This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Overshoot (population) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Sustainable population was copied or moved into Overshoot (population) with this edit on October 21, 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mjschrader.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article that the human species is currently consuming 30%-40% more in one year than nature can regenerate?
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/21231
-- 158.39.240.120 ( talk) 22:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just watched this course from the teaching company ( http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1720 ), and the lecturer ( Eric Strauss ) said exactly the same. This seems a hell of a lot more important for the future of mankind than global warming from my perspective. -- 158.39.241.19 ( talk) 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC).
It should be made clear that the concepts here are in dispute. For instance, referring to the Limits to Growth book as "classic" is clearly a value judgement call.
"overshoot" implies irreversibility. On the other hand, humanity could reduce it's carbon footprint fairly easily and reduce it's overall footprint below the Earth's carrying capacity. The fact that humanity can choose to return to sustainability should be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.241.90 ( talk) 01:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I feel like another good point to make is that overshoot is extremely unsustainable and another way of possibly helping that is by finding a way to use our waste instead of just piling it and shoveling it into the ground. Overshoot, from what I understand, is the collision of the earths possible carrying capacity, land space which grows with our population, and our waste depository which keeps growing every time we add to our landfill. Smaurer9844 ( talk) 23:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Sydney Maurer
The lead paragraph recently was changed to relate to population ecology; This was an improvement. Perhaps a better title or primary reference might be Population dynamics. The title of the article should include one of these. Comments? Rlsheehan ( talk) 14:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
A list of nations and continents that are in "Overshoot" (Exceeding biocapacity) is available. Why not use it? John D. Croft ( talk) 16:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Each reference is appropriate and reliable. Majority of the things are relevant to the topic. Some of the terminology was difficult to understand, but that was probably because I don't have a strong environmental background in terminology. I did think having the sentences about the book (Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change) was a little unnecessary. The article is neutral in the sense that it only presents the problem and no other opinions. Overshoot is a scary topic that is hard to avoid but needs to be talked about. The sources I checked were neutral and only presented facts. If there were any opinions stated in the sources, the editor didn't include them.
Tomietamura ( talk) 23:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (tomie)
User:Arcahaeoindris, you delete an entire well sourced section from another article with the suggestion that it "should be moved to overshoot or human overpopulation," and then proceed to tag the article it was moved to even though you suggested it. Seems silly to me. And it's not a direct copy-and-paste of material from the article human overpopulation, so the tag is not accurate. Different articles can discuss similar topics, and articles on population overshoot and human overpopulation will of course do this. -- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 12:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
=== Environmental impacts ===
It has been suggested by whom? that overpopulation has substantially adversely impacted the environment of Earth starting at least as early as the 20th century. [1] verification needed There are also economic consequences of environmental degradation caused by excess waste production and overconsumption in the form of ecosystem services attrition. [2] A number of scientists have argued that the looming human impact on the environment and accompanying increase in resource consumption threatens the world's ecosystem and the survival of human civilization. [3] [4] [5] [6] The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth, which was ratified by 58 member national academies in 1994, states that "unprecedented" population growth aggravates many environmental problems, including rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution. [7] Indeed, some analysts claim that overpopulation's most serious impact is its effect on the environment. [8] Some scientists suggest that the overall human impact on the environment during the Great Acceleration, particularly due to human population size and growth, economic growth, overconsumption, pollution, and proliferation of technology, has pushed the planet into a new geological epoch known as the Anthropocene. [9] [10]
However, even in countries which have both large population growth and major ecological problems, it is not necessarily true that curbing the population growth will make a major contribution towards resolving all environmental problems. [11]
Some studies and commentary link population growth with climate change. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] However, critics have pointed out population growth may have less influence on climate change than other factors, such as greenhouse gas emissions per capita. [19] [20] The global consumption of meat is projected to rise by as much as 76% by 2050 as the global population increases, with this projected to have further environmental impacts such as biodiversity loss and increased greenhouse gas emissions. [21] [22] A July 2017 study published in Environmental Research Letters argued that the most significant way individuals could mitigate their own carbon footprint is to have fewer children, followed by living without a vehicle, foregoing air travel, and adopting a plant-based diet. [23]
Continued population growth and overconsumption, particularly by the wealthy, have been posited as key drivers of biodiversity loss and the 6th (and ongoing) mass extinction, [24] [25] [26] with some researchers and environmentalists specifically suggesting this indicates a human overpopulation scenario. [27] [28] The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, released by IPBES in 2019, states that human population growth is a factor in biodiversity loss. [29] [30] African wildlife populations are declining significantly as growing human populations encroach on protected ecosystems, such as the Serengeti. [31]
Some prominent scientists and environmentalists, including Jared Diamond, E. O. Wilson, Jane Goodall [32] and David Attenborough [33] contend that population growth is devastating to biodiversity. According to Wilson:
The pattern of human population growth in the 20th century was more bacterial than primate. When Homo sapiens passed the six billion mark, we had already exceeded perhaps as much as 100 times the biomass of any large animal species that had ever existed on the land. We and the rest of life cannot afford another 100 years like that. [28]
Human overpopulation and continued population growth are also considered by some to be an animal rights issue, as more human activity means the destruction of animal habitats and more direct killing of animals. [34] [21]: 146
-- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 13:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Nielsen
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Twenty-nine members of the AWG supported the Anthropocene designation and voted in favour of starting the new epoch in the mid-twentieth century, when a rapidly rising human population accelerated the pace of industrial production, the use of agricultural chemicals and other human activities.
Human population has exceeded historical natural limits, with 1) the development of new energy sources, 2) technological developments in aid of productivity, education and health, and 3) an unchallenged position on top of food webs. Humans remain Earth's only species to employ technology so as to change the sources, uses, and distribution of energy forms, including the release of geologically trapped energy (i.e. coal, petroleum, uranium). In total, humans have altered nature at the planetary scale, given modern levels of human-contributed aerosols and gases, the global distribution of radionuclides, organic pollutants and mercury, and ecosystem disturbances of terrestrial and marine environments. Approximately 17,000 monitored populations of 4005 vertebrate species have suffered a 60% decline between 1970 and 2014, and ~1 million species face extinction, many within decades. Humans' extensive 'technosphere', now reaches ~30 Tt, including waste products from non-renewable resources.
:17
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).:24
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).By 2050 the human population will top 9 billion, and world meat consumption will likely double.
Much less frequently mentioned are, however, the ultimate drivers of those immediate causes of biotic destruction, namely, human overpopulation and continued population growth, and overconsumption, especially by the rich. These drivers, all of which trace to the fiction that perpetual growth can occur on a finite planet, are themselves increasing rapidly.
Driving these threats are the growing human population, which has doubled since 1970 to 7.6 billion, and consumption. (Per capita of use of materials is up 15% over the past 5 decades.)
:11
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Human overpopulation is an animal rights issue as well as an environmental issue and a human rights issue. Human activities, including mining, transportation, pollution, agriculture, development, and logging, take habitat away from wild animals as well as kill animals directly.
Hello, I see the duplicate banner in Human overpopulation. I'm specifically looking for the non-human phenomenon. How is it called ? It seems to me that biocapacity have also been anthropomorphized a lot. It seems to me that this article is not a duplicate. It's just largely anthropomorphized. Iluvalar ( talk) 21:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Edit : It was anthropocentric, not anthropomorphized the word I was looking for. Iluvalar ( talk)
Is there (ever) 'green overshoot' or 'ecological overshoot' - as when there is more demand for electrical vehicle charging than power grids that reliably supply?
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Overshoot (population) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Sustainable population was copied or moved into Overshoot (population) with this edit on October 21, 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mjschrader.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article that the human species is currently consuming 30%-40% more in one year than nature can regenerate?
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/21231
-- 158.39.240.120 ( talk) 22:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just watched this course from the teaching company ( http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1720 ), and the lecturer ( Eric Strauss ) said exactly the same. This seems a hell of a lot more important for the future of mankind than global warming from my perspective. -- 158.39.241.19 ( talk) 20:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC).
It should be made clear that the concepts here are in dispute. For instance, referring to the Limits to Growth book as "classic" is clearly a value judgement call.
"overshoot" implies irreversibility. On the other hand, humanity could reduce it's carbon footprint fairly easily and reduce it's overall footprint below the Earth's carrying capacity. The fact that humanity can choose to return to sustainability should be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.241.90 ( talk) 01:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I feel like another good point to make is that overshoot is extremely unsustainable and another way of possibly helping that is by finding a way to use our waste instead of just piling it and shoveling it into the ground. Overshoot, from what I understand, is the collision of the earths possible carrying capacity, land space which grows with our population, and our waste depository which keeps growing every time we add to our landfill. Smaurer9844 ( talk) 23:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Sydney Maurer
The lead paragraph recently was changed to relate to population ecology; This was an improvement. Perhaps a better title or primary reference might be Population dynamics. The title of the article should include one of these. Comments? Rlsheehan ( talk) 14:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
A list of nations and continents that are in "Overshoot" (Exceeding biocapacity) is available. Why not use it? John D. Croft ( talk) 16:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Each reference is appropriate and reliable. Majority of the things are relevant to the topic. Some of the terminology was difficult to understand, but that was probably because I don't have a strong environmental background in terminology. I did think having the sentences about the book (Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change) was a little unnecessary. The article is neutral in the sense that it only presents the problem and no other opinions. Overshoot is a scary topic that is hard to avoid but needs to be talked about. The sources I checked were neutral and only presented facts. If there were any opinions stated in the sources, the editor didn't include them.
Tomietamura ( talk) 23:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC) (tomie)
User:Arcahaeoindris, you delete an entire well sourced section from another article with the suggestion that it "should be moved to overshoot or human overpopulation," and then proceed to tag the article it was moved to even though you suggested it. Seems silly to me. And it's not a direct copy-and-paste of material from the article human overpopulation, so the tag is not accurate. Different articles can discuss similar topics, and articles on population overshoot and human overpopulation will of course do this. -- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 12:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
=== Environmental impacts ===
It has been suggested by whom? that overpopulation has substantially adversely impacted the environment of Earth starting at least as early as the 20th century. [1] verification needed There are also economic consequences of environmental degradation caused by excess waste production and overconsumption in the form of ecosystem services attrition. [2] A number of scientists have argued that the looming human impact on the environment and accompanying increase in resource consumption threatens the world's ecosystem and the survival of human civilization. [3] [4] [5] [6] The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth, which was ratified by 58 member national academies in 1994, states that "unprecedented" population growth aggravates many environmental problems, including rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution. [7] Indeed, some analysts claim that overpopulation's most serious impact is its effect on the environment. [8] Some scientists suggest that the overall human impact on the environment during the Great Acceleration, particularly due to human population size and growth, economic growth, overconsumption, pollution, and proliferation of technology, has pushed the planet into a new geological epoch known as the Anthropocene. [9] [10]
However, even in countries which have both large population growth and major ecological problems, it is not necessarily true that curbing the population growth will make a major contribution towards resolving all environmental problems. [11]
Some studies and commentary link population growth with climate change. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] However, critics have pointed out population growth may have less influence on climate change than other factors, such as greenhouse gas emissions per capita. [19] [20] The global consumption of meat is projected to rise by as much as 76% by 2050 as the global population increases, with this projected to have further environmental impacts such as biodiversity loss and increased greenhouse gas emissions. [21] [22] A July 2017 study published in Environmental Research Letters argued that the most significant way individuals could mitigate their own carbon footprint is to have fewer children, followed by living without a vehicle, foregoing air travel, and adopting a plant-based diet. [23]
Continued population growth and overconsumption, particularly by the wealthy, have been posited as key drivers of biodiversity loss and the 6th (and ongoing) mass extinction, [24] [25] [26] with some researchers and environmentalists specifically suggesting this indicates a human overpopulation scenario. [27] [28] The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, released by IPBES in 2019, states that human population growth is a factor in biodiversity loss. [29] [30] African wildlife populations are declining significantly as growing human populations encroach on protected ecosystems, such as the Serengeti. [31]
Some prominent scientists and environmentalists, including Jared Diamond, E. O. Wilson, Jane Goodall [32] and David Attenborough [33] contend that population growth is devastating to biodiversity. According to Wilson:
The pattern of human population growth in the 20th century was more bacterial than primate. When Homo sapiens passed the six billion mark, we had already exceeded perhaps as much as 100 times the biomass of any large animal species that had ever existed on the land. We and the rest of life cannot afford another 100 years like that. [28]
Human overpopulation and continued population growth are also considered by some to be an animal rights issue, as more human activity means the destruction of animal habitats and more direct killing of animals. [34] [21]: 146
-- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 13:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Nielsen
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Twenty-nine members of the AWG supported the Anthropocene designation and voted in favour of starting the new epoch in the mid-twentieth century, when a rapidly rising human population accelerated the pace of industrial production, the use of agricultural chemicals and other human activities.
Human population has exceeded historical natural limits, with 1) the development of new energy sources, 2) technological developments in aid of productivity, education and health, and 3) an unchallenged position on top of food webs. Humans remain Earth's only species to employ technology so as to change the sources, uses, and distribution of energy forms, including the release of geologically trapped energy (i.e. coal, petroleum, uranium). In total, humans have altered nature at the planetary scale, given modern levels of human-contributed aerosols and gases, the global distribution of radionuclides, organic pollutants and mercury, and ecosystem disturbances of terrestrial and marine environments. Approximately 17,000 monitored populations of 4005 vertebrate species have suffered a 60% decline between 1970 and 2014, and ~1 million species face extinction, many within decades. Humans' extensive 'technosphere', now reaches ~30 Tt, including waste products from non-renewable resources.
:17
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).:24
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).By 2050 the human population will top 9 billion, and world meat consumption will likely double.
Much less frequently mentioned are, however, the ultimate drivers of those immediate causes of biotic destruction, namely, human overpopulation and continued population growth, and overconsumption, especially by the rich. These drivers, all of which trace to the fiction that perpetual growth can occur on a finite planet, are themselves increasing rapidly.
Driving these threats are the growing human population, which has doubled since 1970 to 7.6 billion, and consumption. (Per capita of use of materials is up 15% over the past 5 decades.)
:11
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Human overpopulation is an animal rights issue as well as an environmental issue and a human rights issue. Human activities, including mining, transportation, pollution, agriculture, development, and logging, take habitat away from wild animals as well as kill animals directly.
Hello, I see the duplicate banner in Human overpopulation. I'm specifically looking for the non-human phenomenon. How is it called ? It seems to me that biocapacity have also been anthropomorphized a lot. It seems to me that this article is not a duplicate. It's just largely anthropomorphized. Iluvalar ( talk) 21:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Edit : It was anthropocentric, not anthropomorphized the word I was looking for. Iluvalar ( talk)
Is there (ever) 'green overshoot' or 'ecological overshoot' - as when there is more demand for electrical vehicle charging than power grids that reliably supply?