I am Tired of the Ignorant who Deny that Overpopulation is a Problem

I read a news article on concerns of the growing human population and the problems of the human impact on the planet, mostly as related to the fact that we are at risk of overpopulating ourselves to extinction.

One person commented "Humans are too small of a species to cause any real impact to the planet", or something to that effect. I wonder how anyone can be so ignorant.

Anyone my age (I am nearly 50) has seen the world's population more than double and should be aware of the problems that have developed as a result (including urban sprawl).

Anyone who thinks humans do not impact things has never heard of the dodo bird, passenger pigeon, quagga, Tasmanian tiger, and so forth.

We know that cats are overpopulated.. humans are too.

Anyone who thinks humans cannot cause change has never been in a plane flying over a clear cut area, never seen an open pit mine, and has probably not heard of what we did to the Aral Sea.

It just boggles my mind how anyone can think humans are not damaging the earth.  These people are either ignorant or in denial, I assume they put their heads in the sand so they can justify living their life of excess, greed, and waste.

I think people just find it easier to deny these things than to admit that humans are not living in harmony with nature, we are not being sustainable. People do not want to change their ways so they simply deny that we are hurting the planet.

This article was originally published by me on Bubblews.

Food is NOT the Issue with Overpopulation

It always pisses me off when some ignorant person mentions food whenever human overpopulation is mentioned.

You know the ones, as soon as you say that the world is overpopulated they jump in and say "There is not a shortage of food, we produce enough food but it is not getting to the people who need it."

Wait, who said anything about food?  There are hundreds of concerns related to human overpopulation concerns and I would not even say food is in the top ten.

In experiments done in the 1950's and 1960's John B. Calhoun proved that food was not an issue.  He did experiments on rats and mice, providing them with an ideal environment, one in which food was never denied.  The populations grew and then collapsed.

In his experiments, Calhoun observed that as populations grew at first the subjects became more violent, had increased sexual behavior (including more sexual aggression), and some became anti-social.  He noticed mother animals became less nurturing and even started to show aggression to their own young, sometimes killing them.  Eventually the mother animals stopped mothering their young altogether, and the males stopped showing interest in the females, the animals behaved more like zombies than rats or mice.

Universe 25 photo source

In fact in Calhoun's Universe 25 experiment on mice, after 600 days the mice no longer produced any surviving litters and even as their population started to fall the surviving mice never produced any young, they effectively became "extinct". All this while their health was cared for, they were given ample water, and food, the only thing that was limited was space.

Anyone who is interested can read up on "Behavioral Sink" which is the term Calhoun gave to his observations.

The point being that food is not necessarily an issue with human overpopulation, and that when we reach a point of being overpopulated there are other concerns - such as increases in anti-social behavior and violence (wait, haven't we reached that point?).  So, to anyone who is ignorant enough to still think that just because we have enough food we can continue to pump out babies, I suggest you open your eyes!

---

The 2006 movie "Children of Men" explores a future in which humans have also reached a point where they are no longer able to produce young. This movie was based on the book "The Children of Men" by P.D. James who most certainly must have been familiar with Calhoun's studies.

The Root of Many Activist Issues is Human Overpopulation

I am a member of a great activist type site, Care2.

On Care2 people can find activist petitions to sign, they can vote up causes they believe in and can even make their own petitions. One thing I have noticed though is that many of the petitions have a similar root problem.

• One of the petitions calls to stop clearing part of the rain forest to make way for a place to produce and process palm oil
• One petition calls for stopping the round up and potential slaughter of wild horses in the United States.
• There are petitions against killing seals, dolphins, and wolves.
• There is a “Save the Rain Forest Frogs” petition!
• You can find petitions against cruelty to pigs, dairy cows, and battery hens.
• Another petition demands a halt to an oil pipeline, another asks to prevent a gold mine in a nature sensitive area.
• There are petitions to end urban sprawl.
• There are petitions to end GMO crops and various "Cheats" farmers use to produce food.

Of course I do sign petitions that I support, and you can pretty much find petitions for anything. 

You name it there is probably a petition for it, but if you look at all of these petitions they are just addressing a small part of a greater problem. It would be better to address the driving force behind the problems that these petitions try to solve.

In some cases there is a place to make a comment, and I try to make a comment reminding others that if you want change, it is not the problem itself you have to consider but why the problem has developed in the first place.

Why do we need more palm oil? Growing human populations.

Why are wild horses being rounded up? To make room to graze cattle to feed the growing human population.

Why are rain forest frogs at risk? Because more people means more trees are needed, and more land must be cleared to grow crops.

Why are seals and dolphins being killed? Because they eat “our” fish, we need fish to feed the ever expanding human population.

Why are wolves being killed? Because they threaten livestock, the same livestock we want to kill to feed our own population.

Why is there cruelty to livestock? Because people want to eat, more people means shortcuts are taken to warehouse more livestock animals on less land, and transportation is pushed to get the animals to where they need to go while reducing costs.

Why do we need an oil pipeline? A growing, and greedy, consumer driven population demands more oil.

Why do we need another goldmine? Again because more people are demanding more gold, and nations need income from gold to grow.

Why are cities expanding? Urban sprawl is the result of continued growth.

Why are farmers using GMOs and other "cheats" to produce food? A rapidly growing population means farmers have less land on which to grow food, and are pressured into producing more food in less time.

As you see nearly every problem faced by the world today is human overpopulation and population growth. Some people ignorantly think that if they have 2 kids they have maintained a steady population; but 2+2 = 4! If you have two kids you have doubled your immediate population, doubled the needs of your family.  Chances are that your kids may have kids again before you have even died...

Two good ways to reduce the population growth are for couples to put off having children until they are in their 30’s and to restrict themselves to one child only.

Most governments do not like this, they want more people, more workers, more consumers, more soldiers, and more tax payers. Governments are not looking out for the future of the planet, only for the future of themselves.

The human population has more than doubled in the past 45 years. Huge natural areas have vanished forever. We are using renewable resources up faster than they can be renewed. We are killing other species only for our own continued survival and continued rape of the planet.

China is not everyone’s favorite country, and is often linked to animal cruelty, but at least they were smart enough to see the problems with unchecked population growth.

Other Reading:
About Care2 and How You Can Earn Credits to Spend on Things You Care About!

Thomas Malthus, the Man Who Warned the World About Overpopulation.

Can Somebody Build Small Homes Please?

Recently my husband and I went to look at some show homes, they were all pretty massive. I am claustrophobic, but I admit I found this homes horrifically huge, I wondered how many trees fell to build these monstrosities of mostly empty space.

These new homes have more than 1,000 sq feet of space per occupant. They have rooms called “Great rooms”, which are not so much great as they are a waste of space. 

The world does not need more three, or four, bedroom homes. We need one and two bed room homes. We need homes that provide people with yards to grow their own food and restrict the growth of the family. In short we do not need more people on the planet, so why make it easy by building monster homes?

We need homes that will cater to the kind of family people should be having, that being a family of one, or no, children. Yes, I would make a good evil dictator I am sure!

Before you freak out and insist I am wrong, you may want to note:

Currently the world has a human population of more than 7 billion people, while you may be living comfortably in your cozy home, others are not. But the world has limited resources, and as we are currently relying on non-renewable resources, and using renewable ones faster than they can be renewed, there will be a point where everyone is in trouble.

We seem to think it is okay to control the growth of other species, killing seals, unwanted pets, and other animals, yet we ignore our population growth.

You cannot eat your house, and you cannot grow enough food to sustain your family when you have a postage stamp size yard. We need smaller homes, bigger yards, and fewer kids. The population has more that doubled in the last 40 years, sky rocketing above the 1 billion it sustained for a relatively long period of time.

Improved health care, and the industrial revolution, proved good in some ways, but bad in others; now our own population is potentially our biggest threat to survival of the human race.

Will the city planners see this or will they continue to encourage large populations? Well if you know anything about the world you know that the government does not give a darn about 100 years from now. It only cares about itself, getting re-elected, and retiring wealthy. The government is happy to have more people, it means more taxes!

The architects want to design big lavish homes that draw attention, earn them acclaim, not save the world. I would love to win the lottery, take some land, build 2 bedroom homes; small, simple, practical, homes, and give them away to similar minded people, people who care about the future of the world and the survival of the human race.

There is no need for anyone to have 3, 4, or more kids, even farmers no longer need big families, they have machinery. What we need now is responsible family planning, smaller homes, and more trees.

Please Don't Kill the Wolf that Killed Me

Have you noticed that when a person in North America is attacked by a wolf (or any wild animal), not only does it make the news, but people form groups and go out with one purpose in mind: kill the wolf!  In fact we are more likely to kill one wildlife animal for being a risk, than we are likely to kill another human being who has killed several other humans...

It does not matter what the circumstances were, the intent is to kill the wolf. You can almost hear people chanting “Kill the Wolf, Kill the Wolf”. Heck, it could be a cougar or bear, for that matter. People just seem to want revenge on the animal, or to prevent it from killing more humans I suppose.

Oh and sharks too – never mind that getting attacked by a shark is pretty easy to avoid – stay out of their water and you won't get eaten!

Let us do some animal math; there are over 7 billion people in the world. There are only 55,000 Grizzly bears, 50,000 cougars, and 100,000 wolves (most of which are in Canada).

 

If a person decides to enter bear territory, and maybe even comes between a mother bear and her cubs, and gets hurt, we blame the bear, we kill the bear, we form mobs that go out looking for the bear and are not satisfied until it is dead.

We have already pushed wild species out of the best parts of the wilderness, which we have claimed for ourselves. We build developments around the best lakes, we plop cities in the river valleys that wildlife have migrated through for generations.

Now, I am not saying I want to go out and get eaten by a wolf, bear, or cougar, I am just saying that if that ends up being my fate, please do not blame the animal. I do not want a murderous mob of people going on a wolf killing rampage through the forest just because one wolf took my life. It should not be front page news either, it is not anymore news worthy than if I die of old age, and natural causes. If we think about it, death by a wolf should be considered a “natural cause”, what's more natural than nature?

As populations of humans continue to grow and expand in to what use to be wildlife territories, we can expect to see more problems with these animals, but are they really the problem, or is it us?

Human Overpopulation, what do we owe Nature?

As human populations increase, populations of other species fall.  Although few people are aware, we are living in a time scientists have called the Holocene extinction event.  Plants and animal species are going extinct at alarming rates. Undoubtedly some species have gone extinct before we were even aware of their very existence. Other species we wiped out and watched them vanish from the face of the earth, the passenger pigeon being a perfect example of such an extinction.

Some scientists have suggested that over 50,000 species are going extinct every year. Most of these extinctions will be unnoticed and undocumented as they represent flora and fauna we never even knew existed.

Today we continue to control the populations of other species; sometimes directly as when we control the population growth through systematic slaughter, culling, and spay/neuter programs, sometimes indirectly, as when introduced species become invasive and kill other species.

We select which species are important to us, which we dislike, and have decided that the human species is the most important of all. It is extremely ironic that our own species is allowed to reach the numbers it has, topping 7 billion people as of October, 2011, while we try to control so many other populations.

We find it easier to kill off seals so they do not eat “our fish” rather than restricting our population growth, or our consumption of fish. For some reason we have decided that we need to cut the rain forest at a rate where we consume nature faster than it can recover. We decide what are weeds, and remove them because they do not benefit us.  We have allowed humanity to build a large dept to nature that few are interested in repaying.

Do we have the right do destroy other species to maintain our own?

What Debt do we Owe Nature?

I beleive we owe nature a huge debt, one which it seems only a few are trying to repay by living a more sustainable existance, while others are content to consume all they want, have all the kids they want, and live like there is no tomorrow.  Indeed there may be no tomorrow if people do not change their ways.

Controlling our own population is key to our own survival.  If we continue to destroy the environment we doom ourselves to extinction.  Sadly many people reject the notion of human overpopulation, they see it only as an issue of food, not an issue of larger proportions.  If we can control the population of so many other species why do so few people realize there is an issue with the population of the human species and the impact it has on nature?

We owe it not only to nature to control our population, but to ourselves.  We need to realize that we need nature for our own survival and cannot continue to upset the balance of things.  A good example of this would be the Aral Sea, were an entire ecosystem was destroyed, just so we could have a bit of cotton.

We need to realize that it is nature that keeps us alive, not the dollar bill, or large house we live in, or the car we drive.  We need to place the same interest on controlling our population as we do that of other species if we want to continue our existance here, because currently we are consuming resources at alarming rates and driving other species to extinction, and for what?

What debt do we owe nature?  We owe nature our lives.