Too many people?

I found this comment in a British magazine, and thought it very interesting just now with the climate meeting in Copenhagen:

"Many extreme 'environmentalists' secretly look forward to a mass 'culling' of
the human species, by war, famine, plague, or natural disaster. Only a small,
mostly American, have the honestly and moral courage to voice such offensive
opinions openly. But what do British Pagans think?"

Well, to further that discussion, I thought it a good idea to quote from an
article in National Geography, December issue, vol 215 no 6: The Hazda, 21.
century hunter-gatherers.

The Hazda live in the Great Rift Valley where humankind is supposed to originate
from, and "genetic testing indicates that they may represent one of the primary
roots of the human family tree - perhaps more than 100.000 years old."

"The Hazda do not engange in warfare. They've never lived densely enough to be
seriously threathened by an enfectious outbreak. They have no known history of
famine; rather, there is evidence of people from a farming group coming to lve
wth them during a time of crop failure. The Hazda diet remains even today more
stable and varied than that of most of the world's citizens. They enjoy an
extraordinary abount of leisure time. Anthropologists have estmated that they
'work' - actively pursue food - four to six hours a day. And over all these
thousands of years, they've left hardly more than a footprint on the land."

"For more than 99% of the time since the genus Homo arose two million years ago,
everyone lived as hunter-gatherers. Then, once plants and animals were
domesticated, the discovery sparked a complete reorganization of the globe. Food
production mached in lockstep with greater population densities, which allowed
farm-based societies to displace or destroy hunter-gatherer groups.
Agriculture's sudden rise, however, came with a price. It introduced
infectious-disease epidemics, social stratification, intermittent famines, and
large-scale war. Jared Diamond, the UCLA professor and writer, has called the
adoption of agriculture nothing less than "the worst mistake in human history -
a mistake, he suggests, from which we have never recovered."

So, what do you think?

Are we too many people?

yes. Most definately too many people.

We (that is the western world) seem to have some balance in population possibly we are actually reducing population slightly. Now i want to live pretty much by myself in the country. I enjoy nature and some measure of freedom that i can only have by myself or with a limited crowd of friends.

This i my ideal and if growing population by raising the price on housing/land and generally getting in my way is limiting that. Obviusly someone has to go. Thatd either meen im taking up too much space and have to go, or somebody else would.

Enuff with me thou. The UN and varius aid organisations, sometimes gets this feeling that they have to go help a bunch of people around the world. Primarily in africa, they have been doing this all my life and even when i really try. The only result im seeing is growing population and growing problems.

It may be cruel to say so but logic would dictate that not helping atall till population drops to a managable size, would in the long run open he possibility of actually making a difference thatll sustain itself.

At some level we are too many people. On the other hand, I like a lot of the benefits that accrue from that. If you want the population of the world to be even say 1,000,000,000 people then you're looking at a significant downturn in many things.

I happen to participate in fringe activities that under 0.01% of the population engage in, and that happen only in North America. Assuming even a population reduction to 200,000,000 in North America, that 0.01% becomes 20,000 people, which is a very small group to target when spread across an entire continent.

How many of your hobbies/activities/interests would be around if the population underwent severe decline?

The population bomb is an oft repeated environmentalist myth that has no basis in fact. The Netherlands has a population density of around 150 per km2 whilst Kenya has a population density of @20 per km2- which is the over crowded country?
The Green Revolution in Asia has allowed population density there to almost double in the last twenty years without a major famine event in that time frame.
Africa's problem, and we are talking about Africa, is that its soils are low in potassium, nitrogen and sulphur- but aid groups won't allow the use of targeted fertilizers for fear of disrupting traditional lifestyles. Cast iron hoes are heavy to use and slow work rates meaning that a greater proportion of the population is required in farming- where new light-weight steel hoes have been used (Idjwi in the Congo for example) they have led to reduced work in the fields, adoption of less wasteful techniques like deep seeding and weeding, rises in school attendance, improvements in household hygeine as women are no longer required in the fields and even enough spare time to re-establish traditional furniture making and textile industries- but aid groups still insist on handing out traditional cast iron hoes. Mechanization of many of these farms is out of the question but even simple irrigation technology would make many of these farms less prone to drought. the use of lucerne crops to help fix nitrogen in the soil are opposed because they are not native to Africa. In short, many of these aid groups are committed to an ideology that starving to death because of traditional methods is preferable to living with modern methods and technology.

You say too many but on what do you base that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FirstBorn

yes. Most definately too many people.

We (that is the western world) seem to have some balance in population possibly we are actually reducing population slightly. Now i want to live pretty much by myself in the country. I enjoy nature and some measure of freedom that i can only have by myself or with a limited crowd of friends.

This i my ideal and if growing population by raising the price on housing/land and generally getting in my way is limiting that. Obviusly someone has to go. Thatd either meen im taking up too much space and have to go, or somebody else would.

Enuff with me thou. The UN and varius aid organisations, sometimes gets this feeling that they have to go help a bunch of people around the world. Primarily in africa, they have been doing this all my life and even when i really try. The only result im seeing is growing population and growing problems.

It may be cruel to say so but logic would dictate that not helping atall till population drops to a managable size, would in the long run open he possibility of actually making a difference thatll sustain itself.

---

I saw an odd statistic a while back about this subject. By itself it has no reason for being, but it does provide an understanding of the subject, perhaps.

If the entire population of the world were moved to Texas, the population density in that state would equivalent to that currently experienced on Manhattan!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bren122

The population bomb is an oft repeated environmentalist myth that has no basis in fact. The Netherlands has a population density of around 150 per km2 whilst Kenya has a population density of @20 per km2- which is the over crowded country?
The Green Revolution in Asia has allowed population density there to almost double in the last twenty years without a major famine event in that time frame.
Africa's problem, and we are talking about Africa, is that its soils are low in potassium, nitrogen and sulphur- but aid groups won't allow the use of targeted fertilizers for fear of disrupting traditional lifestyles. Cast iron hoes are heavy to use and slow work rates meaning that a greater proportion of the population is required in farming- where new light-weight steel hoes have been used (Idjwi in the Congo for example) they have led to reduced work in the fields, adoption of less wasteful techniques like deep seeding and weeding, rises in school attendance, improvements in household hygeine as women are no longer required in the fields and even enough spare time to re-establish traditional furniture making and textile industries- but aid groups still insist on handing out traditional cast iron hoes. Mechanization of many of these farms is out of the question but even simple irrigation technology would make many of these farms less prone to drought. the use of lucerne crops to help fix nitrogen in the soil are opposed because they are not native to Africa. In short, many of these aid groups are committed to an ideology that starving to death because of traditional methods is preferable to living with modern methods and technology.

---

Not entirely accurate- if we used medium density (two levels/floors) housing of 8 people per building and 4 people per level, at 2000 square feet each, the population of the Earth would fit into Nevada and Texas. by mid century they will have filled Arizona. whilst the population of the Earth is expected to reach @10 billion by 2050, it is only projected to reach @12 billion by 2100.

no, you can fit everyone in the world in texas and it would have the population density of nyc. Now, are people too loud? different story

The problem is not the number of people but the amount of resources - many of them limited - each of them needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucy

The problem is not the number of people but the amount of resources - many of them limited - each of them needs.

---

I think the problem is more along the lines of finding ways to get those resources to the people who need them. Or perhaps getting the people to where the resources are more plentiful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucy

The problem is not the number of people but the amount of resources - many of them limited - each of them needs.

---

How much arable land is consumed by the places we live?
How much food could be produced if we all lived like New Yorkers. Yes I know you meant non-edible resources as well. As a species we have made great changes in the resources we use over the species lifetime. We can make more changes yet.
The inventiveness of the human mind is not to be overlooked!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bren122

Not entirely accurate- if we used medium density (two levels/floors) housing of 8 people per building and 4 people per level, at 2000 square feet each, the population of the Earth would fit into Nevada and Texas. by mid century they will have filled Arizona. whilst the population of the Earth is expected to reach @10 billion by 2050, it is only projected to reach @12 billion by 2100.

---

I believe large parts of Manhatten are higher two stories! And the determination was based on density of humans per square mile. Something on the order of 70,000 in 2000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I think the problem is more along the lines of finding ways to get those resources to the people who need them. Or perhaps getting the people to where the resources are more plentiful.

---

Yeah! It is a cute exercise but creates one hell of a commute!
Actually thought about that when I first found the datum.