NationStates Jolt Archive

Overpopulation, in my opinion, is the biggest threat facing our planet right now. Honestly, abortion and such is important, but not if we kill our planet. I think the real problem is how to fix it. Other than decimating (kill 1 in 10) our entire population, or drop bombs to thin out population, it does not seem like we are going to get much done. Mankind cannot pull together birth control or abortions, which is a lot of the cause of this problem (particularly in US), and klling people is a sad way to do it. Can anyone think of a good way of thinning the population?

All trolls could start by jumping off a cliff?

there is no good way. But it will happen I think. Just wait for World War III with China and India choosing sides. Mass bombing raids like those of World War II would really hit the civilians hard. Lot of soldiers would be killed too. that is the only way to stop it.

Send Africa about 93 trillion condoms, give the Chinese a high-five for keeping birth rates down, send a few people over to India to remind them to spread their wealth a wee bit more, so that peoples' quality of life rises and birth rate falls, and err leave the rest as it is, really.

Oh yah, maybe some great plague will come along.

Hope I'm immune.

Gotta love that. :rolleyes:

Oh yah, maybe some great plague will come along.

Hope I'm immune.

Chuck the useless in a ditch.

there is no good way. But it will happen I think. Just wait for World War III with China and India choosing sides. Mass bombing raids like those of World War II would really hit the civilians hard. Lot of soldiers would be killed too. that is the only way to stop it.
Don't be stupid. China and India have enough sense to keep out of massive wars, and with the Chinese and Indians being the only military powers in their prospective regions (Pakistan doesn't pose any threat to India outside of its nukes, which they will never use), they'll just kick about making vast sums of money and not getting involved.

Not even really sure what would plausibly cause a third world war. The Chinese have vast amount of oil in Africa at their disposal, the Indians aren't doing badly in that respect, push comes to shove and the US has some hundred years' worth of extremely expensive oil on its own territory, and the Russians aren't doing badly at all.

Can anyone think of a good way of thinning the population?

Homosexuality is a particularly enjoyable way of stemming population growth.

Send Africa about 93 trillion condoms, give the Chinese a high-five for keeping birth rates down, send a few people over to India to remind them to spread their wealth a wee bit more, so that peoples' quality of life rises and birth rate falls, and err leave the rest as it is, really.

I'm fairly sure the birth rate in India is already falling.

Lets wait for the rapture...once all Christians are gone the world will be fine.

I'm fairly sure the birth rate in India is already falling.
Aye, very much so. Could always do with a bit more help, though.

Mass neutering/sterilizing of the continent of Africa, Middle East, parts of Asia and South America. And also the Amish, there durn 7.8 child per couple average is nothing short of insane.

Of course than come in the pansies and religious folks screaming about ethics and morals. So I guess the solution is a stumper until someone with an innovative solution comes along.

Aye, very much so. Could always do with a bit more help, though.

Granted. The real issue is maintaining a birth rate without leading to a large difference in gender demographics, which I've heard is a problem China has.

Though that's really a cultural issue than anything else, if that makes sense.

Granted. The real issue is maintaining a birth rate without leading to a large difference in gender demographics, which I've heard is a problem China has.
I'd guess they're probably educating people more and more that they shouldn't have an abortion simply because they were going to have a girl. I have no proof for this, at all, but I'd reckon that's what they'd do.
Though that's really a cultural issue than anything else, if that makes sense.
Yep.

Even with proper education, it's hard to strip away centuries to millenia of cultural stigma. Many parts of the country, particularly in the cities, are very forward thinking on the issue, but the rural areas it's still a problem.
I believe that in the rural areas, people are let more off the hook regarding the one-child policy, mainly because the government doesn't have the money to mechanise all of its farms.

I'd guess they're probably educating people more and more that they shouldn't have an abortion simply because they were going to have a girl. I have no proof for this, at all, but I'd reckon that's what they'd do.

Yep.

Even with proper education, it's hard to strip away centuries to millenia of cultural stigma. Many parts of the country, particularly in the cities, are very forward thinking on the issue, but the rural areas it's still a problem.

I believe that in the rural areas, people are let more off the hook regarding the one-child policy, mainly because the government doesn't have the money to mechanise all of its farms.

Hmm. Well that's not necessarily good. You end up cutting back on crowding in the cities, but you've now got a larger percentage of poor farmers.

Oh yah, maybe some great plague will come along.

Hope I'm immune.

Ah, doctor, I wanted to ask you. What are the symptoms of hemoglophagia?

Mass neutering/sterilizing of the continent of Africa, Middle East, parts of Asia and South America. And also the Amish, there durn 7.8 child per couple average is nothing short of insane.

Of course than come in the pansies and religious folks screaming about ethics and morals. So I guess the solution is a stumper until someone with an innovative solution comes along.

I reported you from trolling. Look at my location and you'll see why. I have the same rights to choose my reproduction as anyone, and I will exercise them as I see fit.

And you can do nothing about it.

Overpopulation, in my opinion, is the biggest threat facing our planet right now. Honestly, abortion and such is important, but not if we kill our planet. I think the real problem is how to fix it. Other than decimating (kill 1 in 10) our entire population, or drop bombs to thin out population, it does not seem like we are going to get much done. Mankind cannot pull together birth control or abortions, which is a lot of the cause of this problem (particularly in US), and klling people is a sad way to do it. Can anyone think of a good way of thinning the population?
Decimation.

Decimation.

Sure, sure, everyone favors decimation, until they're among the tenth.

Homosexuality is a particularly enjoyable way of stemming population growth.


lol

Granted. The real issue is maintaining a birth rate without leading to a large difference in gender demographics, which I've heard is a problem China has.

Though that's really a cultural issue than anything else, if that makes sense.

The problem in China is that there are more senior citizens than the next generation can provide for. The gender imbalance is because some Chinese will abort once they know it is a girl.

I reported you from trolling. Look at my location and you'll see why. I have the same rights to choose my reproduction as anyone, and I will exercise them as I see fit.

And you can do nothing about it.


This is all theory, no need to report anything, it was likely more of a joke. I do not think mass neutering is possible. I would rather discuss the issue than each other.

lol

Ah, good, I was hoping you'd show up. Could you answer that post of mine please, doctor?

Ah, good, I was hoping you'd show up. Could you answer that post of mine please, doctor?


Yah, which one, I'll ask my dad 'bout it. I already admitted that the doctor is my father, not me. So shut up about it. It was a mistake to say.

Overpopulation, in my opinion, is the biggest threat facing our planet right now. Honestly, abortion and such is important, but not if we kill our planet. I think the real problem is how to fix it. Other than decimating (kill 1 in 10) our entire population, or drop bombs to thin out population, it does not seem like we are going to get much done. Mankind cannot pull together birth control or abortions, which is a lot of the cause of this problem (particularly in US), and klling people is a sad way to do it. Can anyone think of a good way of thinning the population?

Ron White's wife had a brilliant solution: Create a product that makes semen taste like chocolate. *nod*

Yah, which one, I'll ask my dad 'bout it. I already admitted that the doctor is my father, not me. So shut up about it. It was a mistake to say.

Ah well, never mind then. :D

It's a fictional disease. :p

Ah, good, I was hoping you'd show up. Could you answer that post of mine please, doctor?

I hope the answer involves ass-babies like his explanation of miscarriages did. :p

This is all theory, no need to report anything, it was likely more of a joke. I do not think mass neutering is possible. I would rather discuss the issue than each other.

It's possible. And one can't simply assume it to be a joke...

Maybe we don't actually have an overpopulation problem! :eek:

Sure, sure, everyone favors decimation, until they're among the tenth.
Hey, you can't get hurt in a big crowd...Right?

Ron White's wife had a brilliant solution: Create a product that makes semen taste like chocolate. *nod*

Brilliant! never heard that before. I love Ron White, but I think Engvall is better. Best comedian of all time is either Bill Cosby, Robin Williams, or Jerry Sienfeld (is that spelled correctly).

It's only overpopulation when you think, "hey, those other people's kids are stealing my gas, my jobs, etc..."

Overpopulation has a way of fixing itself - it's called mass starvation.

Sometimes, plague breaks out, of one kind or another.

Maybe we don't actually have an overpopulation problem! :eek:

Yah, uh-huh. I think everyone can agree that there is already an overpopulation problem. Do you think global-warming is real, or is that a myth too?

It's only overpopulation when you think, "hey, those other people's kids are stealing my gas, my jobs, etc..."

Overpopulation has a way of fixing itself - it's called mass starvation.

Sometimes, plague breaks out, of one kind or another.

That may be true, but when there is mass starvation, the Earth will be affected badly enough that the people left over will have a rough time.

That may be true, but when there is mass starvation, the Earth will be affected badly enough that the people left over will have a rough time.

No it isn't. The people usually affected by plagues (AIDS, malaria, typhus, etc) live in places like Africa. The people who experience mass starvation usually live in the same place.

Any plagues might have an affect, but not much (officially, AIDS will never occur as a pandemic among Western heterosexuals, and no one gets malaria in the UK because the mosquitos that transmit it don't live there).

The richer countries won't experience the starvation. While millions starve in the world today, even the poorest American is obese.

Ah well, never mind then. :D

It's a fictional disease. :p

What is a fictional disease? GBS? GBS is very common in women. It doesn't hurt them, but it can affect the babies.

Yah, uh-huh. I think everyone can agree that there is already an overpopulation problem. Do you think global-warming is real, or is that a myth too?

Har-har. Very funny. I don't want to get off subject, so I won't go into a rant about Global warming... In this thread. But yes it is real, but that's not what this thread is about.

So tell me, where did you find all these people who agree that overpopulation is a problem? Where's the proof? Links please.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml

No it isn't. The people usually affected by plagues (AIDS, malaria, typhus, etc) live in places like Africa. The people who experience mass starvation usually live in the same place.

Any plagues might have an affect, but not much (officially, AIDS will never occur as a pandemic among Western heterosexuals, and no one gets malaria in the UK because the mosquitos that transmit it don't live there).

The richer countries won't experience the starvation. While millions starve in the world today, even the poorest American is obese.


The obesity problem in US is, or so I have heard, not so much the quantity of food as what the food is and lack of exercising. Which makes sense really. If you live in US, this is pretty self-evident. (particularly in red states)

The obesity problem in US is, or so I have heard, not so much the quantity of food as what the food is and lack of exercising. Which makes sense really. If you live in US, this is pretty self-evident. (particularly in red states)

Actually, a recent community child health survey found that children in red states were healthier than those in blue states, and also had better insurance coverage.

Go figure.

And if you're a young black male, your life expectancy isn't governed by food - you're most likely to die from gunshot wounds. It's enough to reduce their life expectancy by twenty years compared to white males.

I think that since the birthrates in developed countries are below the level of replacement, global overpopulation might not be a problem in a few decades.
The key to reducing population in countries like in Africa is economic, educational, and industrial development. Countries with an increase in all of these things tend to have low birthrates. So I guess the solution to overpopulation is to end poverty? lol, no biggie

Overpopulation has a way of fixing itself - it's called mass starvation.

The laws of supply and demand at work; that can be applied here.

Although I would have to say there is no over population.

You see the lack of food due to government subsidies, they pay farmers not to farm land and also pay farmers to grow only corn for ethanol. Farming technology/knowledge has increased so much that the US farming land can supply more than enough food for the entire continent of North America. So, I don't think starvation will be much of a concern, as long as the government subsidies go away.

I think that since the birthrates in developed countries are below the level of replacement, global overpopulation might not be a problem in a few decades.
The key to reducing population in countries like in Africa is economic, educational, and industrial development. Countries with an increase in all of these things tend to have low birthrates. So I guess the solution to overpopulation is to end poverty? lol, no biggie

Too bad the people with lots of money are, in general, corrupt and refuse to spread some of the wealth around. But if the wealth is spread, would the economy be hurt globally?

Too bad the people with lots of money are, in general, corrupt and refuse to spread some of the wealth around. But if the wealth is spread, would the economy be hurt globally?

People don't spread wealth, unless someone is going to pay them back.

It isn't corruption.

If you actually believe it's corruption, please liquidate your bank accounts and send all of your money to me, because I need it.

Actually, a recent community child health survey found that children in red states were healthier than those in blue states, and also had better insurance coverage.

Go figure.

And if you're a young black male, your life expectancy isn't governed by food - you're most likely to die from gunshot wounds. It's enough to reduce their life expectancy by twenty years compared to white males.

?

The laws of supply and demand at work; that can be applied here.

Although I would have to say there is no over population.

You see the lack of food due to government subsidies, they pay farmers not to farm land and also pay farmers to grow only corn for ethanol. Farming technology/knowledge has increased so much that the US farming land can supply more than enough food for the entire continent of North America. So, I don't think starvation will be much of a concern, as long as the government subsidies go away.

Supply and Demand is a broken system. Gonna post something about capitalism at some point. Rich get richer and poor get poorer.

?

You were implying somehow that red state kids were unhealthy. It's actually the opposite.

Blacks mostly live in blue state cities, or vote blue. The life expectancy of black males is abysmally low, largely due to gunshot wounds (not being obese).

There are bigger problems than obesity, and the government cannot fix them.

If people are willing to commit murder, passing additional laws will not make them stop.

Supply and Demand is a broken system. Gonna post something about capitalism at some point. Rich get richer and poor get poorer.

You don't understand capitalism. THIS is capitalism:

Rich guy is greedy. Aren't we all? Rich guy wants more money. In order to get more money, he needs to expand. In order to expand, he needs to hire more people. Therefore, he hires some poor people. Poor person isn't as poor anymore. Rich guy gets richer. Poor guy gets richer. We all win, and we all complain :).

Supply and Demand is a broken system. Gonna post something about capitalism at some point. Rich get richer and poor get poorer.

Supply and Demand can not be broken, it is evident everywhere. Look at cows grazing in a field. If the supply in a field is low the cows will move/demand to an area with higher supply. This is a stupid example, but it works.

How can you say capitalism is broke? More and more countries are going towards some form of capitalism. Look at China and Russia as examples. They had no trace of a capitalistic form of economy 20 years ago. Now their economies are growing because they switched to a form of capitalism.

The rich get richer, GREAT!!!!! They supply the jobs for the poor who can get rich in a capitalistic economy. If you remove the wealth from those that supply the jobs then you remove the jobs. Granted there have to be steps taken in order to avoid the employer taking advantage of the employee.

What is a fictional disease? GBS? GBS is very common in women. It doesn't hurt them, but it can affect the babies.

No, the disease I asked you about... :p

No, the disease I asked you about... :p

Men suffer from DSB. A common disease with a common cure. Untreated, it makes them act stupid, and their ears get pointy.

First post!
Anyway, any modern capitalist economy is not a zero-sum game. The rich can get richer and the poor can get richer, too, because money can be created to supply a population that becomes more efficient and productive, evidenced by a growth in a nation's GDP. As the population gets wealthier and more educated, birth control methods become more advanced and as a result the population comes under control. Most first-world countries are experiencing either a stagnating or declining "native" population, though their overall populations are growing through immigration. Therefore, the solution is to continue to invest in growing economies, resulting in a population that will begin to stagnate in the next 60 or 70 years. The iron law of wages is a fallacy in the modern economy.

Men suffer from DSB. A common disease with a common cure. Untreated, it makes them act stupid, and their ears get pointy.

:D

I was checking what he'd say about a fictional disease.

:D

I was checking what he'd say about a fictional disease.

So you've met men with Deadly Semen Buildup?

So you've met men with Deadly Semen Buildup?

Nah. Everyone I know masturbates. :p

The most important step to do something against the problem of overpopulation would be non-intervention into the natural mechanisms population control. We need an immediate stop of humanitarian help, public health care and charity groups. With their obsession to do good, they actually f*ck up the whole planet. Nature would be able to keep an equilibrium, if we don't permanently think we know everything better. People must not be kept alive in their misery at any cost.

Lets wait for the rapture...once all Christians are gone the world will be fine.

And they will talk to you...with this (http://www.youvebeenleftbehind.com/).

And if you're a young black male, your life expectancy isn't governed by food - you're most likely to die from gunshot wounds. It's enough to reduce their life expectancy by twenty years compared to white males.
I'm pretty sure that's more down to reduced access to healthcare and higher rates of smoking more than anything else tbqh.

Overpopulation, in my opinion, is the biggest threat facing our planet right now. Honestly, abortion and such is important, but not if we kill our planet. I think the real problem is how to fix it. Other than decimating (kill 1 in 10) our entire population, or drop bombs to thin out population, it does not seem like we are going to get much done. Mankind cannot pull together birth control or abortions, which is a lot of the cause of this problem (particularly in US), and klling people is a sad way to do it. Can anyone think of a good way of thinning the population?

Economic incentives. First thing that is needed is to take away any tax incentives for anyone to have more than one child. To be fair, the children subject to the tax law changes should be born at least 9 months before the new tax law change so parents can make informed decisions.

There could also be a tax incentive to not have any children. Sperm donors and surrogate mothers should be subject to exemptions perhaps.

Also, we need to limit immigration from countries that do not have anti-population policies so we do not get overflow from countries with bad population policies. Right now, the only good guys on this issue are of all people the Red Chinese.

1. Quit propping up underdeveloped countries and let 'em starve.
2. Quit offering aid to countries ravaged by natural disasters. Let 'em die of nasty diseases.
3. Quit trying to cure cancer, AIDS, and every other disease infectious or genetic.
4. Purge death row. Execute 'em all.

Assuming you're right, that's the way to do it. I disagree, but that's not the point of this thread.

this (http://www.youvebeenleftbehind.com/).

Oh my god... It's too stupid! It's RAPING MY MIND!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJQI4RIEx34&NR=1)

:D

And they will talk to you...with this (http://www.youvebeenleftbehind.com/).

AWESOME!!!

now not only i get saved but I can mock those of you LOSERS who were left behind!!!!


buwahahahahahaha

Put money into space research, and colonise other planets!

The human race will have to expand its borders in order to grow and survive, so we might as well get started now.

*dreams of a property on mars*

Overpopulation is a real issue, particularly from an agricultural point of view. It over-stresses the land in that it leads to over-intensive cultivation of good land, degrading it and over-stretching water sources, and leads people to attempt to cultivate land that is not naturally particularly fertile. Both eventually mean that good land is lost to the desert or becomes increasingly polluted by overuse of chemical fertilisers. It is a real problem and you don't have to look hard or far to see this.

It also has far reaching problems in major cities, a good example would be the rubbish collectors of Muqqatam.

Birth control measures are important, but history teaches as they are not particularly effective, even when inducements are offered. Governments also fear them, worrying about the effects of a smaller working age population being unable to support many older people in the future. This however is a diversion. It's a single generation price for a long term benefit. This is short termism at it's very worst. once the current "bubble" of larger number of older people has passed through the system, the crisis will have passed. it's a one off issue, whereas the benefits of a controlled population will be felt on an ongoing basis that will bring benefits far into the future.

The best way to achieve this is, quite frankly, cultural indoctrination. Through education, media and religion, working over many decades to instill values in the population that encourage the idea that a smaller family is the ideal. Encourage ideas such as:

1. Children are precious, not just one of a horde. A gram of gold is better than a hundred of lead. Because of this, individual attention and dedication is needed.
2. Small families allow this attention and dedication.
3. Small families allow you to focus completely on your children.
4. Children need a stable, established home, so it is better to delay children to later in married life.
5. A child deserves the best education. If you can only afford to send one child to university, only have one child.
6. Children from small families are more likely to live, and to live good lives, and ot be cherished.
7. Children are a blessing, and should indivudally be treated as such, not regarded as a casual side effect, commodity, or a donkey substitute.

Birth control needs to be completely available but not forced upon people. once the cultural changes take root, they will come looking for it. It will be more difficult in agricultural regions, where the labour of a large family is needed to tend to the fields. To this end a scheme whereby small families can get grants and soft loans toward simple mechanised agricultural equipment would be a big help.

Overpopulation is a real issue, particularly from an agricultural point of view. It over-stresses the land in that it leads to over-intensive cultivation of good land, degrading it and over-stretching water sources, and leads people to attempt to cultivate land that is not naturally particularly fertile. Both eventually mean that good land is lost to the desert or becomes increasingly polluted by overuse of chemical fertilisers. It is a real problem and you don't have to look hard or far to see this.

It also has far reaching problems in major cities, a good example would be the rubbish collectors of Muqqatam.

Birth control measures are important, but history teaches as they are not particularly effective, even when inducements are offered. Governments also fear them, worrying about the effects of a smaller working age population being unable to support many older people in the future. This however is a diversion. It's a single generation price for a long term benefit. This is short termism at it's very worst. once the current "bubble" of larger number of older people has passed through the system, the crisis will have passed. it's a one off issue, whereas the benefits of a controlled population will be felt on an ongoing basis that will bring benefits far into the future.

The best way to achieve this is, quite frankly, cultural indoctrination. Through education, media and religion, working over many decades to instill values in the population that encourage the idea that a smaller family is the ideal. Encourage ideas such as:

1. Children are precious, not just one of a horde. A gram of gold is better than a hundred of lead. Because of this, individual attention and dedication is needed.
2. Small families allow this attention and dedication.
3. Small families allow you to focus completely on your children.
4. Children need a stable, established home, so it is better to delay children to later in married life.
5. A child deserves the best education. If you can only afford to send one child to university, only have one child.
6. Children from small families are more likely to live, and to live good lives, and ot be cherished.
7. Children are a blessing, and should indivudally be treated as such, not regarded as a casual side effect, commodity, or a donkey substitute.

Birth control needs to be completely available but not forced upon people. once the cultural changes take root, they will come looking for it. It will be more difficult in agricultural regions, where the labour of a large family is needed to tend to the fields. To this end a scheme whereby small families can get grants and soft loans toward simple mechanised agricultural equipment would be a big help.

From where di you get this?

Concider this: (not as an idea, just the math)

If the entire population of the world (~6.6 billion) were to be housed in Texas (~268,820 sq. mi.), it would amount to just under 40 people per acre. One standard apartment complex per acre would easily allow each separate person his own unit.

With properly managed resources there is pletny to go around and always room for one more!

Overpopulation, in my opinion, is the biggest threat facing our planet right now. Honestly, abortion and such is important, but not if we kill our planet. I think the real problem is how to fix it. Other than decimating (kill 1 in 10) our entire population, or drop bombs to thin out population, it does not seem like we are going to get much done. Mankind cannot pull together birth control or abortions, which is a lot of the cause of this problem (particularly in US), and klling people is a sad way to do it. Can anyone think of a good way of thinning the population?

All nations and corporations should dedicate a sum of funds, research and resources into space colonization and space travel. Eventually we'd then disvoer how to make cities in inhospitable landscapes and environments such as the ones on the moon or mars, or possible the moons of Jupiter.

I was under the impression that the most effective way to lower the birth rate is to educate and enfranchise women. There are enough studies that show that even within nations, those women with better education and control over their lives produce less children.

From where di you get this?

I didn't "get" it from anywhere. It's just my own two cents.

Concider this: (not as an idea, just the math)

If the entire population of the world (~6.6 billion) were to be housed in Texas (~268,820 sq. mi.), it would amount to just under 40 people per acre. One standard apartment complex per acre would easily allow each separate person his own unit.

With properly managed resources there is pletny to go around and always room for one more!

But you would still need to feed them. Fields are the big issue. We can house people anywhere, in the desert, even on the water. But decent agricultural land is harder to find, and jobs and water harder still.

But you would still need to feed them. Fields are the big issue. We can house people anywhere, in the desert, even on the water. But decent agricultural land is harder to find, and jobs and water harder still.

It appears that way but just not the case. Think of all that could be grown in Nebraska, Kansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, The East Coast, West Coast! What if all this were only farmland. And then add in all the rest of prime farming areas around the country and globe. After that there is still plenty of room for industries, parks & whatnot. If the world population were 5 times more, with proper managed resources, we would be fine. (eventually the folks of the future will figure this out)

Considering how dangerous overpopulation can be (some of us may even die!), I say the only thing to do is to start a World War III with nuclear weapons.

When you attend a funeral,
It is sad to think that sooner or'l
Later those you love will do the same for you.
And you may have thought it tragic,
Not to mention other adjec-
Tives, to think of all the weeping they will do.
(But don't you worry.)

No more ashes, no more sackcloth,
And an arm band made of black cloth
Will some day nevermore adorn a sleeve.
For if the bomb that drops on you
Gets your friends and neighbors too,
There'll be nobody left behind to grieve.

And we will all go together when we go.
What a comforting fact that is to know.
Universal bereavement,
An inspiring achievement,
Yes, we will all go together when we go.

We will all go together when we go.
All suffused with an incandescent glow.
No one will have the endurance
To collect on his insurance,
Lloyd's of London will be loaded when they go.

Oh we will all fry together when we fry.
We'll be French fried potatoes by and by.
There will be no more misery
When the world is our rotisserie,
Yes, we will all fry together when we fry.

Down by the old maelstrom,
There'll be a storm before the calm.

And we will all bake together when we bake.
There'll be nobody present at the wake.
With complete participation
In that grand incineration,
Nearly three billion hunks of well-done steak.

Oh we will all char together when we char.
And let there be no moaning of the bar.
Just sing out a Te Deum
When you see that I.C.B.M.,*
And the party will be come-as-you-are.

Oh, we will all burn together when we burn.
There'll be no need to stand and wait your turn.
When it's time for the fallout
And Saint Peter calls us all out,
We'll just drop our agendas and adjourn.

You will all go directly to your respective Valhallas.
Go directly, do not pass Go, do not collect two hundred dollahs.

And we will all go together when we go.
Every Hottentot and every Eskimo.
When the air becomes uranious,
We will all go simultaneous.
Yes, we all will go together
When we all go together,
Yes we all will go together when we go.

Humans need to stop breeding for quantity and stupidity, and start breeding for quality and intelligence, but since eugenics is repugnant to most people, a man-made plague or a helluva war is just going to have to do.

I would agree that overpopulation is a problem that many other environmental problems are partly or wholly derived from.

What to do about it?

Educate women. Studies show that the more women are educated in a country, the smaller the number of children they have (on average) will be.

It's not a panacea, but it helps.

I would agree that overpopulation is a problem that many other environmental problems are partly or wholly derived from.

What to do about it?

Educate women. Studies show that the more women are educated in a country, the smaller the number of children they have (on average) will be.

It's not a panacea, but it helps.

I like it. Level-headed and has many other rewards too. Actually, I think women are going to end up being the dominant sex, being genetically smarter. Men have brawn, which mankind doesn't need anymore.

Actually, I think women are going to end up being the dominant sex, being genetically smarter.

You learned this as a result of your expert medical training?

there is no good way. But it will happen I think. Just wait for World War III with China and India choosing sides. Mass bombing raids like those of World War II would really hit the civilians hard. Lot of soldiers would be killed too. that is the only way to stop it.

That sequels in development hell, people have been anticipating it since 1945 and all we've got so far are a few teaser trailers. Plus I think it might ruin the trilogy, too much focus on special effects and not enough on actual substance. It'll be really hard for the producers to out do WW II.

That sequels in development hell, people have been anticipating it since 1945 and all we've got so far are a few teaser trailers. Plus I think it might ruin the trilogy, too much focus on special effects and not enough on actual substance. It'll be really hard for the producers to out do WW II.

nasty way of looking at it. How did you become "cabbage patch girl"?

That sequels in development hell, people have been anticipating it since 1945 and all we've got so far are a few teaser trailers. Plus I think it might ruin the trilogy, too much focus on special effects and not enough on actual substance. It'll be really hard for the producers to out do WW II.

Personally, I think they were wrong to even think about a sequel. Hitler pretty much carried the rest of the cast in II, replacing him is just impossible.

I like it. Level-headed and has many other rewards too. Actually, I think women are going to end up being the dominant sex, being genetically smarter. Men have brawn, which mankind doesn't need anymore.

No, men and women are largely of equal intelligence. Higher incidence of mental disorders drag down the averages for the male population, not men being generally stupider. Later maturation doesn't help either.

nasty way of looking at it. How did you become "cabbage patch girl"?

It's just a catagory based on the postcount.

I was a CyberSheep Farmer once. *sigh*

In the Alpha Quadran, life is not a guarantee. Live the best life you are given, be it for a 100 minutes or 100 years. Over population is the result of human intervention.

Nature will find a way.

Overpopulation: science will solve it.

As I see it, overpopulation is when the supply of elementary resources of survival (food, water, medicine, shelter etc) is less than the need. You see this in some communities now especially in 3rd world countries, which are overpopulated for what they can supply.

You think back 150 years ago, cities would have been completely different because of the lack of a proper mass transit system. Food had to be brought straight from the farm to the city, and the time from harvest to eating would probably be less than a week or two. Methods of preserving food were available, but they were expensive and the food lost some of its' value. If you were trying to ship a crate of fruit from say Australia to UK, it would take months to arrive.

Now days, populations are closer clustered together because we can ship food in from long distances. We can refrigerate or freeze meat for weeks, plus we can ship something from Australia to UK in less than 24 hours. We have technology that makes it possible.

Now, to come back to 3rd world communities and why they do not experience the same advantages as those of us in first world countries: Due to poor previous government planning, their infrastructure has not kept up with their needs. Firstly that means they can't import fresh food, but it also means that they can't export their products (which of course, means the country has no income)

So, what is the next step?
As I see it, the greatest demands over the next 50 years is going to be water and energy. Food production will keep up with demand for that long atleast, however, by 2100, there may be more of a need to examine our uses.
Energy: Fossil fuels are not unlimited. We need to find a more renewable source. I would suggest nuclear until we are able to refine methods such as solar to be efficient on a large scale. (No, solar is not viable at this point in time)
Water: We have plenty of water on the planet. Unfortunatly, it has things like salt, jellyfish and manta rays spread through it. So, we need to filter these things out. Which of course takes energy. More energy than we can safely produce at the moment by ourselves. So, we need a new method of production of energy.
Food: GM. Genetically modified food.

With a capitilized global community, the Earth will have no problem.

Wonderfully progressive of you all: if only those naive brown people would stop having children, then we could solve our existential problems.

Overpopulation, in my opinion, is the biggest threat facing our planet right now. Honestly, abortion and such is important, but not if we kill our planet. I think the real problem is how to fix it. Other than decimating (kill 1 in 10) our entire population, or drop bombs to thin out population, it does not seem like we are going to get much done. Mankind cannot pull together birth control or abortions, which is a lot of the cause of this problem (particularly in US), and klling people is a sad way to do it. Can anyone think of a good way of thinning the population?

Based on what? By what measure do you deem that overpopulation is such a significant problem?

The only reason why I can think you might believe such a thing is because you've been taken in by the goofy Malthusian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus) views that the current environmentalist movement seems to subscribe too. You know, where environmentalism goes hand in hand not with continued human flourishing but where modernity is wrecking our prior rural, Happy Hobbit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFR9VlIxvuE) lifestyle. You know, the kind of view subscribed to by Romantics who never actually had to work on a low-tech farm, so they have no idea how impoverished, nasty, and brutal such a life can be.

The fact of the matter, however, is that the rationale behind Malthus's thinking was wrong: he didn't account for massive productivity increases. Similarly, the current environmentalist movement tends to ignore the fact that the population growth rate is already tapering off as a consequence of urbanization (as a population urbanizes, it's fecundity rate drops, and not I might add as a consequence of urbanites being smarter but because poor rural life encourages childrearing to increase your labor force while urbanization encourages specialization of labor, and a specialized and better-trained worker, so there are fewer of them due to the added expense); it should stabilize at around 9 billion in 2050 or so, and that modernization allows more people to live on a smaller and smaller amount of land. If you wanted to halve the environmental impact of the Indian population on the Indian wilderness, you wouldn't kill half the population; that'd just cause a complete collapse followed by civil strife that is anything but good for the native plants and animals. Rather, you'd rapidly industrialize the nation and double its food productivity rate.

Really, you want to rethink your concerns about the future. There are a lot of dangers to the planet, but overpopulation is not one of them.

Wonderfully progressive of you all: if only those naive brown people would stop having children, then we could solve our existential problems.



Based on what? By what measure do you deem that overpopulation is such a significant problem?

The only reason why I can think you might believe such a thing is because you've been taken in by the goofy Malthusian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus) views that the current environmentalist movement seems to subscribe too. You know, where environmentalism goes hand in hand not with continued human flourishing but where modernity is wrecking our prior rural, Happy Hobbit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFR9VlIxvuE) lifestyle. You know, the kind of view subscribed to by Romantics who never actually had to work on a low-tech farm, so they have no idea how impoverished, nasty, and brutal such a life can be.

The fact of the matter, however, is that the rationale behind Malthus's thinking was wrong: he didn't account for massive productivity increases. Similarly, the current environmentalist movement tends to ignore the fact that the population growth rate is already tapering off as a consequence of urbanization (as a population urbanizes, it's fecundity rate drops, and not I might add as a consequence of urbanites being smarter but because poor rural life encourages childrearing to increase your labor force while urbanization encourages specialization of labor, and a specialized and better-trained worker, so there are fewer of them due to the added expense); it should stabilize at around 9 billion in 2050 or so, and that modernization allows more people to live on a smaller and smaller amount of land. If you wanted to halve the environmental impact of the Indian population on the Indian wilderness, you wouldn't kill half the population; that'd just cause a complete collapse followed by civil strife that is anything but good for the native plants and animals. Rather, you'd rapidly industrialize the nation and double its food productivity rate.

Really, you want to rethink your concerns about the future. There are a lot of dangers to the planet, but overpopulation is not one of them.

Um, no. 9 billion is 7 billion too many. There are two trends going on in the world today, the rapid development of global economies and the rapid increase in global population. These two trends put an enormous strain on Earth's resources. Industry doesn't create products; it refines them. The ultimate source for virtually all products, be it food, cars, or iPods come from natural resources, many of them non renewable. As the population increases, these resources get used up faster and faster, driving up costs and slowing economies. Chinese modernization has caused it to triple its consumption of copper, driving up costs in the US. The same can be seen with oil.

Not only that, but the expansion of agricultural land required to feed people takes a huge toll on the environment. Desertification, which is caused by agriculture in border regions of the desert, causes the starvation of millions of people world wide. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/desertification/ When the population becomes so large, expansion into these border regions becomes necessary, often with harsh consequences.

Water also becomes a significant problem. Saudi Arabia's population is exploding, but it has no water to support them. The Colorado River supporting Los Angeles has seen its delta reduced by 90%. It's questionable whether we even have the water to support ourselves and our activities.

Blind confidence in a yet undiscovered technology to solve the problem is stupid. As Earth's population continues to expand, we have little to look forward to except for economic downturns and high food prices, with the possibility of large scale famine, diseases, and even regional wars.

[We need energy, food & water or else we all die]

If we get a source of renewable or unlimited energy all of those worries are nil. We do not have an infinite amount of energy at the moment (I imagine that within 50 years however, solar power and other renewable methods will be more advanced and more capable). Nuclear is a good option for a hundred years or so: Low pollution, high efficiency, abundant supply. Sure, there are a few toxic byproducts, but carefully handled they are safe enough.

Food: with the advancement of GM food, and the addition of unlimited energy, that will not be a problem. As well as the potential to alter the weather. (it is possible, just requires alot of energy)

Water: We have a whole ocean of water. Just need to filter it (=energy)

Famine, war & disease: GM food, global equality & advancement of public health interventions

If we get a source of renewable or unlimited energy all of those worries are nil. We do not have an infinite amount of energy at the moment (I imagine that within 50 years however, solar power and other renewable methods will be more advanced and more capable). Nuclear is a good option for a hundred years or so: Low pollution, high efficiency, abundant supply. Sure, there are a few toxic byproducts, but carefully handled they are safe enough.

Food: with the advancement of GM food, and the addition of unlimited energy, that will not be a problem. As well as the potential to alter the weather. (it is possible, just requires alot of energy)

Water: We have a whole ocean of water. Just need to filter it (=energy)

Famine, war & disease: GM food, global equality & advancement of public health interventions

The first word of your post is "if" and that adequately describes the situation. None of the technology exists and a lot of Cornicopian theory depends on a repeat of the 1960's Green Revolution.

I was also talking about non-renewable resources that can't be easily renewed by technology, like iron or oil.

The first word of your post is "if" and that adequately describes the situation. None of the technology exists and a lot of Cornicopian theory depends on a repeat of the 1960's Green Revolution.
We currently have access to nuclear power, which would supply us until the renewable resources are sufficiently able to supply us.

I was also talking about non-renewable resources that can't be easily renewed by technology, like iron or oil.
Sorry, forgot about that one in the original reply.
The current problem with recycling (from my understanding) is that it takes so much energy to do. With an unlimited energy resource, recycling is not a huge problem. Old cars/other metal things can be recycled, as can anything else non-renewable. Oil is a tricky one, but we won't need it for energy, however, that is where our plastic comes from. I suppose that current plastic can be recycled.
(yes, it is probably not a permanent solution, but for the medium term, it is pretty OK)

Oh, we also have a whole planet underneath us :P, I think that if they did surveys deeper than they do at the moment, they would eventually find more sources of oil and metal deposits. (the Earth has a radius of ~7000km so that will make 1.4 trillion cubic kilometers worth of earth (roughly)). I am unsure how detailed their knowledge of what lies beneath the crust is, but I imagine that there is alot yet to find out.

Chuck the useless in a ditch.

Can we use them first before we throw them in a ditch?

nasty way of looking at it. How did you become "cabbage patch girl"?

I blame the liberals. What else could it be? The automatic changing of nicknames due to an increase in post-count? I think not.

Personally, I think they were wrong to even think about a sequel. Hitler pretty much carried the rest of the cast in II, replacing him is just impossible.

But the whole "Treaty of Versailles" ending of the first one didn't satisfy audiences, WW II offered a much more interesting ending to the story.

But the whole "Treaty of Versailles" ending of the first one didn't satisfy audiences, WW II offered a much more interesting ending to the story.

Yes a popular term for it was "The final solution". Well the solution turned out to be not what they thought.....

I live out in the country. Plenty of space out here - overcrowding? Only if you insist on living next to other people. ;)

So you've met men with Deadly Semen Buildup?
Every day, there is mass starvation in some place in the world. :p

Oh yah, maybe some great plague will come along.

Hope I'm immune.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

My eyes are about to shoot up to the ceiling.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

My eyes are about to shoot up to the ceiling.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558606

Read this thread for some extra comedy. The OP considers overpopulation such a huge problem, yet in this other thread, he dismisses one of the best long-term solutions!

Personally, I think the current population levels are fine for now; we just need to provide education to the next generation of kids, and get them interested in science. We'll solve our problems with knowledge and sheer force of will! :cool:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558606

Read this thread for some extra comedy. The OP considers overpopulation such a huge problem, yet in this other thread, he dismisses one of the best long-term solutions!

Personally, I think the current population levels are fine for now; we just need to provide education to the next generation of kids, and get them interested in science. We'll solve our problems with knowledge and sheer force of will! :cool:

Force of will? Wow, so we get evryone to think "the world is so empty" and we will be fine. I think that the space travel and the overpopulation threads are linked. I think that our solutions to overpopulation are space colonization or China taking over the whole world. When China does buy out the globe, maybe they will keep their 1 child policy for urban areas. Isn't China thinking about dropping it because there are more senior citizens than the middle aged can provide for?

Sure, sure, everyone favors decimation, until they're among the tenth.

No, would just have to properly brainwash the community.

"You got a black rock."
"Ah what does tha-"

Won't even know they're about to die, unless you have an IQ over 90, in which case, sucks for you. Maybe we should decimate the population in terms of intelligence and benefit to the society. If we have to kill people to help with population (which I do not support) then at least kill the right people.

There is no need to worry any more. Goddess Nanatsu no Tuski has commanded that 2/3rd of all human population are to be castrated.

Problem solved.

Now please form a line...

*Sharpens his knive and plays with his burdizzo in one hand*

"And here they sleweth the goats. And placeth they the remains into little pots. Here endeth the lesson."



For our biblical lunch we have
... moules marinieres, pate de foie gras, beluga caviar, eggs
Benedictine, tart de poireaux - that's leek tart - frogs' legs
amandine or oeufs de caille Richard Shepherd - c'est a dire,
little quails' eggs on a bed of pureed mushrooms, it's very
delicate, very subtle...

There is no need to worry any more. Goddess Nanatsu no Tuski has commanded that 2/3rd of all human population are to be castrated.

Problem solved.

Now please form a line...

*Sharpens his knive and plays with his burdizzo in one hand*

Although I love your sig, it is the mother of all sigs in lenght and a mod might swing his/her hammie at you. But I just love it!:p

Although I love your sig, it is the mother of all sigs in lenght and a mod might swing his/her hammie at you. But I just love it!:p
You dyed for them sins? You castrating?

Don't waste good meat, let's make them into testicle puddings.

You dyed for them sins? You castrating?

Don't waste god meat, let's make them into testicle puddings.

Aye aye cap'n!

Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis,
Isn't it frightfully good to have a dong?
It's swell to have a stiffy,
It's divine to own a dick,
From the tiniest little tadger,
To the world's biggest prick.

So three cheers for your Willy or John Thomas,
Hooray for your one-eyed trouser snake,
Your piece of pork, your wife's best friend,
Your Percy or your cock,
You can wrap it up in ribbons,
You can slip it in your sock,
But don't take it out in public,
Or they will stick you in the dock,
And you won't come back.

[Spontaneous applause breaks out all over the forum.]

Oh... thank you very much.

Woman: Oh what a frightfully witty song.

I figured that this isn't really rude. Considering earlier posts.

Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis,
Isn't it frightfully good to have a dong?
It's swell to have a stiffy,
It's divine to own a dick,
From the tiniest little tadger,
To the world's biggest prick.

So three cheers for your Willy or John Thomas,
Hooray for your one-eyed trouser snake,
Your piece of pork, your wife's best friend,
Your Percy or your cock,
You can wrap it up in ribbons,
You can slip it in your sock,
But don't take it out in public,
Or they will stick you in the dock,
And you won't come back.

[Spontaneous applause breaks out all over the forum.]

Oh... thank you very much.

Woman: Oh what a frightfully witty song.

I figured that this isn't really rude. Considering earlier posts.

© M Python

;)

Wars, as strange as it may seem, do not have an appreciable impact on long term population growth. From 1940 to 1950 the population of the world went from 2.3 billion to 2.4 billion. Now, it probably would have increased more if it weren't for World War II, but the point is that it still went up.

In the 14th century there was a temporary drop in world population due to the Black Plague, but overall the trend continued upward within a century.

The real increase in world population started in the 17th century with the introduction of the potato in Europe, which helped to drive an agricultural revolution, which in turn financed a scientific and industrial revolution that improved the living standards of people around the globe.

That, in turn, is the reason for the sudden explosion in human population in the past 300 years after millions of years of a relatively stable population.

In the early 1800s we hit a billion for the first time and are currently at 6.7 billion, with estimates of 9-10 billion before we level off in 2075 (according to the U.N.).

In short, there is nothing we can do to stop the overall trend toward worldwide population increase.

Wars, as strange as it may seem, do not have an appreciable impact on long term population growth. From 1940 to 1950 the population of the world went from 2.3 billion to 2.4 billion. Now, it probably would have increased more if it weren't for World War II, but the point is that it still went up.

In the 14th century there was a temporary drop in world population due to the Black Plague, but overall the trend continued upward within a century.

The real increase in world population started in the 17th century with the introduction of the potato in Europe, which helped to drive an agricultural revolution, which in turn financed a scientific and industrial revolution that improved the living standards of people around the globe.

That, in turn, is the reason for the sudden explosion in human population in the past 300 years after millions of years of a relatively stable population.

In the early 1800s we hit a billion for the first time and are currently at 6.7 billion, with estimates of 9-10 billion before we level off in 2075 (according to the U.N.).

In short, there is nothing we can do to stop the overall trend toward worldwide population increase.

I knew potatos were to blame!!!!

ok..so shall I continue castrating people or not?

Overpopulation, in my opinion, is the biggest threat facing our planet right now. Honestly, abortion and such is important, but not if we kill our planet. I think the real problem is how to fix it. Other than decimating (kill 1 in 10) our entire population, or drop bombs to thin out population, it does not seem like we are going to get much done. Mankind cannot pull together birth control or abortions, which is a lot of the cause of this problem (particularly in US), and klling people is a sad way to do it. Can anyone think of a good way of thinning the population?

Overpopulation is not a problem. Remember the "population bomb"? 20 Billion people or so by 2000? How did that turn out.

As countries industrialize there populations actually decline. This whole premise is false and it relies on the simplistic notion that humans are evil and are killing Gaia. Typical Green stupidity.

Based on what? By what measure do you deem that overpopulation is such a significant problem?

The only reason why I can think you might believe such a thing is because you've been taken in by the goofy Malthusian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus) views that the current environmentalist movement seems to subscribe too. You know, where environmentalism goes hand in hand not with continued human flourishing but where modernity is wrecking our prior rural, Happy Hobbit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFR9VlIxvuE) lifestyle. You know, the kind of view subscribed to by Romantics who never actually had to work on a low-tech farm, so they have no idea how impoverished, nasty, and brutal such a life can be.

The fact of the matter, however, is that the rationale behind Malthus's thinking was wrong: he didn't account for massive productivity increases. Similarly, the current environmentalist movement tends to ignore the fact that the population growth rate is already tapering off as a consequence of urbanization (as a population urbanizes, it's fecundity rate drops, and not I might add as a consequence of urbanites being smarter but because poor rural life encourages childrearing to increase your labor force while urbanization encourages specialization of labor, and a specialized and better-trained worker, so there are fewer of them due to the added expense); it should stabilize at around 9 billion in 2050 or so, and that modernization allows more people to live on a smaller and smaller amount of land. If you wanted to halve the environmental impact of the Indian population on the Indian wilderness, you wouldn't kill half the population; that'd just cause a complete collapse followed by civil strife that is anything but good for the native plants and animals. Rather, you'd rapidly industrialize the nation and double its food productivity rate.

Really, you want to rethink your concerns about the future. There are a lot of dangers to the planet, but overpopulation is not one of them.

Finally a rational and sensible post out of all this hysteria. People never seem to take in account increases in productivity. The 6 billion people living today enjoy a standard of living the 1 billion in the 19th century could only dream of. Even the poorest African countries today have higher life expectancies that the richest western countries then, even taking into account the sharp drop due the AIDS pandemic.

I'm not saying we should blindly rely on increases in productivity, maybe in the future this will become a problem, however has our society gotten so misanthropic that no-one seems to suggest the idea that perhaps, shockingly, high population is a good thing? In the sense that so many people are enjoying lives that they would of not if they had never been born?

Finally a rational and sensible post out of all this hysteria. People never seem to take in account increases in productivity. The 6 billion people living today enjoy a standard of living the 1 billion in the 19th century could only dream of. Even the poorest African countries today have higher life expectancies that the richest western countries then, even taking into account the sharp drop due the AIDS pandemic.

I'm not saying we should blindly rely on increases in productivity, maybe in the future this will become a problem, however has our society gotten so misanthropic that no-one seems to suggest the idea that perhaps, shockingly, high population is a good thing? In the sense that so many people are enjoying lives that they would of not if they had never been born?

Eventually, I think we are going to be losing our agriculture with Global Warming. I am not so worried about ice caps melting and such, but it is possible that it will chemically imbalance the earth.

Although I think an increase in the human population to the 9-10 billion mark by the end of this century is inevitable I will not go as far as some my respected fellow commentators in this forum who feel there are no problems associated with population increase.

The originator of this thread is not wrong is the assessment that many of the problems the world faces can trace their origin back to human population growth. Loss of habitat, increased animal extinction, pollution, global warming, wars over resources, can all be traced back to rapid human population increase.

In the 19th c. merchant ships had a mark painted on the hull called the Plimsoll line, which indicated the maximum depth to which the ship could be safely loaded.

The world has a human Plimsoll line, as well. There is maximum carrying load for the number of humans this planet can sustain. We don't know what that is, but neither do we know what the impact of so many industrialized humans will have on the planet either. It has been less than 300 years since we crossed the one billion mark and in the last 40 years, when we have had the greatest industrial development, we have more than doubled our population to 6.7 billion.

To imagine there are no consequences from that growth is unrealistic.

Overpopulation is not a problem. Remember the "population bomb"? 20 Billion people or so by 2000? How did that turn out.

As countries industrialize there populations actually decline. This whole premise is false and it relies on the simplistic notion that humans are evil and are killing Gaia. Typical Green stupidity.

As true as that is, the Earth's carrying capacity is already maxing out. If we can survive the next 50 years, we'll be home free, but until that point... Overpopulation is going to get worse before it gets better.

And just a side note, favoring population restrictions or fearing overpopulation does not equate with a green ideology.

Finally a rational and sensible post out of all this hysteria. People never seem to take in account increases in productivity. The 6 billion people living today enjoy a standard of living the 1 billion in the 19th century could only dream of. Even the poorest African countries today have higher life expectancies that the richest western countries then, even taking into account the sharp drop due the AIDS pandemic.

I'm not saying we should blindly rely on increases in productivity, maybe in the future this will become a problem, however has our society gotten so misanthropic that no-one seems to suggest the idea that perhaps, shockingly, high population is a good thing? In the sense that so many people are enjoying lives that they would of not if they had never been born?

No. The poorest African countries do not enjoy higher life expectancies. At 30-40 years of age, that is the lowest life expectancy since pre-agricultural times, when average life expectancy was 30 years of age.

Can anyone think of a good way of thinning the population?
Gay sex. Lots and lots of gay and lesbian sex.

Easiest way to fix overpopulation in a single generation without killing anyone.

© M Python

;)

yah, if I had written that i would be screamin it. It is brilliant. Sorry, forgot to give that one to Monty Python. Did for my other ones.

(@ Cybach's idiotic post calling for my castration due to being from South America) I reported you from trolling. Look at my location and you'll see why. I have the same rights to choose my reproduction as anyone, and I will exercise them as I see fit.

And you can do nothing about it.

Furthermore, Cybach, considering the idiocy of your views, and that intellect is also a genetic trait, it's easy to see which one between us has MORE right to reproduce: Me. So, if anyone between the two of us should undergo forced castration, it certainly is not me.

1. Quit propping up underdeveloped countries and let 'em starve.
2. Quit offering aid to countries ravaged by natural disasters. Let 'em die of nasty diseases.
3. Quit trying to cure cancer, AIDS, and every other disease infectious or genetic.
4. Purge death row. Execute 'em all.

Assuming you're right, that's the way to do it. I disagree, but that's not the point of this thread.

I do agree with you. However, i think that if people want to give to charities that feed these folks and provide foreign humanitarian aid, that should be their right. I just do not think that public money should go to those ends.

I never thought of purging death row as a population control issue, we are not dealing with a lot of people in death row. I am not opposed to the death penalty but I am not sure that we need to reduce appellate rights in the name of population control. I really need some convincing there.

Furthermore, Cybach, considering the idiocy of your views, and that intellect is also a genetic trait, it's easy to see which one between us has MORE right to reproduce: Me. So, if anyone between the two of us should undergo forced castration, it certainly is not me.

Relax Heikoku... its me who will decide who gets neutered and who doesnt... inspired by the divine will of our deity.... and you are not on my list....


Cybach on the other hand....

ah, I don't know why the OP tried to make this into an abortion thread, but abortion would do basically nothing to stop overpopulation. Birth control education would be so much more effective.

Agreed...

But also I think its valid to question if there even is overpopulation at all.

Agreed...

But also I think its valid to question if there even is overpopulation at all.

I think the world is definitely overpopulated.:p

Have you ever been to argentina?

As true as that is, the Earth's carrying capacity is already maxing out. If we can survive the next 50 years, we'll be home free, but until that point... Overpopulation is going to get worse before it gets better.

And just a side note, favoring population restrictions or fearing overpopulation does not equate with a green ideology.

Well again, we have to ask ourselves, our world's carrying capacity is maxed out based on what assessment? Currently, our existing technology employed in only a limited segment of total arable land, is sufficient to feed 7 billion people the minimum daily caloric intake of 1600 calories. If we employed the same farming techniques over a larger portion of the earth, I don't imagine it would take us much to do the same for 9 billion. Mind you, that's not dependent on better technology, only more thorough employment of the technology we already have. Now I'll grant you that poses significant political and economic challenges: lots of places with poor agricultural yields are also areas of significant political turmoil, and sharing technologies are sometimes stymied by global economic structures. But let's not kid ourselves that these global economic and political structures can change if we make them change, and there are few people more willing to make changes than people with an empty stomach. The larger point, however, is that I don't see how you can make the argument that there is a set global carrying capacity. The capacity is set only by our ability to innovate and implement those innovations thoroughly. Here, the capacity can be reached even if we never ever progress beyond John Deere combines as far as agricultural technology is concerned.

No. The poorest African countries do not enjoy higher life expectancies. At 30-40 years of age, that is the lowest life expectancy since pre-agricultural times, when average life expectancy was 30 years of age.

Actually surprisingly the life expectancy was higher in pre-agricultural times than most of history after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Timeline_for_humans

The lowest life expectancy in the world today is Swaziland which is 32. And for the next bottom countries it's between 37-40.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

In 1800 the life expectancy for France was under 30 and was 36 for Britain.
http://www.fte.org/capitalism/introduction/02.html

So yes. The life expectancy for the poorest backwaters today is roughly equivalent or better than the richest countries 200 years ago. In fact before AIDS broke out African countries were averaging in the high 50s to low 60s. According to this (http://www.avert.org/aafrica.htm) the sub-Saharan average would have been 62 without AIDS, which rivals many western countries 50 years ago let alone two centuries.

Many seem to underestimate how much science and technology can (and has) increase the standard of living of everyone on the planet. And it's no doubt raised the "carrying capacity" orders of magnitude. And because fertility rates are dropping around the world, even in poor countries, the world population is predicted to peak mid century so I would say this hysteria is unfounded.

The only way I could see action to curb population growth being taken is if anti-aging technologies came around giving humans indefinite lifespans but even then I can't see some of these sociopathic suggestions being tossed around here justified.

Many of you who are guessing what the "Plimsoll line" (carrying capacity) of human population on the planet is are conveniently forgetting that we are not the only occupants of the planet.

While it may be possible to feed 9 billion people (assuming we distribute calories equally - when has that ever happened?), those extra people are going to need places to live, are going to use resources, and will produce waste. In fact, as the world's two largest nations, representing 1/3 of the world's population, become more industrialized the amount of pollutants put into the air, land, and water will increase dramatically.

We are currently in the midst of a mass extinction of plants and animals. It is estimated that the current rate of extinction is 140,000 species per year. Unlike great die offs in the pass the reasons for the current mass extinction are all human related and include deforestation, habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change. These will all be exacerbated by increased human population.

Now some may say, 'who cares about a few frogs and salamanders,' but the biodiversity of the planet is also crucial to human survival. Those plants and animals that are dying off every year are like the canary in the coal mine telling us we are in danger.

Many of you who are guessing what the "Plimsoll line" (carrying capacity) of human population on the planet is are conveniently forgetting that we are not the only occupants of the planet.

While it may be possible to feed 9 billion people (assuming we distribute calories equally - when has that ever happened?), those extra people are going to need places to live, are going to use resources, and will produce waste. In fact, as the world's two largest nations, representing 1/3 of the world's population, become more industrialized the amount of pollutants put into the air, land, and water will increase dramatically.

We are currently in the midst of a mass extinction of plants and animals. It is estimated that the current rate of extinction is 140,000 species per year. Unlike great die offs in the pass the reasons for the current mass extinction are all human related and include deforestation, habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change. These will all be exacerbated by increased human population.

Too bad Kylamus got banned right when they really started talking about the issue. Gotta love it lol :D

Too bad Kylamus got banned right when they really started talking about the issue. Gotta love it lol :D
He got banned? Missed my chance to play with him. :(

He got banned? Missed my chance to play with him. :(

Play with him?? What do you mean by that!

Many of you who are guessing what the "Plimsoll line" (carrying capacity) of human population on the planet is are conveniently forgetting that we are not the only occupants of the planet.

While it may be possible to feed 9 billion people (assuming we distribute calories equally - when has that ever happened?), those extra people are going to need places to live, are going to use resources, and will produce waste. In fact, as the world's two largest nations, representing 1/3 of the world's population, become more industrialized the amount of pollutants put into the air, land, and water will increase dramatically.

We are currently in the midst of a mass extinction of plants and animals. It is estimated that the current rate of extinction is 140,000 species per year. Unlike great die offs in the pass the reasons for the current mass extinction are all human related and include deforestation, habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change. These will all be exacerbated by increased human population.

Now some may say, 'who cares about a few frogs and salamanders,' but the biodiversity of the planet is also crucial to human survival. Those plants and animals that are dying off every year are like the canary in the coal mine telling us we are in danger.

That is true, and it's an interesting point, but it's also important to note that the best way to protect those species and habitats is, to put it simply, to increase productivity to the point that we don't need to use that land to produce food or raw materials. There is a reason why ills like deforestation occur, and it isn't solely due to there being too many people in the area, although that is one component of it. Rather, it's a combination of a lot of people being forced to use poorly productive forms of agriculture. As an example, there is a reason why Brazil, a nation with about 88% of the land but only 65% of the population of the US, is being deforested at wholesale rates while we are continually taking land out of productive use by making national monuments and parks.

My point is really quite simple: while I agree that environmentalism is important, environmentalists seem to have forgotten that environmentalism is possible only in a highly industrialized, urbanized, and commercialized society. They also forget that poor impoverished farmers, or even hunter-gatherers, are often ridiculously destructive to their surrounding environment because the low productivity often forces them to be so (as an example, a mass die-off happened in Australia about 12k years ago, a time that coincided with the ancestors of modern Aborigines landing on the island, and then using mass burns of the vegetation to kill most of the local predators). Put in blunter terms, if you want to save the rainforest, then the most moral solution is to raise economic productivity.

Have you ever been to argentina?

No, but Argentina isn´t a country. LOL! It´s just cow pasture grounds.:p

Come on big space rock (crosses fingers)

That is true, and it's an interesting point, but it's also important to note that the best way to protect those species and habitats is, to put it simply, to increase productivity to the point that we don't need to use that land to produce food or raw materials. There is a reason why ills like deforestation occur, and it isn't solely due to there being too many people in the area, although that is one component of it. Rather, it's a combination of a lot of people being forced to use poorly productive forms of agriculture. As an example, there is a reason why Brazil, a nation with about 88% of the land but only 65% of the population of the US, is being deforested at wholesale rates while we are continually taking land out of productive use by making national monuments and parks.

If we improve food production, it will cause the population to go even higher, forcing us to use more land to make more food.


Come on big space rock (crosses fingers)

As long as it doesn't hit my side of the planet, I'm good.

We are currently in the midst of a mass extinction of plants and animals. It is estimated that the current rate of extinction is 140,000 species per year. Unlike great die offs in the pass the reasons for the current mass extinction are all human related and include deforestation, habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change. These will all be exacerbated by increased human population.

What better way to make more room for human life than by wiping out all other forms of life eh? :D