WW3 wouldn't affect world's population

[danielost]

I remember reading something about the New World Order elites want to cull the population from 7 billion to 500 millions calling that a healthy sustainable population.

One thing is for sure we need to leave the third world countries to their own devices, no more aide, no food, no medical help, nothing and let nature take its course. I have heard the western worlds foreign aide programs to third world counties being compared to feeding the pigeons in the park, it only gets you more pigeons.

The western world selflessness is now destroying them via all the immigration legal and illegal from the counties they naively help overpopulate.

you want the first world to go broke.

[Guest]

you want the first world to go broke.

Indeed, we are not involved out of a sense of charity - we are the net recipients of benefit from our aid as it comes with access to the resources we so desperately need. Cut off from the developing world and everything becomes dramatically dearer for us in the developed world.

Br Cornelius

[Socio]

That's just cold..

Socio, is this short for sociopathic? Because thats whats this statement makes you sound like. (IMO)

I would think it far more kind to force them in to living and procreating within their means and resources and not just for them but the whole world.

It could be also viewed as cruel when we manage (cull) wild life but it keeps them from exceeding their resources and establishes healthier populations.

The means can be very hard sometimes, even seem cruel, but when it justifies the ends it is a good thing.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Socio

[Karasu]

One thing is for sure we need to leave the third world countries to their own devices, no more aide, no food, no medical help, nothing and let nature take its course.

I sort of agree.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Karasu

[Ogbin]

I would think it far more kind to force them in to living and procreating within their means and resources

Haven't we been trying to force a better life on the people in Middle East for the last 10 years or so? Tell me, hows that been working out? Their is nothing wrong with helping those who "need" help. You can't always blame civilians for their leaders actions and deny them the aid in which some of them desperately need. Did you know that if you make over 3000 dollars(USD) a year you are considered amongst the top 5 richest people in the world? That means there are going to be people in the world who just need a little help to get by from time to time, it's a given. You can't force people to do better if they don't have the means to do so.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Ogbin

[CJ1983]

There are ways to solve overpopulation but you need the religions and people to go along with it. Its called birth control but with religions preaching you shouldn't do anything to prevent pregnancy it will be hard. Maybe modern medicine should be held back from populations that won't practice birth control. Can't have people living to100 if they are having a dozen kids.

Another reason to close borders. Other countries can't keep breeding them and shipping them around the world.

In china you can have a career as a population control expert. I don't know exactly what they do, but it sounds sketchy.

Border control has nothing to do with total population btw.

Wars, famine, unclean water reduce numbers in Africa daily. Some people believe we do nothing to help in order to keep world numbers down.

But in all actuality if the world worked as one whole to better humanity, we could easily provide food, water, and homes for all, the world is not running out of water like some people want you to believe. They just tell you that to sell prepping supplies.

Just become more self reliant and you'll be ok. Pollution is what may kill off the population before a lack of supplies due to excessive amounts of people does.

Edited October 29, 2014 by CJ1983

[Ogbin]

Did you know that if you make over 3000 dollars(USD) a year you are considered amongst the top 5 richest people in the world?

this should say top 5 percent.. sorry.

[Grandpa Greenman]

A lot depends on what happen with the environment and how the global weather goes. Our weather has been stable a long time, but that doesn't mean it going to stay that way. I think we are on the verge of an environmental collapse. War is going to small potatoes compared to that. Historically we have already gone through near extinction event 150,000 years ago, because of weather change. When you think about it, we are the last of our kind maybe that should kind of tell us something.

[Deleted]

@socio

you shoudl think about the worth of all living things......

secondly the third world only exists because of the first world and the colonisation, because countries were destroyed artificial borders were created, existing political, religious and social structures were destroyed etc..... some of them 1000 years old.....it is a bit arrogant to say you cut the aid, when the root of the problem came out of Europe, also most of the times the aids are loans which have high interest rates, in fact they are traps. It is a highly complex situation why some countries have a "overpopulation" and why they are so poor. And I could write an essay about it.....so saying don`t feed them when in fact you are living from them (cheap cloths, cheap products, food, recources..etc) is very cheap and ignorant

anyway there is no real aid only economical and political calculation, corruption and imperialism..... In reality tehre is teh technology and there is enough food for teh whoel population, but there is no unity on this planet,... and I don`t know if there will be a united world soon, but teh past 15 years has shown us that teh UN has no power and the UN woudl have been the first step to unity.

Edited October 29, 2014 by hellwyr

[+DieChecker]

The measurable reality is that its exactly what happens. As a consequence of reduced child mortality and better education countries like Bangladesh have dropped their fertility rates to comparable levels to Europe and America. It is evidence that development, education and healthcare are the only proven methods of reducing birth rates.

Br Cornelius

All European based cultures. Japan is following our example, but they basically took the US model and adapted it to their use.

What you say about Bangladesh is also true of most nations. Regardless of their standard of living, or their national economy, or their education, or their healthcare.

You're claiming your talisman drives away tigers, but the only proof you have is that there aren't any tigers about.

Correlation is not always causation.

The lower 48 of the US has a density of 103 people per sq mile, while Bangladesh has a density of 1237 people per sq mile. So, my opinion is that quality of life due to crowding has something to do with the lowered fertility rates.

[Guest]

All European based cultures. Japan is following our example, but they basically took the US model and adapted it to their use.

What you say about Bangladesh is also true of most nations. Regardless of their standard of living, or their national economy, or their education, or their healthcare.

You're claiming your talisman drives away tigers, but the only proof you have is that there aren't any tigers about.

Correlation is not always causation.

The lower 48 of the US has a density of 103 people per sq mile, while Bangladesh has a density of 1237 people per sq mile. So, my opinion is that quality of life due to crowding has something to do with the lowered fertility rates.

Anywhere that invests in education and child health care see reductions in Birth rates. Your correlation is not causation argument is getting old when you haven't actually got anything to say. Unfortunately for you correlation frequently is because of causation.

Br Cornelius

[SHaYap]

There will not be a need for WW3 :

Great Barrier Reef protection plan 'ignores the threat of climate change'

Scientists warn the government’s strategy is likely to prove ineffectual as ‘unless Australia cuts back on carbon dioxide emissions we won’t have much of a Great Barrier Reef left’

• 
  Oliver Milman
  
• theguardian.com, Monday 27 October 2014 16.41 GMT
  

• guardian link
  

When more and more of these reefs all over the world go, there will be little else worth fighting over ~

[Capt Amerika]

The best way to fix the overpopulation is a robust space exploration program.

We need to be finding ways to travel deeper and faster into space in hopes of setting up colonies on other planets.

If you take 7 billion people and split them up between two or three other planets the tight living quarters eases up considerably.

Obviously this would take time and a lot of money but we ignore the space program at our own peril.

Spending Billions and Billions of dollars to feed people across the planet has done nothing but exacerbate the problem with continued population growth.

Its past time to do something serious to fix the problem and i doubt neutering people would go over very well.

Just my opinion

[danielost]

The best way to fix the overpopulation is a robust space exploration program.

We need to be finding ways to travel deeper and faster into space in hopes of setting up colonies on other planets.

If you take 7 billion people and split them up between two or three other planets the tight living quarters eases up considerably.

Obviously this would take time and a lot of money but we ignore the space program at our own peril.

Spending Billions and Billions of dollars to feed people across the planet has done nothing but exacerbate the problem with continued population growth.

Its past time to do something serious to fix the problem and i doubt neutering people would go over very well.

Just my opinion

yes but in a hundred years you end up with over 14,000,000,000.

[+DieChecker]

Anywhere that invests in education and child health care see reductions in Birth rates. Your correlation is not causation argument is getting old when you haven't actually got anything to say. Unfortunately for you correlation frequently is because of causation.

Br Cornelius

But isn't it true that nations with Bangladesh's education level historically had fertility rate issues? Isn't it true there are nations with good education and fertility problems. Isn't it true there are nations where the fertility rates are dropping and they have totally crap education? There are too many outliers in your theory. It is a fine theory, but unproven.

Even Bangladesh has severe education issues, yet you'd suggest that somehow they now have a fertility rate equal to France due to it. And that logic just doesn't add up.

[Socio]

@socio

you shoudl think about the worth of all living things......

I believe it was the philosopher Sidney Hook that said;

"Paradoxical as it may sound life itself is not a value. What gives life its quality is not mere existence but its quality. Whoever proclaims live is worth living under any circumstances has written himself and epitaph of infamy. For there is no principal or human being that he will not betray, there is no indignity he will not suffer or compound."

People is these their world countries have no quality of life, in fact procreation with no means of support for their offspring is tantamount to child abuse, in fact could be construed as pure selfishness even evil to bare a child in to that world.

Would not the inhumane thing be to keep enabling it?

Would not the humane thing be to stop it?

Edited October 31, 2014 by Socio

[Guest]

But isn't it true that nations with Bangladesh's education level historically had fertility rate issues? Isn't it true there are nations with good education and fertility problems. Isn't it true there are nations where the fertility rates are dropping and they have totally crap education? There are too many outliers in your theory. It is a fine theory, but unproven.

Even Bangladesh has severe education issues, yet you'd suggest that somehow they now have a fertility rate equal to France due to it. And that logic just doesn't add up.

Bangladesh has invested massively in education and healthcare and the results are lower fertility. They did this to address their endemic poverty and population problems - it worked.

http://www.bd.undp.org/content/bangladesh/en/home/mdgoverview/overview/mdg2/

The correlation is much more profound and strong than your casual dismissal suggests. Those countries which invest most in education and child healthcare (mainly vaccinations) see corresponding declines in birth rates.

The population explosion happened because traditionally it was necessary to have between 5-10 children in order to expect 2-4 to survive. it was a logical response to circumstances and created relatively stable population levels over time. People quickly realise that if you have 2-4 children then 2-3 will survive - they stop having 4-10 children. The issue was that once child mortality dropped it took a long time for people to realise the change and in that short spell of just 40-50 years the population went from 1-7 billion. If people are aware of decreased child mortaility then they rapidly stop having big families.

Education works in tandem because this

a) increases awareness of the better infant mortality rate

b )Children who are better educated offer better support to their parents in old age

c) education costs money and it is better for a family to invest more in few children than to have many unqualified children who are increasingly marginalised from the labour market

d) where education is not available fertility rates remain high because bigger families have the potential to produce more labour to support the parents in their old age, but generally this only applies to subsistence living.

The two are inextricably linked and always produce a corresponding decline in fertility. People are innately aspirational for their children and will follow the incentives to do what is best for their children and themselves.

Br Cornelius

Edited October 31, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

I believe it was the philosopher Sidney Hook that said;

"Paradoxical as it may sound life itself is not a value. What gives life its quality is not mere existence but its quality. Whoever proclaims live is worth living under any circumstances has written himself and epitaph of infamy. For there is no principal or human being that he will not betray, there is no indignity he will not suffer or compound."

People is these their world countries have no quality of life, in fact procreation with no means of support for their offspring is tantamount to child abuse, in fact could be construed as pure selfishness even evil to bare a child in to that world.

Would not the inhumane thing be to keep enabling it?

Would not the humane thing be to stop it?

Procreation is a reasonable response to high child mortality. High birth rates do not increase populations where high infant mortality also exists. It takes a generation or two to realise that high infant mortality is a thing of the past (due to vaccinations mainly) and for birth rates to naturally decline.

The people of the developing world are responding perfectly reasonably to their environment - but they are simply adjusting to the reality of lower infant mortality. This period of adjustment is the only thing needed to explain a rise of world population from 1 to 7 billion in two generations.

These are humans we are talking about making reasonable decisions about their circumstances in a changing world. There is a hint of racism in your attitude.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

Anywhere that invests in education and child health care see reductions in Birth rates. Your correlation is not causation argument is getting old when you haven't actually got anything to say. Unfortunately for you correlation frequently is because of causation.

Br Cornelius

But that is not the policy for western economies, our economies are interlinked with population growth = Economic growth, The statistics of falling birth rates puts the fear of god into Western Economies. Its why policies of mass immigration is enacted, against the wishes of the native populations.

But the growth in numbers of the Human population will ultimately be are down fall, i've always supported the idea of reducing over decades the UK's population to 30 Million from 63 Million we see today. i also see it as a way to save our planet, the Natural world.

You most probably seen this Sir David Attenborough presents the 2011 RSA President's Lecture.

Edited October 31, 2014 by stevewinn

[Socio]

Procreation is a reasonable response to high child mortality. High birth rates do not increase populations where high infant mortality also exists. It takes a generation or two to realise that high infant mortality is a thing of the past (due to vaccinations mainly) and for birth rates to naturally decline.

The people of the developing world are responding perfectly reasonably to their environment - but they are simply adjusting to the reality of lower infant mortality. This period of adjustment is the only thing needed to explain a rise of world population from 1 to 7 billion in two generations.

These are humans we are talking about making reasonable decisions about their circumstances in a changing world. There is a hint of racism in your attitude.

Br Cornelius

Ah the typical Left-Liberal response, resort to calling those who disagree with them bigots or racists or worse to shut down a debate. Kind of low for you to be stooping too isn't it Cornelius?

They are adjusting to the reality of lower infant mortality rate due to western world interference, at this growth rate in two more generations that 7 billion could be 24 billion, with the vast majority of them from third world countries which will cause, no necessitate mass migration to Western countries overwhelming whom they have become dependent upon essentially destroying the hands that feed them.

Then what?

World wide famine, starvation, diseases, plagues, wild life populations hunted to extinction for food on a global scale, cannibalism etc... and a quality of life for Humans that would resemble hell on earth!

Edited October 31, 2014 by Socio

[Guest]

Ah the typical Left-Liberal response, resort to calling those who disagree with them bigots or racists or worse to shut down a debate. Kind of low for you to be stooping too isn't it Cornelius?

They are adjusting to the reality of lower infant mortality rate due to western world interference, at this growth rate in two more generations that 7 billion could be 24 billion, with the vast majority of them from third world countries which will cause, no necessitate mass migration to Western countries overwhelming whom they have become dependent upon essentially destroying the hands that feed them.

Then what?

World wide famine, starvation, diseases, plagues, wild life populations hunted to extinction for food on a global scale, cannibalism etc... and a quality of life for Humans that would resemble hell on earth!

blaming the victims isn't going to stop what is somewhat inevitable. It is always best to understand the drivers of change so that we can at least harness those trends to achieve better outcomes. The UN predicts that current trends will see the world population peak out at 10billion which represents a self correction.

However, the real issue here is whether 10billion is a sustainable population when it happens. The answer is no. But let us not imagine that it is a third world problem, the problem has been and will remain a problem of consumption in the developed world and that is where the lead has to be taken. It is our problem as much as it is the problem of the developing world. we have historically and currently done more damage to the planet than all the billions in Africa.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

there is plenty enough food to feed 10 billion if that is what we want to do. we are also no longer restricted to having to grow all our food on a planet., who can if we wish put farms/cities in space. we have plenty enough cash/credit for it too.

[+DieChecker]

I think farming is space would be too expensive. Unless you are feeding people in space. Then it would be exceedingly cost effective.

I think building floating farm platforms on the ocean would be a better option.

[danielost]

I think farming is space would be too expensive. Unless you are feeding people in space. Then it would be exceedingly cost effective.

I think building floating farm platforms on the ocean would be a better option.

we have already seen the price of a ticket to the iss drop from 2 million to 3 hundred thousand. the more flights the cheaper it will get, to a point.

but floating farms would work too. but at the moment we can feed a lot more than we are. we just need to redo how our farmers get paid. the usa government still pays farmers not to farm in order to keep prices up, and then turn around and pay those who are farming in order to keep prices low.

Edited November 2, 2014 by danielost

[qxcontinuum]

And this growth can simply stop by allowing each family having one child. In this scenario two dies (parents) and one remains (the child). Then he gets married having another single child and so on... Simple put taxes to pay for each additional child.