Results so far:
| No | 31% | 38 votes | Total: 122 votes | |
| Yes | 69% | 84 votes |
Overpopulation - a noun describing the excessiveness of the existence of a particular group in lieu of another group of the same or different classification. In short, it means, "there's too darned many people here."
This is not the case on planet Earth, where there are 6.2 billion (and counting) people that grace the face of this great planet of ours.
Consider for a moment that there are 57,500,000 square miles of land on this planet we call Earth. A population of 6,299,999,999 (just short of 6.3) occupying each square mile means that there would be 110 people per square mile. Is this an example of crowded?
The idea of overpopulation isn't new, just veiled and reveiled as part of a concerted effort to minimize the effectiveness of the human to do as God had intended. In Genesis chapter 1, verse 28, and again in chapter 9, verse 1, we are instructed as God's creation of man, to "Be fruitful, and multiply, replenish (fill) the earth, and subdue it..."
Incidentally, if you take 6.3 Billion and divide it by the square mileage of the land surface of the earth, you get 110 people per square mile. Is that really overpopulation? If that's overpopulation, then the city of Baghdad should only have within its outermost borders, 8,000 people.
Are you kidding me?
But borne of this are the arguments that man is just an unmanageable species, and so his ranks must be reduced. Countless philosophers, theologians, and others have proclaimed that the expanse of man is too large for the wonderful planet to handle... and yet here we still are.
Such notables have been the scourge of human existence for their theories - Mani, (who forbade marriage of his subjects as a means of getting closer to God), the Apostle Paul, (who believed that marriage was a last resort for members of the faith), the priests of the Middle Ages, who believed that marriage led to the dispersal of Church-owned land to the families of the then-priests, Thomas Malthus, who postulated that the world could only handle about 1.5 billion people, and that we should all eat less. Some modern pseudo-prophets of man's endangerment because of his existence include the following 5-star list: Immanuel Kant, who postulated that man was evil because he used reason and judgment, Paul Erhlich, who said that the population of the world would exhaust all the food supply in the world by the year 1975, (having written his book in 1969), Rachel Carson, for believing that real pest control devices (such as then was DDT) were cause for pestilence and disease in other countries ("Silent Spring"), and the former Vice-President of the United States, Al Gore, who postulated, and wrongly, that man was making greenhouse gases at an unrecoverable rate, and that the earth was going to heat up and kill us all. Interesting of note, that when Al Gore's film came out, everywhere he presented his argument of man-made global warming, it snowed.
Overpopulatio n is not a threat to the planet; it never was. But to those who would wrest control over those of us who make up a greater understanding of what life is like on this planet, we are a threat to them, their political ideology, and their quest for power - exerting that power over the uninformed, unintelligent, and the unprivileged, to do exactly what the American Founders warned of us through the Declaration of Independence:
"... Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guard for their future security."
That passage there, is a threat to the very existence of the Al Gores, the Paul Erhlichs, the Malthuses, and Huxleys, and Kants of the world.
That is the real danger.
Learn more about this author, Kenneth Boser Ii.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
When we look at the cause of most of our worlds problems, famine, over-fishing, global warming, deforestation, and so forth, the single root cause is human demand. More people, means more demand. This is not a local problem, confined to countries like China and India, it is a global problem and must be addressed by every nation.
The Math of Population Growth
Many people think that as a couple, if they only have two children, they are not contributing to the population growth. However, a simple math equation, 2+2=4, shows that not only was their growth, but it doubled. The children did not replace the parents, the parents are still alive, and probably will be by the time those children have children themselves.
Years ago our population did not swell as rapidly as it is today. Lifespans were vastly shorter and infant mortality was much higher. With recent medical advancement, including vaccinations, we see families where there are children, parents, grandparents, and great grandparents, all alive. Since most people have siblings, they cannot even say their children are replacing their parents, since their siblings are probably also procreating, and the parents may still be alive.
In the the beginning of the year 2009 the world population was estimated at just over 6.7 Billion people, a full billion more than ten years earlier, and more than double what the world population was only thirty years earlier. Our current population growth rate is alarming.
The Foreseeable Problems
Where years ago the population grew at a much slower and steady pace, it is now leaping and bounding, and without check will result in a disaster like we have never known. Our planet can only feed so many people, house so many people, and so forth. Water may seem abundant, but only 3% of our world water supply is fresh water.
Stress, as the result of overpopulation and a lack of resources, has resulted in wars already. Deforestation to grow crops will aid global warming, as crops do not have the same impact on the environment as a diverse and full forest. Deforestation will also occur to construct housing for the masses. Meat will be extremely expensive as farmers will no longer have land to raise food for cattle, but will be forced to raise cereal and vegetable crops for people.
There are the problems created by our own waste. Even now some modern cities are struggling to keep up with waste management. In parts of the United States, human waste is shipped to Canada for disposal. In other areas it is put directly into the ground or water.
More people living close together is a recipe for disaster if we have a disease outbreak. Ironically this would eliminate part of the population but only if we get it under control before it wipes out us all.
One Small Planet
Currently Asia represents the bulk of the planets population, roughly 60%. People in less populated nations are ignorant of the facts and feel they do not need to control population growth, uttering statements such as "there is still lots of open space in Montana, USA.". We must remember, however that while Montana may have space, we are all part of the same planet, and it does not matter where we add the people, we are still adding people. Mouths to feed, garbage to deal with, and so forth. If we were to house large populations in Montana, where would beef cattle graze?
Still not Convinced?
If you are younger than thirty years old, or live in the inner city, you probably do not see the problem as widely as older people do, or those who live in the Suburbs. I am in my forties. What was the edge of the city I grew up in is now miles from the edge of town. Urban sprawl has consumed farm land at an alarming rate. Every year growth, and the demand for housing and shops, pushes farmers off their land as cities spread.
According to the 2007 CIA World Factbooks, the population at that time was growing by 211,090 people daily, undoubtedly this number is higher today. This means that daily, more than 211,090 people are born, than are dying. When these people reach adulthood, where will they all live? If your city had to house 211,090 more people daily, could it? Could it feed them as well?
The United Nations issued a warning that suggested a sustainable population for our plant would be 5 Billion people. Some Scientists prefer a number closer to 500 Million. As we are surpassing both numbers (remember we are over 6.7 billion), we must realize that while our nation may not be feeling any impact, others are. Additionally we have grown up with many of the problems and therefore we may not see them in the greater picture, as most problems escalate to a point of no return before we can fix them. I point to global warming, over fishing, and deforestation to be problems that we are faced with even now, and these problems do concern us globally. The rain forest is falling at an alarming pace of 20 acres per minute. Surely we are all to blame.
What can we do?
A simple solution is for couples to decide to limit themselves to one child only. Granted some will have twins, or triplets, and some will not have children at all. If people select to act now before the government is forced to act, it will benefit us all. What if we leave it too late and governments not only pass ruling about how many children people can have, but about how long we can live, or whom can have children at all?
As a response to an earlier warning from the United Nations regarding the population growth, many countries have seen a decrease in birth rates, but combined with the lowered mortality rates, very little improvement will be seen. Other countries and individuals need to act responsibly.
Interest ingly enough studies have shown that more intelligent people are in fact acting now, and having smaller families already. We should all take an interest in this global problem, and treat it as a local problem.
Learn more about this author, Brenda Nelson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.