Effects of human overpopulation

Some problems associated with or exacerbated by human overpopulation:

• Inadequate fresh water[141] for drinking water use as well as sewage treatment and effluent
discharge. Some countries, like Saudi Arabia, use energy-expensive desalination to solve the
problem of water shortages.[165][166]
• Depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels[167]
• Increased levels of air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination and noise pollution. Once
a country has industrialized and become wealthy, a combination of government regulation and
technological innovation causes pollution to decline substantially, even as the population continues
to grow.[168]
• Deforestation and loss of ecosystems[169] that sustain global atmospheric oxygen and carbon
dioxide balance; about eight million hectares of forest are lost each year.[170]
• Changes in atmospheric composition and consequent global warming[171][172]
• Irreversible loss of arable land and increases in desertification[173] Deforestation and
desertification can be reversed by adopting property rights, and this policy is successful even while
the human population continues to grow.[174]
• Mass species extinctions.[175] from reduced habitat in tropical forests due to slash-and-burn
techniques that sometimes are practiced by shifting cultivators, especially in countries with rapidly
expanding rural populations; present extinction rates may be as high as 140,000 species lost per
year.[176] As of 2008, the IUCN Red List lists a total of 717 animal species having gone extinct
during recorded human history.[177]
• High infant and child mortality.[178] High rates of infant mortality are caused by poverty. Rich
countries with high population densities have low rates of infant mortality.[179]
• Intensive factory farming to support large populations. It results in human threats including the
evolution and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria diseases, excessive air and water pollution, and
new virus that infect humans.
• Increased chance of the emergence of new epidemics and pandemics[180] For many environmental
and social reasons, including overcrowded living conditions, malnutrition and inadequate,
inaccessible, or non-existent health care, the poor are more likely to be exposed to infectious
diseases.[181]
• Starvation, malnutrition[140] or poor diet with ill health and diet-deficiency diseases (e.g. rickets).
However, rich countries with high population densities do not have famine.[182]
• Poverty coupled with inflation in some regions and a resulting low level of capital formation.
Poverty and inflation are aggravated by bad government and bad economic policies. Many
countries with high population densities have eliminated absolute poverty and keep their inflation
rates very low.[183]
• Low life expectancy in countries with fastest growing populations[184]
• Unhygienic living conditions for many based upon water resource depletion, discharge of raw
sewage[185] and solid waste disposal. However, this problem can be reduced with the adoption of
sewers. For example, after Karachi, Pakistan installed sewers, its infant mortality rate fell
substantially.[186]
• Elevated crime rate due to drug cartels and increased theft by people stealing resources to
survive[187]
• Conflict over scarce resources and crowding, leading to increased levels of warfare[188]
• Less Personal Freedom / More Restrictive Laws. Laws regulate interactions between humans.
Law "serves as a primary social mediator of relations between people." Law The higher the
 population density, the more frequent such interactions become, and thus there develops a need for
more laws and/or more restrictive laws to regulate these interactions. It is even speculated that
democracy is threatened due to overpopulation, and could give rise to totalitarian style
governments. [dubious – discuss]

THE POPULATION PROBLEM IN INDIA

THE POPULATION PROBLEM OF THE WORLD- INDIA,CHINA etc:

1. Growth of population has neutralised all development efforts.

2. We are adding more than 13 million people every year/ to

our existing population.

3. “Population Explosion”, is the very heart I of the problem of our existence.

4. We have to support about 14% H the world population with only 2.4% of the total land area of the
world. 5. Universality of marriage and hiph fertility per married couple is the major factor.

5. Illiteracy, ignorance and superstitions of the masses the contributory factor.

7. Increase in birth rate and decrease in death rate.

8. Population a problem because we are not able to harness in our productive forces.

9. Family planning a practical solution—provided artificial means of birth control ate within the humble
means of masses.

10 “A radical change in overall national economy as all problems is inter-related.

Essay:

After 20 years of hard and earnest efforts to improve standard of living of our people, we have not gone
far from where we started. Though food production has gone up by 17 million tons during the 14 years
from 1951 to 1965 bat the amount of food available for each ill Person has decreased by 0.4 oz. Our
efforts to provide employment and education facilities have been nullified by the rapid rate of the growth
of population. We are adding to our population more than 13 million people every year. Thus, the
population problem in India is assuming alarming proportions. In Fact, it is not the rate of population
growth which is important, but the net increase in population from year to year. In 196 Census we were
439.2 million, whereas in 1966, we rose to 489.9 million. The marked increase of 2.4 per annum if
regularly maintained by us, we should grow to the staggering figure of one billion in course of 30 years.
We have definitely reached the stage which may be called “Population Explosion”.

India leads the world in the birth rate. The large number of birth rates arc due to universality of marriage
and high fertility per married couple. Marriage in India is a religious necessity. Everyone must marry
irrespective of the physical, economic or social weakness. Not only that children must follow to justify the
marriage, but a soft is a religious necessity. However, in the process of having a soul, the family grows to
a stupendous volume. Moreover fertility is high due TO the Fact that majority of people are illitrate.
Indeed, death rates are also exceptionally high owing to physical vigour, heavy incidence of epidemics,
floods, droughts, famines and pestilences, yet as compared to birth rate it is negligible. In 1961 the birth
rate per thousand of population was 41.7 whereas the death rate for the same number stood at 22.8.

The population of the country has become a grim economic situation for we are not able to support it by
out own agricultural produce. Besides neutralizing all development efforts the problem hrinw distress to
the community, to the family and the individual, in the words of our Prime Minister, “To plan when
population growth is unchecked, is like building a house where the ground is constantly flooded.” An
argument is put forward that our country is overpopulated in the sense that vast potential resources of the
conntry still lie untapped. Only 30% of the total arable area is being utilised for productive purpose ; 1/4
of our forest resources are utilised ; there is annual wastage of 2/3 of our fisheries ; only 10% of water is
being utilised. In this way we are utilising 1/3 of our total productive powers. It is a pity that its vast
resources of the country lie unused. If we are able to harness our productive forces even double the
present population can be supported. Our population problem does not consist merely in the increase in
number of people. The real meaning and the menace to the welfare of us all, lies in the effect of this
rapidly increasing population on our ability to provide essentials of life to everyone.

A decrease in population is possible either by (1) increase in death rate or (2) decrease in birth rate or by
(3) emigration. No civilised country would encourage death rate and imigration of large scale
population to other countries is also not possible. The only feasible method remains decreasing the birth
rate. In this context family planning is the practical solution. Family planning means deliberate attempt to
reduce the birth rate. This implies that only late marriages or voluntary restraints are not enough. Any
moral restraint does not constitute the birth control. Scientific birth control by the use of contraceptives is
highly recommended and even government has taken elaborate measures to propagate them. However,
the question arises that the artificial means of birth control should be such that it is within- the humble
means of the masses. The masses should be prepared and educated regarding the safety of their
application.the family planning movement has caught the imagination of the masses. It has shown good
results but the magnitude of the problem is enormous. A radical change is required in our approach to
national economy. We must understand that only population control will not solve all our problems but
other problems will not be solved without population control. Birth control is only a partial solution of the
population problem. The imperative need of the country is rapid industrialization, rapid rise in living
standards, educational development and increased production of food grains
Imagine the world's population decides to walk past your window, a column of
people marching three abreast, for ever, you would never see the end of the
columns, the queue waiting to pass you would never get shorter. Hitler couldn't feed
the gas chambers fast enough, the world population is currently growing at around
79,000,000 per year, the equivilent of a country the size of Germany, EXTRA, each
year. That is the problem. If your head and stomach are not reeling at the thoughts
then you do not understand the problem.

20,000 people died in an earthquake in India, the losses were made up before the
West heard the news. People lose their faith in God over much smaller numbers of
deaths. 98 die in a football stadium and a city mourns for years, 0.03% of the daily
increase. There can be more than 98 extra people born while you butter your toast.
It would not have even caused a blip in the hourly trend. A jumbo jet load every
three minutes, a jumbo jet load EXTRA. Remember, I am not alking about births
happening more than one per second, I am talking about the average surplus of
births over deaths.

Every hour, on the hour, the message should go out;

“The top news story yet again today is that, despite all the calamities
I am about to describe to you, the population has gone up
again...”

Update May 2005: 26th December 2004 was a

very rare exception, the Indian Ocean Tsunami
probably did cause the planet's population to go
down briefly, for perhaps as much as 30 hours.

The population problem was first brought to western attention by Thomas

Malthus. He clouded the issue with talk of food supplies and arithmetical ratios.
It allowed some people to “prove him wrong”. The fundamental issue is obvious,
population can and does grow geometrically if allowed. It was the critical insight
that helped Darwin crystallize his thoughts on evolution.

People can argue, as they do, that the world could cope with a population of 25
or even 50 billion. Perhaps they are right. What happens when we reach
saturation at 50 billion (or 7 billion, or whatever saturation turns out to be) what
will make the population stop growing then? The bigger the numbers the faster
the growth. Eventually we need birth control or the population will be limited by
natural means; starvation, pandemic disease or warfare to secure the means of
survival. Imagine a world that has reached saturation, imagine trying to put the
brakes on then, when the population is still growing at 5 or 10 every second. A
new Calcutta, Cairo or Mexico City every week. It is too frightening to
contemplate for long. To stop the growth we need to apply the brakes now, while
there is still a chance that we can keep in control.

If we do not want to face mass starvation on a scale never before seen or have a
war that will be in every sense the third world war, we have to stop the
population from growing the way it is. Madly. Uncontrolled and in all the wrong
places. The only fair way is two's your lot. A universal limit of two children per
woman, or two children per person if you prefer. It must be universal, no
exceptions, especially on religious grounds. It is the Muslim and Catholic
communities who are the most dangerous because they believe they have a duty
to breed. Let one woman be an exception and she breeds more exceptions.

To make things fair universality is necessary but not sufficient. We must also
address why the third world people think they need more children when they are
surrounded by underfed and dying children. We must recognize that their
decisions are rational, we must change the reality. Children are social security
and pensions. We must replace that with real social security. To say the least
this will be expensive, compared to the alternative though it is the bargain of all
time.

Universal pensions for all mankind in exchange for a united approach to the
future. No more efforts to out breed your enemies. A universal limit of two
children per person. It is not going to be easy, there will be people claiming the
right to be an exception and I do sympathize. Children bring a couple together in
a special way, they can cement a second marriage and large families of children
are delightful. But no exceptions can be allowed or the whole policy will break
down.

In the western world we can afford to pay for our children but then a western
child uses 30 times as much of the world's natural resources as a third world
child. A single Mormon or Catholic family in the USA may use as much oil as a
small town in Africa or India.

Ideally I would like to see many people not allowed to breed at all. The poor who
live in squalor, ignorance, poverty and disease will breed more of their kind. It
does not matter if you believe that genes, environment or conditioning in infancy
are the key factors. Dysfunctional families breed dysfunctional people. The
argument about causes is not relevant, the single solution works effectively
whatever the causes are. Liberal opponents to eugenics schemes in the USA in
the twenties and thirties made a lot about the fact that it was the environment
that lead families to breed more idiots (a word that is politically incorrect only
when used correctly, like I am doing). It did not matter, as nobody was making
any serious suggestions to change that bad environment simply stopping the
idiots breeding would cure the problem, whatever the cause. I am inclined to
believe the liberals were right about the major contribution of the environment
but wrong to deny that genetics had a significant contribution too.

I do not believe that people have a right to breed, they certainly do not have a
right to knowingly breed cripples, misfits, criminals and a whole new underclass.
Even if you think they do have that right do you think the rest of us have to keep
quiet about it? If you do I can only disagree with you, and I say so now while I
still can.

To say the least these ideas are not liberal, politically correct or likely to win
votes. I do not care. However, I recognize that there is never likely to be a route
from where we are now to a world in which a popular and legitimate government
has the power to say who can breed and who cannot. I will make a gesture to
political reality here and choose to pursue a blind policy that no people may have
more than two children and that restrictions on who is allowed to have children
are likely never to be practical politics.

Birth control is always controversial. A formal limit on family size is a profoundly

illiberal policy. No democratic politician is likely to see it as a vote winner.
However it is very much the better alternative to ecological meltdown, starvation
and violence on a scale that can barely be imagined. In contrast reducing the
death rate is seen as universally good. That discrepancy is likely to make solving
the problem even harder. Western charity is aimed at reducing deaths in poor
countries, very little money is spent on birth control. When charities mention
birth control they receive less money. So they go on with death control only,
making the underlying problem worse.

Sometimes in life the right thing to do is the opposite of your instinctive reaction,
like pulling down the houses in your street to save the city from fire. Your
feelings that motivate you to care can blind you to the best way to express that
care.

Saving a starving child today means having more children in thirty years time
trying to live off the same or eroded resources. Saying that makes me seem like
a heartless bastard. In many public meetings if I said that from the platform I
would be shouted down, and maybe beaten up too. But I am not wrong, call me
whatever you want, I am telling it like it is. There is a classic charity tag line that
goes something like give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man
to fish and you help feed him for a lifetime. This is incredibly patronizing, as if
starving people are surrounded by food they are too stupid to catch. The reality
is that if you teach that man how to fish in two generations time there will be a
lot more starving people in that same village and no fish. That is human nature.
Man will breed and eat all the food available.

Now on top of the natural tendency to breed whatever the circumstances and to
struggle to feed every mouth there is a new trend that is making the problem
much worse, the irresistible lure of the city. The natural fertility of the human
population is high, when people move into city slums and away from the land
where there is a chance of food their fertility paradoxically increases further as
the gap between pregnancies reduces. City mothers breed faster than their
country cousins.

The main focus of many charity organizations now is the provision of safe, clean
drinking water. An excellent piece of death control. Setting up wells means more
children survive infancy leading to more population pressures in a few years
time. Wells also lower the watertable and change the landscape for miles around,
the hinterland empties and everybody crowds around the new well. Solving the
immediate crisis and saving deaths in the short-term leads to further ecological
damage to an area that now has to support a higher population than ever before.

Our children will be facing charity appeals for starving African children and
Bangladeshi flood victims on a scale we can only have nightmares about. Those
are problems I want to solve, permanently.

The current charity model is doomed to both fail and make the problem worse.
In the twentieth century there was a massive decline in death rates and only a
modest fall in birth rates. That is THE PROBLEM. The biggest problem in the
world today and it is an aggravating factor in almost every other problem
mankind faces. Environmental decline, global warming, habitat loss, the loss of
all easily mined metallic ores, the phenomenal rise in fossil fuel consumption; all
these are made worse by the fact that in twenty five years time there will be
another three thousand million more people alive than there are today.

“If present trends continue” is a phrase that often makes me smile, present
trends never continue, except this one. One of the first life changing books I read
was by Aldous Huxley, The Human Situation, based on lectures given in 1959. I
read it when I was 17. He wrote about population growth and the problems it
would cause. I quote a paragraph below.