Overpopulation, Random thoughts

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Theory, Nov 30, 2012.

  1. So, I was browsing the web this morning like any good procrastinator and after reading The Future of Life I decided to look up what exactly was going on with one of my more interested topics, overpopulation of the human species.
    According to the book (and a billion things of evidence it states, most of which have already begun happening) the world will reach a population peak by 2030 and become catastrophic by 2050.
    From the books statistics we'd need about four earths to sustain the population by then.

    Just interested to hear peoples views on this.
    I myself am for what China is doing.
    Restricting the amount of children a family can have to two. Sometimes one.
    Yes this is all anti life and blah blah but I mean, if we are already taking over the world (literally) even if we have more kids they will just be born into famine and other impending global issues.
    Yes we live in a free country and I'm sure many people think 'oh this shouldn't affect us' but honestly the population growth affects everyone. You pay for food, grow food, drink clean water. Everyone needs it, I don't think in terms of population that any country is more 'free' then another.

    http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/global-overpopulation-awareness.html

    (I will not argue this topic, just interested in views on the subject. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE FIRST before responding, it's not long, I got the short one!)
     
  2. I think that it would be a good idea to (at least for a while) only let families get one (or two) child(ren) so that we won't be overpopulated. If there is not enough food to feed all humans, then getting more children will only doom your own and everyone elses families anyways. If people wants more children then adoption is an option, there are a lot of children that needs a home, it doesn't make them less a family member just because they don't have the same DNA.

    If we want all humans to live a good life, and secure our childrens and our childrens childrens future, and be certain that they won't starve, then wouldn't sacrificing life's that doesn't even exists yet be a very small prize?

    That's my thoughts of the subject ^^ Save humanity, get less kids, adopt more, create a better world for us all x3
     
  3. While think the law of one child is good in theory, in practice, it brings up a lot of new problems. China's one/two child policy means that parents are under more strain to get the gender they want (male). I'm not sure if it's still going on as much as it was, but many chinese girls who were born were either killed so the family could try again for a boy, or they were abandoned and left anonymously in orphanages.

    The limit of children, while at the very least SLOWING overpopulation, brings with it many ethical problems.
     
  4. >.> Really against the One child per couple policy simply because I've experienced the whole "We prefer/want males in the family." It does not breed a sense of camaraderie with the family. Again though, that is Chinese culture, who's to say that Europe or America wouldn't behave differently? Personally I'm just gonna go with not having kids.

    Call me a tree hugger (I am from California =P) but I'd rather we educate our populace on the consequences of overpopulation, and what it does to the environment. We also need to be proactive in preserving our resources, whether it be planting more trees and passing stricter laws on protecting our planet.
     
  5. Pretty much everyone touched on what would be my viewpoint. Educate and overall prevention sounds like a good first route. I say go with that and hope people are sensible enough to get behind it.

    If not, who is up for going on a space road trip to find a new earth?
     
  6. I do not know if it would be a good idea to introduce such measures, especially out of nowhere, but just educating people about the consequences does not help either. What about the poor who can not possibly afford education, or the homeless, or those in the third world countries? Laws and regulations, as well as education does not have too much meaning there and it is usually in those countries that the population is on the increase. As a contrast, in the so-called "western world", population is rapidly decreasing because of how city life has changed, how the roles of genders have changed and how society has changed. As it stands right now, most of the "western world" does not need to implement population control, because the circumstances have already forced the changes necessary.

    So would developing the third world countries solve the problem? Unfortunately not. Population growth figures work according to a certain principle, or so am I told: at first, lots of children are born and many die, then deaths become less and population increases until births start to become less and less. Right now, a large portion of the world, especially the third-world countries are in the second stage. Accelerating their development would probably only make the problem worse, as the changes that happened in the "western" countries took centuries to set in. Like I said, restricting people's rights is probably not going to work, not to mention it would likely cause a lot of riots.

    I can not see a correct solution at this time to this problem, but I would say that birth control would probably the best measure. It should be not by force, though, for that would be infringing upon the freedom of people. It would have to be carried out in some other way, but like I said, I see no solution.

    If my choice of words is offensive, I apologise and I will immediately correct myself.
     
  7. If push comes to shove Genocide is always an option.
     
  8. Mother nature has it's way of culling the herd, so to speak. Governments can legislate (like China) in an attempt to slow it down, but before you know it, there will be another 1918 "Super Flu" ...or the bubonic plague that wiped out over half of the population of Europe... or the plague that wiped out almost 90% of the Native American tribes conveniently in time for the Pilgrims to make landfall.

    Humanity has a history of pushing Mother Nature too far, and being on the receiving end of her wrath. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," and all that.