Over Population

In my opinion we are grossly overpopulating the planet. I had a guy ask me to smoke elsewhere when I was standing at a golf tourney. He was standing there with his fat ugly wife and 5 kids. Over populating and bringing ugly kids into the world with parents of disproportionate physical statures. In my opinion we need to ban increasing population for a while. The UN should bring on a temp sterilization program. Any country that can't support itself should be banned from further populating. The countries that can sustain population should require permission to bear children. People just want to keep going until they ruin the planet and kill everyone off with a freaking plague.

And yes I did my part - I fathered one child and promptly had a vasectomy.

You can't do that in a free society of course! Personally I think 2 kids is sufficient! But I know many people like having big families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

You can't do that in a free society of course! Personally I think 2 kids is sufficient! But I know many people like having big families.

---

Well we need to change this because in 10 years time we are really going to be feeling the problem we are creating. It is not that you "can't" free societies need to do their part as well.

I agree fousto.
An exponentially increasing population, combined with insatiable consumption of limited resources means our planet is doomed.

China is the only country to make an attempt to mitigate the problem by limiting new families to only one child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

In my opinion we are grossly overpopulating the planet. I had a guy ask me to smoke elsewhere when I was standing at a golf tourney. He was standing there with his fat ugly wife and 5 kids. Over populating and bringing ugly kids into the world with parents of disproportionate physical statures. In my opinion we need to ban increasing population for a while. The UN should bring on a temp sterilization program. Any country that can't support itself should be banned from further populating. The countries that can sustain population should require permission to bear children. People just want to keep going until they ruin the planet and kill everyone off with a freaking plague.

And yes I did my part - I fathered one child and promptly had a vasectomy.

---

You've actually failed in doing your bit. Although I disagree with you on a lot of things you seem intelligent. Whilst billy and brandy bob keep on popping kids out into a life of squalor and stupidity, you've only fathered 1 child who needs to compete against billy and brandy bob's 12 :p

Intelligent people need to start having more children and reversing the dumbening (is that a word? :p ) of the human race :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

You've actually failed in doing your bit. Although I disagree with you on a lot of things you seem intelligent. Whilst billy and brandy bob keep on popping kids out into a life of squalor and stupidity, you've only fathered 1 child who needs to compete against billy and brandy bob's 12 :p

Intelligent people need to start having more children and reversing the dumbening (is that a word? :p ) of the human race :p

---

Yes you are correct but I would implement that as stage two. Temp sterilization or perhaps permanent is some cases is needed first. Then you must apply where many issues could be addressed.

It definitely has to happen that population levels are controlled, for the simple reason that world population is increasing. However, I don't think that's going to prevent fat ugly people asking you to smoke elsewhere.

But if people aren't allowed to have kids, what are they going to do? An awful lot of our culture and society is based on people reproducing.

I feel disgusted reading this thread and am taken aback with the agreement of some.
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 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.

Overpopulation of "ugly" people is an argument agreed upon by many in here.

Why don't you all post your photo's of yourselves and your offspring so we can determine whether they are allowed to procreate again.

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

^ :s :?:

As a non biological father of my adoring son, my wife and I went through an excruciating process where we were asked many personal questions by government agencies to see if we were fit to adopt.

It made me wonder why all other biological parents weren't asked the same questions - and of course I shuddered with the thought of big brother imposing himself that way . . . . and on the other hand, you so many times see parents treating kids in the most disgusting way and harming them physically and psychologically from the very beginning that you wonder how on earth they had the right to be parents of those innocent children.

Thank goodness we have free will (OK some times . . . .) but it is a big issue.

And I agree with fousto, we are an overpopulated planet and we should work as a team to lower our numbers and that will happen when my signature is implemented and parents will be assured that their children will live long enough so that they don't have to over multiply. And of course I am talking of the so called 'third world countries" here, not Joe Shmoe from (put your city here) that has 5 children that are covered by welfare and etc, etc. etc,

:s mokin:

Well, as a start, a simple standard question to wannabe parents could be:

"Does either of the following apply to your current home:
A) Is is on wheels?
B) Are vehicle parts strewn about the front lawn?
C) Is a toilet featured as a lawn ornament?"

If "yes" is answered to any of the above, manditory sterilization.

I had this conversation with one of my work colleagues before I came back to University. I was trying to make a point that the world is becoming overpopulated and that there are only finite resources, and she simply focussed on the fact that she had 2 children, may want more, and that you can't take away people's freedoms like that.

But the act of good governance is sometimes telling people what they can and can't have, for the greater good and comfort of the population. Sometimes this telling is direct, as in a dictatorship, but it can also be achieved by making it harder to have children and taking away the benefits. But I feel that it has to be done.

I'm currently studying for a postgraduate degree in sustainable water management, and I have a particular interest in water resources. It is [wildly] speculated that in the future wars could be fought over water because as we get a larger population there is more stress, especially with climate changing and people living in water stressed areas (Las Vegas anyone). How can we feed this population increasing exponentially when we struggle to irrigate our crops, move water hundreds of miles and consume yet more natural ecosystems and landscapes to build yet another housing estate (SE England).

It's ridiculous. You have to control the breeding of people in certain stressed areas or we're just going to end up having ****ty little lives in the future.

The thing is, many governments don't want to encourage a stabilized population as more people = more economic development. In a capitalist world, how can you win the votes if your economy isn't continually developing/building debt/having a strong workforce.

I am a strong supporter of the Optimum Population Trust - see http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndySpeed

I had this conversation with one of my work colleagues before I came back to University. I was trying to make a point that the world is becoming overpopulated and that there are only finite resources, and she simply focussed on the fact that she had 2 children, may want more, and that you can't take away people's freedoms like that.

But the act of good governance is sometimes telling people what they can and can't have, for the greater good and comfort of the population. Sometimes this telling is direct, as in a dictatorship, but it can also be achieved by making it harder to have children and taking away the benefits. But I feel that it has to be done.

I'm currently studying for a postgraduate degree in sustainable water management, and I have a particular interest in water resources. It is [wildly] speculated that in the future wars could be fought over water because as we get a larger population there is more stress, especially with climate changing and people living in water stressed areas (Las Vegas anyone). How can we feed this population increasing exponentially when we struggle to irrigate our crops, move water hundreds of miles and consume yet more natural ecosystems and landscapes to build yet another housing estate (SE England).

It's ridiculous. You have to control the breeding of people in certain stressed areas or we're just going to end up having ****ty little lives in the future.

The thing is, many governments don't want to encourage a stabilized population as more people = more economic development. In a capitalist world, how can you win the votes if your economy isn't continually developing/building debt/having a strong workforce.

I am a strong supporter of the Optimum Population Trust - see http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

---

Good one.
You are an example of the younger generation looking at taking charge and helping save our planet.
thanks!
:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fandango

But if people aren't allowed to have kids, what are they going to do? An awful lot of our culture and society is based on people reproducing.

---

Sad but true:
In a lot of countries which don't possess social security and/or an old age pension system, people are supported in their old age by their children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

In my opinion we need to ban increasing population for a while. The UN should bring on a temp sterilization program. Any country that can't support itself should be banned from further populating. The countries that can sustain population should require permission to bear children.

---

Is your opinion well formed? If this is primarily about an environmental footprint problem then I ask you, which of the following circumstances do you ask for temporary sterilization?
- A couple living in Lincoln Nebraska who lives in a three bedroom house and drive a Dodge Ram OR a couple living in Abuja, Nigeria who live in a one room hut?

If you bear in mind that the average American eats roughly 12 times the calories that the average Nigerian does, and therefore has a far bigger environmental footprint in growing the food in the first place, are you now suggesting that the first appropriate target should be the United States?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glauistean

Why don't you all post your photo's of yourselves and your offspring so we can determine whether they are allowed to procreate again.

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

---

I guess it would be difficult to post a picture of one's intelligence so I agree we should leave intelligence out of this discussion! :p

The police could do us some good in the UK by ridding us of some of those protesters in London :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndySpeed

I had this conversation with one of my work colleagues before I came back to University. I was trying to make a point that the world is becoming overpopulated and that there are only finite resources, and she simply focussed on the fact that she had 2 children, may want more, and that you can't take away people's freedoms like that.

But the act of good governance is sometimes telling people what they can and can't have, for the greater good and comfort of the population. Sometimes this telling is direct, as in a dictatorship, but it can also be achieved by making it harder to have children and taking away the benefits. But I feel that it has to be done.

I'm currently studying for a postgraduate degree in sustainable water management, and I have a particular interest in water resources. It is [wildly] speculated that in the future wars could be fought over water because as we get a larger population there is more stress, especially with climate changing and people living in water stressed areas (Las Vegas anyone). How can we feed this population increasing exponentially when we struggle to irrigate our crops, move water hundreds of miles and consume yet more natural ecosystems and landscapes to build yet another housing estate (SE England).

It's ridiculous. You have to control the breeding of people in certain stressed areas or we're just going to end up having ****ty little lives in the future.

The thing is, many governments don't want to encourage a stabilized population as more people = more economic development. In a capitalist world, how can you win the votes if your economy isn't continually developing/building debt/having a strong workforce.

I am a strong supporter of the Optimum Population Trust - see http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

---

I have to say I agree, and as much as this may sound selfish it isn't as I will most probably make it to the end of my life without huge problems however future generations will not have this luck anymore unless something is done soon.

And it has to start with kicking out the stupid politicians who think that the only economically sustainable model is with more and more kids in order to support more and older people every day.

I think that money being handed out to people with the only scope of encouraging them to procreate is a huge mistake.

My personal belief is that 2 children per family should be the limit (and I don't think is a bad case) while certainly 1 children per family (like in China) would be optimum for at least a few decades.

Couple this with responsible food politics and you get a highly sustainable society and environment.

What we are doing right now, producing 2 x the needed amount of food while more than 60% of the worlds population is living under the poverty limit and 50% is starving is not viable from any POV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

As a non biological father of my adoring son, my wife and I went through an excruciating process where we were asked many personal questions by government agencies to see if we were fit to adopt.

It made me wonder why all other biological parents weren't asked the same questions - and of course I shuddered with the thought of big brother imposing himself that way . . . . and on the other hand, you so many times see parents treating kids in the most disgusting way and harming them physically and psychologically from the very beginning that you wonder how on earth they had the right to be parents of those innocent children.

Thank goodness we have free will (OK some times . . . .) but it is a big issue.

And I agree with fousto, we are an overpopulated planet and we should work as a team to lower our numbers and that will happen when my signature is implemented and parents will be assured that their children will live long enough so that they don't have to over multiply. And of course I am talking of the so called 'third world countries" here, not Joe Shmoe from (put your city here) that has 5 children that are covered by welfare and etc, etc. etc,

:s mokin:

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

In my opinion we are grossly overpopulating the planet. I had a guy ask me to smoke elsewhere when I was standing at a golf tourney. He was standing there with his fat ugly wife and 5 kids. Over populating and bringing ugly kids into the world with parents of disproportionate physical statures.

---

Easy there Adolf! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Sad but true:
In a lot of countries which don't possess social security and/or an old age pension system, people are supported in their old age by their children.



Is your opinion well formed? If this is primarily about an environmental footprint problem then I ask you, which of the following circumstances do you ask for temporary sterilization?
- A couple living in Lincoln Nebraska who lives in a three bedroom house and drive a Dodge Ram OR a couple living in Abuja, Nigeria who live in a one room hut?

If you bear in mind that the average American eats roughly 12 times the calories that the average Nigerian does, and therefore has a far bigger environmental footprint in growing the food in the first place, are you now suggesting that the first appropriate target should be the United States?

---

In a perfect world should population control be established world wide, then there would be no preference as to location. All would be required to do their part. With that being said Nigeria should be required to bring there country up to a standard whereby children would have a fair chance at a healthy and prosperous life. The number of children being born into horrendous conditions in this world is staggering and very sad. The world is neglecting this growing problem and it is obviously being ignored. We certainly should set a example here in this country but the world should as a whole. Abundance of food and money should not dictate the acceptance of overpopulating. Economic growth spurred by overpopulating is going to bite us in the ass one day. Do I think the Neb. family should be given preference over the couple in the Nigerian hut - certainly as would people in may other countries. But that cannot be the determining factor as many children are born into horrible conditions in this country. We all need to own up to the problem. But we won't and so it makes for interesting threads on the forum.

glauistean while a photo is not in the cards, I can assure you that my family has done their part. Many on this forum can take pleasure to know this family tree is done. And I can take pleasure knowing I will have no grand children enduring what is coming to the future generations of this world. I have very little faith in people addressing any of the problems that are multiplying so rapidly.

Quote:

---

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.... :laugh:

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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….. :laugh:

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. :laugh:

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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Spot on schmenke. :up:

Quote:

---

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.

I'm with gadja :bandit:

Quote:

---

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.

:s mokin:

you do know fousto's a bloke, don't you :erm: ;) :p

to be honest, I hadn't seen that post, and I partly agree with it too :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Easy there Adolf! :p

---

Yea but I really like the Jews

Quote:

---

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.

---

This is all very well and good — and, by the way, your comments in this thread mark you out to be a far more considerate and intelligent person than I had previously considered — but surely the problem doesn't just lie in our attitudes to those starving in the third world, but with all of us? And, in that case, population control is one method worth discussing, at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

This is all very well and good — and, by the way, your comments in this thread mark you out to be a far more considerate and intelligent person than I had previously considered — but surely the problem doesn't just lie in our attitudes to those starving in the third world, but with all of us? And, in that case, population control is one method worth discussing, at least.

---

Thank you, Whether you stir it up by being a bit over the top or with humor. We all need to look at the planet and get to working on it. Especially if you have and want children. What we are in the process of leaving them is not a pretty sight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

Thank you, Whether you stir it up by being a bit over the top or with humor. We all need to look at the planet and get to working on it. Especially if you have and want children. What we are in the process of leaving them is not a pretty sight.

---

Quite right.

I'm going to be a culprit of overpopulation. I feel like nailing everything in sight and furthermore want to have children with multiple women. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

In my opinion we are grossly overpopulating the planet.. Any country that can't support itself should be banned from further populating. The countries that can sustain population should require permission to bear children..

---

… Not to worry Foutso, once I have established my global domination I will incorporate a ‘cleansing’ of the Earth policy. If you should decide to become one of my loyal subjects, I shall enrich your life with the finest rewards my rule will have to offer.. :)

Now then, let's proceed to my proposals:

Twitter activists….. gone!

Star Bucks fugitives….. gone!

Michael Schumacher loyalists…. gone!

NFL officials…. gone!

Sara Palin worshipers….. gone!

Limosine liberals…. gone!

Telemarketers…. well… you get the picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

This world is far from overpopulated.

---

Ever seen Europe from above?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

I have very little faith in people addressing any of the problems that are multiplying so rapidly.

---

And this is where the problem lies.
Education, with lots of common sense, is the only way to make people understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gloomyDAY

I'm going to be a culprit of overpopulation. I feel like nailing everything in sight and furthermore want to have children with multiple women. ;)

---

Lets shoot him now :)