|Human PopulationPage 2 of 4 (1, 2, 3, 4)|
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.|
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.
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
Posted: 5/7/2007 6:31:48 AM
|...then maybe someone should warn her that she's not doing her job very well. |
Posted: 5/8/2007 7:23:55 PM
|I agree in general but the biggest factors determining reproduction rates are socio-economic, not genetic. So really it's the poor who will more and more dominate the makeup of the population.|
Posted: 5/9/2007 10:31:05 AM
|Thanks for the heads-up on the lectures, Al. I'll check them out. The steps you mention are, ironically, the easiest to implement and would have the some of the largest, quickest and most wide-spread positive effects of all the actions the developed world could take. It's an unbelieavable shame that so little is being done, even among the least "painful" options.|
Posted: 5/17/2007 10:32:22 AM
|I agree entirely that the world is overpopulated. However, that's not a popular point of view to many. |
We have a finite world with finite resources....and.....even many of the renewable ones are running out!
The ocean's are being factory farmed. Species are disappearing at an alarming rate and the entire ecosystem is being drastically altered. Still....people demand more!
Our entire system of commerce demands continual growth and consumption.
IMO it's nothing short of insane to continue along this path, but, we will anyhow, until nature does something about it, because we never will!
Because of the demand for ever increasing growth and consumption, resources will become ever more scarce, and the corresponding levels of pollution will rise as well.
I like to use the aquarium analogy...once there are too many fish in the aquarium...and the filters can no longer cope, the water quality becomes degraded to a point where the survival of any is doubtful. Not the best analogy, but, I'm sure that you get the picture.
If the human race is going to survive "itself", some new thinking about our world, and our place in it, needs to be done before it's too late!
Posted: 6/26/2007 1:21:06 PM
|63strat, one of the reasons Canada's population has been decreasing is because my wonderful country on the other side of the fence has been sending you our acid rain, and our pollution and poisons.|
Since when has my government given a rats patootee about Canada's people. Most people in the US of A even know that our government doesn't care about our neighbors who have never done a nasty thing to us.
Canadians should be pretty angry with our stupid and evil Bush
Posted: 6/26/2007 3:24:28 PM
|Want to know something else mindboggling that many people do not realize. There are more people alive than people that have died all thruout history. That is another perspective that you do not hear and a truism .|
Posted: 7/9/2007 11:42:35 AM
|Most complex questions require complex solutions and this is no different. Let's take in consideration a few topics:|
Artificial insemenation: If it wasn't for science interviening these couples probably would not concieve any children. Would one be in favor of eliminating all artifical insemenation births?
Assisted suicied for the terminally ill. There is strong beliefs on boths sides. Would one be in favor of legalizing assisted suicied for the terminally ill?
Removing tax breaks for having more than "x" amount of children.
Just a few things to ponder.
Posted: 7/9/2007 11:28:24 PM
George Bush will control population growth.
Is this a joke? If not, it should be.
He'll be out of office in a few years (unless he declairs martial law or something, I wouldn't put it past him), so he won't have time for any major fixes. Also if he's as religious as he acts, then he'd be against birth control and thinking "the rapture" is just right around the corner so why worry about it anyway.
Posted: 7/13/2007 8:18:53 AM
|Who says the earth is overpopulated anyway?|
What is the "correct" population?
Just because you live in an urban area, do not assume that the rest of the world is crowded.
I mean this is really ludicrous; why don't we just advocate suicide...if when you reach the age of thirty and you HAVEN'T had any children, you should just kill yourself.
And we should really just eliminate the entire medical field; afterall, people are living longer and not dying from injuries or diseases that 100 years ago would have killed them. So to all of you who have ever taken penicillin, that's got to go.
Many cultures HAVE tried to limit or control their populations. The Spartans had some way to tell if a baby was going to be a good warrior or not and if the baby was not, they would toss him off of a cliff.
The People's Republic of China has another birth control policy and you know what? In another generation or two, China is going to have a huge male population and a tiny female population.
There are many reasons why SOME people who are wealthy or "highly educated" don't have children and some of it is vanity, not really an admirable trait.
But take a look at the world population. Europe is in the red along with Canada. They are having to bring in massive amounts of immigrants from other nations to do the jobs that the highly educated Europeans can't do. So in a few generations, Europe will cease being the Europe it once was.
I mean, what are the reasons you can give that the world is too crowded?
Posted: 7/13/2007 11:14:39 AM
|I think it's more about consumption of resources and production of harmful compounds than it is about having space for people (though that is a problem in some very densely-populated and poor areas), so maybe overcrowded isn't the right word for the overall view.|
Posted: 7/18/2007 8:48:41 AM
|Actually, population control is automatic in most species, including humans. In economically advantaged countries, like the US, birth rates are lowering. In countries that have lots of poor people, the kids have to help work, so more kids = more workers = more food for all of them.|
The problem is that we live in a throw-away society, not a recyclable society. We even do this with dating and employment.
In a throw-away society, we find someone to date, we hurt them, making them harder to date, and then we finish with them.
In a recyclable society, we find someone to date, we make them a better person, and then we finish with them. If we hurt them, we don't let go of them, until they are healed and a better person, and THEN we LET GO!
Take a case in point: farming. Farms used to employ crop rotation: each field would be divided into strips, one for carrots, one for onions, one for tomatoes, etc. and one left fallow. Then, the strips would be rotated each year. So each strip would be seeded with carrots, then with onions, then with tomatoes, etc. and then one year would be left fallow. The carrots would take out some nutrients and return others, the onions would do the same. The effect was that by the time you got back to the carrots, the strip would contain the exact same set of nutrients that it started with.
Now, we employ intensive farming. We grow the whole field with carrots, every year. The carrots take out some nutrients and return others, then again, and again, until the field is completely deficient in the nutrients the carrots need to grow, and overloaded with the nutrients that the carrots excrete. The crop gets less and less each year, and the field gets more and more toxic. Eventually, the toxins overwhelm the soil, and the soil breaks down into sand. This is why deserts such as the Sahara, have been growing steadily. We are burning out the fields.
It's the same as when a person does not enjoy a varied diet, and only eats one type of food. The body breaks down after a while, and needs a LOT of medical treatment.
We need to change our attitude to life: apply recycling to our lives, and not just as charity. As I said, the same applies to relationships. If not, we end up with worse and worse people to date.
Posted: 7/21/2007 9:25:08 PM
|This is one of the most important issues problems of our time. Thank you for this post. One very important book to read on the subject is Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Chose to Fail or Succeed". Jared Diamond is a Pulitzer prize winning author and his book was reccomended to me by a professor of environmental law. The book documents how different civilizations fell throughout history because of how they managed their resources and their population. Because the GLOBAL population is so high now, and we spread resources all over the world through trade, we are at risk of triggering a global collapse of civilization. A global collapse would be devistating and would set us back hundreds of years in human progress... or worse.|
A frightening example of the dangers of high population (combined also with global warming) is the Rwanda genocide. YES, the genocide was partially triggered by racist ideologies, but this is only part of the problem. Rwanda, is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. For several years before the worst of the chaos, there was continuous drout that devistated the country's agriculture and threw the population into desperation. Jared Diamond argues that, during these desperate situations, people will turn on one another.
What can we do? We need to encourage family planning, its as simple as that. We need to provide people with contraception, education and anything else that works. Interestingly, Diamond mentions that equality for women is a natural way to quickly slow population growth. When women have a role in society besides popping out babies, they begin to pop out fewer babies. Diamond's book is a must read for anyone interested in having a family with a propserous future.
The question isn't, what can we ethically do to prevent the growth of the population. The question is, what do we do with the unethical people in this world that serve as obstacles to remedying an already overpopulated planet.
I didn't read through any of the previous messages so i'm sorry if there's some repetition.
Posted: 7/21/2007 9:40:26 PM
|The world is too crowded if we are extracting resources quicker than we can replace them. It's basic mathematics and it's a matter of practicality. As we become more efficient and sustainable in the way we extract our resources and treat our waste we can handle a higher population. As it stands, our rate of extracting resources is unsustainable and, considering the techniques of farming, fishing, and waste management we use, we very much need to bring down the population.|
This is all vague, but if you watch any discovery channel or pick up a national geographic magazine the details become quite clear. We are quickly moving down the food chain in our oceans. WE overfish one species of food in the ocean and then move on to another, less ideal choice. WE're allso losing natural ecosystems quickly. Species are becoming extinct at unprecidented rates. And global warming is one of those waste management problems gone bad. Another waste management problem is all the tiny plastic particles that are growing predominent in our oceans... or the pig waste and pesticides that washes off of our farmland and poisons our water.
Posted: 7/28/2007 1:59:29 PM
|Haha. You think the earth is too populated? |
I've got the solution:
Wait for it.
Stop putting warning labels on things. Yes, that's right. I blame warning labels. The curling iron that says "for external use only?"
The children's superhero costume with the tag which reads "Does Not Allow Wearer to Fly?"
All hindering natural selection. We're keeping too many people alive who should've misused the curling iron.
Posted: 8/14/2007 8:14:23 PM
|Kill all the reiligious people. They go to heaven, we get much less strain on the earth's resources, everybody's happy.|
On a serious note, overpopulation is not as simple as a numbers game; it's also about lifestyles. If everyone on the planet consumed as much as Americans do, we would need TWO more earths to sustain it - with our current population!
The episode of Eyes of Nye about overpopulation has a lot of good info on the subject, I recommend it if you can find it (it's available on many bittorrent trackers)
Posted: 6/25/2009 12:30:34 AM
How can we control human population in an ethical manner?
Bribe people not to procreate
Have requirements for procreation
Will they work?
I'm still holding out for the zombie apocalypse.