What is this belief in "over population"? •Dragon_Lance Unmoderated Member Usergroup: Unmoderated Member Joined: Mar 31, 2010 Location: In the Heart of America, watching the dragon hunters. Total Topics: 15 Total Posts: 2937 #1 - Quote - Permalink Posted Sep 20, 2010 - 12:27 PM: Subject: What is this belief in "over population"? Not sure where this belongs. Those of you who believe that the world has too many people, why? Is it because of the complication of morals? Is it because of the problems that the variations of people make? How is one to achieve against this 'dilemma'? Aren't there alternatives to this way of thinking? •wuliheron Resident Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jun 02, 2003 Location: Chesapeake, VA Total Topics: 49 Total Posts: 466 #2 - Quote - Permalink 4 of 6 people found this post helpful Posted Sep 20, 2010 - 1:13 PM: Believe it or not words do have commonly used definitions you can easily look up in the dictionary:Dictionary.com wrote:Overpopulateverb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing. to fill with an excessive number of people, straining available resources and facilities: Expanding industry has overpopulated the western suburbs. •keda Ijon Tichy Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 25, 2005 Location: Finland Total Topics: 43 Total Posts: 496 #3 - Quote - Permalink 2 of 4 people found this post helpful Posted Sep 20, 2010 - 1:15 PM: My take on over population is that it is a problem, but it is a private problem, not a public one, or at least it ought to be a private problem. The basic problem is that one shouldn't have more children than one can support i.e. it is a matter of resource allocation, which we who at least who live in the west tend to think of in terms of private property rights. I do what I can with my own resources and if I squander them or screw up, then its my personal problem, not someone else's problem. Overpopulation thus never becomes a global problem, but like with a ship compartmentalized with bulkheads only floods one compartment of the ship if there is a leak, so just because someone has too many children, it doesn't mean that the others have to feed them. So now you know that whenever they push the hype about the "global overpopulation problem" they do so on the premise of a centrally planned economy. •sunny sideways Unmoderated Member Usergroup: Unmoderated Member Joined: Apr 03, 2010 Total Topics: 57 Total Posts: 772 #4 - Quote - Permalink Posted Sep 20, 2010 - 1:37 PM: Because with out the resources to go around we are looking at the chance of a slave class re emerging as the only means to sustain what little clean energy and resource we will have to go around.It was in the paper the other day that for Britons economy to survive, as it gives a government pension, which is not even enough for the pensioners to keep warm and not die of exposure come winter, that the government would have to raise our retirement age to something like 72. Soon there wont be enough to care for someone not to have to work their entire living breathing existence before they can take the last few aching years off. Edited by sunny sideways on Sep 20, 2010 - 5:42 PM •Dragon_Lance Unmoderated Member Usergroup: Unmoderated Member Joined: Mar 31, 2010 Location: In the Heart of America, watching the dragon hunters. Total Topics: 15 Total Posts: 2937 #5 - Quote - Permalink Posted Sep 20, 2010 - 3:05 PM: Isn't there another solution to over population? What about using our resources wisely and creating new technology to enhance our way of life? Surely, solar power could be well dispersed through this world without such monetary commitment. Will unjustifiable greed be conquered to achieve human compassion for those whom are ignorant of such? What is life worth to you? Does one consider the value of the dollar more worthy than the human being? •sunny sideways Unmoderated Member Usergroup: Unmoderated Member Joined: Apr 03, 2010 Total Topics: 57 Total Posts: 772 #6 - Quote - Permalink Posted Sep 20, 2010 - 3:26 PM: Dragon_Lance wrote:Isn't there another solution to over population? What about using our resources wisely and creating new technology to enhance our way of life? Surely, solar power could be well dispersed through this world without such monetary commitment. Will unjustifiable greed be conquered to achieve human compassion for those whom are ignorant of such? What is life worth to you? Does one consider the value of the dollar more worthy than the human being?Sadly the only way for clean energy to be widely used is to replace it as the economic importance in the stead of fossil fuels economy importance. Whether we like it or not oil and coal and gas are what keeps our economy alive and the only way for both clean energy and the economy to survive is to make it the expence that fossil fuels are.We all seem to think that because it will be clean it will also be free, for the economy and therefore government to a large degree to survive means having to make it an expense. Why do you think it is illegal to use bio oil/diesel? Which is virtually free and virtually environmentally sound.I wish, I wish, I wish.All the best •transfinite PF Addict Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Apr 25, 2010 Total Topics: 145 Total Posts: 1514 #7 - Quote - Permalink Posted Sep 20, 2010 - 5:22 PM: Even if we could create efficiencies and technologies to allow for greater population, we would run out of options long before human beings would stop procreating •sunny sideways Unmoderated Member Usergroup: Unmoderated Member Joined: Apr 03, 2010 Total Topics: 57 Total Posts: 772 #8 - Quote - Permalink Posted Sep 20, 2010 - 5:34 PM: transfinite wrote:Even if we could create efficiencies and technologies to allow for greater population, we would run out of options long before human beings would stop procreatingYes, if the human race lasts that long in about 500 years the human race is going to be under some very strange laws indeed, you think there are human rights violations today this future will pale them into oblivion.I predict that there will be many new wars concerning territory, you think Germany were ethnic cleansers, just wait, well not that we will be there. We are truly coming to the end of humanity, this is no biblical indictment, we are one of the very last "free" generations there ever will ever be again.It will be mass slavery or mass sterilisation or mass genocide. If we are lucky it will be genetic selection rather than privilege selection. If we are lucky. Edited by sunny sideways on Sep 20, 2010 - 5:39 PM •swstephe PF Addict Usergroup: Moderators Joined: Apr 20, 2006 Location: San Jose, California Total Topics: 39 Total Posts: 1296 ♂ #9 - Quote - Permalink Posted Sep 20, 2010 - 7:27 PM: Dragon_Lance wrote:Isn't there another solution to over population? What about using our resources wisely and creating new technology to enhance our way of life? Surely, solar power could be well dispersed through this world without such monetary commitment. Will unjustifiable greed be conquered to achieve human compassion for those whom are ignorant of such? What is life worth to you? Does one consider the value of the dollar more worthy than the human being?Overpopulation is simply when the population outstrips the available resources. There are 2 direct solutions, reduce population growth or increase resources and the problem is solved, even if just temporarily. But there is a fundamental problem that makes reducing population growth more attractive: population growth is geometric, any possible increase in resources would be linear.But "overpopulation" is used to argue for reduced population *growth* not reducing population. Nobody is being killed, it is simply a planned limit on reproduction rates. Also, the choice isn't over whether to fight overpopulation, it is inevitable, when resources are scarce, that nature will start reducing population for us. The question is what quality of life you prefer. Addressing the problem now means a higher standard of living for everyone, while ignoring or delaying the problem, will ultimately reduce quality of life for future generations. It could even be counter-productive to try and increase resources. We can currently afford to feed so many people on the planet because of the "green revolution" which relied heavily on fossil fuels, not just for energy, but for fertilizer and pesticides. Oil is a limited resource and will run out inevitably, (unless you are one of those who believe oil isn't organic), meaning that future generations will have to quickly work to replace this resource or face greater starvation than before the "green revolution". •VURG Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 13, 2010 Total Topics: 9 Total Posts: 40 #10 - Quote - Permalink Posted Sep 23, 2010 - 9:48 PM: It's simple math. The earth isn't getting any larger and so the number of people per square kilometer may be getting to dangerous levels. When doing mathematical modelling with populations, the idea is that over time the population reaches an equilibrium (the death rate = the birth rate). In the past century technology and other things have been so successful at raising life standards that this equilibrium is way off and is expected to not be seen in the next 30 years. When will it stop rising and does something terrible need to happen to motivate the change?In previous centuries war and disease were a lot more effective at keeping populations down so we didn't need to worry about the effects to the environment associated with population. In addition to this communication technology was a lot less effective and so famines and natural disasters were more localised and people tended to know little about what was going on hundreds of kilometers away from them. Overpopulation can be seen as a poverty issue or an environmental issue with a large of range of different priorities in addressing what this means.One thing with overpopulation is that the growth in the middle class is growing faster than the population growth and the middle class are the group of people who polute the most and so the environmental risks are growing at a faster rate than the poverty risks. Personally, I sit in the poverty camp and am more concerned about the potential dangers to people in the near future than the environmentalists who worry about what will happen to the planet in the distant future.In Australia, they pay us to breed. $5000AU up front for each baby +$4000AU/year for each child under 18 + $3000AU/year if you have a child under 5. They want more future taxpayers. A lot of Western Countries are going like this. I think allowing migration is a better way of dealing with providing for the elderly than breeding incentives. A lot of the people who have extra children because of the incentives cant afford to look after them and require more assistance. It is not uncommon for families to get$100,000AU+/child in welfare assistance over the 18 years each child has. Edited by VURG on Sep 23, 2010 - 9:56 PM