Population Bomb

[Gunn]

Humanity has to take some responsibilty for itself and stop the proliferation of the species in its tracks and this should be done by forcefully sterilising large sections of the populations who shouldn't be breeding anyway.

There is only so long the natural world can support the burden of the human race.

Damned if you are not right, sir. My first proposal is castration, the ultimate practice of sterlisation. Also, the females across this planet will not haft to worry about late night headaches, will be doing them a favour as well. Therefore, my second proposal is we start with you. You can show us how much you believe and support in our cause, that humans are a plague upon the earth and lead by example. What say you?!

[onereaderone]

this is all quite retro . they were worried that the human race would disappear off the face of the earth befor the 1900's over populate in the 1930's ... what point of veiw fails to see is the weapons the future holds out ...

one out of controll bio wep will solve all these over population issues ... what we really need to work on is fresh water systems and electrical power grids .

the easy answers to over population are that poor people die very easily when things go wrong ... just relax... nature is no where near as fragile as you might think , and you are no where near as tough and bullet proof as you might think....

history is a better teacher than political talking points and global warming predictions that absolutly will happen by the year 2000 ! every one knows that these predictions have been flawless , we must tax the air or life will end....

and killing 6 million jews must have seemed like a good idea at the time to save the planet ... lets just calm down , and look at what the data says ...

something that was known in the 1930's was the relationship between weather and crops...

when you grow alot of cropps , you raise the oxygen levels and lower the carbondioxide , you have more fires and things heat up and you have more wars ...

if you harvest everything and do not plant , stop planting crops ...

you lower the oxygen and raise the carbon dioxide... plants grow better , but things get cooler , and sleepy

did i point out... if you have more feilds of planted grass's , corn , rice and food production... the crops pull the carbondioxide out of the air... lowering it.... and raising the oxygen ... heating the world up... like global warming.

making climat change ... from planting stuff . of course thats what the obvious record shows if your not pushing a political point of veiw that has nothing to do with what is really happening....

the same is true with population . people are not dieing , thats a good thing . i understand its hard to grasp , but death is not a good thing .. it still happens among the stupid people who hate all that western technology ... if the political types just get out of the way... i suspect that the stupid people will get wealthy... and stop having kids just like the englanders and other rich people of the earth ... having a large familys is expensive , and takes alot of time away from living ... just relax , i suspect everything will work out .

[Professor T]

There are good reasons for saying that at the current population, with the current lifestyle and technology, we are at twice that limit. We currently have billions living in poverty (real, not relative).

Technology has no magic bullets to pull out of the hat to change that situation in the next 40yrs, by which time the earth will be in a very bad way. GMO will not save the aquifers or the soil from depletion. The only option is to change our lifestyle to a none consumptive one. What are you prepared to give up to make society sustainable ? I suspect the answer for most people is - nothing.

Br Cornelius

The only thing anyone has to give up imo is our nature distructive practices.. Fracking, Nuclear energy, and our insane social & economic systems that support this.. It is foolish that humanity works against nature and nieve to think we are apart from it..

[Little Fish]

Did you not see my thread about the birth rates in England?

nope, did it start with a daily mail article perchance?

How can the birth rate return to zero without immigration?

the population will decline to zero at the current birth rates. to stand still a population (western/modern) needs a fertility rate of 2.1, which means every woman during her lifetime gives birth to 2.1 children (average).

england has a fertility rate of 1.8 last I looked it up, so its in decline with most of the other western and asian countries. It is only mainly african countries that have fertility rates of 5-8 because of abject poverty, because survival there requires large families.

unless every British person becomes sterile over night! ................ Have I read your post right, cos I can`t believe you are saying the population will decline to zero without immigration?

yep it will, unless the birth rate increases to 2.1 per woman.

...and ehrlich is a foolish quack and self hating eugenicist who sycophantically sucks up to pretentious psychopathic self styled elites.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Little Fish

[freetoroam]

england

so its in decline with most of the other western and asian countries. It is only mainly african countries that have fertility rates of 5-8 because of abject poverty, because survival there requires large families.

In England, the Asians (Indians) are having more than 2 children and the Africans are still breeding like they did in Africa, there is no need for them to keep doing this.

I do agree that at the rate it is now, the white man will dwindle to become the minority if something is not done soon, but we can not tell what will happen in a few hundred years time, those who come up with those sort of stats did not even foresee what would happen today, no one knew it would be like this.

When people started giving money to African countries to help the starving years back, who would have known then that we would still be doing it today and they would still be breeding so much? We just can not tell what the future holds, what concerns me more is not the immigrant growth as such, it is how people will live side by side without this country becoming another Syria or Egypt in years to come.

[Sean93]

So we should do what China does 1 family 1 child?

YES.

[Ashotep]

I think the day will come we wished we had of limited the amount of children people have. I'm all for after three kids snip snip for both parents. Either that or we should stop feeding starving people in overpopulated countries and let nature take its course if that is the only thing that is understood. Really hard not to want to feed a starving person but we only have one planet and the aquifers are getting lower, oil, rainforest at today's population.

[Indiogene]

"You can't feed em, don't breed em" - People unable to financially support themselves as easily shouldn't be capable of supporting their children in poverty conditions.

Not only overpopulation strains the environment, supplies of necessities and stability of societies (i.e. India, subsaharan Africa and Central America as examples), how would a poor family be able to handle 5-6 children with a meagerly low income? I don't think it's possible without a modern welfare state solution to give out checks to assure the families can afford food and necessities.

It's a great idea for countries to institute a welfare system, then it seems to supported and promoted higher population growth in lower-income families to want more children in collecting higher sums of money in these cases.

[Ashotep]

Here's a couple of links I found that gave world and the US projected population.

Population Numbers, Projections, Graphs and Data

World Population Growth, Actual and Projected, 1950-2050

[Indiogene]

In England, the Asians (Indians) are having more than 2 children and the Africans are still breeding like they did in Africa, there is no need for them to keep doing this.

I do agree that at the rate it is now, the white man will dwindle to become the minority if something is not done soon, but we can not tell what will happen in a few hundred years time, those who come up with those sort of stats did not even foresee what would happen today, no one knew it would be like this.

When people started giving money to African countries to help the starving years back, who would have known then that we would still be doing it today and they would still be breeding so much? We just can not tell what the future holds, what concerns me more is not the immigrant growth as such, it is how people will live side by side without this country becoming another Syria or Egypt in years to come.

In the USA, many immigrants from developing countries also have higher birth rates than the general population and this fuels the debates we're having on immigration just like Europe is having, maybe the threat of overpopulation affected birth rates and natural growth of western countries with little or no effect in the developing world, despite the fertility rates are declining in some developing countries in a generation.

I don't feel threatened by immigration, in fact the USA is a land of immigrants and their numerous descendants are of various nationalities or ethnicities. But the conditions are ripe to produce reactions and some level of xenophobia among citizens of my country, like in Europe, feel threatened by waves of immigration coming there.

US foreign policy injured many developing countries in the cold war era and afterward, our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan will cause some more problems in the future we will be dealing with. The US wants to improve poorer nations, such as controlling higher population growth rates to sustainable levels and develop them until they are ready to become modernized stable economies able to support themselves.

[chopmo]

I didn't know where to put this. I finally chose this forum because over population will have an effect on the environment. It will cause more pollution and lack of natural resources. I will effect our quality of life, our ability to feed our families.

I think this professor is right the days of having 6 kids is over. What to do about it is another thing. Much higher taxes for those that chose to have more. A tax that is a percentage of your salary so it would be equally hard on the wealthy. Sterilization of anyone that has fathered or given birth to three kids. That would be harsh but starvation would be equally harsh.

There's absolutely no reason to have 6 or 8 kids anymore. Half of them aren't going to die from childhood diseases like they once would of. As a matter of fact now by having such large families you may be causing someone else to go without enough food. Because like it or not this planet is at its capacity and something has to be done.

Come at me mate, I don't agree with having a 1,000,000,002 kids but if the government comes at my testicles with a scalpel let's just say that modern protesting and riots and an understatement of what would happen if you came at peoples genitles. If the media and governments would only take responsibility for the slander and pro-**** compaigning they have been doing since the dawn of marketing "Sex Sells" remember? So when you consumer has all of their needs met they produce another hence engaging in the circle of life that is modern slavery.

And the stupid thing is people will say as a rebuttle to this, but when women had to cover themselves completely and so many of the laws of old. If we put a toy in front of someone/some-animal then take it away they instamatically want it because of the fact it is now mundane and you desire to see or discover more. Whether that is a built in trait of the modern human or has it always existed as a feeling like happy or upset. China did the same thing pushing sex untill they near maxed their capacity/resources and HAD to put a child limit in place, I think that actually has more on protecting the country from a mass incest outbreak down the generations.

[Guest]

Education and free availability of birth control - they are the solutions that have worked to slow population and they are the only solutions which will work in the future.

Get rid of religions which tell us to breed would help.

Br Cornelius

[freetoroam]

In the USA, many immigrants from developing countries also have higher birth rates than the general population and this fuels the debates we're having on immigration just like Europe is having, maybe the threat of overpopulation affected birth rates and natural growth of western countries with little or no effect in the developing world, despite the fertility rates are declining in some developing countries in a generation.

I don't feel threatened by immigration, in fact the USA is a land of immigrants and their numerous descendants are of various nationalities or ethnicities. But the conditions are ripe to produce reactions and some level of xenophobia among citizens of my country, like in Europe, feel threatened by waves of immigration coming there.

US foreign policy injured many developing countries in the cold war era and afterward, our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan will cause some more problems in the future we will be dealing with. The US wants to improve poorer nations, such as controlling higher population growth rates to sustainable levels and develop them until they are ready to become modernized stable economies able to support themselves.

I agree. But just a thought.......there was a time back in history when the native Indians of America were also not afraid of immigration, things soon changed.

[Bavarian Raven]

Education and free availability of birth control - they are the solutions that have worked to slow population and they are the only solutions which will work in the future.

This i agree with 100%

Get rid of religions which tell us to breed would help.

But a, you cannot simply do this. And B, you take away peoples hope and they have nothing to live for anymore.

[Guest]

This i agree with 100%

But a, you cannot simply do this. And B, you take away peoples hope and they have nothing to live for anymore.

Try walking in the atheists shoes for a while and you will realize that nothing in life changes. Religion is a crutch which allows you not to think about things but receive your wisdom in catchy predigested packages. When dogma teaches that birth control is wrong then dogma needs to be dumped.

Br Cornelius

[Ashotep]

The Catholic Church is always telling people not to use birth control and that is something that is helping fan the overpopulation problem. It's usually in poorer countries that they are listened to the most. The Pentecost I think may do this too but I really don't know. I think its wrong to keep telling people to spit out those kids when the kid might end up starving.

[Ashotep]

Come at me mate, I don't agree with having a 1,000,000,002 kids but if the government comes at my testicles with a scalpel let's just say that modern protesting and riots and an understatement of what would happen if you came at peoples genitles. If the media and governments would only take responsibility for the slander and pro-**** compaigning they have been doing since the dawn of marketing "Sex Sells" remember? So when you consumer has all of their needs met they produce another hence engaging in the circle of life that is modern slavery.

And the stupid thing is people will say as a rebuttle to this, but when women had to cover themselves completely and so many of the laws of old. If we put a toy in front of someone/some-animal then take it away they instamatically want it because of the fact it is now mundane and you desire to see or discover more. Whether that is a built in trait of the modern human or has it always existed as a feeling like happy or upset. China did the same thing pushing sex untill they near maxed their capacity/resources and HAD to put a child limit in place, I think that actually has more on protecting the country from a mass incest outbreak down the generations.

You can still have sex just not kids.

When governments do decide to implement limits on kids I have a feeling things will be so bad that most people will demand it. I don't think any action will be taken whatsoever until there's people living on top of each other, farm land shot and aquifers drained, not enough food or clean water for the masses. People that don't obey the 3 kid, or whatever, rule will most likely be turned in by their neighbors. Then you will either comply or be shot.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Hilander

[Bavarian Raven]

Try walking in the atheists shoes for a while and you will realize that nothing in life changes. Religion is a crutch which allows you not to think about things but receive your wisdom in catchy predigested packages. When dogma teaches that birth control is wrong then dogma needs to be dumped.

Except my religion doesn't teach any of this. It teaches to respect the world for it is all. It also teaches that respect, honour, self-reliance, and perseverance are things to aim for. Things that most people in the modern world are lacking and one of the main reasons we are having as many troubles as we are. So don't lump all of us into your "dogma" of a world view, please and thank you.

When governments do decide to implement limits on kids I have a feeling things will be so bad that most people will demand it. I don't think any action will be taken whatsoever until there's people living on top of each other, farm land shot and aquifers drained, not enough food or clean water for the masses. People that don't obey the 3 kid, or whatever, rule will most likely be turned in by their neighbors. Then you will either comply or be shot.

Welcome to zee Fourth Reich - where we've done everything we could to make your execution slow and painful, err, quick and pleasant. Please take a number and wait in line... /sarcasm.

Be careful what you wish for. It just might happen.

~

All that being said, we could easily have 10+ billion people on this planet and still maintain the biodiversity and ecosystems, etc. It all has to do with how we are living. We'd have to regress to much simpler lives, living in numerous smaller, high-compact communities that are all but self reliant on almost everything they need, with travel and trade being a rare luxury, and the only real major industries going towards space exploration and development, etc. Or something akin to this. But of course this will never happen. I for one cannot stand large groups of people. I would go bonkers... that being said. Give me a couple acres out in the sticks, and I could be almost totally self reliant for a good number of my daily needs... Lol - let the rest of the world fend for it self

Edited January 26, 2013 by Bavarian Raven

[Bavarian Raven]

To add onto what I said a post before, the problem is no one is willing to give an inch (let alone a mile). Heck, there are hundreds of easy to do things that can save electricity, fuel, money, etc. Heck, something as simple as not draining your bath/shower or sink water until it's cooled to room temperature would save a decent chunk of change (and energy) over the course of a year. It's small things like this that can make a big difference

[chopmo]

You can still have sex just not kids.

When governments do decide to implement limits on kids I have a feeling things will be so bad that most people will demand it. I don't think any action will be taken whatsoever until there's people living on top of each other, farm land shot and aquifers drained, not enough food or clean water for the masses. People that don't obey the 3 kid, or whatever, rule will most likely be turned in by their neighbors. Then you will either comply or be shot.

Yeah I understand I would be able to have sex still, but would you buy a ice cream machine that couldn't make ice cream? LOL!

Every time I imagine a scenario like this all I see is the corporate controlled slum world like the scenary for the Tekken movie and the many other movies that share similar worlds.

Personally, I still think Utopia would be the scariest over all tho. Just a creepy feeling about it. Both scenarios you could implement controlled birth limits, by death would be the coporate slum world, utopia would sport some weird laser thing that one click and your sterile after 3 childrens haha for each gender so choose carefully would be the focus points.

But all in all I don't think the Governments would ever enforce something like this at least while they don't have full control of people, as soon as it got too bad they would enforce labour and drop the minimum working age (slavery) or manditory military service (wars and lots of them).

Edited January 26, 2013 by chopmo

[Frank Merton]

Overpopulation is yesterday's falling sky; today's is global warming (which, by the way, seems to be a more real threat).

I have no idea what the carrying capacity of the earth might be, and I think it would be foolish for us to carry out the experiment. Nevertheless, with a much larger population, people today live much better lives than in the past. Population growth is decreasing, both in countries with stiff population control policies like China and in countries where family planning is encouraged but without legal bounds, like Vietnam. As living standards improve the cost of children proportionate to their work value increases and population growth slows.

It must be kept in mind that in the end the people is the only real asset a country has. The rest is just monetary fantasy. A healthy, educated population (such as Japan) does well without all the resources -- indeed, without much land. The superpowers of the last part of this century will probably be India and China, simply because they have the most people.

[Guest]

Overpopulation is yesterday's falling sky; today's is global warming (which, by the way, seems to be a more real threat).

I have no idea what the carrying capacity of the earth might be, and I think it would be foolish for us to carry out the experiment. Nevertheless, with a much larger population, people today live much better lives than in the past. Population growth is decreasing, both in countries with stiff population control policies like China and in countries where family planning is encouraged but without legal bounds, like Vietnam. As living standards improve the cost of children proportionate to their work value increases and population growth slows.

It must be kept in mind that in the end the people is the only real asset a country has. The rest is just monetary fantasy. A healthy, educated population (such as Japan) does well without all the resources -- indeed, without much land. The superpowers of the last part of this century will probably be India and China, simply because they have the most people.

The evidence that we are living beyond our means is in the form of ecological indices. The ones that really matter are rates of species decline and extinctions. These are very high with many species showing declines of well over 40%. That mostly happened in the period when population grew from 3 to 7 billion. If we were living within the carrying capacity of the planet this would not be happening.

It is arguable that if we changed our behaviour the carrying capacity could be much higher, but we are not significantly changing our behaviour and so the decline in biodiversity looks locked into our modern lifestyle.

This is the situation with 7 billion - add another 2-3billion will wipe out a significant number more species. Eventually we remove keystone species and something really bad happens to the whole system in a totally unpredictable way. The ecosystem will recover when the population pressure reduces but that means that most of us will probably not be around to see it.

Br Cornelius

[Zeta Reticulum]

The current version of intelligent beings on this planet although being beautiful and creative, is in reality a grand failure.

It will eventually become extinct, and in eons to come, the earth will hold host to a new intelligent being, which may or may not be better in many ways to that which we are.

[Ashotep]

With the aquifers getting low it won't be that long before this planet won't support the population we have now. There won't be enough food and I think its a crime that some religions won't endorse birth control.

[Render]

About That Overpopulation Problem

Research suggests we may actually face a declining world population in the coming years.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html

Overpopulation is a myth and hyped by the media as the new doomsday event.

The world evolved constantly. If there would be more ppl science and all the rest will evolve with it..it wont "suddenly hit us". Otherwise the same reasoning could've been used by ppl in the past about now, and we're doing better as a population than ever before, in the grand scheme of things.