What do you think is a viable solution (S) to the overpopulation problem?

Very well said - would also add the effect of general affluence on the birthrate. The more prosperous people are, in general, the fewer children they tend to have.

 

And I suppose you will be among the remaining elite. Having seen both war and disease, you have no idea how random an event death is. The concentration of medical talent in an attempt to care for and solve the problem of an epidemic makes them a hard hit group. Warfare tends to favor the stronger over the more intelligent. As RK said, "the odds are on the cheaper man". I think you have been reading a little too much science fiction and not enough history.

 

What about the over-population of Automobiles? .There are probably more cars in the world than humans & they are burning up our precious fossil fuels & spewing out carbon monoxide that contributes to the holes in the ozone layer & global warming.
If we banned the further production of Motor Cars throughout the world; we may save our Planet.
Of course it's not going to happen.
Have you noticed that rich countries want poor countries to impliment sterilization programmes whilst the affluent world can have as many offspring as they like?.What's good for the goose should also be good for the gander.

 

And the same with the way we treat our animals...

We worry and ACT on how many stray dogs and cats are roaming our towns and cities, but are scared of the orals involved in doing anything to curb overpopulation of humans.

Just out of interest.. Maybe we just need to disperse ourselves a little better.. Perhaps voluntary relocation is the answer.

 

I agree that this isn't fair but just remember that in developed countries population is limited by economic stability (in other words its not profitable to have too many kids) but in poor countries the people keep breeding and starving without anything capping it off.

I think the scientific world has to accept the idea that a place can only support limited populations and we should only administer medical aid where people aren't dying in droves because they are being born in droves, and the resources just aren't there.

 

/Thanks a lot, everone.

I've now got enough comments for my article. Thanks, the opinions were very varied which will make for interesting reading.

Thanks again,
Jess.

 

NO I have not noticed that, in fact I see no evidence of that whatsoever. Poor countries have a much higher fertility rate than affluent countries, check http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/total_fertility_rate/
and their population growth threatens scarce resources and puts more pressure on territorial claims thus bringing people into wars so the rest of the world is concerned about that.

The affluent world have on average 2.1 kids per woman while many poor nations have 5, 6 or more kids. Bush has eliminated funding for parental planning programs in the third world, that contrasts sharply with what you said. You're are GRAVELY misinformed.

 

HUH!!! Evolution is on a time scale of millions of years. All we see in the course of recorded history (that is in the past 10,000 years) is a snapshot. It is unreasonable to expect to witness evolution in your brief lifetime.

I do agree that the bleedinghearts of society are not looking at the whole picture when they bring medicine but no education.

 

Thanks for reinforcing my point. That one is really overlooked

 

My solution is really simple. Each couple can have no more than 2 children between them. This way people are replacing themselves and nothing more. The population would not grow. In fact it would probably shrink because some people would have one or no children. The catch would be enforcing the 1 child per person rule though. I think one child per person is fair. Humans will still be "fruitful."

Is this an unrealistic solution to overpopulation?

 

..............

 

This might sound radical but is it just mere coincidence that not only humans but now even some animals and amphibeans are inheriting the gay trait?

Not many people see this as a solution to overpopulation but maybe are genes are evolving to accomodate an up and coming problem as two of the same can't reproduce.

 

Could be.
Also the Male sperm count of the Western World is less than it was in previous generations.This is put down to the chemicals used in our foodstufs & chemical fertilizers used for food crops.
From time to time the newspapers remind us that male sperm counts are down.Some countries are actually worried about this.
A man living solely on junk food is hardly likely to produce a sizeable amount of sperm.The nutrition is low;
starch,carbohydrates,cholesterol & fat are high.
Could this explain the world-wide promotion of MacDonalds?.

 

ok maybe if we let some people die it wouldnt be as much of a problem, y do we have babies in incubators, and old people straped to tubes. If we werent all so scared to die, there wouldnt be this problem. Some people are just not supposed to be here. We need to stop playing god.

 

More accurately, both male and female humans, enjoying being constantly "in heat." Our "breeding season," is continuous, year-round. That, plus that we have a long natural lifespan, serves as potent signals, that humans were designed by God, to naturally grow incredibly populous over time. And also unlike other creatures, humans don't much respond to environmental cues, and can breed just as prolifically, in the biggest and most crowded of cities, a practical reason to build more cities and towns and suburbs and spread out, so as to have all the more room to keep multiplying back closer together again, so that all the more fellow humans may live. We are also social creatures, who can both survive and thrive, even at extreme population densities.

As I see it, there are yet 3 perception dimensions which expanding human populations can still grow into: outwards, inwards, and upwards. Outwards means more cities and suburbs, to hold more people. Inwards means infilling underutilied land, and more high-density housing, or even more people in each housing unit or more children sharing bedrooms, and young children can even share beds for a while sometimes. Upwards means sometimes stacking people onto multiple floors in highrises, to get more people into less prime city space. I advocate all three, especially that of spreading outwards.

Humans get their value imputed to them by God, and we value ourselves, so each and every person, is worth just as much, no matter how large the overall population may grow. We should not seek to prevent possible or future human life, and so contraceptives ought not to be used to disrupt the natural flow of human life from generation to generation. To try to separate copulation from reproduction, that's too much like trying to hinder the flow of blood throughout the body from the heart. Why bother? Contraceptives not long ago, were associated with "dirty sex," such as prostitution, and is it really much different today? Contraceptive sex has encouraged promiscuity, spread STDs, weakened families, promoted the same selfish attitudes that lead to divorce, etc. Of course those people who are very fertile, or who enjoy really strong reproductive urges, should always be encouraged to go ahead and have naturally large or "unplanned" families, as their children would also enjoy whatever high fertility or easy-childbearing genes too.

The answer to the population concern, is not more intrusive or tyranical "control" over human birthrates, but that the world can hold, or be made to hold, lots more people, probably more people than there ever will be, merely by humans learning to and adapting to populate themselves more densely and efficiently together. Most of the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, simply don't change as even "huge" human populations steadily swell even huger. That more and more people would be glad to live. That most every child is glad to come to life and life. That most people aren't finished having their children. That most people want or end up having children. That quite a lot of people have various problems with awkward and experimental "birth control," that isn't even pro-life as it seeks to prevent human life. That the more populated we get, the more people there are then who rather like living, and probably want to reproduce too.

Human population growth also naturally accelerates technology growth, which in turn, helps support vaster and denser human populations, so human population growth naturally accomodates itself, especially under good leadership, a practical reason against trying to apply any "control" to its natural increase and expansion and spread.

Accomodate only, never "limit" actual natural growth of human numbers. Families were designed to grow naturally, as God allows more blessings of children, to in time, come to life. When humans multiply on purpose and state the reasons why, then they should be able to all the more readily adapt to their rising numbers, and not be distracted by contraceptive non-solutions to poverty and other issues.

 

If you really believe that, you're basically asking stupid people who think they're smart to kill you. Actually it's usally people who can afford a good education or live near a good school who are the most intelligent.

(if you cannot learn to provide food, shelter, healthcare and protection for your self then natural selection dictates that you do not deserve to exist)- Actually, it's you who is dictating that they don't deserve to exist. It has nothing to do with natural selection, it has to do with the ability to communicate and teach. We aren't born knowing these things. But you didn't know that, therefore you are inferior, and you deserve to die

 

The reason we have an overpopulation problem is that reproduction is an addiction, and we as a society need to break that addiction by convincing the masses that procreation is a matter of personal choice, not a compulsion that must be submitted to at any cost, which is how most people regard it.

 

Uh, I don't think "addiction" is quite the word for our propensity to marry and reproduce, any more than people would be said to be "addicted" to eating food or breathing. Reproduction is a natural and proper function of all "living" things, especially of humans. In fact, "technically," humans don't just impulsively reproduce, but we really pretty much plan and prepare to reproduce. We do it, at a fairly intelligent level. We know that babies often soon follow marriage, one of the reasons we move out of our parents' house upon marrying, to have more room for our own children.

Rather, it would be more accurate to say, that the natural increase of humans, is quite natural.

Precious human beings, are worth far too much, to count the resources that babies will later need, against their possible conception now.

And most of the great and compelling reasons for having as many children as people do, simply do not change, as the overall population grows huger and huger. And so some civil engineers or somebody must plan for huge human populations, to continue to grow vaster and denser, and allow for more and more humans, to infill in between the gaps between all the multiplying humans.

More and more people would be glad to live, and so we should relax all the more, and welcome expanding human populations to naturally coelesce closer together, and understand that over time, the distances between the various growing towns and cities, will have to shrink somewhat, in order to make room for our and everybody's children. Surely it's about time, to do away with the ridiculously low population densities of the past, as the world can obviously easily hold, or be made to hold, lots more people.

 

To the contrary, addiction is the perfect word for it. What else would you call an uncontrollable urge to engage in a compulsive activity? If procreation were planned as part of a volutary decision you would see population numbers that are in check, but poulation statistics only say one thing: the poulation keeps getting bigger.

The reason for this is simple:
Most of these "decisions" are driven by internal biological clocks that say "you better have a kid before it's too late" and sadly, most people cave to that internal compulsion.

Yes, there are couples who painstakingly plan for starting a family, and those people are to be commended for their efforts. But more often than not procreation is the result of the internal drive that most people do not know how to control.

the saddest part is that our nation, and for that matter, the world, does not have the resources to support unlimited population growth. Eventually we will run out of land, we will run out of food. At that point the population will begin to keep itself in check, because people will die of stavation in the streets.

That will be a sad ending for all those precious human beings who were to worth too much to count their resources.

 

Telling people "Don't have kids until conditions are right" will succeed as well as telling teenagers "Don't have sex until marriage"