Is the world overpopulated, or are we just underdeveloped?

If they can't do it themselves i so no reason why i should help. I will join in with them only if the money is spilt equally. Let them come down and live closer to our levels.

 

He was referring to the one child rule, not the Chinese people's propensity to prefer male children.

 

My boyfriend and I have this discussion often. The crux is who is going to determine, who should and should not reproduce? Another point of contention I have, is I believe your statement is from a well-educated (not necessarily in the "formal" sense) point of view and that if people voluntarily did this, that the people that "should" reproduce and those that "should not" would.

My other aim with overpopulation is people are living too long. I know this sounds cruel, but the highest percent of healthcare dollars are spent in the last 6 months of life. Was Dr. Kevorkian "bad"? I think not. I think people that want to die, should have that option to be assisted in a pain-free and humane way. Do we not put our beloved pets to sleep when they are suffering? Why would we not want to treat our beloved humans like our beloved pets?

BTW: DanceswithRabbits. I agree with you.

I will take it one step further. I am thinking we should just start recognizing our genetic limitations. For example, I know of a mom who has MS and underwent fertility treatments and is having twins. She already has a child. Was this wise for her or her children? In the wild, those genetic abnormalities don't normally survive. As for me, I don't think I have any special talent per se. Not a musician, academic genius, etc but I have 20/20 vision, no braces, healthy weight, no mental or physical limitations that I know of, and I gave birth to two healthy boys. The goal of evolution is to breed stronger, more capable offspring.

 

The whole world needs something along the lines of 5 to 8 years where nobody can have a child, no exceptions. After that first 5 years maybe allow a two year period in which people have the option to have a child, possibly two. If rules and regulations during these times where followed, people would still be able to pass along their own genetics. Then put the ban back on. The population with not grow if something like this were to happen. Five year is a long time as short as it is for 7 billion people not to have a child. Many would still have births but it would be a start. Am i wrong?

 

^^^ though i agree with you, i thought you were a libertarian

?

 

I am, but honestly, in this situation, i don't know what else to say, nor do.

 

gotcha, and agreed [again]

 

I think it is both overpopulated and underdeveloped. I don't think that the two statements are mutually exclusive (ie: non-overlapping), and, thus, choosing one or the other is mathematically impossible. They both contain elements of the other one. Both statements are true IMO and need to both be addressed TOGETHER.

 

Exactly. You can't really separate the two, to think you can is foolish and narrow sighted.
Because males are favored AND you can only have one child, infanticide of females is a very common occurrence. But if you guys are okay with that, so be it.

Do you not think the same would happen here or anywhere else in the world if laws were decreed that limit how many children a couple can have?

How about forced sterilization?
Maybe withhold health care for seniors?
Let children with deadly yet curable diseases die instead of saving them?

No matter what, any of the IMO asinine solutions presented thus far are incomplete and will be a moral affront to some group or culture.

Any proposed solutions are a imposition on your personal freedoms and rights as a human, something I assume everyone here in these forums holds near and dear.

There are no easy answers, plain and simple.

 

Let me first say that I agree that the solutions thus far are incomplete, and I do NOT support a one child rule, forced sterilization or anything of the sort. I think it's both unethical and, frankly, evil.

And yes, I do think you can separate the two (in terms of the one child rule and females). If they were inseparable, one would necessarily follow from the other, since it does not necessarily follow, they are separate entities and choices. To wit, if there were a one child rule in say, Sweden (a country that is quite up to date in many ways in terms of gender laws as well as culture) there isn't a shred of evidence or reason to assume the same thing would happen there. It's fine if you want to believe it, but do not pass it off as some sort of fact. In other words, a one child rule does not necessarily mean infanticide for females infants.

I hate to quibble, but in these sort of discussions precision is very helpful.

 

people seem to be too greedy for there to be real equality

 

The ''goal'' of evolution is simply to breed offspring that survive. This doesnt always mean stronger and more capable. Take humans for example:
We have no need to become physically stronger or more capable, as machines and tools now do everything for us.
What IS threatening our survival, and the survival of millions of other species, is our desire to ''go forth and multiply''. We are basically just moderately intelligent apes, and have not gotten past the shortsighted innate animal instincts to BREED BREED BREED and CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME. So if humans are still evolving (and that is somewhat debatable ), I think the next step forward would be a fundamental shift in those innate tendencies and a fundamental change in our attitude to the planet and its bounty.
Until that happens, I think it'll be next to impossible to successfully control population, short of some sort of evil forced sterilisation programme.

 

Very true. I stand corrected.

In your opinion, do you see us moving towards that direction?

 

I guess I'm one of the few that think its Underpopulated.

If you really want me to explain, I will. But who wants to hear THAT kind of argument

 

I do. Go ahead.

 

Well, depressingly, no. But I do think its the only long term way out. If it doesnt happen, the consequences will be pretty ghastly to say the least!

 

I believe that our purpose, like any living organism...is to multiply. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to go out and have like 20 kids. But it is our purpose, to create more life from life. To create more conscious minds. So in a sense, human society will ALWAYS be underpopulated.

I also understand that the resources we have, and the way in which we use them makes this theory a bit un-realistic. Though I also believe that our purpose (multiplying) shouldn't be looked down upon or slowed, simply because we cant find the resources to support it. That is one of the challenges that will never go away, how to cope with more life + the same amount of sustenance/material. Because as the medical technology advances, less and less people will die at earlier ages...inevitably increasing the over all population. Its simple fact.

It is our job as a species to continue to multiply and create solutions to make it work properly as we go along. The only reason we cant feed everyone is because of where to money/man power is going elsewhere. The manpower is behind weapons, the smartest minds involved with banking and the money in the hands of over indulgent people who think only of themselves.

Overpopulation IS underdevelopment. Once we start treating all other men as brothers, and we all treat a problem like underdevelopment with the highest of priority, you won't hear the words 'over population' again. In any context.

 

I am not sure if it is over populated but it is sure that more and more natural forces have happened to the earth we live, everyday everywhere!

 

I actually, in theory, do agree with this. I have always thought the next step is to colonize space, and that we should be taking this step. But if I imagine a solar system full of the type of society we have now, I don't want it at all. I would rather we fail at our purpose (to expand), and live out the rest of our collective existance here on Earth, to be eventually made extinct by nature.

I feel unconvinced that we will ever be ready to continue expanding, which is a shame, given that we have this infinite Universe all around us. But perhaps we just aren't the species "meant" to succeed. Therefor I only think in terms of right now, and right now, there are too many of us for the lifestyle that we demand.

 

Perhaps in space we can do what should have been done in the New World - create a better society from scratch - start new. It can be done if the right people are involved.