Do you think overpopulation is a problem and what is your so

Post Reply New Topic

I do not think it's a problem, I think overconsumption, inequality, and waste of resources is the problem.

However, the belief in overpopulation is very popular right now and has been for a long time, both in the general public and within academia. The kind of population decreases the Malthusians want are not feasible by birth control. Malthusians often say that if we simply educated women and poor people (appeal to the humanitarian crowd), our population would decline to reasonable levels and the Earth (again, an appeal to people who are caring and socially conscious) would be saved.

The reality is, even if humanity stopped producing children completely tonight, 50% of the world's population was born in 1983 or later, and thus it would be 50-60 years before enough people died naturally that the population would decline from 7 to 3.5 billion. It would take another 20 years or so to get that down to 500 million. Obviously, this rate of decline isn't nearly fast enough to achieve what Malthusians want, unless it is coupled with a great reduction in consumption, something we can do without forcing people to no longer have children.

So the reality is, no matter how much elite Mathusians and academics make it seem like their population reduction plan can be done humanely, the fact is, if they don't already intend mass murder, they will do so eventually if allowed to. And I doubt that the people who will be spared will be chosen by a lottery at random, I am pretty sure it will be the global lower class that will be eliminated. That is, most of the entire populations of Africa, Latin America, and Asia, plus the lower class people in America, Canada, Europe, and down under.

Overpopulation imo is elitism of a horrific severity, even worse than the Nazis, that is packaged as ecological awareness and humanitarianism.

I do worry about overpopulation, but I don't take it to the extremes of Malthusians. I think that a gradual decline should be alright (and would probably make for an easier transition), and that this can be achieved with birth control, education, and women's rights.

It's a problem for non-humans due to loss of habitat. Not yet a problem for humans. That may change at some point. It's a living experiment.

Would a peak of say 8 billion by 2050 and then a slow decline to 5 billion by 2200 be acceptable to you? I would say that is feasible by non-lethal methods.

Worldwide one child policy could halve the human population in less than a century, completely nonviolently.

A bit slow, but probably manageable. With some public awareness campaigns encouraging people not to have multiple children it might be able to go faster though.

Where is this elite cabal of worse-than-Nazi Malthusians? I want evidence that they exist, rather than just one Henry Kissinger quote that I can't verify the source of.

I'm in favour of mass education and contraception in developing nations, even if it won't lead to a 'fast enough' decline in fertility rates. It's better than doing nothing. It's the same reason that I'm all for green technology, it won't stop climate change, but it's better than doing nothing.

Of course, this is all based on the assumption that our population will not be limited by natural means (disease, starvation, and/or self-pollution) like any other species that outgrows its niche.

People have to get over contraception as something that's bad - including in this country. Would probably help cutting down the numbers of excess persons not yet born, but who would possibly end up starving to death, or becoming collateral damage in conflicts between the powers that be fighting over the meager resources.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I'd like to elaborate, because I looked at this post and realized someone might think I'm promoting a China-like family policy. Definitely could not be further from what I had in mind. I ethically don't think it right to tell people they can only have one child and penalize them for having more, or causing people to prefer one sex over the other. What I would endorse would be a situation where people are offered financial incentives not to have more than two children. I'm not sure why I wrote "one child policy" since what it technically is is a "two-child policy" though without any sort of penalization for more than two children. In truth though, the best population decreasing/equilibrium policy would probably involve a worldwide equal minimum standard of living, that makes the practice of having as many children as possible to increase the household income unnecessary, as this plays a large part in the third world population booms. It seems strange that the less wealthy a nation is, the higher the number of children per family, but economic necessity plays a part.

Overpopulation isn't a problem. Fertility rate will be below replacement rate, most of the developed world is well below that already.

"Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation." - Lyall Watson, The Financial Times

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem." - Lamont Cole

"I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis, Earth First

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS" - Earth First Newsletter

Thank you.

Do you think overpopulation is a problem, and, if so, what is your solution?

The world population will peak at around ten billion, and, then in a few following decades, after the peak, the population will plummet to below 250 million, with a slow increase back up to, then stabilizing at, 250 million, after a few centuries. All modern technology will be lost.

The only solution is to violate the second law of thermodynamics, which no one presently knows how to do, as it is held inviolable.

Baby Bush's perpetual motion water batteries do not work, but it's about time for the return of the farce of cold fusion:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-ita ... video.html

Want to eat some Cold-Glow Fusion Food???

Tadzio

The population will eventually stabilize at a reasonnable and stable level, whatever that is. The point until then is to avoid unnecessary suffering. "Overpopulation" is something that should be avoided, not for itself, but for the ills it will cause during the stabilization process.

I don't know if the Earth as a whole is overpopulated. In any case, probably not very much. However, population growth happens in some of the least developped regions, which least capable to cope with it, because there the changes that happened were too rapid and brutal. The first thing I would do to "fight" it would be to break all barriers to immigration and (ideally) citizenship. If Africa and parts of Asia are overpopulated and growing, Europe and North America could house millions more, and won't without immigration -- + it would help with the mentalities.

I think it is a problem.

The only good solution is improving the standard of living (especially, as the OP mentioned, women's rights) in Third World countries. As you probably know, birth rate plummets when conditions improve.

Someone once suggested a modified one-child policy: the first child is "free", but a permit is required for the second child. This permit increases in cost with each child. I don't know if it would work or have the opposite effect, ie. make things worse for the poor. They don't always have full control over reproduction due to lack of education and self-control. They also wouldn't be able to contribute much (tax-wise).