Jump to content

Talk:Overshoot (population)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

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)[reply]

Our own overshoot

[edit]

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)[reply]

Not a reliable source, and not notable, even if it were. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

Title

[edit]

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)[reply]

I don't know, on both counts. With regards to the name, I think that title terms should be just long enough not to disambiguate the term from others. Looking at Overshoot, we have overshoot (migration) which is another (potentially) ecological term, so I suppose it might help to be more specific. But the fewer terms the better. So what about overshoot (population)? Guettarda (talk)
I like it. Let's wait a little to see if there are other comments. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rlsheehan (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's better. I wasn't comfortable with ecology as the disambiguation word. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nations

[edit]

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)[reply]

Suggestions

[edit]

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)[reply]

Tags

[edit]

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)[reply]

I did - sustainable population had a duplication tag for months, and the content, references, quotes and structure closely mirrored (see here) both this article and older revisions of human overpopulation. Different articles can discuss similar topics yes but to have three articles with very lengthy and similar sections that touch on almost the same points is WP:DUPLICATION and is not staying on article WP:TOPIC. This info is definitely better placed here than in the sustainable population article, but upon closer inspection I saw that at present this article dedicates WP:UNDUE weight to human population overshoot when it is about overshoot of any organisms's population. You'll have noticed in the first line of the article for human overpopulation it literally said human overpopulation (or human population overshoot(there has been some considered discussion on whether they should be distinguished on that talk page. So I disagree, the tag is justified and content should be in the most appropriate page, and/or these pages should be better distinguished or defined. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is undue weight, by your estimation, on human population overshoot in relation to other species, the key is to expand the article to include said species, rather that to remove reliably sourced material that pertains to the topic (I agree it is better here than the previous article, but opposed arbitrary deletion - move it, don't obliterate it!). This was an issue over at the state terrorism article a while back, as the United States section is larger than some other sections. Like here, the problem is not that one section is too large (it's only two paragraphs - hardly excessive), but that the others are too short or don't exist at all. And just because some of this material might have existed at one time in the human overpopulation article, but not presently, doesn't seem to be a good argument for removal here per WP:DUPLICATION, unless you are proposing to restore the older version or simply inserting the material that you consider undue here into that article. It seems to me that you are trying to create a scenario where the material disappears altogether, which would explain why you deleted it from the other article, and didn't move it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the previously deleted text and references can be restored from the article's history into another article if there is a desire to - the tag was in place for some time and no other editor took the initiative to improve it. I certainly don't want to remove the material altogether - in this case, the material already exists in other articles and some points or text is more or less repeated verbatim, so felt it was justified. I apologise if that is the impression given. The intention is definitely, as you say, that "inserting the material that you consider undue here into that article", not removing it altogether. Having said that, please see WP:CFORK. The issue at present is not that more content needs to be added to address the WP:UNDUE weight - there is literally an extensive article on human overshoot that already exists. There does not need to be this much here too, some of which also has the same issues with WP:SYNTH that editors have been trying to address on that article. As edits have been made to address issues in the Human overpopulation article, the issue is we could unintentionally see a WP:POVFORK as the same or very similar content is on multiple articles. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the material is not to stay here, then some of it will likely have to be moved to the Human overpopulation article. I have made an attempt to merge the material here with the material on the other article and came up with this. If you agree, the sub-section Human impact on the environment of this article can be removed or replaced with a brief summary and the Environmental impacts on Human overpopulation expanded with the following (the other sections on can be merged over time):

=== Environmental impacts ===

Main article: Human impact on the environment
See also: Environmental impact of agriculture
Having one less child, on average, saves 58.6 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year.

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]

Biomass of mammals on Earth[12][13]

  Livestock, mostly cattle and pigs (60%)
  Humans (36%)
  Wild animals (4%)

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)[reply]

Nice work! Yes, please go ahead and do that. The Wilson quote has been removed though and paraphrased in the human overpopulation article, so my only suggestion or preference would be to keep that wording rather than have the quote. Thanks. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Nielsen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Daily, Gretchen C. and Ellison, Katherine (2003) The New Economy of Nature: The Quest to Make Conservation Profitable, Island Press ISBN 1559631546
  3. ^ "Ecological Debt Day". Archived from the original on December 17, 2008. Retrieved February 18, 2013.
  4. ^ "Planetary Boundaries: Specials". Nature. 23 September 2009. Archived from the original on 12 February 2013. Retrieved 18 February 2013.
  5. ^ Bologna, M.; Aquino, G. (2020). "Deforestation and world population sustainability: a quantitative analysis". Scientific Reports. 10 (7631). doi:10.1038/s41598-020-63657-6. PMC 7203172.
  6. ^ Bradshaw, Corey J. A.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Beattie, Andrew; Ceballos, Gerardo; Crist, Eileen; Diamond, Joan; Dirzo, Rodolfo; Ehrlich, Anne H.; Harte, John; Harte, Mary Ellen; Pyke, Graham; Raven, Peter H.; Ripple, William J.; Saltré, Frédérik; Turnbull, Christine; Wackernagel, Mathis; Blumstein, Daniel T. (2021). "Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future". Frontiers in Conservation Science. 1. doi:10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419.
  7. ^ "IAP (login required)". InterAcademies.net. Archived from the original on 10 February 2010. Retrieved 18 February 2013.
  8. ^ "Overpopulation's Real Victim Will Be the Environment". TIME. 26 October 2011. Archived from the original on 18 February 2013. Retrieved 18 February 2013.
  9. ^ Subramanian, Meera (2019). "Anthropocene now: influential panel votes to recognize Earth's new epoch". Nature News. Retrieved 1 March 2020. 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.
  10. ^ Syvitski, Jaia; Waters, Colin N.; Day, John; et al. (2020). "Extraordinary human energy consumption and resultant geological impacts beginning around 1950 CE initiated the proposed Anthropocene Epoch". Communications Earth & Environment. 1 (32): 32. Bibcode:2020ComEE...1...32S. doi:10.1038/s43247-020-00029-y. S2CID 222415797. 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.
  11. ^ "UN World Population Report 2001" (PDF). p. 31. Retrieved 16 December 2008.
  12. ^ Carrington, Damian (21 May 2018). "Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
  13. ^ Baillie, Jonathan; Zhang, Ya-Ping (2018). "Space for nature". Science. 361 (6407): 1051. Bibcode:2018Sci...361.1051B. doi:10.1126/science.aau1397. PMID 30213888.
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference :17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ John T. Houghton (2004)."Global warming: the complete briefing Archived 3 May 2016 at the Wayback Machine". Cambridge University Press. p.326. ISBN 0-521-52874-7
  16. ^ "Once taboo, population enters climate debate". The Independent. 2009-12-05. Retrieved 2021-08-03.
  17. ^ Agencies (2006-01-06). "Population control 'vital' to curbing climate change". the Guardian. Retrieved 2021-08-24.
  18. ^ Wolf, C.; Ripple, W.J.; Crist, E. (2021). "Human population, social justice, and climate policy". Sustainability Science. 16: 1753–1756. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00951-w.
  19. ^ Stone, Lyman (2017-12-12). "Why you shouldn't obsess about "overpopulation"". Vox. Retrieved 2021-09-10.
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference :24 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ a b Best, Steven (2014). The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolution for the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 160. ISBN 978-1137471116. By 2050 the human population will top 9 billion, and world meat consumption will likely double.
  22. ^ Devlin, Hannah (19 July 2018). "Rising global meat consumption 'will devastate environment'". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 September 2019.
  23. ^ Perkins, Sid (11 July 2017). "The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn't telling you about". Science. Archived from the original on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 9 December 2017.
  24. ^ Pimm, S. L.; Jenkins, C. N.; Abell, R.; Brooks, T. M.; Gittleman, J. L.; Joppa, L. N.; Raven, P. H.; Roberts, C. M.; Sexton, J. O. (2014-05-30). "The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection". Science. 344 (6187). doi:10.1126/science.1246752. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 24876501. S2CID 206552746.
  25. ^ Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Barnosky, Anthony D.; García, Andrés; Pringle, Robert M.; Palmer, Todd M. (2015). "Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction". Science Advances. 1 (5): e1400253. Bibcode:2015SciA....1E0253C. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253. PMC 4640606. PMID 26601195.
  26. ^ Bradshaw, Corey J. A.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Beattie, Andrew; Ceballos, Gerardo; Crist, Eileen; Diamond, Joan; Dirzo, Rodolfo; Ehrlich, Anne H.; Harte, John; Harte, Mary Ellen; Pyke, Graham; Raven, Peter H.; Ripple, William J.; Saltré, Frédérik; Turnbull, Christine; Wackernagel, Mathis; Blumstein, Daniel T. (2021). "Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future". Frontiers in Conservation Science. 1. doi:10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419. S2CID 231589034.
  27. ^ Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R; Dirzo, Rodolfo (23 May 2017). "Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines". PNAS. 114 (30): E6089–E6096. doi:10.1073/pnas.1704949114. PMC 5544311. PMID 28696295. 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.
  28. ^ a b Crist, Eileen; Cafaro, Philip, eds. (2012). Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation. University of Georgia Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-0820343853.
  29. ^ Watts, Jonathan (6 May 2019). "Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 May 2019. Retrieved 23 June 2019.
  30. ^ Stokstad, Erik (5 May 2019). "Landmark analysis documents the alarming global decline of nature". Science. AAAS. Retrieved 11 August 2020. 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.)
  31. ^ Cockburn, Harry (29 March 2019). "Population explosion fuelling rapid reduction of wildlife on African savannah, study shows". The Independent. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 1 April 2019.
  32. ^ Cite error: The named reference :11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  33. ^ "David Attenborough warns 'human beings have overrun the world' in new film". inews.co.uk. 2020-01-15. Retrieved 2021-09-07.
  34. ^ Lin, Doris (July 3, 2019). "Human Overpopulation". ThoughtCo. Retrieved October 20, 2021. 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.

Duplicate

[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this @Iluvalar:. If that is the case, in that the article is fairly anthropocentric, what would be the rationale for keeping it rather than merging it into Human overpopulation? The lead of that article starts with Human overpopulation or human population overshoot... If they use the same terminology, and appear to cover the same topic, how is that not duplication? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this article as simply a duplication of Human overpopulation. The topics are similar, but not the same. Another example of this can be seen with the articles Holodomor and Soviet famine of 1932–1933. There may be some overlap in terms of material, but it clearly isn't a copy and paste, and quite a bit of it is unique to this article. I'd say leave it as it is for the most part, but reword any verbatim duplications (I don't see much). I'd avoid just stuffing this material into the human overpopulation article in order to delete this one, as that would simply make a bloated mess out of the other one, which could eventually result in deletions of sourced material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @C.J. Griffin: I think it would be useful to better understand or clarify how exactly they cover different topics, and therefore how they could be better distinguished? The examples you give do actually cover different topics as Holodomor covers Ukraine and a certain term, whilst the other is a broader article across the whole Soviet Union. The distinction is much less clear for these two, in my opinion, unlike, say, biocapacity or carrying capacity which are clearly different topics. I'm not advocating for this article to be deleted or merged if the two are indeed not duplication, but I just don't see or understand how they are different enough in content or scope at this point, as both cover the concept of "human population overshoot". Would be helpful if you could clarify? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the third citation explains this pretty well: "Overshoot is driven by four key factors: 1) how much we consume, 2) how efficiently products are made, 3) how many of us there are, and 4) how much nature’s ecosystems are able to produce. Technology and more intensive inputs have helped expand biological productivity over the years, but that expansion has not come close to keeping pace with the rate at which population and resource demand have expanded." Population is just one of four factors, ergo the concept of overshoot doesn't not pertain solely to human overpopulation or population growth. If anything, the article needs to be expanded, with strong secondary sourcing, to further elaborate on these other concepts listed here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that does make sense and in which case this article needs to more clearly outline its definitions and be edited to avoid content overlapping on the overpopulation and other articles. I agree that the article will need to be expanded to cover these concepts, although the sourcing will need to be stronger than "overshootday.org". Currently, the main body of text does not discuss what overshoot actually is, and some of the content does not explicitly link to this concept. I'm talking primarily about the subsection "predictions of scarcity". Also, the section on human population planning is pretty long and isn't really linked to the article topic clearly enough, esp if there are multiple drivers of "overshoot" that can be addressed rather than population size alone. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if these do indeed cover different topics then do you think "human population overshoot" should be removed from the lead of human overpopulation? There may be non-human examples, so just thinking out loud here. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Green overshoot?

[edit]

Is there (ever) 'green overshoot' or 'ecological overshoot' - as when there is more demand for electrical vehicle charging than power grids that reliably supply?

  • The term "green overshoot" or "ecological overshoot" can refer to a situation where the demand for environmentally friendly technologies or practices, such as electric vehicle charging, exceeds the capacity of the infrastructure or systems that support them, such as power grids or charging networks.
  • In the context of electric vehicles (EVs), green overshoot can occur when there is a rapid increase in the adoption of EVs, resulting in a higher demand for charging infrastructure than that available or reliably supplied by power grids. This can lead to challenges such as insufficient charging stations, long charging queues, or unreliable charging service, which may hinder the widespread adoption of EVs and limit their potential environmental benefits.
  • Green overshoot can also occur in other areas of environmental sustainability. For example, it may happen in renewable energy generation when the demand for clean energy outstrips the capacity of renewable energy sources or the grid infrastructure to reliably deliver that energy. It can also happen in other contexts where the demand for environmentally friendly practices, technologies, or resources exceeds the availability or capacity of the supporting systems, leading to imbalances and challenges.
  • To mitigate green overshoot, careful planning, coordination, and investment in infrastructure and systems are needed to keep up with the increasing demand for environmentally friendly technologies and practices. This may include expanding charging networks, upgrading power grids, investing in renewable energy capacity, and implementing smart grid technologies to manage the demand and supply dynamics effectively. It may also involve policy interventions, incentives, and collaborations among stakeholders to promote sustainable development and ensure that the necessary infrastructure and systems are in place to support the growing demand for green technologies and practices.MaynardClark (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overshoot_(population)&oldid=1202455385"