Overpopulation - A serious problem?

Doesn't that just make it more selfish?

Think whatever you want, then. Just don't interfere with my rights. What matters is that I don't think it's selfish, and it's my decision.

 

Here you go, I was looking up data for my assignment, well here's the census' projections.


U.S. POPClock Projection
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 9/9/2002 at 8:32:03 PM EDT is

288,001,587
COMPONENT SETTINGS


One birth every.................................. 7 seconds
One death every.................................. 14 seconds
One international migrant (net) every............ 29 seconds
Net gain of one person every..................... 10 seconds


Oh and I want to add, that the 2001 census has the U.S. population at 281,421,906 when it was taken.

 

Darwinism, social and otherwise, still exists to a limited extent. Just look at all the people who died of disease, starvation, accidents, etc. each day.

Again, please read up! Social Darwinism and eugenics has really nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

Think whatever you want, then. Just don't interfere with my rights. What matters is that I don't think it's selfish, and it's my decision.

I'm guessing you don't neuter your pets either?

 

Don't have pets. Don't plan to get any. Don't like them. Bad childhood memories.

 

World POPClock Projection
According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 9/10/02 at 0:40:04 GMT (9/9/02 at 8:40:04 PM EDT) is


6,249,097,967


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monthly World population figures:

07/01/02 6,234,250,387
08/01/02 6,240,730,593
09/01/02 6,247,210,800
10/01/02 6,253,481,968
11/01/02 6,259,962,175
12/01/02 6,266,233,343
01/01/03 6,272,713,550
02/01/03 6,279,193,757
03/01/03 6,285,046,847
04/01/03 6,291,527,054
05/01/03 6,297,798,222
06/01/03 6,304,278,429
07/01/03 6,310,549,597


There's some more on our growing world population. Still think having kids shouldn't be restricted?

 

Yes, I do still feel the same way. The world's not worth living in if our freedoms are taken away. Sex and reproductive rights are basic freedoms. No one has the right to dictate what we do with our bodies.

 

Yes, I do still feel the same way. The world's not worth living in if our freedoms are taken away. Sex and reproductive rights are basic freedoms. No one has the right to dictate what we do with our bodies.


Oh they don't huh? Okay, how about motorcycle restrictions? You must wear a helmet. Oh and how about seat belts? If I don't wanna use it, then that's my choice. How about sex in public? It's their choice. There's numerous other things they dictate about our bodies. I think your statement is highly flawed.

 

Oh they don't huh? Okay, how about motorcycle restrictions? You must wear a helmet. Oh and how about seat belts? If I don't wanna use it, then that's my choice. How about sex in public? It's their choice. There's numerous other things they dictate about our bodies. I think your statement is highly flawed.

Ok, I probably should have added in privacy, but anyway....

If you don't want to wear a seatbelt and are over 16, sit in the back seat.

Helmet/seatbelt regulations probably have more to do with liability than anything else.

Sex is such a private issue. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes, and if they chose to reproduce or not, is no one's business but their own.

 

Can't use drugs in the PRIVACY of your own home. You can't smoke on your balcony and outside in some states. You can't prank phone call anyone. Can't make drug deals over the phone. Let's see, what else do they do to privacy. can't own a lot of guns without being suspicious. Can't make your own alcohol (though why would you want to?) Actually, it's illegal to have oral sex in Maryland (it's true, it's true). Oh, you can't have euthenasia. It's illegal to commit suicide. HA! Funny thing. Why would they prevent people from doing that? Stupid stupid stuff.


Oh, here's one thing you can do in Maryland.

You can hit your wife so long as the bruise is no larger than a thumb. Still think your home is all that private?

 

i completely agree. maybe this is off topic, but i really really hate when people tell me i'm selfish because i don't want kids. IM SELFISH?! if children are such little bundles of joy, why don't more people adopt? oh that's right, because you want your little "mini-me"'s. i won't and i can't try to stop people from having kids, but this is my opinion: people who want kids are really the ones who are being selfish. give me any excuse, ANY excuse, and i'll prove it to you.

Depends on your reason for not having kids. If you don't want to devote the time to raising any child, I guess that could be considered selfish, but it's your choice. And I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting the experience of creating a life, or lives, with the person you love.

 

Overpopulation may not seem like a huge problem in countries with low populations but with more people in third world countries, they might destroy rainforests and stuff like that, which makes a huge global impact. In India, Bangledesh and Brazil, it's a serious problem. So it's really important to educate those poor people not to reproduce so much.

In Italy, they encourage couples to have a third child but I forgot what incentive the government gave them. They should encourage adoption too. Choice is good.

 

They are encouraging children in Italy because the birth rate has fallen waayyy below teh replacement rate.

My assertion has been that the UN projects world population to peak at 9-10 Billion, before leveling off or declining. There will be enough resources and technology to sustain that population. The fears of 30 years ago of a runaway exponential growth have been reconsidered, and left behind.

 

Red Seven: I think we were talking about fossil fuels earlier, we still don't have the technology to replace that, and I doubt we will in the next 50-100 years. Then again, I could be wrong




Rebecca: Aren't you being a little bit contradictory? Plus, if people were so concerned for the "common good" and being "selfless" then I bet we'd all be dead.

 

Free birth control and education that stresses how important it is, is the way to prevent unwanted and neglected children. Not people who want to bear their own children giving that up.

 

By the time we run out of fossil fuels, we won't need them anymore. The oil companies will go under, and the technology for alternate energy sources that already exists will become widesprad.

____" AT60 "____

 

AT60: Its not exactally as simple as it sounds-- this could reap a huge economical disaster.

 

No, it will be gradual. Do you think that fossil fuels do NOT run according to laws of supply and demand? As reserves become harder to find (did you know that the known world reserves has actually increased over the past 50 years?) and harder to purify (we are not using some of the more sulphur-laden reserves we've already found due to expense), the cost of using fossil fuels will increase. This rising cost will spur innovation and use market forces to drive alternative energy sources and more efficient utilization of fossil fuels. Or, if you prefer conspiracy theories, will let the alternative energy sources out of the bag once the oil bohemoths go down (more likely that the oil companies invest heavily in the new technology, since it will be more profitable than a mature oil market).

I'm sure you know the well-publicized bet between an economist and a conservationist...the economist let the conservationist pick 10 natural resources that he thought would go up in price over time (denoting increased scarcity). I believe all 10 resources went down in price, despite inflation, because our technology and proficientcy at finding new reserves increases yearly.

There are resources we can and eventually will use up. Doom and gloom and anti-capitalist mantras and the religion of environmentalism are not valid or constructive responses to these issues.

There are many more serious problems than overpopulation, that much is clear.

 

tenorjedi made a point earlier about agriculture being responsible for greater quality of life.

I disagree, respectfully. If quality of life is measured in terms of overpopulation, pestilence, disease, famine, etc. then certainly agriculture has helped spread these things in too many ways to count.

Is it necessarily a good thing that some families have enough food to feed 14 kids? Is it necessarily a good thing to have more televisions? Just because I have two TVs, two computers, and a car that gets 30mpg, doesn't necessarily mean these material things are absolutely necessary to make me happy.

What if they never existed in the first place? Am I dying, unhappy, or at the very least unable to function because I don't have the Playstation 5000 brain implant at this very moment??

What about the amount of waste produced by agricultural economies? The pollution? The land devastation?

We were functioning quite well for thousands of years as hunter-gatherers. If there's a reason we have an overpopulation problem it's clearly because the world continues to produce far more food than it needs. Whether or not that food gets distributed unevenly is another issue... but the problems that stem from overpopulation wouldn't be an issue if we hadn't been indoctrinated to believe that producing more food than is needed is necessary for a society to "improve" its way of life or its standard of living... or that such improvements actually facilitate true happiness.

 

Respectfully, of course, I must disagree.

If quality of life is measured in terms of overpopulation, pestilence, disease, famine, etc. then certainly agriculture has helped spread these things in too many ways to count.

Quality of life is not subject to one factor. It does not mean that owing a playstation 2 makes for a better quality of life morally or ethically. What I'm talking about is, saftey, education, life span, abundance of food, convenience and time saving equipment, leisure time. All of these things = a better quality of life.

Is it necessarily a good thing that some families have enough food to feed 14 kids? Is it necessarily a good thing to have more televisions? Just because I have two TVs, two computers, and a car that gets 30mpg, doesn't necessarily mean these material things are absolutely necessary to make me happy

I'll never say a better quality of life = material possessions, or that you cannot be happy without those things. The items I listed before really define quality of life. Again, the countries with the lowest voluntary birth rates are countries that have, the most food, saftey, long life span, superior education etc, etc. While countries without these advantages have the higher birth rates. I said before that I wouldn't throw up my own theories of why that is, but I think I just might for you to ponder. Again these are my theories (I'm sure others have ventured these opinions as well)

Humans have an overwhelming drive and desire to see their children have a better life than they did. As the quality of life goes up, so does the cost of raising a child to the standards and desires that a parent would want for that child. So the more it costs to raise a child the less children people will have. Coupled with education, and a longer life these factors drive down the birth rate in industrialized countries. The previlance or abundance of food seems to play no part in the birth rate at all as countries that do not have enough food to go around still have very high birth rates.

but the problems that stem from overpopulation wouldn't be an issue if we hadn't been indoctrinated to believe that producing more food than is needed is necessary for a society to "improve" its way of life or its standard of living[/]i

People have always produced or gathered more food than they needed because a lack of food = death, and famine has been a constant on this earth. Those that don't fear or protect themselves from it die. Besides having enough food to feed yourself and enough variation in your food for a healthy diet, food has no other part in your quality of life.

What about the amount of waste produced by agricultural economies
Any excess unused food is returned to the earth from whence it came. It's a renewable resource. If you don't clean your plate, it doesn't matter, as that food would have spoiled before it got to Etheopia. Nutrients go back into the soil, to grow again next season.

The pollution?
So we should kill 99% of the worlds population so that it can support a hunter gather society? Pollution happens. If you want to feed the world you've got to use efficient methods. People cry a river when someone dies, yet the propose something that will kill millions from starvation.

The land devastation
It grows back. If I plow a field it'll grow over if I don't take care of it. Nutrients are returned to the soil.

You can do a woulda shoulda coulda all your life if you like, but lets deal with the reality of now. Man overproduces because of blights and famine and diseases and so on. We need our current methods of farming to feed the hungry. Someday hopefully we'll have efficient, less pollutant methods, but untill then we need to feed the people.

 

"Any excess unused food is returned to the earth from whence it came. It's a renewable resource. If you don't clean your plate, it doesn't matter, as that food would have spoiled before it got to Etheopia. Nutrients go back into the soil, to grow again next season."

Wrong, it ends up in a landfill to rot.

"It grows back. If I plow a field it'll grow over if I don't take care of it. Nutrients are returned to the soil."

Wrong again, it becomes arid. Nutrients do not magically appear. Soil must be tended to carefully with methods such as crop rotation and irrigation in order to keep it fertile. Today, farmers use things such as fertilizers to keep their cropland full of nutrients. While they can continually use animal feces to grow crop, I can only imagine the plethera of new disease and water contaminition that this method causes.

 

Overpopulation - A serious problem?


nope..not right now

 

"Overpopulation - A serious problem?


nope..not right now"

Tell that to all the Third-World nations on the globe. It's easy to sit here in luxury and exclaim that the global population is not an issue when it is clear that it most certainly is a serious problem everywhere else.

 

Tell that to all the Third-World nations on the globe. It's easy to sit here in luxury and exclaim that the global population is not an issue when it is clear that it most certainly is a serious problem everywhere else.

do people know me...who says i live in luxury.....



poverty and over population are two different things...

yes they go hand and hand with each from time to time but

 

poverty is one thing, not having enough water beacuse you live in an overpopulated area is quite another