Over Population

[Roamy]

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

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

[Mark]

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

[Roamy]

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

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

[schmenke]

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

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

[Daniel]

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

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

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

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

[Roamy]

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

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

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

[fandango]

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

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

[glauistean]

I feel disgusted reading this thread and am taken aback with the agreement of some.
The world is not over populated by any estimation. This sounds so vile and akin to events of the 30's and 40's.
The originator of this thread stated that he was asked to smoke elsewhere because he was obviously doing so in the company of another persons children.

This individual has one child. God, I hope this child is a perfect specimen of the human physical as the author implies by his thread that he, himself is.

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

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

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

[schmenke]

^ :s :?:

[race aficionado]

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

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

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

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

:s mokin:

[schmenke]

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

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

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

[AndySpeed]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[race aficionado]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rollo]

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

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


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

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

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

[ioan]

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

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

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

[Daniel]

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

[ioan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ioan]

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

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

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

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

:s mokin:

:up:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

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


Easy there Adolf! :p

[Roamy]

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



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

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

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

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

[gadjo_dilo]

And I agree with fousto, we are an overpopulated planet and we should work as a team to lower our numbers

The recent measures of our Government/Parliament will definitely either send us to the grave earlier or reduce natality. Looks like we're already on the right way.... :laugh:

Now seriously, I can't believe I read such opinions on this forum. The same forum where some of us are accused of racism, fascism, etc. and where everybody make big fuss on human rights,

Shame on ( some of ) you.

[Mark]

The world is not over populated by any estimation. This sounds so vile and akin to events of the 30's and 40's.

The world *is* overpopulated already by many estimates. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of biology and sustainable ecosystems knows that the environment can only sustain a certain population for a certain length of time, be that locusts, rabbits or humans. Suggesting that we keep birth rates low has nothing to do with the Nazi's as you seem to want to say, they were all about killing people, and that's not what's being suggested here.

Did you study the 'Demographic Transition Model' at school?



The originator of this thread stated that he was asked to smoke elsewhere because he was obviously doing so in the company of another persons children.

This individual has one child. God, I hope this child is a perfect specimen of the human physical as the author implies by his thread that he, himself is.

I don't see what this has to do with anything.



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

Humour is permitted on this forum, you know.

[gadjo_dilo]

Interesting is that the idea of an overpopulated earth has come to Mr. Roamy ( who " did his duty" and probably is the happy father of a prince charming or a fairy - depending on gender ) after noticing we're so many that he has not enough space to smoke.
Continuing the reasoning on such simplistic terms let's notice the following:
Let’s say we’re about 6-7 billion on earth. Republic of Moldova, a rather small country, has about 33000 square km. which means 33.000.000 square metres. If we place a man on each square meter, in Moldova is space for the earth population multiplied by 5.. Now let’s take a map and see how small Moldova is and how large the world is. There’s still plenty of space for everybody even if they smoke….. :laugh:

Now you’ll say that if you place a man/ meter where do you place the trees, the plants the animals? And I say it’s still enough space because we may live in buildings with more levels. :laugh:

Some of you raised the REAL problem of the increasing number of people who live at the edge of poverty. Is the control of natality a solution? I say "no". The existance of people in need must suggest a method to solve their problem. There's no need to give birth to less kids but to reduce the number of those who live in poverty. If you treat the effects the problem isn't solved so we should treat the cause of the problem.

The author of the thread suggested that " The UN should bring on a temp sterilization program " which is a stupid idea ( what shall you do in many asian countries where religion is still strong and even abortion or contraceptive methods are forbidden? ). Why shouldn't UN bring on a program to use the resources rationally or to reduce the differences between rich/poor countries?

P.S. Once again I'm scared of the way that people of this forum think. I mean it's very rational but you seem to have no feelings. It's great most of you really use your brains when posting but I'm afraid sometimes you forget you also have a heart. It's easy to decide " you should have just 1 child " but what shall I do if my only child dies and I'm sterilized? And if i have twins I'd probably be pointed with the finger for breaking the rules. When threads about abortions were started most of you agreed that every woman is free to decide about her body but now you claim it's right to decide how many kids she might have.
At the end of the day we still don't know for what purpose we have to live on earth so how can we be sure we really must live in comfort, careless and free? What is for sure is that we managed to survive due to natural uncontrolled reproduction .

P.S. 2

Humour is permitted on this forum, you know.

Then I shall catch with the cynical spirit of this thread and suggest a solution for the future:
Since science has evolved and continue to do it I think we should be banned for having children. We should invest in programs to create them artificially and we may go to special shops and buy them as we do now with dolls. This way planet will be saved and we'll be also sure they'll have perfect features and won't bother anybody.

[555-04Q2]

This world is far from overpopulated. Shortages of food, drinking water etc is only due to mankinds lack of will to provide to those that need it. Every year first world countries have food surpluses, yet millions starve each day. It is our modern lifestyles and need for excesses that is the problem, not overpopulation.

[AndySpeed]

What you also need to bear in mind is the amount of usable land for producing our food/where we live.

Overpopulation is not just about having enough physical space for people to live in. It is linked to so many other things. Take deforestation, for example. With a larger population there is more drive to remove forest to provide for more agricultural land, more demand for timber etc.

"By most estimates, the world’s forests continue to disappear at an alarming rate. Logging, fires, and land-clearing for agriculture and grazing account for most of the loss. In some places, the green Earth is turning to desert."

Verdant land can become desert as a result of drought, increased erosion due to land-clearing, poor farming techniques, overgrazing of livestock, and drainage of surface and underground water for crop irrigation and household and industrial use.

It only exascerbates the problems for the future.

Have you any idea how much your daily activities impact on the environment that is required to support you? How much water you use on a daily basis and where it comes from? How much land is required to feed you over the course of a year, or how much of your waste goes into landfill located on the edge of your urban area. How you like to play golf on large expanses of land in pleasant locations (and, indeed, how much water a golf course requires!).

In a way, 555-04Q2 is right that it is our modern lifestyles that are the problem. Overpopulation is relative to resources AND space. We are taking too much out of the resources at present, therefore I argue that the world is overpopulated and the effect on those resources is going to lead to greater problems in the future.

[schmenke]

This world is far from overpopulated. Shortages of food, drinking water etc is only due to mankinds lack of will to provide to those that need it. Every year first world countries have food surpluses, yet millions starve each day. ....

555, that's where you are wrong. There is an upcomnig shortage of fresh water on our planet, and we will experience the effects in our lifetimes.
There is probably ample usable land for food for the next few generations if we use it intelligently.
For example, we need to curb our consuption of meat products. Cattle livestock produces far fewer consumable calories per hectare annualy than grain cultivation.


... It is our modern lifestyles and need for excesses that is the problem, not overpopulation.

It is the Western civilization's culture of insatiable consumption, coupled with overpopulation that is the problem. The west consumes 90% of the earth's resources and continues to demand more without thinking of the consequences.

[AndySpeed]

Spot on schmenke. :up:

[Roamy]

P.S. Once again I'm scared of the way that people of this forum think. I mean it's very rational but you seem to have no feelings. It's great most of you really use your brains when posting but I'm afraid sometimes you forget you also have a heart. It's easy to decide " you should have just 1 child " but what shall I do if my only child dies and I'm sterilized? And if i have twins I'd probably be pointed with the finger for breaking the rules. When threads about abortions were started most of you agreed that every woman is free to decide about her body but now you claim it's right to decide how many kids she might have.
At the end of the day we still don't know for what purpose we have to live on earth so how can we be sure we really must live in comfort, careless and free? What is for sure is that we managed to survive due to natural uncontrolled reproduction .



Survival is quite barbaric now in many areas of the world. Human life needs more respect than this. The point of the thread is to discuss overpopulation. Not really to determine 1 or 2 children or implementation of rules due to death of your child. Bring us the solution for some of the African countries to assure a decent life and not to lay there starving covered with flies. You are quick to attack for your personal benefit but fail to have any compassion for fellow humans.

[donKey jote]

I'm with gadja :bandit:

[race aficionado]

Survival is quite barbaric now in many areas of the world. Human life needs more respect than this. The point of the thread is to discuss overpopulation. Not really to determine 1 or 2 children or implementation of rules due to death of your child. Bring us the solution for some of the African countries to assure a decent life and not to lay there starving covered with flies. You are quick to attack for your personal benefit but fail to have any compassion for fellow humans.

I'm with fousto.

:s mokin:

[donKey jote]

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

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

[Roamy]

Easy there Adolf! :p

Yea but I really like the Jews

[BDunnell]

Survival is quite barbaric now in many areas of the world. Human life needs more respect than this. The point of the thread is to discuss overpopulation. Not really to determine 1 or 2 children or implementation of rules due to death of your child. Bring us the solution for some of the African countries to assure a decent life and not to lay there starving covered with flies. You are quick to attack for your personal benefit but fail to have any compassion for fellow humans.

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

[Roamy]

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

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

[BDunnell]

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

Quite right.

[gloomyDAY]

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

[AAReagles]

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


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

Now then, let's proceed to my proposals:

Twitter activists….. gone!

Star Bucks fugitives….. gone!

Michael Schumacher loyalists…. gone!

NFL officials…. gone!

Sara Palin worshipers….. gone!

Limosine liberals…. gone!

Telemarketers…. well… you get the picture.

[ioan]

This world is far from overpopulated.

Ever seen Europe from above?

[ioan]

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

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

[Roamy]

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

Lets shoot him now :)

[ioan]

Lets shoot him now :)

:rotflmao:

[AndySpeed]

Ever seen Europe from above?

This (http://www.seniorark.com/Humor/Double%20Takes/after%201-17-08/europe%20from%20space.gif) tells you nothing about overpopulation...

[ioan]

This (http://www.seniorark.com/Humor/Double%20Takes/after%201-17-08/europe%20from%20space.gif) tells you nothing about overpopulation...

Nah, not at all.

[AndySpeed]

Nah, not at all.

I don't get the point that you were trying to make...

[ioan]

I don't get the point that you were trying to make...

Try to find a similar image from 30 years ago and you will understand my point.

[donKey jote]

less light pollution 30 years ago? :p
fewer oil rigs (?) between Scotland and Sweden? :confused:
:bandit:

[Drew]

Would there be more red lights 30 years ago? :p :

[ioan]

less light pollution 30 years ago? :p
fewer oil rigs (?) between Scotland and Sweden? :confused:
:bandit:

For example.

I miss the days when you would go for a walk in the nature without stumbling on a highway after an hour or so. :\

[BDunnell]

For example.

I miss the days when you would go for a walk in the nature without stumbling on a highway after an hour or so. :\

Depends where one lives. I'm not sure that would ever have been possible in many places in the last 100 years.

[AndySpeed]

For example.

I miss the days when you would go for a walk in the nature without stumbling on a highway after an hour or so. :\

One of the reasons why I'd love to emigrate to somewhere like Sweden.

[Daniel]

One of the reasons why I'd love to emigrate to somewhere like Sweden.
Just move to North Wales. We live literally hundreds of metres from an area of outstanding natural beauty and whilst there are little towns dotted around the place there is plenty of space to roam :)

[ioan]

One of the reasons why I'd love to emigrate to somewhere like Sweden.

I often thought about that too. Norway and Finland might also be a good choice. And Siberia would be a sure hit. ;)

But 30 years ago I could walk for hours without seeing a road or hearing a car, now it is impossible in the very same places. :(

[fandango]

I don't understand why someone should be ashamed for considering the idea of a need for limiting the population. There's no shame here, as the idea is based on the planet's resources and how they can sustain life. It's simple logic that the population of the planet is rising exponentially, whereas the resources that we use are not increasing.

So, at some point there are too many people, whether it's now or in the future. It's irreponsible NOT to consider that scenario, not shameful to think about it. No-one has proposed a cull.

The question of how we tackle a problem of overpopulation is another thing entirely. Apart from the cultural sensitivites, and the unequal sharing out of riches, it's a really difficult problem to overcome.

But also, if we manage to get people on board with the idea of limiting reproduction, where does it leave society? You know, grow up, finish school, meet someone nice, get a home, settle down, and then....what? Watch TV? Play computer games? Wifeswapping clubs? What are people expected to do with their lives?

[ioan]

So, at some point there are too many people, whether it's now or in the future.

There are already too many people.
Luckily for us in developed countries the people living in 3rd world countries are not using the same amount of resources as we do, otherwise we would have huge problems, and this also explains why developed countries have no real interest in improving those 3rd world countries' situation.

[CNR]

how bad would it be if world war 1 and 2 did not happen
world war 1 and world war 2 over 200,000,000 dead

[AndySpeed]

It's at least one thing that communism has got right - the ability to control the population. Democracy will struggle more to implement such measures. You don't have to worry about losing the next election if you're the only political party.

</end controversy>

[Roamy]

how bad would it be if world war 1 and 2 did not happen
world war 1 and world war 2 over 200,000,000 dead

Kind of a brutal and expensive birth control pill I would say.

[F1boat]

There are too much people already and they are literally consuming the planet, exterminating all (other) animals. This can't be right IMO.

[555-04Q2]

555, that's where you are wrong.

You sound like my wife schmenke :p :

I have to disagree about the fresh water though. Yes, there is a limited supply of fresh water in some countries/areas, but on a whole most countries are fine water wise if their resources are maintained adequately. Many countries border the ocean, where dessalination plants can produce fresh water from the vastness that is our oceans. I mean, Dubai for example relies solely on this type of water supply and they have grown at a rediculous rate over the last 20 years. The reason many countries don't go this route? "It's too expensive". That is another prime example of man making problems worse for himself when it could be made better with a bit more willpower and forgetting about money for once. Governments can buy fancy cars, but they can't build dessalination plants? The world is screwed up man!

There are plenty of resources on this planet for our current population, they are just not managed properly and sadly never will be.

[gadjo_dilo]

Republic of Moldova, a rather small country, has about 33000 square km. which means 33.000.000 square metres.
All the weekend I was terorised that someone will notice that I "ate" three zeroes during conversion ( although the reasonong was correct ). Happy to see that nobody did. :laugh:

So: 33000 square km = 33000000000square m

[gadjo_dilo]

There are already too many people.
Luckily for us in developed countries the people living in 3rd world countries are not using the same amount of resources as we do, otherwise we would have huge problems, and this also explains why developed countries have no real interest in improving those 3rd world countries' situation.

See? It's not a problem of population but of using resources. To my knowledge exactly in the developed countries we notice a decrease of the rate of natality. At the same time I think that in the 3rd world countries we should take into account the rate of infantile mortality which is probably high.
Then it's the index of " hope of life " which is different in developed/3rd world countries.
I think that it would be interesting to see the evolution in the last 100 years of such indexes in different part of the world.

[gadjo_dilo]

Survival is quite barbaric now in many areas of the world. Human life needs more respect than this. The point of the thread is to discuss overpopulation. Not really to determine 1 or 2 children or implementation of rules due to death of your child. Bring us the solution for some of the African countries to assure a decent life and not to lay there starving covered with flies. You are quick to attack for your personal benefit but fail to have any compassion for fellow humans.

Well, I'm afraid that if it's not about a genocide no other solution is good for you.
But as latin say :"De gustibus non disputandum est ". :laugh:

If sterilization of poor nations is the right solution for you then all I can say is I'm happy in real life I don't have to deal with people like you.

The difference between us is that your reasoning comes from a fact ( Survival is quite barbaric now in many areas of the world ) and mine from an ideal: Survival shouldn't be barbaric now in many areas of the world .
And I suspect that we have different opinions on the " many areas of the world " part. :laugh:

[Mark]

Y
I have to disagree about the fresh water though. Yes, there is a limited supply of fresh water in some countries/areas, but on a whole most countries are fine water wise if their resources are maintained adequately.

It varies inside countries too. e.g. North of England is very well provisioned for water supplies, the south is not!



Many countries border the ocean, where dessalination plants can produce fresh water from the vastness that is our oceans. I mean, Dubai for example relies solely on this type of water supply and they have grown at a rediculous rate over the last 20 years. The reason many countries don't go this route? "It's too expensive". That is another prime example of man making problems worse for himself when it could be made better with a bit more willpower and forgetting about money for once. Governments can buy fancy cars, but they can't build dessalination plants? The world is screwed up man!

The resources have to come from somewhere! And desalinisation is very expensive, it also takes a large amount of energy to run. Dubai can do that because they have vast oil reserves, other countries aren't so lucky.



There are plenty of resources on this planet for our current population, they are just not managed properly and sadly never will be.

True, you just have to be sensible about things. e.g. Don't have 10 kids if you live in a desert and can't feed yourself in the first place..

[555-04Q2]

It varies inside countries too. e.g. North of England is very well provisioned for water supplies, the south is not!

Serves them right for living in the south I say :p :

[schmenke]

You sound like my wife schmenke :p :

I have to disagree about the fresh water though. Yes, there is a limited supply of fresh water in some countries/areas, but on a whole most countries are fine water wise if their resources are maintained adequately. Many countries border the ocean, where dessalination plants can produce fresh water from the vastness that is our oceans. I mean, Dubai for example relies solely on this type of water supply and they have grown at a rediculous rate over the last 20 years. The reason many countries don't go this route? "It's too expensive". That is another prime example of man making problems worse for himself when it could be made better with a bit more willpower and forgetting about money for once. Governments can buy fancy cars, but they can't build dessalination plants? The world is screwed up man!

There are plenty of resources on this planet for our current population, they are just not managed properly and sadly never will be.

Sorry 555, but I'd suggest a bit of research.
The facts are that the reliable sources of fresh water worldwide are diminishing rapidly. Examples:
Underground aquifiers are depleting. Both in the arid American west and Africa, wells are having to be drilled increasingly deeper to reach water.
Much of central Asia's water supply relies on snow melt from the Himilayan glaciers which are evaporating an alarming rate (the Ganges and Yangtze rivers are examples). Similarily, much of the American Northwest relies on glacial melt water from the Rocky mountains which have all but vanished. The schmenke family visited "Glacier National Park" in Montana this past summer, and guess what... The glaciers had vanished long ago :s . Similarly, if anyone wants to set foot on the famous glaciers near Jasper, Canada, I'd suggest you do it soon, because they will be gone in our lifetimes.
The Colorado River is so dry that its waters no longer reach the ocean.
Google mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa and you'll see that Africa's only glacier, supply for much of that region's fresh water, has all but disappeared.
I could go on...

Desalination plants are expensive construct, but are even more expensive to operate. They require an enormous amount of energy which many countries simply can't afford, not to mention the obvious environmental impacts.

[Roamy]

Well, I'm afraid that if it's not about a genocide no other solution is good for you.
But as latin say :"De gustibus non disputandum est ". :laugh:

If sterilization of poor nations is the right solution for you then all I can say is I'm happy in real life I don't have to deal with people like you.

The difference between us is that your reasoning comes from a fact ( Survival is quite barbaric now in many areas of the world ) and mine from an ideal: Survival shouldn't be barbaric now in many areas of the world .
And I suspect that we have different opinions on the " many areas of the world " part. :laugh:

We also are sad we have to deal with people like you - unknowing - uncaring

One billion people live on less than $1 a day, the threshold defined by the international community as constituting extreme poverty, below which survival is questionable. That number encompasses a multitude of people living in varying degrees of poverty—all of them poor, but some even more desperately poor than others

[555-04Q2]

Sorry 555, but I'd suggest a bit of research.
The facts are that the reliable sources of fresh water worldwide are diminishing rapidly. Examples:
Underground aquifiers are depleting. Both in the arid American west and Africa, wells are having to be drilled increasingly deeper to reach water.
Much of central Asia's water supply relies on snow melt from the Himilayan glaciers which are evaporating an alarming rate (the Ganges and Yangtze rivers are examples). Similarily, much of the American Northwest relies on glacial melt water from the Rocky mountains which have all but vanished. The schmenke family visited "Glacier National Park" in Montana this past summer, and guess what... The glaciers had vanished long ago :s . Similarly, if anyone wants to set foot on the famous glaciers near Jasper, Canada, I'd suggest you do it soon, because they will be gone in our lifetimes.
The Colorado River is so dry that its waters no longer reach the ocean.
Google mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa and you'll see that Africa's only glacier, supply for much of that region's fresh water, has all but disappeared.
I could go on...

Desalination plants are expensive construct, but are even more expensive to operate. They require an enormous amount of energy which many countries simply can't afford, not to mention the obvious environmental impacts.

schmenke, I can't argue the facts about glaciers melting etc as we all know that is happening. Your last paragraph though clears up exactly what I have been saying. There are plenty of resources available for our current 6 billion+ population. Just because there is a lack of funds to build something that can sustain us does not mean resources are scarce or are not there.

We have more than enough vital resources to sustain our current population, we just need to manage them, manage our future population growth rate and decide, "Is it too expensive to save mankind? Is a dollar worth more than our races future?"

[555-04Q2]

We also are sad we have to deal with people like you - unknowing - uncaring

One billion people live on less than $1 a day, the threshold defined by the international community as constituting extreme poverty, below which survival is questionable. That number encompasses a multitude of people living in varying degrees of poverty—all of them poor, but some even more desperately poor than others

Instead of eating three Big Mac burgers at lunchtime then, why don't you donate two of them to these poverty stricken people? You will hopefully wipeout obesity in the land of stars and stripes and help feed two starving children, even if its not the best meal they could have.

[Roamy]

Instead of eating three Big Mac burgers at lunchtime then, why don't you donate two of them to these poverty stricken people? You will hopefully wipeout obesity in the land of stars and stripes and help feed two starving children, even if its not the best meal they could have.

And just what makes you think I eat big mac burgers?

[555-04Q2]

And just what makes you think I eat big mac burgers?

Its just an example of our lifestyle of excess. We consume more than we need to, for no reason other than just because we can. I am also guilty of this, as most people are.

[gadjo_dilo]

We also are sad we have to deal with people like you - unknowing - uncaring

One billion people live on less than $1 a day, the threshold defined by the international community as constituting extreme poverty, below which survival is questionable. That number encompasses a multitude of people living in varying degrees of poverty—all of them poor, but some even more desperately poor than others
Yeah... Fortunately there are compassionate guys like you who think that poverty can be eradicated by sterilization of poor people.... :laugh:

[Daniel]

Yeah... Fortunately there are compassionate guys like you who think that poverty can be eradicated by sterilization of poor people.... :laugh:

So it's more compassionate for people just to be able to breed however they want in a society that can't sustain itself with its current population let alone with more people? :confused:

[gadjo_dilo]

So it's more compassionate for people just to be able to breed however they want in a society that can't sustain itself with its current population let alone with more people? :confused:

Well, I don't think it's right for me to decide on the sexual life and family planning of the others. One man in this country tried to do this and tried to be in control of natality. He finished by being shot on Dec 25th 1989. :laugh:

The guy had taken some other " interesting " measures and I wonder why none of you thought of these alternatives. At the end of the day don't you fear the resources aren't enough for all? So here they are:

He thought a programme of rational feeding. So our food was rationalized at 1 l of oil and 1kg of sugar per person per month and you could buy these only from a certain shop and only with your ID card. Then you couldn't buy more than a bread/day, you weren't allowed to buy more than 300g of salami/person. If you pretended that your family consists of 3 persons and you want the whole piece of salami, the shop assistant would have cut the piece in 3 parts. Otherwise it was the "danger" to take the piece and dry it for later.
Then we have periodic power cuts. We have cold in houses and at work. Some of us took small radiators at work and hide them under the desks. But we were controled by the fire department and get substantial fines.
We have a "clever" programme for warm water: only between 6-9 and 18-22.
Electricity was rather cheap only for 60KW/apartment/month. Those who dared to use more were penalized by paying the exceed double or triple ( can I forget the day when the electricity bill was higher than my father's pension? ).

Not only that the gynecological control was severe and abortions illegal ( to the extent that a woman was let to die if she had one ) but those who were over 23 y.o. and had no children were forced to pay a " celibate tax ".

Results: population increased, consume was reduced at the limit of survival (but we didn't parish!, on the contrary, we developed new "techiques" of survival , some at the edge of absurdity ), and the international debt of the country in december '89 was ZERO ( theory of conspiracy says the guy was shot by command of international finance cos he set a bad example for other poor states :laugh: ).

[schmenke]

...We have more than enough vital resources to sustain our current population, ...

No we don't.
We must look past the hypocrisy of assuming our current lifestyles can be maintained with careful management while ignoring the poorer societies' living standards. If we believe that poorer societies are entitled to the same standards of living as the privileged “west”, then they would be entitled to equal access to resources and rates of consumption. 6+ billion inhabitants consuming at the current “western” rates results in quickly depleted resources. We are seeing this as we speak as some Asian nations are now starting to consume at increasing rates, diminishing world-wide availability of, for example, petroleum products.

Re: desalination plants. Money is not the issue. The money is required to pay for the energy needed to operate them. The required energy comes from resources which we are saying are being depleted, e.g. fossil fuels, hydroelectric. The energy required to operate a moderate desalination plant is about the same as required to power a small town :mark: . With the exception of nuclear, non-fossil based sources are not an option. Wind and solar simply do not provide sufficient stable electricity to power a desalination plant. Poorer countries simply can't afford to operate desalinatioin plants and provide affordable energy for their growing populations.

With the melting of the polar ice caps, we’ll all soon be inundated anyways, so grab your speedo and I’ll meet you by the shoreline :p :

[555-04Q2]

With the melting of the polar ice caps, we’ll all soon be inundated anyways, so grab your speedo and I’ll meet you by the shoreline :p :

Amen brother, but I don't think I would look as good as you do in a speedo :D

[Garry Walker]

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

I would replace kids with immigrants in your post.



True, you just have to be sensible about things. e.g. Don't have 10 kids if you live in a desert and can't feed yourself in the first place..

Which is the problem in Africa, most people there just dont think at all. That is why they are at the development level they are and that is why they are starving so much there. Yet the population keeps rising tremendously all the time.

[ioan]

Which is the problem in Africa, most people there just dont think at all. That is why they are at the development level they are and that is why they are starving so much there. Yet the population keeps rising tremendously all the time.

Them being very religious + Catholic Church being hypocrite and stupid and not allowing them to use condoms isn't helping either.