Certain land masses are overpopulated, but their are many areas of the world that is open for people moving in.
My Issue With Science Saving Lives [Not anti-science, just a bit of thought.]
- Thread starter DrgoFx
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's all well and good in theory, but in practice companies have actually decided to take advantage of genetic engineering by patenting genes, which actually makes the situation worse in poorer countries.Jonluw said:
They even use genetic engineering to protect their patents to make sure that the plants grown from the seeds won't leave any seeds themselves. Think about a farmer that grows crops, save their seeds, and use them to grow more. Anyone using genetically engineered, patented seeds will have to keep buying from the distributor.
I'm not really an expert on such things so I can't really go into too much detail myself, but I would recommend for everyone to watch "Food Nation" on Hulu. Fascinating documentary, really opens your eyes.
And yeah, also might as well add that it's not really science that's the problem, but how scientific breakthroughs get capitalized on by businesses.
viranimus:
I find this argument absolutely absurd. What you are showcasing has little to do with overpopulation on a world scale, but in fact urban sprawl cause most often by rural poverty. The concept that we will be physically unable to fit on the world is simply silly, especially your final slide(which i expect was humor).
The causes of overpopulation and urban sprawl are, to simplify greatly, one and the same. Poverty. The concept that we are going to run out of food, water or space due to population is simply wrong. we have enough food and drinkable water for the entire world and more, what we fault is a means of wealth distribution. Wealth includes not just money, but access to proper education and other basic rights. A farmer in china would rather bribe an official and gain another son to work for him, than accord with the law (which is no longer seriously enforced except in specific provinces) for it is in his interest to have a child rather than not.
People need to remember that there is enough food, its just being eaten in all the wrong places.
I find this argument absolutely absurd. What you are showcasing has little to do with overpopulation on a world scale, but in fact urban sprawl cause most often by rural poverty. The concept that we will be physically unable to fit on the world is simply silly, especially your final slide(which i expect was humor).
The causes of overpopulation and urban sprawl are, to simplify greatly, one and the same. Poverty. The concept that we are going to run out of food, water or space due to population is simply wrong. we have enough food and drinkable water for the entire world and more, what we fault is a means of wealth distribution. Wealth includes not just money, but access to proper education and other basic rights. A farmer in china would rather bribe an official and gain another son to work for him, than accord with the law (which is no longer seriously enforced except in specific provinces) for it is in his interest to have a child rather than not.
People need to remember that there is enough food, its just being eaten in all the wrong places.
If two parents get together and have one or even two children, the population doesn't go up it's stable (heck it even decreases because of single people and same sex couples). The problem is when families have a lot of children. In developed nations these numbers are usually decreasing, if we can get to an ideal point where everyone on earth has roughly the same amount of food, medicine, technology etc, overpopulation is not going to be a problem.
make sex-ed mandatory. It will decrease teen parents and allows teens to see what a kid does with your life.
free condoms.
have religious leaders make it OK to use birth control.
WWIII
free condoms.
have religious leaders make it OK to use birth control.
WWIII
DrgoFx said:
Advances in medicine help the green box, and have been for like 60 years. The green box is stable. See that killing off the green box will do fuck all to stop human population? And thus questioning medical assistance to the green box will again do NOTHING to halt the population increase? Since EVERYTHINGS in the blue box and they NEVER see GM assistance.
What we need is to stabalise the HUGE gap between rich and poor. If you had everyone living in the density of new york the entire world would fit in texas. The food would be EASILY provided (we grow enough already) and we would all be happy. Overcrowding occurs because we are SHIT at distrubution. Of anything. Food, land, education, VERY poorly distrubuted. Its all in the green, and not in the blue.
Over population isnt an issue and nor is the science of helping people. That blue box is the issue. And we have to help educated and fix it.
there was one thing that a few groups tried to control the birth rate, by stopping people from breeding.
the Nazis were one.
and i am COMPLETELY blanking on what that's called...
the Nazis were one.
and i am COMPLETELY blanking on what that's called...
Japan has had a negative population growth rate for the last decade and a half, and they're facing a demographic crisis because of it. Their leaders are absolutely freaking out because their population is shrinking so quickly, with the population becoming increasingly older and thus less able to sustain themselves.DrgoFx said:Japan's a first world country. Japan is the most technologically advanced country. Japan is over populated. I'd say Japan matters.Jack the Potato said:We're a long ways away from overpopulation. Some countries (China, India) are obviously moving faster toward it than others, but so far, the countries that actually matter (kidding! >.>) are doing fine. Technology and science seem to be moving at enough of a pace to compensate for each "crisis" that comes along, and even if we don't solve the overpopulation issue, the end result of world overpopulation would be a massive war, and that would solve the problem pretty handily.
If you want something else to worry about though, worry about the fact that antibiotics will cease to be effective in about a decade or so.
Besides, "Japan" is NOT overpopulated. Its population is just very concentrated in a few cities.
So... that's one argument for overpopulation being a first-world problem that fell flat on its face. What else ya got?
I think that agricultural science is unrelated to population control unless you're implicating the use of some very iffy methods to accomplish your goals with.DrgoFx said:
The population pressure is just one of the facts that compels our species to look to the stars for new frontiers to settle on. Once humanity unlocks the sciences of interstellar travel and terraforming we will have infinite resources and infinite space.
Firstly, I gotta say that I like science. I dig that we can make crops heartier and I can't help but believe that penicillin is the best thing we've ever created... ever. We will eventually make science practical enough to turn deserts into grassy plains, under-water chasms into cities, and even other planets into Earth Reborn.
Right now there is an overpopulation problem, because while we've solved (partially) the problems of hunger and disease, we still have all of the social disorder and corrupt institutions that arise from the mere fact of "too many people". We'll eventually reach a threshold both scientifically and socially where we'll be able to deal with any problem that arises from the abundance of population.
For instance, the biggest tool nature uses to keep animal populations down (which included ours) was infant mortality. It was very common for a massive chunk of all the babies born on earth to die within the first year. One of the first things we figured out to do with our more advanced technologies was to stop babies from dying. So, what we basically did was tell nature "no" without having an answer ourselves. But, as I said, we'll eventually get there.
...probably...
...maybe...
...
...let's cross our fingers, just in case.
Right now there is an overpopulation problem, because while we've solved (partially) the problems of hunger and disease, we still have all of the social disorder and corrupt institutions that arise from the mere fact of "too many people". We'll eventually reach a threshold both scientifically and socially where we'll be able to deal with any problem that arises from the abundance of population.
For instance, the biggest tool nature uses to keep animal populations down (which included ours) was infant mortality. It was very common for a massive chunk of all the babies born on earth to die within the first year. One of the first things we figured out to do with our more advanced technologies was to stop babies from dying. So, what we basically did was tell nature "no" without having an answer ourselves. But, as I said, we'll eventually get there.
...probably...
...maybe...
...
...let's cross our fingers, just in case.
Option 1: Education based on facts and evidence, encourage personal responsibility.
Option 2: Forced government intervention which could include things like sterilization, forced abortions, illegal to have children without correct papers, denial of medical treatment or even genocide.
Option 3: War.
Option 4: Nature finds a way through virus, volcano, crop failure, global warming or something else.
And unless we go for option 1 then it will probably be a combination of option 2, 3 & 4.
Pretty good video on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZvDwu6qCOY
Option 2: Forced government intervention which could include things like sterilization, forced abortions, illegal to have children without correct papers, denial of medical treatment or even genocide.
Option 3: War.
Option 4: Nature finds a way through virus, volcano, crop failure, global warming or something else.
And unless we go for option 1 then it will probably be a combination of option 2, 3 & 4.
Pretty good video on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZvDwu6qCOY