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

Post Reply New Topic

Surely it will be easier to push the development of the third world along (and thus decrease fertility rates more quickly) than it would be to change the habits of the entire Western world and turn a fair proportion of the earth's land surface into farmland. Also, how will we transport all that food when the oil runs out?

I also doubt climate change will make more farmland because we will lose land due to flooding in some areas and drought in others.

We'll grow the food at home so the transport is minimal. As for places that aren't productive, we can grow in greenhouses with hydroponics, or people might just have to migrate.

As far as farmland goes, climate change will be a mixed bag, we'll lose some areas and gain others. Whether it will be a net gain or net loss is up in the air at this point. Large areas of Russia and Canada that are currently too cold for crops will be arable though, which is kind of sad because they are mostly covered in beautiful forest.

A lot of people will have to migrate. I'm still thinking it's easier to go down the global development/technology route (which is what is currently already being rolled out).

The fact is, if we continue with the status quo, peak oil will hit and overpopulation will be a problem. We can either have your solution or mine. Mine is easier.

even the own homepage shows issues with that article, only lay people belioeve it as shown by the relation between the artcicles rating accortding to lay people vs health proffesionals.
'
also ui want to see the actual study not some bad interpretation by a journalist.

What is there to interpret? It's not the Bible we are talking about here.

This.
You can have all the babies you want, nature will bite back.
Overpopulation is a real problem in the denser developing countries and it is already being dealt with, infant mortality rates are high, disease is spread quicker, people starve and it's all because of the dense populations of people all crammed together. You can try and fight it but it won't work, not for long anyway. Diseases in the "developed" world are starting to resist against drugs and before long we'll be in the same position.

It's not "anti human" and sentimentality is silly.

I agree with Pandora_Box and MONKEY.

Sad as it is, we are doing more harm than good by trying to help and halting the natural process.

That's it really....

statistics are notoriously difficult to apply correctly, without an actual study there is no proof except the writings of this journalist.

i have seen many studies where the articles written dailed to even catch the primary conclusion of a study and simply focused on a single subset of the issue.

for one obesity isnt as dangerous as malnutrition,
also what do they count as obesity and what do they count as malnutrition?
how did they find the data?

there are many questions to ask oneself when reading a study or an article to ensure proper understanding and the validity of anything.
that is also why some studies are dismissed after reading them, they prove to be clearly biased or to miss important variables, leading to a false conlcusion.
here we dont even have a study only a statement by a sinle proffesional and the writings surrounding that by a journalist, i would like to read the study if you could find it.

Overpopulation, in my opinion, IS a problem because it is totally out of control.

And people who actively decide NOT to have children still get a lot of criticism.

I think we need better education on this. We shouldn't tell some people they shouldn't have children and tell others that they HAVE to have children, no matter what.

This problem will probably just result in a zombie apocalypse, so it should more or less take care of its self.

Humans will try to fight starvation and disease because we can, tyvm. Given how powerful our brains are, we will always alter the natural environment to suit ourselves, so if we reset back to a hunter gatherer existence with a couple of hundred thousand of us on the globe (some people would just love that), I reckon the development process will start all over again. There's nothing moral or immoral about 'halting natural processes', it's just what we do. The trick to living on earth , though, is not to pee in our own bathwater. We have the brainpower to try not to do that. There's no guarantee we'll manage before we apocalypse ourselves, but I'd rather try than not.

I'm glad I found a few people who agree with my point of view. lol. I use to be called "Racist" in one of my college classes when we were talking about this. And this isn't about race this is about the natural order of things. The natural laws and rules people should abide by. It has nothing to do with race.

An African Lion isn't going out of it's way to go help the Asian Lions. I understand they may not have the brain power that we do, however, it's an example for people to understand. We're the only species who finds it wrong if we don't help out another species, morally wrong all because we're human. That's the only reason why it is wrong.

So many people are overweight from eating food (or "food") which is dependent on natural resources both for its' production and for its' transport. The people in this blog have a good debate going about it:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/200 ... e-oil.html

they are debating about the natural resources used in the production of food, especially for fertilizer. I think puddingmouse has a legitimate concern.

I doubt it would actually be possible to feed 7 billion people from US farmland. We have already depleted a huge amount of the minerals in our topsoil (I am American) and are now coasting on fertilizer, which brings us to puddingmouse's concern about resource depletion. I do think farming can be done far more intensly and intelligently than it is currently. That will likely happen in the future out of necessity.





I don't think climate change will be any help whatsoever in farming. It's more likely to make things harder since it brings crop destroying droughts, floods and assorted storms. As you say
, it will cause weather unpredictability. This makes things worse for farming since crops require defined weather cycles and are destroyed by the sort of randomness that climate change is bringing.


It can't be an Asian diet. Much of the world is unsuitable for growing rice and the ocean is perilously overfished. You can't count on climate change to morph more land into rice growing suitability. I think pork could make a comeback though.



we will definately have to change our habits. I think the habit change that will be most beneficial (and ultimately inevitable) is greatly expanding our definition of animal edibility. Every city currently "raises" pigeons via architecture that mimics their natural habitat but nobody eats them. That will change. Many people in industrialized countries also have lost touch with the "head to tail" animal eating that was used by previous generations (sometimes only one or two generations back) and think only the muscle is food. That will change. Insects can provide protein and do in some countries. But most people find that revolting and would eat tripe long before eating bugs. But ultimately that will change too.



I hope you are right.

What other natural laws have you been able to ascertain? The only ones I can think of are the laws of physics, which I can't help but follow.

Sorry, the idea of 'natural laws' really rubs me up the wrong way because I was raised in a religion that brands me an immoral pervert for not following them.

Of course morality is subjective to human values, we evolved it as a species as a trait that increased out fitness.

Mmm...kidneys and hearts. I would eat insects before I'd eat brains, though.