitable for humans due to extreme heat, lack of rain, jungle, etc. However, only about 30% of land on earth is considered inhabitable for humans.

However... the total acres of land on earth are estimated to be about 126 billion. If only 70% of the earth's surface is habitable for humans that would still leave 88.2 billion acres of habitable land on which humans could live. If that were divided up evenly amongst the current population of the globe we'd still have 12.08 acres of land PER PERSON leaving a family of 5 with 60.4 acres of land to live on.

So then... the idea that we are running out of space on earth capable of sustaining human life is a myth at best and a blatant lie at worst.

So why does the myth exist?

Short answer, I don't know. I suspected when I started writing that people would assume it was a climate change thing but supposedly it's a simple matter of people thinking the earth doesn't have enough resources to sustain us. Perhaps this is true in the sense of providing us all with the technology we've grown so accustomed to having and in such easy access, but the fact of the matter is, there's nothing that would prevent us from foregoing certain luxuries in return for the survival of our species. There's no reason we have to lower the population of the earth because overpopulation isn't a problem in the first place. We have estimations as to what may or may not happen in the future with population growth but we truthfully can't know for certain. But... long story short... it's okay to have kids, it's okay to be part of a huge family. The earth isn't dying just yet and life goes on.

Thank you to everyone who read this take. :)

[RolandCuthbert]

Yeah, the take is really off base. Human beings don't just survive. We live, we socialize. I doubt anyone in this forum knows what it is like to just survive. And they would lose their minds if they lost access to these common everyday niceties that so many in the West take for granted.

We need a big and vibrant entertainment industry to keep us "entertained". We need diversions to keep our minds active. We need to engage in eating for pleasure. Can you imagine being forced to eat only for survival and not for pleasure?

We want freedom to travel and to see different places and engage in different pursuits. Some of us either by choice or not would not want to be forced to live in certain climate or environment.

And the only way to ensure these pleasure that actually keep us human is to explore and expand. Human beings are going to have to eventually find places to exist beyond the limited capacity of this planet. That's just common sense. We are going to have to figure out ways to feed, house, and provide meaningful existence to more and more people. Because if we do not, eventually those who can't live meaningful lives will have a big issue with the small minority that can.

[EpicDweeb]

The thing is, the method of survival I mentioned is arguably the least efficient way to live. I painted the scenario of if every human or family were to live completely independent from one another. But I agree... we don't. Why? Because we found more efficient ways of doing things.

You don't have to live the way I described to survive or to live a meaningful life. With the way technology is today we have multiple story greenhouses where food is grown far more effeciently than it would be on a farm and we've essentially created MORE LAND on which to grow food.

All this being said, I feel as though you fail to give humanity enough credit. While they might be miserable for a time, even in the scenario I proposed, if it were between that and survival I believe human beings would largely choose to survive even if it was in less luxurious conditions than previously. They'd still have electricity and probably running water powered by that electricity so if anything they'd still be far better off than many people just 150 years ago.

[RolandCuthbert]

"You don't have to live the way I described to survive or to live a meaningful life. With the way technology is today we have multiple story greenhouses where food is grown far more effeciently than it would be on a farm and we've essentially created MORE LAND on which to grow food."

I am not even sure why you are going this route. Especially since in the United States more and more our politics has the potential to paralyze our ability move forward with advances in technology. You are talking about greenhouses. Dude, what about meat? I am not some vegetable eating hippie. I need beef, steak, pork, etc. Real food. I want to be able to go out and experience fine dining. I don't want to be living in a cardboard box eating some celery.

Besides issues with population expansion go way beyond just growing food.

I said, people have to lead meaningful lives. And things kind of went wrong didn't they? Can you think of a situation where human beings lived in a state where they were denied basic freedoms and rights, without it being an brutal authoritarian regime?

It is weird that you confused this with humans "choosing" to survive. Would Americans deal with less freedoms and the inability to lead meaningful and fruitful lives, just because you feel there isn't the need to expand beyond the planet earth?

Or do you think there would be a revolt?

Which do you think would be more likely, given the history of the human race?

[melodking]

Ok... in my opinion population is really uncomfortable!! You see an overpopulated place like India, it's just people wherever you go!! There's no state of personal space in a beach or mall!! It's just overwhelmed with people... it not really about the space required!! You don't feel secure... And another important thing is more the people more the earth gets polluted!! Almost every single person uses a car/bike!! The more we damage the earth... I'm accusing any single person here (your mom, all due respect to her) but it certainly has to be reduced at least to improve the state of environmental misuse and individual comfort!! I still agree with your take that people have enough private space!! But when it comes to public space there isn't enough in my opinion!!

[EpicDweeb]

Perhaps but the I think we ought not to be relying on personal transportation and ought instead to focus on communal transportation.

[DizzyDesii]

I loved this take 👌

[EpicDweeb]

Thanks! We'll see if it's a little less... controversial than my last take xD

[SuperManiac]

The biggest problem I find with those who worry about overpopulation is that they seem to assume that if our living conditions were like those of the Paleolithic era, a sufficient amount of time would still lead to the population we have now through the sheer rate that humans are capable of reproducing.

They seem to ignore that even a population of 100 in a rich and abundant land is doomed to shrink if they are incapable of producing enough food, shelter against harsh conditions, surviving diseases, avoiding devastating wars, crime, etc. The size of the population today is more a function of finding increasingly effective means of survival (improved economic efficiency, technological innovation, increased agricultural output, healthcare, health, sanitation, etc), not a simple function of the rates at which humans can reproduce over time.

A more pressing concern to me is an unproductive population. If the number of people who simply consume without producing much in exchange starts to become too large of a percentage of an overall population, then a significant number of those people are going to have to start becoming more productive or die off due to the increasing scarcity of vital goods and services.

[SuperManiac]

Oddly I find it's generally the ones who lean left who are most concerned about this problem, yet oddly they favor policies that subsidize the most unproductive citizens (which is the real problem if there is one). We tend to get more of what we subsidize. And strangely they're concerned about rising costs of housing, for example, but favor policies like rent controls and zoning regulations that drive up the cost of rent and reduce the available supply of housing (shortages lead to higher prices and price ceilings lead to shortages).

[EpicDweeb]

Lol couldn't agree more, this is all very well said. :)

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Well... your numbers for what is inhabitable versus uninhabitable are suspicious, and not all inhabitable land is able to be used for the production of food or for shelter. But let's put that aside for a moment.

The land on Earth isn't normally distributed. People living in rural areas typically have far more land than they need, while people in urban areas (which in the Western world now outnumber people in rural areas as of last year) don't have enough land. On a nation-by-nation case, some countries have a lot of usable land while others do not. Some countries have a lot of people and others do not.

For example, take the United States and India. The U. S. has approximately three times more land than India does, yet India has four times the population of the United States.

So, overpopulation is not a myth and it does cause real problems... if you have national borders. It's only *not* a problem if people were free to move around and go live wherever they like. And we all know that's not the case.

[Massageman]

Right on! And studies show that we waste 10% to 30% of all crops grown, depending on where the study drew the line for food usability. Some studies claim that if we were to use all the food that is wasted, the world would not be in hunger! While I think this is a stretch on a couple of points, it certainly wouldn't hurt the cause.

To look at the supposed overpopulation "problem" from another direction- from the supply side up, I offer up the following - - - - -
I volunteer at a weekly food pantry at a church and each WEEK our pick-up teams fetch between $15,000 and $25,000 (retail sales price) of food, food products, toiletries, paper products, etc- blemished produce, over-runs, over-stocks, poor sellers, out-of season (like Easter egg dyes would be now), out-of-date-code, close to pull date, day-old bakery from local bread and bagels shops, etc. That is about one-million dollars worth of food annually. And every week, ALL of this food is given away to about 65-80 local families.

The key to getting reliable sources of unwanted food products in our area is being able to have teams that will make the pick-ups on a timely, NON-FAIL basis, EVERY week, rain or shine! If a pantry misses a couple of weeks, they will find themselves not getting any food at all! The food stores do NOT have an unlimited amount of storage space: they want the stuff GONE and they want it gone ASAP! Every week. Rain or shine. Hot weather or cold.

[IlyaTheImpaler]

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function"

When I first read this quote, I thought the author was just being dramatic 😂. The exponential function is a function that describes the size of anything that grows steadily, an increase by a fixed fraction after constant time intervals. Anyone with a high school education should understand what this means. The idea that constant growth of x % can be sustained forever with advances in technology is basically flat earth level understanding of how the world works.

[MarkRet]

The bigger the human race becomes, the more species of animals become extinct. It has to have an impact.

Haiti could be an island paradise. It has a warm climate, lots of beaches, and yet Haiti is far from a paradise, due to it being over-populated. The jungles in Haiti are stripped for firewood, which then leads to soil erosion, which then leads to landslides, which then leads to deaths, and the cycle repeats itself. Haitians float on inner-tubes trying to get to America, because their island is a broke, over-populated, crime-ridden cesspool. The worst thing is, they NEVER learn from their mistakes.

[EpicDweeb]

That's because it's over-concentraited... Not overpopulated. Those people could live elsewhere they don't have to live in Haiti (in theory). There's plenty of land on earth to preserve life.

[zozo7880]

Overpopulation doesn't matter because of innovation. Not enough food? you invent something that can harvest food better, or grow food upwards. Not enough land? you colonize other planets. There is an answer for everything.

[Poormanscomedian]

When you figure land mass China is not over populated. America could go 800 million before we are on each other's heels. Now , if 800 million wanted to all live in New York , then no.

[Anonymous]

If you put every person in the world in the grand canyon... they would fit easily.

[NaultD]

https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348

[Anonymous]

So, what you're saying is that it's OK that there are too many people on the planet because we all just need to be satisfied with a lower standard of living and a lower quality of life. Sure, OK for you. Not for most people though.

[EpicDweeb]

The thing is, as it stands now we don't have too many people to live the way we want to live and living a self sufficient life isn't actually the most efficient way of doing things. Due to the way things currently work we need even less land to produce far more meaning this isn't actually an issue. My point was essentially that, even under some of the least efficient circumstances the whole population of the world could live pretty comfortably with room for probably quintuple the current world population.

[Hurdleez-Swampede]

I agree totally.

Your mom is awesome. We need more women proud

[DeeDeeDeVour]

I just wanna avoid large metropolitan cities.

[Anonymous]

I never read it, but Good Take.

[Secretgardenblood]

Good take