| Revision as of 11:52, 21 May 2003 editRotem Dan (talk | contribs)1,671 edits NOTE: The first paragraph is NOT science, just some kind of blather I wrote. PLEASE Correct, and I wrote it fast so itt hud manny typoss :)← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:03, 21 May 2003 edit undoHeron (talk | contribs)Administrators29,256 editsm spNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Overpopulation''' is a theory suggesting that a human population, or more |
'''Overpopulation''' is a theory suggesting that a human population, or more precisely, a communally-sustainable society (that is, not a survival-of-the-fittest ]istic population), under certain circumstances, can become so large that it exceeds the capacity of the containing planet (i.e. ]) to sustainably support it. It is regarded by many as a critical global issue. | ||
| This article deals primarily with presenting different arguments that have been presented for overpopulation of humans, and criticism that has been given since. | This article deals primarily with presenting different arguments that have been presented for overpopulation of humans, and criticism that has been given since. | ||
Revision as of 12:03, 21 May 2003
Overpopulation is a theory suggesting that a human population, or more precisely, a communally-sustainable society (that is, not a survival-of-the-fittest Darwinistic population), under certain circumstances, can become so large that it exceeds the capacity of the containing planet (i.e. Earth) to sustainably support it. It is regarded by many as a critical global issue.
This article deals primarily with presenting different arguments that have been presented for overpopulation of humans, and criticism that has been given since.
Malthus' theory
Early in the 19th century, Thomas Malthus argued that, if left unrestricted, human populations would continue to grow until they would become too large to be supported by the available agricultural land. At that point, the population would be restrained though mass famine and starvation. Malthus argued for population control, through "moral restraint", to avoid this happening.
Over the two hundred years which followed, Malthusian catastrophes have overtaken numerous individual regions; on a global scale, however, food production has grown faster than population. It has often been argued that future pressures on food production, combined with threats to other aspects of the earth's habitat such as global warming, make overpopulation a still more serious threat in the future. Perhaps the best-known example of such an argument is the The Limits to Growth, a report produced for the Club of Rome in the early 1970s.
Other studies have countered with the claim that the current population level of over six billion may be supported by current resources, or that the global population may grow to ten billion and still be within the Earth's capacity to support. The assumptions that underlie these claims, however, have been strongly criticised.
The world's current agricultural production, if it were distributed evenly, would be sufficient to feed everyone living on the Earth today. However economic and political realities dictate food often does not reach some who are in great need of it.
Many critics hold that, in the absence of other measures, simply feeding the world's population well would only make matters worse, causing the population to quickly grow to unsustainable levels, and resulting in mass famine, disease and other human misery on a scale unimaginable even today. Holders of this belief often call this consequence as "the threat of population explosion".
However, others contend that within a generation after the standard of living and life expectancy starts increasing, family sizes start dropping in what is termed the demographic transition. In support they point to the contention that every estimate of maximum global population since the 1960s, when the "population explosion" became a worry, has been significantly lower than the previous estimates. Among those holding this view are the ecologist Paul Colinvaux, who writes on the topic in Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare, and The Fates of Nations.
Another point of view on population vs. the standard of living is that of Virginia Abernathy in Population Politics, in which she shows evidence that this effect only holds true in nations where women enjoy a relatively high status, and in strongly-patriarchal nations where women enjoy few rights, a higher standard of living tends to result in population growth.
Some approach overpopulation with a "survival-of-the-fittest," "laissez-faire" attitude, arguing that if the Earth's ecosystem becomes overtaxed, it will naturally regulate itself. In this mode of thought, disease or starvation are "natural" means of lessening population. Others argue that economic development is the best way to reduce population growth. Many developed countries in the world today, such as Italy, now have declining populations (especially ignoring the effects of immigration).
In either case, it is often held that the most productive approach is to provide a combination of help targeted towards population control and self-sufficiency. One of the most important measures to be taken in this effort is the empowerment of women educationally, economically, politically, and in the family. The value of this philosophy has been substantially borne out in cases where great strides have been taken to this goal: where women's status has dramatically improved, there has generally been a drastic reduction in the birthrate to more sustainable levels. Other measures include effective family planning programs, local renewable energy systems, sustainable agriculture methods and supplies, reforestation, and measures to protect the local environment.
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.
List of cities that are considered overpopulated
see also Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon