No such thing as overpopulation Lorenzo. If you took the entire population of the world (roughly seven billion people), and stood them side by side in the state of Texas, each person would have 1000 square feet! There are 261,914 square acres in Texas (that figures to seven trillion square feet). So there is enough room just in Texas for every person in this world to get a piece of land 32 ft. X 32 feet! And that's just Texas! There is no overpopulation problem! This planets just not big enough for the rich and the poor to live together, that's the real problem!
An excellent point, Raquel. The significant discrepancies in consumption between the wealthy and the poor is evident. I want to share something with you and the rest of the readers here, a concept that is studied in Biology that is referred to by Evolutionary Biologists, Molecular Biologists and Zoologists as
The Malthusian Theory.
"The way in which these effects are produced seems to be this. We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population... increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore which before supported seven millions must now be divided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of labourers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend toward a decrease, while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before. During this season of distress, the discouragements to marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so great that population is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of labour, the plenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry amongst them, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land, to turn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what is already in tillage, till ultimately the means of subsistence become in the same proportion to the population as at the period from which we set out. The situation of the labourer being then again tolerably comfortable, the restraints to population are in some degree loosened, and the same retrograde and progressive movements with respect to happiness are repeated".
—Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population. Chapter II, p19 in Oxford World's Classics reprint.What this states is that resources are limited and have a symmetrical coefficient, whereas human population, considering the fact that Human-Kind are the only species in the earth that are Apex Species, do not grow in a symmetrical matrices, but rather, are assymetrical. In a normal ecological fauna and flora, Raquel, there is a sensitive and cohabitational relationship between the herbivory species as well as the predatory species. If there is a sharp increase in herbivory species , per se wild deer. Herbivory species must be kept in check or else they will devour the plant matter and lead to a collapse of the organismal tier. This is where the predatory species comes in. An increase in deer population will facilitate the arrival of predatory species to negate the increase in predatory presence, resulting in increase in wild boars, black and brown bears, wolves, coyotes etc. This cohabitational and mutualist relationship is an example of what we call Ecological Homeostasis. A balance in predatory and herbivory. The increased presence of predators will reduce the presence of herbivores, and with this, the predatory presence will ultimately reduce again to evolve with the decreased herbivory.
Man is different. Man is a complete antithesis of natural selection, in a way, tho not against the process or trying to negate the theories of natural selection during the primordial epoch. Man has the power of technology, science and medicine that has practically placed an impermeable blanket over human centers. Diseases that would normally destroy predatory or hebivory species such as bacteria, viruses, parasites, infectious fungi and prions cannot elicit a large destruction or decrease in human population anymore. Man, through the use of pharmacology and medical research, has found cures and remedies to natural checkpoints that would normally devastate other species.
We have in human society a visible dichotomy between the haves and have nots. And I'm not talking about the upper middle class, as upper middle class are not considered "rich", a bit well off, but not rich. The wealthy elite are those that run companies, command large interest groups in governments and run the world governments. The poor include all of us, the ones who are unaware of these exceedingly rich and powerful few and are practically drones to their command.
You make a very valid point how all 7 billion people can fit in the state of Texas. However, Raquel, tho that may be theorietically viable, is it realistic? Imagine the resrources that it would take to pool all 7 billion people into one state in the USA, imagine the amount of food sources that would be necessary and required to feed that amount of people as they are being relocated, imagine the medical quagmire it would be to try to provide medical care to the legions upon legions of people , the some 7 billion. It is impossible and improbable. Nothing short of divine plan would be able to do that.
In regards to the concept of resources , it is driven by the Theory of Malthus. Resources are limited, my dear. Human population is not limited, and on the contrary continues to grow. Right now we are fine, because the amount of resources is able to feed and provide for the consumer, however, when these resources become limited to the point where population centers are starving, it will result into war and territorial issues to provide for a nation's population etc.
An example of this right now, Raquel, is the oil situation. You see, the price of oil is increasing because of the political turmoil in the middle east involving Iran, Israel and the United States. This has led to the increase in oil prices. The United States consumes about 20% of the world's oil, the rest of the world consumes 80%, and with the rise of nations such as China and India and with the advent growth of their middle class, they are also beginning to consume oil in ever increasing increments. Note that as consumption rate increaes, the production rate may increase to meet demand, however, the reserves and the resources are LIMITED. There will be a time, when oil reserves are depleted (look at the oil wells in ohio and illinois that are now in low reserves).
China contains over 20% of the world's population. China is a large consumer of resources, and she has limited resources. You see, the reason why Mao Zedong implemented a 1 child policy was because at the time during the Great Revolution, China was suffering from famine and starvation in epic proportions. Millions were dying. At that time, China's population was over 700 Million and growing at an unprecedented rate of over 2-3%. China's limited resources and a booming population was a strategic and tactical issue that loomed for their government. So , they set out to solve the issue by implementing the 1 child policy. This policy allowed for sustained growth for China and her already large population.
We cannot deny the facts. Resources are limited, and population if it exceeds resources and the ability to acquire resources, will lead to starvation. The Great Famine of the 1950's and 1960's in China is a perfect example. There are side effects to their 1 child policy, one blatant effect is the disproportion of male to female population. There are over 20 million single male chinese now.
Best,
Lorenzo
Reference: wikipedia, theories of biology, malthus revisited.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=48414.0
