NationStates Jolt Archive

This was going to be a thread/poll about the greatest problem the world faces, but since I already know, I'm just going to give you a yes or no option. (Yes, I am a cocky prick) {Yes, that is kind of redundant}

Overpopulation is the greatest threat to the world, and can be shown to be the major contributor to all of the other problems facing the world:

Wars, famine, poverty, deforestation, racism/nationalism, volatile religious views, disease, lack of resources, under education, overcrowding, pollution, etc.

The biggest problem facing the world is the rising number of States that are failing or about to fail.
The 2 most populous nations in the world, India and China, are doing well.

This was going to be a thread/poll about the greatest problem the world faces, but since I already know, I'm just going to give you a yes or no option. (Yes, I am a cocky prick) {Yes, that is kind of redundant}

Overpopulation is the greatest threat to the world, and can be shown to be the major contributor to all of the other problems facing the world:

Wars, famine, poverty, deforestation, racism/nationalism, volatile religious views, lack of resources, under education, overcrowding, pollution, etc.
I wouldn't say you're cocky.

Overpopulation is a problem, but people like to fuck so what can I say.

HUmans are the worlds biggest problem. Seriously, we suck.

I wouldn't say you're cocky.
Overpopulation is a problem, but people like to fuck so what can I say.

Oh I'm definitely cocky. I also wanted to call myself a cocky prick/dick-headed shmuck so I could make a wisecrack about being redundant.

The biggest problem facing the world is the rising number of States that are failing or about to fail.

That's circular logic.

The 2 most populous nations in the world, India and China, are doing well.

Really, so I take it being considered 3rd world countries is doing well? Because caste systems and rampant poverty and under education are all the rage? Because the problem of a huge elderly class with not enough workers to provide for them means a good economy? Because slave labor and child labor are so progressive.

I'm sorry to so viciously attack your ideas, but your points are utter shit. At least you could have said that X was a worse problem than overpopulation. But to deny that it's a problem? You kind of deserve this public remonstration.

That's circular logic.

Dude...he didn't STATE any logic! :p


Personally, I don't see overpopulation as a threat. This "ticking timebomb" has been a "threat" since the 1970s...and it seems we are doing perfectly okay.

I think the biggest problem in the world right now is disease. One bad move and we are all gonna die! :eek:

Dude...he didn't STATE any logic! :p


Personally, I don't see overpopulation as a threat. This "ticking timebomb" has been a "threat" since the 1970s...and it seems we are doing perfectly okay.

I think the biggest problem in the world right now is disease. One bad move and we are all gonna die! :eek:

The logic was that the [states of the] world are in trouble because the states of the world are in trouble. That's circular logic.

Disease is nature's way of clearing up the lose ends, i.e. people. Too many people = rise in disease.

i think that its sad people die in africa cause of starvation and such but death is absolutely needed 100%. other nations keep trying to give them food which only makes them grow as a people and need more food and more energy and more money, if they would be left alone they could go natures way and die. sad? yes. but absolutely needed.

read 'ishmael'.

Malthus was wrong. Flat out wrong. Population growth rates peaked decades ago and are actually declining. The population bomb fizzled and went out. The sky is not falling.

Malthus was wrong. Flat out wrong. Population growth rates peaked decades ago and are actually declining. The population bomb fizzled and went out. The sky is not falling.

Rate is different than amount.
Acceleration might be negative, but rate and amount are still VERY positive.

A 2.3 net increase in population every second != Malthus was flat out wrong.

Still, you are right to a certain extent... though who's to say the world's problems wouldn't be mitigated by having less people?

Umm are you insane??? Even if the population growth rate has peaked, you are still having a massive population growth rate. Just because the growth rate may have peaked, does not mean that the population overall has, it in fact has not. Even in CHina where they have had extreme birth control measures in place for a while now, the population has not yet peaked.

BAck to the original question. I do not think that you can really say that one problem is worse than others. Yes overpopulation is very bad. But nothing is that isolated. If there was less overpopulation there would be less deforestation, starvation, disease, etc.

I think thre is no one problem that could be solved to make the world perfect. It is always a constant battle to better each of the areas that were mentioned and many others slightly. THe only way to keep people even somewhat happy is to improve most of these areas frequently in tiny little bits.

I agree with you totally (Wiggendom), I'm just saying that focusing on alleving this problem would be the most successful direction to go in.

If the rate of growth continues to decline as it shows every tendency of doing then overall growth declines as well. Eventually things hit an equilibrium. In our speceis it seems that the primary cause of decreased rates is affluence.

Nice pun, and yes it is the biggest problem in the world. All those orphans, and little food, I think Malthus was right about using Darwin's theory on humans, except for the wages part. Damn Riccardo.

<snip>
Wars, famine, poverty, deforestation, racism/nationalism, volatile religious views, disease, lack of resources, under education, overcrowding, pollution, etc.

Maybe these are not "problems" but actually "solutions" to the overpopulation problem... Nature works in misterious ways.

I think that education and ignorance on the side of the so-called 1st world nations, including my own (Canada), is the biggest problem.

I think that education and ignorance on the side of the so-called 1st world nations, including my own (Canada), is the biggest problem.
yeah, as my very wise programming/calculus teacher once said, the reason for overpopulation is caused bylack of proper education.

Any problem that seems big right now, will be miniscule in the face of nearly 12 billion people on Earth by 2050.

People in poverty appear to be morons. If you can't provide for the kids you already have, why make more? The nutrition required to make them is greater than the nutrition you get from them. Seriously. We need to round up everyone who has given birth(men count if their partner is pregnant. No need to discriminate) to X amount of people(if they died, adopt some) and fix them. Spay the gals and neauter the guys.

P.S. I'm serious.

This was going to be a thread/poll about the greatest problem the world faces, but since I already know, I'm just going to give you a yes or no option. (Yes, I am a cocky prick) {Yes, that is kind of redundant}

Overpopulation is the greatest threat to the world, and can be shown to be the major contributor to all of the other problems facing the world:

Wars, famine, poverty, deforestation, racism/nationalism, volatile religious views, disease, lack of resources, under education, overcrowding, pollution, etc.
In Neale Donald Walsch's book series, "Conversation with God," he puts forth a statistical basis which shows that overpopulation isn't the problem. Selfishness is. We have enough resources to which we could support 10 times our current population.

In poor countries, typically, the problem is not that they are overpopulated, but that their wealth is controlled by corrupt dictatorships which make trade agreements with western businessmen, who both exploit the population. This is true of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Central and South America.

When you look at the oil in the Middle East, the diamonds and gold in Africa, and the resources in South America, the problem is not that there are too many people, but that the people aren't free.

And the answer is not just free trade, but there are two ways to approach the problem:
Outright invading foreign goverments and establishing democracies.
Free trade, which is the best policy, but only if the government is just (unlike China, South America, or Saudi Arabia).

Funding anti-government militaries and political groups
Establishing "Fair Trade," with corrupt governments
Setting up appropriate foreign aid, with substantial oversight

The previous is the conservative strategy, the latter is the liberal strategy. Both are effective methods, but can only be carried it with a level of consistency. This is problematic, when Congresses and Presidents switch back and forth, but our historical actions must be taken into account.

Furthermore, we should use the policy which fits the country. It is short-sighted to believe in a universal standard.

Oh, also, modern economists agree: Your Marxist economic beliefs on the "subsistence theory of wages," ignore investment capital. If economies grow, poverty decreases. Believing population growth is always bad ignores economic and technological growth.

For all you know, 100 years from now, we'll be able to synthesize elements using fusion and have colonies on other planets.

The biggest problem in the world?

From my exhaustive study of all U.S. mass media, I have concluded that the two biggest problems facing the world are:

1. Erectile dysfunction, and
2. Male pattern baldness.

These findings are conclusive and should settle this matter.

People in poverty appear to be morons. If you can't provide for the kids you already have, why make more? The nutrition required to make them is greater than the nutrition you get from them. Seriously. We need to round up everyone who has given birth(men count if their partner is pregnant. No need to discriminate) to X amount of people(if they died, adopt some) and fix them. Spay the gals and neauter the guys.

P.S. I'm serious.
Because in first-world countries, they recieve welfare benefits. In third-world countries, their children can work, either in farms or factories.

And, in both cases, they simply don't use contraception and can't afford or don't have access to abortions. In America, there's also a cultural stigma among minorities about abortions.

Consider the factors that determine whether or not a couple has a child: that child's profitability for the family. That is to say, if the cost of a child is high enough, it will prohibit the average couple from having a child. How does this affect population? As the cost of having a child is increased because resources are growing more sparse, it will begin to cost more and more to have a child. Food prices will go up. Gas prices will go up. Life will become more expensive, especially with three mouths instead of two. As a result, people will have to begin worrying about taking care of themselves, let alone their kids, and they will stop having children.

Essentially, the greatest thing we can do to help curb population is to educate people, not about the dangers of overpopulation, but simply for them to be considerate when having a child. As long as people are considering whether or not they can afford to bring a life into this world when they have a child the population issue will control itself. In the end, humanity will reach a natural balance where people will be able to afford to have just enough children to replace the current population. If they have any more the costs will be too high and others won't have kids and if they have any less the costs will lower and people will have kids to bring the system back to equilibrium. It's basic economics: the market always resolves to equilibrium.

Contrary to some more pessimistic views, this will all happen naturally, which will mean the will be no sudden jerk in the system causing pain and suffering. We won't run out of oil someday like a garden hose suddenly getting blocked off. Rather, our resources will run out from their sources, which means they will be reduced to a trickle, and then nothing at all. However, this change will be slow enough that humanity will be able to adapt and population will follow suit. In the end, I hardly believe population growth is something to be worried about at all.

Contrary to some more pessimistic views, this will all happen naturally, which will mean the will be no sudden jerk in the system causing pain and suffering. We won't run out of oil someday like a garden hose suddenly getting blocked off. Rather, our resources will run out from their sources, which means they will be reduced to a trickle, and then nothing at all. However, this change will be slow enough that humanity will be able to adapt and population will follow suit. In the end, I hardly believe population growth is something to be worried about at all.
It doesn't hurt to be ready for the worst, does it? That's what even Big Brother tells us (www.ready.gov). You don't know for sure how the oil crisis will come about, it will come there's no doubt about it, and with current consumption, there's no sign of slowing down and if gas prices all of a sudden skyrocketed (even more) people would be left in the cold as they won't be able to adapt financially to the new burdens. Anyway, that's a whole different topic but it is based on overpopulation. It's better to be pessimistic and prepared to accept the worst (but still not lose sight of hope) and be pleseantly surprised than to be optimistic and be disappointed all the time. Overpopulation may or may not hit the world like a brick wall. There's no predicting the future and it's best to be ready to deal with the worst while hoping for the best.

The world is a self-sustaining entity. The world itself fights the growing human disease with plagues, nature, etc. Overpopulation will never be a problem because the planet will not allow the state to exist.

I have a bit extremist views on this according to most people it seems but I have vowed to be VHEMT for this reason. Since most people haven't heard of it, it is an acronym for Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Basically, to become VHEMT you vow to never have kids. You could still adopt but you can't create them. Mind you I hate kids so it isn't much of a loss for me...

If you are interested in it at all, the website is http://www.vhemt.org/

Capitalism.

We have the technology to sustain ourselves and as someone else said tenfold the population we currently have but we do not due to it not being profitable. Overpopulation is only a problem due to capitalist nations owning all the wealth and exploiting the poorer countries.

It doesn't hurt to be ready for the worst, does it? That's what even Big Brother tells us (www.ready.gov). You don't know for sure how the oil crisis will come about, it will come there's no doubt about it, and with current consumption, there's no sign of slowing down and if gas prices all of a sudden skyrocketed (even more) people would be left in the cold as they won't be able to adapt financially to the new burdens. Anyway, that's a whole different topic but it is based on overpopulation. It's better to be pessimistic and prepared to accept the worst (but still not lose sight of hope) and be pleseantly surprised than to be optimistic and be disappointed all the time. Overpopulation may or may not hit the world like a brick wall. There's no predicting the future and it's best to be ready to deal with the worst while hoping for the best.

Actually, it can hurt to prepare for the worst. Think of other things money going towards stemming overpopulation could be used for. The whole global education process would be an excellent one as it would nip overpopulation in the bud anyway, but even on a more selfish note, America is running a trillion dollar deficit. Now I'm all for spending money to prevent global warming, which in my mind is proven to exist and more importantly is proven to not be naturally restricting. Consider, however, that overpopulation should be naturally restricted by simple economic forces and it makes you wonder if maybe we should be spending the money preparing for the worst on something like global warming instead.

Also, consider China's One Child Policy. I would say that's another great example of it hurting to be prepared for the worst.

In Neale Donald Walsch's book series, "Conversation with God," he puts forth a statistical basis which shows that overpopulation isn't the problem. Selfishness is. We have enough resources to which we could support 10 times our current population.

Ramblings about economics

For all you know, 100 years from now, we'll be able to synthesize elements using fusion and have colonies on other planets.

Nice source. Read any science textbook, or try being logical and observe nature: Selfishness is an inherent and natural part of being human/animal. It is neither bad nor evil (though not necessarily good), it is an integral part of natural survival. Further reading of scientific books would show that the consumption of resources and resulting pollution is a problem, and that not much more than 7 billion people could be sustained. Quit relying on science fiction to survive.

Also, I'm not a Marxist, nor did I ever say or infer that. Economics is irrelevant when resources are being depleted/polluted. Furthermore, while I acknowledge that population growth can be (and usually is) conducive to the economy on a national scale (if managed correctly), overall the benefits would be much greater with a smaller population... This is whether or not in the future they come up with machines and robots that can replace all but the most skilled jobs (which is far more plausible than either of your predictions).

Basically, to become VHEMT you vow to never have kids. You could still adopt but you can't create them. Mind you I hate kids so it isn't much of a loss for me...

Well, the idea certainly isn't to wipe out humanity. Whether we are "good" or "bad", we are definitely the only thing exciting on this planet. I'm just saying we could be more "good" with less people.

HUmans are the worlds biggest problem. Seriously, we suck. Yeah, us cats are sooo much better. If we had opposable thumbs, we would own you human fools. Now fetch me my breakfast.[/sarcasm]

Actually, it can hurt to prepare for the worst. Think of other things money going towards stemming overpopulation could be used for. The whole global education process would be an excellent one as it would nip overpopulation in the bud anyway, but even on a more selfish note, America is running a trillion dollar deficit. Now I'm all for spending money to prevent global warming, which in my mind is proven to exist and more importantly is proven to not be naturally restricting. Consider, however, that overpopulation should be naturally restricted by simple economic forces and it makes you wonder if maybe we should be spending the money preparing for the worst on something like global warming instead.

Also, consider China's One Child Policy. I would say that's another great example of it hurting to be prepared for the worst.
What good would that do once there aren't humans left because we killed ourselves off?

How has China's One Child Policy hurt? There are like 7 times as many boys than girls, but that will just stimulate more decreasing of the population due to competition :D . My other point was this: we're preparing for the worst possible terrorist attacks when we don't even know if they exist for sure. We know for a fact, if current population trends continue, the population will double by 2050. That will be a far worse crisis than any terrorist attack. You also bring up the worderful deficit. Thank you. The U.S. is in debt $7.8 trillion. It will take all of our resources just to pay off interest once a fiscally responisble President takes office. That will be a far worst crisis than any terrorist attack. We need to get our priorities straight if America is going to remain the world's sole superpower.

The idea that lack of education is the biggest problem has occured to me. However, in my opinion, education and overpopulation are sort of a chicken and the egg combination. My perception is that lack of education is the result of overpopulation, which in turn is the biggest problem in the world.

Then again, perhaps since I'm from Los Angeles, I see it more skewed toward overpopulation as I'm on a smaller scale. The bottom line is, both are major problems than need to be rectified.

Maybe these are not "problems" but actually "solutions" to the overpopulation problem... Nature works in misterious ways.

I guess that's more of a question regarding whether the ends justify the means. Sure, abortion stops overpopulation, but so do contraceptives.

Basically, I'd rather it be less of a current of up and down populations, between dark ages and golden ages, and more of just a constant golden age with less problems.

This was going to be a thread/poll about the greatest problem the world faces, but since I already know, I'm just going to give you a yes or no option. (Yes, I am a cocky prick) {Yes, that is kind of redundant}

Overpopulation is the greatest threat to the world, and can be shown to be the major contributor to all of the other problems facing the world:

Wars, famine, poverty, deforestation, racism/nationalism, volatile religious views, disease, lack of resources, under education, overcrowding, pollution, etc.
I agree. Legalize post-birth abortion! :p

I believe that overpopulation is the worst problem in the world. While not being the root cause of all evils, it certainly is a contributor. I am in favor of the population being around one million people globally, with a sustainable system of government that everyone was a part of. I believe that would be infinitely sustainable, allowing for variables like Sol belching, a comet colliding, a caldera erupting, or just your run-of-the-mill human apocalypse involving WWIII or a superbug.

I believe that overpopulation is the worst problem in the world. While not being the root cause of all evils, it certainly is a contributor. I am in favor of the population being around one million people globally, with a sustainable system of government that everyone was a part of. I believe that would be infinitely sustainable, allowing for variables like Sol belching, a comet colliding, a caldera erupting, or just your run-of-the-mill human apocalypse involving WWIII or a superbug.
One million!? That's only a little more than my town! And it's a rather small town. Maybe you meant one billion! That would indeed be nice (as long as I'm in the lucky billion :p ). I have a great idea to make this all true, it's all written down in a detailed guidebook, it's called Rainbow 6. Next week, we carry out the plans! :D Who's with me?

Well guys, I must say you've inspired me. There really are too many human beings on this dinky planet of ours. If some of us don't die off soon there's going to be trouble and we're all going to suffer, myself included. There's only one thing to do. My bags are packed, I've got a plane ticket to India and I've made arrangements to purchase a fully automatic weapon once I get there. I guess you'll be seeing me on the evening news.

Well guys, I must say you've inspired me. There really are too many human beings on this dinky planet of ours. If some of us don't die off soon there's going to be trouble and we're all going to suffer, myself included. There's only one thing to do. My bags are packed, I've got a plane ticket to India and I've made arrangements to purchase a fully automatic weapon once I get there. I guess you'll be seeing me on the evening news.
I'll go to China. Are you going tomarrow night? We should synchronize for best results. :D :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

The U.S. is in debt $7.8 trillion. It will take all of our resources just to pay off interest once a fiscally responisble President takes office. That will be a far worst crisis than any terrorist attack. We need to get our priorities straight if America is going to remain the world's sole superpower.

You know something? I don't think we are going to remain a superpower much longer. $7.8 trillion dollar debt? I mean, even if Bill Gates and the owner of Wal-Mart (the two richest men in the country) completly sold out their busneiss, then gave all the money they had to the government. Then we still wouldn't be out of debt.

Mostly because the gov. would hardly use any of it to pay off the debt... :rolleyes:

(Sorry for the double post...)

I believe that overpopulation is the worst problem in the world. While not being the root cause of all evils, it certainly is a contributor. I am in favor of the population being around one million people globally, with a sustainable system of government that everyone was a part of. I believe that would be infinitely sustainable, allowing for variables like Sol belching, a comet colliding, a caldera erupting, or just your run-of-the-mill human apocalypse involving WWIII or a superbug.

You know, I read a short story about that once. About a small number of people globaly run by one government. They had also made it, however, so that the body didn't age so you never died. You could have babies, but the only way you were allowed to keep them was if you found a volenteer to die for the baby.

To make the short story short. A man discovered he was going to have twins, couldn't find volenteers, talked to a doctor about it. Then when the doctor couldn't help him, he killed the doctor and a nurse that was in the room, said "Now's there's room for two more people in this hell, and soon it'll be three" or something like that, then killed himself.

So, even though I doubt we'll ever be able to stop the ageing process, we could slow it down to the point where life expactancy is extremly long. Then we'd have to kill new born babies or someone who wants to save a baby, just to control the population, and I don't know about you, but I don't like the sound of that.

I reckon National interests are maybe not the problem, but at least the number one cause that stops us from doing something about it.

Be it global warming, famines and disease, Tsunamis, Wars and even overpopulation - if we had a properly working international community, we could counter all those things relatively easily.

Instead we build guns.

What good would that do once there aren't humans left because we killed ourselves off?

How has China's One Child Policy hurt? There are like 7 times as many boys than girls, but that will just stimulate more decreasing of the population due to competition :D . My other point was this: we're preparing for the worst possible terrorist attacks when we don't even know if they exist for sure. We know for a fact, if current population trends continue, the population will double by 2050. That will be a far worse crisis than any terrorist attack. You also bring up the worderful deficit. Thank you. The U.S. is in debt $7.8 trillion. It will take all of our resources just to pay off interest once a fiscally responisble President takes office. That will be a far worst crisis than any terrorist attack. We need to get our priorities straight if America is going to remain the world's sole superpower.

China's one-child policy has hurt by killing a bunch of innocent baby girls.

Consider it this way: We use nuclear power. It could destroy, but we use it anyway. Why? The chance of a nuclear reactor melting down is so phenomenally small that we don't worry about.

Of course, population isn't the exact same. In the case of population, the naturally limiting theory has been shown through studies of acceleration of population to be superior to the traditional view that population grows exponentially. The fact of the matter is that population grows exponentially until it meets with limiting factors. At that point it gradually levels off at an equilibrium where the earth is self-sustaining. That's why population acceleration is currently negative: we're levelling off. If population growth was still accelerating it would be cause for concern, but consider all the major steps forward society has made of the last few hundred years. The agricultural revolution, the price revolution, the first and second industrial revolutions. All of these resulted in major population growth. While we can't establish causality between technological increase and population growth, we can establish a correlation. Population grows as our ability to sustain a higher population grows. As our rate of technological advances made it easier to support a higher population, our population followed suit.

Anyway, the point is that it seems unlikely that we are capable of exceding our carrying capacity on this earth. It's true that disease and famine no longer kill large numbers of people, but rather than being treated as a sign that we're growing too fast, it should be treated as a sign that we've conditioned the earth to hold more people. Many say that the earth can hold a certain number and no more, and while this is true on one level (there is an upper limit), it is misleading. The fact of the matter is that we are constantly pushing this ceiling, and what's more, by the time we even start to approach it the cost of having kids will be so prohibitive that no one will do it anyway.

Bottom line: The decision to have kids is linked to the decision that you can afford to have kids. The decision that you can afford to have kids is linked to whether or not there is room for them. As long as we maintain those links through education, there is no way we can exceed our carrying capacity.

I'd have to say that Greed is the world's biggest problem. Everybody wants more, regardless of how much they already have, even though for some time now there's been more than enough to go around. There are people around me who are so fat they're literally dying from obesity, while people starve to death in other countries. And on the local scale, dictators are stealing from their own nations, getting rich off the backs of the people most in need of help.

Overall it is something that has defined the modern age. Gross caricatures of rich and poor on a scale never before witnessed. Perpetual starvation in the age of plenty. I don't think it gets more ironic than that.