Conversation with Somebody Who Does Not Think Human Overpopulation is an Issue

This is a fictional conversation with a person who does not think human overpopulation is an actual thing.  In reality I think the non-believers really don't want to hear anything we have to say.  They are either in denial out of fear that this is an actual concern, or they want to have lots of children and do not want to consider that doing so might be one of the worst things for the planet.

Them "Prove to me that humans are overpopulated.".

Me "Look around you, what do you see?"

Them "I see the city, the buildings."

Me "Right, so what was there before?"

Them "It was farm."

Me "Right, and what was there before it was a farm?"

Them "It was a forest I guess..."

Me "Right, and that proves we are overpopulated.  At one time all this land was a forest, nature lived here.  We had species here that are now extinct, such as the passenger pigeon.  There was a swamp with animals, there was a forest, and from year to year things pretty much stayed the same.  Then we overpopulated where we (humans) were living and we needed food, so we cleared the area and made it into a farm to grow food for ourselves.  Where did nature go?  Then our population grew more and we needed to fill in the swamp and take over the farm to turn it into a city."

Them "But we still have lots of open spaces where we could fit more people."

Me "Don't you get it?  Every time we fit more people, we displace nature, we displace trees, we displace birds, we displace deer, cougars, and everything else that lived here before."

Them "We can fit all the people on the earth into the state of Alaska and each person would have 2000 square feet of space!"

Me "So go live in Alaska and hope your 2000 square feet of space is not on a mountain, and good luck growing enough food for yourself in that space, as well as housing yourself, and disposing of your waste."

Them "Well we would have to grow food elsewhere and dispose of waste elsewhere."

Me "So what was the point of saying we could all live in Alaska if you have to grow food elsewhere and dispose of waste elsewhere?  If we have to do that then we are not just living in Alaska and you still forget that a lot of the space you mention is not inhabitable at all."  Pause "You are forgetting that the human population does more than just take up space...  we deforest areas for things we think we need, such as coffee, gold, and diamonds.  We deforest space so we have lumber for houses and to make way for more and more farm land, and our pollution has rendered some areas uninhabitable for humans or other animals.  We have reached a point where we rely on non-renewable resources and are consuming renewable ones at a rate faster than they can be renewed." 

Them (getting defensive) "Well, if we are overpopulated you should just fix it by killing yourself."

Me "Saying we are overpopulated does not mean we need to resort to killing ourselves or killing others, we just need to be more responsible and not have kids when we are young, and not have more than one child per couple, and even that is growth as our children do not replace us when we are still alive."

Conversation ends.. I have been blocked.. hung up on.. or walked away from.

Typically people who think that human overpopulation is not an issue do not want to take into account that other species have a right to live here (on the planet) too.  They tend to think that "food" is the only issue in regards to concerns about human overpopulation.  They often have very little worldly experience, and refuse to consider what might happen in the future due to population concerns. 

My Rant About People in Denial in Regards to Human Overpopulaton

To me it makes no sense to deny that there is a human overpopulation problem.  Most of the people who say overpopulation is a myth are those who already have a few kids.  They throw up stupid arguments like "Everyone on the planet could fit in the state of Alaska and we would all have 2,000 square feet of room each", but fail to explain how each person would produce enough food (clothing, etc) for themselves in that 2,000 foot space, where their waste would go, and if they would be willing to share that space with their kids, grandkids, and so forth.

The over population deniers spout crap like "The earth provides enough for everyone's need, but it is just not being distributed fairly".  Which is only partially true and it negates the fact that most people are over consuming... if everyone lived like the average American, we would need 4 or 5 earth's to sustain us all!  Perhaps the earth would provide enough for everyone's need, if everyone in the developed nations did not consume as much as they do now (not just food, but other resources too).  However, when I see somebody saying that the world is not overpopulated they represent the typical first world person; living in a roomy house, driving a newer car, owning electronics and things that are otherwise not true "needs".  They have no idea what a mess the world would be if everyone had an equal amount of stuff as they had.

Aerial photos show that this area was once a thick forest, now the only trees that remain are a thin band separating one farm from another, primarily to serve as a windbreak and nothing more than that.   The loss of trees in North America was one of the contributing factors in the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon, a bird that once numbered in the billions.

Deniers don't see the obvious things as signs of overpopulation.  I refer to farmer's fields and other avenues of agriculture.  Do they think that farms have always been where farms are now?  Does it not occur to them that in some cases that land used to be a rich forest?  As soon as the very first forest was cleared and that land turned into a farm, we impacted the earth negatively. 

As soon as we drove another species to extinction, either because of habitat loss, or because we over-consumed it, we were a problem.  As soon as our waste started to pile up we should have clued in that we were a problem.  Why can people not get that?

Are they so wrapped up in their own reality that they fail to see the global picture, or are they just in denial because they have to be in order to justify pumping out kid after kid?

I rarely bother to argue with ignorant deniers any more.  I have conceded that in most cases they will not be swayed, especially if they already had kids and have to maintain the fact that they are not contributing to a potential major concern.  Instead I will focus on educating the youth, with subtle comments here and there, in hopes that they have open minds and will absorb some of what they are told and will go forth to expand on what I tell them.

How Do We Know if the World is Overpopulated

Agreeing on if the world is overpopulated or not is based on more than if we produce enough food for all the people on the planet. Indeed deciding if there are are too many humans is not just about the humans, but is about all other species as well as the earth itself.

For thousands of years the human population stayed pretty steady around 1 to 2 billion people, shooting up only recently with improvements to health care and industrialization. When the human population was lower we were still causing some impact on the planet but in no way as great as we are doing now that our human population numbers over 7 billion.

If you talk to somebody who is in their 50's or older they will probably tell you how they can remember farms in areas that are now built up and urbanized. Indeed the human population has more than doubled in the last 50 years and we have lost a lot of farm land as well as natural forests due to the growth rate. Farms have become more “efficient” at producing more food on less land, and typically this results in food that has less nutrition, but again food is not the focus...

The oceans all have gyres of human garbage, large pits and quarries destroy the landscapes in many areas. Deforestation has lead to landslides on many mountains. Toxic ponds of industrial waste pollute many areas. Giant mounds of human garbage occupy many acres of land worldwide. Thousands of species of animals have gone extinct in the past 200 years and yet some people still claim that the human population is not too high.

Studies done on rats and mice years ago by John B. Calhoun suggested that many social problems are the result of overpopulation. In his experiments the animals were cared for medically and were well fed but their population was allowed to grow. At a certain point the formerly social animals became anti-social, random acts of violence became common, and parenting skills declined drastically to the point that eventually the young animals did not survive.

Humans have long been known to be violent towards one and other but the acts of violence were rarely random as they are today. People walk down busy streets without making eye contact, they walk past those who are suffering (homeless) as though they did not exist. Compassion to our fellow man is being lost as we become more and more overpopulated.

This development (in Edmonton) used to be farm land, and prior to being farm land it was a forest.  How is this "better" than a forest?   How is this being in harmony with the planet?

Although some people have suggested a sustainable human population is 5 billion (and others have suggested 500 million) there is probably no definite number of what the maximum sustainable population is. In part it relates to how sustainable we chose to live our lives. Five billion people who live lives of excess are not nearly as sustainable as 5 billion people who live modestly (small homes, consuming only what they need, few luxuries).

Sadly it is impossible, therefore, to give an exact number at which the human population is considered to be overpopulated. Most certainly, due to our impact on the environment, and other species, we have surpassed that number. As long as we rely on non-renewable resources, and consume renewable ones up faster than they can be renewed, and as long as we displace, or destroy, other species, we are overpopulated.

People Overreact When I Mention Human Overpopulation

I am a bit behind the times; I only recently joined Facebook!   I have often mentioned human overpopulation on Facebook posts, such as when a person references pollution, or whatever.  Typically I am met with responses that are not only very defensive, but often a total overreaction to my comment.  Specifically some people jump to the conclusion that I am suggesting we kill off a bunch of people!

I have never suggested solving the concerns of human overpopulation by killing people.  

To that end I am actually afraid that at one point the world will be so overpopulated that killing people (much as we do with other species to control their growth) will be something that is talked about more openly.  I grew up watching shows such as "Logan's Run" and movies like "Soylent Green" in which overpopulation was a real concern and society had its own way of dealing with this.  

I absolutely do not want the human population reaching a point where our lifespan is decided for us.  Heck no!  That is why I warn about human overpopulation now and point out that we cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend it is not a concern.  That is why I tell people that one child is plenty, and that putting off having kids until you are at least 28 is a very important thing to do.

Look around, human overpopulation is not about food, it is about what we are doing to our planet just by being here.  We have destroyed forests, we have driven thousands of other species to extinction, we have caused the destruction of many ecosystems, polluted rivers and lakes, and yet some people still insist we are living in harmony with the planet and that our numbers are not too large!

The city used to be farm land, the farm land used to be a forest... as soon as we destroyed the forest, we were overpopulating the area.  This is the city of Edmonton, Alberta.

I am not talking about depopulating the planet by killing people.  I am suggesting we realize that we are killing the planet by allowing our population to grow uncontrolled (we have eliminated many things that kept our population controlled, such as diseases, and predators).  We are living longer than ever before and that is in fact the problem because the birth rate is actually going down in many countries.  However the population grows because infant mortality is down, and (as mentioned) we are living longer so several generations of the same family are alive at the same time, whereas in the past the older generations would have died off, allowing for room for the younger generations.

Please do not put words into my mouth, I am not suggesting we kill people, I am just suggesting each one of us would be reproductively responsible and not have more than one child, and not have that child before we are over the age of 28.

I am sure that most people who talk about human overpopulation are met with the same overreaction by others who assume that just because you talk about there being too many people that you are automatically suggesting we eliminate some!

Causes of Random Acts of Violence

If you think random acts of violence are more common now than in the past you are correct. 

Violence has often been a part of the human society, wars over territory and such have been a concern for thousands of years, but actual random acts of violence are a relatively new thing.

In studies done on rats and mice, John B. Calhoun noted that as the populations grew so too did the occurrence of random acts of violence.  He provided the animals with ample food and water, so he could eliminate "need" from the cause of violent outbreaks.  What he noted was that as populations grew the compassion the animals had for one and other shrunk.  They no longer acted the same towards one and other, even simple parenting skills declined.

The rats, or mice, were in near constant contact with each other and this caused them to devalue others of their kind more and more over time, leading to the increase in random acts of violence.

Humans have doubled their population in the last 40 years.  This has caused a huge strain on us socially as more and more people feel like life is a rat race and is less enjoyable overall.  More people than ever are living in cities, constantly rubbing shoulders with others.  In turn people feel lost and alone, and their subconscious cannot take the loss of identity.  People are, in general, less compassionate to strangers, and in some cases even resent them. 

In the past when people lived rurally or in smaller communities (and in areas where these smaller communities still exist) people still greet each other with a "hello" and they still make eye-contact, even with people they do not know.  In big cities people mentally distance themselves from others, they do not say "hi" to people they walk by on the street and avoid eye-contact.

We have already reached a point where random acts of violence are occurring, and are at a place where they seem to be quite common. 

As parents we must raise our children to be compassionate to others, but equally so if we have lots of children we need to take responsibility for the fact that we are just adding more of a burden to the problem.

More people = more stress.

Can Families Raise Children Without Depending on Daycare

One symptom of overpopulation is parents giving up their role as parents.  In studies on rats and mice, as the populations grew the parent animals were less involved with raising their young.  It seems to me that the human population is showing the same symptom in that many parents are getting strangers to raise their kids rather than raising their kids themselves.

The excuse so often given is that they "need to both work" so they need to have daycare.

I had only one child and before she was born both my husband and I agreed we were not going to place her in daycare.  Please note that we were not rich, in fact we were considered lower class citizens, living on minimum wage.  Rather than dumping our daughter in daycare we simply altered our schedules so that while he worked full time and I worked part time, I worked on days and times when he was home, and visa versa. 

We were very frugal with our money.  We did not have cell phones, internet, or cable television.  We had one car that we shared, it cost us very little to buy and we were not making payments on it.  We never went out for coffee but we often went for lovely walks to the park. 

We put our child as a priority rather than having "stuff". 

When I hear people say that they cannot afford for one person to stay at home and watch their children I seriously wonder what they are thinking, because if we did it on a really low income, anyone with a better income should be able to do it too. 

Otherwise I have to wonder why even have a child if you are not willing to raise it yourself, particularly as children's most formative years are 0 to 5.

If a person cannot stay home to raise one child, then why do they have more?  Surely this raises their day care expenses and further cuts into their income.

Universe 25, a study on mice which showed that as populations grew the parent mice cared less and less for their own offspring with each new generation.

I realize that most people are not logical thinkers.  They want kids, they want a big house, they want new cars, and they are not willing to make any sacrifices.  They make excuses for why they put their kid(s) in day care, they say they could not afford to stay home, but in all reality they just did not make the right choices so they could stay home.  They wanted too much stuff instead!

Again, as a low income person, if my husband and I could figure out a way for one of us to always stay home, for sure a couple making a higher income should be able to figure it out too.

Over all though, parents would be wise to remember that one kid is expensive, more will not be cheaper.

The world is not at a loss for population, we need to control our numbers, there is no need for people who produce more and more kids that they are unwilling to look after and will put in the trust of strangers.   Is this the result of human overpopulation? Or the result of human greed?