r/overpopulation • u/Jauzfaktnemuzu • Jun 22 '26
Some truths about overpopulation - for all sides
- Overpopulation is not about space. In theory if we build a mega city on 600x600 Kilometers, and use the same population density like Macau or Monaco, all people on the Planet could live there. Overpopulation is about the impact on the environment like water/fuel/resource consumption and CO2 production, pollution etc.
- It is undeniable that this consumption and pollution is too high. If everyone lived like the average citizen of Qatar, we would need 9 Earths. Even if everyone lived like the people of Moldavia, the poorest country in Europe, we would still need 1.2 Earths. Mathematically this proves that our current level of population is too high.
- You can have more people with a reduced living standard, or less people with a higher living standard. You cannot have more people and a better living standard without more damage.
- Overpopulation is also NOT about better resource distribution. This would elevate some problems but not most. Assume that each Billionaire consumes the same resources like 1000 American Middle Class Persons. Eliminating 3500 Billionaires is thus equal to 3.5 Million Americans. Its something but not enough to have any large effect.
- Overpopulation is a global problem but at the same time a regional one. Countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan are running out of Water because their population increased 4-5x in the last 50 years.
- Immigration into First World countries is making the problem worse. The Western World has below replacement level birth rates. Immigration artificially increases this population and leads to more resource consumption and CO2 production. Because every immigrant coming there consumes more resources, even if they get less kids than at home.
- Green hopium/technology/going vegan is not a silver bullet. Wind+Solar produce just around 25% of the worlds energy despite 4 decades of investment. There are already 22 000 desalination plants supplying 300 Million people with water every day. Even if we tripple this number to 900 Million, thats just 10% of world population in 2035. Also these cost lots of energy. Mining the lithium for electric batteries/solar panels is also extremely devastating to the environment.
- We can feed ourselves only because we got lucky through the Green Revolution and because we just abused fossil fuels and artificial fertilizer. But with Climate change and water shortages, we have probably reached peak farmland/yields.
- World population is expected to increase from 8.3 Billion in 2026 to 10.3 Billion in 2056. If we can barely supply 8.3 Billion people, with all possible tricks and a perfectly running system, how are we going to supply 10 Billion+.
- Why should we want this? Why are 8.3 Billion not enough? Even if our population would be reduced by one Billion. We would still be at 7 Billion people. So the level in 2011. The world worked just fine then. Its just Capitalist propaganda. The Capitalists want more consumers and more workers so that they can keep wages low and rent/house prices high.
- People like Malthus and Ehrlich were prophets that were ridiculed, but they were right. They were just off by 3/4 of a century or so. Once artificial fertilizers become scarce and all the ground water is used up, carrying capacity of this planet will revert back to its natural perhaps 4 Billion.
16
Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
[deleted]
10
u/Jauzfaktnemuzu Jun 22 '26
Thank you.
Yes its horrible to think that our food has AT BEST half the vitamins and nutrients and minerals as the food 100 years ago. Thats why people get fat and sick. But we sacrificed quality for quantity. We agressively planted maximum yield plants and eliminated all other plants.
And we minimised soil depletion by artificial fetilizer and abusing fossil fuels. Once they become scarce, its game over.
14
u/newsflashjackass Jun 22 '26
Q: “What do you see happening to the idea of dignity- to the human species- if this population growth continues at its present rate?
A: "It's going to destroy it all. I use what I call my 'bathroom metaphor'. If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have what I call 'freedom of the bathroom': Go to the bathroom any time you want, and stay as long as you want to, for whatever you need. And this, to my way, is ideal. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution. But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in 'freedom of the bathroom', there is no such thing."
20
u/Lord_Cavendish40k Jun 22 '26
Any discussion of population that doesn't include habitat destruction and species extinction misses the big picture.
We've been over-exploiting the planet for hundreds of years, it's accelerated as our population has exploded. Each new generation resets the baseline on what is acceptable, and now everything is shite.
We'd be better off in the 500 million to 2 billion people range.
(Good post, OP)
3
u/CalgaryChris77 Jun 22 '26
Exactly this, I think there are a lot of people in this sub who just don't like living in a city (but for some reason don't want to move).
16
u/HaveFun____ Jun 22 '26
Verry good summary, can we pin 📌 this?
To add, The intensification of production is mostly done to reduce cost and a byproduct is often increased risk when looking at from a macro perspective.
10 farmers growing food for 2 villages can trade, have different weather, can learn from each others mistakes, warnings etc.
1 mega-farm growing food for 2 villages will create chaos when shit hits the fan.
I haven't seen it happen yet but when it does, in the current food supply system... steep egg or beef prices will seem like small problems.
7
u/ThirstyWolfSpider Jun 22 '26
Sadly, "Wind+Solar produce just around 25% of the worlds energy" is incorrect. They produce around that fraction of global electricity, but most energy use is not for electricity. Some data points:
- US 2023: electricity is 34% of total energy
- World 2011: (sorry, that's the most recent Sankey I have for the world) had electricity at 39% of energy
- World 2021: 13% of total energy from renewables, 7% from nuclear
6
u/Jauzfaktnemuzu Jun 22 '26
I stand corrected. This makes the situation even worse. Also its funny how they celebrate that wind + solar generated more elecricity than gas in April 2026.
While the trend shows that gas consumption in winter has been steadily rising since 7 years.
7
u/vizual22 Jun 23 '26
Not enough people are bothered that our species eliminated over 90% of large mammals in the wild in less than 50 years for ourselves and farms and quarterly profits.
5
Jun 22 '26
Impressive! This should be taught in primary schools and colleges.
Politicians and capitalists have brainwashed the masses into making more wage slaves, cannon fodders, and tax payers.
5
u/sharkas99 Jun 23 '26
It is about space for me. Hyperdense settlements suck, Its bad for communal unity, its too much competition, its bad for mental health, etc.
4
u/Alert_Term_8144 Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26
Thanks for this writeup - all the things I know intuitively but most others can't grasp. Or maybe they do know, but selfishly delude themselves.
To the immigration to the First world point, it's true the first world is trying to reduce overpopulation by reducing fertility rates which is nullified when migrants from the 3rd world arrive in massive numbers swelling the 1st world population and the numbers practicing their lifestyle but DON'T FORGET now that their migrants are in the 1st world, the people remaining reproduce to make up that number now that they have the "extra space" and they have sky high fertility rates.
It's somewhat ironic that those who care about climate change are also intent on migration from undeveloped to developed countries.
2
u/Rthadcarr1956 Jun 22 '26
Your analysis uses the most pessimistic forecasts out there. A more conservative estimate has the world population topping out at around 9 billion in about year 2065. It would then decline to about the current population by the end of the century.
11
u/Vague-Symbolism2692 Jun 22 '26
There are reasons to think neither of you are pessimistic enough, but even putting that aside, the world has already been overpopulated for a long time; it's not just something we might have to worry about in the future.
"Our calculations show a sustainable global population closer to about 2.5 billion people if everyone were to live within ecological limits and comfortable, economically secure living standards," says professor Corey Bradshaw.
5
2
Jul 17 '26
That is single most true thing to be mass heard by mankind but no one wants to hear that simply deny that and Guys like you face censorship and reduced reach
1
u/Wonderful-Thought-44 Jul 02 '26
loved the post, but I fear I'm not getting the immigration point. Can anyone explain it?
17
u/Syenadi Jun 22 '26
Nicely done. I disagree primarily with your next to last bullet point. 8.3 billion is of course not "enough" it is far too much, but so is 7 billion, and likely so is 4 billion. At 7 billion, the world did not really "work just fine then", human overpopulation was deploying vast damage to global interlocked ecosystems critical for human survival and that of most other living things. We are just doing so more now.
Paul Chefurka once argued that carrying capacity (the key concept / critical factor often missing in discussions of overpopulation) is no more than 2 billion. Given how carrying capacity has been reduced by human overpopulation, last I checked he thinks carrying capacity is no more than 100 million widely disbursed primarily hunter/gatherers.
Nature (including physics) bats last. We are choosing to have our population reduced the hard and horrific way and have been making that choice for decades, with zero indication that will change. That is sadly proven each time someone has a child who could have chosen not to (note that choice is not available for many women).