How many environmental problems are largely due to over-population?

And is this fact often dismissed as it is too politically sensoitive to discuss.


For example- if the US, China and India had the same population levels as they had in 1960's- would their carbon footprint and resource requirements be far more sustainable- even if non-sustainable modes of utilisation were in place?





What about Africa- where millions are totally dependent on food-aid for long-term, multi-generational survival in highly marginal lands?





Devil's advocate question: should we allow nature to take its' course and allow starvation to naturally cull large populations- similarly to what occurs in the wild among kangaroos, or rabbits, lemmings etc for example?





Your thoughts?|||An interesting view and one that requires thought. Letting nature take its course is the most natural thing to do, but how far do you take this?





Should we then look at things like IVF as wrong? As surely if man and woman are unable to procreate, then this is mother natures way of weeding out the weak?





And what about cancers? Aids? Just let nature take its course?





A lot of people talk about contraception in the 3rd world and while contraception is a great way of controlling the numbers, sadly most of the 3rd world lack the education to even contemplate it.





And if you want to talk about carbon footprints, then it is the Western world along with China and India who kick out more carbon than the whole of the 3rd world put together.





China have already implemented a one child policy to help it control its population, some might say a positive step, others would say it contravenes human rights, I doubt that India, the US and the UK as well as other pollution emitting nations would take such steps to keep their population under control.|||the main problems due to growing population are deforestation, pollution whcih are mainly responsible for other secondary problems|||Virtually all. We are burning our own niche. When it is gone, so are we.


There is no real plan, just putting out fires.


We have left ourselves no margin.|||All of them..!|||Two difference issues environmental due to over population and starvation due to malnutrition.





And your devils advocate question has no place in modern society...those are the thoughts of people like Mugabe.|||Hey Dog, that's what I was going to say! All of them! I mean, if only ONE person in the world had a car the ozone layer wouldn't be NEARLY as bad as it is today.|||its the easter island effect thats happening on a global scale|||Growing population are root of all kind of environmental problems, it's all created by human-being.|||Populations satabilize with time.





Right now, the Third World is just recovering in numbers the millions they lost during colonization.





The most densely populated countries are in Europe and in Asia, countries that were never colonized. See:





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou鈥?/a>





Germany: 232 people per square km.





Mexico: 55 people per square km.





Yet you hear people talking about "Third World" overpopulation when in fact it's the rich countries which are overpopulated.





It's just fear, white people's fear that brown and black people are recovering in numbers after 500 years of continuous genocide.|||some researches show that helping a society to go to a higher financial level, meaning, better life conditions, after a short period of time might look discouraging, because of the growth of population, but once those people get used to new life, they start getting more concerned about the quality of their, and their children's life. it's not only survival that they're after, and for that reason they start using birth control. sad thing is that some (African) countries are directly dependant on catholic church (that's the one I know about, that's why I'm not talking about any other) and for the help they get they're paying by obeying some rules put upon them : like (imagine this:) using condoms is prohibited by law ... needles to say that a big number of people have AIDS ... and so on ... this is very complex, and I'll try not to pretend to be smart, I'll just recommend a book to read: Applied Ethics, Peter Singer, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986 ... he also talks also about some other things that are a part of your question|||I would take a guess at 90% - taking into account that global


warming is also a statistical and cyclic phenomena, however we (overpopulation) accelerate this process to the unbearable limits that we are suffering today.|||Carbon footprints would increase since the 60s ANYWAY cos of the increase in the style and standard of living, this goes through out the globe and the damage being done to the environment started long before we realised it - the first real evidence of man made pollution was back in the days of the Victorian smog - so at least I know it wasn't me in the 1980s with my hairspray, or my over use of Impulse which men never acted on anyway - and leaving the poorer countries to starve, no. Its right that we help them. Many of these struggling countries are the ones our ancestors plundered in the name of Rule Britannia, and besides its the decent thing to help the poor because some of these people cant help themselves because they dont have the resources. With animals its nature. With people we have an obligation to help thats what makes us human because we have compassion. Also looking at what they dont have makes us a little more grateful for what we do have, well thats what I like to think!|||Hallelujah, I thought I was the only person who thought like this!





I agree that many environmental issues are the result of over-population, fossil fuels would still be consumed, but at a lower rate, a lower demand for paper and timber would mean de-forestation could be balanced with re-planting and so on.





I think that while short-term food aid is fine, perpetually sending food-aid to starving countries is not sustainable, and doesn't address the core issues. So in these cases, yes, food-aid shouldn't be offered.





However, the starving millions have a comparatively small carbon-footprint and consume a tiny fraction of the worlds fossil fuel usage and produce very little non-biodegradable waste.|||That is where the problem starts but we have a religious group that wants to dominate the world . That will cause a war that could kill billions and if the atomic gets let out of the jar look out it could rise to several billions . Possible a minimal of 3 billion.