Overpopulation

[Blood_Sacrifice]

Use and utilize resources more efficiently.

Use precautions when needed.

Family plan in advance.

It's no big surprise that overpopulation is a big issue in underdeveloped / developing countries.

Sorry! Can't be of any more help.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Blood_Sacrifice

[Bling]

Its popular culture driving the nonsense not science, chemistry or engineering.

I wasn't referring to science, but mankinds superiority complex.

[White Crane Feather]

How do we control such things? Are we more powerful that nature, the planet and all around us? We're just flesh and blood....with an arrogant mind, sometimes.

We do not control it... We are apart of it. We must live in accordance with it.

[Bling]

We do not control it... We are apart of it. We must live in accordance with it.

Yes, that's the original point I made isn't it?!

[spud the mackem]

I think pehaps that people in educated Countries budget for children and only have as many as they can afford, I may be wrong,but most people I know have 1 or 2 children and no more. People in less educated Countries have a many as they can ,hoping that 1 or 2 will survive. However we have short memories as it wasn't unusual for people pre World War 1,to have 5,6,or maybe 7 or 8 children, maybe 1 or 2 wouldnt make it due to diseases like smallpox,typhoid fever,whooping cough etc. Today is vastly different as most killer diseases have been controlled or wiped out,but they still exist in poor Countries, the problem being that the Aid given to them doesnt actually reach them,but goes into the pockets of the Dictators and their cronies.I could name a few Countries where this happens but would probably be considered racist . The planets worst killer today is probably Cancer, which may soon have some bearing on the planets population. I would bet that everyone on this sight knows someone who has this disease or is fighting it.Population has nothing to do with Religeon.

[Orcseeker]

Over population is a myth but I'm no Bible basher.

Science and technology does not say we cant sustain ourselves the greens do. In reality we have the technology to support a far larger population than 6 billion.

Look around you, are we even managing to support our current population as it is? Let alone a proposed far greater number?

Even if what you say is somehow true, we certainly cannot withhold such a population now. Moreso how is it a good thing to have massive populations of people?

[Guest]

I need to prove this, i need to prove that, how about for once you put your money where your mouth is.

Then go compare it to this - http://en.wikipedia....ki/Desalination - which tells you the world has 14,451 desalination plants in operation and even tells you its heavily used in Austrailia. Not just for drinking water but for irrigation. If you scroll down it will even tell you we have large scale desalination plants here in the UK.

I dont mind others offering opinions but you show yourself up when you dont check your facts yet insist everyone else is wrong in the way that you do.

Maybe you would like to address the actual issues now. maybe answer the questions asked.

Maybe you never intended to support your assertion anyway

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Let us, in answer to the bogus assertions made, postulate a planet covered in city.

If we draw back from this impossible assertion, what percentage of the planet do we need to support all the cities that already exist.

Current best scientific evidence says about 200%.

Br Cornelius

[Likely Guy]

The problem is that the Earth is largely uninhabitable (oceans, swamps, permafrost, mountain ranges, deserts, etc.). There are huge tracts of my own western Canada, sprinkled with small cities. But the energy required to move the raw resources out, and to move the human resources in to extract them, are approaching unsustainable.

Long story short, it's all about fossil fuel. When that run's out, so does our lifestyle.

Edit to add: I'm sorry, that came off way more negative than I intended.

All I meant was, was that in the next few generations we are going to have to collectively address how we're going to deal with our problem. This is a warning from the hinterland.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Likely Guy

[Jinxdom]

I find it less of an overpopulation problem and more like over-consumption, crowding too small of an area problem. You put to many people in one area it's going to act just like having too many deer in one area except we'd get boned faster because it's hard to grow/find food in between pavement and apartment buildings. With the land I have I never go hungry or thirsty(I do feel bad for people who can't and worse for those who don't know how to grow their own things). Then again I don't eat until I'm full I eat enough to hit that I'm not hungry mark. (Unless it's good old turkey day then I'll eat until I can't move but that's only once a year). If I can make enough cash I can get off the electrical grid as well.

If we got away from city life things would balance out quite a bit. We would of course take a huge lifestyle hit but I'm ok with that. Likely Guy is right though it's just about fossil fuel. Once that runs out well there is going to be a crap load of death.

[Bling]

Shall we just stop shagging without contraception, would that solve everything?

[Briggstan]

Shall we just stop shagging without contraception, would that solve everything?

I believe in the future sex without reproduction will be looked at as unproductive, the same way the OP posting about the myth of overpopulation will be looked. Why not have him on a farm or farming in his background farming or something?

[Guest]

Just to show I am not blowing hot air on the 200% figure, here is the report I got it from;

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/10/28/LPR_2008.pdf?intcmp=239

Br Cornelius

[Bluefinger]

I certainly think overpopulation is a real problem and affects everything in our life, from jobs availability to appropriation of natural resources........I am interested in hearing from the fundamentalist christians who believe overpopulation is a myth.......I just do not understand how they do not see the issues involved. Science and math are not their strong point but come on.......it is so obvious!

Overpopulation is a myth to us Christians because all life is precious, even the life of a criminal (for we are commanded to visit the criminals in prison.) How, then, could we say that more life is a bad thing?

If the world lived like Jesus did, they'd never work for themselves and would have no problem sharing their homes, food, cars, etc.

It is because people seek things for themselves that overpopulation is a problem. The poor, homeless, orphans, widows, elderly, and unemployed are a burden to society because people are trying to build a life for themselves here and get what they worked for. That is how these societies operate and that is why overpopulation is a problem.

Add the few wealthy individuals that buy up so much land and wealth and distribute it to very few and you have an even bigger problem.

[Artaxerxes]

"Paul Ehrlich features in this short trailer on human overpopulation and the current mass extinction of other species. Richard Leakey also makes an appearance." - Redhen

When I was a kid my mom used to have a saying, "when it's gone, it's gone!" At the time she was talking about money but the same applies to oil, food, arable land, water, etc. I suppose it all depends on how menial one is willing to go when it comes to living. Should we all be living in Soviet era type concrete & cinder block housing and eating beans and rice to survive? Owning only one pair of shoes and wearing the same clothes every day?

What are willing to give up? I'm just glad I've all ready lived 3/4's of my life. I was born not too long after WWII and enjoyed a lot of things that many kids these days won't get to do. I traveled quite a bit, hunted and fished and spearfished, snorkeled and dived in rivers, lakes, and oceans surrounding the United States, owned a couple of boats, trucks, vans, cars, 2 houses, and have tasted & eaten some pretty expensive foods like filete Mignon and lobster.

We chose not to have children. We are both college educated, me with a couple of Bachlors degrees and my wife even has a PhD. When we are gone that will be it. We are not leaving any offspring and I doubt we'll care once we are gone what happens but for now I am empathetic for the children and what they will inherit. I suppose there will always be rich and poor and some people will have access to the good life, owning cars, boats, houses, etc. I've probably only got 10 - 15 years left so after that I won't care.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Artaxerxes

[The Id3al Experience]

It is a myth, the earth can have more, its greed - UK alone consume 3 time the food needed, I wouldnt even want to read a report about americans (not sure if they would be worse, but i assume - could be wrong)

So it comes down to over use, one family eats and wastes more food in western and eastern. I know for me, I use to be a big waster of food, never finish my plate and throw it away... pounds of food a year in the bin.

I now learn to put less on my plate, if i still hungry i will get more... or I will use the waste to feed the birds, my dog. I do not like waste.

I really think greed and education is the problem, not the amount of people.

[Guest]

It is a myth, the earth can have more, its greed - UK alone consume 3 time the food needed, I wouldnt even want to read a report about americans (not sure if they would be worse, but i assume - could be wrong)

So it comes down to over use, one family eats and wastes more food in western and eastern. I know for me, I use to be a big waster of food, never finish my plate and throw it away... pounds of food a year in the bin.

I now learn to put less on my plate, if i still hungry i will get more... or I will use the waste to feed the birds, my dog. I do not like waste.

I really think greed and education is the problem, not the amount of people.

It is part of the problem - but even if we used less as individuals we would still be living beyond the sustainable carring capacity of the planet.

Man has degraded his environment since the beginning of civilization.

Br Cornelius

[spud the mackem]

Maybe Nature will decide when enough is enough,we've had famine ,plagues tsunami's, earthquakes,taking out a few thousand humans at a time,so the more people there are,the more will be killed when the next big disaster happens,maybe an asteroid strike,or a new Ice age,or some maniac using a nuke or two.I dont reckon Humans will last as long as Dinosaurs did.

[Bling]

Maybe Nature will decide when enough is enough,we've had famine ,plagues tsunami's, earthquakes,taking out a few thousand humans at a time,so the more people there are,the more will be killed when the next big disaster happens,maybe an asteroid strike,or a new Ice age,or some maniac using a nuke or two.I dont reckon Humans will last as long as Dinosaurs did.

I agree, similar thoughts I posted. I do hope there's not a potato famine though, cos we'd miss you!

[spud the mackem]

I agree, similar thoughts I posted. I do hope there's not a potato famine though, cos we'd miss you!

I like it ha ha ,I would probably become a chip,or end up mashed hee hee.

[Mr Walker]

I certainly think overpopulation is a real problem and affects everything in our life, from jobs availability to appropriation of natural resources........I am interested in hearing from the fundamentalist christians who believe overpopulation is a myth.......I just do not understand how they do not see the issues involved. Science and math are not their strong point but come on.......it is so obvious!

Dont worry The current problem is not really one of overpopulation, but of underpopulation.

At present almost every developed country is not having enough children to replace their parents. Each woman must have 2.2 approx children to do this. In australia it is about 1.7 and in parts of the world getting down to about 1. (Japan was 1.39 in 2011)

In japan and parts of europe this is already having serious effects. In australia the gvt is paying parents $6000 dollars for each child born to try and replace our population. In the third world birthrates are also dropping rapidly. By about 2050 the world pop will peak and begin to decine. That decline wil be slow at first but if current trends continue it will become rapid as the older and larger generations die off.. It is not just the total pop which is a problem, but the age sex pyramid. For example western countries wil have large aged populations and tiny youth populations. this affects everything from taxes/labour force to health provisions and care for the elderly. In japan the govt is already working on using robots to care for the elderly, because there are not enough young people to do this.

[Guest]

Dont worry The current problem is not really one of overpopulation, but of underpopulation.

At present almost every developed country is not having enough children to replace their parents. Each woman must have 2.2 approx children to do this. In australia it is about 1.7 and in parts of the world getting down to about 1. (Japan was 1.39 in 2011)

In japan and parts of europe this is already having serious effects. In australia the gvt is paying parents $6000 dollars for each child born to try and replace our population. In the third world birthrates are also dropping rapidly. By about 2050 the world pop will peak and begin to decine. That decline wil be slow at first but if current trends continue it will become rapid as the older and larger generations die off.. It is not just the total pop which is a problem, but the age sex pyramid. For example western countries wil have large aged populations and tiny youth populations. this affects everything from taxes/labour force to health provisions and care for the elderly. In japan the govt is already working on using robots to care for the elderly, because there are not enough young people to do this.

All maybe entirely true - but it ignores the massive negative consequences of current population levels. Environmental degradation accelerated massively between the 1970's and now - when populations went from 3billion to 7billion. World populations will continue to rise to 10billion by 2050 which inevitably will accelerate the massive environmental crisis we currently face. We can make the planet all but uninhabitable for humans in the time in which natural demographics brings populations under control.

Br Cornelius

[Mr Walker]

All maybe entirely true - but it ignores the massive negative consequences of current population levels. Environmental degradation accelerated massively between the 1970's and now - when populations went from 3billion to 7billion. World populations will continue to rise to 10billion by 2050 which inevitably will accelerate the massive environmental crisis we currently face. We can make the planet all but uninhabitable for humans in the time in which natural demographics brings populations under control.

Br Cornelius

The world can sustain that level temporarily without doing irreversible harm, and it will be very temporary in historical terms. We can feed 10 billion people.The underlying problem is the massive and unsustainable over consumption by western societies (meaning individual people) That can't be sustained. It is a growth/greed based economic system which will eventually have to change or else collapse.

The resources of the planet can probably only sustain a couple of billion people given western consumption and even that would require creative sustainable use of resources like renewable energies For example, one day last month about 85% of my states power was provided by wind energy and we have base load wind generation of about 25-30 % of all our electric power.

Once we have population and resource use under control, humans have the abilty and technology to restore earth to a balanced and sustainable ecosystem and habitat.

We will have to do this if it is to be our home world for more millenia, even if we also colonise other planets and solar systems

[Guest]

We are currently undergoing the 7th great extinction. This is the first anthropogenic extinction. Once a species goes extinct - it never comes back and will take millions of years to be replaced through evolution. Most of the damage is occuring in the poor countries where population is still growing, but even in the developed world biodiversity has declined by 40% in the last 30years. We depend on biodiversity for our air, water and soil. We cannot ignore the consequences of population and it would take centuries/millenia to drop back to sustainable levels of population.

Br Cornelius

[Mr Walker]

We are currently undergoing the 7th great extinction. This is the first anthropogenic extinction. Once a species goes extinct - it never comes back and will take millions of years to be replaced through evolution. Most of the damage is occuring in the poor countries where population is still growing, but even in the developed world biodiversity has declined by 40% in the last 30years. We depend on biodiversity for our air, water and soil. We cannot ignore the consequences of population and it would take centuries/millenia to drop back to sustainable levels of population.

Br Cornelius

Why do you think this? The earth's population could be reduced by half in two generations, if current falls in fertility rates continue. If every woman has only one child, then the next generation will be half the numbers of its parent's generation, and the next generation will be only a quarter of its grandparents. That figure is already being approached in parts of the world.

Given present trends and numbers, once fertility levels fall below replacement levels, it will only take two generations for numbers to fall very dramatically, once the older generation dies off. So, by the end of this century, the worlds pop could well be less than it is now and in rapid decline.

However, it is not about the numbers but about the resource use and ecological footprint of individuals. I 'consume", or require for my sustenance as an australian, 2 and a half hectares of the earth's surface. In the third world it is a few square metres per person. It is this inequality which is unsustainable. We can't afford the throw away, wasteful, consumer society of the west.

Humans have the technological abilty to restore both biodiversity and habitat to the earth, once we control population and consumption to sustainable levels. However, while we could reintroduce wooly mamoths dodos and tasmanian tigers to the earth, I am not sure that would be a wise move. Probably halting decline in, and mimimallly improving, the biodiversity might be safer and more feasible, at least to begin with.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Mr Walker