overpopulation

Maximus, you left out Greenland, Western Australia, Antarctica, the Sahara and Xinjiang, and Nevada, all of which are sparsely inhabited. I'm not sure where you're from, but if you want to emigrate to one of these places, there won't be many people trying to stop you. There are solid reasons, such as climate or lack of rain or soil conditions, why these places don't support a lot of people. Even some fairly settled places such as the western prairies of the U.S. from Montana to West Texas (source: National Geographic, c1995, I don't remember the year), have been experiencing net out-migration due to weather and economics.

For example, Canada and Denmark have had a ridiculous dispute recently over ownership of Hans Island, a chunk of barren rock about 1.5 sq km just west of Greenland. I sent e-mails to interested parties on both sides saying that whoever really wanted to fly the flag there should send a high-ranking official and his family to live there for at least a year. I don't think Kristenn Gudfinnson, Iceland's Minister of Fisheries, was favourably impressed with my idea, nor was his Canadian counterpart Loyola Hearn.

 

Soil? Genetically Modified Foods, that's all you need, build green houses and facilities to produce these foods and walla, there's you food.

As far as climate goes, global warming has helped make northern Canada a warmer place to live.

I'm sure companies like Nike would be pleased to build factories for people to work in in Greenland, hell Greenland could be made into a factory paradise for Third World people.

I know I sound crazy but common, I'm certain all that land can be used for something.

 

the ammount of space on this planet has nothing to do with the population problem. overpopulation is a crisis because there are not enough resources. sure, there is soil everywhere for your GE food, but how about water to make it grow?

so there are massive ammounts of land that are uninhabited. to think that we could easily live in these places is simple minded. you have to take into account so many other factors: energy, building materials, access to clean water, communication networks, waste purification systems... basically everything we take for granted.

sure, it could be done. but it would be inefficient use of energy, which would contribute further to depleting our limited resources. the goal is sustainability, we won't achieve that by accomodating more and more people in new spaces.


a factory paradise? there's something horribly wrong with that sentence...

 

that "be fruitful and multiply" edict needs to be rescinded. tho there may be plenty of land for humans to inhabit and claim for human use but, of course, it would at the expense of the creatures already living there. we're heading toward a homogenized world wherein only that which can be exploited for human consumption is deemed worthy of existance. no more beautiful wild things. i often loath my own species because of our selfish self absorbed egotism.

 

Well then what the hell can we do? I know what I said isn't realistic but what chance to we honestly have? Huh? We have to start creating matter pretty soon ( soon as in 50-100 years ).

Or, we could do it the old fasioned way, kill all the rapists, murderers, insane, mentally disabled and weak individuals, just like the Vikings.

Hey, it may be brutal, but we really don't have many options do we now?

 

you've made the point perfectly: we don't have many options. this is the reason why we need to take action now to combat these alarming issues.

every time i post a comment on these topics i find myself struggling to come to a conclusion. the only conclusion we can say for sure is to leave a very big ??? about the future.

i believe we have all the information, resources and ability to begin rectifying the problem. however the will, especially the political will, is not there. it's simply too much to ask of the modern human to leave their comfort zone because we think something bad is going to happen. people won't change until they're forced to change, and by that time we will all be fucked.

what i honestly think will happen is that most of the icecaps will melt, costal cities worldwide will be flooded, millions of people will die, and the survivors (the wealthy) will go on living (albeit in a dramatically altered world). life will be miserable for almost everybody. it sucks, i know, but human nature seems determined to change the world as we know it.

my belief is that we need to rethink the human being. we can design drugs that will bring out the best in us, and reduce our destructive tendencies. in other words: eliminate greed. i know it sounds like a bad sci-fi movie script (well, not that bad i hope), but we need to realize that we are prisoners of survival instincs that no longer serve a purpose. we already have one such synthetic drug: LSD 25. it has been regarded as one of the only hopes for our kind.

what did the state do with LSD? lock it up and throw away the key. we are in deep trouble...

 

Now this is a real tough one, folks. If she's on the pill, she doesn't get pregnant. If you use condoms properly, she doesn't get pregnant. If you are a thinking, aware individual who is concerned about overpopulation as well as how many mouths you have to feed, she doesn't get pregnant. If she doesn't get pregnant, population increase stops cold, right now.

It's that thinking, aware, individual part that's the kicker. I'm asking the whole, randy, illiterate, inconsiderate Third World to be thinking, aware, individuals. That's asking quite a lot, but that's what the planet needs.

 

The situation in the third world really isn't that simple, as they don't have the same pleasures we do. They need to have a lot of kids to ensure that many survive and that they can work and bring the family money. It's not like the Western world were one child can succeed or fail and the family moves on. The family's wellbeing is tied to how many kids there are and how well they can perform their jobs.

 

Third World Nations don't need food aid, they need safe sex aid, CONDOMS FOR ALL!!!!

 

Great argument here for tax cuts. They have way too much money!

 

You have a point there. There's a thing called the demographic transition which tends to follow the emergence of industry in a country or region. After per capita GNP reaches a certain level, birth rates fall, bringing them into line with lower death rates brought about by modern medicine, sanitation and clean water. Europe, Russia, Japan and North America have experienced this. The low birth rates mean their populations are ageing, thus stressing their economies, but the natural die off of older people will make this a temporary problem only.

Prior to the demographic transition, you have high birth rates. You may or may not have high death rates depending on circumstances, the pre-industrial norm being high birth rates and high death rates. In many third world countries, modern medicine has been introduced, but not contraception, so you have high birth rates, low death rates and a huge rate of natural increase, say 2 or 3 % per annum.

I'm not saying I have the answers to the economic motivator you mention. Additionally, there are racial and tribal jealousy factors. If I'm a Wakamba and you're a Masai, I'm going to want to breed more offspring so that in the next generation, my Wakamba tribe will outnumber your Masai and have a military advantage.

The social scientist who comes up to with workable answers to these types of issues will definitely be up for a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. But where is respect for this planet and willingness to work together in this scenario? This almost sounds like a politicians talking point conjured up by the tobacco industry???? Social scientists are no help here. It is up to you and I to live a peaceful and respectful life!

 

You lost me, pal. What politician? What weatherman? You and I can live a peaceful and respectful life and that won't stop the exponential population growth that is endangering the planet.

There are some things that might stop exponential population growth. An AIDS pandemic. Some other viral pandemic. Ozone depletion. None of these things are a walk in the park. However, if there is a God, and if it is sentient and somehow concerned with this obscure little planet, it might be working overtime to figure out a good pandemic to wipe out these hairless bipeds that are messing things up.

 

I think that we the people are to greedy in the things we need. I am sure everyone here has gone to a buffet restaurant and ate till you cant move...we should eat only what we need, not what we want, same with oil, and everything else if we weren't as greedy there'd be room for other people

 

There is no need to stop the exponential human population growth. It was God's idea from the beginning. So that poor old Adam & Eve wouldn't have to be all worn out, after having billions of children, that their children could help also to expand the naturally expanding human race.

Humans are supposedly intelligent, and our numbers, while they might to some seem to grow steadily and relentlessly, they also grow gradually, allowing time to prepare and adapt. It's not like the stupid fantasies of the population phobics, in which we someday wake up overnight, to world overrun with people. That's ridiculous, and based upon the wrong assumption that there is no God to keep things working along.

If more people would promote the social graces, and treat other people as they would themselves want to be treated, then whatever could possibly be wrong with sharing the world with ever more people? "The more the merrier," they say.

 

But, I will let you in on a dirty little secret that the population phobics don't want getting out, although one hardly has to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. The so-called "demographic transition" is based, not upon development, but more upon rampant, experimental, shoddy contraceptive pushing. As I have read somewhere, "there is nothing magical about having money in one's pockets that sterilizes the reproductive organs." I have heard of many people who don't buy into the contraceptive propaganda, in a developed country such as the USA, also "popping" out their babies, almost right after each other, oh maybe a year and a half or 2 years apart. But in countries where shoddy experimental contraceptive use still isn't the norm, typical family size is around 5 or 6 children, not the feared 20 children that the population bomber freaks like to scare people into thinking may happen. Even if a family does have 20 childen, says author Mary Pride, it will likely take a good long time, and the older children will help with the younger children.

Actually, the ideal combination is naturally high birthrates, so that more babies can be born to promote the greater good for the many, and development and prosperity, as societies find they in time have to populate more densely and efficiently to welcome and fit everybody in, it sure would help for people to have money and prosperity to mitigate any pollution or problems it may tend to bring.

"The developing countries should be more like us, and modernize, to better support their burgeoning populations. We should be more like them, and have more children." Pronatalist

"How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers." Mother Teresa

How is it that I observe, that the more money people have, the less able they seem to be to "afford" children? That shows that we have our priorities all mixed up. You would think that as people gain more wealth, they should be able to afford naturally, possibly-large families, all the easier.

Human population growth naturally helps accelerate technology growth, as all those people need something to do, so some brilliant people tend to expore and invent better ways of doing things. Technology naturally helps support denser and vaster human populations, so it naturally works itself out, as a natural win-win vicious circle in which population growth progress leads to more population growth progress, without some socialist or globalist delusion for more "control" of the natural increase of the populous masses, something that God never meant for humans to "control."

Many of the modern advancements that we too often take for granted, their true purpose is to support vaster and denser populations of people. Isn't that really why we have vaccines, medicine, modern sanitation, modern clean gas or electric cookstoves to replace millions of smoky cooking fires in growing cities, convenient flush toilets to replace smelly overflowing outhouses, modern food preservation such as canning and dehydration and refrigerators, etc.? It's all because the human cities and towns are naturally growing bigger and closer together, and so supposedly intelligent humans naturally adapt and make the best of the situation. Besides, more customers = more profits, when businesses are properly run. And why do people work jobs anyway? But often to support their own growing families.

 

Encourage small families worldwide, so that we may conserve the earth's resources thereby extending the earths current life cycle.

Encourage small families worldwide, so that we may conserve the earth's resources thereby extending the earths current life cycle.

Encourage small families worldwide, so that we may conserve the earth's resources thereby extending the earths current life cycle.

 

indeed. "supposedly intelligent humans" is more appropriate than the writer may realize: our species is capable of intelligence, but for examples of a failure of intelligence, please refer to the above posts.

 

lol

 

Encourage large families worldwide, so that all the more people may live and enjoy life.

Each and every human life is sacred, and so we ought not to interfere with its creation.

Extend the earth's current life cycle? Huh? So we should dilly-dally around, trick people into going against nature to maintain a pidly small population, keeping "all our eggs in one basket" so to speak, awaiting the next killer comet or runaway star?

No! As the "baby" fills the womb and careens towards "birth," it is vital for it to put on weight and grow, to become stronger and able to cope with the challenges of the world. So likewise with the burgeoning billions of the human race. If we like multiplying so much, then let's get on with it, and put away an unstable double-minded mind that has no vision of where to go.

They say that "nature abhors a vacuum." So why forever leave the earth "underpopulated" and underdeveloped? To await invasion by other, perhaps also naturally expanding, alien races from other worlds, in the unlikely event there be any out there?