Talk:Overpopulation

	This Environmentalism related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): It contains unsourced statements Tagged since April 2016

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

One Doubt

I would argue that the criticism "They argue that it is classist because some hard green activists who support the stereotypes fail to consider the excesses and byproducts of capitalism in developed nations, which is incredibly vague and meaningless," isn't exactly untrue because there is plenty evidence that there is enough food for 10 billion on the Earth at a current moment but a lot of it gets straight up wasted or feed to animals meaning that there is something wrong with the way food is distributed now. I get why this was put in because the article since it is supposed to be neutral but at the same time taking the centrist position does not automatically make one right and it might want to be noted that this is usually what the left means so to not misrepresent or distort the point being made. Not only that but, one should take into account that the further enviromental issues like climate change goes along the more that the far right will adopt environmentalist talking points to justify their ideas. Otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing the rise of people like the Christchurch shooter as well as plenty of Neo-nazi groups adopting pseudo-ecological talking points as a weapon minorities and poor people. A lot of said talking points usually relies on Malthusian theory to argue that brown people are reproducing to the point that when they immigrate into first world countries not only will they destroy the white race but they will also destroy the environment. This isn't to say that overpopulation will never be a problem since this article isn't arguing that it is now but I think these previous points should be taken into consideration to make the article more accurate but to also make sure that information like this does not become abused by the kinds of people I mentioned here. ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.224.159.35 / talk / contribs} 5:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The 'far-right' doesn't adopt real concerns about overpopulation though since they don't support decreasing fertility rates of 'white' ethnic groups. The Christchurch shooter was telling white people to breed more and increase their TFR (total fertility rate) to 2.1 - the complete opposite of neo-Malthusians who want to decrease TFRs to stop and reverse unsustainable population growth, not increase them. Gigantes (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well that section of the far-right is all about more white people, and genocide for everyone else, so any attention they may give to this topic is really mere lip service to hide their ulterior motives of making the planet ~~Nazi~~ white. — Dysk (contribs) 20:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I do feel the left-leaning criticism section is full of weak strawman arguments (it's pretty obvious "excesses of capitalism" means developed nations have a much larger carbon footprint unless you're being willfully obtuse) and needs to be rewritten. Plus, labeling relatively mild liberal / social democrat level criticism as "extreme left" makes us sound like the Daily Mail or other regional right-wing rag equivalent. Colossal Squid (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten the section to explain why people may be unnerved by overpopulation rhetoric due to historical context. Colossal Squid (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Umm... Major Problems!

First of all, where in the hell does this article present any legitimate scientific evidence that human overpopulation has happened or is happening? I mean, if we're talking a very small country like Bangladesh with a crazy population density, you have an argument. But worldwide? Not even friggin' close. So, why the hell is there a "solutions" section when in previous sections, it admits that the carrying capacity of our planet can be increased through technology and innovation (e.g. the Green Revolution)?

It would seem to be the logical conclusion, then, that the solution to Bangladesh's issue is innovation in urban planning and food distribution, not lies based on outdated research that was faulty in the first place and asinine assumptions derived from it. It seems to me that there can't be "solutions" if there isn't really a problem.

The worst offense is the section titled "Optimism." How in God's name can you be optimistic about effectively destroying the First World's social safety nets and old-age pension systems by having fewer young workers (and fewer taxpayers)?! Who the hell thinks that's a good thing? Any "optimism" about that happening would only be held by fucking psychopaths! The celebratory tone of this section about declining worldwide fertility rates is creepier than a Stephen King novel.

I would suggest fixing this by drawing a distinction between scientifically proven overpopulation of animals in certain environments (e.g. whitetail deer in the U.S.) and the hypothetical human overpopulation (which, again, on a global scale, is not a goddamn problem!)

Sorry for my tone here. I just... the lies have to stop. It's not conducive to solving actual problems if there isn't a shared concept of reality.

Love, --SaneConservative52 (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Overpopulation is a local issue. It manifests as famine sufficient to reduce the local population. It doesn't even apply conceptually as a global issue because there is no global shared pool of the resources that constrain human population growth. And yet, it's often presented as such in Western countries. Consider whether the people who would benefit from that impression have the means and opportunity to cultivate it. It's largely become an ideological issue (see the article) where it serves as a post hoc justification for desired positions or policies. As such, the technical details of the situation are beside the point for much of the discussion that goes on. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"How in God's name can you be optimistic about effectively destroying the First World's social safety nets and old-age pension systems by having fewer young workers (and fewer taxpayers)?!" Money, and the value it represents, doesn't come from workers... it comes from production. As we produce more efficiently due to new technology (typically reducing workers needed per unit of production), supply increases and/or cost decreases. Both result in deflation, allowing the printing of money to use as government revenue. The pyramid scheme of funding old people with growing population of young people is unsustainable. People are resource processors, not resources producers. Eventually you run out of resources to process. Meanwhile a major leap in technology of AI is impending/ongoing. Nations that can afford it will be the first to get a taste of technology that will accelerate the crisis of technological unemployment if we do the wrong thing (such as increase the number of working age people who will just collect more unemployment checks, or split a full time job with 2 other part timers). Increasing or even maintaining population will cost the safety net more, degrowth is free and already happening in developed nations. 108.20.46.22 (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Population as a function of food supply?

The article does not mention the causes of population growth. One of the causes might be the growth of global food production, it seems. See more: [1] and [2] 46.107.103.29 (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)balazs

Antoni van Leeuwenhoek

Given that he was making calculations before the full land area (and agricultural capacities thereof - the deserts and taiga zones would have limited potential) of the Earth was known, and a century before the Industrial-Agricultural revolution occurred (though there was some development agricultural concepts) he came up with a rather large figure.

It is probably easier to identify areas of local overpopulation (given resources available and potential for movement elsewhere). Anna Livia (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Mouse experiment

The use of the Calhoun mouse experiment here is problematic, as his original experiments with Norwegian rats showed a population that eventually stabilized, while the disasters in the mouse experiment were due to them being placed in an environment that was small, crowded, and unstimulating.[3] Thus, the study is not relevant to the idea of overpopulation, and even if it was, drawing conclusions about how human society should act based on nature is a fallacy. Thus, I'm removing the section, though the entire article is problematic. Plutocow (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, ignoring the fact that "denialism" isn't the best choice of words to use on something where it's not clear that it's an issue, the section conflates multiple things, firstly just people who are pro-reproduction, which is a moral stance rather than a fact-based one, then conspiracy theorists who believe that overpopulation is a front for genocide, which, while missional, is more conspiracy theories than denialism (furthermore, while most of their claims, and all of their claims about vaccines, are bullshit, such overpopulation being used to justify population control has actually happened in India and Puerto Rico among others, plus ecofascists use overpopulation as a justification for genocide, so the subject could use a little more nuance), and lastly capitalists who believe in endless growth, which is an entirely separate issue as the nations with the largest economies are in the countries with the lowest birthrates. Thus, I am removing this section too, as it is entirely irrelevant and fails to show that these claims are "denialism" or if they are of "overpopulation" in particular. Plutocow (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)