Overpopulation FAQs

post by Zero Contradictions · 2024-08-10T04:21:32.022Z · LW · GW · 7 comments

This is a link post for https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/overpopulation-FAQs

Contents

  1. What Is Overpopulation?
None
7 comments

1. What Is Overpopulation?

Overpopulation is when there is an excessive number of occupants (people, animals, plants, etc.) in a particular area. Specifically, that is when the number of occupants exceeds the carrying capacity, i.e. the ability of that area to provide for them. Overpopulation is preceded by ecological overshoot.

The primary misconception of overpopulation is that it only depends on the number of organisms/people (within the environment). 1000 people living in the fertile crescent isn’t overpopulation. 1000 people living on a 2-acre island would almost certainly be so. This misconception also assumes that if a certain number of individuals can be supported in the present, there’ll be no problems in the future, but this is not true.

Aside from the population size, all the other factors that are needed to determine overpopulation are the ones that determine the carrying capacity and overshoot of a defined environment. We need to determine the carrying capacity and resource consumption in order to determine overpopulation. And the only way to determine it is with a mathematical model.

Thus, overpopulation is determined by at least four parameters (or at least six for humans):

The most accurate models for calculating overpopulation would use more than 4-6 parameters, especially if additional parameters are created for modeling accessible resources and resource consumption. Creating an accurate overpopulation model for today’s world is a difficult task because the population, supply of resources, and consumption of resources are each changing faster than ever before in history. For more information, we discuss how to create a dynamic and predictive population model here.

We have a proposal for preventing overpopulation that is likely to succeed with the fewest number of negative consequences. The only way the proposal could fail is if we don’t gain the collective political will to implement it.

7 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Thomas Kwa (thomas-kwa) · 2024-08-10T17:24:29.408Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

An area can support far fewer people living first world lifestyles (50-100 full-time energy slaves) than ones living like the typical African bushman.

This is wrong. There is no recorded hunter-gatherer society that could reach even 10% of California's population density, and California is also one of the richest places in the world, a massive food exporter, and a clean energy pioneer.

Replies from: Zero Contradictions, Zero Contradictions
↑ comment by Zero Contradictions · 2024-08-11T08:32:05.636Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

California is a clean energy pioneer.

That ignores how California has had many electricity blackouts due to the state's energy policies. California also imports a lot of energy from other states since non-nuclear green energy doesn't produce enough power for the state.

↑ comment by Zero Contradictions · 2024-08-10T19:23:08.660Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think I agree, so I will edit that paragraph. However, I don't believe that California's current resource consumption is sustainable.

comment by Dagon · 2024-08-10T15:41:11.159Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

As often happens, I wish I could upvote and disagree.  I'm glad you're exploring this direction, but I strongly doubt the validity of the calculations, and even more strongly doubt any proposed solution.

We need to determine the carrying capacity in order to determine overpopulation. And the only way to calculate it is with a mathematical model.

You use "determine" in the first sentence and "calculate" in the second.  Nowhere do you mention "observe", and I see no way that your model can be verified or even made likely to track reality.  I think the major problem with your model is how "carrying capacity" changes over time, as different resources become and cease to be bottlenecks.  

I actually find it quite likely that some subset of humans would be better off with fewer competitors (and cooperators).   The result of slowing technological change and innovation is probably a fine thing.  It kind of sucks for those who don't exist, of course, and the path to shrinking (or even holding constant) may be less desirable (though neither seems great) than the "natural" cycle of overpopulation and shrinking.

Replies from: Zero Contradictions
↑ comment by Zero Contradictions · 2024-08-11T08:26:11.614Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Can you please explain why you doubt the proposed solution?

Models tend to be based on observations, but I agree with you that I should explain how observations would affect the population model. I updated the page to explain this. If I finish learning Javascript, I might even program a basic model to display on my site.

the path to shrinking (or even holding constant) may be less desirable (though neither seems great) than the "natural" cycle of overpopulation and shrinking.

Population growth, overpopulation, and shrinking (war, disease, and famine) is indeed a natural cycle.

Shrinking the population may have strong social and economic consequences, but it will have to happen at some point since the Earth's current population is unsustainable. It's not possible for populations to grow forever.

Shrinking the population without using population control will require millions or billions of people to die. I'm pretty sure that most people would prefer population control instead, if they understood just how bad the alternative would be.

comment by TheCookieLab · 2024-08-10T12:27:04.546Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Didn’t you hear? Overpopulation doomers are so last century.

Replies from: Zero Contradictions