Is the world overpopulated, or are we just underdeveloped?

Discussion in 'Political Polls' started by broony, May 26, 2011.

  1. broony

    broony Banned

    Messages:
    15,458
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Man 14? I don't know about that....i could see being off by 2 or 3 billion...but double what we think? Hmm that would be a real shock. Would be great if we had something to prove it.
     
  2. PurpByThePound

    PurpByThePound purpetrator

    Messages:
    6,359
    Likes Received:
    25
    I think that we could support way more than 14 billion people on this earth. We are just overpopulated if we wish to continue our lifestyles the way we are. The way we farm, live, commute, consume etc etc would have to change, but we could support a loooot more peoples
     
  3. Scrapdrgn

    Scrapdrgn Guest

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, we're overpopulated for our current lifestyles, and we need to take a serious look at the issues around this!
     
  4. snowtiggernd

    snowtiggernd Member

    Messages:
    1,171
    Likes Received:
    587
    OOHHh I just cant resist.
    America is overpoplulated by underdeveloped people called republicans...
     
    Piobaire likes this.
  5. FlyingFly

    FlyingFly Dickens

    Messages:
    2,101
    Likes Received:
    8
    Overpopulated, too many people everywhere.
     
  6. MamaPeace

    MamaPeace Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    11
    Overpopulated by sheep
    Underdeveloped by pigs.
     
  7. Ranger

    Ranger Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    3,280
    Likes Received:
    53
  8. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,556
    Likes Received:
    10,126
    Can't see how people with insight could deny that certain places on earth are overpopulated by humans (and other animals that have to sustain us, like sheep, cows, pigs and chickens) and that it takes a toll on practically the whole earth.
     
    themnax likes this.
  9. Cranes3

    Cranes3 Guest

    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read that we could feed a world ten times our current population. Over population advocates see poverty and say there are too many people. The problem is not population but rather the distribution of world resources. 80% percent of resources consumed in the USA come from Third world sectors. As humans, we need to be willing to share, even if this means we have to alter our grossly materialist consumerism. The POPE once said, "At the end of the world it will be the poor south that will raise up to judge us ------an interesting thought.
     
  10. verminous_plague

    verminous_plague Banned

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    2
    of course we're overpopulated but i will rephrase the question, is the world overpopulated with scumbags. yes oh yes, we are very overpopulated with lowlife scum. you see it really wouldn't be such a big deal this overpopulation but unfortunately we are overpopulated with the worst of the worst, lowlife trash, scum degenerate drug addicts, sex addicts, people not teaching their children, people beating raping their children. this world is going to hell in a handbasket for a reason. we are immoral people to the highest degree. of course morality is just an idea anyway.
     
  11. verminous_plague

    verminous_plague Banned

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    2
  12. TheRealThing

    TheRealThing Member

    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Earth is overpopulated with cement, not people.
     
  13. Scarecrow13

    Scarecrow13 Members

    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    253
    We are not overpopulated, especially when you see that across the globe the birth rates are plummeting. America and Europe have birth rates below the 2 replacement rate. China and other parts of Asia do as well. Even the countries that are still above replacement rate are falling fast.
     
  14. Piobaire

    Piobaire Village Idiot

    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    7,478
    We may be exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity by 60%, making up the balance by consuming resources needed by other living things and future generations.
    Just one example is the correlation between population growth, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and temperature. There are many others; decline in global fisheries, degradation & loss of agricultural topsoil, global loss of biodiversity and biomass. All of these are associated with overpopulation, none of these are even remotely sustainable.
    Malthus was right.

    Annual-World-Population-since-10-thousand-BCE-for-OWID-800x498.png energy consumption.jpeg annual_co_emissions_by_region.jpg Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png
     
    granite45 likes this.
  15. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    i'm pretty sure crowding out habitat for species diversity is a pretty good definician for too blinkin many of us.
    i think the only devolopment that would counteract that would be for all of us to be born really teeny tiny and stay that way the rest of our lives.

    speedbump gonna hurt, even if a scattered few of something resembling human somehow survives it.

    i'd love to be born a hundred or so years after the ecopocalyps. but i'll give odds if i were, i'd have pointy ears and a tail.
    hope we'll still have thumbs and brains and can read.
     
  16. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    the crowding out of species diversity is a fact, and one the jeopardizes the future of our own.
    development is not a question of quantity, but of focus and direction.
    but even if we did everything else right, we are still at peril from our own fertility.
     
  17. Twogigahz

    Twogigahz Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,223
    Likes Received:
    6,172
    I think we need to change the way we think of water - it's been "free" for too long and we have taken clean water far for granted. Where does much of our clean water go? Down the damn toilet with 1890's toilet and sewage technology. There has GOT to be a better way to handle disposing of 8 ounces of sterile urine other than flushing it "away" with two gallons of clean potable water. But, look at the infrastructure and who makes money off of it - there's a lot of money in sewage treatment and big companies involved, like Haliburton, that have zero reason to change as long as there money to be made.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice