Is Overpopulation an Important Issue? Examining Solutions

[Char. Limit]

Mandatory!?

Why you little fascist, communist, Marxist, do-it-my-way-or-the-highway, self centered...

umm...

When did we become so open minded, that we let our brains fall out?...

You don't want mandatory birth control for teenagers? Then you must WANT teenage mothers out in the street! Because clearly you couldn't just, you know, disagree with my methods or something.

http://gresham.katu.com/news/news/4...-challenged-mother-fighting-heroin-addiction"

My other solution? Mandatory sterilization for heroin addicts.

oh wait. I just read the end of the story:
Two months salary about 10 years ago would have solved this problem...

Money talks... Heroin addicts are human...

Yeah, I'd say that could be a good idea... give me a few minutes to figure out how to make it Constitutional.

ps. Char, Please marry your girlfriend and have children. Otherwise, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/" rules.

pps. Dear Jesus, please put your hands on all the tummys and scrots of idiots, crack hoes, and heroin addicts, such that they not make more devil babies.

lol, I love that movie. And don't worry, we'll do our part.

 

[OmCheeto]

Jesus apparently was on a party line, and misheard my prayer...

The latest; "We're #1", facebook friend post:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/08/19/oversexed-oregon-top-10-most-promiscuous-u-s-cities/?hpt=hp_t2"

Congratulations, people of Portland! (Or, if you're of a super-strict moral fiber, then shame on you, people of Portland!)

Dating site OkCupid has tapped into their data to determine which cities across the U.S. have the most promiscuous residents. By analyzing how many people have profiles with "Casual Sex" marked as a type of relationship they're looking for and then tallying where those users live, OkCupid has found the cities with the highest percentage of bed-hoppers.

Thank god we're all gay out here on the commie coast.

Oh wait. That was solution #2.

I got that idea from China, when they started killing all the girl babies.



And I'm serious. That is really sad. It really does make me want to cry when I hear of such things. "It's a girl. Kill it. I want a boy."

 

[Evo]

And I'm serious. That is really sad. It really does make me want to cry when I hear of such things. "It's a girl. Kill it. I want a boy."

They also killed baby girls in Ancient Rome. The female babies were taken to a local dump and left to die.

 

[OmCheeto]

They also killed baby girls in Ancient Rome. The female babies were taken to a local dump and left to die.

I did not need to know that.

 

[Evo]

I did not need to know that.

It's probably something many people are unaware of, or how widespread, and the high numbers of infant deaths there were in history as a way of not exceeding the number they could feed and care for, for social status, or appease the gods, etc...

Warning. There are some very disturbing practices mentioned, so read at your own risk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

 

[Physics-Learner]

i would guess that because they could not be warriors, they were not considered as valuable.

 

[Physics-Learner]

I believe some people are going to try to hijack every thread to make it about the upcoming election. Stand by for some serious new rules in the next month or two.

i hope you weren't insinuating that i was hijacking this thread due to upcoming elections ?

 

[Evo]

i hope you weren't insinuating that i was hijacking this thread due to upcoming elections ?

Not you. But if you start, I'll come after you.

 

[Physics-Learner]

thank you.

 

[Physics-Learner]

as an aside, i know most every one of my answers to various problems here on the political forum is reducing govt. but this is only because it helps solve just about every problem that we have.

the govt is wholly responsible for over-population in our country. and look what is happening in europe. in almost every european country, native birth rates are less than 1 per person. in other words, the native population is actually decreasing.

but muslims are coming in by the droves. supposedly by 2050, europe will be mostly muslim. immigration policies are established by govts.

as i stated above, there is a way to stop the virus from entering your country - don't allow immigration. by doing this, each country has to solve their own procreation problems.

but then no country can mess up anything but their own country. so the virus is at least contained within a country. otherwise, we just let it spread worldwide.

 

[MarcoD]

as an aside, i know most every one of my answers to various problems here on the political forum is reducing govt. but this is only because it helps solve just about every problem that we have.

the govt is wholly responsible for over-population in our country. and look what is happening in europe. in almost every european country, native birth rates are less than 1 per person. in other words, the native population is actually decreasing.

In Europe, you have large governments and low birth rates, low teenage pregnancies, low drug addiction. If there would be any relation, shouldn't you increase the size of the government?

but muslims are coming in by the droves. supposedly by 2050, europe will be mostly muslim. immigration policies are established by govts.

I think immigration laws should be strict too. There's too much tension on the public now. But I don't blame immigrants for anything. They worked hard, and often did very dirty jobs, to give us our wealth.

as i stated above, there is a way to stop the virus from entering your country - don't allow immigration. by doing this, each country has to solve their own procreation problems.

Tss. Virus? That's a Godwin.

In the Netherlands in the fifties, protestants threatened to leave for the US since the catholic virus was spreading since they 'breed' more, they were also very afraid that catholics would become the majority.

Most muslims in Europe are secular. There's no reason to believe in religious tensions except for the occasional odd-ball. We did it ourselves.

but then no country can mess up anything but their own country. so the virus is at least contained within a country. otherwise, we just let it spread worldwide.

I am more worried about the virus called 'stupidity,' than anything else.

 

[Physics-Learner]

you can label the virus "stupidity" if you like. i labeled it as "not being able to control one's procreation".

native europeans and americans have controlled their procreation.

most other peoples have not. when those other peoples come into countries, they spread that virus.

you mistakenly assumed i was talking about religious tensions.

however, people with very different lifestyles have different desires, etc. don't be naive enough to think that things won't change when a minority group becomes a majority group.

look what happened to our native indians when we europeans came over. i can't do anything about the past. but don't think the indians were thrilled to see us europeans come over, become a majority, and completely change their lives.

 

[Physics-Learner]

if you like europe and its oppressive, socialistic govts, you do have the choice of moving there.

i prefer to go back to the roots of our country, where people felt responsible for their own actions, and their own destinies.

 

[OmCheeto]

I am more worried about the virus called 'stupidity,' than anything else.

Agreed. That's why no matter how many times my county asks me to pay more taxes for schools, I vote yes.

Has anyone mentioned the following article yet?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/06/99/world_population/382980.stm"
Thursday, 1 July, 1999
...
Dr Norman Myers ... says there are already people in the Pentagon in Washington who are wondering whether they should shift spending from arms to things like family planning in the developing world or soil conservation or stopping ****** *******.
...



At the UN conference on population in Cairo five years ago western nations did agree a large increase in funding for family planning in developing countries.
...
But they have only delivered around half what they promised.

The chief culprit is the United States government, which has been forced by pressure from evangelical Christians and Catholic bishops to actually reduce funds for family planning.

A tad old, but I've been hearing about the population explosion since I was a teen. So I think everything in the 12 year old article is still true.

As far as I can tell, the recent genocides are merely really really really really late term abortions. And they won't stop, until everyone understands this, and stops having so many freakin' babies!

IMHO of course.

Om's Sunday bible interpretation:
It is written: Genesis 35:11 "be fruitful and multiply".
We have been fruitful, and have multiplied. Mission Accomplished!
What is not written; "Breed like rats until you are crawling over each other, and killing each other for scraps of land and food."

 

[Proton Soup]

Agreed. That's why no matter how many times my county asks me to pay more taxes for schools, I vote yes.

Has anyone mentioned the following article yet?



A tad old, but I've been hearing about the population explosion since I was a teen. So I think everything in the 12 year old article is still true.
...

IMHO of course.

...

wars do tend to be about resources. rwanda also had a kind of ethnic tension. there were two tribes, the hutus and the tutsis. the tutsis were the more educated, less populous, more organized ruling class that ran things and had a better standard of living. so eventually, a large group of impoverished hutus rose up and slaughtered the tutsis with little more than cheap machetes.

so keep in mind that a stable society needs to have some means for social equity and advancement among the underclass. and probably your only chance of sending people back to their relatives to educate them on the importance of keeping birth rates down.

 

[Evo]

Well I don't think that such an idea exists. Yes, there are a lot of people but if we look at the amount of land, over population would just be some waste. I mean, there is a feeling that there is some problem with population because is not shared properly. Of course this is taken in consideration with only the amount of land livable and not those which would be part of slopes. And until you can support your own, this should not be an issue.

What? Can you try again, most of this doesn't make sense.

 

[Evo]

it is going to increase day by day

Last time I looked recently, world population was increasing by 93 million a year.

 

[MarcoD]

As far as I can tell, the recent genocides are merely really really really really late term abortions. And they won't stop, until everyone understands this, and stops having so many freakin' babies!

A bit off-topic, but I agree with your sentiment. I always get annoyed by economists which explain to the general public that growth of our population is a good thing since we need it for the economy and then all numbers become bigger.

The numbers become bigger? Who cares?

I have the general feeling that we should decrease our population with 33%. That would, in general, give everyone 50% more property, and decrease sociological tensions all around.

The answer is less, not more.

(Someone should once figure out what the optimal number of persons per habitable square kilometer is.)

 

[Evo]

(Someone should once figure out what the optimal number of persons per habitable square kilometer is.)

That would vary according to proximity to fresh water for drinking, food supplies, jobs, transportation, housing, medical facilities, etc...

 

[MarcoD]

That would vary according to proximity to fresh water for drinking, food supplies, jobs, transportation, housing, medical facilities, etc...

Personally, I am scared of heights, so apart from ecological sustainability my rather dumbed-down belief is that everything starts falling apart when you start stuffing people in 'cages' which you then stack into skyscrapers.

 

[shashankac655]

The world's population growth rate is definitely coming down, China's population is expected to stop growing by 2025 and India's population is expected overtake China's by 2030 but still demographers are generally confident that by the second half of this century we will be ending one unique era in history—the population explosion—and entering another, in which population will level out or even fall ,after reaching a maximum of around 10.5 billion.
world population.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text/2

 

[Evo]

The world's population growth rate is definitely coming down, China's population is expected to stop growing by 2025 and India's population is expected overtake China's by 2030 but still demographers are generally confident that by the second half of this century we will be ending one unique era in history—the population explosion—and entering another, in which population will level out or even fall ,after reaching a maximum of around 10.5 billion.
world population.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text/2

10.5 billion is about 3-4 times the number of people that can be successfully economically sustained, IMO. We can't find jobs for the people we have now.

January 25, 2004

GENEVA -- The number of jobless people worldwide has reached a record of almost 186 million, while hundreds of millions more are employed but make so little money they can barely survive, the United Nations labor agency said Thursday.

http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Unemployment/unemploy12504a.html

And don't forget "jobless" people are only that fraction of people that are still actively seeking employment or are qualified to seek unemployement benefits. Once you are no longer eleigible for benefits, you drop off the radar.

We can't provide jobs, we can't provide drinking water or food, housing, health services, etc... to hundreds of millions of people. How can anyone say that almost doubling the world population in the next 40 years is *sustainable"? Perhaps by third world criteria. I can't imagine how bad things will get, IMO.

 

[Newai]

A tad old, but I've been hearing about the population explosion since I was a teen. So I think everything in the 12 year old article is still true.

As far as I can tell, the recent genocides are merely really really really really late term abortions. And they won't stop, until everyone understands this, and stops having so many freakin' babies!

IMHO of course.

Where the genocides happen, are the people there even aware of the world's population and rate?

 

[OmCheeto]

Where the genocides happen, are the people there even aware of the world's population and rate?

I don't know. They don't happen around my parts.

All I know, is that 40 years ago, I was aware of the problem of overpopulation.

It would be only a few years later that I was aware of genocide.

And another 40 years before I would end up here discussing it with you.

Are you a good person Newai? I'm old, and am rapidly developing what I would call Alzheimers, and do not even recall if I've ever discussed anything with you.

But today, I like your question.

 

[vici10]

And don't forget "jobless" people are only that fraction of people that are still actively seeking employment or are qualified to seek unemployement benefits. Once you are no longer eleigible for benefits, you drop off the radar.

This is not exactly correct, at least not for US. In US calculation of unemployment also uses household surveys and surveys of employers. So one does not have to be eligible for benefits in order to be count in unemployment statistics.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures employment and unemployment (of those over 15 years of age) using two different labour force surveys[75] conducted by the United States Census Bureau (within the United States Department of Commerce) and/or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (within the United States Department of Labor) that gather employment statistics monthly. The Current Population Survey (CPS), or "Household Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 60,000 households. This Survey measures the unemployment rate based on the ILO definition.[76] The Current Employment Statistics survey (CES), or "Payroll Survey", conducts a survey based on a sample of 160,000 businesses and government agencies that represent 400,000 individual employers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#cite_note-ilo.org-66"

But I do agree with you that real unemployment (or underemployment) is probably higher than the official statistics.

We can't provide jobs, we can't provide drinking water or food, housing, health services, etc... to hundreds of millions of people. How can anyone say that almost doubling the world population in the next 40 years is *sustainable"?

I do not think this is a right question to ask, I mean the question about jobs. First, there is a theoretical question, can be people provided with adequate shelter, food, water etc using existing resources and modern technologies, is it theoretically possible? I do not know answer to this question. From what you have written, I guess you say it is impossible. I really would like to see some studies on this, if they exist.

If the answer is no, than the problem of overpopulation should be approached by reducing population. High birth rate is usually a sign of agricultural societies. In such societies people need more children as free labor force in subsistence farming. In industrial societies birth rates are usually low. And there is a correlation between level of education and birth rates. So the approach could be mechanization and increasing education.

If answer is yes, then this means that the problem is not overpopulation but distribution and organization of the process of production. Maybe productive forces of society are so developed that few can provide for many. In this case, the whole notion of distribution according to labor contribution maybe outdated. There is another problem, the problem of “overproduction crisis”, the business cycles, the paradox of misery in the land of plenty, the things that happened during great depression. And this is not a problem of overpopulation, but of social organization.

 

[Evo]

I do not think this is a right question to ask, I mean the question about jobs. First, there is a theoretical question, can be people provided with adequate shelter, food, water etc using existing resources and modern technologies, is it theoretically possible? I do not know answer to this question. From what you have written, I guess you say it is impossible. I really would like to see some studies on this, if they exist.

I'm going by reality, not some hypothetical scenario on paper. Sure you can move people and resources around on paper with no problem. In reality, no.

"Theoretically possible" is like asking "if the moon was made of cheese, could we feed all of Earth's starving population?"

 

[shashankac655]

10.5 billion is about 3-4 times the number of people that can be successfully economically sustained, IMO. We can't find jobs for the people we have now. http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Unemployment/unemploy12504a.html

And don't forget "jobless" people are only that fraction of people that are still actively seeking employment or are qualified to seek unemployement benefits. Once you are no longer eleigible for benefits, you drop off the radar.

We can't provide jobs, we can't provide drinking water or food, housing, health services, etc... to hundreds of millions of people. How can anyone say that almost doubling the world population in the next 40 years is *sustainable"? Perhaps by third world criteria. I can't imagine how bad things will get, IMO.

The governments will need to take some new methods of agriculture seriously like
hydroponics
urban agriculture
We may need large scale desalination projects around the world to meet water requirements. desalination

 

[Gokul43201]

10.5 billion is about 3-4 times the number of people that can be successfully economically sustained, IMO. We can't find jobs for the people we have now. http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Unemployment/unemploy12504a.html

Is there reason to believe this is related to population (assuming that global unemployment rates have been increasing with population - I've seen no evidence of that; for instance, in the US, the population has doubled in the past half-century, but unemployment rates have remained essentially flat)?

 

[Evo]

Is there reason to believe this is related to population (assuming that global unemployment rates have been increasing with population - I've seen no evidence of that; for instance, in the US, the population has doubled in the past half-century, but unemployment rates have remained essentially flat)?

I'd have to look, but the topic is world population. People have suggested that the resolution to overpopulation is to remove restrictions on immigration and allow anyone to move anywhere they want, no restrictions. Just let all of the people suffering in bad parts of the world to move into the good parts. I won't continue with their scenarios.

 

[lompocus]

Others have already mentioned the need to develop agriculture so that a larger population can be supported. Some problems with things as they are now:
*Little actual investment and public interest in developing new agri technology (hydro/aeroponics and everything else that's been mentioned)
*Current agricultural methods pollute EVERYTHING and are, generally, non-sustainable. See absolutely everything about the US Midwest, I.E.: Reliance on aquifers (that are rapidly depleting... few seem to care, of course), runoff and subsequent pollution of freshwater systems (lovely artificially-induced eutrophication ftl), etc.
*I haven't gone through the middle of the thread. Has anyone mentioned the problems associated with the low diversity of most countries' agricultural output?
*Other stuff I can't think of right now. I'll use the catchall that "someone mentioned it earlier."

Anyway, whatever, just wanted to mention that if it hasn't been said before. Unsustainable agriculture practices directly influence whatever number yields a "sustainable" population. Even a region whose population has been reduced to subsistence levels can't hope to survive if they continue to lose farmland and such. So, the sustainable population level tends to reach zero over time. (<-Well, it really probably doesn't so that's worded badly, but for all practical purposes whatever le is, and will be, at a level that can't be obtained without removing huge chunks of the current population. Could we jettison everyone into space and hope our space-guinea pigs survive? I'd love to do and be a part of that, but... well, few people are actually interested soooo...)