First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Overpopulation
Posted 2/24/16
I read this as ovulating, and now I'm bored.
6663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 2/24/16
Overpopulation isn't really an issue unless you are a Malthusian alarmist.

As has been stated, the problem with world hunger is access and distribution. World hunger could probably be eliminated within 1-2 years if there was a political will behind it to do stuff like improve transportation infrastructure, remove corrupt politicians, and reduce trade and import barriers. Problem is, there isn't exactly a political will to do this. Certainly most people would like to do this, but some people in charge actually benefit or want to see groups starve for one reason or another.

In the long term, Earth can easily support many more people. If developing and undeveloped countries had access to agricultural technologies, sciences, and techniques of the developed world we could support double Earth's population. Once again, the problem is access to these technologies and sciences. Things like GMOs, increased mechanization of agriculture, improved fertilizers and pesticides, application of internet and satellite technologies with agriculture have vastly improved food yields across the developed world but have not spread to the developing world.

Likewise, developed world medicine, building technologies, social organizations, energy technology, water purification and treatment would all greatly improve the supportable population of the developing world. But once again access and spread of these technologies is difficult and even resisted in many areas.
867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / ihlok
Offline
Posted 2/24/16

runec wrote:


veritatis_cupitor wrote:
Sorry, I didn't understand it.
I do think overpopulation is big problem. Asia and Africa will continue to add most of it. Less developed ares with low education show the highest birth rate. Thankfully the big 2, China and India, are developing fast. China will soon stabilize its population though India still has a lot of work to do.


Overcrowding is not overpopulation. Birth rates are higher in developing nations, yes. But birth rates slow post industrialization as well. Globally speaking, the rate of population growth is actually going down not up. Individual countries may have problems with overcrowding but it doesn't mean the planet has problems with overpopulation.

Someone in China may look around and think there are too many people but someone in the Yukon certainly doesn't.


Of course the rate of population growth is going down. That doesn't mean overcrowding in some countries or the demographic term for it, overpopulation is no problem. It is a problem in certain parts of world. High population causes unemployment, brings down quality of life, increases crime etc. The problems caused by it are endless. It's not a UBIQUITOUS problem. Like US or Russia doesn't face overpopulation but countries like Chiina, India, Bangladesh, etc does. While distribution of resources can help a little, this is no long term solution. Only development, education, etc combined with easy access to population control measures can solve this problem permanently. Unfortunately religions are also a factor in increasing population as they were formed during times when high birth rate was quintessential for survival.
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/24/16

veritatis_cupitor wrote:
That doesn't mean overcrowding in some countries or the demographic term for it, overpopulation is no problem.


I did not say overcrowding was not a problem, just that it was different from overpopulation. Which, clearly, we have been taking about on a global scale. As the term overpopulation is typically used to refer to a global scale. There is no need to try and play semantics to put forth an argument no one was arguing against to begin with.
867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / ihlok
Offline
Posted 2/25/16 , edited 2/25/16

runec wrote:


veritatis_cupitor wrote:
That doesn't mean overcrowding in some countries or the demographic term for it, overpopulation is no problem.


I did not say overcrowding was not a problem, just that it was different from overpopulation. Which, clearly, we have been taking about on a global scale. As the term overpopulation is typically used to refer to a global scale. There is no need to try and play semantics to put forth an argument no one was arguing against to begin with.


The OP explicitly mentions China. The use of immigration, ISIS etc is used in 2nd post to show the problem has more effects than only those limited to China. And I mentioned Asia and Africa. Don't know why some people are thinking about global scale overpopulation. Effects on global scale, sure. But not overpopulation itself.
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/25/16

veritatis_cupitor wrote:
The OP explicitly mentions China. The use of immigration, ISIS etc is used in 2nd post to show the problem has more effects than only those limited to China. And I mentioned Asia and Africa. Don't know why some people are thing about global scale overpopulation. Effects on global scale, sure. But not overpopulation itself.


Yes, he does mention China. But we've also been discussing global wars and interplanetary colonization. I think its fairly clear what sort of overpopulation the conversation has been focused on. Hence I made a distinction between overpopulation and overcrowding.

OutSiN 
6124 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Brazil
Online
Posted 2/25/16
Higher standards of living require higher consumption of natural resources, which are limited. So ideally, I think with a combination of more effective technology and smaller worldwide population it might be possible for more and more of the world to live comfortable and fulfilling lives.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 2/25/16

OutSiN wrote:
Higher standards of living require higher consumption of natural resources, which are limited. So ideally, I think with a combination of more effective technology and smaller worldwide population it might be possible for more and more of the world to live comfortable and fulfilling lives.
yeah or atleast hinder child usage for crimes, systems containing anything illegal/horrible to collecting children for markets etc.
But do it like china burn every 2 or more children they get.. -___-
Or have less sex/birth as someone likes having a big familiy or wanting to have such.

More tech or industry would take up nature/res as I would hope we could be able to hold on to forrest around the globe and such.

18926 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / F / Reston, VA, USA
Offline
Posted 2/25/16
Historically speaking, when populations become too dense, plagues have solved the problem.

Modern medicine has not only ensured that more people survive birth and childhood, but that their life-span is longer. Additionally people with genetic diseases are now living long enough to breed and pass those genes on, when even as late as the 1970s most of them died young enough that their primary defective genes were not being passed along. (For instance, in the 1970s those with Down's Syndrome were not expected to live beyond 25 even with the best care available and many died by age 9. Now their life expectancy is closer to 60 years, nearly double what it was 40 years ago.)

Vaccination has reduced the occurrence of many childhood diseases that used to thin the herd. For instance, mumps might not have killed everyone who got it, but it sterilized a fair number of them.

You want to start thinning the herd to prevent or reduce overpopulation, get rid of the doctors and remove the warning labels from everything so stupidity becomes fatal again.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/25/16

Razor_Girl wrote:

Historically speaking, when populations become too dense, plagues have solved the problem.

Modern medicine has not only ensured that more people survive birth and childhood, but that their life-span is longer. Additionally people with genetic diseases are now living long enough to breed and pass those genes on, when even as late as the 1970s most of them died young enough that their primary defective genes were not being passed along. (For instance, in the 1970s those with Down's Syndrome were not expected to live beyond 25 even with the best care available and many died by age 9. Now their life expectancy is closer to 60 years, nearly double what it was 40 years ago.)

Vaccination has reduced the occurrence of many childhood diseases that used to thin the herd. For instance, mumps might not have killed everyone who got it, but it sterilized a fair number of them.

You want to start thinning the herd to prevent or reduce overpopulation, get rid of the doctors and remove the warning labels from everything so stupidity becomes fatal again.


Yup. That's why I look at wars/crimes/etc as just more forms of population control in a way. Might not be pleasant, but it helps in this aspect.
5970 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/25/16 , edited 2/25/16

Razor_Girl wrote:
Historically speaking, when populations become too dense, plagues have solved the problem
You want to start thinning the herd to prevent or reduce overpopulation, get rid of the doctors and remove the warning labels from everything so stupidity becomes fatal again.

I wouldn't worry about that, the overuse of antibiotics means fatal bacterial disease is about to make a comeback.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 2/25/16 , edited 2/25/16

dotsforlife wrote:
Yup. That's why I look at wars/crimes/etc as just more forms of population control in a way. Might not be pleasant, but it helps in this aspect.
atleast from the earlier wars back to kingdom vs another kingdom and constant attacks (for some).

cyberfaust wrote:
I wouldn't worry about that, the overuse of antibiotics means fatal bacterial disease is about to make a comeback.
yes nearly allways been like that in many things, like medical stuff when protecting aganst thigs would just enable/create that.
18926 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / F / Reston, VA, USA
Offline
Posted 2/25/16

dotsforlife wrote:

Yup. That's why I look at wars/crimes/etc as just more forms of population control in a way. Might not be pleasant, but it helps in this aspect.


War happens to be a good way to spread disease. That's what happened with the "Spanish Flu" in 1918, it traveled with the doughboys returning home after the war, which was how it picked up the layman's name of "Spanish" flu.

http://www.flu.gov/pandemic/history/1918/
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/25/16

Razor_Girl wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

Yup. That's why I look at wars/crimes/etc as just more forms of population control in a way. Might not be pleasant, but it helps in this aspect.


War happens to be a good way to spread disease. That's what happened with the "Spanish Flu" in 1918, it traveled with the doughboys returning home after the war, which was how it picked up the layman's name of "Spanish" flu.

http://www.flu.gov/pandemic/history/1918/


It certainly worked on the Native Americans.
33399 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Offline
Posted 2/25/16
I think it will balance it's self out, birthrates in developed countries are lowering. Nature has a way to find balance, it's how we are gonna have stronger storms. Thanks global warming
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.