Ways to deal with overpopulation
- Thread starter noobium
- Start date
Recommended Videos
We actually had a huge debate about this in uni.
For those of you who do not see the problem: when a population "finds" a load of resources (food, shelter,... or in case of humans: oil, fresh water,... ) it will grow exponentially until a certain max capacity. How high that is exactly depends on how much resources are available.
When the population hits the max capacity the population stop breeding so much because reproduction is normally only done when an excess of resources is readily available.
The problem is that the max capacity is reached, a lot of females will still be pregnant from when there were still plenty of resources so even though there are no resources for more babies, the babies keep coming for a while anyway. That means that for a while there won't be enough resources and, because the resources are divided more or less equally, NOBODY will get enough. Result: mass deaths until the population is below max capacity again.
THAT is the problem because what I just explained goes for bacteria as much as it goes for humans. In fact, it has happened before to isolated communities of humans. (Example: Easter Island)
Now the unique thing about us is that through all sorts of inventions (farm animal domestication, irrigation, artificial fertilizer, GMO's,...) we have been able to raise our own max capacity again and again. The question is, can we keep doing that? Personally I say no because our expansion is exponantial wich means it goes faster and faster so we won't keep up forever.
As for solutions my vote is on a one-child-per-family system like in China. That way we can land on the max capacity gently instead of shooting over it, than crashing back down. Sure, many people think it's controversial but it sure beats the mass deaths. (Note how we won't even HAVE to select who lives, in a way it will be decided FOR us)
NOTE: there seems to be confusion about this so lemme go into it some more. RIGHT NOW there actually isn't overpopulation yet, resources just aren't divided fairly. ( Example: starvation in Africa) BUT real overpopultion is coming allright.
For those of you who do not see the problem: when a population "finds" a load of resources (food, shelter,... or in case of humans: oil, fresh water,... ) it will grow exponentially until a certain max capacity. How high that is exactly depends on how much resources are available.
When the population hits the max capacity the population stop breeding so much because reproduction is normally only done when an excess of resources is readily available.
The problem is that the max capacity is reached, a lot of females will still be pregnant from when there were still plenty of resources so even though there are no resources for more babies, the babies keep coming for a while anyway. That means that for a while there won't be enough resources and, because the resources are divided more or less equally, NOBODY will get enough. Result: mass deaths until the population is below max capacity again.
THAT is the problem because what I just explained goes for bacteria as much as it goes for humans. In fact, it has happened before to isolated communities of humans. (Example: Easter Island)
Now the unique thing about us is that through all sorts of inventions (farm animal domestication, irrigation, artificial fertilizer, GMO's,...) we have been able to raise our own max capacity again and again. The question is, can we keep doing that? Personally I say no because our expansion is exponantial wich means it goes faster and faster so we won't keep up forever.
As for solutions my vote is on a one-child-per-family system like in China. That way we can land on the max capacity gently instead of shooting over it, than crashing back down. Sure, many people think it's controversial but it sure beats the mass deaths. (Note how we won't even HAVE to select who lives, in a way it will be decided FOR us)
NOTE: there seems to be confusion about this so lemme go into it some more. RIGHT NOW there actually isn't overpopulation yet, resources just aren't divided fairly. ( Example: starvation in Africa) BUT real overpopultion is coming allright.
I think the idea would be to enforce population limits on Earth, but not on Mars. Therefore, anyone who does want masses of children would move to Mars, and so the problem would be alleviated. Then, before Mars became filled, our technology should be enough to do the same to Venus, and possibly some of the outer moons.thaluikhain said:
Overpopulation is a myth. The only areas that overpopulated are cities, the solution is to merely encourage people to leave urban areas and settle in rural, underpopulated areas (like the Dutch did).
If someone said to you "hey this rich white guy on the other side of the planet thinks there are too many of you so you need to stop having children and preferably die," how do you think people will react to that?
Half the responses on this thread make me want to beat some sense into people for having that kind of elitist mentality.
Half the responses on this thread make me want to beat some sense into people for having that kind of elitist mentality.
i personally think that before colonizing other worlds is feasible we should find a short term solution. I personally like china's approach of offering incentives to only have one child though i am aware they occasionally take these rules to disgusting extremes.
That's because of the size. And because almost everyone has two children there, at least two children. But here in the western world people don't think as much about keeping the family alive and making long lasting workers. I'm saying cap it at two for people that want children, and then everyone else that doesn't want to have a child can just go about their daily lives.werewolfsfury said:
I have not read this entire thread, so I don't know everything that's been said, but I am noticing a lot of people saying things like "there's plenty of planet to go around" or "overpopulation is a myth." You guys need to get your heads out of the sand and face the facts.
Yes, over population isn't a problem in all parts of the world at the moment, but how long will that last? The thing about population growth is that it's an exponential process. Leave it unattended and any problem will literally multiply itself into something much bigger. Heck, our population was only about half a billion (short scale, or 5x10^8) 500 years ago. Now we are nearing 7 billion! Considering how our population has been around for many thousands of years, a huge jump like that in a short period of time is staggering.
What will life be like in another 500 years?
Lets do some math. The surface area of the land on our earth is about 1.4894x10^8 km^2 (or 1.4894x10^11 m^2). The earths population as of 2009 was 6.7755x10^9. Let's estimate our current population growth at about 1% (numbers can vary, but lets use the lower side of it). Now, let's set up an equation that uses these numbers in an interesting way.
(6.7755x10^9)(1.01)^Y = 1.4894x10^11 _._ Y stands for years
Solve for Y and we end up with 541.98
What this means is that, if our population growth remains the same, in roughly 540 years, every square meter of land on the earth will have exactly one person on it.
One square meter is not a lot of space for a person.
There are some flaws in this equation. I did not account for skyscrapers or any water structures, but I also didn't account for the hostile unlivable land or resource dedication. This is more of a thought experiment using real numbers about the amount of space we have. The reality is that humans have about only 100 years left until we start to face MAJOR issues with resources. We clearly need to start talking about possible solutions soon rather than ignoring the problem until it's too late.
Yes, over population isn't a problem in all parts of the world at the moment, but how long will that last? The thing about population growth is that it's an exponential process. Leave it unattended and any problem will literally multiply itself into something much bigger. Heck, our population was only about half a billion (short scale, or 5x10^8) 500 years ago. Now we are nearing 7 billion! Considering how our population has been around for many thousands of years, a huge jump like that in a short period of time is staggering.
What will life be like in another 500 years?
Lets do some math. The surface area of the land on our earth is about 1.4894x10^8 km^2 (or 1.4894x10^11 m^2). The earths population as of 2009 was 6.7755x10^9. Let's estimate our current population growth at about 1% (numbers can vary, but lets use the lower side of it). Now, let's set up an equation that uses these numbers in an interesting way.
(6.7755x10^9)(1.01)^Y = 1.4894x10^11 _._ Y stands for years
Solve for Y and we end up with 541.98
What this means is that, if our population growth remains the same, in roughly 540 years, every square meter of land on the earth will have exactly one person on it.
One square meter is not a lot of space for a person.
There are some flaws in this equation. I did not account for skyscrapers or any water structures, but I also didn't account for the hostile unlivable land or resource dedication. This is more of a thought experiment using real numbers about the amount of space we have. The reality is that humans have about only 100 years left until we start to face MAJOR issues with resources. We clearly need to start talking about possible solutions soon rather than ignoring the problem until it's too late.
This is how people will then react accordingly:NightmareLuna said:
Step 1: A lot of people will be pissed. Not many will speak out though because of fear but large to small scale riots will occur world wide depending on location.
Step 2: You start killing off loved ones and what happens? Full scale revolution. Might not be organized but it will be very effective. Social and Economic collapse within days, overpopulation might collapse everything with a few hundred years but revolution would do it in days.
Step 3: Step 3 doesn't get a chance to happen because of step 2.
In short I think we should be looking to see how we can provide more food and space to people rather than killing them off.
Hunt obese people.
Kill two metaphorical birds with one literal stone.
What? They taste like high quality pork? Ask 1930's Germans -Invokes Godwins law accidently-
Kill two metaphorical birds with one literal stone.
What? They taste like high quality pork? Ask 1930's Germans -Invokes Godwins law accidently-
tell that to africa to see if you have any limbs left afterwards, one of my friends has been out there and she said people were killing each other over food where she went, and i don't know anyone that says "a thousand million" instead of "a billion" short-scale or not, besides ive never heard of it being a "short-scale" (for note im british)Lukeje said: