Does overpopulation worry you?

Post Reply New Topic

I worry about it, if you think about it long enough you'll realize that it's a serious problem that has to be addressed. At the rate of the current population increase, within a century we'll probably nearly destroy the planet. With the pollution, destruction of forests, and most likely food shortages we are going to have major problems. We need to work on solutions now!

sad, but true

The population curve is concave down i.e. the rate of increase of the rate of increase is negative, i.e. the rate of population increase is not constant but decreasing.

Just FYI.

Which does not mean that the population isn't increasing or the planet is not overpopulated already.

That is true, but it does render the statement "At the rate of the current population increase" a bit suspect.

VHEMT for the win.

Oh and don't give me any of the "VHEMT is a puppet of the New World Order" bollocks. I've heard it before, it wasn't true then and isn't true now.

It worries me a great deal but in some cultures people think it their jobs to breed like cows.

"Go forth and be fruitful."

I don't think polution is relevant enough in terms of population, only disease and not to mention the fact we're living longer than we did...100 years ago. You see we live in a society that started this industrial age not too far back. Now that there is proof and concern for global warming some people who have the upper crust in democracy are only concerned about their interests in terms of oil and non-biodegrable products.....

Overpopulation is a problem people don't need to have ten biological kids, I say have a a max of two biological kids then if you want more adopt.

I also think that the best way to deal with this problem is laws like no more than two biological kids but you can adopt as many as you want as long as you can take care of them and to educate people about the danger.

I feel like I'm talking to myself here...

What would you expect to accomplish with this?

Pretty much all the blue countries have a sub-replacement (or maybe borderline replacement in the case of very light blue) fertility rates. The US has a comparatively high fertility rate for an industrialized nation, and it's only 2.05 which puts it at a sub-replacement level. The population growth of the world is already taking place in poor countries and any growth in industrialized countries is due to immigration. The reason that population growth is going to cause problems is because the growth is taking place in places like Africa which lack the economic sophistication to deal with their populations. You want to stop population growth, you need to take it up with Africa, the Mid-East, and Latin America. Good luck implementing birth laws there. Of course, if you can't get people from the fertile parts of the world, then you end up like Japan where the demographic shift has...unpleasant side effects.

Much talk is made about getting contraceptives into the hands of poor people (although it would be curious to find out if that works; I note here that poor populations with plenty of access to contraceptives in America still bread more than richer populations; high wealth groups generally don't have the same fertility rates for whatever reason). I also completely disagree with any language that proclaims it a "basic human right", but whatev...

The best way to solve pollution and economic problems is to deal with economic problems. Wealthier nations don't reproduce, and have better gdp per pollution ratios. You can't just rain condoms from the sky on Africa and expect to halt its population explosion, nor yet to lift them out of poverty given their crappy economies.

According to your logic. Immigration doesn't exist. Japan will suffer because they largely do not let immigrants settle permanently.

The overall global population is increasing. This is fact.

Contraceptives should be available to everyone who wants them. This should be a human right. If you don't like them because of religious beliefs, that's fine. But other people think differently and should have the option, like a woman should have the option of abortion.

I didn't say that. I said that the focus of population growth is entirely in the third world. Moving people around doesn't stop it, and mass immigration doesn't necessarily fix the underlying economic problems, and in fact might just export them to a new country. If the Third World breeds at its current rate, we (they...) are in for trouble no matter which way you cut it. If the Third World doesn't, you have demographic shift issues that will do serious damage to the global economy over the next 100 years or so.


I never denied it was. However, placing caps on birth rates is not only a violation of human rights, it won't work unless you put the caps someplace where the breeding is going on.


I have nothing against contraceptives. However, they aren't a basic human right. They are a technological innovation, and the solution of their distribution ought to be up to the market and charity. I have no problem with getting the rest of the world to use them (as long as you drop the "human right" rhetorical BS), although I have my doubts about how effective they'll be. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in Africa and the Mid-East, especially related to cultural values, before this is going to have enough of an impact.

Overpopulation to me suggest a crappier world. More competition for just about everything. i.e. jobs.

Consumption of resources. i.e. more ppl=more automobiles=more gas=higher oil prices.

suffice to say . . . life's gonna git harder fer just about everyone. More so for ppl with disabilities.

All quite depressing really . . . now where's my bottle of whiskey . . .

I certainly think we need to address the unpopular issue of population growth. i think we need to stop population growth. The Chinese idea of limiting kids is a good idea. Free condoms for Africa and Asia, everyone. Gary Snyder addressed this forty years ago and in the UK Prof David Bellamy feels the same.

Last edited by ablomov on 13 Aug 2008, 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If we cant solve it willingly, i shudder to think . . . it may take world war 3 or some other form of catastrophe will solve it for us.

War isn't a far fetched idea. Prolly happen cuz of natural resources or land...

Apologies for making assumptions.

I still think an obvious solution to overpopulation (and AIDs) is to make contraceptives easier to access in the poorer countries of the world. It may not be a human right but millions of children die every year in these countries because their parents simply can't afford to feed them or provide adequate medical care.

Why is there anything wrong with posting some websites that support my statement? (I posted 4 not 2 just as a side note)

Abortions and forced sterilizations are mentioned in the websites I posted regarding population, and are very UNcivilized ways of "population control" and have been used in the past to try to get rid of minority groups and people with disabilities in particular. Just look up the history on Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood. It is not hard to find, and widely known.

There is more than enough wealth/food/land for everyone but it has been relegated to the super rich for the most part. . .and abortion/birth control/forced sterilization won't stop that.

We don't treat the earth very well and we are very irresponible that says a lot for the state of pollution and what-not.

Overpopulation is not your idea really. . .it is also regurgitated from whereever you picked it up from, and there is nothing wrong with that. Most ideas I really don't think are original in and of themselves. I put links to websites because they show another view for people who are open-minded to looking into it. You really don't have to go to the links. . .but it might challenge your way of thinking. That's not so bad now is it?