Overpopulation

[SARGE]

What are we leaving our kids & grandkids? So easy to shrug and say it's inevitable, but alas that's the tune:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/16/140240.shtml

[avx]

Thats a tough one.

To put a limit on childbirth in this day and age is simply...Tim, give me a word, I cant even think of one to fit the situation...but then when you think about how some families barely make 10,000 a year, and have upwards of 8 or 9 kids, you can really understand that common sense is not a strong trait in some households, and would actually be better off if someone *told* them how to live.

[Eaglefeather]

A dozen or more years ago, hollywood made a movie about overpopulation. Mind you they took it to the extreme, and it is a scary prospect.

Unfortunately convincing the politicians and the people themselves that overpopulation is a serious threat would be a major undertaking doomed to failure at least for the forseeable future.

Nothing will be done until it is really too late to do anything.

Oh and the name of the movie, "Soilent Green".

Mother nature has been trying to control mankind for a very long time, without success. However with these new diseases, such as AIDS and SARS, the reappearance of TB but in a drug resistant form, many deseases becoming immune to antibiotics and the possibility of new diseases to come, perhaps one of these days she will start to win.

In any case it is a heck of a legacy to be leaving to our kids. Perhaps they will be a little smarther than we were, but somehow I doubt it.

[Paul Victorey]

Well, some of the problems might be cured by simply working harder to industrialize the world. There is no first-world nation with a population explosion; in fact, in America, if we didn't have the effects of immigration, we'd be continuously decreasing in population -- Americans, on average, have only 1.9 children per couple, as opposed to the 2.3 or 2.4 needed to maintain the population.

No first world nation truly has population problems; few even have growing populations. It's primarily in poor nations that populations are skyrocketing.

In a way, it makes sense -- in nations where you're likely to lose more than one child to premature death, you have more to compensate. E.g. Iraq's population is predicted to double in 20 years time; 12.5% of their children are dead before age 5.

[Force Flow]

No one want to die "before their time", thus the reason for scientific ways to "cheat death". This has been going on since the first appearace of humans. I remember reading about a prehistoric human skull in National Geographic, which had a crudely cut square hole in it. It showed signs of healing. Without recounting the whole article, the conclusion was that prehistoric surgery was performed to reduce swelling of the brain due to a head injury.

Getting back on topic, uncontrolled conception, as I think Nick was trying to say, is one of the main causes of overpopulation. Poor and disadvantaged families are the large source of this problem. Other sources are people who are not educated, or just don't care.

If we can't strike at the root of the problem, it can't really be solved. Unless we start colonizing other planets or build a large space station, the problem will just get larger. Course, that means that humans will infest the rest of the galaxy...

I hate to say this, but world peace also contributes to the problem of overpopulation. Diseases were also a large part of life that kept the population at a sustainable level.

Now, I'm not saying that we should wipe off portions of the earth like a petri dish, as everyone has a right to live, but this is really insane.

[Paul Victorey]

I think war and disease CAUSE overpopulation. The areas of the world in which there is the most overpopulation, the most population growth, etc. are areas that are predominatly poor, with bad health care and economic/political instability. People in moderately wealthy, stable societies don't have a population problem; in fact, if anything, those populations are decreasing.

[Cricket]

Soylent Green (1973) (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0070723)

Paul Victorey is right...almost all the developed countries have low growth, stable or declining populations. Most of the Western European countries fall into this catagory as well as Japan, Australia and Canada.

Almost every single third world or developing country has a population growth problem. China and India each have over 1 billion citizens each...1/3 of the world's population in just two countries.

Can you imagine a world with 10 billion people on it? We have roughly 6.3 billion right now and scientists have stated that there is no way the planet's natural resources can support that many humans.

More and more wars will be fought over natural resources...especially water rights.

:) Cricket

[Andrewxcav]

Im sure there is enough nuclear energy to support the world, with enough electricity you can make al lthe clean water and oxygen you want form seawateer, the most abundant resource i cna think of, but the world is very anti-nuclear

[DragonBreath]

I've seen a bumper sticker that fits well here.
"Can't Feedem Don't Breedem"
db

[Computer Hobbyist]

Self interest plays the dominant role in overpopulation. The reason folks in third world countries over produce is really very simple. Inorder to grow the food needed they have to make sure they have sufficient workers to work the fields -- children are a wonderful cheap source of labor. As they grow older those same children insure they have some measure of security in their old age. Be fruitful and multiply has real value if you live on a subsistence farm, as do many in the third world.

We can all say that the folks in the third world are stupid and that the folks in the first world have to "educate" the "obviously" inferior, generally brown or black "fast breeders," but the ancestors of the current populations in the first world were fast breeders as well.

When my grandparents lived on the farm they had a large family with many kids. So did every body they knew. When my parents moved to the city the self interest changed and the number of offspring produced in my family has dropped with each generation.

Until we change the perceived self interest in having many children among millions upon millions of subsistence farmers, we will suffer from the effects of overpopulation.

CH

[Cricket]

Originally posted by Andrewxcav
Im sure there is enough nuclear energy to support the world, with enough electricity you can make al lthe clean water and oxygen you want form seawateer, the most abundant resource i cna think ofSure, but can the poorer countries afford nuclear power to desalinate seawater? I work for the local water supply here on Oahu and we're in the process of building a desalination plant...it's a very expensive process.

Besides, with 10 billion people on this planet we'll have the "crowded rat syndrome"...too many people, not enough personal space.

:) Cricket

[Computer Hobbyist]

I didn't know Hawaii was a poor struggling third world country. :)

CH

[rave]

well countyie like singapore and japan have started to limit the number of children their citizens produce...
its like 2 kids to a family

[Cricket]

Originally posted by rave
well countyie like singapore and japan have started to limit the number of children their citizens produce...
its like 2 kids to a family It's China, not Japan...Japan has negative population growth.

[Cricket]

Originally posted by Computer Hobbyist
I didn't know Hawaii was a poor struggling third world country. :)Not quite third world :D...but the population on Oahu has been growing steadily and there is only so much fresh water to go around. The fresh water lens in our aquifers have been steadily reducing in size over the years.

:) Cricket

[TimPoet]

Ok, enough of the doom and gloom. We don't have an overpopulation problem on this planet and we never will. We WILL always have little Henny Penny's running around screaming that the sky is falling.
We would do better to have more children even.
For instance, remember the Ethiopan mass starvations? They weren't caused by too many people, they were caused by a disrupted economy due to corrupt political rule.
This planet can easily sustain hundreds of times more people than it has as we enter into capitalistic economies. Remember all the STARVING children in China? Well, what do you hear about that these days? What do you know, capitalism has gotten a foothold and now China is one of the next big markets the world is clamoring to tap into.
We're doing fine and that author and his "expert" are just clucking away. :)
Don't worry, be happy.
Trust.
Originally posted by avx
Thats a tough one.

To put a limit on childbirth in this day and age is simply...Tim, give me a word, I cant even think of one to fit the situation... Unnecessary. Barbaric. Evil. Take your pick....

[Byte 2.0]

to Quote Bender
Were Boned

[pam123]

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldgr.gif

The world population growth rate is nose diving and what growth there is will not be taking place in USA.
Please note, 5 years ago it was projected at 14 billion now it's 9 billion and still dropping.
I call this guy a fear monger, he's misusing facts.
I also object to that "politically correct" crack he made.
I note that he's using a version of the same nativist argument that's been used since the days of "no Irish need apply".

[Computer Hobbyist]

when I was in college, a lifetime ago, we studied the same overpopulation material and explored the same theories. Some claimed that religion played a role in overpopulation. They pointed to the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, on close inspection, we discovered that the Republic of Ireland (a Catholic country) had one of the lowest rates of reproduction in the world. Why, well, on even closer inspection we discovered that the folks in Ireland were not following what the Church preached. Instead they were delaying reproduction and reducing family size in response to what they individually perceived to be their own self-interests.

On the other hand we studied India. At the time the country was heavily into reducing population through family planning. They were not as successful as they hoped, even though poll after poll showed the average citizen was aware of the need to reduce family size and generally supported the government's programs. Why? Citizens thought family planning was a great idea for the country as a whole, but a bad idea for them personnally. They perceived a personal economic value in having a large family.

Until we eliminate the economic system of subsistence farming that has served mankind well and still dominates the lives of the vast majority of the people in the world, family farmers will continue to see the need for large families. Everything starts with changing how people make a living. In two or three generations the average family size will drop to sustainable levels.

What I am trying to say is that overpopulation is a world and national problem but reproduction is an individual/family activity. You have to change what the individual wants to do.

By the way, why the rapid increase in population? Well, that is a direct result of first world medicine being delivered to the third world. In the old days if a farmer had eight to ten kids only 2 or 3 might grow up to reproduce. That all changed with modern medicine.

CH

[pam123]

India now has a rising middleclass and a steadily declining rate of population growth.
They're going to have to make-up for decades of error but they are getting there.
Subsistence farming is going to be with us for awhile to come, there's no way most of the globe goes tech in the next few decades, but population growth has slowed across all economic levels.
Subsistence farmers, given the chance, use birth control just as readily as their big city counterparts.
The deciding factors are availability and affordability and it's not taking 2 or 3 generations.
I remember that study form India, given the numbers coming in now they changed their minds within one generation despite Indira Gahndi's attempt at forced sterilization, which surely gave population control a bad name.

[SARGE]

Seems a simple enough equation - too many people + limited resources = problems. Looking around my own town I can see the results (bad) of folks stacked upon folks.

[pam123]

All too ofter you're not looking at too many people and not enough resources, you're looking at throughly corrupt governments.
This is what plagues most of the world. Many governments are called kleptocracies for good reason.
If the city planners out your way are like the city planners around here, what your looking at is same problems cities always have, "politcs is the art of the possible" and no one wants the pain.

[avx]

@ Tim - I in a way agree with you Tim, this world could support a seemingly infinite number of people...but the only problem is, can it support them comfortably? I think Cricket can vouch for me when I say, to live in a society where it is 1 family on top of another without much room, it is not a comfortable situation. I did a report on Hawaii when I was in eigth grade, and hapefully Cricket will correct any mistakes I make cause Im recalling all this from memory...but while Hawaii is a beautiful place, very rich in culture with a great tourism industry, and not to mention some of the nicest people you could meet...there one major problem is population...so many people living 1 right next to the other...no one has any room to "breathe" if you will...and it causes conflicts with some people, not to mention that where ever there are people around this is bound to be pillution, and when you have a mass of them very close together, the pollution mounts quickly.

And as you also know...this planet is convered by I believe 75% water...now maybe in the future we will have all these artificial island at sea that I always see on that show Engineering the Impossible, but even then...you pollute the oceans...I think if we could learn how to use resorces better, and find alternate means of energy, and better recycling technology, and possibly a more efficiant building style for residentila areas, over population should not cause a problem...but thats a whole lot of things you need to do before you can even start thinking postivley

[Propain]

Youre all welcome to come live up here in Canada POP.35 million . 10 % approx. of population of the Unites States of America. but Canada is bigger. So lots of room. :D

[mystvearn]

Originally posted by Propaine
Youre all welcome to come live up here in Canada POP.35 million . 10 % approx. of population of the Unites States of America. but Canada is bigger. So lots of room. :D

I would advise against that suggestion. History had showed us when there were migration of poeple from one nation to the another nation, lots of chaos. Even here the same thing happen around 80 years ago.

I don't think it is that much of a problem. A few countries in europe(forgot which one) actually have declining population. Third world countries have a steady increase in population. Industralize oriented countries have very small growth cause to raise a child is hard-thats what happend to a neighbouring country(south) until the goverment had to make insentives for those who have children, still does not look that good though.;)

What concerns me is that humans waste lots of resource that they have around them.

[ktkendall]

I remember reading a few years ago that the entire population of the earth could be put on the continent of Australia and every person would have a half an acre of space to himself, so the point was that to say overpopulation is a big problem was not true but greed is the problem....

[pam123]

You've forgotten such matters as water and topsoil but you're close.
Not that population control isn't necessary but that "the sky is falling" reaction, is a lie.

[mystvearn]

and The green house effect

[ktkendall]

I do realize that a huge percentage of land is uninhabitable, but our fried Saddam in IRAN I believe was a good example of greed, He lived in Luxury while the large percentage of the people lived in need....

How about CEO's and such in our country, 50million a year and we need to give concessions to help the company during this weak economic crisis....

[mystvearn]

Now we are going to another topic-capitalis. CEO's willdo anything to keep earning what they have. Everyone will think for himself when they are forced to survive-basic instinct

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by mystvearn
Now we are going to another topic-capitalis. CEO's willdo anything to keep earning what they have. Everyone will think for himself when they are forced to survive-basic instinct Actually, this whole discussion is based on capitalism. It's the hindrances to true capitalism that cause population problems.

[mystvearn]

Capitalsm is the only thing that work. Communist failed, Feudal failed.

[avx]

I rather like capitalism...essentially the ideals behind it are the "American Dream" but as was mentioned before...its the greed that causes the real problem. People are always trying to keep an upper hand...even when they dont need it..

[mystvearn]

and sometimes it looks like using diplomatic channels to get what they want...

[Andrewxcav]

in pure capitalism corperations are forced to make life better-faster-cheaper, to meet the demands of the concumers

[avx]

Whens the last time anyones life was ever made better-faster-cheaper by any corporation...?;)

[doctorgonzo]

All one has to do is look at the source of that news article to determine its validity.

As the third world (slowly) keeps on industrializing, birth rates will drop, and the world population will stabilize. In fact, in many places, such as Russia, the population will start to drop precipitously in the future if no other forces counteract it. We aren't doomed to a Malthusian future.

That said, what is of concern is the standard of living that people can have. Everybody has a "footprint" corresponding to their standard of living, and the higher your standard of living, the larger your footprint. For example, people with high standards of living eat more meat; that meat requires crops for feed, and those crops need land to grow on. Same thing applies to water, coal and natural gas for electricity, etc. For fun, you can go here (http://www.lead.org/leadnet/footprint/intro.htm) to see what your footprint is. For Americans, it seems to be around 20 acres per person; there are about 6 acres of land per person on the planet.

Of course, technology and productivity increases will make it easier to sustain more people from the same set of inputs, but it does make you think.

[Computer Hobbyist]

The "footprint" concept is important, but with all such studies you need to check the science behind the charts before reaching any conclusions. Often the person creating the "footprint" will have a bias one way or another. His study results will be affected by that bias either as a result of knowing deception or, more often, an unconscious flawed study design.

"Higher standard of living" is a value loaded term. Every body in the first world has a diferent standard of living than his or her grandparents. Whether that standard of living is higher is a value judgment.

CH

[Andrewxcav]

Originally posted by avx
Whens the last time anyones life was ever made better-faster-cheaper by any corporation...?;)

There is no pure capitilism though

[Computer Hobbyist]

Andrew,

Don't worship capitalism. Capitalism is not a god. It is not a religion. It is simply an attempt to explain how things work. If an explaination that more accurately or fully discribes human economic interaction comes along, dump capitalism and adopt it as a working model until something better comes along.

Pure capitalism, like pure communism, has never existed, except in the mind of some warped dreamer. It can't exist, because pure capitalism doesn't mirror reality.

CH

[Andrewxcav]

duely noted

[TimPoet]

CH,
But capitalism buried communism....

[SARGE]

Originally posted by avx
Whens the last time anyones life was ever made better-faster-cheaper by any corporation...?;)

When SBC launched their DSL.

[mystvearn]

Originally posted by TimPoet
CH,
But capitalism buried communism....

communism is not good either

[ktkendall]

Originally posted by SARGE
When SBC launched their DSL.

GOOD ONE!

[Computer Hobbyist]

I don't know how to explain this, except to say that communism was another attempt to explain how things worked. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, it was promoted as an economic "religion" or "god" by some well meaning, but very wrong, people. Other folks, like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro etc.tried to spread the "religion" as religions have often been spread by both the word and the sword. Communism, as a macro economic theory, failed to fully predict or explain how things work. In short, the Russians learned the hard way that applying Communist principals to an economic problem didn't solve the problem. The faithful followers of Communism, the religion, lost faith and Communism failed.

We in the West would do well to learn from the Russians and others who followed Communism the religion. Economic "isms" are all false religions. They are instead efforts to explain how things work. In the case of Communism, millions died because the Russians were unwilling to modify their religion to fit the world in which they lived. The Russians were not the first to refuse to modify their religious vision when confronted with a more complete understanding of the world, nor will they be the last.

CH

[avx]

Very well put CH:)

I like Dennis Millers take on communism:

"Communism is one of those things that looks real good on paper, but it just aint gonna work."

Its a paradox:)

[doctorgonzo]

Capitalism didn't win; communism lost. It may sound like just a semantic difference, but it does matter a great deal in examining history.

[mbossman2]

Originally posted by mystvearn
and sometimes it looks like using diplomatic channels to get what they want...

Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
Will Rogers