Overpopulation: Is It Real Or Contrived?

[Optimus]

Realize what?

Yes - my point is that we Western/industrial countries sit in our idling SUVs, smoking a cigar, talking on our cell phones reading newspapers, and negotiating that lumber deal from Equador and we point at the farmer in rural Africa with 4 kids and scream "See? He's the problem! Lookit all them kids!".

What a crazy messed up world...

 

[Elledan]

Most Humans won't see the brick wall until they walk against it. Same counts for big deep ravines.

Conclusion: Most Humans just don't care even a tiny bit about their environment. As long as they get their money and have enough vacation-days to spend time doing things they like.

Calling Humans in general 'Intelligent' is a gross exaggeration.

 

[GL]

Solution to Overpopulation

Get married and have only two kids. One kid replaces you when you die, the other kid replaces your significant other. There...zero population growth.

Other Solution to Overpopulation

Mate like rabbits and with exponential growth reach a point where the human population is exponentially destroyed via your choice or combination of the following methods:

-War (when you've got neighbours up the ying yang it gets tough to not fight with people)
-Lack of food (due to lack of agricultural land, fresh water, poor distribution system)
-Disease (communicable diseases that wipe out people's lives just at the perfect rate where they're effective killers but also effective survivors)
-Drastic climactic events (we'll be burning more fossil fuels causing drastic changes in weather patterns...more hurricanes, long hot summers followed by cold long winters, tornadoes, etc.)

So which solution will it be?
-GL

 

[SmiZ]

Balt


I would never pretend that I have the answer to the population/resource crisis. I just find it odd that some people can sit there and say there is no problem. That is the only thing that we can do, make people realize that life won't continue indefinitely the way it is going now.


I don't want to sound "Holier than thou" and I apologize if I came across that way. I make no illusions that I coexist perfectly with this environment. I do believe the only way to attack this problem is through education.

The majority of the world hasn't given a thought to how their actions and everyday activities affect those around them. Most people also have very little foresight. Tell someone that smoking will cause cancer in 40 years and they think "40 years, that's a long time from now" Tell them that smoking will give them cancer tomorrow, and they will have the cigarette out of their mouth before you finish your sentence. So the question becomes how do you get people to care about something that might not affect them, but will deffinately affect their children, or children's children?


Solution? Let me know if you have one, cause I do not.

 

[Optimus]

<< Get married and have only two kids. One kid replaces you when you die, the other kid replaces your significant other. There...zero population growth. >>



A) This assumes everyone gets married and has 2 kids. And that those 2 kids are able to do the same...

B) Nice voluntary solution on an individual basis - but it cannot be forced upon people without taking away their rights.

 

[Zucchini]

actually replacement rate is slightly higher then2 children per family ppl die u know.. so 2-3 is a good number

 

[Moonbeam]

Tagej, you should agree with DABANSHEE more often. It does my heart good to see you on the correct rather than the right side of an issue for a change.

 

[bigbootydaddy]

if you trully think there is over population, go drive to another city. what is there??? nothing!!!!! nothing at all. tear the trees down, build what you want, replant the trees...and there, instant space.

there is no was we will ever be overcrowded. besides, isnt the crowding directly related to your job/lifestyle?? people who can afford it will live as far as possible from others no matter how many miles it puts on their beemer.

example: houston area...main work isin downtown. areas where others live and very populated (and far as hell considering houston traffic)
cinco ranch
sugarland
jersey village/katy
memorial(not that far but some pimp houses)

 

[bigbootydaddy]

<< Have you ever taken the time to enjoy nature -- with no people around, no things built by people, no buildings, no traffic, no roads, no noise?? Better do it now, because at the rate the population is increasing, you won't be able to do that in the near future. There's already an entire generation of people in the US that have no idea what it's like to be outside in the wide-open. All they know is concrete, metal and plastic. The only animals they've ever seen are those in a zoo. Sad, very sad. >>



that means no computers. nah. i like cs.

 

[SmiZ]

bigbooty,

Very simplified example:

Think of the planet as a huge card board box, now assume that humans are the only things that live here. Each human needs a set amount of resources: food, water, air, etc. etc. The space in this box will represent these resources. Each time a human is added to the box (not born but added, meaning a human was born an no one died to make room for him/her) the space that represents their resources is filled. The humans are reproducing at an exponential rate, ie. the population is growing fast. Now, no matter how big the box is, eventually it will fill up....and overflow.

Bottom line: Overpopulation is an issue and you will see it's effects in your lifetime.


*edit for typos

 

[bluemax]

<< Not before the over grazing of African cattle herders, causes the extinctions of virtually all the African wildlife we all love.

Just think, if we just went &amp; sterilised them all after each had just one kid, they wouldn't have to die of disease &amp; famime in the 1st place. >>



Well, AIDS is going to help here. :-/
In Africa, ***50%*** of the population is AIDS positive and spreading rapidly everywhere. I have every reason to think this is our next big &quot;plague&quot;.

We'll see the effects in our lifetimes.

 

[bigbootydaddy]

<< Think of the planet as a huge card board box, now assume that humans are the only things that live here. Each human needs a set amount of resources: food, water, air, etc. etc. The space in this box will represent these resources. Each time a human is added to the box (not born but added, meaning a human was born an no one died to make room for him/her) the space that represents their resources is filled. The humans are reproducing at an exponential rate, ie. the population is growing fast. Now, no matter how big the box is, eventually it will fill up....and overflow. >>



i agree with you, but one, it wont happen in any of our lifetimes. second, buildings get taller, and there is more open space than used...and you can stick more than 3 people in rhode island. overcrowding in cities yes. globally, no...not yet.

concern yes...problem at hand: disease, poverty,stravation, gw bush.

 

[Zucchini]

can't really consider aids the next big plague. Now if it became an airborn virus... it would be a @#% plague.

Hmm scratch airborn, just a strain that spreads to fleas/mosquitos.

 

[Optimus]

Is anyone who suggests forced sterilization as a means of population/poverty control willing to volunteer for the same? How about when they come take your wife away to the sterilization clinics? Or again, do we only want this to happen to poor countries?

 

[bluemax]

That's my plan. Two kids then I start jogging with scissors.
*snip*
And they should drag off the HUSBAND, not the wife... it's major surgery for a woman, a lil' snip for a man.

Food production would be less of an issue if it weren't for the obsession most people have with meat. Considering how much farming it takes to feed animals, compared to the food of the animal itself, we'd be better off to farm more and eat meat less. Then we'd have an overflow of food.
Water pollution is getting critical, however. Same as air - since they are directly related. The ever-harvested rainforest produces much of our air, but so does the oceans! (Plankton? I forget...)
The water pollution kills that, and the purification of the water cannot happen either. We die of poisoned water and suffocation at the same time. Fun.

AIDS may not be airborne (although there are reports of mosquito passing...) but considering how promiscuous people are with their sexuality, it spreads plenty fast enough. Because its effects aren't immediate (like other STDs) people will delude themselves, thinking, &quot;*I* don't have AIDS! AIDS is for fags!&quot; (or something similarly stupid.)

Then 2/3 of the world's population is dead or dying.

Like I said... we WILL see some drastic things happen. I really see it happening in our lifetimes. It's interesting to note that the Bible even warned of these events, although at some point the &quot;book&quot; closes and there's squat we can do about it. I won't go into that further unless requested.

Suffice it to say, human greed is killing planet Earth. We're very close to the point of no return...

 

[Athanasius]

Ok, time for some levity:

The real question AT needs to be concerned with is:

&quot;Is overpopulation at AT a real threat to the stability of this Board?&quot;

Aren't we pushing 45,000? How many members can fit in this section of cyberspace?

 

[GL]

Optimus,

I'm not for forced sterilization or anything and like that the idea of &quot;two kids&quot; per couple is a voluntary one. It doesn't cost anything, and the solution is applicable now. But while people are looking for the evasive answer that is easy and solves all our problems, I will have taken a direct hit at exponential growth. If I had 4 kids, and each of my kids went on to bear 4 children, then it would take less than 10 generations for there to be 1 million descendants from me, as opposed to say...if as a matter of family tradition that everybody had only 2 kids, those same 10 generations would result in only 2 descendants from me in the 10th generation.

I'm telling you...exponential growth is nothing to laugh at. Anyway, I based my calculation from above on a simplistic model of 4^(generation) = # of people in that generation. Not sure if this is correct, but I think it is.

-GL

 

[Elledan]

When you tell people now that in the future we'll experience serious overpopulation, increased droughts, tornados, smog and more funny stuff, many of them won't take you serious, even if you drown them with evidence.

Telling them that it would be wise to take 2-3 children at max, they'll only shrug and take 0-1 or 4-5 kids.

The only way to avoid this is by making every Human on this planet infertile and grow new Humans in growing chambers.

If we want to decrease the world-population, we can start with killing off everyone who is too dumb to understand how dumb they are. Which would be about 89% of the world-population...

Yes, Humans can be depressing sometimes...

 

[GL]

Shoot I think my calculations were slightly flawed...I'm taking this nasty ass cough medecine...I'll change them in a sec. Either way that number is huge.

EDIT: Now that I look at it, I think the calculations are OK. Starting off with me and my (future) wife, if we had 4 kids, and those kids had 4 kids each, and so on; then after 10 generations there would be over 1 million offspring initiated by myself, my (future) wife and the spouses of each kid at each generational level. I just have to be more specific...the one million includes the joint offspring of kids and their spouses...ahh this is all too much for my brain right now!

-GL

 

[xaigi]

<< When the ability to provide for the existing inhabitants is exhausted, famine and disease will bring the population down to a manageable level. >>


Yeah. That'll be fun.

 

[Zucchini]

heheh, yea like natures abortion

 

[Shalmanese]

Okay, Quick summary of what has been said and my opinions:

Those who say overpopulation is not a problem are using a simplifed linear extension of existing models and are thus underestimating

those who say it is a problem are using a expontetial model and are overestimating

The real model for all natural growth is in the form of an s curve. That is, it starts off as fairly linear (before 1800's for human population) and proceeds to become exoponetial (1800 - ~2010) and then slows down (2010 - 2100???) and reaches a steady sinusoidal shape (hopefully 2100+)

food production is also following this model but it is unsure whether it will be able to keep up with population.

right now, we have 120% of the food neccesay for adequate nutrition (based on WHO standards) but a huge amount of this is inadequatley distributed.

the main polluters are the so called top 10% (first world countries using large amounts of plastic etc) and the bottom 10% (slash and burn farmers who make a living out of selling beef to macdonalds for hamburgers)

and also for a general rule of thumb, as you go up each level of the food chain, it takes about 10kg of matter to produce 1 kg so 100 kg of beef would need around 1000kg of grain

if a human diet consisted of about 10% meats, then we could increase the food supply by 90% just by going vegetarian.

But then other factors also come into it such as clean water which is steadily diminishing so that there is no way to keep un a sustainable population.

It all comes down to exactly how ingenious science gets (eg desalinization, recycling water etc)

but a sustainable population of 80 billion is definatly not possible without some definate reworking of the enviroment.

one last point: the &quot;doing your little bit&quot; recycling programs are basically useless as well as expensive as less that 0.5% of total waste is produced by households, a much better way of helping the enviroment is to lobby for large industries to become more efficient.

 

[Nick Stone]

Shalmanese

I'm not picking on you. I like to summerize the whole thread too sometimes. But here's my thoughts on your thoughts.
Predicting the rate populations increase is difficult. In the early 50's People from the USA averaged more than 3 kids per household. Couples also tended to get married earlier. At that time most studies predicted that it would always be that way.
I think it's safe to say that the capability to adjust to changes in demographics/population will simply be a slow evolution (that's good, right?) during our lifetime.
Enhancements in the internet that are still to come will allow humans to be less dependant on each other, and encourage people to spread out to the less populated areas. For example, many won't have to commute to work anymore. But kids will still need to be close enough to each other to gain from social interaction. ie, go to school.
As 3rd world countries become Westernized (that is good, isn't it?) there are some who say that they will tend to have only the children that they can support thru college or equivilent and that underpopulation might be a problem, a least in a political sense. (Some governments need chaos to survive).
Food production like energy production will match the market. I think it always has. Those who can pay for food have it and those who can produce the food will sell it to them. Prices don't vary any more for food than the price changes in SDRam or oil.
Polution prevention is simply a cost. Damage to the environment in 3rd world countries is a political (potentially controllable by government) problem not an overpopulation problem, per se.

So why is everyone &quot;hung up&quot; on meat and bad mouthing McDonalds? McDonalds will sell you just what you want and need, just like Microsoft
Remember this thread originally was about Texas. It's a fact that a good chunk of Texas is only suitable for raising cattle. BTW these cattle do not require many suppliments or cattle feed. Later (90 days before processing) you CAN fatten them in a feed lot IF the price of grain is low AND you desire/require certain characteristics (tender steaks) or grades of beef. If you think beef is &quot;bad&quot; that's your business. For people in those rural areas of Texas, that's THEIR business.

 

[DABANSHEE]

&quot;actually replacement rate is slightly higher then2 children per family ppl die u know.. so 2-3 is a good number&quot;

No Zuchini, it should stay at 2, because increased generational overlap (people living longer) cancels out all the people who have only one 1 kid or no kids).

Did you know that even with the birth restrictions in China, where Han Chinese are only aloud one kid per couple &amp; minority couples are aloud 2 kids, the Chinese population will still keep increasing for the nest 40 odd years from increasing generational overlap alone.

Now in the West generational overlap has more or less reach its limits, but it definitly hasnt in the rest of the world.

 

[DABANSHEE]

To summarise,

the 4 most important things on the planet are: -

air
water
topsoil
biodivesity

Humanity can't exist without those 4 being in a healthy state, that means those 4 things are more important than humanity itself.

Now as far as I can see it, we all will have to stop expecting so much out of life, plus things have to be made more efficient &amp; we have to start thinking more in the long term.

What gets me, we had hundreds of nuclear demonstarators &amp; greenpeace types demonstrate in front of Sydney's nuclear reactor, to stop the waste being transported out for re-processing in France. Now if all those hundreds (about 300 people) had just worked that day &amp; donated one days pay to purchase rainforest in the 3rd world they could have purchased at least a 1000 acres at current exchange rates. Which could then be protected permantly from loggers.

What I mean instead of green groups just demonstrating &amp; making noise they should stop trying to get in the way &amp; try to be part of the solution instead. Land is cheap in the 3rd world by western standards, If westerners don't want 3rd world peasants to slash &amp; burn it they can purchase it instead. &amp; if the 3rd world politicians don't like it they can do what the Malaysian &amp; Japanese logging companies do &amp; bribe them. It would be no more expensive than Greenpeace spending millions to stop BP/Shell from dumping that oil platform in a deep sea trench (even though it turned out later that that was a much more enviromentaly friendly solution than any of the alternatives &amp; Greenpeace had exagerated the toxic waste on board by about 1000% or more).

Plus I think there should be financial incentives for people to be sterilised after having 2 kids. This would work well in the 3rd world.

But there has to be more equity on the planet, otherwise the 3rd world will just want what we have &amp; imagine what the consumption, waste &amp; polution levels would be on the planet if that happened. Already India &amp; China are currently in the process of overtaking the US as far polution is concerned.

I think public transport can help as a long term solution - its help Europe to have much lower per person fuel usage levels than the US. But it means a change in attitude - I have a V8 engined car that I used to drive arround all the time, however these days I drive it only when its raining &amp; I don't feel like walking/bicycling up to the local shops or railway station in the rain, or if I'm running late.

Anyway, whatever happens, I am going to make sure I am having no more than 2 kids.