overpopulation

[B_tallbig]

do you guys think that the world already is overpopulated?

I ask because many people currently dont think that the planet isover populated . My opinion is that the planet is really overpopulated.

 

[No_Strings]

I think this forum is overpopulated by asinine threads that you've created.

 

[burns1de]

The planet Earth is supposed to be able to accomodate 11 billion individuals without problems (if those were spread out evenly across the globe). However, the current population numbers seem to be too high for some individuals...

 

[Not_Punny]

People have been saying the "Earth" can't support "x" many people since there were one THIRD as many people on this planet.

It's a lie.

Look how much land we still have. Look at the land we can create (for example, those man-made islands in the Middle East that are going for between $6 million and $36 million each). Look at the emerging technologies for fuel, agriculture, pollution control and water recycling.

And better yet -- look on the bright side: The more people we have, the more scientists and engineers we have to help solve these kinds of problems.

 

[BigDuder]

it really depends on where the population is. America could probably support another 180 million, Europe is overcrowded but has a decliningpopulation. Eastern China is extremely overcrowded but should peak around 2012 and then have a major population deline. in short, over population shouldn't be a primary concern of anyone at this juncture (as it was i the 1970s) unless they live in already densely populated areas or are worried about how changing population trends will impact society in general.

 

[burns1de]

People have been saying the "Earth" can't support "x" many people since there were one THIRD as many people on this planet.

It's a lie.

Look how much land we still have. Look at the land we can create (for example, those man-made islands in the Middle East that are going for between $6 million and $36 million each). Look at the emerging technologies for fuel, agriculture, pollution control and water recycling.

And better yet -- look on the bright side: The more people we have, the more scientists and engineers we have to help solve these kinds of problems.

Problem is, not all the available land is arable. Tracks of forest and jungle would almost certainly need to be removed in certain areas of the world to accommodate crops that would be needed to sustain the population over a certain size.

As for having more scientists and engineers and such... Well, that also means more rapists and murderers, too. And with the constant, never-ending and increasing divide between the rich and the poor, a higher population is not automatically a good thing.

 

[B_tallbig]

the real problem of overpopulation is that humans are exploiting to much earth resources . That resources arent infinite not to forget about contamination too. If the world population duplicate for example as 12 billion it could mean more forest and animal species to be destroy .

 

[Not_Punny]

And I have every confidence that we shall solve all these problems. :wink:
The only alternative is extermination....

 

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

Okay...The only way to sustain a growing population is MIXED USE development. That is, residential and commercial and possibly industrial uses all within one site. Not a separate residential area, retail park etc.

Single use doesn't maximise land usage, and concentrates pollution (in industrial areas). You also have to drive to go from one single use site to another which is increasing carbon emissions.

On a mixed use site, all the services are within walking distance of each other. This promotes exercise and social interaction. It's all good.

IMO, I think the world is overpopulated and greedy and killing itself. I had thought maybe people that wouldn't survive naturally shouldn't survive? But then that is amoral and I wouldn't be here if that were the case.

There is not much land, there is only a finite amount. The only way to work with this is sustainable development; urban regenration; mixed use development.

The world is overpopulated. With humans. Which is encroaching upon and destroying the habitats of animals. :redface:

They paved paradise...

 

[burns1de]

the real problem of overpopulation is that humans are exploiting to much earth resources . That resources arent infinite not to forget about contamination too. If the world population duplicate for example as 12 billion it could mean more forest and animal species to be destroy .

Well, a certain, small percentage of the population is exploiting the vast majority of the Earth's resources, yes. Also, I highly doubt that the planet could sustain, for example, a first-world China.

 

[B_tallbig]

Well, a certain, small percentage of the population is exploiting the vast majority of the Earth's resources, yes. Also, I highly doubt that the planet could sustain, for example, a first-world China.

i agree and is true that in the world some areas arent overpopulated but

but the general worldwide population is too big as it is

 

[burns1de]

And I have every confidence that we shall solve all these problems. :wink:
The only alternative is extermination....

Hi David Rockefeller. :wink:

(For those not in the know: watch 'Endgame' by Alex Jones and you'll get the joke :smile

 

[SteveHd]

do you guys think that the world already is overpopulated?

As a whole, no, but some regions are. I don't know what population the Earth could support, but, the way things are going we may find out in our lifetimes.:smile:

 

[Pecker]

Overpopulation: the Global Warming of the 1960's.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

The world is hugely overpopulated.
Global warming is real -- and even if we don't add another gram of carbon to the atmosphere, we are in for devastating changes ... water shortages, problems with agriculture, inundation of lowlying oceanside cities.
This is the certain future, even if we don't increase the population.
Throughout the 1990s, our carbon production increased 1.1 percent per year.
Since the year 2000, the rate of increase has tripled ... even in the wake of the Kyoto Accord, damning reports from UN agencies, and what have you.
The poor people of the globe are going to want First World lifestyles with the attendant First World emissions of greenhouse gases.
They won't want to hear that they must deny themselves the luxury that people of the First World enjoy.
And we in the First World are not going to return to a simpler, less carbon-expending way of life.
I know I'm not saying anything original.
If I could push a button and reduce the world's population, say, by 70 or 80 percent -- I don't mean kill any particular people, but simply change the course of history so that our population had not grown to the 6.5 billion or so we have now -- I would push it in an instant.
Are we overpopulated?
Absolutely.
(Unless, once again, I'm wrong ... but we can only be wrong once on this question.)

 

[burns1de]

If I could push a button and reduce the world's population, say, by 70 or 80 percent -- I don't mean kill any particular people, but simply change the course of history so that our population had not grown to the 6.5 billion or so we have now -- I would push it in an instant.
Are we overpopulated?
Absolutely.
(Unless, once again, I'm wrong ... but we can only be wrong once on this question.)

Did I just stumble upon a Bilderberg meeting or what?

 

[Willy_the_Wonka]

Hi David Rockefeller. :wink:

(For those not in the know: watch 'Endgame' by Alex Jones and you'll get the joke :smile

Before I scrolled down and saw your first post, I was thinking...."Hmmmmm, Bilderberg Group....." aranoid:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Did I just stumble upon a Bilderberg meeting or what?

I think it's common sense, burns1e.
All that we've seen has come about with only 0.8 degrees Centigrade increase in temperature. And the increase seems likely to accelerate ... what with glaciers disappearing (Alberta is going to be screwed in 40 years time) and bare earth exposed to increase solar heat absorption; forests drying out and losing their capacity as carbon sinks; increasing winds over the southern oceans stirring up carbon-laden water from the depths so that the oceans lose their own carbon-sink efficiency; continued cutting of boreal and equatorial forests; increasing rate of increase of industrial carbon production; vast and steady increase of private vehicle ownership worldwide, virtually all powered by carbon-emitting engines; and on and on.
We are walking to the cliff's edge.
And we won't do anything about it ... not in time, anyways ... not nearly in time.
(Sorry to be depressing, and I hope I'm wrong.)

 

[No_Strings]

But Rubi, you know that "Global Warming" was not created by man; it's part of a cycle, we just made it a bit worse this time around. Right?
Similarly, there is nothing (and never was) anything we can to to stop it; only cease making it worse.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

But Rubi, you know that "Global Warming" was not created by man; it's part of a cycle, we just made it a bit worse this time around. Right?
Similarly, there is nothing (and never was) anything we can to to stop it; only cease making it worse.

If you're saying that there have always been natural cycles of global warming and cooling, caused largely by changes of solar energy output, I would say, of course.
But this cycle of warming is, I believe, largely caused by our carbon emissions.
We never could do anything about the natural cycles of warming and cooling.
And we may already have reached a tipping point in the warming that we ourselves have caused ... so that we can only cease making it worse, as you say. But the changes already underway are likely to cascade, no matter what we do.
What's more, to cease making it worse would take so huge a change in our whole manner of living that in the end, we'll do damn little.