TheFightingPikachu
Smashing!
In order to know that the whole earth is overpopulated, there must be in existence how many people--precisely?
Though an answer to the above question is necessary for any positive declaration that the world is overpopulated, I have never heard such an answer. Instead, I've seen numerous instances on the Debate Forum of people either assuming that our world is overpopulated (usually as support for some population-reducing policy or law!), or pointing to the approximately (if I have my statistics correct) eight billion people on the globe as proof that human population is too high. But both of these approaches sorely lack logical rigor. How many humans is too many?
Now, I am not at all convinced that the earth is overpopulated. Here are several definitions of "overpopulation":
The first definition above obviously suffers from the flaw I mentioned--what number is too large? While the other definitions provide factors that could be useful for determining whether an area us overpopulated, they still have difficulties. Is an area overpopulated when a few of the citizens have an impaired quality of life? Scarcity of resources might sound like a fully objective criterion, but basic economics teach that scarcity of goods is to be expected to some extent as a fact of life. And to apply these to the world as one area, there have virtually always been people who had an impaired quality of life somewhere. And the ability of the earth to provide for all its inhabitants is something hard to determine, something that constantly increases as technology advances and new agrcultural techniques are invented. I propose that these definitions still do not show that the earth is overpopulated, and I further offer several observations against the idea of the world being overpopulated:
(1) It has been stated as a piece of trivia that the city of Jacksonville, Florida covers enough land that, hypothetically, if everyone in the world were given one square foot of land, there would be room for everyone to stand. Keep in mind that this scenario ignores buildings and such, so it wouldn't work in the city as it actually stands. However, the figure of one square foot per person is actually a tad low; everyone could be given slightly more than 1.5 square feet. This is still a tad crowded, but that's just one city. Consider how much more space is in a large state or province. Now consider the area of a large country. There's a lot of space in the world.
(2) There are a lot of populous cities that many would call "crowded" or "overpopulated," yet apparently many people still desire to go there. Many people transfer for business purposes to Chicago or L.A., and people still spend vacation time in densely populated areas like New York City. Simply put, to say that even these heavily populated places are "clearly beyond their capacity" is an overstatement. And regarding one of the definitions above, it should be noted that only a part of New York's population has an impaired quality of life.
(3) People don't live in two dimensions: they live in three. Since I mentioned it in the previous point, think of New York City. One major reason its population is so high is that many of its citizens live in tall apartment buildings. There's a lot of room to build up living space, especially because some cities have very few tall buildings. For another bit of interesting trivia, I think a line in a song from the musical Oklahoma! expresses the opinion that seven stories is "about as high as a building ought to go." (My own city seems to have been listening to this viewpoint.) Additionally, we can increase living space downward as well. It is certainly possible to conceive of some way to build homes underground. In any case, three dimensions means a lot of space.
Considering the above facts, I believe that global overpopulation may be a myth. I am not positively stating that I know it's myth; but since it appears to lack proper logical rigor, I'd like to see how far I can go toward showing that it is myth. If anyone has any evidence to answer my initial question, that would go a long way toward toppling my argument. But without this, overpopulation is not something that logically commands the widespread acceptance it has gained. This raises grave governmental and moral implications: If there is no logical foundation for concluding that the world is overpopulated, then how is it right for any governing body or politician to make laws assuming worldwide overpopulation is true?
Therefore, this debate is for everyone since everyone is part of earth's population. Any policy regarding overpopulation could involve...you. This is a serious issue and I hope you will give it your careful consideration as we debate.
Though an answer to the above question is necessary for any positive declaration that the world is overpopulated, I have never heard such an answer. Instead, I've seen numerous instances on the Debate Forum of people either assuming that our world is overpopulated (usually as support for some population-reducing policy or law!), or pointing to the approximately (if I have my statistics correct) eight billion people on the globe as proof that human population is too high. But both of these approaches sorely lack logical rigor. How many humans is too many?
Now, I am not at all convinced that the earth is overpopulated. Here are several definitions of "overpopulation":
(World English Dictionary, Dictionary.com; note that the definition of "overpopulate" given on that webpage is decidedly more precise than the above.)
(Wiktionary)
(Merriam Webster)
The first definition above obviously suffers from the flaw I mentioned--what number is too large? While the other definitions provide factors that could be useful for determining whether an area us overpopulated, they still have difficulties. Is an area overpopulated when a few of the citizens have an impaired quality of life? Scarcity of resources might sound like a fully objective criterion, but basic economics teach that scarcity of goods is to be expected to some extent as a fact of life. And to apply these to the world as one area, there have virtually always been people who had an impaired quality of life somewhere. And the ability of the earth to provide for all its inhabitants is something hard to determine, something that constantly increases as technology advances and new agrcultural techniques are invented. I propose that these definitions still do not show that the earth is overpopulated, and I further offer several observations against the idea of the world being overpopulated:
(1) It has been stated as a piece of trivia that the city of Jacksonville, Florida covers enough land that, hypothetically, if everyone in the world were given one square foot of land, there would be room for everyone to stand. Keep in mind that this scenario ignores buildings and such, so it wouldn't work in the city as it actually stands. However, the figure of one square foot per person is actually a tad low; everyone could be given slightly more than 1.5 square feet. This is still a tad crowded, but that's just one city. Consider how much more space is in a large state or province. Now consider the area of a large country. There's a lot of space in the world.
(2) There are a lot of populous cities that many would call "crowded" or "overpopulated," yet apparently many people still desire to go there. Many people transfer for business purposes to Chicago or L.A., and people still spend vacation time in densely populated areas like New York City. Simply put, to say that even these heavily populated places are "clearly beyond their capacity" is an overstatement. And regarding one of the definitions above, it should be noted that only a part of New York's population has an impaired quality of life.
(3) People don't live in two dimensions: they live in three. Since I mentioned it in the previous point, think of New York City. One major reason its population is so high is that many of its citizens live in tall apartment buildings. There's a lot of room to build up living space, especially because some cities have very few tall buildings. For another bit of interesting trivia, I think a line in a song from the musical Oklahoma! expresses the opinion that seven stories is "about as high as a building ought to go." (My own city seems to have been listening to this viewpoint.) Additionally, we can increase living space downward as well. It is certainly possible to conceive of some way to build homes underground. In any case, three dimensions means a lot of space.
Considering the above facts, I believe that global overpopulation may be a myth. I am not positively stating that I know it's myth; but since it appears to lack proper logical rigor, I'd like to see how far I can go toward showing that it is myth. If anyone has any evidence to answer my initial question, that would go a long way toward toppling my argument. But without this, overpopulation is not something that logically commands the widespread acceptance it has gained. This raises grave governmental and moral implications: If there is no logical foundation for concluding that the world is overpopulated, then how is it right for any governing body or politician to make laws assuming worldwide overpopulation is true?
Therefore, this debate is for everyone since everyone is part of earth's population. Any policy regarding overpopulation could involve...you. This is a serious issue and I hope you will give it your careful consideration as we debate.
