YourLastName 1

FirstName LastName
Instructor's Name
Course Title
5 August 2015

Overpopulation is a Myth
We are built to conquer environment, solve problems, achieve goals, and we find no
real satisfaction or happiness in life without obstacles to conquer and goals to achieve
Maxwell Maltz

In 1968, the American biologist Paul Ehrlich in his book "The Population Bomb"
described the grim consequences of population growth: lack of food, lack of resources,
famine, war, and everyone will eventually die out. The book caused a great resonance. It is
still a matter of heated debate.
Vain fears and vain disputes. The problem with the overpopulation of the planet is
solved by itself, according to the articles of the New York Times, other academic authors and
the book Life on the brink: environmentalists confront overpopulation. The birth rate falls,
not only in Europe, but also in traditionally "fertile" African and Muslim countries. For
example, in Iran over the past 30 years, the birth rate fell by 70%. Today, a woman on
average gives birth to two children. In 1980 in Sub-Saharan Africa, a woman had an average
of 6.6 children. By 1999, this figure fell to 5.3 (Morse, Mosher, 2013).
Population growth began to slow in 1963. How was the world's population able to
grow to 7 billion? Everything is explained simply. For example, in 1963 the world population
was 3 billion people, and the annual growth rate was 2.2%, i.e., 66 million people. In 1989,

YourLastName 2
the population was already 5 billion, and the growth rate was 1.6%, i.e. 80 million (Morse,
Mosher, 2013). More people give rise to more children, but the performance of the annual
population growth rate falls. This can be compared with a car which drives up to the traffic
light. It goes fast, then slower, slower, slower.
So, my goal is to prove that overpopulation is a myth. Most people who believe in
overcrowding live in the cities, which by definition are large crowds of people. Much of what
is mistakenly called "overpopulation" is actually urban poverty. Photos of crowded streets
illustrate only the overcrowding of concrete space. The world is still a large area of desert
places. Look, for example, Russia, with its millions of acres of wildlife, pristine nature.
You can say But were growing nonstop! We grow, but definitely not so
dramatically. In fact, our rates of growth are falling. Between 1950 and 2000, the world
population grew at a rate of 1.76%. Between 2000 and 2050, it is expected to grow by 0.77
percent (Morse, Mosher, 2013). So, because 0.77 is bigger than zero, it is a positive growth
rate, and the world population will continue to grow.
One great example of this is Bulgaria. Eastern Europe was one considered an area
with high birth rates, especially because of the significant Gypsy population, which tends to
have higher than average birth rates. However, Bulgarias birth rate has dipped so low that it
is actually losing population. According to the BBC, to keep the population stable, a birth
rate of 2.2 is needed. But it is presently 1.3 (Donkin). Bulgaria is just one example of a
country where growth rates have slowed a lot, showing that overpopulation will not
necessarily be a problem for the world.
According to The New York Times, numerous researchers trust that by changing the
world's regular scenes, we undermine the very life emotionally supportive networks that
manage us. This is babble. The conditions that maintain humankind are not regular and never
have been. Since ancient times, human populaces have utilized innovations and built

YourLastName 3
biological communities to support populaces well past the capacities of unaltered
"characteristic" environments. We change biological communities to maintain ourselves. This
is our main thing and have constantly done. Our planet's human-conveying limit rises up out
of the abilities of our social frameworks and our advances more than from any ecological
cutoff points. As far as possible to making a planet that future eras will be pleased with are
our creative abilities and our social frameworks. In moving towards a superior Anthropocene,
the earth will be what we make it numerous researchers trust that by this sort of changing the
world's characteristic scenes, we undermine the very life emotionally supportive networks
that maintain us. This is rubbish. The conditions that maintain mankind are not characteristic
and never have been. Since ancient times, human populaces have utilized advancements and
built biological systems to manage populaces well past the capacities of unaltered "common"
environments. We change environments to support ourselves. This is our main event and
have constantly done. Our planet's human-conveying limit rises up out of the abilities of our
social frameworks and our advances more than from any ecological cutoff points. As far as
possible to making a planet that future eras will be pleased with are our creative impulses and
our social frameworks. In moving towards a superior Anthropocene, the earth will be what
we make it (Ellissept, 2013).
Food: there is not enough! can be heard. All of us need food, water and energy for a
good life. People used to think that as more and more people born, the resources become
more and more scarce. However, our planet is capable of producing enough food to feed all
races (Carrington, 2014).
According to The New York Times, the specter of overpopulation was brought up yet
again in 2008 by the decrease in worldwide nourishment stocks and fast weakening of nature.
Overpopulation is somewhat an issue of society as insights, and has stressed humankind for
quite a while. Case in point, when in the fourth century B.C., when the world had a populace

YourLastName 4
of under 200 million, Plato and Aristotle prescribed strict control of conception rates by the
state. Later in the late eighteenth and mid nineteenth century the compositions of Thomas
Malthus mark another level of the civil argument. He trusted the spread of destitution was a
danger to all mankind. In any case, there were dependably researchers who demonstrated that
overpopulation is not such an issue as we see it.
A great example is the French philosopher and socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who
believed there was no overpopulation problem: There is only one man too many on earth,
and that is Mr. Malthus. Poverty spreads, he said, in view of the arrangement of property,
which gives some unjustifiable control over others. Karl Marx rejected Malthuss belief in a
principle of population, a universal natural law whereby populace development was
constantly speedier than the development of assets. What mattered, Marx wrote, was not the
size of the population, but the distribution of wealth (Minois, 2011).
In fact, there has been a trend of a decrease in global poverty. According to the Saudi
Gazette, an estimated 1.9 billion people lived in poverty in 1990, and that number fell to 1.2
billion in 2010 (Kingdom has tenth lowest poverty rate worldwide: WB). This shows that
by redistributing wealth, we are actually decreasing poverty, rather than increasing it, as some
overpopulation fear-mongers would have people believe.
One great example of this is the country of Taiwan. According to the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Taiwan currently has only 1.5% of its population living under the
poverty line, which is the lowest rate in the world (Population below Poverty Line).
Though Taiwan is not a world power, by careful wealth and resource distribution, they have
managed to keep their citizens healthy and well-fed. This proves that the situation is
improving rather than devolving; if we could all take Taiwans example, we too could
decrease global poverty without worry about overpopulation.

YourLastName 5
These days, we have to comprehend that with current mechanical innovations, human
populace and its wellbeing can be upheld the length of essential interests in base and
favorable exchange, hostile to destitution and sustenance security strategies are set up. So it
shows there is no environmental reason for people to go hungry now or in the future. We can
feed 7 billion, 8 billion, 9 billion and probably more if we chose to do so.
You can also add Our planet is dying! In the New York Times reported on the
problem of overpopulation takes of itself. Public policy should concentrate all the more
specifically on the things that improve individuals off, rather than control their regenerative
choices. Coercive populace control is shameless, and different endeavors at controlling
populace are less viable than helping families lead profitable, compensating, and thriving
lives (Westingfeb, 2010).
We must perceive that we have a commitment to impart this world to the next living
things, a commitment that obliges a diminishment, by some methods, in our populace driven
requests on its common assets. Realizing this acknowledgment is the errand of metro
instruction in the broadest sense. At the point when stable budgetary frameworks make it
conceivable to put something aside for maturity and even take an interest in annuity
programs, when training for young ladies, rising pay and openings for work for ladies make
livelihood conceivable, when industrialization moves individuals off homesteads, it is no
more so alluring to have huge families for monetary survival, as the article subtle elements.
(Cafaro, 2012).
As the conclusion, I would like to say that according to some projections, population
growth will stop in the second half of the XXI century. But at this point it is again some
predict can reach 10 billion. Is overpopulation still going to happen? No need to panic. Yes,
10 billion is an impressive number, but let's look at it as population density. In such the most
crowded countries in the world like China, the population density is 139.5 persons per mi2.

YourLastName 6
We sometimes think that the poor Chinese sit on each other's heads and certainly plotting
expansion in other countries. Just because they have nowhere to live. But the Czech
Republic. No one even has no idea that the Czechs are close to the Chinese. No, they feel
quite comfortable. Although population density is not too far removed from China - 133.2
inhabitants per mi2. In Denmark, the figure - 128.6, France - 119, 6. Moreover, and the Czech
Republic, and Denmark, and France, and China can not be attributed to the famine-stricken
countries. Yes, life is not easy in China, but this is not due to demographic but economic
problems.
By the way, the resource Overpopulation is Not the Problem counted that all current
population of the Earth could fit into one giant metropolis. It would take an area of about 700
thousand. This is almost the same as Texas or takes a little more than France. People would
have lived in this mega-metropolis quite freely. One person had to be about 90 of living
space. A family of four could be set aside land for the house and garden area of
approximately 400 (Ellissept).
Even with a population of 10 billion people a place under the sun will be for
everyone. Yes, many areas like the Siberian forests, African or Chinese deserts are not very
or not at all suitable for life. But that does not mean it will be like this forever. Just for now
development of them is not necessary. And, after all, there is no such driver of progress as
economic benefits.

YourLastName 7
References
Cafaro, Philip, and Eileen Crist, eds. Life on the brink: environmentalists confront
overpopulation. University of Georgia Press, 2012. Print.
Carrington D. World population to hit 11bn in 2100 with a 70 % chance of
continuous rise. The Telegraph 2012 Web.
Donkin, Mike. Bulgaria Hit by Population Slump. BBC News. 15 Nov. 2006. Web.
Ellissept E. C. Overpopulation Is Not the Problem New York Times. 14 Sep. 2013.
Web. 13 Sep. 2013
Kingdom has tenth lowest poverty rate worldwide: WB. Saudi Gazette. 3 Nov.
2013. Web.
Minois G. Too Much Life on Earth? New York Times. 14 Jul. 2011 Web. 13 Jul.
2011.
Morse A. R., Mosher S. W. Debunking the Myth of Overpopulation Population
Research Institute 30 Sep. 2013. Web.
Population Below Poverty Line. Central Intelligence Agency. N.d. Web.
Westingfeb A. H. Overpopulation and Climate Change New York Times. 18 Feb.
2010. Web. 17 Feb. 2010.