Talk:Overpopulation/Archive 3

"Economic freedom" Bias
"For example, North Korea and South Korea have similar population densities, natural resources, and even parallel cultures (ethnically based in Korean) sharing the same peninsular homeland; but, whereas North Korea is a poverty-stricken, socialist country where its people are suffering from terrible famine and are destitute,[citation needed] South Korea is a prosperous, capitalist country where the people are well nourished and materially/economically secure[citation needed] (without just a small portion of the entire poulation benefiting from the wealth [as do North Korea's Communist Party officials"

This looks to me like free market propaganda and nothing else. Just trying to say "communist" a lot of times and associate it with terrible things and "capitalist" a lot of times and associate it with collective happiness. Quite childish, not encyclopedic at all, and terribly biased. In fact, you could name countries such as Cuba, where, as the UN certifies, there's no child malnutrition -only country in latin america of which this can be said- and free and quality health care and education for a poor country that is constantly attacked by its powerful neighbour and main enemy, the USA. They are a lot better than when they were a capitalist country, with the USA as an ally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.189.225.120 (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, Cuba does allow small private farms, which is the only reason the country doesn't have famine. Secondly, even though Cuba makes it illegal for its citizens to move out of the country, huge numbers of people do so anyway. Third, all of the immigration between Cuba and the U.S. is in the same direction - no one wants to live in Cuba. Fourth, the only reason why North Korea has famine while South Korea is well fed is because of the differences in their government policies. And finally, if you read the previous section on this talk page, you will see that there is no evidence that overpopulation causes famine, and that all famine is caused by bad government policies. These are all verifiable facts, so the article is not biased. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the private farming principles in Cuba are important for the food production in the country, but as far as I know, there is no evidence of a systematic relationship between national food production and famine. Like everything else, food can be imported. I also agree that the several parts of this article looks like free market propaganda. While bad policies has made the food crisis in North Korea, bad policies also made the food crisis in Malawi. Malawi exported food until they started on a WB liberalization programme in the early 1980's. This persistent crisis has sustained until the newly elected President Mutharika reintroduced subsidies and other policies to enhance productivity and increased government interference in the country's economy (Malawi simply did not have access to the foreign exchange needed to import food, and chose to import fertilizers instead). Hence, it should be noted that bad policies that again leads to famine are promoted both by some communist leaders like in North Korea, and by the free-market champions in the IMF, the World Bank, and USAID. Good discussions about the topic can be found here: []

[[]] [[]] [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.241.4 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the World Bank and IMF are models of free market principles - many liberatians would like to see them abolished. My point is that if you look at wikipedia's list of countries ranked in order by government corruption, you will see that in the countries with low levels of government corruption, there is zero famine. Not a single country with a low level of government corruption has famine. And this includes the very densely populated countries of western Europe, the Asian tiger countries, Japan, and Israel. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder about the objectivity of that Corruptions Perceptions Index page which is "the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians". I note that the United States is, according to the image there, mostly perceived to be incorrupt. I would suggest that that is out of sync with how the world and even most Americans perceive and have perceived the Bush Administration for the last eight years. And are you claiming that all those red countries are starving? Really, I wish you would keep your Libertarian politics off the page. 4.246.207.171 (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Bush administration is indeed corrupt. But he's term limited, so that limits the corruption. Also, relative to most other countries, the U.S. is still pretty un-corrupt. If it wasn't for the libertarian stuff, the article would be totally left wing. The article should be balanced, with both liberal and libertarian opinions. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Or with neither *wistfully*. Claverhouse (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If it had neither, there would be no article. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the title of this discussion section, and added a "neutrality" tag to section "Wealth and Poverty" that talks about the Koreas and "economic freedom". Yes, government policies have a large impact on the welfare of the population. Yes, corruption does too. (So does the ratio of population to available resources.) But the link to capitalism is weak. The argument presented ignores the success of (for example) China in fighting malnutrition from its impoverished start state compared to a vast wealth in the West extracted by colonialism and slavery. It ignores the problems of South African poor after the end of apartheid, and the recent success of Venezuela without capitalism. The idea that a free market is the best way to create welfare is also seriously undermined by recessions. -Pgan002 (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Numbers
I looked up the numbers for the land area of Texas and the total estimated Human population of Earth. The entire Human population would fit in Texas with almost 2,000 square feet per person. Then I looked up the total land area of Earth, found three slightly different numbers so I took the average and divided by 2,000. The number? Approximately 81 billion 2,000 square foot parcels. Add the oceans and it'd be a lot more. Science fiction stories that cover entire planets with a multi-level building have mostly grossly under-shot the number of people required to have them packed into closet sized apartments, especially when the story has all the food imported from other planets. Even a trillion people would rattle around loosely in a planet totally covered with a 5 level building. Just something to think of every time you read anything claiming Earth is "overpopulated". It's only a few of the largest cities that are a bit packed up with people. The numbers are easy to find, the math is simple, so research it yourself. Planets are HUGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 06:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article should make light of that. It would be more neutral that way. If you can find reliable sources that say this, please add it to the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Supporting several trillion people could be done, but only if we used nuclear power, desalination, and vertical farming. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Several trillion? SEVERAL TRILLION??? Sorry, but you are just plain nutters. No one can take you seriously after that comment AFAIC. 4.246.207.171 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not several trillion, if those technologies were used? What would be the limiting factor? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Solar power could make nuclear power obsolete. With that many people, someone is bound to come up with more innovative solutions that we can't even conceive of today. With our technology, we've prevented the Malthusian catastrophe from happening, and we already have the technology to support trillions of people, as you pointed out. The article should really make light of this, because it's very biased right now. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, solar power could make nuclear power obsolete, once the cost is low enough. Perhaps someday solar power will be very cheap. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess several trillion wouldn't be far off the mark if people were packed into actual closets instead of Bizzybody's over-generous closet-sized apartments. They could be fed by tubes if the outer-space sourced food was liquidized. Claverhouse (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Even a trillion people would rattle around loosely in a planet totally covered with a 5 level building." Gosh, why stop there? Let's make it a 10 story building, or even 110, 1010. The sky's literally the limit. Imagine the lovely quality of life we'd all enjoy. Grumble's libertarian paradise of people packed in like sardines and nothing left but us. Ahhh, heaven! 63.196.193.110 (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. Bizzbody, you are more than welcome to try to grow your own food within an area of 2,000 square feet. As well as the timber for making one's own furniture, paper etc.

If the entire world population were to be crammed into an area the size of Texas, they’d be almost guaranteed to start eating each other before week four. Belsavis 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Should this page even discuss human overpopulation?
It seems to me that this article is being overrun by political discussions, despite the very biological nature of its title. I suggest moving the current page to Human overpopulation, and reserving this URL for a scientific article on overpopulation in the natural world. --Tom Edwards (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it's political. We have the liberal position on one side, and the libertarian on the other. This is definitely a political issue. The reason it's called "overpopulation" instead of "human overpopulation" is because that's the term that's been used for a very long time. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No no. It's not a Libertarian vs Liberal issue here but Libertarian vs Science debate that's going on. Libertarians groups, such as the Cato Institute, have almost always taken anti-environmental, anti-consumer and pro-corporate positions on everthing. For example, they've loyally defended the tabacco industry and they continue to deny Climate Change when all of science is against them. So their opposition to the overpopulation issue is nothing new. 4.246.201.17 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

- dian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.74.138 (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, many libertarians do believe in climate change. But we want to solve it with nuclear power, not with scaring people. And most libertarians don't smoke - we're not all Ayn Rand wannabes. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bjorn Lomborg
His name must be mentioned 100 times in this article, each time with a bit of an introduction. I don't know anything about the subject, but there must be a more tactful way to organize his vast body of expertise, rather than counterpoint every argument with a "However, Swedish skeptic Bjorn Lomborg says we actually should increase our world's population because..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.181.136 (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually think Julian Simon did a better job of explaining it. It was Simon who convinced Lomborg to adopt his current point of view anyway. I keep citing Simon once in the introduction, but other people keep erasing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Several years have gone by: the article has only increased in predictive power and relevance. I support it.
Critics of this article appear not to have read material by Jared Diamond ('Collapse') or the Meadows' (World III) predictions that the human ecosystem will collapse on or about 2050, earlier in some places, and later in other places.

There appears to be the same denial of this subject in the critiques to date that we saw with the global warming issue. The denials come from Left and Right, and usually ignore biology. I support the original overpopulation article and definition, as writ.

I assume Diamond is correct, and further assume that carrying capacity applies to humans as well as animals. I should do. I have written a book which not only accepts we are overpopulated but how to do something about it ("Numbers" by Rob Ord) and I will shortly be lecturing on the subject of carrying capacities of nations at a conference in April.

Carrying capacity is defined as the point were births equal deaths, usually due to selection versus fecundity.

The selection comes from resource depletion as with other species; it comes from competition as with other species. It does not come from predation since humans are at the top of a food chain. It comes from disease - the latter being caused both by pollution's effect on the immune system and on proximity to disease that increases with density.

If one checks the existing economic problem, it is clear that surplus Labour is the main problem in the West. Why? Because we all thought there was more "value" in the West than actually exists. Per capita resources are currently plummeting. If we were animals we would starve. Fortunately the West has debt and social safety nets.

The only critique I have of the article is that human carrying capacity has not been defined with respect to debt and safety nets.

Rob Ord MSc, PhD Genetics, LLB 125.239.15.65 (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits to Historical Context
In two quick edits (19:36, 1 March 2009 & 19:38, 1 March 2009) User:Roentgenium111 deleted two chunks of text from Overpopulation. The deleted text was;


 * Clearly an inspection of these graphs reveals the unusual and very pronounced negative skewing (see also skewness). In this case that means after many thousands of years of minimal population there has, for the first time in human history, been a period of consistently rapid population increase followed more recently by a spectacular and unprecedented increase.


 * Before continuing to read the Overpopulation article it may be of interest to note the somewhat speculative estimates regarding “How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth” (see also “related wikipedia article”). When considered in conjunction with the graphs shown above that estimate further emphasises the extraordinary nature of this currently occurring population spike.

The comment given for explaining these deletions was “removed non-encyclopedic chapter”. Whilst I agree the tone or style of that text might perhaps be slightly more text-book than encyclopedic I nonetheless defend its relevance, importance and factual accuracy (also please note the copious citations and reverences that had diligently been included).

I’ve taken a look at Roentgenium111’s impressive contributions and can see this is a serious user who is unlikely to make hasty decisions (and I’m ignoring the fact that it took only 2 minutes to delete text that had taken considerably longer to think about, research and carefully add in the first place). Even so I believe in this case that the text should stand as it adds value and valid commentary to help users better understand the subject.

Note that I did say “...for the first time in human history, been a period of consistently rapid population increase followed more recently by a spectacular and unprecedented increase”. Whilst words like “for the first time” and “spectacular and unprecedented” would not normally be appropriate (normally just POV) I defend their use in this case as it is perfectly obvious (from looking at the data which is carefully illustrated by these graphs) that only one huge population spike has ever occurred (and as we are all alive today we are “sitting” right at the very top of it and it is clearly still growing very fast). Also, I did say that the ““How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth” article is “somewhat speculative”, which it is, but only in terms of the actual figures. Conceptually it is completely valid and cannot be sensibly disputed. In the context of Overpopulation it is an important topic and so it was quite rightly mentioned and cross-referenced (to the corresponding Wikipedia article). Not all readers of Overpopulation would necessarily otherwise know about it so it’s inclusion here must be helpful.

Incidentally, whilst it is often deemed somewhat contentious and perhaps even a taboo subject, I think drawing attention to the fact that the population of the world is growing very rapidly in a way that has never happened before at any time in human history is perhaps the single most important point of this whole article. Whether you think it a good or bad idea, or believe the resources of the world can support it or not, the fact of the matter is that it is happening.

Kind regards -- Barryz1 (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Power pros and cons
Removed - irrelevant to overpopulation. Kransky 13:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear power is relevant, because it greatly increases the carrying capacity, and solves the provlem of global warming. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because a thing increases or decreases carrying capacity does not make it relevant to this page. The cultivation of olives significantly increased carrying human capacity, as have fertilizers, deep sea trawlers, and probably even toothbrushes. But this is not the place for such information. I consider the fact that carrying capacity can change to be relevant, but not the pros and cons associated with the factors involved. EHz (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism or Controversy Sub Section?
This article uses a lot of very biased sources, such as the Huffington Post. But more importantly, I could not find a sub section devoted to the criticism of overpopulation. I think maybe some work should be done to make this article neutral, as where it stands right now, it is not. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk)


 * Consider WP:CSECTION (there are other places in the Wikipedia help or documentation that suggest encorporating various views into the text, rather than having a specific section, but this is the one I found at the moment.) Zodon (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would like to hear whatever insights our contributor has. We can discuss them here and look at incorporating them into the article - either into existing sections or a separate section depending on what comes up. Barrylb (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, since many economists have expressed disagreement with the doctrines of with Maltusianism and neo-Malthusianism. ADM (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nuetrality tag
This article appears to be reasonably balanced and i see no disputes in last period of time. thus unless there are comments to the contrary i shall untag the page. Kiwikibble (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the article should mention the Paul Ehrlich side of the argument as well as the Julian Simon side. As long as both sides are properly included, the article will be neutral. That's why I added the Julian Simon stuff to the intro. But other people keep taking it out. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I happen to agree with you this article does look a lot better. I truly hate environmentalism, but still think the article is well-balanced. The Isiah (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Julain Simon claims that famine is caused by bad government, not by overpopulation
I put this text back in the article. The introduction needs this for balance:

"Simon also claimed that third world poverty and famine are not correlated with population density among countries, and that third world poverty and famine are caused by badly run government. "

Simon's book can be read here.

In the introduction, there is a section called "The Role of Political Economy." Here are two paragraphs from that section:

"Here we must address a crucial but touchy element in the economics of resources and population -- the extent to which the political-social-economic system provides personal freedom from government coercion. Skilled persons require a framework that provides incentives for working hard and taking risks, enabling their talents to flower and come to fruition.  The key elements of such a framework are economic liberty, respect for property, and fair and sensible rules of the market that are enforced equally for all." "The world's problem is not too many people, but lack of political and economic freedom. Powerful evidence comes from pairs of countries that had the same culture and history and much the same standard of living when they split apart after World War II -- East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Taiwan and China.  In each case the centrally planned communist country began with less population "pressure", as measured by density per square kilometer, than did the market-directed economy.  And the communist and non- communist countries also started with much the same birth rates.  But the market-directed economies performed much better economically than the centrally-planned economies. This powerful demonstration cuts the ground from under population growth as a likely explanation of poor economic performance."

He goes into much more detail in the various chapters of the book.

If you look at this list of countries in order by population density, you will see that there are rich and poor countries all up and down the list. There is no correlation between population density and famine.

And if you look at this list of countries ranked in order by government corruption, you will see a huge correlation between government corruption and famine. Among the countries with a low level of corruption, there is never, ever any famine. Among countries with a high level of government corruption, famine is very common.

That's the point that Simon is making when he talks about looking at pairs of countries. He also cites many other examples in the book.

Where is the proof that famine is caused by overpopulation,. instead of by government corruption? There is none.

Paul Ehrlich predicted that as world population doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion, famine would get worse, and many metals and other resources would be all used up. Simon wrote his book to explain that Ehrlich was wrong, and also to explain why Ehrlich was wrong. Even if you don't agree with Simon, because his belief is shared by almost everyone who isn't on the political left, his claim must be mentioned in the introduction for balance.

Overpopulation theory is true for animals that live in the wild. But it's not true for humans who invent, build, and use technology, and who have modern economic systems with competition, profit motives, and pricing mechanisms. That's the point of Simon's book.

Simon and his followers understand why South Korea is rich and North Korea has famine. Paul Ehrlich and his followers do not.

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment about South Korea would be more to the point if a past president of that country had not just killed himself when caught in corruption.

Whether overpopulation causes corruption or corruption causes overpopulation, there is a strong correlation between the two, and between each separately and poverty.

This article is a scientific article, rather than a political article. Politics plays a part in overpopulation -- as when a government forbids birth-control -- but the scientific fact is that when populations expand beyond the capacity of the land to sustain them, you have overpopulation. This is as true of humans as it is of animals, and is true no matter what the political system. Science and capitalism have worked together to greatly increase the population that the land can sustain, but there are limits to science. There are even limits to capitalism.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking over to what extent the Libertarian point of view should influence this article. I have no objection to it being represented, but it doesn't seem to belong in the lede. The lede just defines what is meant by overpopulation, and except for the Libertarian sentences and references it is not about the consequences of overpopulation. I'm moving those sentences to the appropriate section.

I think everyone agrees that a major cause of world hunger is bad government. But that begs the question, what causes bad government? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

3.3 – Hoax?
The closing paragraph of the section Land is devoted to the work of “the noted philosopher Justin West”. However, the paragraph has no references; moreover, there is no mention of the philosopher Justin West or his original work on the Internet - only this article and its mirror sites, plus a number of blogs and forums citing Wikipedia.

This smells of hoax. "The noted philosopher Justin West" does not seem to exist. Belsavis April 16, 2009 Belsavis (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Zimbabwe land seizures
Someone needs to balance the part about the alleged effect of land seisures on the Zimbabwean food shortages. Although the view is at first attached to a BBC source, it is later stated as if it were indisputable fact, that these land seisures, along with droughts, were causes of the decline in productivity. --81.158.132.174 (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Combating overpopulation
The section "Mitigation measures" is to come under the level 2 headline "Combating overpopulation. The intro in this sections sould state that:

Aldough certain countries (eg China) have taken steps to decrease population numbers, the combating of the current overpopulation has untill now failed terribly. This is primarily a consequence of the fact that only a few countries (as opposed to all of them) have implemented mitigation strategies. Given the current demographic projections, the number even increases by 74 million people per year, where the ideal situation states a population number far lower than even the one we have currently. In order to eliminate the problem of overpopulation, every country will need to fix his population number so that the population number does not exceed the population number the planet can sustain. This means that a total population number of 2.2 billion people or less needs to be divided over all 195 countries in the world. Division should happen relative to the current population number; hereby meaning that countries which have already high population numbers numbers should be given a larger certified population number than countries which do not have high numbers. If after the setting of the inititial population numbers per country, it is found that some countries do not have good infrastructure to support these population, migration of this population may be needed to other regions.

As for mitigation measures, perhaps herbal medicines for sterilisation can be mentioned. These may be appropriate methods in impoverished areas (as this sterilisation only requires the growing of some trees/shrubs), These include smoking the body with Erythrophleum chlorostachyum, or by consuming plant substance of cymbidium madidum, petalostigma pubescens, Eucalyptus gamophylla. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.169.117 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I removed the section. The text added is clear original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. --McSly (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured as much; however aldough I have not much references, the new section division is still a good addition, however I do agree more references are needed first. Please modify and insert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.167.19 (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Overpopulation is not a fact
Overpopulation is a theory as to why many people live in poverty, and why global warming and other environmental problems are happening. It is not proven fact, and nothing in this article should state that it is.

YourNight (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't change material that has a source, unless you find another reliable source to support your change. For example, we have a source that discusses what scientists believe to be the long term carrying capacity of the planet. You changed "between one and two billion people" to "between 1 and 40 billion". That's inappropriate. Please read the Wikipedia policies I posted on yuor talk page before making other changes, additions, or deletions.   Will Beback    talk    07:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Counterargument
We are just overcrowded, not overpopulated

There are approximately 6 billion people in the world and there is 2.97 million square miles of land in the Island continent of Australia. 2.97 million square miles breaks down to 1 billion, 900 million, 800,000 acres which then converts down to 7,603,200,000 quarter acre blocks of land. So we could hypothetically give every person in the world a quarter acre block of land and they would all fit into an area the size of australia, each would have enough land that they could all have gardens and grow a substantial supply of their own food, and we would still have 1,603,200,000 quarter acre blocks, or an area roughly half the size of queensland left over - plus the entire rest of the world. Now just pause to let that sink in to your brain for a second. ALL the people, thats every man woman and child on earth would comfortably fit inside australia, each individual person could have a quarter acre block of land and we would STILL have half of queensland and the entire rest of the PLANET left totally unoccupied.

The world is not over populated at all. Its just very badly managed and and you need have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this bad management is intentional, and it is methodical. It would however, be very simple to fix things. And all that is required is for people to wake up to how much they are being lied to and how much they are being scammed. And this goes for everyone.

-credit to chaoticfate

I suggest this be included in the article 213.40.107.79 (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, you need to take into account water availability, soil fertility and limited non-renewable resources. It's more than just being able to "fit". Carrying capacity calculations suggest we are overpopulated. However, if you can find reliable references where your argument is discussed then you can include the argument in the article. Barrylb (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to second what Barry says. The issue is not just how many people we can cram sardinewise into a given space. It also has to do with all of the resources each and every person will use in their lifetime. All the trees cut for paper, housing etc, all the fresh water used, all the land, fertalizer etc. needed to feed each one during his/her lifetime, all the animals (which also need resources) killed to feed us, all the "stuff" each needs (or think we need), all the oil each uses, all the minerals mined, all the trash and pollution each generates, all of the space each takes (and no one is going to voluntarily move to a country with a 7 billion and growing population), etc etc. And this is not even considering all of the public infrastructure required. Things like roads, airports, shopping centers and myriad other "necessities".


 * One last issue which hasn't received enough attention, re: population, is the fact that the greater the density of people, the greater the chances for epidemics and pandemics.


 * It's simply blind stupidity or intentional deception to perpetuate the myth that we can continue to grow without serious costs to ourselves, future generations and the environment. To act as if the earth is somehow this infinite, magical place wherein cause and effect do not apply. Especially since we are already seeing the consequences of this myth in rapid species depletion and extinction (including ocean fisheries which we depend on for food). Our ecosphere has evolved to require a large diversity of life to continue, thus each has it's place. An intelligent person on discovering that he is speeding toward a cliff will not remain on the same path at the same speed. 4.246.206.190 (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum. Please keep discussion to improving the article using reliable sources. Thank you. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No need for such a warning at this point. This is a discussion about content someone wanted to be in the article. -- Barrylb (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Beg to differ. The thread is full of personal opinion and speculation, which is of no value to improving the article. Humouring this kind of talk page behaviour does us no good. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

adenovirus
The final subsection, "other approaches and effects," suggests that instead of catastrophic Malthusian-type limits, nature might control human population growth via a recently-discovered virus that is associated with infertility. Although both of these can be seen as natural population controls, Malthusian theories talk about actual negative feedback -- limitations directly associated with overpopulation, like starvation. The rise of a virus that causes infertility is more of a coincidence, and I don't know if it's relevant to this page. In any case, the connection seems like OR. Should we remove this subsection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhumandecency (talk • contribs) 20:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions vs Facts and Statistics
Article suffers from too many contradictory conclusions, some unrelated to overpopulation, and too few statistics.

It is missing a table of population increase by country and continent, and of population density per square KM and per square KM of arable land.

The article should relate to regional overpopulation and not just world overpopulation. There is not the same population pressure in Russia or Germany as in Bangladesh or Egypt, and it makes no sense to treat them all the same! In some places birthrates are below replacement levels. They are not contributing to world overpopulation obviously.

The depletion of fossil fuel and other resources is due primarily to developed industrial countries, but these do not have high population growth. Therefore the problem is not directly related and doesn't belong in this article - except perhaps to be mentioned. Controlling population in USA and Europe has not reduced use of fossil fuels and ecological resources!

There should be a more systematic treatment of the worldwide decline in birthrate - a table at least by continent or region if not by country.

The prediction of world food catastrophes seem to be belied by the chart that clearly shows that world food supply per capita is increasing.

Hidden in all the contradictory conclusions, partial statistics and irrelevant discussions of resource depletion in developed nations is the fact that over population and too rapid population increase is a regional problem and not (as yet) a world problem - it is a local problem. The two types of issues should be separated. Mewnews (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)]

When communists cause famine, they wrongly blame it on overpopulation, OR spinning the issue
Blaming famine on overpopulation doesn't make any sense. Just compare South Korea to North Korea - they have similar population densities and similar natural resources. But capitalist South Korea is well fed while communist North Korea has famine. Ethiopia and Zimbabwe used to be self sufficient in food production, but then they nationalized the farmland and that created a famine. After China nationalzied its farmland it created a famine, and after it switched back to private farming the famine disappeared. Blaming famine on overpopulation is not logical.

Let's say you have a poor communist country where private farming for profit is illegal and everyone is starving. Well, then cutting the population in half won't solve any problems. Because overpopulation is not the problem. The problem is communism.

Tell it to the Irish. Renglish (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Overgrazing and deforestation happen because of a lack of property rights. When a resource is communally owned, people overuse the resource and no one takes care of it. When people have secure property rights, they take care of the resource. The owners of private tree farms plant more trees than they cut down.

In a free market, resource scarcity leads to higher prices. This leads to conservation, substitution, and new supplies.

Free people create more resources than they consume. Before the 19th century, pretroleum had no value - it was a nuiseance that got in the way of people who were digging water wells. It was only after someone with a brain invented a way to use the petroleum that it acquired any value. Today's trillion dollar silicon revolution is based on a rock that's found everywhere. A "natural resource" has no value on its own. It's only when people use their brains to invent things that the "natural resource" acquires any value.

Our most valuable resource is information, and this is a resource that can only get bigger.

The doomsayers do not understand this. They do not understand science, technology, innovation, private property, or the function of prices. That's why they wrongly blame problems on overpopulation, and continue to make false predictions about running out of resources.

Private property, economic freedom, market prices, modern agriculature, tree farming, nuclear power, and desalination can provide a first world standard of living for 10 billion people. The only reason that any country has third world poverty or famine is because they choose to avoid these things.

--grundle2600


 * Good point. In reality, "overpopulation" or high population density hardly ever causes famine on a national scale. In many (if not most) cases, the actual cause of food shortages (or shortages of many other resources) can be traced to bad governance. This is the point made and proven by economists like Julian Simon. Unfortunately, this article continues to remain very biased in fabvor of the "overpopulation" doomsayers. Manny Amador


 * Thank you! Grundle2600 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, whenever I hear one of these economic spinmeisters make these claims I have to wonder where their heads are at. Ok so you say 10 billion people is a good number.  Any limiting before that number would be wrong.  So are you saying that 10 billion is the point at which we try to get ahold of population growth?  No?  What about 15 billion then? 20 billion? 50 billion? 100 billion?  What, NO limits?  Yes, that's what it usually comes down to.  These people who specialize in turning black into white have really only one issue, money.  Their economic system is set up in such a way that growth must ever increase else the whole thing may collapse - or so they fear.  They don't mention a few inconvienient facts: 1) Capitalist countries are rich in large measure because they are exploiting (read here: sucking up) the resources of the rest of the world, in other words, they are not self sufficient. If they were forced to be their smug self-congratulatoryness would soon evaporate.  2) These capitalist countries use measures such as funding policies at the IMF and the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (all capitalist institutions) to make it difficult for third world countries to themselves become self sufficient. These policies rather make third world countries forever dependant upon first world nations, some say by design . 3) Besides this, the reality is that for other reasons third world countries may never reach the level of economic independence of first world countries, thus advocating increased population growth is advocating much more misery and death in these countries. 4) Sure there are still plenty of some resources to go around but what gives us the right to harvest everything for just our generation?  How wise is that?  Do you hope that when the population is 50,000,000,000 and forests are a thing of the past we'll just magically have created big carbon dioxide recycling and oxygen producing machines to replace them?  It is the height of folly to urge human population to grow and grow when projected scarcities of other basic necessities, such as water, are well understood.  And what gives us the right to turn a beautiful planet into one big city and thus deny our children and children's children the opportunity to experience a natural earth?  And while we're at it, what gives us the right to confiscate all of the living spaces and resources of earth from the other 99.999999999% of species that also live and evolved here, to selfishly take all for ourselves without a thought for those which cannot speak for themselves?


 * How long do you believe that people will buy the non-scensical idea that, on a finite world with finite resources we can continue to grow and expand forever?


 * Ok so there should be a limit then? SO then WHEN? As a previously deleted paragraph once stated, there are Quality of life issues to consider here. Just because we have space left in which to put more people, more cities, more roads, reap more pollution etc. do we want to? Is the goal to see just how many people we can cram into a given space with no thought to any limit? If we do plan to eventually limit population do we wait until quality of life is so degraded that it's no longer worth bothering with or do we try to limit population while we still have something worthwhile to save?  4.246.202.198 18:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

'The reference should read that famine may be symptomatic of overpopulation. Clearly for a given level of resource exploitation there is a corresponding level of population that can be sustained indefinitely by the local resource base---carrying capacity. Assuming that an equilibrium has been reach resulting in sustainability, any decline in technology, ability to exploit local resources, including political or organizational mismanagement will result in a higher carrying capacity. Similarly any increase in the per capita exploitation, improvements in technology, leads to a lower carrying capacity.'

It's a fairly straight forward balanced equation. You need to lay off the Adam Smith for a bit Grundle2600 and focus a little more on the math. Modern economic theory is the only system, natural or otherwise, that I have ever come across that assumes perpetual growth, indeed requires perpetual growth to thrive. All other systems eventually reach equilibrium, but not capitalism! And since the success of capitalism, by far the most efficient of all the isms at resource extraction and distribution is inextricably linked to our exponential population growth, we must seriously question the exponential foundation of this system. It is your blind faith in the 'Invisible Hand' and those so well entrenched, and benefiting the most, in the system that have gotten us to this miserable point.

Nor should you confuse the 'success' or rather dominance of capitalism today, with an optimal socio-economic model that is sustainable. Capitalism is the current winner simply by default. Capitalism does not create resources where non existed, it simply encourages technological development which allows the exploitation of resources on a larger scale and at fast rates. This in turn has lead to population growth likely well beyond carrying capacity, a temporary phenomenon as we are all about to find out, frequently referred to as overshoot. With almost every major ecological system on the globe in decline (boreal forest, coral reefs, fisheries, tropical rain forest, etc., etc.) the malaise of overpopulation should be intuitive. It is irresponsible of you to embed in your arguments and perpetuate a likely falsehood that capitalism and free markets based on perpetual exponential growth are an optimal socio-economic system. Nobody knows that for sure, but I expect that we will find out in the 21st century regardless. Those of us looking forward and questioning the foundations of this system suspect that it is not, and as a consequence are concern with overpopulation and its implications. More math, more thermodynamics and less b-school is my suggestion to you Grundle2600. And until then you should probably reframe from commentary on this topic and likely many others.


 * You didn't address any of my specific claims about communists causing famine. 10 years ago, farmers in Zimbabwe were growing huge amounts of food. The country was well fed, and grew enough extra food to export it to other countreis. But then President Robert Mugabe seized the farms, and kicked the farmers out of the country. That caused a famine. The same thing happened in Ethiopia a few decades earlier. China also had famine after it nationalized its farmland. After China went back to private farming, food production skyrocketed, and the famine disappeared. Today communist North Korea has famine, and capitalist South Korea is well fed.


 * The IMF and World Bank should be abolished. They are governemnt agencies. They are not capitalist.


 * You are mistaken in your claim that third wolrd countries can't become rich. Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Tiawan all used to be third world countries. But then they adopted capitalism, and became rich.


 * You are mistaken in your claim that there aren't enough resources. The truth is that people create more resources than they use. For example, oil was not a resource until someone with a brain invented a way to use it. Today's trilion dollar silicon revoltion is based on something that's in rocks everywhere. The most important resource is information, and this is a resources that can only get bigger.


 * With modern argiculture, nuclear power, desalination, tree farming, science and technology, and electric cars like the Tesla Roadster it's possible for 10 billion people to all have a first world standard of living.


 * You are mistaken to claim that rich countries get rich by making poor countries poor. The truth is that every country starts out poor. When countries adopt capitalism, they create wealth, and they become rich.


 * When poor countries trade with rich countries, it makes the poor countries better off. That's how Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea became rich. And now today, China, India, and Vietnam are getting richer by trading with rich countries. Voluntary trade is a win-win situation, and it makes all participants better off.


 * Human beings create more resources than they use. Today the world has more people than ever before. And today, the average person in the world eats more calories of food, has more square footage of housing, has a longer life expectancy, has more access to health and education, and owns more material possessions, than ever before.


 * What's the maximum number of people that the earth can support? That depends on what level of technology we use. During the hunter/gatherer phase, the earth could only support 50 million poeple. Today with agriculture, it's more than 100 times that amount. And if every country used all the technologies that I mentioned, it could be much higher than that.


 * But the population will never get that big. The United Nations estimates that world population will peak at about 9 billion around the year 2050 or so, and then start to fall.


 * Which resources do you think we don't have enough of, that we can't solve the problem with technologies like modern agriculture, desalination, nuclear power, and electric cars?


 * Do you even know what Prsident Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe? He stole the farmland, and kicked the farmers out of the country. That caused a famine. How can you blame that on overpopulation?


 * North Korea and South Korea have similar population densities and similar natural resources. North Korea has famine, and South Korea does not. How can you blame North Korea's famine on overpopulation?


 * When countries become rich, they use governemnt regulation and technology to make their pollution go down. The U.S. population is much bigger today than 40 years, but pollution is much lower today.


 * Rich countries use modern agriculture to grow more food on less land, so they have more forest, not less.


 * I am totally in favor of people having access to safe and legal sex education, birth control, and abortion. But none of those things is going to solve the problems that are caused by communsit dictators like Robert Mugabe.


 * Grundle2600 23:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments reflect an uncareful reading of the article, the links therein and my comments above and provided links. Take desalination for example.  Did you read the water section?  Did you note the study that concluded "Desalinated water may be a solution for some water-stress regions, but not for places that are poor, deep in the interior of a continent, or at high elevation. Unfortunately, that includes some of the places with biggest water problems"? I guess not.  Thus you're mistaken.


 * I've no doubt communism has caused famines. They are not too environmental either.


 * I didn't say that third world countries can't become rich, I said that "for other reasons third world countries may never reach the level of economic independence of first world countries". Thus you are mistaken.


 * You said "You are mistaken in your claim that there aren't enough resources". Again, what I said was, "Sure there are still plenty of some resources to go around but what gives us the right to harvest everything for just our generation?" Thus you are mistaken.  There's no doubt that for the short term we can go on business as usual, but to imagine that we can continue to grow and expand forever while taking the resources from the same finite planet is ridiculous.  It's "magical" thinking.


 * You said "Rich countries use modern agriculture to grow more food on less land, so they have more forest, not less". Again, did you read this comment from the article, "Agricultural conversion to croplands and managed pastures has affected some 3.3 billion [hectares]—roughly 26 percent of the land area. All totaled, agriculture has displaced one-third of temperate and tropical forests and one-quarter of natural grasslands".  I guess not.  Again you're mistaken.


 * You also said "But the population will never get that big". Are you a prophet?  No?  Then you cannot say.  But if you understood the concept of carrying capacity you'd know that some respected scientists hold that population continues to rise if the resources are availiable  (this information is cited in the article BTW).  Now, you've stated that we've plenty of resources left.  So then look for population to rise until they run out ... unless we consciously decide to do the mature, no the sane thing and limit our population growth rate.


 * Finally you said "But none of those things is going to solve the problems that are caused by communsit dictators like Robert Mugabe." I never said they were.


 * You sound like you're putting a lot of faith in technology, even willing to gamble the future for a big payoff right now. I happen to consider that foolhardy.


 * I also note that You didn't address any of the moral issues I raised about taking everything for ourselves. 4.246.200.243 06:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have forgotten that one does not need to be a prophet to make reasonably accurate predictions. If you disagree,t hen you contradict ANY prediction of the consequences of overpopulation. Grundle's claim that the world's population will never get big enough to outstrip resources is not his own, but made by the UN Population Division, which has far more data and analytical resources than you. The earth's resources may be theoretically finite, but given the productivity of human beings and consumption patterns (even high ones), the resources may as well be infinite. This has been echoed by many respected writers such as Julian Simon and Jacqueline Kasun. This is not some misplaced faith in technology, it is rather a simple recognition of historical fact (which, by the way, has repeated itself many times). 58.71.34.138 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Julian Simon? Sheesh!  I give up.  Believe what you'd like. 4.246.206.53 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Julian Simon was right - Paul Ehrlich's prediction of 90% of the U.S. population starving to death at the end of the 20th century did not come true. Why do you think Ehrlich was right?Grundle2600 15:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Grundle is correct. If you Julian Simon isn't credible, then kindly show us why he should not be seen as credible. He won his wager against Ehrlich, and Ehrlich has made so so many wacky doomsday predictions that never came true one wonders why he hasn't been committed. Just because you don't like What Simon has to say doesn't mean he's wrong. You have to substantiate your unlikely claim. It's more likely the other way around: that you are wrong and Julian Simon (who has substantiated his claims) is right.58.71.34.138 11:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I find it quite hilarious that the people who attack Simon never criticize Ehrlich. Ehrlich said that by the year 2000, 90% of the U.S. population would starve to death, all the world's resources would be gone, and India would never eliminate its famine. Simon correctly pointed out that Ehrlich was wrong. Yet the doomsayers attack Simon. And they give praise to Ehrlich, and they invite him to give speeches, they give him various awards and 6 figure grants, etc. They attack Simon for being right, and they love Ehrlich for being wrong. It just doesn't make any sense. Grundle2600 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My basic claim is that human beings create more resources then they use. We aren't "taking" things - we are creating them.

Throughout most of history, oil was not a resource. On the contrary, it had negative value, because it was a nuisance that got in the way of people who were digging water wells. It was only when a person with a brain figured out a way to use the oil that the oil became a resource.

During the 17th century, people worried about the world's supply of candle wax running out. It never occurred to them that someday, someone would invent the light bulb.

We used to use copper wires to carry telephone signals. But today we use fiber optics. Compared to the copper wires, the fiber optics use less material, but carry more informaiton.

50 years ago, a computer was as big as a house. Today, a computer fits on your desk, and it's a million times more powerful.

Today's silicon revolution is based on a material that's found in rocks everywhere.

All of these things are examples of how people create more resources than they use. Paul Ehrlich does not understand these things.

During the 19th century, people in the U.S. cut down almost all of the trees, because they needed land for growing food, they need trees to build houses, and they needed wood for fuel. Today, things are different. Today we use modern agriculture to grow more food on less land. We don't use wood for fuel anymore, because we have better sources of fuel. And the owners of private tree farms plant more trees than they cut down, because they are concerned about future profits. So even though the U.S. has more people today than in the past, we also have more trees today than in the past. "The U.S. Agriculture Department says America has 749 million acres of forestland. In 1920, we had 735 million acres of forest." source

In Niger, people were cutting down the trees for firewood. The forests were disappearing. But then the government changed its policy regarding trees. They started to allow private ownership of trees. People could now make more money by taking care of the trees and selling the fruit, than they could by cutting the trees down for firewood. So the number of trees has been getting bigger. And this has been happening, even as the human populaiton has been growing. By adopting property rights, they increased the number of trees, they increased the amount of food, they made people richer, and they protected the enviornment. source Paul Ehrlich does not understand this kind of thing. He does not understand the benefits of private property.

Paul Ehrlich does not understand any of these things that I just cited.

I agree with you that poor countries can't afford desalination. That's why they need to follow the role models of other poor countries that made themselves rich, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. They need to adopt property rights, industrialize, grow their economices, and become rich. Then they will be able to afford desalination. And they can use pipes to transport the water to anywhere. This could require raising the price of water by as much as one penny per gallon to pay for it, but it would be well worth it.

My basic point is that people create more resources than they use. And also, people need property rights and rule of law, in order to have the incentives to create wealth. Paul Ehrlich does not understand any of these things.

Grundle2600 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"My basic point is that people create more resources than they use." This basic claim is the root of the confusion. It is true that before the mid 1800's humans didn't recognize the value of oil. Once we did, we started burning it. By recognizing the value of oil, we did not magically create the resource. The resource was there and now we are burning it. Once it is gone, there will be one less resource to make our lives as well fed and comfortable. We certainly have invented many things of huge value, for example computers and the internet. However, those things will have no value when we go hungry for lack of food. We have managed to produce larger quantities of food with fewer man hours of labor, but many of those gains are unsustainable because they require that we use resources faster than they can renew.Johntaves (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No disrespect but your argument above is so full of errors that it'd take too much space to correct. Your citing of John Stossel (and earlier Julian Simon) as an authority is an indication.   I'd refer you to the main article itself.  You really need to think outside the rightwing spintank. 4.246.205.78 16:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of space. I am interested in the evidenced based reasons why he is wrong.

1) The World Bank and IMF are government agencies, not private agencies. Every person who favors real capitalism believes that the World Bank and IMF should be abolished.

2) John Stossel cited his source for the increase in forest.

3) Julian Simon wrote a book where he explained that Paul Ehrlich's predictions did not come true. Therefore, the people who bash Simon are basically saying that Ehrlich's predicitions did come true, i.e., that at the end of the 20th century, 90% of the world's population starved to death, and all the natural resources were gone. But they are wrong. The reality is that Ehrlich was wrong, and Simon was right.

4) The other stuff that I said is true, and it's based on evidence. Science and technology are indeed very real things.

5) Paul Ehrlich has been consistenlty wrong for 40 years. He does not udnerstand science, technology, invention, innovation, or any other such thing. That's why he continues to make these bogus predictions.

Grundle2600 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Abolish the IMF the WTO and the World Bank and the economic situation in capitalist countries would quickly sprial downhill. This is, as I said before, because capitalist countries that invented these institutions need them to extract the resources of other countries.  IOW, these countries are not self-sufficient.  A tree farm does not a forest make.  Tree farms, or repeatedly clear-cut areas of previous forest, are monocultures with all the trees within of the same age and little or no biological diversity.  Sure some species, for lack of anything better and out of desperation will move back into one, but it's still a tree farm.  A lot could be said about Simon.  He was a skeptic.  Skeptical about CFC's damage to the environment, global warming, the hazards of pcbs, pesticides and asbestos (wrong on all counts),  but suffice with Ehrlich's comments .  I would direct you to Erhlich's book, Betrayal of science and reason: how anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future.  BTW, do you have a link that says that Ehrlich stated that that at the end of the 20th century, 90% of the world's population would starve to death? 4.246.200.135 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's my source:

(Ehrlich then switched from predicting an impending Ice Age to predicting Global Warming, saying, "The population of the U.S. will shrink from 250 million to about 22.5 million before 1999 because of famine and global warming.") link to source Grundle2600 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If I could, first there is a difference between the U.S. (what the above quote says) and the world (what you said). Also the source you use is not exactly a good one.  While perhaps he did say this, I tried and could not verify it.  I did see a claim that he stated "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now" .  I would venture to say that if one were to tabulate the total number of deaths from starvation in third world countries by that time, it may well have come to that member.  No doubt that some of what he stated was not completely accurate (such things rarely are) but he is a respected scientist.  And you have to remember that any controversial stand or person that may impinge upon industry will be attacked.  As to the notion resources are unlimited (something I call the "fishes and loaves delusion") I'd give the following example of it's fallacy. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10433 66.14.116.114 18:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Another currently happening with possibly drastic results for humanity is colony collapse disorder . In fact any extinction can be seen as the loss of a resource or potential resource, and we are experiencing them at a faster rate then even extinction of the dinosaurs  and it's all due to people.  According to Peter Raven, past President of AAAS, the world's leading science organization, the end of this century could see a loss of "the majority of all species".  If people are able to navigate their way through "the converging catastrophes of the twenty-first century" it will only be because they got smart real fast and realized it would be to their benefit to shelve the arrogance and start behaving responsibly toward the earth.  People may call this "alarmism" but when the experts agree that the house is on fire do we just stand inside the kitcen and rail against the alarmists? 4.246.204.8 14:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a limited amount of atoms. What I'm saying is that people can invent, use, and build technology to use those atoms more efficiently. A computer used to be as big as a house - but today a computer fits on your desk, and it's a million times more powerful. We used to use copper wire to carry telephone signals - but today we use fiber optics, and those fiber optics use less material but carry more information. The trillion dollar silicon revolution is based on something that's found in rocks everywere. The people of the 17th century who worried about running out of candle wax never realized that someday the light bulb would be invented. Desalination, modern agriculture, and nuclear power are other things that increase the carryying capacity. The earth cannot support an infinte number of people. But given the right technologies, it is possible for 10 billion people to all have a first world standard of living, and we can do this without wrecking the planet, causing global warming, ruining the environment, or making species go extinct. During the hunter gatherer era, it took thousands of acres of land to support one person. Today with the right technology, one acre can support many people. And we are not going to lose most species. That same prediction was already made for the end of the 20th century, and it didn't happen. The IUCN Red List says about 2 species go extinct each year, not the thousands that some people claim. And here's a great article about the bogus predictions that the doomsayers made in the past. I was gullible when I was younger, but I learned from that, and now I'm no longer gullible enough to give any credibility at all to people who are consistenly wrong. Things are getting better, not worse. People create more resources than they use. That's why Paul Ehrlich was wrong in 1968, and that's why he's still wrong today. His equation I=PAT says that technology makes things worse. He's got it backwards. Technology makes things better.Grundle2600 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see this response until today. Certainly things have "smallified" if you will, and yes we've become more efficient, but we are still up using resources that are non-renewable or at least unsustainable for the long term (and not too long at that), an example is oil.  Your number of 10,000,000,000 people (compare this to the total number of gorillas in the world which amount to mere hundreds) shows that you finally acknowledge that there must be a limit.  Good for you!  I would argue for the reasons I've stated above that that number is still way too high.  You say And we are not going to lose most species. That same prediction was already made for the end of the 20th century, who made that prediction for the end of the 20th century?  You also said The IUCN Red List says about 2 species go extinct each year, not the thousands that some people claim perhaps you are confusing this with the "normal background extinction rate" of one to two species a year.  This is the historical rate at which these species go extinct without factoring in the presence of humans.


 * "Paleontologists estimate the background rate of species extinction--the long-term extinction rate exhibited prior to humanity's influence--at between 1 and 10 extinctions each decade among every million fossil species. Assuming from a variety of estimates that 10 million species are alive today (Stork 1993 and 1997, May 1988, Hammond 1992), scientists can expect from 1 to 10 species to go extinct each year from all forms of life, visible and microscopic. In fact, species are exiting much faster. Based on records of extinction among the best- studied types of animals, ecologist Stuart Pimm and colleagues calculated extinction rates during the past century to range from 100 to 10,000 species per year (again, assuming 10 million species exist). That rate is between 100 and 1000 times faster than the background rate of species extinction (Pimm et al 1995)" . "This is an extremely conservative estimate," says the IUCN "as it does not account for undocumented extinctions. Although the estimates vary greatly, it appears that current extinction rates are at least two to four orders of magnitude above background rates".  You have to remember that it is very difficult and time consuming to verify an extinction.  That is why there have been relatively few verifications.  The IUCN says "proving that a species has gone extinct can take years to decades" .  Biota are not added to the list wily nily.


 * Without reading the entire diatribe of Ronald Bailey suffice to say that he's changed his tune about at least one of these "alarmist" predictions, global warming. Bailey who once wrote the book Global Warming and Other Eco Myths now says Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up, and recently in an article titled Global Warming -- Not Worse Than We Thought, But Bad Enough "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable" .  This should be a lesson: whenever you hear some spinmeister pontificate on scientific matters (especially if what he is generalizing about is favorable to business and industry), but who does not possess the learning to understand the things on which he holds forth, you should take what he says with a grain of salt.  But I applaud Mr. Bailey for his turnaround.


 * About IPAT, no doubt Erhlich was wrong about things he said in the past (you seem to really dislike him). IPAT was formulated in the 1970s, and though there have been other variations it is still used today.  But no one is infallable.  Science does the best it can with the information it possesses at the time.  Sometimes it is wrong but quite often it is right.  I'm not sure how much more of this talk page we should use up on this debate though.  Perhaps we'll just agree to disagree? 4.246.202.16 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure we can agree to disagree. Actually, I believe that global warming is real. I like what France did - they stopped mining coal, and now they get almost all of their electricity from nuclear power. I also believe that peak oil is real. The Tesla Roadster and other electric cars mean that we won't need oil for energy. Of course we still need oil to make plastic, but we can use thermal depolymerization to make as much oil as we want, out of garbage, sewage, and agricultural waste. Grundle2600 16:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All these comments about famine being caused by the type of government seem misplaced. The modern famines in Africa have occurred because the climate has changed - there is less rain. THAT'S A FACT. The shift in rainfall from parts of Africa to Northern Europe is likely the result of Global Warming. And, rising CO2 emission are a direct result of overpopulation in the developed world (fossil fuel consumption) and the third world (deforestation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.252.213 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that incompetent government policies can result in famine, and that this has been the case in a number of Communist countries. What does that have to do with the topic of the article - overpopulation? Virtually nothing. These comments are better posted in an article on Communist agricultural policies. Grundle's repeated, off-topic sermons about Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich are irrelevant, and attempt to frame the topic in question as one of economic policy rather than ecology and biological sciences. Appealing to a non-scientist with an extremist economic philosophy that most knowledgeable people rightly dismiss as deluded and simplistic, the way Grundle appeals to Libertarian direct-marketing expert Julian Simon, does nothing to enhance the discussion of this topic. A debate between a libertarian ideologue and a fear-mongering huckster (Simon verses Ehrlich) sheds about as much light on the topic of overpopulation as a debate between televangelist John Hagee and atheist gadfly Sam Harris sheds on religion. A few nuts on either side of the isle might find it entertaining, but it's simplistic and devoid of real information. For the record, Julian Simon was an abysmal failure - the population decline of Russia, the economic implosion and political decline of the United States (at the time when the United States embraced conservative economic policies with rabid zeal), the oil crisis, etc. all stand in stark contrast to Simon's millennialist predictions that capitalism would solve the world's problems or that resource substitutes were always easy to come by - in fact, the period of growing prosperity that Simon thought was the normal progression of human history was just the benefits of cheap oil reaped by a mere three generations. History is full of examples of technological and social decline, population crashes, and climate catastrophes. With each new resource "substitution," we've only come to use oil faster, as the technological improvements demand more energy (and most of these "substitutes" are plastics, which are just another form of the one key resource, oil). It's possible that some enterprising scientist will find a way to extract methane in commercial quantities from the ocean floor, or figure out nuclear fusion - I certainly hope so. But thus far, the market has not worked as Simon predicted in resolving this problem (and remember, Simon boasted that we already had the knowledge to provide from ever-increasing populations for the next 7 billion years), and those working on the problem tell us that there will likely never be a substance that will fully replace oil. People who flopped shouldn't be cited as experts on anything.--ManicBrit (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Hi I think that realising that overpopulation can cause poverty and famine is common sense. If we think that natural resources are limited then we intuitively and mathematically must realise that logically as the population grows the people will have less and less. We do need to have special studies to realise about this potential problem. Of course that there are rich countries with a lot of people but they must import a lot of resources from other countries to keep their economies going. This in turn is making other countries to overexploit their resources. For example much of the best land in latin america is used for export commodity crops such as coffee, leaving the rest for the local poor farmes. Guillermo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.174.181 (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When a rich, densely populated country like Hong Kong imports resources from a poor country, Hong Kong is exporting money. In order to get that money, Hong Kong had to create something of value. The poor country benefits because it is importing that money. This is a win-win situation that makes both Hong Kong and the poor country better off. Eventually the poor country will become rich. People create resources, and our supply of resources is getting bigger. Petroleum was not a resource until someone invented a way to use it. We used to use copper wires to carry telephone signals, but now we use fiber optics. Compared to the copper wire, the fiber optic uses less material but carries more information, so now we have more resources than before. The trillion dollar silicon revolution is based on something that's found in worthless rocks everywhere, so that's another example of how we create resources. Each decade, we have more resources than we did during the previous decade. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"The poor country benefits because it is importing that money ... Eventually the poor country will become rich". Right, that's why poor, overexploited countries like Africa nad India are such swell places to live and filled with such happy, prosperous people. BTW, what do they do when their resources run out? 4.246.205.228 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There is far too much discussion here. This page is not for debating the overpopulation issue, it is for developing the article. All we need to do is summarize the work of other people. Barrylb (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Still no response to actual famines caused by overpopulation. What grundle is saying may be violently politically incorrect, his argument is evidenced based. 71.132.220.167 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Bulls--t! and the earth doesn't revolve around the sun. Simply, put one small bowl of food in a cage full of (overpopulated with) rats. When they eat it all they suffer a famine, no? It's common sense stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.196.193.180 (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Show a number of rats "n" for which that would NOT be true. Any number of rats would have the same result. One rat would overpopulate if your definition is starving after eating all the food. But then, when you turn the talk page into a forum, you're headed down the road to bozoville. Renglish (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, rains and population growth affect yields per person. But in a rich country, you can handle that. That is why there are famines in Africa but not in Europe, in North Korea but not in South Korea, there were in China but not in Taiwan etc. In capitalism, a country soon gets so rich that it can handle environmental conditions in many ways. This is a ranking of countries by the degree of capitalism (i.e., economic freedom) . The countries choosing capitalism have become rich during a few decades, those choosing more socialist policies have stayed poor, regardless of the continent or natural resources. --Forp (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about overpopulation, not about communism. And, in any case, almost all the rich countries are socialist, and have been since World War II. It is a mixed economy, with both capitalism and socialism, private ownership combined with social security combined with birth control, that all rich countries have in common. Also, overpopulation is more than a question of population density, as has been pointed out (and ignored) many times. It is a question of available resources. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that everything in this section of the talk page that was signed by me (except for this paragraph) was copied by someone else from the talk archives - some of my comments are nearly three years old. I am well versed in both the Ehrlich opinion and the Simon opinion, and did my best to make sure that the article cites both. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism Section
Are we to believe that views critical or skeptical of the concept of overpopulation either do not exist or are not documented anywhere? By the above debate on "communism" causing famine it would seem that at least one criticism does exist, that the effects attributed to overpopulation are actually the effects of economic policy.

I myself remember reading once (I think it was in PJ O'Rourke's "All the Trouble in the World") that if the entire world's population (6 bil at the time) lived at the population density of Manhattan everybody on Earth would fit in an area the size of the former Yugoslavia. In fact this article itself already states that urbanization could be a way to mitigate the effects of "overpopulation", implying that it is not a problem of absolute numbers but one of organization and distribution of population.

Just some thoughts, and it looks like the article itself already contains a lot of this information. Anyone care condensing it into one section?

69.12.129.253 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the article already contains the multiple points of view there is probably little benefit in having a separate section. There are some thoughts on criticism sections at Criticism. By the way, the overpopulation issue is much more complex than simply squeezing everyone into a given land area. It is about the availability of resources, and the consumption and waste of all those people. -- Barrylb (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, it's better for criticism to be sprinkled throughout the article, instead of having its own section. If you read the entire article, you will see that both main viewpoints on this subject (i.e., the Paul Ehrlich belief in overpopulation, and the Julian Simon belief that technology and proper economic policy can solve the problems that Ehrlich blames on overpopulation) are both well represented in the various sections of the article. As it is now, the various sections contain various criticisms, and defenses, of the subject. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Overpopulation IS a fact

 * (Editorial comment, December 2010: Due to an earlier, undetected mistake, this section was archived in two parts, the heading and most of the first sentence into Archive 4, the rest with a defect heading and start here. I now have recollected the full archive here, as the section was before the erroneous insertion in the middle of the word "fact" caused the confusion.) JoergenB (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Humans are overpopulated and it is a fact. Any reasonable definition of overpopulation must recognize that if the organism consumes its necessary resources faster than those resources can renew, then the organism is by definition overpopulated. One cannot argue that we are not dependent on fossil fuels. Imagine how many billions would die within a year if oil and coal consumption were halted right now. I added a paragraph at the beginning of the article to state this. We humans may invent ways to sustain the current population without consuming resources faster than they renew, but until then we are overpopulated. We might also manage to comprehend this and reduce the birth rate such that the population drops to a sustainable level without any drop in the quality of life. In other words, we might be able to solve the current overpopulation problem without great suffering associated with the natural solution to overpopulation, but again, that does not change the fact that currently there are too many humans on the planet. I agree that poverty does not prove overpopulation and that many are confused by this. Indeed you've got it somewhat backwards. Consumption of fossil fuels has made our lives extremely luxurious, not "living in poverty", but it is that unsustainable consumption that means we are overpopulated.Johntaves (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Overpopulation is not a fact. Fossil fuels are not necessary resources. As they get more scarce, they get more expensive, and as (and even before) they get more expensive, there is an increasing incentive to develop substitutes. --Forp (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, humanity will be hard pressed to find energy resources that will fully replace the energy provided to us by fossil fuels. Scaling up renewable resources is possible, but sufficient action is not being taken and likely will not be until it's too late. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Wikipedia is not primarily concerned with facts, but with generally held views supported by reliable sources. This does not make the discussion of the factual situation unimportant. However, we are not supposed to insert facts that we just establish ourselves here; this is considered as original research.
 * Thus, for the article, the relevant question is: What do those "those who should be in the know" state about overpopulation? In this case, there is actually an answer with some authority. There is actually a very clear and 'official' consensus in the scientific community to the effect that overpopulation is a real problem, and that the population growth must be eliminated rather soon.
 * I refer to IAP statement on population growth, a joint statement of 58 academies of science from all over this planet. This does not make the existence of overpopulation a fact, but it does make it the consensus opinion in the scientific world of to-day.
 * There should definitely be a section in this article about concerns for overpopulation; and the IAP statement should be given a prominent place. Now, I do not know any criticism of the statement; but if any editor can find sources for such criticism -- from reliable and preferrably from independent scientific sources, of course -- then such criticism should be included, too.
 * If no such criticism of the IAP statement or of the theses therein exist, then the statement is the undisputed consensus of the scientific world. Else, it is a 'disputed consensus'. JoergenB (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Quote
I recommend adding a quote: Consider the problem of over-population. Rapidly mounting human numbers are pressing ever more heavily on natural resources requiring the annual increase of numbers to be reduced. But how is it to be done ... ? Using famine, pestilence and war on one hand, or by birth control on the other ? -- Aldous Huxley (link)

Neglect of an effective birth control policy is a never-failing source of poverty which, in turn, is the parent of revolution and crime. --Aristotle(link)

We have been God-like in our planned breeding of our domestic plants and animals, but rabbit-like in our unplanned breeding of ourselves. -- Arnold Toynbee(link

Perhaps someone can include these quotes to the article ? 217.136.156.187 (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in a section on historical opposition to overpopulation, distinct from modern critiques. I can see that as being worthwhile. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a source for the Aristotle quote. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this paper, it's from Politics. Here's a book source too. However, a look through the Wikisource copy of Politics reveals no such quote; a little research turns up this commentary, under VII: 16 Marriage and Children, where Kraut discusses the inference of the availability of contraception. I would say that quote is not attributable to Aristotle at all, but is a summary of a particular commentator's interpretation. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, AniRaptor2001. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke
In one section here Clarke is described as enthusiastically supporting a theory that humans will end up colonising places outside the Earth, and then a few lines later he is described as having said it was not a viable option - which is right, or did he change his mind? 88.165.185.189 (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Even an efficient colonialisation of other planets would be no remedy for a continuing exponential population growth, in the long run. It would just postpone the problem. JoergenB (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Population growth" images
The two images given in the "Population growth" section claim a slight population decline in the 17th century. This is NOT supported by any of the sources listed in the article "World population estimates". It seems the author of the files used the lowest population estimate given there for each date, instead of sticking to one of the sources (or at least using the average value each time), thus creating an "artificial" decline by using different sources for different dates. IMO this should be corrected, or the images removed.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)




 * As I’ve been rather preoccupied with several other projects lately I haven’t had as much time recently to visit, or contribute to, Wikipedia as I would have liked. Apologies therefore for the delay in noticing (and so responding to) Roentgenium111's post here. Incidentally I only found it completely randomly – given the nature of the comment it might have been helpful to have checked to see who created the charts (me) and perhaps have posted a line or two on my talk page to link here so I could have found it sooner?


 * I spent several months, on and off, carefully and painstakingly developing the two charts mentioned (in addition to several related charts I also produced around the same time). It had always concerned me that most of the population data for this and related articles was presented largely as very “granular” tables together with charts using logarithmic scales. Whilst logarithmic scales are certainly valid and useful in many situations, their main importance is in showing rates of change rather than the base data or change itself; they are also useful in dramatically compressing curves to fit them more neatly on the page, or in a box, though at the expense of clarity since it can then be difficult to properly visualise or comprehend (on a linear scale) the actual growth they represent.


 * When I originally contributed these charts in January 2009 they were not detailed enough (as they were initially based purely on the “granular” tables on Population and their various quoted sources) to show the effects on Population of either the Black Death or later plagues.


 * Curiously enough it was thanks to an edit by Roentgenium111 last year to World Population (that had one of his typically abrupt but actually quite helpful annotations, for which I was grateful; “removed claim of continuous growth since 1000 BC since it is false (from 1340 to 1400 the population shrank dramaticallly)” that originally drew my attention to these anomalies and motivated me to review and enhance my charts (using a wider range of equally authoritative base-data) to include them.


 * Obviously in this connection there is only relatively limited data available, all of which is estimated. However close scrutiny of it will indeed reveal the estimated population falls I have carefully plotted both for the Black Death and Plagues. In addition to updating the charts I also edited World Population "(Refinement to notes recently added (14:06, 18 March 2009) by Roentgenium111 regarding significant short-term falls due to Black Death & plague)" Revision as of 00:49, 21 March 2009


 * Luckily I still have all of my working notes, data extracts and development spreadsheets (which I made in order to plot the curves) - Please see chart added here on the right. I’ve highlighted the relevant data in yellow for (it’s towards the end of the long screenshot).


 * Roentgenium111 was therefore completely correct last March regarding the former, but mistaken on this occasion regarding the latter. He is also mistaken in assuming I only used “lower estimates” as I was most careful to collate and average the data in order to arrive at what I hoped would be the best “smoothed” curves utilising the best of the available data deemed reliable.


 * Here’s an extract of the relevant data, showing the fall in Population caused by Plague, that forms the basis for the two charts;


 * I hope this helps clarify the validity of the two population dips I carefully added last year to the curves? My thanks again to Roentgenium111 who first prompted me (albeit indirectly) to investigate this detail in the first place, though is now questioning it! Barryz1 (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Barryz1 for your detailed reply. I have not checked all your data in detail, but I agree that by just looking at the bare numbers the graph you created is correct. However, I stick to my claim that the data do NOT imply a population decline in the 17th century (I admit they do not disprove such a decline either). The problem is that Biraben only gives estimates for 1600 and 1700 (which are both the highest estimates for these years), but not for 1650. Contrarily, the UN-1973 provides the lowest estimate for 1650, but gives no data for 1600 and 1700 (at least not in the table above). None of the individual sources gives a population decline between 1600 and 1650. The only one giving estimates for both 1600 and 1650 (McEvedy & Jones) has the same values in both, implying a constant population size. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)



Roentgenium111 – sorry for the further delay; I really have been busy with many other things lately and didn’t just want to give you a casual answer; I like to have sufficient time to investigate things carefully then review the data and consider the best method of presenting it clearly and accurately.

Thanks for confirming you agree my mathematical treatment of the data, and the way I’ve plotted it, is correct in itself. Obviously it’s always possible to make mistakes (although I do take considerable care and trouble over these things) so no harm whatsoever in you checking it too.

What you said regarding the fact that no individual data series, taken in isolation, show Population falls for 1650 is certainly a valid point. I’m sure it’s no coincidence though that the ‘McEvedy & Jones’ estimates show static (nil or zero) growth in Population for the year 1650 (they estimate it was 545 million, unchanged or alternatively back to where it was, since 1600). Whilst not an actual fall this is highly significant.

We know that all of the data, from every series used, is based only on estimates (even for very recent census data) and that as we go back in time naturally the variance on these estimates becomes greater. (As an aside; I find it interesting to see some of the many ways in which these estimates have been derived, for example an article showing how Biraben modelled the population of France, alone, from 1500 – 1700 gives some insight).

There are many scientific, logical and perfectly well established methods available for combining estimates from disparate sources for related data (whether the data has been measured or just modelled). The one I had previously used in this case was to take the smoothed average of highest and lowest estimates agregated for each year published using all of the available data. Obviously I could have shown error bars (or alternatively error bands) on my charts, in which case the bar (or band) would have been slightly wider for 1650 as there is a missing estimate from Biraben for that year. It would have also been possible to use weighted averages and, or, completely disregard data from the more “patchy” series.



An alternative, and perhaps slightly more sophisticated, approach is to interpolate the missing data. In this case that can be done by using the arithmetical average from the years 1600 and 1700 for the same series (if needing instead a datum point for, say, 1640 then a weighted average of the previous and subsequent estimates could have been used). The result is 629 million for Biraben’s series for 1650, which is of course far higher than the previous “upper figure” for that year of 545 million. Perhaps surprisingly, even when using this higher figure the chart still shows a pronounced dip in Population growth that year before recovering shortly after. This is also consistent with the rates of change preceding and succeeding the smoothed average curve.

Graphically, therefore, even on refining the analysis to “plug” the data hole with an interpolated value we get more or less the same result (the dip is still there but slightly less pronounced, that’s all).

You might worry that perhaps the method of interpolation itself is invalid. We can test that hypothesis by using the method to try “predicting” already published data. For example comparing the arithmetic means of data for 1700 and 1800 with the published figure for 1750, and again for 1800 and 1900 with the figure for 1850. We can do the same for 1250 but should disregard (or at least be cautious of) 1340 as we know that occurred during a change to the pattern caused by the Black Death.

Here are the results of that exercise;

This is obviously only a “sanity check” rather than rigorous analysis since we’re necessarily reducing curves to linear relationships, albeit over shorter time periods. The results are however reassuring close to expectation.

Next, for comparison let’s review other authoritative published analysis of Population for the range 1600 - 1700. There’s plenty “out there” but not surprisingly everything I found appears to have used the same source data that I also selected (namely; Biraben, Durand, Haub, McEvedy & Jones, Thomlinson etc). In November 2006 Dangauthier uploaded a chart 'Population Curve' that is still very widely used. From its (again, based on exactly the same sources that I also used) we see;

Note the significant fall in the data series from 545 million in 1600 to just 470 million in 1650. I personally believe this is slightly misleading and could be argued incorrect as it appears to be based only on the “lower summary” figures from the source table rather than taking a smoother more balanced view that includes the whole range of data available (as I have tried to do). However despite this potential defect in design and detail it does nonetheless seem a popular and well used graphical representation.

Outside Wikipedia and government census offices we can turn to academia; for example at the University of Washington we find Prof. P.B. Rhines has formally taught from figures again modelled using the same basic source data we have all used (though again following the same method of Dangauthier in apparently relying on “lower summary” rather than carefully smoothing from the whole range of data available that is deemed reliable and accepted). You can see for example in his 'Global Population notes';

Whilst some of these figures differ markedly from those used by Dangauthier the fall modelled to 470 million in the year 1650 is identical.

In conclusion I believe that the two existing charts you have questioned; and, are valid as they stand and are broadly and closely consistent with all source data and mainstream published analysis of that data. The significant (and I believe plausible) fall in Population shown for 1650 is plotted as less severe than sometimes shown elsewhere as I have opted for an approach that incorporates averages of ‘high-low’ estimates taken from the whole of the available data. I believe that is a slightly improved (though perhaps more time consuming) method of analysis.

I’ve indicated that one way in which the charts could perhaps be further refined is by using an interpolated value in the Biraben series for the year 1650. Having already done the work it would now be a simple matter for me to implement this, however I’d be interested in first gauging the reaction from other established authors or editors of this article. Would people prefer the interpolated data to be used or would they feel that a slight distortion as strictly speaking it’s not a “published” data point?

Please let me know your thoughts! Barryz1 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My thought is: This is impressive, but please read No original research carefully once more! JoergenB (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Barryz1: Thanks for your answer and your further work in the charts. I think you've done a "step in my direction" by interpolating Biraben's data for 1650, but by the same logic one would have to interpolate the other data sets for 1600 and 1700 as well, say linearly. I haven't done this, but I already know what the result would be like: mathematically, every single set of data would give us a monotonic function of time, so their sum and thus their average (which is just 1/n times the sum, with n= number of data sets) would be as well (and "Summary lower" and"Summary upper" also). So there would no longer be a decrease in the 1600s.


 * However, this would be much more work, and JoergenB's objection is valid: while such interpolations would be "scientifically" preferrable, they would probably be considered original research. So I suggest you keep the two charts as they are (without interpolations), but remove the "Plague" explanation for the 2nd decrease, and add a footnote like this: "The 1600-1650 decrease shown is due to statistical reasons, the raw data do not indicate a decrease of population". Would this be fine with you? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)