| Overpopulation
Posted: 4/28/2006 12:00:55 AM |
thank god 94% of the world population live in poverty. if only 88% of the population lived in poverty, life on earth as we know it will not be as enjoyable as it is today.
Yes, I suppose I didn't expand on this enough.
That is the problem. How do we end world poverty, yet not have the world population consuming as voraciously as those of us in the west do? If we end poverty by "making everyone like us" then the world will suffer greatly (and it's not like we've elminated poverty here, anyway). So we must find a way to end poverty and increase the standard of living for everyone, without making everyone gluttonous voracious consumers who want everything that they can possibly get (which is what we are told we should do in Canada and the U.S. Everything seems to be marketed towards being disposable, or being things that you absolutely need to make your life better). I'm sure that a sustainable way of ending poverty can be found before too long. Unfortunately, I don't have the way. I tend to look backwards to see what happened, and how it happened, and why. Potentially, that can help us with the future, but my aim in doing so is more academic, and out of interest. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 4/30/2006 11:09:12 PM | | ^^ I think the "facts" were wrong. I can't find anything to back that claim up. Let me know if you have any stats, and where you got them. Thx. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 4/30/2006 11:16:22 PM | | yes van city used to be such a nice sleepy town untill the immgration doors opened and now theres little villages of certain races taking over and breeding the canadian man out of there own country.......i wont mention any typicall race but if you have been to delta or surrey u knwo what i mean...... | |
|
Hezron
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 29 | |
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/1/2006 5:51:07 AM | The countries with the lowest population growth and the greatest improvements in environmental standards have three things in common: capitalist economic systems, democratically elected governments, and high levels of education and literacy for women
^^^^^^^ The US is per capita the biggest polluter on the planet...the last figure I heard was 5% of the population and almost 30% of the pollution. | |
|
Cybury
|
Joined: 12/13/2005
Msg: 30 | |
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/1/2006 7:12:59 AM | | @fackker, you may find that those stats are for western countries and in no way reflects the third world... home to Ali Babba and his fourty kids | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/1/2006 10:56:59 AM | In regards to message 21:
I voiced my opinion...it was tossed out like yesterdays garbage
Talk about calling the kettle black! | |
|
Cybury
|
Joined: 12/13/2005
Msg: 32 | |
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/1/2006 11:30:56 AM | @outdoor2
your statement
After your post, I looked at the profile of the poster...he's looking for a baby machine....go figure.....
was a personal assault on my profile and my integrity I found it totally insulting and demeaning
if you call this voicing your opinion then you are nothing more than a total @sshole
so take that and toss it on yesterdays garbage | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/1/2006 2:36:15 PM | "First of all, the US has national public programming on radio and television"
Sorry, but I still missed the names of these many science shows you are talking about.
Do you mean Nova, Nature and Scientific America Frontiers? Aren’t they from PBS? Or do you mean Myth Busters?
"Secondly, most of the good science programs available here in Canada are imports from the US. Let me guess, you are a big fan of David "every dire prediction he ever made has been proven wrong" Suzuki ?"
You mean like when he was correct about CFC's?
And which science shows does Canada import?
PS, a drug three times week includes a few coffees during the week and a glass of wine on the weekend. Fooled ya eh! | |
|
jane48
|
Joined: 4/23/2006
Msg: 34 | |
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/5/2006 11:44:16 AM | Backwards:
In your original message (#3) you suggested that Canadians understand global warming better than Americans because we have public programming and they don't and you also said we have weekly science shows and they don't.
You are wrong on both counts, as you seem to imply yourself in your most recent message.
As I said, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming it was the drugs talking. If all you are 'using' is coffee and wine, then perhaps you are just plain stupid after all. | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 35 | |
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/5/2006 1:46:57 PM | The "over-populated" areas are only considered that because they cannot feed their own people. If they could, they would not be considered "overpopulated". Parts of Canada would be considered "overpopulated" because we cannot feed our own kids, the elderly, etc, except that we actually CAN do this, but refuse to because of the costs involved, and nobody, including our government, wants to take it on.
By commiting ourselves to becoming more and more of a "global community" we can overcome a lot of things. One area that has an abundance of things can send it to a place that has little, if any of it. Think grain. We can produce in Canada enough grain to feed well over a billion people, IF we allowed our farmers the ways and means to do it. But, we do not, because of the costs. We could end starvation the world over. We choose not to. We artificially inflate prices in orer to maintain the status quo. Artificial markets and pricing are in vogue (and have been for awhile), but when we finally learn to sort out what is really an artificial market (like fashion or art) from a real market (food, shelter), then we can move on. Too many people feel that their particular interest or business or job is necessary. Mostly, it isn't. Do we need new cars built every year? No. Do we need luxury goods on a daily basis? No. Do we have to have imported foods in our markets available to all? No.
We grow accustomed to our fattened lifestyles. We try, in a pitiful way, to justify it, or say "we deserve it because..." whatever lame excuse we wish to use. Often, we do not even try to share our lifestyles, because of greed, or self interest.
We may not be able to bring all mankind up to our minimum lifestyles...but we sure seem to want to, and are waiting for someone to lead the way. We don't think that living in a "traditional way" is good for any humans anylonger. We feel pity for these type of people, and block our ears to the cries of "We are losing ourselves in your society!" Well...not really. We expect these people to have a minimum of custom and lifestyle in common with us, in order to get along. They can keep their own customs in their churches, and homes rather than forcing society as a whole to accept it. Lots of kids from minority groups not only go to regular public school, but also learn their own ancestors traditions either from home, or after school from diiferent learnig centers. Like learning Greek at the local hall because enough parent sfelt it was important and put together a program that allows their kids to learn it.
Anyhow's...no...we are not overpopulated. Just undercaring.
Seems North Americans actually throw out about a third of the food they have daily rather than eat it. What happened to "Take what you want, but eat what you take"? | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/5/2006 8:29:25 PM | As someone who pays attention to population statistics and growth rates, I see that so far only Outdoor has managed to say anything with a grain of truth in it (as far as population stats are concerned anyway) Apparently there is a lot of misinformation going around. You can google this stuff folks, it really isn't that tough.
First of all, the world as a whole may be overpopulated (although, if people can stay alive and not starve that assertion is debatable) but that certainly isn't the case in many countries. Countries such as my own (Canada) are in dire need of people to sustain themeselves.
Secondly, I'll just reiterate what Outdoor said : there are definitely not 12 billion people on the planet. 6.5 billion at last estimate. Still rising but the rate is slowing. China will be losing people by 2100 (expected to level off around 2050) Japan and Europe are losing people ...actually, the Westernized world is losing people for the most part. Muslim populations and third world nations are growing strongly. The exception to all of this because it doesn't fit neatly is India which will be by far, the most populous nation in the world within this century. If things continue on the present path, India (an area roughly equivalent to the US East of the Mississippi) will have 1.7 billion people. That is vastly greater in terms of population and density than any other nation on earth including China. As a nation it is already more densely packed than China is today.
Now, those areas are overpopulated. Other areas are most definitely underpopulated. The US is not expected to stop growing or slow down significantly and by 2100 will have roughly 550 million people living within its borders which will keep it as the world's third most populated nation. Nevertheless, without industrialization , no nation currently on the hot-list of booming populations will slow down. Food and water are going to become a very high priority and the amount of land that can be used for agriculture is finite. However, just because we can turn land into a food factory doesn't mean that we should but I'm not interested in that right now.
What this all boils down to is not simply overpopulation but distribution. So we have a choice : we can do our best to relocate people (which by itself guarantees absolutely nothing and is likely to make things worse) or we can go out and educate people, make them independent and lower the birth rates. I personally am all for increasing immigration to my country but simply opening up the door and telling people to run right on in is obviously not a good idea. In fact, immigration by itself cannot solve this problem for reasons I'm not interested in getting into right now. Just because you didn't have a kid and you live in the West doesn't mean anything whatsoever. That's your loss really because any children you have would have stayed in the West almost certainly. They wouldn't have moved to Bangladesh or Nigeria. On the other hand, just because you didn't have any children didn't change anything in those countries either : they'd still be overpopulated and worsening that way. In countries like my own, you should be having as many children as possible if it's what you want because we can only raise immigration levels so high while keeping our economies afloat. We could easily double our birth rate and still accept just as many immigrants as before. | |
|
jane48
|
Joined: 4/23/2006
Msg: 37 | |
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/5/2006 9:26:44 PM | It is a mistake to think that India cannot feed itself. Like many developing nations, India has a wealth of natural resources and can produce a lot of food. In fact, India is the 11th largest wheat exporter in the world and the second largest exporter of rice in the world.
India's most serious problem in the short-term is a basic failure of infrastructure, not overpopulation. Depending on which report you read, India throws out between 30% and 40% of its perishable food due to lack of refrigeration and a pitiful transportation system. The lack of refrigeration is exacerbated by a chronic shortage of reliable power generation, which is in turn the result of a corrupt government that discourages foreign investment in major capital projects. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/5/2006 10:11:10 PM | The OP was pretty funny! I hope that was the intent..lol
sounds like a little Malthusianist wrote that :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
or neo-maltheusianism - slightly different but with similar concerns concerning over-population and food supply.
OP | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/6/2006 5:35:58 AM | jane48, if I'm so stupid than why can't you answer any of my simple questions, better to act the person as taught by the Rovian Ravers right?
many American intellectuals like Ron Paul, Republican from Texas, see the American education system as big problem in the world.
and again, which American science shows on commercial TV are you talking about? | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 40 | |
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/6/2006 9:32:29 AM | Hmmm....allow all the immigration we can handle, but only as long as they do not settle in a community of more than 10, 000 people. That could work well.
Now, about the food situation.
Did you know some cities do not allow you to grow your own garden? Against a by-law, because you "might spray something toxic" so they just don't allow you to grow anything, even if you go green with it.
Distribution is the key to a lot of things. Even population growth. Disallowing immigrants to live in the major cities would force diversification throughout the country, and make smaller places grow, thereby helping their economy. There would be less and less of the "red-neck" attitude because more and more diversity would overwhelm it. Kind of hard to not like (or at least tolerate) someone of another race when your kids are going to school with them, playing with them and dating or marrying them. It would really make you look like a racist if you objected too loudly about it, wouldn't it?
Quebec demanded that 55% of immigrants coming to Canada must live in Quebec. They do, for about 6 months to a year, just to "serve their time". Many go to classes to learn English, and pick up a bit of "street French", and then move on, abandoning Quebec. They don't want to be here at all. Some do settle here, but more become migrants. They head for the big English speaking cities, but if they were made to live elsewheres, say for a minimum 5 year period, then things could well change.
I can see a "city dweller ID" comng down the line. Separating the major urban dwellers from the rest of us. Why? Different reasons. Such as they'd have no say in issues that affect rural areas, such as hunting seasons, etc. Their opinion is not reasonable, and is of little if any difference in their life, so why should they be listened to anyways? They certainly don't know more about it, are not living there, and could well mind their own business. Perhaps tied with gun ownership rights, fuel prices, taxation, etc. | |
|
Cybury
|
Joined: 12/13/2005
Msg: 41 | |
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/6/2006 8:37:16 PM |
Quebec demanded that 55% of immigrants coming to Canada must live in Quebec. They do, for about 6 months to a year, just to "serve their time".
most of these third world immigrents qualify for a green card but can get one due to a term called "North American work experiance" they use canada as a fast track stepping stone to the usa. They come here and are willing to work for half wages (driving ours down) knowing full well that in a years time they can qualify for the green card and a better life in the USA
most of these "new canadians" never stick around long enough to be of any benefit to canada
what piss's me off most though is how the USA won't allow a canadian to apply for a green card.. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/6/2006 10:37:19 PM | Before people start throwing statistical information around just remember:
"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
Contemporary dicussions of social problems frequently warn not only that troubling trends are getting worse but that terrible catastrophe awaits. We've already seen these warnings dealing with mostly enviornmental issues (overpopulation, resource depletion). Apparently, it's a pretty dangerous world of there.
When apocalyptic visions feature statistics, the numbers usually lack precision. Often, the method adopted is the one pioneered by Thomas Malthus (guy who explained that famine was inevitable because population growth must outstrip agricultural production. Malthus's model was simple and easily understood; anyone who accepts its assumptions must conclude the same outcome - catastrophic famine - is unavoidable. The only problem is that Malthus's assumptions have proven wrong: population growth can be and has been controlled in society after society, and agricultural production has in fact expanded faster than the population. If only the food was evenly distrubuted?
My whole point...if I even have one...is that these apocalyptic senarios - and especially those that more more than fantastic ("hey, it could happen!") - depend on their assumptions. The accuracy of those assumptions has everything to do with whether the scenerio is worth our worry. The world ladies and gents, is very complicated, more complicated than the most elaborate computer models. Yet, when we talk about social problems - even huge problems that might threaten life as we know it - we tend to reduce complexity to simplicity. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/7/2006 12:14:35 PM | | Overpopulation ''' fact or fiction ''......97% of the earth is empty...... All of earths population would fit into the state of Texas, giving each individual am allotment of 1269 sq feet per person............ 7,438,152,268,800 sq feet in the state of Texas...... Divided by world population of 5,860,000,000= 1269 sq feet per person.........If each individual in the world were alloted a 5 foot diameter circle to stand in, they would all fit into the city of Jacksonville Fla.....If all the worlds people were to form one single solitary line around the entire globe and attempted to join hands, they would be just over 1,000 feet apart..................United Nations figures show overall world population growth is rapidly declining..Useing TFR, (total fertility rate) is on the decline worldwide........A TFR of 2.1 is essential for the sustenance of humanity. TFR levels are rapidly declining in most nations....In some nations ,such as Italy, to as low as 1.2........... At this level Italy faces national suicide............ It appears the world is witnessing , not a population explosion- but rather a population implosion , according to Pierre Chaunu, Professor emeritus of the Sorbonne and member of the French Academy said that this population implosion began well over 50 years ago........Starvation and hunger in the world today , is not a result of overpopulation, but rather a result of tyrannical governments and the mismanagement of resources. This belief in an overpopulation disaster, pending on the horizon, has acctually led to voluntary human extinction movements such as..........vhemt.org............ It proclaims the usual people hating message,-with typical pagan overtones of self loathing, emotive rhetoric. and such, that would eventually lead to the voluntary extinction of one species....Homo Sapiens. ''we the people''....... Seems to me the creators instructions, be fruitful and multiply, make more sense ! | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/7/2006 1:05:27 PM |
97% of the earth is empty
Yes, but we can't live in water | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/7/2006 1:12:48 PM | | 97 % of the earths land masses ''empty'' | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/7/2006 10:31:36 PM | jeddy:
You failed to mention that even though women are becoming less fertile, so is the land, and it soon will not be able to produce adequate food for the earth's population. Clean water is also becoming a scarce resource. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/8/2006 5:34:02 PM | | YOUR MATH IS FAULTY ON SEVERAL LEVELS. First and most important...world human population has passed 6 billion...not 5. Second...what about the needs of the billions of other inhabitants and flora that sustain us? No man is an island, and no species can exist alone. As humanity continues to breed like a virus, it begs the question....Where are we going? When will there be enough people to satisfy these religious zealots that think the order issued by God..."Go forth and multiply" was without limit. God was really a mathematician and was only thinking in theory... | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/8/2006 5:41:14 PM | | Eddy....That's nonsense!! There are millions of other life forms populating all land and water environments on this biosphere. "Empty" in your mind, I guess means no people. Good!! Wherever people abound, mother Earth is being destroyed. The Earth can COMFORTABLY support, MAYBE 2 billion civilized humans. The rest live like animals but are infinitely more destructive than animals. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/8/2006 6:25:02 PM | | caffeine, you said the earth is becoming less fertile. Fortunately, that's something that can be fixed in just a few years by a little used method called crop rotation, not planting the same crop on the same field year after year, needing more and more fertilizer every year. Apparently north america has learned nothing from the dust bowl of the 1930's | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/8/2006 6:53:43 PM | I dunno why people want kids period.
You could have an adopted kid OP:) | |
|
Home
login 
