Talk:Overexploitation

Merger proposal
I propose we merge Overconsumption with this article, with this as the target/final article. Compare the beginning two sentences of each article:

Overexploitation: Overexploitation, also called overharvesting, refers to harvesting a renewable resource to the point of diminishing returns. Continued overexploitation can lead to the destruction of the resource.

Overconsumption: Overconsumption describes a situation where the use of a renewable natural resource exceeds its capacity to regenerate. A prolonged pattern of overconsumption leads to the eventual loss of resource bases.

I believe these two beginning snippets are describing the same thing. Besides the first paragraph/section, I think the remaining sections have little overlap, and should be an easy copy/paste from Overconsumption (which I will do).

I came across these articles because I want to have one as a Vital-5 article in Earth sciences. I think the word "overexploitation" is more accurate than the word "overconsumption" per the title of Exploitation of natural resources. If you see this, feel free to discuss support or opposition. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge rename – the two concepts are perhaps not quite the same, and could have a difference in focus. Overexploitation might be more focused on what happens to the targets of the exploitation, the species and resources that are over-exploited. Overconsumption might be more focused on what happens to the agents of the overconsumption, the people and populations that over-consume. But they are kind of companion ideas, and I agree they could be merged. — Epipelagic (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have changed my somewhat tentative agreement above with merging the articles to another tentative "rename". I originally wrote the overexploitation article 12 years ago with Matt-eee. I can affirm Matt-eee's original intention was to write an article on ecological overexploitation, and that I extended its scope to include overexploitation of other natural resources, such as water. To avoid confusion, the overexploitation article could be perhaps be renamed something like "Overexploitation of natural resources" (it doesn't explicitly include things like human slavery and economic behaviour). The overconsumption article could perhaps be renamed and repositioned as "Economic overconsumption". — Epipelagic (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree we may need more guidance from the writers of the Overconsumption page to see what they were going for. While the beginning definitions of both pages are very similar, I feel overconsumption more often refers to man-made resources, e.g. I Googled "Overconsumption definition" and the example it gives is "Overconsumption of alcohol", while overexploitation refers more to natural resources. Regardless, I feel this page is the one that should be listed as Vital-5. LightProof1995 (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Undecided. I haven't yet examined the two articles in detail but I thought overexploitation should refer to the natural resources, e.g. overfishing, Whereas overconsumption should refer more to how people act as consumers. I am all for merging in general. But maybe it would be better to merge Overconsumption with consumerism? I also see overlap with some other concepts that are listed at sustainability. By the way, LightProof1995, could you please take a look at sustainability and sustainable development as well when you're doing your research on the Vital-5 article in Earth sciences? Those two articles need more attention as well (they have fairly high pageviews, too). Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Both Sustainability and Sustainable development are Vital-4 articles, and are listed in Vital-5 under sections 8.1 and 7.1, respectively. I agree Overconsumption sounds more like it would be related with Consumerism/Consumption (economics), and the article was probably made for that in mind, but I think as it was edited it became similar to this article, which may have been created from a more Earth science-related side. I think a possible solution here may be to have "Overconsumption" be its own header/section on this page to refer to the more economic principles, specifically the "Economic growth" and "Consumerism" sections on Overconsumption. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your proposal could be a good solution, LightProof1995. So in that case overconsumption would redirect to Overexploitation? And the current content of overconsumption would be integrated into overexploitation? Could work, do you (or someone else) have time to take this on? EMsmile (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am down to take this on if we have enough consensus from Epipelagic that it's the right call. Right now I'm thinking the Overconsumption page just needs a lot more work, (e.g. right now its definition matches this page's definition of overexploitation and it says "defining it is challenging"), which may or may not end with a merge with this article, lol LightProof1995 (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Without qualifications, Overconsumption is too broad an issue to be covered by a single article. The same applies to Overexploitation. That is why each article needs constraining with some clearly defined idea of the scope each covers. The Overexploitation article already largely confines itself to natural resources, and could be renamed "Overexploitation (natural resources)" or "Overexploitation of natural resources". Perhaps, as discussed above, the Overconsumption article could confine itself to the economic consequences of Overconsumption, and be renamed "Overconsumption (economic)" or "Economic overconsumption". The Overconsumption article does seem to need some reworking, and you could see if, who has contributed more to that article than anyone else, has some ideas about this. — Epipelagic (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I really don't have any issue with the articles as they are. Merging this article with another could lead to bloat, and then someone will come along and either separate the articles again or trim it and perhaps remove reliably sourced material. I definitely agree that it should not be merged with overexploitation, as they are not really the same thing. I would not object to renaming the article "Overconsumption (economics)" or something like that as suggested above if other editors feel this is necessary. One idea could be to move material from the overconsumption article that might be more appropriate in overexploitation or consumerism and vice versa in addition to moving the articles to more specific titles.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I like this idea :) It kind of encompasses all of our ideas so far, as it has both the renaming and a "partial merge" of sorts. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Someone go ahead with this please. :-) EMsmile (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge, potential for rename of Overconsumption. These are two very different things used in very different contexts: over consumption is a condition of capitalism and markets, and having consumers, overexploitation should be focused on the use of natural resources. These are two very different conceptual ideas in the literature. Sadads (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not quite that clear cut. Common usage of the terms overconsumption and overexploitation bleeds into areas outside the constraints we seem to be arguing for here. But I agree confusion about the overlap between the Wikipedia articles would be cease if Overconsumption was renamed Overconsumption (economics), and the article was then rejigged to align with its new name. — Epipelagic (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)