Why are Progressives ignoring overpopulation?

Is this a trick question, for the sole surviving species in the Homo genus.

 

The stresses of overpopulation are a major contributor to civilized breakdown.

 

Overpopulation is ignored by conservatives, too, and maybe even more than progressives, those at least support abortion rights and contraception.

But this is a serious issue that we should do more about across the political spectrum. I believe that demographic paradox (poor people having more kids than rich people, which goes hand in hand with overpopulation) is the main reason for poverty in the world. Until that changes, I doubt there will ever be lasting success in eliminating poverty.

 

<yawn> I guess that would explain why civilization is breaking down in Hong Kong, where 7M people are crammed into 1100km^2, but not in South Sudan, where 8M share 620Kkm^2...

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: it's the other way around.

 

Overpopulation is not merely population density, it is a relation between population density and carrying capacity (resources and the ability to obtain and utilise them).

It is certainly possible for a dense city to not be overpopulated, while a sparsely populated country to be overpopulated.

 

The real scope of Hong Kong is way beyond the immediate borders of Hong Kong proper. The real Hong Kong is way overpopulated. For instance how much of its water and food does it provide? How much of its wood, steel, concrete, and oil? Get a clue.

 

No, it's not.

So now the mere existence of trade is considered proof of overpopulation? Why, then the world was already overpopulated over 5K years ago, when substantial trade first arose: "The real Jericho is way overpopulated. For instance, how much of its ocher and flint does it provide? How much of its wood, copper, tin and dried fish?"

See how stupid and dishonest your stupid, dishonest garbage is when stripped to its logical essentials?

- - - Updated - - -

My point exactly. There is no relationship whatever -- none -- between population and breakdown of civilization.

 

The dependency and power associated with that trade definitely makes it into a larger Hong Kong. Your inability to understand the most elementary 2+2=4 analysis is typical of denialists.

 

Taking on the overpopulation myth

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/27/taking-on-the-overpopulation-myth/?page=all

 

With more and more countries in crisis and our surpluses becoming depleted and nearly a billion folks going to bed hungry and the loss of farmable land and potable water per person and fish in the sea becoming less available and a greater crisis environment and the population increasing 200,000 more folks each day you have to be blind not to see the population train wreck coming at us. This writer isn't even original. Just the same tired demagoguery.

 

So what you are saying is that population will be self limiting.

 

why give the right a free pass; overpopulation is only a problem with less developed infrastructure.

 

Yes, but that can happen either by the choice of the people involved to procreate in harmony with limitations, or in case of overpopulation, by starvation, diseases and wars.

 

That is not what I said, tough, you missed my point completely. There certainly is a relationship, it just isnt as simplistic as population density only. Youd have to be pretty detached from reality to believe population pressure is never a factor, sometimes it is very important.

 

why give the right a free pass; overpopulation is only a problem with less developed infrastructure.

 

Politicians in general avoid or ignore anything they feel may upset their voters. Or if they are an appointed official, that of the elected official that appointed them either directly or indirectly. This is true of ANY politician regardless of party or affiliation. Asking them to openly support or endorse population control in a democratic republic is asking them to willingly commit professional suicide.

The problem is people. A singular person is not the same as large mass of people. You can generally reason with a person, appeal to them logically and at least explain the merits of a perhaps outwardly un-appealing course of action or policy. A large group on other hand, highly unlikely.. Mob-think prohibits much reason and logic, and you end up with the loudest deciding how they all respond, and becoming the voice of that group of people. We don't all agree on much in regards to the finer points of any subject, and fewer still agree on anything that may oppose or conflict with their religion or their own sense of good and bad or right and wrong. You broach a subject like population control in a society where personal freedom and liberty is key, in mass and you will have conflict. Conflict within the mass directed at itself and then at the messenger.

No politician wants to be the guy holding the bag. Claiming it a trait of the right or left is naive.

They are told every day by experts and think-tanks, about population and the future, and the dangers of it all. They know.. But they have to tip-toe around the subject and piggy-back it onto seemingly unrelated things like "climate change" or "sustainable development". What do you think "sustainable development" means? It means living in the means we can maintain, given the amount of resources, technology, and logistical capabilities we have. Having more people will mean less to go around. Less of everything, food, resources, energy, jobs, you name it.

Overpopulation isn't really the problem. It's the fact our abilities to maintain and support ourselves diminishes as our numbers increase. We can grow enough food to feed the continent of Africa, but it doesn't matter because the infrastructure to do such a task is currently impossible. We have estimates of population only. We cannot accurately establish real numbers in much of the world because they don't have the ability, the manpower, or the technological expertise to accomplish such a count. And frankly the costs would make the undertaking pointless.

While we sit here arguing over global warming, or population harming the environment, we are faced with the very real problem of scarcity due to numbers. Stop worrying over what 7 billion people will do to the climate, and start worrying about what 10 billion people will mean as far as jobs, resources and infrastructure..

 

sounds like we may need a work ethic. maybe we should start coming up with good excuses. i believe bringing your own shovel to a employer and claiming you are ready to work, should get a person hired in any right to work State.

 

No, your point was incorrect.

What is your evidence for that relationship?

It only becomes important when conditions are already deteriorating because of under-liberty, under-justice, under-honesty, and/or under-wisdom.

 

As far as stresses, not necessarily. More developed nations have higher expectations and when the economy moves south that can be very stressful. There are reasons for the Tea Party and the loss of social and economic clout is part of it with increased population and out sourcing imposing a kind of musical chairs on the higher paying jobs. De-anchoring from unpleasant realities is part of the process. For instance most of them appear to be AGW denialists. The stresses underlying that kind of fantasy thinking must be pretty large, kind of like giving up the flat earth and special creation view with all those stressful implications.

 

I support easy access to birth control, seems to be the conservatives who do not

.

 

I only agree with you to the extent we experience any market failures that socialism may take some time to respond to; otherwise, our more developed economy can sustain denser populations to enable greater productivity.

 

LOL, not sure what you read or who you are talking to...Maybe a quote would help...

 

it is just political satire.

 

The problem with "ism" type ideologies is they are easily hijacked, like religion, as we have seen. As far as developed economies, they have a lot more potential downside and that side of life the poor are more adapted to and they are more appreciative of the little gains and can't afford to ignore too many realities. Compare the poor Bengladeshes and richer Americans on the topic of AGW.

 

Does their government even have a central bank to fund infrastructure development, even if only through debt financing?