NationStates Jolt Archive

I submitt that man is overpopulating the planet.

participation of members should require that their populations use mandetory birth control.

This may infringe on peoples rights, but the world hangs in the ballance. With technological, medical advancements our elevation above nature and natural preditors our population is unchecked. This in conjunction with the last limiting factor being killed by socialization and welfare, there is absolutely no other way to slow the population growth of humanity.

The transition from fossil fuels and more economical cars will not reduce our carbondixide output or clearcutting the forests to make farm land to feed the ever growing population.

I propose that we reduce our populations 1% per year for the next 50 years, by instituting a 1 child per household policy. After that we will allow a status quo population of 2 children per year until such time as the population falls below 2 billion world wide.

The People's Republic of Schim wholeheartedly supports this proposal. This is the best proposal we have seen since joining the UN.

Der neue Weltordnung kommt!

I think that we should not force people to only have 1 child. they should be allowed to have as many children as they want (or none if that is what they want).

I believe the argument that we are overpopulated is not true. People used this when we reached 1 billion, 2 billion, 3 billion etc, and our lives (especially in the very populated West) have greatly improved.

I live in what would be classed as highly populated area (London UK) and my health and all those around me's health is perfectly fine and not damaged as a result of 'over-population'.

So, I do not support the proposal.

While I support making a limit on children: 1 per family is horrendous and wrong.
2-4 per family is acceptable, but till that idea is rewritten and redone I would vote no on such a proposal.
That is all,
Commonweaolth of BastardSword

This violates the right to have as many children as you want. More effective ways of birth control are education, improved living standards and availability of contraceptives.

Catholic Europe.

Although you are living in your finery in London (UK) in you over populated lifestyle with no ill effects that does not mean that you are having no impact on the global environment.

The recent heat wave in france killing 14,000 people may just be part of the cylical nature of the environment or perhaps a byproduct of the 6 billion humans living on earth and burning trees, and oil to cook, drive and heat their homes.

The fact is that soil is becoming taxed and we have to feed them nitrates to keep them productive even with that the mineral content of many fields is yielding foods deficient in essential chemicals. Yeah that tomato may grow bigger and bug free but it is missing health components.

If the population continues to remain at 6 billion that is bad enough as even at this level scientists believe that we are impacting the weather. If the ice caps melt the oceans rise and land mass is reduced by millions of square miles. Concentrating the large populations on higher ground.

All the conservation and efficient vehicles in the world will not take away the fact that we impact the environment no matter what lifestyle we live.

isn't it just prudent to take such action prior to a calamity, even if it has not been proven yet. Waiting until the ice caps melt or until arid countries are made un-liveable is probably too late.

The loss of this freedom to squirt out as many kids as desired may very well make those kids live in a living hell.

Ultimately from an earthly position the mistake will self correct by natural means but I prefer to not make 12 billion people suffer to find out. Humanity will reduce in population that is a given one way or the other.

Increased pressure on the land will force countries into wars as their countries become unliveable, (humans are only civil while they can feed their kids and selves) if one country still has crops and fresh water their neighbors will invade at some point.

I do not like to credit china with anything but in this arena they have the best game plan.

In less than 100 years america has doubled its population nearly twice.

297 million people becomes near 1.2 billion in less than 100 years under current freedoms. In 200 years 4.8 billion. If 297 million people in america are having an impact on the environment what do you think 4.8 billion would do?

1.5 billion muslims in the middle east will be 24 billion in 200 years

6 billion humans in 200 years will approach 96 billion. Just feeding such a population would appear perty scary. But imagine that that many people will excrete almost as much CO2 as the world burns firing it's industry and modern society.

of course many things might act on that rate of growth like war disease... way before 96 billion hits but think about it.

I still maintain that we should aggressively try to reduce the population over the next 50 years by 50% By humane processes rather than let nature take its course on us.

I disagree and think that these predictions of 96 billion is just scaremongering tactics.

Where is your evidence for this?

what was the world population in 1803?

What is the world population now?

What is the life expectency doing (going up or down with technological advancement)?

Now extrapolate 200 years out.

Many things can act on the population growth but one thing is for sure the population is increasing fast.

Let say that in 200 years it only went to 12 billion. What will Frances summer of 2203 look like.

At 6 billion people we are possibly creating enough carbon dioxide to cause temerature changes. Even remaining stagnet in population growth would still likely to produce more carbon dioxide than the environment can handle.

200 years of producing too much CO2 will likely cause disaster. Consider this that most of our CO2 production has only been during the last 50 to 100 years. During that time population has grown so one must assume that we are producing CO2 at a greater rate than 50 or 100 years ago. At our current peak level that means we are polluting at a tremendous rate. Environmental change takes time to reverse as well. It will take many years for the co2 to be reclaimed and put back in the soil in the form of decaying plant matter.

I contend that even our current levels are probably too risky.

I'm not going to believe you until you give me some proper facts.

Work with this:

According to the CIA World Factbook 2003, the world population is increasing at 1.17% (see here - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html#People )

Accoring to this website (which uses the CIA WF for reference) the population of the world will be - 9 billion in 2050 ( http://www.geohive.com/global/linkg.php?xml=idb&xsl=idb2 )

At hte moment, we have food enough for 18 billion people. Overpopulatoion is a problem, but bear in mind population distribution.

I live in what would be classed as highly populated area (London UK) and my health and all those around me's health is perfectly fine and not damaged as a result of 'over-population'.

Because of over population London is one of the most congested cities in the world. With all of the automobiles London has very poor air quality.

Research from Kings College:
http://www.erg.kcl.ac.uk/london/asp/information.asp?view=howbad

once again even at current population there is an impact on the environment.


100 people in an air tight room. With enough plants to keep them alive forever. A bioshphere as it were.

Now you add 1 person to that mix they may not feel the impact for years. 2 people they will start noticing change but death will still be years out. But those 2 people now consume not only air but the plants that were in balance with the population before. Now the 2 extra people reduce the plant population by 2% per year. year 2 the bioshpere is still has 98% of its plants year 3 96%. Increase their population by 1.17 people per year. This decreases the time they have.

now I do not know what the population growth will be with medical advances, aids... improved infant mortality rates. Nor do I know what the environment is capable of absorbing back into the co2 cycle. Perhaps 3 billion at current levels is too many.

wierd My poll disappeared so I remade it. now I have too many options

could a mod please wipe out the following options.

NO never reproductive rights are more important than the environment

Humans could never impact the environment it is just too big.

I think we should leave peoples bodies alone. That is private turf.
Give incentives for controlling family size; tax breaks, educational grants, some sort of carrot. But don't wield the big governmental stick over private matters such as family life.

flaw there is that then the people who are on the irresponsible side will still have children. (not saying all poor are irresponsible) but the poor would probably load the market with the unmarketable.

The main problem area for over population is the developing world. The most developed nations tend to have negative growth rates anyway so this policy is not going to help in these nations and will be almost impossible to enforce in developing nations.

The way to deal with overpopulation is to improve standards of education and health care in developing nations and to promote family planning. Over population tends to happen because of a percieved need to have as many children as possible, this happens for a number of reasons but one of the most important is high infant mortality rates in developing nations. Having lots of children increases the chance that one will survive, as standards of health care improve infant mortality rates drop but because standards of education are still very low people continue to have many children.

I don't see why "overpopulation" is a problem.

Overpopulation means more minds, more hands, more creativity...

We are producing more food PER CAPITA than any generation before us. Any environmental problems will be overcome by technology eventually.

Having three children, I see this as a bad thing. After all, more people means a bigger military... and we are inginuitive people, aren't we? You treehugging morons are what's holding us back in my opinion. The enviroment is good, but we can't eliminate people just because you want to save a few grains of wheat. Food is much easier to come by than you think, and until you can prove me wrong then my decision stands.

I don't see why "overpopulation" is a problem.

Overpopulation means more minds, more hands, more creativity...

We are producing more food PER CAPITA than any generation before us. Any environmental problems will be overcome by technology eventually.

Overpopulation may mean a larger work force for the developed world and it is true to an extent what someone has said about the problem being one of distribution. Certainly the US can support a much larger population, but try thinking about the rest of the world for once. Even if the resources do exist to feed everyone they are concentrated in the developed world which needs them the least and largely denied to the developing world. That and continued population growth means continued unsustainable destruction of the environment. Even if growth can continue for now you must be able to understand that it cannot last and that something should be done sooner rather than later.

I don't see why "overpopulation" is a problem.

Overpopulation means more minds, more hands, more creativity...

We are producing more food PER CAPITA than any generation before us. Any environmental problems will be overcome by technology eventually.

Overpopulation may mean a larger work force for the developed world and it is true to an extent what someone has said about the problem being one of distribution. Certainly the US can support a much larger population, but try thinking about the rest of the world for once. Even if the resources do exist to feed everyone they are concentrated in the developed world which needs them the least and largely denied to the developing world. That and continued population growth means continued unsustainable destruction of the environment. Even if growth can continue for now you must be able to understand that it cannot last and that something should be done sooner rather than later.

Technology, anyone?

It's spreading to the third-world too.

I don't see why "overpopulation" is a problem.

Overpopulation means more minds, more hands, more creativity...

We are producing more food PER CAPITA than any generation before us. Any environmental problems will be overcome by technology eventually.

Overpopulation may mean a larger work force for the developed world and it is true to an extent what someone has said about the problem being one of distribution. Certainly the US can support a much larger population, but try thinking about the rest of the world for once. Even if the resources do exist to feed everyone they are concentrated in the developed world which needs them the least and largely denied to the developing world. That and continued population growth means continued unsustainable destruction of the environment. Even if growth can continue for now you must be able to understand that it cannot last and that something should be done sooner rather than later.

Technology, anyone?

It's spreading to the third-world too.

For the benefit of the developed world.

I don't see why "overpopulation" is a problem.

Overpopulation means more minds, more hands, more creativity...

We are producing more food PER CAPITA than any generation before us. Any environmental problems will be overcome by technology eventually.

Overpopulation may mean a larger work force for the developed world and it is true to an extent what someone has said about the problem being one of distribution. Certainly the US can support a much larger population, but try thinking about the rest of the world for once. Even if the resources do exist to feed everyone they are concentrated in the developed world which needs them the least and largely denied to the developing world. That and continued population growth means continued unsustainable destruction of the environment. Even if growth can continue for now you must be able to understand that it cannot last and that something should be done sooner rather than later.

Technology, anyone?

It's spreading to the third-world too.

For the benefit of the developed world.

China has 8.5% GDP growth.
Equitorial Guinea has over 15% GDP growth.
Vietnam has 6% GDP growth.
Even insignificant Angola has 9% GDP growth.

No first world country comes near this.

Capitalism seeks to create a truly global economy... where disparity between nations will be minimal becaus ethe old nation-state won't matter nearly as much any more.

Some things you eco-whacko alarmists might (not) want to know:

1.The population growth isn't because of people having more children. It's not that people suddenly started breeding like rabbits, it's just that they stopped dying like flies. Furthermore, as people get richer, they tend to have less children. RLUN predicts that the world population will stabilize just below 11 billion in 2011 (or around that, not sure of the exact year).

2.The 15,000 death toll in France had nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with the policies of a country with "top-notch" healthcare (as proved by te fact that we didn't hear about thousands of people dying when the summer was a little too hot in other nations) Lot's of medical staff went on vacation at the same time (apparantly they do that every year), leaving whole hospital wings umderstaffed. Many hospital wards did not have ACs, as did many apartments. Worse still was the "the state will take care of it" mentality among the French. Funerals were delayed so as not to interfere with the coming holiday, and Jaques ChIRAQ saw it fit to continue his vacation as his countrymen fried. The attidude among the ordinary French, meanwhile, was one part self-reproach and ten parts blame-the-government.

3. One poll option is missing: Go read The Skecptical Enviromentalist before you propose this crap again!



Frankly, of the five environmental proposals I have read so far, only one was sensible enough to even deserve an approval.

I doubt the world's population will grow by 4 1/2 billion in the next 8 years...

United world states

I know full well that the fact people are dying older impacts the population growth. However the 20% rise in age does not account for the population increase since 1950. It does not even account for 20% of the growth. the increase of world wide average of 10 years from ~53 to 63 does not account for the change we have seen.

What we are seeing is children not needed to help tend the flock, not dying in childhood, old people living longer, and better recover from accident and illness. Wonderful you have nailed the obvious. terriffic.

Awesome.

now what do we do about it. As stated in previous posts. The resource demand on all 6 billion people is increasing. even with zero population growth the resource use will increase with standard of living of third world populations. Now I am not for stepping back to population growth through war, disease, infant mortality, and injury. I am likewise not into the thought of keeping the people in the third world below the poverty line so that they do not tax the environment.

What is left?

You guessed it. Strong measures to see that population decreases.

Of course you might well be right about the environment not being impacted on a global level at this time. But are you willing to take the chance that your mistake destroys the environment.

God gave us these wonderful big brains and the ability to do amazing things including pondering our own impact on the world. How do you think god would like it if we wiped out half of he creations. We are the castodians of this wold, not the ones who decide to redesign the building, just watch over it and exist in it.

Thomas Malthus ever heard of him? Why do the doom and gloomers always come up with the same worn out arguments about why man is going to ruin the world?

Malthusian theory in the 21st century :lol:

I suppose you also believe in Global Warming :?:

:P

so global warming has been debunked?

there is no way that increasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels and deforestation could ever increase CO2 levels high enough to change the climate? I have not heard this yet. I have heard that people do not think that it is likely but, I always check my gun before cleaning it just in case.

Yea it is not likely that it is loaded butttttttt...

Co2 is definitely a greenhouse gass that is not in debate. How much annual output of CO2 would it take to change the climate?

If we are making changes to the climate at what point should we change our activities and how long will it take to recover after corrective action is taken?

While population control might be important to nations who are suffering from over population this is no reason to enforce the same on others. What's next? Starting to invade other countries because you need more room for your people? How nice if those nations to be conquered aren't overpopulated themselves, eh? Less work cleaning up there...

If your country has problems with overpopulation, resolve the problem in your own country, but don't try to make other nations (and their people) pay for your failures.

Joltania might be a young nation and a newcomer in international politics, but we utterly reject such a proposal that is just aimed and limiting the possibilities of young growing nations and their people!

We wouldn't mind seeing a proposal to prevent member states from outlawing contraception. This WOULD infringe upon national sovereignty to an extent, but it would increase individual freedom and address a worldwide problem. We could also support a proposal for the U.N. to make contraceptives available to everyone, regardless of income.

Beyond that I don't think we should go. There may come a time when emergency measures of a coercive nature have to be taken--but we should avoid such measures if at all possible.

By limiting pop. growth, you keep L'êtila, decendents of the glorious state of Terra Pvlchra, from getting the power that larger nations have. We will keep your proposal in mind, though.

My freedom is more important than your good idea. :D

My freedom is more important than your good idea. :D

Hear, hear.

There is a place for leglslation concerning oceans and the atmosphere since these are legitimate matters of international interest. Familes are strictly a local concern. Anything can be said to have some incidental environmental impact. That should not permit intrusion by uninvited mega-agencies.

What's so witty and funny about ChIRAQ? It's pronounced I-rark, not I-rack, anyway.

And Bliar is so much better.

The Protectorate of Grotia supports Catholic Europe in rejecting this proposal. Our reasons are our own.

Ich Dien!!!

Diaper Change
Minister of Reproduction and Sexual Enhancements, Pornography and "Hootchie-Kootchie" Cinema
Protectorate of Grotia

First off so far this is running 60/40 in favor of the proposal.

I therefore submitt that the UN addopt this proposal.


Secondly the fact that tech is moving to the thirdworld is the problem. There are 4 or 5 times as many technically challenged countries then advanced. the advanced ones are using resources at a tremendous rate. Increase tech in third world with out pop reduction the resources will run mighty thin. Our ability to mine copper, for those nice electric cars, the trees needed for your houses, the steel and fuel for our cars will run short.

Pollution of many kinds will increase (perhaps causing a loss of Ozone or overheating of the planet)

I don't know if the greenhouse effect is real or just a false theory. but if it is real and our tech which you rely on is not fast enough we could cause famine, resource wars, and start thing in motion that will not correct for hundreds or thousands of years.

I don't see why "overpopulation" is a problem.

Overpopulation means more minds, more hands, more creativity...

We are producing more food PER CAPITA than any generation before us. Any environmental problems will be overcome by technology eventually.

Twat! You deny the problem of overpopulation? Overpopulation is a real problem, we are growing too fast. Just ask China. And the environment cannot be magically healed by technology, any technologuy which would be capable of douing that would be so far into the future we would already be facing a problem too big.
Let me play the centrist for once.
OVERPOPULATION IS A PROBLEM. We agree on this, well most.
SEXUAL FREEDOM IS IMPORTANT. We mainly agree on this.
1) So, educate people. Studies have shown that the birth rate correlates to the education facilities in a country. TEACH SEX EDUCATION.
2) Combat population disribution.
3) Improve living standards for the poor. This decreases population growth.
4) Ensure availability of contraceptives.

Twat! You deny the problem of overpopulation?

EVEN AL GORE says the world can support 8 billion people.

Think about it this way. If the world's population doubles to 12.5 billion... that will be LESS population density than THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. And Pennsylvania is over 90% rural with millions of acres of untapped forestry.

Overpopulation is a real problem, we are growing too fast. Just ask China.

I'm Chinese. China's one-child policy doesn't work too well because no one in the countryside follows it. China's population growht is slowing down because industrialization gives people more stuff to worry about.

And the environment cannot be magically healed by technology, any technologuy which would be capable of douing that would be so far into the future we would already be facing a problem too big.

Why not? Our technology is much more advanced than say Russia's, and where is the air better? New York or Smolensk? What river is less polluted? The Mississippi or the Volga?

Let me play the centrist for once.

Okay.

OVERPOPULATION IS A PROBLEM. We agree on this, well most.

It's a small problem. It's very widely exaggerated. I don't think overpopulation will be worth worrying about until we hit 9 or 10 billion.

SEXUAL FREEDOM IS IMPORTANT. We mainly agree on this.

Agreed.

1) So, educate people. Studies have shown that the birth rate correlates to the education facilities in a country. TEACH SEX EDUCATION.

That's all fine and good until some crazy fundamentalist shoots up a grae school for teaching that.

2) Combat population disribution.

Like... shoot little kids? What do you mean?

3) Improve living standards for the poor. This decreases population growth.

No that will increase population growth. Population growth right now is increasing because of LOWER DEATH RATES. Not HIGHER BIRTH RATES.

4) Ensure availability of contraceptives.

Of course it's gonna be hard to get condoms if oyu live 100 miles away from the nearest city. It's called don't screw around if you can't afford condoms.

With NS Earth being as big and populated as it is such plan would never work.

Yeah the world of NS has some 30 TRILLION inhabitants and we don't have any huge environmental backlash. :lol:

Then you got the Nations that are intersolar, Nations on other planets and moons. Countries that got colonies on other Planets.

quik thing for you guys...if we limit the world to 2billion (i assume thats an american billion/british thou million/9 zeros), and if that statement of NS having 30trillion people is correct, then we get an average of 27,620 people to rule each, as oppose to our current 414,313,137 each.... and as a reference, that means that the starting population of 5million would in fact be 333 people.

something to think about there....

I submitt that man is overpopulating the planet.

participation of members should require that their populations use mandetory birth control.

This may infringe on peoples rights, but the world hangs in the ballance. With technological, medical advancements our elevation above nature and natural preditors our population is unchecked. This in conjunction with the last limiting factor being killed by socialization and welfare, there is absolutely no other way to slow the population growth of humanity.

The transition from fossil fuels and more economical cars will not reduce our carbondixide output or clearcutting the forests to make farm land to feed the ever growing population.

I propose that we reduce our populations 1% per year for the next 50 years, by instituting a 1 child per household policy. After that we will allow a status quo population of 2 children per year until such time as the population falls below 2 billion world wide.

And I agree with you. Study Forest Managment sometime, and concentrate on the term "Carrying Capacity of The Land". It will prove enlightening.

As far as the folks with too much species-pride: If you are human, you are a mammal. That makes you, by definition an animal, which in turn makes you subject to natural laws of cause and effect. Do us all a BIG favor and extract your cranium from your anus.

I submitt that man is overpopulating the planet.

participation of members should require that their populations use mandetory birth control.

This may infringe on peoples rights, but the world hangs in the ballance. With technological, medical advancements our elevation above nature and natural preditors our population is unchecked. This in conjunction with the last limiting factor being killed by socialization and welfare, there is absolutely no other way to slow the population growth of humanity.

The transition from fossil fuels and more economical cars will not reduce our carbondixide output or clearcutting the forests to make farm land to feed the ever growing population.

I propose that we reduce our populations 1% per year for the next 50 years, by instituting a 1 child per household policy. After that we will allow a status quo population of 2 children per year until such time as the population falls below 2 billion world wide.

And I agree with you. Study Forest Managment sometime, and concentrate on the term "Carrying Capacity of The Land". It will prove enlightening.

As far as the folks with too much species-pride: If you are human, you are a mammal. That makes you, by definition an animal, which in turn makes you subject to natural laws of cause and effect. Do us all a BIG favor and extract your cranium from your anus.


And I further submit that behavioral scientists form a Minimun I.Q. Requirement that must be met before anyone can be approved as a genetic parent. All persons who do NOT meet the minimum requirement are to be sterilized. This will have two benefits: It will drastically reduce the numbers of abused children and unfit parents, while at the same time increasing the quality of the human gene pool.

"And I further submit that behavioral scientists form a Minimun I.Q. Requirement that must be met before anyone can be approved as a genetic parent. All persons who do NOT meet the minimum requirement are to be sterilized. This will have two benefits: It will drastically reduce the numbers of abused children and unfit parents, while at the same time increasing the quality of the human gene pool."

I like it but there is a bit of a problem with your proposal.

Some extremely smart people do not do well on IQ tests. These tests are geared toward certain segments of society.

I guess if you were to improve the IQ test to be universal then I might support that.

It is fair and unbiased. It does not single out people based upon looks or some other subjective feature. May I add that the forced sterilizations should include life altering genetic abnormalities. Down syndrome victims should not be allowed to pass on their genes nor severe asthmaticsm, diabetics, hemopheliacs...

It would benefit the world to follow the policies of The High V on this matter. They are as follows.

All stupid people are sterilized

I'm not saying the one child policy works. Quite the opposite.

1) Population is increasing at a dramatic rate. In a few hundred years time, we will reach 15 billion people. This is a problem.
2) The pollution in Russia is due to Stalin's rapid industrialisation. Besides, look at LA. You can't even see the Hollywood sign from downtown because of air pollution. Advanced technology doesn't work miracles.
3) What? Are you saying we shouldn't each it at all? We have problems like that all the time.
4) The greater level of living, the fewer children produced. Human geography.
5) We improve transportation, remove the problems of sinking, encourage local trade rather than international...v. complicated.