| Human Population
Posted: 4/30/2007 3:20:15 AM | Over the last decade or more we have been hearing doom and gloom about climate change and envirnomental disasters along with ideas on how to combat these issues, it seems like all talk and no action to me but yet little or nothing is said about human population!
More people = more forests destroyed for farmland to feed cattles for meat and milk
More people = more cars along with more roads being built, plus increasing loss of natural habitats
More people = More shops, more homes, more supermarkets to feed our capitalist lifesyles
More people = overall waste and pollution increase yearly
In my view no matter how hard we try to become more envirnomentally aware and friendly we are screwed until human population is drastically reduced. Maybe AIDS and Cancer are Mother Nature's way to try to stablize the population of humans?
How can we control human population in an ethical manner? | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 4/30/2007 5:09:31 AM |
More people = more forests destroyed for farmland to feed cattles for meat and milk
More people = more cars along with more roads being built, plus increasing loss of natural habitats
More people = More shops, more homes, more supermarkets to feed our capitalist lifesyles
More people = overall waste and pollution increase yearly
Funny thing is that people are doing a pretty good job of policing themselves. The more demand we create the more difficult it's going to be to meet.
The solution is simple...prices go up until an economy colapses. People will go hungry and yes, more than likely disease will come about.
Maybe AIDS and Cancer are Mother Nature's way to try to stablize the population of humans?
Well...no...that's an anthropomorphism of Nature. Nature isn't dealing with the problem. It's more like humans crossed paths with AIDS and cancer is caused by a number of things, but has the same general, yet horrific effect.
Again though, as people's individual buying power decreases, they won't be able to seek treatment for the next epidemic.
Over the last decade or more we have been hearing doom and gloom about climate change and envirnomental disasters along with ideas on how to combat these issues
Try the last 4 decades. This is not a new problem and a good portion of the technology that we are now pushing for people to use has been around since the late 1960's early 1970's. Imagine all the technological breakthroughs we've had since then. When compared to the advances made in "green" technology, everything else is light years ahead. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 4/30/2007 10:01:31 AM | How do you propose reducing the population?
- Killing people is unethical.
-Sterility? Who chooses? So it is unethical. FYI: the holocaust started off with sterilization (well after the USA was doing it to people).
- Each person is only allowed one baby (so each couple has one child)? Unless the child dies, then another one can be had. What happens when a person violates this "law?" Are they fined? Is the fetus aborted? A lot of people would agree that this tramples personal liberties. And how would this affect international politics? Are nations that follow this policy going to refuse aid to countries that don't?
While I agree something needs to be done, a lot of people aren't going to like the solution. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 4/30/2007 11:19:14 AM |
In my view no matter how hard we try to become more envirnomentally aware and friendly we are screwed until human population is drastically reduced.
I'd say this is generally true, but there's one other option to save us without massive depopulation, space colonization. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 4/30/2007 11:24:08 AM | The most ethical way to control human population is through contraception and education. But I realize that any kind of sex-education is considered repellent to most religious fundamentalists, but I believe that is the only ethical way that I know of that will control our population. Mother Nature is not as ethical or nice at controlling population.
Another way that human population can be controlled is through higher education in general. It is known that the higher the education a person has attained, the less children they will likely have. Perhaps people with more education have more hobbies and interests that lie outside of procreation. The same holds true for people who are affluent. Perhaps procreation is the hobbie of choice among people of more modest means.
So that is my opinion. The two main factors that are most effective in controlling population are contraception and higher education. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 4/30/2007 1:04:48 PM | Here in Canada we don't have that problem. Our population has been on the decline for years.
Even though Canadians are doing the right thing and carefully considering whether or not to raise more than 2 kids, our stupid government goes against the will of the people and allows hundreds of thousands of immigrants in each year just to keep Canada growing.
I can understand trying to keep the population status quo, but our government wants to keep our numbers on the increase just to keep their tax base growing.
In my mind this is corruption at its worst. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 4/30/2007 1:39:48 PM | The poor are the fast growing socio-economic class. They are the least likely to be educated and to use contraception.
Canada, the US, UK, Australia/ NZ and European Union are using immigration as a means of maintaining an otherwise declining taxpayer base because they have an ever-growing population of retireees and elderly - often with expensive, chronic health problems that is straining social welfare programs.
Problem is, the vast motherlode of immigrants originate from poor countries and are sending most of their earnings 'home' to families. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 4/30/2007 1:50:28 PM | | The world is way over populated and if we don't cull ourselves we will be culled by mother nature or the powers that be!!!!! | |
|
Macar
|
Joined: 3/15/2007
Msg: 9 | |
| Human Population
Posted: 5/2/2007 12:38:20 AM | We are more and more less using our bodies. With the internet especially we can basically do anything without physically doing it. It is like a network of one big brain. Eventually, like the old twilight zone episodes portrayed, computers will be the end survivors. Think about it, it is a thinking brain which we trained to think for itself and its only getting better. No physical body is needed. No feelings, no emotions, just plain thought and command. Completely immune to disease and death as we know it. They can outlive any human for sure. It will be a world of "the network". Im not sure yet of at what temp. a microchip can stand but im sure it can beat any human. | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 10 | |
| Human Population
Posted: 5/2/2007 3:36:47 AM |
We are more and more less using our bodies. With the internet especially we can basically do anything without physically doing it. It is like a network of one big brain. Eventually, like the old twilight zone episodes portrayed, computers will be the end survivors. Think about it, it is a thinking brain which we trained to think for itself and its only getting better. No physical body is needed. No feelings, no emotions, just plain thought and command. Completely immune to disease and death as we know it. They can outlive any human for sure. It will be a world of "the network". Im not sure yet of at what temp. a microchip can stand but im sure it can beat any human.
You might be interested in this:
Networks Everywhere – The Global Brain
http://www.jimpinto.com/writings/networkseverywhere.html | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/3/2007 7:54:17 AM | | I wouldn't worry about it - disease will take care of the weak, and war will take care of the strong (which as one poster already mentioned is usually helped along by unattainable high prices for staple goods). So everything will take care of itself.... | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/3/2007 7:05:28 PM | here is an analogy
forest fires that start naturally are nature's way of maintaining an equilibrium in the 'wild'......at first such an event seems like a disaster...trees burning, animals killed or dislocated...BUT in the long aftermath, the forest is revitalized, thus assuring its own existence for centuries to come and that of its inhabitants.
if such a cataclysmic event were to be stopped over and over, the health of the forest would be put in great jepardy since many plants or animals would grow unchecked and gradually outstrip resources or habitats that would be of detriment to the overall well being of that environment.
thus the point to be made here is that if...growth and expansion of the human population were to continue at its present rate, it will no doubt de-stabilize the environment because of all the stresses that is put on space, resources, eco-systems.
Humans, like many other life forms, cannot control their own proliferation, at least not methodically.........thus it is incumbent upon 'nature' to take drastic action before the destabilization goes beyond the point of no-return.
the question is whether or not 'nature' can sense this at the proper time! | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/3/2007 7:09:52 PM | The only feasible way to cull the human population down to a reasonable size, of say 1 Billion at the most, is with an incurable plague.
It's indiscriminate, so countries can't lash out with nuclear weapons rendering the planet uninhabitable. It also has the advantage of eliminating some of the genetic weaknesses in the species allowing the fittest individuals to survive. And it leaves existing infrastructure intact so the survivors can reform a functional society. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/3/2007 8:26:02 PM | I'm from China and the i thought the population in West has been stable.Although the population in undeveloped countries still increases rapidly,when their living standards reach a high level,various factors will slow down the growth to a acceptable level.
Isn't your economy developing in a relative environment friendly manner now or I'm misled by the information obtained by all the media. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/4/2007 1:17:53 AM | | The population in the industrialized west is relatively stable, but I think most of us who see a problem with overpopulation are looking globally and realizing that what goes on in the underdeveloped countries really effects everyone in the long run. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/4/2007 4:52:22 AM | | Space colonizination is not a good solution to overpopulation. I agree Human overpopulation is one of the biggest problems we face, second only to human nature (greed) which is compounded by overpopulation. War's and disease will not correct this problem EVER. Because damage to ecosystems is always happening. I have read that roughly 140,000 lifeforms go extinct every day. Of the total number of seperate species that has ever existed only roughly 10% are currently inhabiting the planet. When humans talk about progress, and biggest problems, rarely will the welfare of other life besides human ever be mentioned as a problem. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/4/2007 5:54:07 AM | What Darwin said about Eugenics
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
I don't think we will do anything in regards to population though until we are forced to, and I doubt we'll do it a civilized manner. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/5/2007 2:14:27 PM | Well the human race will cleanse it self of overpopulation due to its own effects billions will die and the rest will learn not to do the same things.
Killing is not unethical there is no such thing on the survival mode that is unethical.
Yes Genocide and slaughtering of others is not unethical its a survival of the fittest and the best that means in knowledge and brute power. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/5/2007 8:56:18 PM | Civilization=Overpopulation
My observation is that we have built up a "debit" of population control compared to what we did as hunter/gatherers. Contrary to many opinions of the "good old days" of the happy primitives living in harmony with the world we were a bloodthirsty bunch. Studies of chimp behavior show that a typical male group would have a typical raiding party of 3 males that would find an isolated male from another group on the edge of their range and kill him. Studies of remaining human hunter/gatherer societies show a similar statistic, > 30% of males killed in raids/wars. Most "civilized" warfare does not even come close to these rates, even the worst of the battles of the American Civil War exceeded a death toll of > 25%.
As primitives, we seemed to have a built-in population control (and I'm not suggesting that we go back to this!). Even with wars, death in automobiles, etc., modern civilization has not found a "civilized" way to control population growth. Religion and other social systems seem to go the opposite direction with the ideas of "entitlement" to high birth rates, probably holdovers from early agrarian society when you needed lots of kids to work the farm (and because half of them died young from disease, etc.)
Like some of the other posters, I think (sadly) that it will be catastrophe(s) that will address this problem (and it is the root cause of modern wars, pollution, etc), not our collective wisdom that we need to cap and reduce population. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/6/2007 12:00:36 PM |
I wouldn't worry about it - disease will take care of the weak
You may want to re-think this one...
It is because of the advanced technology in modern medicine & doctors,
that human beings are currently living longer lives now days than we ever
have. As a result, technology in medicine & doctors continues to advance,
all the while creating longer staying power for current people in this world,
as newcomers continue to rush in, therefore contributing to the over
population. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/6/2007 9:29:28 PM | | Disease and man's ability to resist it, is a really a cat and mouse game....at times medicine catches up, while in others others disease has the upper hand. Despite the vast increases in medicine in the past 50 or 60 years, you can already see how disease has caught up. Drug resistant diseases kill more and more people per year - and there are new diseases are discovered each year. Plus when you include the fact that there are now 6 billion walking incubators, the chances for mutations of current known diseases is pretty great. So - I return to my original statement......mother nature has a way of keeping things in check. | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/7/2007 6:31:48 AM | ...then maybe someone should warn her that she's not doing her job very well.  | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/7/2007 6:39:46 AM | May 7th, 07 article on China's warning that its burgeoning wealth is driving population growth as couples decide to marry younger and pay fines (innovative social controls instituted in the 1970s) to have more than one child.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6631471.stm | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/7/2007 9:13:53 AM | more people = more soylent green!
too bad the taste varies from person to person, hehehe | |
|
| Human Population
Posted: 5/7/2007 6:03:20 PM | | Conflict over resources will settle much. WWII conflict over living space (Lebensraum) for Germany and resources for Japan led to 60 million deaths. The cold war(s), although slower, probably killed as many as WWII. Nearly a million in Rwanda, millions in Middle East wars (and escalating), Darfur, Balkans, just to mention a few. Just like rats, we kill each other when there are too many. The biggest rat of all, our current president, is leading the resource wars this time. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somolia are just a beginning for him and his patriots. | |
|
Home
login 
