In this page you will find summaries and reviews of interesting blog posts that I’ve read.

The Overpopulation Myth by Agent Smith | Link

Credentials: BSc in microbiology (Duquesne University), MSc student in law

Summary: The author feels that the notion of overpopulation is being force fed as a serious issue, and considers this to be the result of mostly political agenda by various unspecified groups. He feels that the UN is overreacting in its GEO-4 Report and concludes with too drastic measures that impede human freedoms. His main argument is that statistics that are often used, use birth rate as their basis, while they may misrepresent the actual gravity of population growth. Instead he offers fertility rates and population density as more useful ways of approaching the problem and gives examples on how they indicate there is no problem at all. Some of his readers have posted detracting comments which include interesting arguments and references as well, to which the author has retorted in detail.

Main arguments:

1. Current birth rates are used to project constantly upward trends in population growth, while fertility rates are the best indicator of future population dynamics. They show that we aren’t exactly going overboard, and explain why the UN has consistently for over a decade or more downgraded their estimates and predictions in terms of population growth.
2. Population density is key to seeing just how much space we are using on this planet in terms of available area. Population density shows that the actual use of land area is limited. E.g. even excluding the rain forests in South America and the Sahara, there is still a ton of land.
3. Poverty has decreased while population has grown, which should not occur if overconsumption were a problem. Wealth and innovation, fostered by increasing individual freedoms, in addition to actual fertility rates have been key to avoiding any problems overpopulation cause. This shows how poverty has been able to decrease since 1950 while population and consumption have grown.

Counter-arguments in comments:

The current population is not sustainable, and resources remain finite:

1. Ocean fisheries output have declined since 1983, peaked in 1997 and have depleted 90% of ocean fisheries.
2. Major grain production has declined, and grain surplus has decreased.
3. The author does not account for inhospitable land and loss of usable land. Desertification is widespread and rising, and there are ocean hypoxic dead zones.
4. Fertility rates are much higher, and there is exponential population growth.

Retorts by the author:

The current population is sustainable, and supply of resources follows demand:

1. World hunger has dropped. Worldwide fishing output has increased between 1950 and 2000. Innovation leads to increased food supply e.g. aquaculture fisheries.
2. Land usage is not a problem. The use of arable land is only at 12,5%. Dead zones are not irreversible and have been reversed.
3. Population growth is not a problem. About 40% of the worlds’ population is at or below replacement levels, average global fertility rate is 2,9, above but not much higher than the replacement rate of 2,33
4. The sources cited by the readers are questionable or have been criticized, and/or show data in support for author’s case as well.

Personal analysis:

1. I concur with the author that fertility rates are a better indicator to present the problem of overpopulation and I cite the following Wikipedia text:

The Total Fertility Rate (TFR or TPFR) is a better index of fertility than the Crude Birth Rate (CBR i.e. annual number of births per thousand population) because it is independent of the age structure of the population, but it is a poorer estimate of actual completed family size than the total cohort fertility rate, which is obtained by summing the age-specific fertility rates that actually applied to each cohort as they aged through time. In particular, the TFR does not necessarily predict how many children young women now will eventually have, as their fertility rates in years to come may change from those of older women now. However, the TFR is a reasonable summary of current fertility levels.

However, I do not agree that birth rates are more commonly used to explain population growth. E.g. UN reports use both indicators, as birth rates together with death rates also provide valid insight into population growth.

On a side note; World Population Prospects – The 2006 Revision by the UN (link) notes that although fertility rates will decrease between in 2010-2050, life expectancy is increasing and net population growth is a fact. Projections show between 7.8 and 10.8 billion people in 2050, while interestingly the low range projection also show global population to be in decline by then.

2. Population density is not a good indicator for land use, as conglomerations of people require outside land for food and resources, and densely populated areas cannot sustain themselves. I concur with the author that there is still a lot of hospitable land due to the fact that mankind is able to live almost anywhere. However, the issue of land usage is more one of natural resources and arable land, not purely one of surface area. In fact, overpopulation is traditionally defined with carrying-capacity which correlates the number of people and the total land resources they require, not just the local space which they inhabit.

The author misquotes the definition of the 12,5% (link), which ‘denotes the percentage of used land that is arable’ i.e. cultivated. It is not the arable land that is used. Arable land is land that can be used for growing crops. If you look at the FAO Statistical Yearbook you will find that [arable land + permanent cropland + pastures = rural land] make up 37,7% of the global land area as of 2000 (link). Some of the arable land is irrigated and thus in use. Do the math, and you’ll find that 75% of this rural land is either irrigated or a pasture, which is also 29% of the total global land area. (link)

3. Indeed relative poverty has decreased while population has grown. However, the point made seems rather moot when we look at consumption, which only increases when both population and wealth increase. As a result, global fertility rates are indeed dropping, but the problem of overconsumption increases as more people demand more resources. The carrying-capacity is exceeded. Since the author would or might disagree, the question remains whether supply will keep following demand, and demands for finite resources will simply diminish, while people remain plentiful and wealthy, or whether some kind of overshoot will occur where some critical point has been reached.

4. It seems the author is correct in discerning that supply in grain and fish have kept up with demand. In the case of fisheries, the growth in supply has been made possible solely by virtue of aquaculture, because although fisheries haven’t been depleted by 90% (that would be a very high range estimate) the FAO does say that 75% of fisheries are fully exploited, strained or have been depleted (link). Their report World Agriculture: towards 2015/2030 concludes that in general food demand can be met, due to technologies, increased productivitiy and land expansion (i.e. deforestation), though it point out additional problems for economically vulnerable/weak regions. (link)