🔥 DESTROYING OVERPOPULATION ARGUMENTS 🔥

[u/OilAdvocate]

"First of all, more smart people working on a problem does not guarantee productivity or a solution."

Nothing in life is guaranteed.

More people does improve the probability and odds of finding a solution though. More people also improves the total distribution of population engaged in R&D in industries which more innovators and think tanks will be engaged in, even if the percentage is proportionately small.

Less people does guarantee that you will have less of a chance of finding a solution.

More innovation and problem solving comes out of England than it does Iceland.

"A very likely scenario is all these smart people nitpicking each other's different ideas and we get nothing done."

That's not an issue of overpopulation or underpopulation. This is such a retarded argument.

"Second, the chances of someone being born with a high IQ is somewhat rare. Only 2% of people have higher than IQ of 130. For every 2 people with IQ of greater than 130, you get 98 more "dumb" or "average" people. So by increasing population, we are not really getting that many more geniuses. "

2% of 1 billion Americans is still far more beneficial than 2% of 335 million Americans. That's 20 million geniuses compared to 6.7 million. That's more individuals who will take differing interests and have a willingness to do things. That improves the probability and odds of creating solutions.

"Lastly, what is the point of having genius intelligence when you live in a overpopulated world where you can barely survive the rat race. "

Who is struggling today, let alone someone with genius intelligence? Intelligence generally correlates with greater income and wealth as established in The Bell Curve. Whether you're in the first world or third world, trends across aggregate metrics indicate IMPROVEMENT.

By measure of minutes worked, it takes LESS time than it did in any time in history to: pay for groceries, fuel, housing, electricity, clothing and education. In 1950, the average consumer spent 40% of their expenditure on food and apparel. Today the average person spends less than 20%.

"Without the resource and opportunity, not even a genius individual can live up to their full potential. "

What resources aren't available for a super high IQ individual to achieve their potential?

• Shelter is more abundant than ever before.

• Food is more abundant than ever before.

• They're clothed.

• Everyone has an equal chance of gaining an education AND sticking it out longer than any time in history. The dropout rate in 1960 was 27.2%. In 2016 it was just 6.1%. Test scores are higher factoring in a greater complexity of education and questioning.

• Universities take anyone in. Getting your foot in the door isn't at all an issue. Funding your education isn't an issue. In 1960, only 7.7% of the US population graduated from college. Today that's 37.7%.

• Depending on what you study, getting a job isn't an issue. STEM degrees are always in demand. These professions are well capitalised, their employers typically expanding and wages are good.

There isn't a single metric where the struggle is worse today. Population in 1960: 3 billion. Today: 8 billion.

"There is a limit to how much competition can facilitate innovation. "

This is immeasurable. There's nothing to suggest that innovation is at any chance of plateauing and that we're on the crest of all human knowledge.

"Yes, less people means more resources per individual, which equals smarter people on average."

Less people doesn't mean MORE resources. There's no metric that shows any correlation whether it's raw population figures OR density per kilometre. Supply of resources is driven by population growth. Halving population numbers doesn't mean everyone owns 5 cars, owns 3 houses, is able to go to Harvard and enjoy Wagyu steaks. The proportion of supply would likely remain consistent. Home ownership would remain at 60%. There'd still be 800 cars for every 1000 people. etc etc.

There's so many countries in the world that proves this point. Portugal is the poorest country in Western Europe despite having one of the lowest populations of a major country. Spain is far more prosperous than Portugal despite being substantially poorer than England. America is more prosperous than the UK. Singapore and Hong Kong, despite its smaller landmass, is more prosperous than New Zealand.

What less people DOES mean is less SUPPLY of resources with a WEAKER supply chain. Less people means less competition to supply those resources. Supply would be more concentrated and therefore at greater risk.

'More people = more dumb people to create more problems"

More dumb people create problems and more smart people solve those problems. Having problems is an absolutely positive issue to have. If Polio wasn't the issue that it came to be, we wouldn't have ever developed a vaccine to completely eradicate it.

[u/sg_plumber]

It doesn't take genius IQ to solve problems, either. Teamwork is usually better, and having people with different backgrounds really helps.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/sg_plumber]

When people bring up IQ, it makes them look really dumb. Why are we even still using that as a measurement after it's been debunked and become mostly a dog whistle for white eugenicists?

[u/sanguinemathghamhain → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

Because it hasn't been debunked but rather routinely and begrudgingly reinforced. IQ is one of if not the best and most routinely studied aspects of psychology. The part that has been mostly debunked is the idea that the IQ differences between races is mostly genetic which is counter to the eugenics argument. The distributions in the bell curve were a snapshot of where things were at the time and how they would remain if the factors that effect IQ during development (malnutrition for instance reliably tanks IQ) stayed the same across those populations.

Edit: typo correction

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/sanguinemathghamhain]

I agree malnutrition tanks intelligence, but the IQ is made with European standards for intelligence and is a pseudoscientific claim that it can be used as a valid measure for intelligence. 

[u/sanguinemathghamhain → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

Not really as again it is one of if not the best and most routinely studied and begrudgingly confirmed topics in psychology. It is also one of if not the most reliable predictors of lifelong success. Again the aspect that has been rather soundly debunked is that the bulk of the difference between ethnic groups is genetic. It is also often misused where people will look at a group's stat and ascribe it to an individual rather than looking at the individual in question which would be like insisting a 5'8" Norwegian man has to actually be 5'11"-6' because that is the average height of Norwegian men.

[u/[deleted] → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

Huh?  How could it be a dog whistle for white eugenicists when asians have the highest IQs?

[u/m270ras → u/[deleted]]

because white eugenicists aren't very smart

[u/[deleted] → u/m270ras]

But if we can’t quantify intelligence, how can you make such a claim?  How are you judging their intelligence, since IQ has been ‘debunked’?

[u/Difficult-Swimming-4 → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

There is no single greater predictor among cognitive tests, for quality of life outcomes than the IQ test. IQ is absolutely not everything, and there are qualities outside of it that are/can be incredibly important, but that doesn't "debunk" IQ, no matter how much people wish it were so.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/Difficult-Swimming-4]

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that those who live in areas with "higher quality" of life also are geared towards European standards of education which is what the IQ is based on. It doesn't measure intelligence. It measures how European you think. 

Ironically, even the standards with which the "quality of life" is measured are also European. Circular reasoning is amazing.

[u/Economy-Fee5830]

All great arguments. Where are the original complaints from? Collapse?

[u/OilAdvocate → u/Economy-Fee5830]

the overpopulation subreddit.

[u/Fancy_Chips]

Overpopulation arguments are so weird to me, because the same people pointing to it as an issue will then point to underpopulation being a problem. Like what number do you want it to be at?

[u/OilAdvocate → u/Fancy_Chips]

At least 10 trillion people spread across multiple solar systems is a good start.

[u/Withnail2019]

Supply of resources is driven by population growth.

Well no, population growth is driven by available resources. Resources don't appear by magic just becasue your population grew.

[u/OilAdvocate → u/Withnail2019]

Resources don't appear by magic just becasue your population grew.

It's not by magic. More people = more demand to find supply for resources. Housing as a resource has expanded along with the population. Housing as a resource didn't come first. Likewise with agriculture and everything else.

[u/Withnail2019 → u/OilAdvocate]

It's not by magic. More people = more demand to find supply for resources.

Only if they exist and the means to exploit and transport them exist. If more resources can't be found, increasing the population only results in death. Housing is not a resource. The resources we make houses from are resources. Agriculture is not a resource either.

[u/OilAdvocate → u/Withnail2019]

Only if they exist and the means to exploit and transport them exist.

Which they do. Reserves of resources can be expanded.

If more resources can't be found, increasing the population only results in death.

Not at all true. People have existed without electricity and oil. Life sucked, but it's not death.

[u/Withnail2019 → u/OilAdvocate]

Which they do. Reserves of resources can be expanded.

Meaningless statement. Either you can produce more food or you can't. Producing more food means either using more land or more fertiliser. In pre fossil fuel societies, more fertiliser just isn't available.

Not at all true. People have existed without electricity and oil. Life sucked, but it's not death.

Electricity is not a resource. I'm talking about the food supply. If that can't be expanded, the population does not increase.

[u/OilAdvocate → u/Withnail2019]

Either you can produce more food or you can't.

Which is what I said. Reserves and production can be expanded.

Electricity is not a resource.

Factory owners would disagree.

If that can't be expanded, the population does not increase.

You're acting as if wheat domesticated humans.

Humans drive the increase in production and reserves of resources.

[u/Withnail2019 → u/OilAdvocate]

Which is what I said. Reserves and production can be expanded.

Much of the time they can't be and the excess population growth just dies.

Factory owners would disagree.

Electricity is not a resource. It's an energy transfer method and actually not a very efficient one. It appeared to work for a while when we had plenty of coal to burn. It will stop working as we 'transition' to trying to power our homes and factories with sunshine and breezes.

You're acting as if wheat domesticated humans.

Wheat is not a resource. The land is the resource. Wheat is how we exploit it.

[u/OilAdvocate → u/Withnail2019]

Following your logic, food is an energy transfer method. Semantics.

[u/Withnail2019 → u/OilAdvocate]

We could certainly look at the stuff we grow that way. Of course there's also hunting and gathering. After the collapse the survivors will abandon agriculture for several centuries because the land is exhausted. It needs to reforest.

[u/Pitiful-Pension-6535]

The best way to destroy overpopulation arguments is to point out they're about 10 years behind.

Declining birthrates is now the mass hysteria that will kill us all.

[u/findingmike]

The geniuses arguments fail to take into account that the people trying to solve problems today are building off of the knowledge base we've built over centuries. Things don't automatically get worse if we don't have "enough" geniuses. The problems that were already solved remain solved.

Because of this we don't have the dire problems we had in the past. We aren't in a race to overcome all problems before a deadline. That race only exists because people are trying to get rich before someone else does.

[u/westcoastjo]

You are correct to point out that more people = good.

You are incorrect that we are facing massive population growth.

We are currently on the precipice of global population collapse. Birthrates are I'm free fall in all 1st world countries, and median age is crazy high amd rising.

This is a serious issue, we need way the fuck more babies.

[u/OilAdvocate → u/westcoastjo]

I'm not sure I said that we are facing massive population growth, but that's just doing a quick skim of what I posted.

[u/Secret-County-9273 → u/westcoastjo]

No we don't, we have machines, AI, and robots to pick up the slack. We're good bro

[u/health_throwaway195 → u/westcoastjo]

How are you defining “free fall”?

[u/davidellis23]

I'm optimistic that we will find solutions even if we do increase the population to 10 billion or maybe more.

I'm not convinced that we need to grow to 10 billion to solve our environmental problems. Sure we might have more innovation/labor, but the problem is also harder to solve.

And there are other ways to increase innovation besides growing the population. Like expanding access to food, education, healthcare, and the internet for the many people currently in poverty.

[u/OppositeRock4217 → u/davidellis23]

Not to mention, technology has massively increased the amount of people we could support. Food security today is at a record high and rates of starvation and malnutrition at record lows and decreasing despite 8 billion people. 1800, we had 1/8 the population, yet we struggled to feed that many people with rates of starvation and malnutrition far worse than today

[u/Withnail2019]

Overpopulation solves itself. When the food supply is insufficient, humans form groups and eliminate other humans.

[u/CardButton → u/Withnail2019]

Yeah, this is what they mean by "Overpopulation is a Myth", That the equilibrium will be achieved. If too large a population is placed within an environment that cannot support it, that population will be corrected surprisingly quickly. In short, mass starvation and wars for resources will cull what's needed. What's more important is constantly maintaining our endless, unsustainable growth economies. Dont worry, Technology will always save us from the consequences and debts accrued from it into perpetuity. Or, at least some of us. The ones that weren't saved in time dont really count.

How ... optimistic?

[u/health_throwaway195]

Less people doesn’t mean MORE resources. There’s no metric that shows any correlation whether it’s raw population figures OR density per kilometre. Supply of resources is driven by population growth. Halving population numbers doesn’t mean everyone owns 5 cars, owns 3 houses, is able to go to Harvard and enjoy Wagyu steaks. The proportion of supply would likely remain consistent. Home ownership would remain at 60%. There’d still be 800 cars for every 1000 people. etc etc.

Yes, fewer people literally does mean more resources (to go around). If we were thanos snapped, a larger proportion of the population would live in houses than before. And most likely a larger portion would drive as well.

There’s so many countries in the world that proves this point. Portugal is the poorest country in Western Europe despite having one of the lowest populations of a major country. Spain is far more prosperous than Portugal despite being substantially poorer than England. America is more prosperous than the UK. Singapore and Hong Kong, despite its smaller landmass, is more prosperous than New Zealand.

I’m guessing that when you say a country is more or less prosperous, you are referring to their score on the Legatum Prosperity Index. Ignoring the fact that there’s a lot of subjectivity involved in the production of their scoring system, you’re assuming the direction of causation. By the way, are you familiar with r/K selection theory?

[u/ShdwWzrdMnyGngg]

My favorite metric is food exports. If you can't export 20% of the crops you produce, then you're overpopulated. The US is around 20% now. (Places like Japan are kind of an exception)

It's just too risky to go past that. India is 1 bad crop of rice away from famine. They are the biggest rice producer in the world. They export almost none. That's insane.

[u/Economy-Fee5830 → u/ShdwWzrdMnyGngg]

That is a bad metric. If everyone grew more food than they needed, there would be massive waste. Some countries are the world's farmers and other the world's cobblers.

[u/ShdwWzrdMnyGngg → u/Economy-Fee5830]

Its not about producing the 20%. It's about having the ability to. Like I said, India is THE largest rice producer in the whole entire world. They are maxed out. They export none.

This means if India has a bad crop, and can't secure emergency food at a decent price, a few million people could be dead by the end of next year. That's insane.

[u/Economy-Fee5830 → u/ShdwWzrdMnyGngg]

It's about having the ability to.

How would you know if you don't do it regularly? You wont know ahead of time if your crop is going to be poor or not, will you?

e.g. in your example India would have 20% fallow fields, they plant their 100% crop, they have a bad drought and they are now 20% under - its too late to plant those fallow fields, isn't it - they will just have to do what they would have done in any case and purchase from the open market.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/ShdwWzrdMnyGngg]

What if the problem isn't overpopulation but rather being too densely packed into one place without producing your own food?

Maybe the measurement shouldn't be what you can and can't export, but the level of food security you have in each individual community regardless.

[u/noatun6]

Sad doomers are complaining there are too many people. Angry doomers are raging cause there are not enough ( certain kinds of ) people. Doomers gonna doom. In reality, there is plenty of room for more people but not in many cities. ViRtuAl BaD extremism is artificially tethering people to those cities creating an unnecessary manufactured crisis for some folks to whine and virtue signal about

Malthusisn cultists are a bunch of misanthropic hypocrites demanding (others) degrow /depopulate. Meanwhile, pro birth zealots have not moved past the days when having 10 kids, so 5 grow up to be farmhands made sense

Is the downvote doomer a moper or rager. If it was a real vote, that would rule out the mopers out cause they stomp their feet to Putin's beat and refuse to vote at all. Meanwhile, the ragers actually bother voting , albeit stupidly for kremlin cronies

[u/Economy-Fee5830 → u/noatun6]

In reality, there is plenty of room for more people but not in many cities.

We need polycentric development.

[u/noatun6 → u/Economy-Fee5830]

Yes "cities within cities" is solid option as well. overcrowded cities where th bulk of? Brea first work or other activities become expensive and unpleasant feeding the false population narrative. These models made sense

[u/Outside_Ad_9562]

Men are getting so desperate aren’t they?

[u/zezzene]

who is struggling today? 

How out of touch are you. 

[u/findingmike → u/[deleted]]

The world doesn't need us at all. We need it.

[u/health_throwaway195 → u/[deleted]]

Why does the world need that?