Over Population

**gadjo_dilo** · 10th December 2010, 07:46

Originally Posted by race aficionado

And I agree with fousto, we are an overpopulated planet and we should work as a team to lower our numbers

The recent measures of our Government/Parliament will definitely either send us to the grave earlier or reduce natality. Looks like we're already on the right way....

Now seriously, I can't believe I read such opinions on this forum. The same forum where some of us are accused of racism, fascism, etc. and where everybody make big fuss on human rights,

Shame on ( some of ) you.

**Mark** · 10th December 2010, 09:18

Originally Posted by glauistean

The world is not over populated by any estimation. This sounds so vile and akin to events of the 30's and 40's.

The world *is* overpopulated already by many estimates. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of biology and sustainable ecosystems knows that the environment can only sustain a certain population for a certain length of time, be that locusts, rabbits or humans. Suggesting that we keep birth rates low has nothing to do with the Nazi's as you seem to want to say, they were all about killing people, and that's not what's being suggested here.

Did you study the 'Demographic Transition Model' at school?

The originator of this thread stated that he was asked to smoke elsewhere because he was obviously doing so in the company of another persons children.

This individual has one child. God, I hope this child is a perfect specimen of the human physical as the author implies by his thread that he, himself is.

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

We will leave intellect out of this as it is apparent that the only complaint is the ugliness of the people in question.

Humour is permitted on this forum, you know.

**gadjo_dilo** · 10th December 2010, 11:01

Interesting is that the idea of an overpopulated earth has come to Mr. Roamy ( who " did his duty" and probably is the happy father of a prince charming or a fairy - depending on gender ) after noticing we're so many that he has not enough space to smoke.
Continuing the reasoning on such simplistic terms let's notice the following:
Let’s say we’re about 6-7 billion on earth. Republic of Moldova, a rather small country, has about 33000 square km. which means 33.000.000 square metres. If we place a man on each square meter, in Moldova is space for the earth population multiplied by 5.. Now let’s take a map and see how small Moldova is and how large the world is. There’s still plenty of space for everybody even if they smoke…..

Now you’ll say that if you place a man/ meter where do you place the trees, the plants the animals? And I say it’s still enough space because we may live in buildings with more levels.

Some of you raised the REAL problem of the increasing number of people who live at the edge of poverty. Is the control of natality a solution? I say "no". The existance of people in need must suggest a method to solve their problem. There's no need to give birth to less kids but to reduce the number of those who live in poverty. If you treat the effects the problem isn't solved so we should treat the cause of the problem.

The author of the thread suggested that " The UN should bring on a temp sterilization program " which is a stupid idea ( what shall you do in many asian countries where religion is still strong and even abortion or contraceptive methods are forbidden? ). Why shouldn't UN bring on a program to use the resources rationally or to reduce the differences between rich/poor countries?

P.S. Once again I'm scared of the way that people of this forum think. I mean it's very rational but you seem to have no feelings. It's great most of you really use your brains when posting but I'm afraid sometimes you forget you also have a heart. It's easy to decide " you should have just 1 child " but what shall I do if my only child dies and I'm sterilized? And if i have twins I'd probably be pointed with the finger for breaking the rules. When threads about abortions were started most of you agreed that every woman is free to decide about her body but now you claim it's right to decide how many kids she might have.
At the end of the day we still don't know for what purpose we have to live on earth so how can we be sure we really must live in comfort, careless and free? What is for sure is that we managed to survive due to natural uncontrolled reproduction .

P.S. 2

Humour is permitted on this forum, you know.

Then I shall catch with the cynical spirit of this thread and suggest a solution for the future:
Since science has evolved and continue to do it I think we should be banned for having children. We should invest in programs to create them artificially and we may go to special shops and buy them as we do now with dolls. This way planet will be saved and we'll be also sure they'll have perfect features and won't bother anybody.

**555-04Q2** · 10th December 2010, 11:14

This world is far from overpopulated. Shortages of food, drinking water etc is only due to mankinds lack of will to provide to those that need it. Every year first world countries have food surpluses, yet millions starve each day. It is our modern lifestyles and need for excesses that is the problem, not overpopulation.

**AndySpeed** · 10th December 2010, 14:21

What you also need to bear in mind is the amount of usable land for producing our food/where we live.

Overpopulation is not just about having enough physical space for people to live in. It is linked to so many other things. Take deforestation, for example. With a larger population there is more drive to remove forest to provide for more agricultural land, more demand for timber etc.

"By most estimates, the world’s forests continue to disappear at an alarming rate. Logging, fires, and land-clearing for agriculture and grazing account for most of the loss. In some places, the green Earth is turning to desert."

Verdant land can become desert as a result of drought, increased erosion due to land-clearing, poor farming techniques, overgrazing of livestock, and drainage of surface and underground water for crop irrigation and household and industrial use.

It only exascerbates the problems for the future.

Have you any idea how much your daily activities impact on the environment that is required to support you? How much water you use on a daily basis and where it comes from? How much land is required to feed you over the course of a year, or how much of your waste goes into landfill located on the edge of your urban area. How you like to play golf on large expanses of land in pleasant locations (and, indeed, how much water a golf course requires!).

In a way, 555-04Q2 is right that it is our modern lifestyles that are the problem. Overpopulation is relative to resources AND space. We are taking too much out of the resources at present, therefore I argue that the world is overpopulated and the effect on those resources is going to lead to greater problems in the future.

**schmenke** · 10th December 2010, 16:10

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

This world is far from overpopulated. Shortages of food, drinking water etc is only due to mankinds lack of will to provide to those that need it. Every year first world countries have food surpluses, yet millions starve each day. ....

555, that's where you are wrong. There is an upcomnig shortage of fresh water on our planet, and we will experience the effects in our lifetimes.
There is probably ample usable land for food for the next few generations if we use it intelligently.
For example, we need to curb our consuption of meat products. Cattle livestock produces far fewer consumable calories per hectare annualy than grain cultivation.

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

... It is our modern lifestyles and need for excesses that is the problem, not overpopulation.

It is the Western civilization's culture of insatiable consumption, coupled with overpopulation that is the problem. The west consumes 90% of the earth's resources and continues to demand more without thinking of the consequences.

**AndySpeed** · 10th December 2010, 16:19

Spot on schmenke.

**Roamy** · 10th December 2010, 16:32

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

P.S. Once again I'm scared of the way that people of this forum think. I mean it's very rational but you seem to have no feelings. It's great most of you really use your brains when posting but I'm afraid sometimes you forget you also have a heart. It's easy to decide " you should have just 1 child " but what shall I do if my only child dies and I'm sterilized? And if i have twins I'd probably be pointed with the finger for breaking the rules. When threads about abortions were started most of you agreed that every woman is free to decide about her body but now you claim it's right to decide how many kids she might have.
At the end of the day we still don't know for what purpose we have to live on earth so how can we be sure we really must live in comfort, careless and free? What is for sure is that we managed to survive due to natural uncontrolled reproduction .

Survival is quite barbaric now in many areas of the world. Human life needs more respect than this. The point of the thread is to discuss overpopulation. Not really to determine 1 or 2 children or implementation of rules due to death of your child. Bring us the solution for some of the African countries to assure a decent life and not to lay there starving covered with flies. You are quick to attack for your personal benefit but fail to have any compassion for fellow humans.

**donKey jote** · 10th December 2010, 16:49

I'm with gadja

**race aficionado** · 10th December 2010, 16:51

Originally Posted by Roamy

Survival is quite barbaric now in many areas of the world. Human life needs more respect than this. The point of the thread is to discuss overpopulation. Not really to determine 1 or 2 children or implementation of rules due to death of your child. Bring us the solution for some of the African countries to assure a decent life and not to lay there starving covered with flies. You are quick to attack for your personal benefit but fail to have any compassion for fellow humans.

I'm with fousto.

mokin: