Isn't human overpopulation and consumption the elephant in the room of climate change and much else?

Question

"Prosperity" and "growth" seem to be based on destroying Earth's life support systems and all that depends on them. When is enough enough? Should we ask the Pope, USA, or China?

Answer 1

I don't think that overpopulation or consumption is the problem, really; it is the methodology that the prosperity and growth are based upon that is the problem.

See, there is ample proof that the quality of life can be maintained in much greener fashion--but at a cost.  It is this cost, and the cut in the profits thus entailed, that is keeping the old, pollutive methods in their place, such as the burning of fossil fuels that drives the world economy, and the vehicles that man uses.

In short, the elephant in the room has a name, and its name is Greed.

Answer 2

There are 6.7 billion people on the planet. The land area of Texas, US is 678,000 square kilometers. If we took the entire world population and put them in Texas the population density would be about 10,000 per square kilometer. The population of Paris, France is 24,783 per square kilometer. So, we could put the entire population of the planet in Texas at less than half the population density of Paris. There is no overpopulation.

Note, however, that having the entire population of the planet speaking with a Texas drawl might be a bit disconcerting.

-----

Gene, everything is a matter of simple mathematics.

Answer 3

we could solve many of the problems that we have if just did things smarter. currently we are using up the earths resources are a rate of 5 times faster then they can be replenished. most of those resources are used by developed countries.

are there to many people? maybe. are humans using too many resources? definitely.

Answer 4

Yes, everyone says there can be more people and the earth can sustain us but no one is asking if it is realistically possible.  It is true that there is so much land per family but all dirt is not created equally.  I've seen the statistics from other people but they arent realistic.  They dont take into account the conditions of the land, not to mention natural disasters like flooding or late/early frosts, etc.

    If the world population was cut in half our impact on the climate would be also.  People just have a tendendy to put on their blinders and say its not 'our' fault.

Answer 5

There is for sure too many people who wish to live like we in the rich world do and that's definitely a problem. Currently we are using more of the earth's resources than earth can manage to reproduce and if everyone would live like we in the rich world we would need about 6 planets like earth, which we all know we don't have. On the other hand, there are billions of people on earth today who live within "their share" of earth. However, I don't think there are many in the rich world who is prepared to live the life they do.

The big question is if we in the rich world can learn to use resources smarter and teach developing countries to do as well. If we did that and gave proper circumstances to let lose all the innovative ideas available to develop sustainability, I'm quite sure that earth will have enough for all of us, including the difficult issue regarding energy needs and global warming.

Answer 6

I fear that you are correct.

Overpopulation and consumption, together, account for nearly all the factors contributing to global warming, famines, starvation, pollution and many other ills, particularly when "over-consumption" also means "greed".

I don't really understand what you mean by "when is enough enough?" Are you asking when will we realize that we can't continue to live this way and still maintain our health, resources and our planet? I fear that we never will. I think we'll do what humanity has always done, and "adapt", whether to sci-fi-type domed cities set in  wastelands of polluted lands, synthetic food sources and calorie rationing, or  water-shortage related politics and population crises.

It seems like insanity to me. I can't understand why people can't or won't see the handwriting on the wall and CHANGE. I fear our only hope is a charismatic world leader who can induce industrial leaders in many nations to put ecology before profit, and a sense of personal responsibility and power in each individual mind and heart.

For myself, I can only be as conscientious in my daily choices as possible, and spread the word to as many people as I can pester into listening.

Not a fun question to answer :( but truly one worth asking, and thinking about.

Answer 7

1=the pope=no.

2=usa=no.

3=china=no.

Your Q is answered by me.

Now no one wants to "logically believe" in GOD.

But the fact is,empires come and empires go.

GOD and satan,never leave.

1..the truth is rome.

2..usa..empire.

3..empire.............

P.S...india.

Answer 8

I don't think it is overpopulated in this earth but for some big cities it is. Hong Kong, Mexico city, Los Angels, New York city, Bijjing and Shanghai of China are overpopulated. Peoples are stucked in big and polluted cities are just life support, holding jobs, convenience, and food on the table everyday.

The human greed of wanting more in everything as they already have enough for individual support for life time. What else they want? The prosperity and growth are just practising human capacity of greed, selfish, fear that keep on destroying Earth's life support of pure air and clean water. The Pope should should make prayers on eliminating the most fossil fuels to produce energy or electricity , USA and China should make accord to reduce the CO2 from now on.

Hong Kong is the most polluted city in this world and the government don't give a d**n to the situation of 400 cars per km capacity, and the two and only fossil power generating stations. In contrary, Hong Kong government is currently visiting the Arab countries for persuading the oil rich countries to invest in the Hong Kong stock markets.

If we can conqure the human weakness of greed, selfish and fear, we can maintain the Earth's life support beneficial to all mankinds.

Answer 9

It is not the prosperity and growth that are the problem it is the manner in which they are instigated. Earth could easily maintain 20-30 billion people but, only if there is mutual cooperation amongst all of the people of Earth. Jack B. named the elephant and a huge white elephant it is. The only country in the world that may be able to do something about stopping the continued degradation of this planet is the USA. Some of the greatest minds in the world live there. It is the current hierarchy of corruption that is preventing them from being allowed to contribute   anything to stop the pollution, to restore the natural resources by using renewable ones or any efforts, for that matter, that science could do to heal this planet. Let's hope that the upcoming election will give us a leader that can turn the tide and help to heal the planet instead of further destroying it.

Answer 10

Overpopulation is not the major cause of environmental degradation, but consumption certainly is.

Take for example Bangladesh and compare it with the US, about the same population, Bangladesh is far more crowded, yet the US causes far mor damage to the global environment.

and the formula of 1 person per 5 acres is not very relevant either, since that is an average number, and in many countries in the population density is far higher, yet they do not feel overcrowded or have lower living standards.

Answer 11

Overpopulation is not a matter of simple mathematics.  There simply isn't enough arable land to produce the goods we all need to sustain a quality lifestyle.  The overpopulation is also producing a huge strain on the planet's ability to renew itself and to take care of toxins resulting from industrial pollution.  There are no longer vast areas of unspoiled wilderness - each corner of the globe is effected by our ever increasing need.  Even the slopes of Mt. Everest have been turned into garbage dumps. Everything is effected - you cannot buy tuna which is completely free of mercury contamination, nor can you find water in vast quantities which is free of pollutants.  

The major economic powers of the world are not cooperating enough to stem the tide of damage being done.  They act mainly from self-serving interests and have not found a workable plan to resolve the major issues.  Unfortunately, the U.S.A. has not shown positive leadership and seems to be the most resistant to change.  However, other nations (Russia, Mexico, India) resist making difficult changes out of desperate need - they are struggling for their very existence and have sacrificed the health of their people in order to promote economic growth.

Answer 12

Its not really an elephant in the room as this topic has been brought up many times. Usually by the same people that say we need to stop eating animals and de-evolve our life styles.

Answer 13

of course. all we're doing at the moment is trying to figure out how to survive. once we end the global warming crises ppl start having babies like crazy and were back where we started from

Answer 14

No - The population density of humans is 1 per 5 acres of land.  That's 20 acres for a family of 4, plenty of room for everyone.

The Earth could easily support 5 times the number of people.  It's just that big numbers scare us.

Answer 15

No, it isn't.  First of all, the rate of population growth is falling--and  is expected to reach zero before the end of the century.

second--and far more important--the problem is how we produce energy, not how much we sue.  We could produce--and use--10 times as much as we do now--and have very little negative effect on the environment--IF we scrap the outmoded fossil fuel technologies we use today.

How?  There's plenty of alternatives.  let's just take one--solar energy.  And lets limit ourselves to what is commercially available now--with the exception of allowing for reductions in start up costs that would be realized from large-scale implementation.

Under those circumstances, solar energy would become a growth industry--creating tens o fthousands of jobs and signimicant economic growth--its n investment--not a "cost."

I threw that in jsut to get the myth that alternative enrgy is baad for teh economy out of the way--here's the main point:

Assume 10% efficiency (about what is currently available in commercial systems).  That means about 140 watts net per square meter.  Assuming 10 hours of clear daylight 300 days a year--thats about 420 kilowatt hours per year.  70 square meters would produce as much energy  energy as the US produces per capita annually.  Thats about 750 square feet.

In short--we could produce ALL of the energy we now use--including that needed for cars, for industry, for EVERYTHING--with solar panels just on the roofs of our houses.

And zero carbon emissions

Then there's wind power.  Hydroelectric power.  Nuclear power (not my first choice, but its better than fossil fuels).  Tidal. Geothermal.  Bofuels.  

And that's jsut what we have the technology for NOW.

Overpopulation IS NOT THE PROBLEM. How much energy we use is not the problem. HOW WE PRODUCE THAT  ENERGY is the problem.