Answer:
While it is certainly true that some environmentalists, some journalists, and even some scientists have, sometimes intentionally, like certain journalists, or in error, made certain predictions of future catastrophic trends which have been premature, this in no way implies that there is no danger, and other predictions have come true. And of course, some predictions have not (yet) come true, since - if sufficient or not - legislative measures have been taken to prevent them to come true. There is obviously no simple answer to questions like this, so the best advice that can be given is, as usual, to compare arguments of different sides.
On the other hand, for a decade or two there has been an ongoing campaign of deceptive books and articles designed to persuade people that all is well on the environmental front. The basic message of this campaign is that some "favorable trends show green concerns" to be "doomsaying." See the following question.
Answer:
The incredible thing about such a claim is not that is had been made, for example by a certain economist named Julian Simon, whose publications have been welcomed by an audience willing to hear optimistic news, however flimsy the evidence presented may be (it is easily shown that some human "resources" such as greed, stupidity and ignorance may indeed be considered to be infinite). The incredible thing about such a claim is that one actually has to even address this.
How can one seriously respond to such wackiness? Let us consider what the term infinite means: unlimited (I don't need to go into mathematical sophistry). While the number of points between Washington and Denver is certainly unlimited - and therefore infinite - because points have no defined size, nobody would claim that the distance between these places is unlimited.
In other words: Let's say you have in your car a can with ten gallons of fuel as a reserve. You could fill dozens of bottles with your ten gallon. In fact you could fill virtually countless gin-glasses with ever diminishing quantities of your fuel. Would you therefore rely on your fuel reserve to be infinite, when driving from Washington to Denver?
For a more detailed critique of such claims see STEADY STATE ECONOMICS, Daly; Island Press, 1991 pp. 282-289. ISBN 1-55963-071-X
Answer:
To best answer this question one needs to define what is meant with 'overpopulated' (if you mean, is the world population density everywhere as high as in Hong Kong, the answer would clearly be no).
All too often, overpopulation is thought of simply as crowding: too many people in a given area. To understand overpopulation not simply population density must be regarded, but the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources, and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is the area's carrying capacity.
By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being depleted and that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental systems.
Note that this depends in part on the exact human activities: For instance, the impact of today's 665 million Africans on their resources and environment theoretically might be reduced to the point where the continent would no longer be overpopulated. To see whether this would be possible, population growth would have to be stopped, appropriate assistance given to peasant farmers, and certain other important reforms instituted. Similarly, dramatic changes in American lifestyle might suffice to end overpopulation in the United States without a large population reduction.
But, for now and the foreseeable future, Africa, United States, and other countries will remain overpopulated and will probably become even more so. To say they are not because, if people changed their ways, overpopulation might be eliminated is simply wrong: overpopulation is defined by the species that occupy the turf, behaving as they naturally behave, not by a hypothetical group that might be substituted for them.
Answer:
That depends of course on the lifestyle of these people. If for example the Chinese will all drive cars and produce more industrial waste in the future then China's overpopulation problem will dramatically increase even without further population increase.
It must be understood, however, that even in the absence of industrial production and energy consumption the impact of a population on the environment is not zero (Read this). The question is rather, how many people can live sustainably on this world - that is without causing irretrievable damage to the environment. It is certainly true that, say, 35 billion people could be fed (for a generation or so) by eating the entire non-human life of this world, which would then be destroyed. But what then?
Answer:
According to AP, August 4, 1996 there were 5,692,210,000 in 1995.
Answer:
Although much of the world's hunger problem today stems from uneven food distribution, to feed future populations, agricultural output levels must keep pace with population growth. While increased investment in agricultural research and technology has resulted in increased yields, environmental degradation will persist.
"For just how long can we feed this many people? Too little is known about the long term consequences of soil and water degradation and species extinctions to be confident the earth's resources can be relied on to feed indefinitely any specific number of human beings, even today's 5.7 billion,"
according to a recent report issued by Population Action International. (Conserving Land: Population and Sustainable Food Production, Population Action International, 1995.)
This poses a challenge since the report also states that between 1945 and 1990 "food production and other human activities" degraded nearly three billion acres of vegetated land, "an area equal to China and India combined." This means this land has lost its capacity to hold and supply nutrients to vegetation. Two thirds of the most degraded land is in Africa and Asia.
World's seas are fished to the limit, study finds: WASHINGTON - The oceans have been fished nearly to the limits, after decades of fishermen
using bigger boats and more advanced hunting technologies, according to a report released yesterday.
Meanwhile, world population is growing at 1.6 percent annually, equivalent to the population of Mexico
being added to the world each year, the report said.
"This ... has already caused armed confrontations between fishing nations, gunfire between fishers and
hunger in the developing world," said Peter Weber, author of the report, "Net Loss: Fish, Jobs and the
Marine Environment."
The total catch has shrunk by more than 30 percent in four of the hardest-hit areas - the Pacific's
east-central region and the Atlantic's northwest, west-central and southeast sectors.
"Although worldwide environmental degradation of the oceans contribute to the decline of marine life,
overfishing is the primary cause of dwindling fish populations," said the report, which was issued by the
nonprofit Worldwatch Institute. A 5 percent decline in the worldwide catch since 1989 is due largely to
more people fishing in large-scale, industrial operations, often in waters that are becoming more polluted,
the report said.
AP, July 24, 1996
Answer:
It is sometimes claimed that most of the problems like famines, resource shortages and others are caused by state interference in the free market. Of course ill-advised government interference can create problems (big surprise). But the fact that food prices have not been substantially rising in the past decades is irrelevant to people with an income of just a few dollars a day. And of course if the rich countries offer better prices then even countries with a hunger problem will export food, as is the case in many Third World countries.
Answer:
In an era of nuclear arms and highly technological weapons it is absurd to equate military power with the number of soldiers. That was different in the middle ages.
Yeah? If you think so it is probably wise if you rely on Santa Claus in case you need money badly.
If we succeed in feeding five hungry children today without supporting birth control, especially in some underdeveloped countries, we will have to feed 50 hungry children in just a few years. In many countries birth control is not only unavailable but illegal (according to a WHO Report from 1984 in 38 of 88 countries mainly in the Third World. Even in the U.S.A. birth control was illegal in some states, e.g. Connecticut, as late as 1965).
In regard to the ever increasing numbers of children living in the streets of many mega cities like Manila, Mexico City, Rio, Sao Paulo, it is absurd to suggest their mothers wanted so many children.
Get your own Free Home Page