Does it bother you at all that we are overpopulating the Earth?

[Forum_Name]

"Does it bother you at all that we are overpopulating the Earth?"
Yes & no.
I believe this sort of thing is self regulating, but how it will regulate itself is very concerning. Ultimately we have three options to use, but in what combination remains to be seen:
1. Lower birth rate.
2. Higher death rate.
3. More resources.

According to World Bank statistics, population growth has been slowing since the 60's, but it's still exponential growth. They have it pegged at 1.2% which is alarming considering our current population. A quick calc using the rule of 72 would imply that, at the current rate, our entire population could double in the next sixty years or so.

Granted there are variations in the growth rate of populations across geographies, but this is still a recipe for poverty, bouts of shortages, and the violence which accompanies inequality.



...I just had a thought will typing this. I wonder if rising fuel prices will actually delay some of the effects of overpopulation. If shipping costs rise substantially we may go through a period where it is no longer cost effective for many 1st world nations import a lot of their food. This may then force some of the more impoverished countries to reduce exports of cash crops and restructure their economies. That may either make local markets more attractive, or lower the cost of agricultural land enough to put it back into the hands of domestic farmers.

It's a lot of "may"s and "if"s, but one can always hope we avoid yet another famine where food is being exported and aid has to be imported.

 

[Biodeamon]

not really. survival of the fittest.

and if we really get too overpopulated we kill the weak ones. mwahahahaha and all that.

 

[icame]

At the moment the planet is more than capable of supporting everyone living on it, especially with advances in crop technology, the problem is that were just not distributing resources evenly.

If we want to look REALLY far ahead I'd personally prefer that every country who has the capacity to to accelerate their space programs, so that we can find a way of expanding beyond earth. As far off as it seems now the sooner we accept that it's what it's going to have to came to eventually (that or we do resort to a global one child policy to control population) then the sooner we will get there.

I think people need to realize we will never get off of earth, unless we can somehow make another planet habitable (such as mars), because there is no way in hell we will ever be able to get to another preexisting habitable planet. I think there was a story on here that some french scientists discovered a planet that is habitable, but 1. It was around 25 lightyears away 2. i think it had like 6 times earths gravity.

There is no way we could live in that level of gravity, and there is no way were going to create a way to move faster then light. Hell, if it is even possible to move faster then light, I would be surprised. The limit of a particle's movement, no matter what, is the speed of light (As far as I know), meaning that if we could somehow find a way, it would still take 25 years to get there.

I think making closer planets habitable would be our best bet. I think I'm right in saying that Stephen Hawking, as well as other leading scientists, are exploring the avenue of perhaps building giant 'greenhouse cities' on Mars, that will be closed off from outside conditions and have their temperature and air supply internally regulated. It seems like a long shot, but if we can advance our space faring technology to the point where transit between Earth and Mars can become routine, then it is theoretically possible.

The only other alternative is to wait until we suffocate ourselves on Earth under the weight of our own overpopulation, war, starvation, diseases of affluence and jealous hogging of resources. What would you have us do, give up?

Look to space, while simultaneously trying to stop that which is killing our current planet in the likely event that we cannot advance space travel (Not to mention the technology for those 'greenhouse cities') far enough before it is too late.

 

[Twilight.falls]

I will most likely be dead before the overpopulation becomes enough of a problem to affect me personally.

 

[SilentCom]

Even if the Earth became overpopulated, human populations will eventually level out because of the lack of necessary resources to support the population. This kind of thing happens with various animals and is only reasonable that it will happen with people.

 

[ghostbuddy]

I used to be concerned about overpopulation, but I no longer am.

"overpopulation" is a loaded term, by what standard can we rationally, empirically, and objectively decide what our planets carrying capacity is? So that we can then justify calling what we have: "OVER" population.

Every other month, I stumble upon a science article, that discusses some new invention or discovery, which seemingly has the potential to raise the efficiency of our society - or that opens up the door to finding alternative ways of using our resources to the same ends. So one of the first ways that I would argue that it isn't ultimately going to be a problem, is to point out most of the arguments about the catastrophic consequences of overpopulation, assume our technology is static. If you look at many of the problems, or symptoms of "overpopulation", its not difficult to imagine realistic inventions that could negate or marginalize some of the symptoms.

____

Another thing that gets me, is how Malthusian a lot of the work on overpopulation is. They ignore that populations in nature have a great deal of flexibility to find an equilbrium. If the population is unstable, and the resources available to the population at any one time is relatively stable, your more likely to see an equilbrium, between reproduction and death emerge.

_______

Another point to be made, is that those that are the most concerned, tend to ignore several crucial facts. The first of which, is that for the last hundred years, every society has seen the average number of children per couple, decrease. There appears to be a relationship between industrialization, and a decrease in children born. I imagine this happens for several reasons: Increase of birthcontrol and contraception services. The existence of a local job market, gives adults a distraction, and less time to concieve or raise a child. The final factor, is kind of a product of evolutionary life history theory. Where if child mortality is high, parents are incentivized to invest in quantity (of children) over quality (of children).

As globalism increases its sphere of influence, local job markets will develop in historically destitute countries, and then local firms upbid labor/ labor bargins for a bigger cut, and the quality of life will continue to rise in those countries decreasing child mortality.

According to estimates, the human population is set to stabilize at around nine billion in 2050. So unless you can show that the earth cannot sustain nine billion people, indefinetely, even if we consider; inventions, innovations in the mean time, and the future prospects of extracting resources from other sources in our solar system, or colonization of other worlds then I don't see a reason to worry.

 

[SillyBear]

Over population isn't a problem everywhere. I've heard that in it is developing nations that are really suffering. There is still lots of room. Look at Australia, Greenland and Russia.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

At the moment the planet is more than capable of supporting everyone living on it, especially with advances in crop technology, the problem is that were just not distributing resources evenly.

If we want to look REALLY far ahead I'd personally prefer that every country who has the capacity to to accelerate their space programs, so that we can find a way of expanding beyond earth. As far off as it seems now the sooner we accept that it's what it's going to have to came to eventually (that or we do resort to a global one child policy to control population) then the sooner we will get there.

I think people need to realize we will never get off of earth, unless we can somehow make another planet habitable (such as mars), because there is no way in hell we will ever be able to get to another preexisting habitable planet. I think there was a story on here that some french scientists discovered a planet that is habitable, but 1. It was around 25 lightyears away 2. i think it had like 6 times earths gravity.

There is no way we could live in that level of gravity, and there is no way were going to create a way to move faster then light. Hell, if it is even possible to move faster then light, I would be surprised. The limit of a particle's movement, no matter what, is the speed of light (As far as I know), meaning that if we could somehow find a way, it would still take 25 years to get there.

I think making closer planets habitable would be our best bet. I think I'm right in saying that Stephen Hawking, as well as other leading scientists, are exploring the avenue of perhaps building giant 'greenhouse cities' on Mars, that will be closed off from outside conditions and have their temperature and air supply internally regulated. It seems like a long shot, but if we can advance our space faring technology to the point where transit between Earth and Mars can become routine, then it is theoretically possible.

The only other alternative is to wait until we suffocate ourselves on Earth under the weight of our own overpopulation, war, starvation, diseases of affluence and jealous hogging of resources. What would you have us do, give up?

Look to space, while simultaneously trying to stop that which is killing our current planet in the likely event that we cannot advance space travel (Not to mention the technology for those 'greenhouse cities') far enough before it is too late.

Of course I wasn't suggesting that we just stop trying to solve socio-economic problems will still have on Earth, but we should keep pushing forward with space exploration too. It's not like the two have to be mutually exclusive either. Space is the final frontier after all, the only place humanity has never been able to settle before. It's the one desire that all the worlds major powers seem to share. If we can harness this mutual interest, and get all the countries involved with existing space programs to pool their resources into a united effort in the name of all of mankind, then it will not only increase the chances of a major breakthrough in space exploration being achieved, it could also set the precedent for powerful nations all around the world making real progress together when it comes to other global issues.

Think about it, our mutual interest in Space Travel could be what finally gets us all to start acting as a united species, rather than a divided set of nations and continents. Now wouldn't that be just the best thing for us back on Earth too?

 

[icame]

At the moment the planet is more than capable of supporting everyone living on it, especially with advances in crop technology, the problem is that were just not distributing resources evenly.

If we want to look REALLY far ahead I'd personally prefer that every country who has the capacity to to accelerate their space programs, so that we can find a way of expanding beyond earth. As far off as it seems now the sooner we accept that it's what it's going to have to came to eventually (that or we do resort to a global one child policy to control population) then the sooner we will get there.

I think people need to realize we will never get off of earth, unless we can somehow make another planet habitable (such as mars), because there is no way in hell we will ever be able to get to another preexisting habitable planet. I think there was a story on here that some french scientists discovered a planet that is habitable, but 1. It was around 25 lightyears away 2. i think it had like 6 times earths gravity.

There is no way we could live in that level of gravity, and there is no way were going to create a way to move faster then light. Hell, if it is even possible to move faster then light, I would be surprised. The limit of a particle's movement, no matter what, is the speed of light (As far as I know), meaning that if we could somehow find a way, it would still take 25 years to get there.

I think making closer planets habitable would be our best bet. I think I'm right in saying that Stephen Hawking, as well as other leading scientists, are exploring the avenue of perhaps building giant 'greenhouse cities' on Mars, that will be closed off from outside conditions and have their temperature and air supply internally regulated. It seems like a long shot, but if we can advance our space faring technology to the point where transit between Earth and Mars can become routine, then it is theoretically possible.

The only other alternative is to wait until we suffocate ourselves on Earth under the weight of our own overpopulation, war, starvation, diseases of affluence and jealous hogging of resources. What would you have us do, give up?

Look to space, while simultaneously trying to stop that which is killing our current planet in the likely event that we cannot advance space travel (Not to mention the technology for those 'greenhouse cities') far enough before it is too late.

Of course I wasn't suggesting that we just stop trying to solve socio-economic problems will still have on Earth, but we should keep pushing forward with space exploration too. It's not like the two have to be mutually exclusive either. Space is the final frontier after all, the only place humanity has never been able to settle before. It's the one desire that all the worlds major powers seem to share. If we can harness this mutual interest, and get all the countries involved with existing space programs to pool their resources into a united effort in the name of all of mankind, then it will not only increase the chances of a major breakthrough in space exploration being achieved, it could also set the precedent for powerful nations all around the world making real progress together when it comes to other global issues.

Think about it, our mutual interest in Space Travel could be what finally gets us all to start acting as a united species, rather than a divided set of nations and continents. Now wouldn't that be just the best thing for us back on Earth too?

Exactly. I agree completely. If our species takes a unified interest in space it is true that it could make us look past any differences or disagreements we may have to further that interest. Though, I do fear whether this will ever happen. Especially with the recent economic crash, most countries aren't looking to the stars right now. Heck, didn't NASA nearly get its funding cut? If the leader in everything to do with space is nearly going under then I certainly fear for what will happen to the furtherance of space technology and countries interest in space as a whole.

 

[Madara XIII]

Yes, when I can't avoid thinking about it. Especially when I used to read the doctor who novels. There was one set in the 22nd century and even genetically engineered crops couldn't be distributed evenly. The one thing that makes me feel better is that Stephen Hawking said we need to colonize other worlds within the next 200 years, so that's the beginning of considering it a valid option.

I call forth the international protocol of DIBS ON SATURN!!!!

That's right bitches I got them rings

But Saturn is a gas giant...
Ahem, if we were to consider population control it might be a good idea to start by not paying people to have children... I know three single mothers who pay shit for attention to their children who are proud to have 4+ children and have 'making babies' as their profession because it pays better than most full time jobs and it gets them people to work on their house after they are done dumping them off on others.

.......well shit! Oh I got it! I'll build a flying fortress orbiting Saturn thus giving me domain!

MWAHAHAHA I am a genius indeed!


Captcha: HOW THE F*CK DO I right "The" upside down!!?!

 

[Rex Fallout]

No I don't feel bad my race inherented the earth, get over it. We'll adapt and move on to colonize other worlds eventually. Earth is fine.

 

[PlasmaFrog]

Yes, it bothers me a lot. Being OCD, I tend to overly think things more than I should and this has obviously had some incredible impacts on my past thoughts.

Overpopulation is impossible, unless forbidden my modern medicinal science and resources. Famine, war, and disease will always be around to maintain whatever imaginary balance that we may think ever so carefully about. It's all a vicious cycle that is very much beyond our control.

 

[kortin]

I'm not gonna be alive when the world is seriously affected by overpopulation, so it doesn't bother me. And yes, I plan to have kids.

 

[Liviola]

I find it hard to justify having children myself while i know there are children suffering.

I have a similar sentiment. When I'm thinking about whether or not I want to have kids in the future, the overpopulation thing does affect my decision. Maybe me having 1 or more kids won't affect the big picture in the long run, but for me it's about acting on my moral stance. Should my selfish, biologically-programmed desire to produce a child that has my genes get in the way of committing to what I believe in? (i.e. adopting a child instead, or not having kids at all to "offset" evironmental problems). I'm still not sure.

What really pisses me off, though, is idiotic people who have abosolutely no interest in raising children, who have like 10 kids anyway and treat them like shit and put them in horrible life situations. Putting a human on this world should be a serious consideration.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

At the moment the planet is more than capable of supporting everyone living on it, especially with advances in crop technology, the problem is that were just not distributing resources evenly.

If we want to look REALLY far ahead I'd personally prefer that every country who has the capacity to to accelerate their space programs, so that we can find a way of expanding beyond earth. As far off as it seems now the sooner we accept that it's what it's going to have to came to eventually (that or we do resort to a global one child policy to control population) then the sooner we will get there.

Damnit, you just said evrything worth saying about the subject. Thanks a lot.

 

[Aurgelmir]

But consider if every family in the world only had ONE child each. Well then the population would decline... but is that possible to achieve on a large scale?

Sex education does wonders.

Yeah done wonders for AIDS in Africa... problem is that the education is already horrible in the countries that would need it the most

I doubt it is just the lack of education, women are frequently raped and left with babies to look after in these places as abortion is expensive. Couples who know better still have a problem because contraception is also expensive, so unless the entirety of these third world countries just stopped having sex (which won't happen) it will continue to increase, aids included.

Besides, talking about democracy and human rights, who are we to go over there and impose our opinions on them about their sex lives?

Truth. You last sentence sort of build up my argument of "We can't stop it on a large scale"

 

[Hap2]

Overconsumption by a few countries filled with people who have a sickening sense of entitlement to luxury with already 7 billion people in the world and more to be expected in the future, possible wanting that lifestyle for themselves as well? Yeah, it does worry me. We already have a lot less usable fresh water than people think we do, and it doesn't help that most of our crop production where I live is threatened by flooding and then droughts. Add this together with any other consequences down the road from global warming and the world will be a lot less easier place to live on with so many people demanding a wasteful lifestyle they think and believe they deserve.

Is it hard to see you're computer screen from that highhorse?

Unless you're like Uber Gandhi and are somehow connecting to the internet via some inexplicable mental connection, whilst leading a peaceful revolution in which you change western ideals to better the future. You yourself are living a 'wasteful life'.

Chances are, if you have an internet connection, you're part of the lucky percentage of humanity that live in relative luxury.

So excuse me if your preaching seems a little hollow.

It's easy to point shit like that out, not so easy to actually do something about it.

Easy to project something false I am not when there is no body language to convey what it is I am saying, or to forget you have a distinct lack of any actual knowledge of who I am or where I am coming from. Unfortunately, ad hominem is something I have come to expect from the internet these days, so I hold no ill will.

Anyone can post things from the local library around here, and internet access is common enough and isn't all that expensive where I live. I try to live as minimalistic as I can in one of the cheapest provinces to live, and unfortunately in this age, when you are an aspiring writer and artist, the internet is a necessary 'evil' for quick communication of my work. It is tied to part of my livelihood, so it isn't put to waste. Otherwise if I could go without internet access, believe me, I would.

Still, it'd be nice if you actually criticized my claims with points of your own instead of attacking me based on knowledge of my life that you do not know and doesn't exist

 

[Manji187]

The developing world (global south) is overpopulating the world, the developed world (global north) is being wasteful with natural resources...which it takes from the developing world.

Way to go cyclical consumption....