How big of an issue is overpopulation? What would you do about it?

[Infohawk]

Personally, I think this is a huge issue. Environmentally I think the impact of too many people on this planet is fairly obvious. Even if we can feed everybody, we will need to destroy more and more habitat to do so.

The geopolitical consequences are scarier though. Worst case scenario is that more wars are fought over resources and land. It's hard to imagine that at the very least we will not all be relatively poorer because we have to share less resources. But maybe science will find a way to meet all our energy needs?

I think the left and the right share the blame for this problem. The bleeding heart types seek to help all third worlders and help them get to an equal level. This is a noble goal but it has dramatic consequences (overpopulation and increased global consumption) that they don't really have solutions for. The right pushes their religious crap and stops family planning funding.

Is overpopulation a problem? If so, what should be done to solve it?

 

[Ns1]

yes it is a problem, and eventually the problem will fix itself

 

[nageov3t]

it's a problem that will fix itself. like being wet.

 

[BoberFett]

When I was on the Swine Flu project we recognized the inherent failure of the AIDS project and it's limitation to fluid exchange only and...

Hold on... someone's banging on my front door...

 

[Zebo]

I read everyone today could live in Florida and Florida could sustain them in scientific American once. They seemed to think no problem whatsoever.

I think environmental destruction is a separate issue.

 

[woolfe9999]

It's absolutely not an issue in the United States and will not be for a very long time. It is an issue in some countries like China and India. However, globally the problem is not actually imminent and is probably overstated by some. The problem will be "corrected" either by wars/disease, or else will be pre-emptively solved through technology. As the problem isn't all that imminent, I wouldn't doubt that the latter is quite possible.

- wolf

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think in the 'Western' world population growth kinda slows down in the next 40-50 years.

'Third' World (I hate that term) --- fuggetaboudit, how to deal with that I have no clue.

I think many issues will have to deal with population migration (and I'm not just talking about immigration).

The 'Sun Belt' and the 'Western' states in the USA must deal with high levels of in-migration while investing in the infrastructure necessary to provide public services and utilities.

The jobs outlook over the next decade only exacerbates the problem as folks move around looking for a better life.





--

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I don't think it is overpopulated. If it becomes so technology will be built to deal with it.

 

[Zebo]

'Third' World (I hate that term)
---------
Then don't use it, underdeveloped world works.

 

[nobodyknows]

yes it is a problem, and eventually the problem will fix itself

 

[chucky2]

I think the problem with population growth is all things that go along with additional population: Additional buildings to house them, additional transportation system to transport them (and everything needed to support them), additional energy usage, additional food usage, additional water usage, additional sprawl, additional pollution, etc.

I really don't see the positive in encouraging more than 2 kids per man and woman (unless she happens to have twins, triplets, etc, then so be it), only negatives.

Of course, more kids would help with the retirement schemes, however, given all the negatives of more people, I'd think we'd be encouraging men and women having less kids, not more.

Surely we could incentivize it at the tax level....

Chuck

 

[MJinZ]

'Third' World (I hate that term)
---------
Then don't use it, underdeveloped world works.

Well you got the world, and you know, we rank everyone so like USA ranks #1 tier/group and the rest...

 

[Throckmorton]

Personally, I think this is a huge issue. Environmentally I think the impact of too many people on this planet is fairly obvious. Even if we can feed everybody, we will need to destroy more and more habitat to do so.

The geopolitical consequences are scarier though. Worst case scenario is that more wars are fought over resources and land. It's hard to imagine that at the very least we will not all be relatively poorer because we have to share less resources. But maybe science will find a way to meet all our energy needs?

I think the left and the right share the blame for this problem. The bleeding heart types seek to help all third worlders and help them get to an equal level. This is a noble goal but it has dramatic consequences (overpopulation and increased global consumption) that they don't really have solutions for. The right pushes their religious crap and stops family planning funding.

Is overpopulation a problem? If so, what should be done to solve it?

You have some things backwards. Higher standard of living and most importantly more energy availability reduces population growth. If you can work your farm with tractors, you don't need as many children to provide labor.


What worries me about population is that while we can feed the world now, we won't be able to feed the world when oil becomes scarce and intensive industrial agriculture becomes impossible. Without fertilizer etc, farming has to be organic, which is much less productive.

 

[BoberFett]

Surely we could incentivize it at the tax level....

Good luck with that.

 

[bfdd]

I don't see an overpopulation problem. I think it has been blown out of proportion.

 

[Anarchist420]

If we don't do something about all the illegal aliens, we will have an overpopulation very soon. Also, I've heard that the U.N. plans to kill off 85% of the population; whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[bfdd]

You have some things backwards. Higher standard of living and most importantly more energy availability reduces population growth. If you can work your farm with tractors, you don't need as many children to provide labor.


What worries me about population is that while we can feed the world now, we won't be able to feed the world when oil becomes scarce and intensive industrial agriculture becomes impossible. Without fertilizer etc, farming has to be organic, which is much less productive.

Oil is not going to become scarce in our life time unless it's under produced. There is enough oil to last us quite a few generations. I don't see that becoming a huge issue in the upcoming years. Plus other forms of power production are being developed or improved upon so energy imo isn't that big of an issue.

 

[Zebo]

I don't see an overpopulation problem. I think it has been blown out of proportion.

There have been alarmists about this since the 60's. FAIL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

The Population Bomb was a best-selling book written by Paul R. Ehrlich in 1968. It warned of the mass starvation of humans in 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation and advocated immediate action to limit population growth

 

[TheDoc9]

Its definitely not a problem. Birth control works too well in many countries.

 

[bfdd]

There have been alarmists about this since the 60's. FAIL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

I know there have been alarmists screaming about over population long before I was born. That doesn't mean I don't think the issue is far blown out of proportion. I don't even see it as an issue. The places we are seeing population boom are in similar stages where we saw western populations boom. It's really not that big of a deal and it will slow down once those countries advance to a similar level we are at currently.

 

[Zebo]

I know there have been alarmists screaming about over population long before I was born. That doesn't mean I don't think the issue is far blown out of proportion. I don't even see it as an issue. The places we are seeing population boom are in similar stages where we saw western populations boom. It's really not that big of a deal and it will slow down once those countries advance to a similar level we are at currently.

I mean they fail (every time) - sorry about how i write that confused the issue.

 

[QuantumPion]

You have some things backwards. Higher standard of living and most importantly more energy availability reduces population growth. If you can work your farm with tractors, you don't need as many children to provide labor.


What worries me about population is that while we can feed the world now, we won't be able to feed the world when oil becomes scarce and intensive industrial agriculture becomes impossible. Without fertilizer etc, farming has to be organic, which is much less productive.

Not to worry, fertilizer is made from natural gas, not oil, and we have 300-500 years of known natural gas reserves. If we don't have a technological solution to energy in 500 years time, then it is because civilization has collapsed for political reasons and we'll be using poop for fertilizer anyway.

 

[Mursilis]

I don't see an overpopulation problem. I think it has been blown out of proportion.

This. Read P.J. O'Rourke's "All the Trouble in the World" to debunk this and several other myths.

 

[bfdd]

I mean they fail (every time) - sorry about how i write that confused the issue.

np my bad for misunderstanding.

 

[chucky2]

Good luck with that.

Seriously, I think we could. Just thinking out loud (not a tax professional or economist):

Give each person as they turn say 13 (which is around the time when they can have a part in producing babies), a <insert amount here, say, $4,000> tax credit for not having kids.

If/When they share in having one, they lose say $2500 of that credit. If they have a part in having a second one, they lose the final $1500.

If they share in having a 3rd, they get hit with a $1500 additional tax. 4th, $2500 additional tax. 5th, $4000 tax.

For those that don't work, however they receive compensation, will be reduced by the above amounts. Have more than one kid while on continuous aid (which wouldn't have to be continuous, just, for the large % of time between the two kids), forced sterilization, for whoever shares in a second baby while they're on continuous aid. This prevents people having a bunch of welfare babies.

Just brainstorming....we could for sure though make it so we could get the majority of folks who just feel like having kids think twice about having more than is really necessary.

Chuck