What is “Overpopulation”?

Honduras is among the less-developed countries that the plutocratic international world “governance” is preaching to about controlling their “overpopulation”.

What is “overpopulation”? Too many people compared to what, you should ask.

Michael Crichton explained it well, within a talk he gave about the political perversion of science in matters of AGW, anthropogenic global warming. See it here:

MichaelCrichton.com | The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming

Click on the following web page you’ll find an introduction to a book that clarifies well the issues surrounding the myth that is embedded into the word “overpopulation”, by Stephen W. Mosher:

Understanding Overpopulation: Basic Concepts

–trutherator

4 Responses to “What is “Overpopulation”?”

  1. Pete Murphy Says:

    “Overpopulation” is usually defined in terms of resources and the environment. But there’s another dimension that everyone is missing – rising unemployment and poverty.

    I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

    This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management. Our policies that encourage high rates of population growth are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.

    But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.

    The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries – India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China – as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050.

    If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at http://PeteMurphy.wordpress.com.

    Pete Murphy
    Author, “Five Short Blasts”

  2. trutherator Says:

    Mr. Murphy has provided us with a perfect example of what I was talking about. One thing, his “theory” about population density and the population of the US is smacked down hard by the facts. If he knows anything about this subject, he knows that the US population would be imploding upon itself if not for massive immigration influx. The only thing that one shows is that everybody in the world wants to come to (North) America.

    He also invokes the same tired old stupid Marxist class dichotomy that has proven a stupidity under all conditions of population density.

    There is no “optimum population density”, the same Malthusian myth that is simply a ploy supposedly in favor of a stable impoverished “working class” that is more manageable by the plutocrats who would rather eliminate the poor than have them mess up their expansive state-sized national park recreational trips.

    This stupid zero-sum idea is just that: stupid. It’s not even optimum for the ones wanting the poor to just die out instead of let them have the same opportunities and freedoms they have. Not all of them, just a group of arrogant elites.

    The more the poor produce, the more they’ll have, unless the government is allowed too much interventionist power.

    –Alan

  3. Pete Murphy Says:

    Trutherator, Malthus’ theory dealt with resources. Mine does not. In fact, mine begins with the assumption that resources present no obstacle to growth whatsoever.

    I challenge you to conduct your own research into per capita consumption and population density. What is the effect of population density on per capita dwelling space? On vehicle consumption? On consumption of recreational boats? On appliances? On personal computers? I could go on.

    Or explain how, as land becomes more densely populated, people are able to maintain the same level of consumption.

    Are you afraid of the truth?

  4. trutherator Says:

    Of course your theory makes assumptions about resources! You talk about density, so it’s all about “land”. People crowding together too “densely” is because they’re being crowded together like Malthus said they should, and today’s depopulation engineers are forcing it.

    Urbanization in the early 20th century does have a touch of madness to it, the mad rush to cities, but then that was a sign of the fact also that agricultural technology made it possible for population to grow lopsided in the cities.

    Besides, it’s all irrelevant anyway. My point is that “overpopulation” is a myth. This last comment you’re trying to say you didn’t mean resource scarcity, you meant reduced consumption.

    The fact remains that either you agree with me that resources are not the problem, and lopsided distribution (man’s inhumanity to man) is the problem, ..or.. you disagree about the claim that we must reduce population to conserve resources.

    There is no justification for forced sterilizations, and the campaign for prenatal infanticide, or the promotion of reproductive diversionary mindbending (homosexuality) as devices to reduce population.

    I HATE manipulation…

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: