overpopulation...

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Around 1200-1500 has been shown as a statistically perfect population of humans on the planet.

it would be too easy to be wiped out.

 

[adairusmc]

42

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: adairusmc
42

On Tuesday.

 

[theflyingpig]

I have a plan to solve the problem of overpopulation. It involves the slaughter of about 2-3 billion innocents and the enslavement of roughly 2 billion more. Right now, things are still in the planning stages, but I am in the process of gathering worthy recruits for my army.

 

[GoatMonkey]

We should have stopped about 5 billion ago. It's so stupid that we give tax breaks to people with kids.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: GoatMonkey
We should have stopped about 5 billion ago. It's so stupid that we give tax breaks to people with kids.

It keeps American citizens having babies. It's in the government's best interest to ensure that America's demographics stays fairly constant.

 

[Red Squirrel]

We could probably double if tripple and it would be livable. Look at how dense china is compared to Canada/US. If our side was as dense we'd still live, if china can do it.

Of course that would be a really crappy life style. I complain about traffic now, I can only imagine China and other densely populated places.

Though a quick fix to the population "problem" is to remove lawsuits, or at least, the ones for injuries. Then companies could get rid of silly safety labels. Then over the years, the population problem would take care of itself.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
We could probably double if tripple and it would be livable. Look at how dense china is compared to Canada/US. If our side was as dense we'd still live, if china can do it.

And that's why China has a one child policy, obviously.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
We could probably double if tripple and it would be livable. Look at how dense china is compared to Canada/US. If our side was as dense we'd still live, if china can do it.

And that's why China has a one child policy, obviously.

Yeah true, they are trying to control it as it could for sure grow way out of control, if it's not too late. That's the most humane way to do it imo. Sucks for people that dream of having huge families but with living costs always going up, it's hard to do that financially anyway.

Though, if you get a "oops" and you get a second, what happens?

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
If there weren't so many people we could each get away with wasting a lot more resources with less consequences. What do you think the optimum number of people on earth would be?

I've harbored feelings for a long time that overpopulation is a major if not the major problem. Optimum population IMO is way less than we have now, maybe 1 billion max. There is no optimum, but there is a number greater than which it's not easy to sustain indefinitely and I'd peg that at 1 billion, just a rough estimate.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Hard to tell. We're probably already using more resources than all the other animals combined. At some point that's got to screw something up. *shrug*

I think you are incorrectly assuming we are apart from the animals. Nature doesn't give a damn about us, and we are lumped in that pile with the animals.

He didn't actually differentiate.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: BudAshes
If there weren't so many people we could each get away with wasting a lot more resources with less consequences. What do you think the optimum number of people on earth would be?

Throwing a dart at the wall -- 1 Billion.

Zap. Ditto.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: GoatMonkey
We should have stopped about 5 billion ago. It's so stupid that we give tax breaks to people with kids.

It keeps American citizens having babies. It's in the government's best interest to ensure that America's demographics stays fairly constant.

It's not like the few thousand a year in tax credits make up for the tens of thousands you spend on medical care, food, diapers, other clothing, accessories, child care, not to mention the amount of time and energy you have to expend.

A tax credit is not going to encourage anyone to have a kid if they don't already want one. However, it should at least make it easier to raise the kid, and if a child is well taken care of, they'll be less of a burden to taxpayers in the future.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
We could probably double if tripple and it would be livable. Look at how dense china is compared to Canada/US. If our side was as dense we'd still live, if china can do it.

And that's why China has a one child policy, obviously.

The question is... what is the life style and quality of life in this question? How much human life the Earth could support is one thing - how many humans the Earth can support that live modern lives, like the Japanese, Brits, most of Europe, and US and Canada? Wholly different.

China, at its current population, is going to have to seriously follow the Japanese if they ever want to maintain their current and increasing population and yet have the modern life. I.E. Japan is building up, building large apartment and work facilities to overcome the population density. China hasn't reached true population density problems since only areas of the country are heavily populated, near the main cities, while there are still a bunch of small villages and what not.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: TallBill
According to population studies, the earth will reach about 8 billion in 2035-2050 and hold fairly stead.

Huh, that's interesting. Did the study state why the population would hold steady at that point? Resource issues? If that's the case, would it be holding steady because the death rate increases while the birth rate stays the same?

Yeah, it'd flatline because birth rate and death rate would be roughly the same. It's a population S-curve.

I cant quote or reference anything, we covered this in biology last semester when learning about population models.

Just curious what the study considered the cause for the rate changes. Right now birth rate is higher than death rate, so one or both would need to adjust for it to flatline overall population. If the flatlining is due to resource constraints, that may not be pretty...

its pretty simple. as the poor countries get richer = less kids will be had. just like most other modern countries. once you dont need 12 kids, most people wont go thru all the trouble.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
We could probably double if tripple and it would be livable. Look at how dense china is compared to Canada/US. If our side was as dense we'd still live, if china can do it.

And that's why China has a one child policy, obviously.

Yeah true, they are trying to control it as it could for sure grow way out of control, if it's not too late. That's the most humane way to do it imo. Sucks for people that dream of having huge families but with living costs always going up, it's hard to do that financially anyway.

Though, if you get a "oops" and you get a second, what happens?

My classmate who is here in the US from China to study here told me they abandoned the one child policy several years ago.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
We could probably double if tripple and it would be livable. Look at how dense china is compared to Canada/US. If our side was as dense we'd still live, if china can do it.

And that's why China has a one child policy, obviously.

Yeah true, they are trying to control it as it could for sure grow way out of control, if it's not too late. That's the most humane way to do it imo. Sucks for people that dream of having huge families but with living costs always going up, it's hard to do that financially anyway.

Though, if you get a "oops" and you get a second, what happens?

My classmate who is here in the US from China to study here told me they abandoned the one child policy several years ago.

Damn. They are raising an army.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: DVad3r
FEMA will take care of that. They are making concentration camps and plastic coffins for you.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/873329

Hey, we can put this to rest, audit the books of Vantage! They are in Covington Georgia. Here is their response to this video:
The property on Lions Club Road in Madison, Georgia is leased by Vantage
Products.

The product stored on the property are standard burial vaults, please see
our web page for information on this product - http://www.vantageproducts.com/

The majority of cemeteries across the United States require the use of a
burial vault when a body is interred. The use of a burial vault, plastic or
concrete, is to prevent the collapse of the ground in the cemetery
and to protect the casket placed inside.

In the funeral and/or death care industry there is a common practice of
people making their funeral arrangements prior to death. Many people
like to make their own selections for the casket and burial vaults that will
be used at the time of their death. Once this selection has been made
the local funeral home that has made the arrangements can purchase the
burial vault product from Vantage Products and we will store it for them
until that person dies.

We maintain detailed records of ownership of the products and require a
certificate of ownership to be sent to us before products can be released.
Additionally, we are annually audited by several states including Georgia
to insure that we have all of the products that our records indicate and
that are on file with each of the participating states.

These products are not owned by any one individual person, company or the
government. Additionally, there are only about 50,000 vaults in storage in
Madison, no where near the quantity that is being discussed openly on
the net.

In the United States there are approximately 1,300,000 deaths each year.
Of those deaths there are about 900,000 in ground burials preformed
every year. Only a small percentage of those people have pre arranged
there burial.

I hope this has answered you questions. Please do not hesitate to contact
me if you have additional questions.

Cordially,

Michael A. Lacy
Vice President of Operations
Vantage Products Corporation
960 Almon Road
Covington, GA 30014
770-788-0136 Office
770-788-0361 Fax
404-545-8022 Cell
mlacy@vantageproducts.com

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
We could probably double if tripple and it would be livable. Look at how dense china is compared to Canada/US. If our side was as dense we'd still live, if china can do it.

And that's why China has a one child policy, obviously.

Yeah true, they are trying to control it as it could for sure grow way out of control, if it's not too late. That's the most humane way to do it imo. Sucks for people that dream of having huge families but with living costs always going up, it's hard to do that financially anyway.

Though, if you get a "oops" and you get a second, what happens?

My classmate who is here in the US from China to study here told me they abandoned the one child policy several years ago.

A society with no brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles would suck.

 

[BudAshes]

We need to start providing birth control instead of religion to third world countries.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
We need to start providing birth control instead of religion to third world countries.

We do: it's called modern medicine. India will be all out of girls in 20 years.

 

[Crono]

Overpopulation has never been the problem, distribution of resources has always, always, always been the problem. Greedy and corrupt individuals and organizations keep much mroe than they need, while others starve. A lower population in the world would just mean more land and resources for the super rich and rich. You think that when the earth had 6 million people on the earth that the planet was a loving and peaceful place? People pile in cities even when there is room all over the earth, and nations war with other nations to grab land that they don't even really need. Countries like U.S. produce food in excess, but can't give enough of it away (logistics of transportation is the issue).

Trace back the population of the earth with famine and starvation, wars, etc and you see that overpopulation is not the problem. Those who say it is are ignorant and/or desire to use it as an issue for their own agendas.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Crono
Overpopulation has never been the problem, distribution of resources has always, always, always been the problem. Greedy and corrupt individuals and organizations keep much mroe than they need, while others starve. A lower population in the world would just mean more land and resources for the super rich and rich. You think that when the earth had 6 million people on the earth that the planet was a loving and peaceful place? People pile in cities even when there is room all over the earth, and nations war with other nations to grab land that they don't even really need. Countries like U.S. produce food in excess, but can't give enough of it away (logistics of transportation is the issue).

Trace back the population of the earth with famine and starvation, wars, etc and you see that overpopulation is not the problem. Those who say it is are ignorant and/or desire to use it as an issue for their own agendas.

The fact that computers and satellites coupled with megaships and airplanes have eliminated the logistical problems of food distribution is the reason why we can sustain such a high population. Shut all that shit off for 2 months and 2/3 of the globe would starve.

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: Crono
Overpopulation has never been the problem, distribution of resources has always, always, always been the problem. Greedy and corrupt individuals and organizations keep much mroe than they need, while others starve. A lower population in the world would just mean more land and resources for the super rich and rich. You think that when the earth had 6 million people on the earth that the planet was a loving and peaceful place? People pile in cities even when there is room all over the earth, and nations war with other nations to grab land that they don't even really need. Countries like U.S. produce food in excess, but can't give enough of it away (logistics of transportation is the issue).

Trace back the population of the earth with famine and starvation, wars, etc and you see that overpopulation is not the problem. Those who say it is are ignorant and/or desire to use it as an issue for their own agendas.

You assume nothing dramatic is going to happen that could lower the amount of food we can produce. You also fail to think ahead and realize we have to exist on this planet forever.

 

[Udgnim]

whatever the current population numbers are

overpopulation is self correcting