Overpopulation

Discussion in 'The Environment' started by TattoedAquarian, Jan 23, 2005.

  1. Rob

    Rob Member

    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    This argument is worthless if either of us are willing to change our views.

    Peace
     
  2. TattoedAquarian

    TattoedAquarian Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thanks for all your views everyone... Very helpful!
     
  3. forestcreature

    forestcreature Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    what i have to say about overpopulation is lets take care of ourselves first before we bring anymore humans into this world. I agreed with myself not to have any kids in this life because there are already too many without families and i will adopt if i want a kid later on.
     
  4. liguana

    liguana Member

    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    0
    Get your facts straight Kandahar, the pop. in Canada is not shrinking, it's growing.

    which must also be shared by more ppl, idiot.

    Kandahar, all your arguments have so far been focused solely on resources and food supply for humans, there have been no mention of the impact this will have on other species. Even if there will be enough food and resources for everyone, it DOESN'T matter, that point is mute. We are not the only species on the planet you know. Other species are and will continue to go EXTINCT because of unprecidented human pop. growth. Your views are wholly anthropocentric and totally inconsiderate of other species.

    I for one would rather share the planet with a cute koala bear than with the likes of you Kandahar.
     
  5. Syntax

    Syntax Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    3
    I am not really worried about overpopulation, at least not as much as I am about pollution and war. The thing is, that overpopulation is, at least in some way, under our control. All that people have to do to make less people is just try to have less than two children. Right now, most people aim at 2, but I'm sure they could settle on 1. And if it becomes bad, we could just make a law for it.
     
  6. Kandahar

    Kandahar Banned

    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    0
    After reviewing the facts, you are correct. Canada had a 0.9% growth rate last year. However, that came entirely from immigration...not from births. Canada's fertility rate is only 1.6 children per woman: far below the replacement level.

    Regardless, it doesn't change my original point: there are vast tracts of unoccupied land in Canada and Russia (and to a lesser extent, the United States). Don't tell me there isn't enough land to go around.

    The point is that a growing population is not competing for the same amount of resources...the amount of resources available (which is not the same as the GNP but is directly related to it) grows too.

    You're goddamn right my views are anthropocentric. Humans are the most intelligent species on this planet and (for better or worse) have the potential to alter the world more than all other species combined. Our endeavors in science and technology are nothing short of the best thing to ever happen to a species on this little rock of ours. No other species has developed significant technology. Inconsiderate of other species? If a new technology or industry will help humans at the expense of some other species, I make no apologies for my full support of it.

    I for one would rather take a more rational approach, and view the worth of an organism based on its intelligence rather than its cuteness.
     
  7. Kandahar

    Kandahar Banned

    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    0
    Umm, China has tried that. Ignoring the horrific abuse of human rights that such a law would entail, it simply does not work. All that that would do is increase the number of abortions, increase the number of kids abandoned by their parents to grow up on the streets, and increase the number of births that are not reported and therefore not recognized by any government.

    The best way to control population is to grow the economies and increase the GDP per capita in the poorest areas of the world. There is a strong inverse correlation between GDP per capita and the fertility rate. Europe and Canada are far below the replacement level. The United States is only at a break-even level. It is the poorest countries in the world that have the highest fertility rates. As the GDP per capita increases, potential mothers become more and more likely to view large families as a liability rather than an asset.
     
  8. TrippinBTM

    TrippinBTM Ramblin' Man

    Messages:
    6,514
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ouch, I couldn't disagree more. There's more to planet Earth than humans and their petty ideas about worth. How do you put a price tag on a beautiful sunset? On a clean river or ocean full of life? Just because a koala isn't "useful" you think it's worthless? What a dim view of life, man.
     
  9. liguana

    liguana Member

    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those countries need birth rates below replacement level so that they can absorb the excess population of other parts of the world. I have nothing against Canada having a below replacement level b.r. and bringing in ppl by immigration, it lessens the pop. stress of other countries.

    Much of the land in Canada is uninhabitual BTW. Yeah vast swaths of the Artic is unpopulated but who the hell wants to live there.

    Alas, this discussion is worthless. You are a self-proclaimed anthropocentric moron and that is truely pathetic. Cottage country here is disappearing, ppl are moving to the 'burbs to get away from the city and then are only dismayed when the city catches up with them. Can you honestly believe that there will be any country-land left for ppl to have their sprawling 'burbs in in the next century.

    With your attitude, humans, children will be growing up in high-rises in never ending cities and there will be no country for them to enjoy, that's sad. Also, they will never see a live koala bear, tiger or many of the countless flora.
     
  10. Kandahar

    Kandahar Banned

    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some of those things are useful in that they're beneficial to human health or to human aesthetics. I think it's worthwhile to protect endangered animals from poachers...not because the animal has a right to life or anything like that, but because you never know when an animal might be beneficial to scientific research.

    But the actual life of an unintelligent animal I couldn't care less about. You've never killed a bug?
     
  11. Kandahar

    Kandahar Banned

    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's what I have been saying and you called me an idiot for it.

    Would you rather be starving to death in an overcrowded African nation? No. Regardless, there's plenty of unused temperate land available too.

    No, what's truly pathetic is believing that the life of a koala bear (or any other animal) is worth as much or more than the life of a human being.

    Absolutely. We're nowhere CLOSE to using up all the land on this planet, and population growth is leveling off.

    And therein lies the fallacy: you claim to not be anthropocentric, and then you justify the worth of the flora and fauna of the world by claiming my children will never be able to see them. In other words, you're only interested in how those species benefit humans, just like I am.
     
  12. TrippinBTM

    TrippinBTM Ramblin' Man

    Messages:
    6,514
    Likes Received:
    3
    I try not to, unless it's a mosquito, but since it could have a disease (west nile) and because it's attacking me, I feel justified. I don't just kill bugs, and I am one of those people who rescue spiders and centipedes from the shower drain before I turn on the water.

    All life is amazing and has an equal right to live; and intelligence is not the only measure of worth. I care a lot about humans, of course, but in the end, they arent better or worse than anything else. I don't save a spider because it might contain a cure or might eat a bug that might bite me...I save it because it's life is not worthless. I save it because it is as alive as I am, and it's how I'd want to be treated. Imagine, you are god to that bug, on a whim you could end his life. If there were a God, I would hope he wouldn't mindlessly kill me simply for being so much lower than He.

    So in the end, I agree with liguana; though not with her attitude towards you, which is overly hostile in my opinion; I'd suggest a milder approach for real discussion; rather than just talking at each other, talk TO each other.
     
  13. liguana

    liguana Member

    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I know my statements were harsh on Kandahar and for that I apologize.

    My "claiming my children will never be able to see them" is only one of many reasons I'm giving to appreciate other species. It is easily identifiable but not the only reason.

    And Kandahar, I do agree with what you said earlier that the most effective way to sustainable pop. growth is economic development. There is a definite trend. But alot more needs to be done if we are to slow done the rate of species extinction.

    You can't ever rate the worth of non-human species as there are so many yet to be discovered and often the use to humans such as in medicine or science is only later discovered.
     
  14. liguana

    liguana Member

    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's one other thing about unsustainable pop. growth, it does seem to exasperate wars. Think of it, in Africa, they worship large families so they have them. Then they fight with the other tribes over land, land which is becoming increasingly scarce as more and more ppl are born and require farmland. There the ppl need a good dose of family planning and pop. management.
     
  15. TrippinBTM

    TrippinBTM Ramblin' Man

    Messages:
    6,514
    Likes Received:
    3
    Another thing I'll bring up, on the topic of war and resources. There MAY be a lot of recources out ther for development, but they aren't always available. Oil for example takes time to develop, but people need it NOW. More importantly are food and water. Water especially, it's a hard to find resource (clean fresh water isn't unlimited and is fast being polluted), and the time is comeing that with more people, though we have lots of space (what kandahar said about fitting us all in texas is true), but where's the water? It isn't there, it's abundant but also rare, and not equally distributed. I have my concerns about this recource, VITAL to life and something any human or any other animal would do whatever they can to get, include fight and kill. More people, but not more water. More people, but limited and FALLING per capita food production. you do the math, and consider the possibility for strife. Think of the Africans that are already starving. Think of the millions in India or China that could starve if no military action is taken by their governments to protect those people.

    Theres a lot of shit that could soon happen, and very few are talking about it, or even thinking about it. The major resource that will shape the future isn't oil (though that is a big influence) but it's water.

    Interestingly, a lot of places get water through pumping out of aquifers...pumps run by oil. and as I said, modern agriculture is founded on oil usage. if this oil crash happens soon, even if it's slow and not total, prices will rise. Guess what? Food and water prices go up. And countries that can't afford the now-limited oil-run pumps, tractors, fertilizers, pesticides, etc etc will have serious, serious problems, and even the US and Europe will have some major problems and readjustments. The day is coming, and it won't be pretty. The future is dim in my vision...

    Sorry for the ramble...
     
  16. Rob

    Rob Member

    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is an insane topic.

    Kandahar, I feel you need to remove yourself from this whole thing, take a neutral look at the World. There are too many people.

    It has nothing to do with 'available space', because obviously there is lots of room. Certainly there is a resource distribution problem, but to say that that has nothing to do with overpopulation is ignorant. Sure it is an economic problem, but stemming from what? And when, in your opinion, will this ideal utopia come to exist where the excess of resources that we have is distributed evenly?

    What about the forests we cut down every day. These old growth forests contain ecosystems that we know nothing about. They might contain things available for scientific research, but people like you who run big lumber businesses continually cut down these forests so we will never know. We cut them down because apparently people need furniture made of wood, and paper made from wood, and everything.

    What about polluted ground water? Things are bad enough all over the world for clean drinking water, imagine 2 times as many people living on each river. Imagine what you would be consuming.

    http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/21/indonesia-garbage050221.html

    That is a news story about a garbage heap 10 meters tall that fell over and killed at least 19 people. Therein lies 2 reasons that I think our world is slightly overpopulated. Let me guess, you will say that the garbage should be more evenly distributed and that the people should spread out. Or, those people who were looking through the garbage, either for food or other things, they shouldnt have needed to do that because its a resource distribution problem.

    I dont really know about you, man.

    Just, forget your pride for an instant and think 'Maybe I'm not right on this one.' We won't give you a hard time.

    Peace
     
  17. the_human_rage

    the_human_rage Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
  18. Kandahar

    Kandahar Banned

    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not overpopulation. Six billion people today enjoy a much higher average standard of living than one million people did a few thousand years ago, or one billion people did a hundred years ago. That's not likely to change in the future, as technology accelerates faster and faster.

    I'm no communist, far from it. I didn't say I thought all resources should be distributed perfectly evenly.

    That's irrelevant to the subject at hand. The "imagine 2 times as many people" doesn't make it any more relevant.

    You are assuming that the population will continue to increase forever, while technology suddenly grinds to a halt and remains at 2005 levels forever.

    Stick to the subject of overpopulation. There are plenty of other threads already discussing pollution.

    Huh?

    Just forget your pride for an instant and think 'Maybe I'm not right on this one.' I won't give you a hard time.

    Peace.
     
  19. ecozen

    ecozen Member

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd have to agree with Kandahar and Pressed-Rat; I tend to believe its more an issue of overconsumption and inadequate distribution of resources than a problem of overpopulation.

    SunshineTheAngryHipi- "Ishmael" is indeed an excellent book!
     
  20. ecozen

    ecozen Member

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Woops- only read the first page of discussions when I posted; I feel everyone on here has valid arguments- yes, overpopulation is a huge problem, which is primarily a result of our huge appetites (e.g. the amount of land we require to clear in order to raise livestock), as well as the wastes we produce as a result of this overconsumption.

    I do find quite commonly, however, that conflicts over forests and land are being framed so that population pressure is seen as the main culprit; Western environmentalists tend to blame poorer nations for degrading the environment.... in reality it is essentally North America that is reaking the most havoc (look at the sustainable living practices and green technologies that have significantly accelerated in the most densely populated regions- India, Japan, Africa). It is often the least populated areas that get trashed the most by miners, loggers, and cattle ranchers.

    Kandahar- I must disagree with your technological optimism, however- this is what has gotten us in this mess.
     

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