Over or underpopulated?

[paulolcParticipant]

What is the perspective of Religious Naturalism in relation to human population? Is population continuous growth a requirement for human flourishing, expansion and ultimate survival or will it be its demise?

Is population growth causing the irreversible depletion of the planet resources or increasingly solving scarcity by innovating and finding new and more sustainable ways of using those resources?

Are we over or underpopulated?

[tfindlayKeymaster]

I believe we are at a point now where the ability of the planet to provide and replenish sufficient resource to support the number of living things inhabiting it has been exceeded. Human activity is the main cause of this and the overreach is rapidly increasing.

I do not believe that continuous growth of the population of any species is sustainable nor do I think it is necessary for the flourishing of any species. It seems to me that it is more the case that overpopulation inhibits species from flourishing.

[JD StillwaterParticipant]

There is a law of ecology that says as populations of any species grow, ecological pressures (scarcities and predation) grow as counter-measures. I know there are some here who believe that human technologies make us an exception to this law. In my perspective, this is like believing that our aeronautics knowledge make us immune to the law of gravity, but such laws are not breakable – the consequences are automatic. The question in ecology is whether we are flying or falling, and if falling, how close is the splat at the bottom.

[Author]

Posts