Definition

Overpopulation does not depend only on the size or density of

the population, but on the ratio of population to available
sustainable resources. It also depends on the way resources are
used and distributed throughout the population. Overpopulation
can result from an increase in births, a decline in mortality
rates due to medical advances, from an increase in immigration,
or from an unsustainable biomeand depletion of resources. It is
possible for very sparsely populated areas to be overpopulated,
as the area in question may have a meager or non-existent
capability to sustain human life (e.g. a desert).
The resources to be considered when evaluating whether
an ecological niche is overpopulated include clean water, clean
air, food, shelter, warmth, and other resources necessary to
sustain life. If the quality of human life is addressed, there may
be additional resources considered, such as medical care,
education, proper sewage treatment waste disposal and energy
supplies. Overpopulation places competitive stress on the basic
life sustaining resources, leading to a diminished quality of life

Overpopulation in India

Theory and definitions:

In nature, the evaluation of overpopulation is conceptually
straightforward. If a group relies on a local area for its
sustenance, then its population will be limited by the
productivity of that area. If productivity does not meet the
demands of the group, the groups numbers will decline to the
point of sustainability, or the group will move to find more
productive land. Thus, sustainability can be viewed as a ratio of

the demands of the group compared to productivity of the land,

or more simply, the number of mouths compared to the amount
of food (or land to produce it).
The same limitations apply to humans; we are bound by our
regions, both geographical and political. If a country can not
produce enough food, its members can be put in dire straits.
Imports, however, add a new element into analysis, as it
effectively raises the amount of food a region has. Thus, the
population of an area could theoretically greatly exceed the
productivity levels of its political boundaries if it imports
enough to feed its population. This, however, brings up another
level of analysis; dissemination of goods. If a countrys
government fails to adequately dispense goods to its population,
then government can be substituted for land, and overpopulation
can be measured as the ratio of the demands of the people to the
ability of the government to meet those demands in terms of
infrastructure and distribution. Ultimately, humans are
collectively limited by the production capabilities of planet
Earth.

Can overpopulation be a problem for humans? Given these

analyses, it seems it can. If a country does not produce enough
goods itself, fails to import and distribute goods adequately, or if
the worlds population exceeds its productive capabilities, then
overpopulation is a problem. Overpopulation also seems to be a
culprit to the extent that as population decreases, problems
associated with limited resources are ameliorated, and over time
disappear. On the other hand, if population rates continue to
climb, problems will be measured in terms of world-wide
productivity rather than state-wide distribution.
History of population growth
Main article: World population

Data from World Population.

A population pyramid based on the 2011 Libyan population.

The human population has gone through a number of periods of
growth since the dawn ofcivilization in the Holocene period,
around 10,000 BC. The beginning of civilization coincides with
the final receding of glacial ice following the end of the last
glacial period.[ is estimated that about 1,000,000 people,
subsisting on hunting and foraging, inhabited the Earth in the
period before the neolithic revolution, when human activity

shifted away fromhunter-gathering and towards very primitive

farming.
Around 8000 BCE, at the dawn of agriculture, the population of
the world was approximately 5 million.[13] The next several
millennia saw minimal changes in the population, with a steady
growth beginning in 1000 BCE, plateauing (or alternatively,
peaking) in 1 BCE, at between 200 and 300 million people.
The Plague of Justinian caused Europe's population to drop by

around 50% between 541 and the 8th century.[14] Steady growth
resumed in 800 CEThis growth was disrupted by
frequent plagues; most notably, the Black Deathduring the 14th
century. The effects of the Black Death are thought to have
reduced the world's population, then at an estimated 450 million,
to between 350 and 375 million by 1400The population of
Europe stood at over 70 million in 1340;[] these levels did not
return until 200 years later.[
On the other side of the globe, China's population at the
founding of the Ming dynasty in 1368 stood close to 60 million,
approaching 150 million by the end of the dynasty in 164
England's population reached an estimated 5.6 million in 1650,
up from an estimated 2.6 million in 1500.[21] New crops that had
come to Asia and Europe from the Americas via the Spanish
colonizers in the 16th century contributed to the population
growth.
Since being introduced by Portuguese traders in the 16th
century,[] maize and manioc have replaced traditional African
crops as the continent's most important staple food crops.[25]

Alfred W. Crosby speculated that increased production of maize,

manioc, and other American crops "...enabled the slave
traders [who] drew many, perhaps most, of their cargoes from
the rain forest areas, precisely those areas where American crops
enabled heavier settlement than before."

Is overpopulation a problem in India?

As of July 2003, India had a population of just over one billion

(CIA World Factbook). With around 170 million hectares of
arable land, it has the potential to produce among the worlds
highest crop yields, and indeed, India produced the second

highest amount of both rice and wheat per year in 1999

(Hopper). While whether or not this amount of food could
sufficiently cover the needs of the population, two things are
clear without dispute; millions of Indians fundamental
biological needs are not met, and should the population continue
to rise, it will not be possible to produce enough food to cover
those needs.
Evidence for the first argument is simple to find. In 1999, 53%
of the Indian population under the age of five was malnourished,
and 37% had no access to safe water (The Earth Times). Fifteen
million people in Bombay have sidewalks for beds (Associated
Press), and 25% of the population is below the poverty line (CIA
World Factbook). All of these issues boil down to the simple
idea that there are not enough goods to go around. Or, if there
are enough goods to go around, then there is not enough
government to dispense them.
The second argument, that as population rises problems are
worsened, is intuitive. But beyond this, growth rates are a big
deal for a country with a huge population. India adds more
people to the world each day than any other country (Clarke),

adding up to about 12 million people per year by one estimate

(Litke), and 18 million by another (ENN). Each added person
increases the number on the side of the ratio that should
decrease if needs are going to be met. And this brings us to the
heart of the problem.

What is the solution?

Both of the two types of overpopulation addressed (inundated

government and depleted environment) are the causes of a
problem. Addressing both issues is necessaryfor no matter
how small a population is, its government may be inadequate to
suit its needs, and no matter how good a government is, if a

population is to large, it does not matter how good distribution

is. Additionally, it attempting to solve one problem may be
integral to solving the other. So which issue is more pressing?
In both ratios, the common factor is population, and lowering
the population will lower the ratio, bringing both problems to
more manageable levels. Furthermore, while lowering
population numbers will safeguard against overwhelming the
regional environmental capabilities and those of the planet as a
whole, addressing the issue of a bad government will not.
Finally, decreasing the population will directly ameliorate
hardships whether or not the government is improved, given that
the government continues to do what it can with what it has (i.e.,
it will have less it has to do), and evidence for such an
assumption is not hard to come by. It appears that an attempt to
lower population levels will address both the issues at hand,
while attempting to increase the denominator of one ratio might
fail to address the problems caused by the other, and neither one
individually will address the fact that we live in a limited world.
So the only solution must be to attempt to lower the population.

How do you lower the population?

The ratio to examine here is birth rate to death rate. If birth rates
exceed death rates, population is increasing. There are two ways
to lower the growth rate; decrease births or increase deaths.
Because development centralizes around ideas of improving
quality of life, and thus life is a central idea to development,
advocating a policy of causing death seems contrary to the spirit
of the project. So the viable option is lowering birth rates.

Indias growth rate has markedly improved over the past years,
dropping from 2.2 in the 1980s (ENN) to 1.47 in 2003 (CIA
World Factbook). It remains above the world average of 1.33
(Earthtimes). A stable population (zero growth) by the year 2045
is the goal of Indias National Population Commission, but some
call into question whether or not this is enough (Times of India,
Sept. 12). Some believe that population growth must be brought
to zero by the year 2015, and only after stabilization will India
then be able to comprehensively address the problems caused by
the large population (Times).
What is the best way to lower birth rates? When the pressures of
overpopulation are prevalent, women sometimes feel the effects
more than men. Coercive governmental measures like
decreasing benefits to a family with more than one child (as are
being enacted in India (Reuters) can result in discrimination
against female children if there are cultural pressures to produce
boys, which also exist in India. This discrimination ranges to
depriving girls of food, education, and health services, to
aborted female fetuses and female infanticide (ENN,
Earthtimes).

Other coercive measures have been attempted in India. In 197577, former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi created sterilization
camps and forced vasectomies (Deutsche Presse-Agentur,),
causing population-control policies to be met with strong
resistance and fear, stagnating progress significantly
(Earthtimes Dec. 23). More recently, the government has
considered using injection birth-control methods, which have
been alleged to have significant negative side effects and recall
the coercive measures of the 70s (The Hindu 2001).
The fact is that there are different reasons for high birth rates;
religious reasons, ignorance, attempts to ensure reproductive
success, attempts to create a family labor poolthe list
continues. But the measures being considered should not involve
draconian laws aimed only at results which neglect the rights
and potential usefulness of the people.
What needs to happen is support, financial and political, must be
given to promote and facilitate birth control philosophy and
methods which involve people as an agent of change rather than
a source of dilemma. Around 30 million Indians want to use
contraceptives, but do not have access to them (The Earth

Times, 1999); money must be given to provide it. Others are

unaware and unwilling to discuss birth control methods (ENN
Oct. 12); efforts must be made to promote discussion and spread
knowledge of it to those who are receptive. Campaigns currently
expound on the good of the country. Instead, media should
emphasize that a small family is beneficial to an individual's
own well-being rather than focusing on population control for
the national good (Times of India). These types of measures
have been enacted in some states including Kerala, Tamil Nadu
and Karnataka, and they have since been countrys growth
stability leaders (Times). The philosophy must be to have the
people be an active participant in the countrys problem. If the
people understand and want to help, then the problem disappears
because there is no one left to cause it. On the other hand, if a
dichotomy is set up between government and people, rates will
likely drop slowly, and will accrue a multitude of human rights
violations along the way.
is overpopulation our worlds greatest threat?
I was reading an article from CNN yesterday (and also covered
in other news sources) about the growth of the worlds

population. It is speculated the the population will hit 7 billion

people in 2o11 - with the vast majority of the growth happening
in developing nations. While the article doesnt specifically call
it out, I read over-population between the lines. In fact, the
article reminded me of another article I read last year
controversially entitled, Time for them to die
In short, the question needs to be asked:
Is overpopulation our worlds greatest threat? And what is the
role of the [C]hurch?
Are we for birth controls?
Are we really committed to education?
In light of the fastest population growth taking place in
developing nations (aka: the poorest nations), shouldnt we be
more proactive than reactive?
Is there another example of hype rather than substance? Isnt
there enough resources to go around in the world?
Im sensing that while folks dont want to openly admit it, more
and more folks lean towards the view that OVERPOPULATION
is a serious threat and something has to happen. I wonder if its

a threat to our existence or an inconvience to our way or style of

life.
Your thoughts: Is overpopulation our worlds greatest threat?
Heres the article from CNN:
WASHINGTON (CNN) The worlds population is forecast to
hit 7 billion in 2011, the vast majority of its growth coming in
developing and, in many cases, the poorest nations, a report
released Wednesday said.
Riders cram into a train last month in New Delhi, India. Indias
population is expected to be 1.7 billion by 2050.
A staggering 97 percent of global growth over the next 40 years
will happen in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean,
according to the Population Reference Bureaus 2009 World
Population Data Sheet.
The great bulk of todays 1.2 billion youth nearly 90 percent
are in developing countries, said Carl Haub, a co-author of
the report. Eight in 10 of those youth live in Africa and Asia.
During the next few decades, these young people will most
likely continue the current trend of moving from rural areas to

cities in search of education and training opportunities, gainful

employment, and adequate health care, Haub continued, calling
it one of the major social questions of the next few decades.
In the developed world, the United States and Canada will
account for most of the growth half from immigration and
half from a natural increase in the population births minus
deaths, according to the report.
High fertility rates and a young population base in the
developing world will fuel most of the growth, especially in
Africa, where women often give birth to six or seven children
over a lifetime, the report says. The number is about two in the
United States and 1.5 in Canada.
A stark contrast can be drawn between Uganda and Canada,
which currently have about 34 million and 31 million residents,
respectively. By 2050, Canadas population is projected to be 42
million, while Ugandas is expected to soar to 96 million, more
than tripling.
Even with declining fertility rates in many countries, world
population is still growing at a rapid rate, said Bill Butz,
president of the bureau. The increase from 6 billion to 7 billion

is likely to take 12 years, as did the increase from 5 billion to 6

billion. Both events are unprecedented in world history.
By 2050, India is projected to be the worlds most populous
nation at 1.7 billion, overtaking current leader China, which is
forecast to hit 1.4 billion. The United States is expected to reach
439 million for No. 3 on the

The world's population has been booming for years. The

population is now threatening to reach the stage where there are
simply too many people for the planet to support.
Around 1850, the world population reached one billion. By
1987, it was at five billion and still rising rapidly.
Third World nations are responsible for a great deal of the
population growth. In 1989, about 90% of the people being
born were in developing countries. The populations of Third
World countries are expected to continue to boom.
The United Nations Population Fund predicts that by the
middle of the next century, the world's population will stabilize

at about 14 million people. If fertility rates were decreased to

2.1 births per woman, population stabilization could be
achieved sooner.
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. The
book described how the world population had risen, citing the
discovery of agriculture as the cause. The book predicted that
population growth would result in widespread famine and even
nuclear war. While some of his predictions turned out to be
false, famine did occur at high levels in later years.
Overpopulation has been disastrous for the planet. Greater
populations have polluted and consumed more, ruining the
environment and creating or intensifying a variety of problems.
Also, with the food supply limited, increases in population
make shortages in many parts of the world even worse.
Land

Percentages of the Earth's surface covered by water, dedicated

to agriculture, under conversion, intact, and used for human
habitation. While humans ourselves occupy only 0.5 of the
Earth's land area, our effects are felt on one-quarter of the land.
The World Resources Institute states that "Agricultural
conversion to croplands and managed pastures has affected
some 3.3 billion [hectares] roughly 26 percent of the land
area. All totaled, agriculture has displaced one-third
of temperate and tropical forests and one-quarter of natural
grasslands."[163][164] Forty percent of the land area is under
conversion and fragmented; less than one quarter, primarily in
the Arctic and the deserts, remains intact.[165] Usable land may

become less useful

through salinization,deforestation, desertification, erosion,
and urban sprawl. Global warming may cause flooding of many
of the most productive agricultural areas.[166] The development
of energy sources may also require large areas, for example, the
building of hydroelectric dams. Thus, available useful land may
become a limiting factor. By most estimates, at least half of
cultivable land is already being farmed, and there are concerns
that the remaining reserves are greatly overestimated.[167]

Effects of human overpopulation

Some problems associated with or exacerbated by human

overpopulation:

Inadequate fresh waterfor drinking water use as well

as sewage treatment and effluent discharge. Some countries,
like Saudi Arabia, use energy-expensive desalination to solve
the problem of water shortages.[201][202]

Depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels[203]

Increased levels of air pollution, water pollution, soil

contamination and noise pollution. Once a country has
industrialized and become wealthy, a combination of
government regulation and technological innovation causes
pollution to decline substantially, even as the population

continues to grow.

Deforestation and loss of ecosystems that sustain global

atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide balance; about eight
million hectares of forest are lost each year.

Changes in atmospheric composition and

consequent global warming

Irreversible loss of arable land and increases

in desertificationDeforestation and desertification can be
reversed by adopting property rights, and this policy is
successful even while the human population continues to
grow.

Mass species extinctions from reduced habitat in tropical

forests due to slash-and-burn techniques that sometimes are
practiced by shifting cultivators, especially in countries with
rapidly expanding rural populations; present extinction rates
may be as high as 140,000 species lost per year. As of 2008,
the IUCN Red List lists a total of 717 animal species having
gone extinct during recorded human history.