• Re: Defining Overpopulation

    From El Castor@21:1/5 to imbibe@mindspring.com on Tue Feb 22 22:15:33 2022
    On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:21:02 -0800 (PST), "(David P.)"
    <imbibe@mindspring.com> wrote:

    Defining Overpopulation
    by Fons Jena, February 22, 2022

    Before you start to talk about something you must first define it.
    That logic must certainly be applied to the topic of overpopulation,
    because much of the fierce resistance against recognizing
    overpopulation comes from the fact that people use a wrong or
    limited definition of the concept.

    Most definitions we can find are partial definitions, as they limit >themselves mainly to the criterion of carrying capacity (including
    ecosystem services) and rarely mention two other criteria, biodiversity
    and quality of life, as separate and equally important criteria.
    Only a definition referring to these three fundamental criteria does
    justice to the concept of overpopulation. A definition that does not
    refer to the criterion of biodiversity is too anthropocentric, while
    one that only or mainly refers to the criterion of carrying capacity
    for humans leaves out the many effects of overpopulation on quality
    of life (both material and immaterial aspects).

    Additionally, this three-faceted definition counters the common >misunderstanding that overpopulation is solely a problem of shortages
    of food or other resources, or that it can be solved by technological
    means alone. The negative effects of overpopulation on the quality of
    life (peace, democracy, liberty) and biodiversity can at best be
    limited by technology. A hundred windmills or vegetarians will always
    leave more room for nature and humanity than a thousand of them.

    Thus overpopulation can be defined as a condition where at least one
    of the three following conditions are met:

    When a population exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment
    (the ‘sustainability’ criterion).
    When other species are not given enough space to survive (the
    ‘room for nature’ criterion, in which other species and their
    habitats are taken into account).
    When there is insufficient room and resources to guarantee every
    individual a high quality of life (the quality of life criterion).

    By consistently referring to these three conditions we can expand
    the debate and strengthen the case for tackling overpopulation and
    promoting smaller populations.


    Sigh! How many times do we have to go through this?? For a country to
    just maintain its population (not grow) each woman must have on
    average about 2.1 children. The countries of the developed world have
    fallen well below that rate -- meaning, in general, North America,
    Europe, and East Asia, including China (1.70). Here's a list -- too
    long to post, but read for yourself! BTW, the US at 1.78 is one of

    "Countries with Below Replacement Fertility Levels (Projected:
    This table shows all U.N.-recognized countries and areas with
    populations over 90,000 that are projected to be below replacement
    fertility for the 2020-2025 quinquennial period." https://www.pop.org/simple/countries-with-below-replacement-fertility-levels-projected-2020-2025/

    If a country on that list is still growing, and many are, it's for two

    1. A wave of women from a former high growth period, and their
    daughters, who are still of child bearing age. That will self-correct
    and is currently in the process of doing so.
    2. Immigration from the over populated third world.

    The problem is not overpopulation, it's a growing wave of elderly in
    the developed world. Solve it with third world immigration? Afraid
    not. Why is there a third world? Frankly it's because the populations
    tend not to be very bright. What we could be witnessing is evolution
    in reverse.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)