Thread: Is World Headed For Overpopulation?

Originally Posted by Milkman

I agree. There are too many people here on Earth already. If people took a break from popping out kids to feed their own egos and perpetuate their own genes, we'd have lots of room and less pollution. It would only take 70 years.

Just sterilise all the South Asians and Chinks. The Africans are doing a fine job of controlling their population already.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by Milkman

I agree. There are too many people here on Earth already. If people took a break from popping out kids to feed their own egos and perpetuate their own genes, we'd have lots of room and less pollution. It would only take 70 years.

Just sterilise all the South Asians and Chinks. The Africans are doing a fine job of controlling their population already.

Yeah,

Their populations are growing way, way, too much.

Food, water, and migration to the cities.

Even the U.S. is overpopulated, IMO.

Solution: We all need to masturbate more.

Onan agrees!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milkman
If people are irresponsible enough to pop out kids on a planet with 6.1 Billion and counting, then they can pay for it.

Kerux:

You don't think the world is over crowded, do you?

Yes, I do.

Now on the news the other day those that count said that Singapore need to have more kids, people have slowed down on having kids and they are falling behind and will not have enough people to do the work and have to import immigrant labor soon.
So big deal, if world population would slow down there would be no use for whatever shit that Singapore was making to sell for profit that needed labor.
Should do like they did a few years back in the US about wild fires, said that they should be allowed to burn as nature intended,,should do the same thing with such shit as AIDS and H5N1, leave it alone and let nature take its coarse. With a natural pandemic of record proportions unequaled in history, even surpassing the flu and bubonic plagues of history, Deaths of 200K a month for a few years would surely do this world good.
, The smoke from the Pyres burning the bodys would cloud the atmosphere and cause a cooling trend and the advanced use of energy for the pyres would be offset by lack or industrial energy consumption and would only last as long as the piles of bodys lasted then come to an end.
When shit was produced and then not sold and kept in storage, soon production would stop, so would pollution that Sursak is worried about, and the use of energy to run SUV's that sursak is worried about, and so would the rampant fighting and killing that I do not like, there would be no natural need, so it would stop.

It took only 13 years to add 1 billion people. As water, food, and other resources become more scarce and expensive, I will again reiterate. They got too many people here.

World population to hit 7 billion in 2012 Jun 19 03:25 PM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The world's population will reach 7 billion in 2012, even as the global community struggles to satisfy its appetite for natural resources, according to a new government projection. There are 6.7 billion people in the world today. The United States ranks third, with 304 million, behind China and India, according to projections released Thursday by the Census Bureau.

The world's population surpassed 6 billion in 1999, meaning it will take only 13 years to add a billion people.
By comparison, the number of people didn't reach 1 billion until 1800, said Carl Haub, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau. It didn't reach 2 billion until 130 years later.

Link and Entire: World population to hit 7 billion in 2012

A few years back there was an add on TV from one of those organizations that solicit sponsorship for starving people in Africa. It featured a lady (call her Mrs X), who had 13 kids and showed the daily struggle she had to feed her family. The kids were malnourished and sick. In desperate need of food aid. The add showed how a relatively small monthly sponsorship amount of cash could make a huge difference in these kids lives.

But the thing I remember most was the way the add finished off. It said; -- Mrs X herself was lucky enough to be a sponsored child when she was young.
Had she recieved no food aid sponsorship of course she would have probably died as a child and there would not be 13 more little kids suffering and starving.
Its a real catch 22 situation.

Originally Posted by Panda

A few years back there was an add on TV from one of those organizations that solicit sponsorship for starving people in Africa. It featured a lady (call her Mrs X), who had 13 kids and showed the daily struggle she had to feed her family. The kids were malnourished and sick. In desperate need of food aid. The add showed how a relatively small monthly sponsorship amount of cash could make a huge difference in these kids lives.

But the thing I remember most was the way the add finished off. It said; -- Mrs X herself was lucky enough to be a sponsored child when she was young.
Had she recieved no food aid sponsorship of course she would have probably died as a child and there would not be 13 more little kids suffering and starving.
Its a real catch 22 situation.

Serious question on the motivation to have 13 kids.

More to help her when she is old?

Help on agricgultural/famr work?

Ignorance?

Lack of access to birth control?

Cultural reasons: more children is better?


Perhaps more than one of these reasons and one that is not even noted.

I think we put too much emphasis on trying to save lives and should just stand back and let nature take it's course instead of phoning an ambulance when a joyrider/car thief crashes into a ditch.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

A lot depends on whether you look at it on a global scale or on a national scale. Overpopulation is the ratio of population to available resources. On a global scale, given fair distribution of resources, there shouldn't be any overpopulation problem. .. The blame doesn't lie with those at the bottom of the heap but with those who take more than their fair share.

Regardless of how resources are distributed, there is the larger problem of ecological sustainabilty. An increasing population would degrade the air, water and accelerate deforestation. Additionally, that ratio of population to resources would still be increasing over time. Wouldn't the quality of life slowly degrade regardless of how equitible the resources were distributed? There is only so much arable land, beachfront and fresh water in the world. The more people, the fewer resources available for each person to enjoy.

It breaks my heart to see kids suffering. But what do you do when you know they are just going to keep on breeding and making more and more kids to suffer endlessly? My neglect can cause an innocent child to die, or it can cause multiple generations not to be born to suffer at all.

In these poor countries with no national health or pensions, producing kids is the only way to secure your future in old age. Birth control is not going to be accepted in poor countries.

Possibly 9 billion people by 2060, in about 40 years. And also a prediction of the worl population to flatten out. Only 3% of the worlds water is fresh water. Population will be an issue. Will future wars be fought over water and water rights?

Overpopulation could be people, planet problem

By Ann Hoevel
CNN
(CNN) -- By the year 2050, China will no longer be the most populous country in the world.
India will see its population grow by 700 million people by 2050, the U.S. Census bureau estimates.

That distinction will pass to India, where more than 1.8 billion people could be competing for their country's resources, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's International Data Base.

The 2007 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau and the United Nations Population Division set China's current population at around 1.3 billion people, and India's at around 1.1 billion. If population continues to grow at the estimated rate, such rapid growth in India between now and mid-century could lead to overpopulation and an uncertain future for the environment and the people living there.

And while organizations like the Population Institute and the United Nations Population Fund are working to promote the human rights and environmental consequences of overpopulation, not everyone views the newest population estimates with pessimism.

"Nothing ever continues at its present rate, neither the stock market nor population growth," said Doug Allen, the dean of the school of Architecture at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and an expert in the history of cities and urban design, which he's taught for more than 31 years.

"There is a substantial body of evidence that the world population will flatten out in about 30 years," he said. "Built into that model would be an assumption that more of the world's population will become urban, and as such the population will begin to decline."






Citing historical evidence of falling birthrates in urban populations, Allen looks to Italy as a current example of the phenomenon.


"Italy right now [is] not at a point where it can sustain its current level. And I don't think that's because people in Italy have suddenly become aware of the need to conserve resources. I think it has more to do with decisions that are made by families on the margin not to have as many children."

Consequences of overpopulation


Overpopulation occurs when a population's density exceeds the capacity of the environment to supply the health requirements of an individual, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.


Environmentalists have long been concerned about the resources threatened by rapidly growing human populations, focusing on phenomenon such as deforestation, desertification, air pollution and global warming. But the worst-case scenario for people experiencing overpopulation, according to Lawrence Smith, president of the Population Institute, is a lack of fresh, clean water.
"If the water goes, the species goes," he said.


"That sounds kind of alarmist," Smith conceded, "considering there's water all around us, but 97 percent plus is saltwater, and the freshwater that we use to sustain ourselves is just native to 3 percent. ... So the accessibility of water, the competition for water, the availability of water is going to be a major, major threat," he said, noting world population growth estimates at more than 9 billion people by 2050.
Nine billion is an exceptional amount of people, considering the world's population only reached 1 billion in 1830, according to the Population Institute, a nonprofit organization that works to fund population and family planning programs around the world.
By 1999, world population reached 6 billion, and in the relatively short time between 2007 and 2050, there could be roughly 2.4 billion more people on Earth needing clean water, space and other natural resources from their environment in order to survive.


Governments facing overpopulation will also struggle to manage waste, said Allen. "Handling your waste and the public health consequences of not handling it well is the biggest problem that will be faced in rapidly growing urban areas in the developing world." When London, England, faced a population boom in the 1850s, for example, its infrastructure was not prepared for the excess waste, which resulted in Cholera outbreaks.


"Huge outbreaks," said Allen. "Fifty-thousand people dying over the summer. That's the kind of thing that in the developed world we no longer have problems with, but in the developing world are very, very real."


Smith said that 97 percent of world population growth between now and 2050 will occur in the developing world, where governments face serious economic and social challenges.


"I would say most of this is in sub-Saharan Africa, where by every other health indicator, they rank at the bottom," Smith said. "This growth rate is taking place despite the high levels of HIV and AIDS and [tuberculosis] and malaria."
Health care -- and the lack of it -- is also a factor in the rising populations in developing countries, according to Stan Bernstein, United Nations Population Fund senior policy adviser.


....Globally, Bernstein said the poorest fifth of people in countries with rapid population growth have twice as many children, on average, as the wealthy people in those same countries.

Birthrates make a difference


The massive growth in developing nations is due in large part to fertility rates, where women during their reproductive years will have an average of five children, said Smith. "That's considerably higher than it is in the developed world."
In addition to the growing demands of developing nations, emerging countries like China and India are rapidly industrializing, said Smith. "Their demands for food alone will have considerable impact on global markets."


China's government has instituted population control methods in order to curb growth. Their controversial "one child" policies have garnered an uneasy reception, especially in rural populations, where people complain of stiff fines or forced sterilizations and abortions as a result of breaking population laws.


Traditionally, rural populations are larger than urban populations, said Smith. This is because rural families need to be larger in order to work and live off the land, and urban populations -- with better education, health care and family planning opportunities -- offer parents the luxury of choosing how many children they will have, he said.


This year is the first year that rural and urban populations are nearly equal, according to the United Nations Population Fund's annual report. This creates a mixed bag of concerns, according to Smith, that include susceptibility of young urban populations in poor countries with weak governments to recruitment for terrorism and conditions of instability.

"We have never in the history of the world experienced urban growth rates or metropolitan growth rates at the same level that we are experiencing now," said Allen

Link: Overpopulation could be people, planet problem - CNN.com

All of this prediction stuff is nonsense. We've never been closer to anhialation as a species ever......IMHO

People fail to see the bigger picture here.

Its not over population that is going to cause the problems.

Research has in fact found that the slowing of the earths rotation will devestate life as we know it today.

And the source of that rotational slowing......all the fat bastards in America that are acting as windbreaks.

IMO India will have a huge problem, and more land is not easy to get these days..

Hey Blackgang.....if you are one of those fat bastards in/from America...I apologise for the insensitive post above.

Is World Headed For...06-09-2008 08:05 PMblackgangyou are really stupid ain't ya

A big problem will (is) happen when the rich of the earth cause more food crops to be diverted or changed to produce bio-fuel, leaving the poorer with even less to eat.

But at least they can drive around looking for food.

Here is a brief speech by Rockefeller on limited resources and over-population. I see it like he does.

War, famine, pestilence and inhumane dictators. Hello, UN. Or a nuke lobbed somewhere to start a global genocide as other nuke nations retaliate. Done.

Just wait until the Chinese put something a bit more deadly than melamine into the food products that they export. Its probably just a matter of time.

A scientific report about over-population and water supples and land. Do you, think there are too many people on the planet?

31 March 2009 19:17 UK

Earth population 'exceeds limits'

By Steven Duke
Editor, One Planet, BBC World Service



Source: US Census Bureau
There are already too many people living on Planet Earth, according to one of most influential science advisors in the US government.

Nina Fedoroff told the BBC One Planet programme that humans had exceeded the Earth's "limits of sustainability".
Dr Fedoroff has been the science and technology advisor to the US secretary of state since 2007, initially working with Condoleezza Rice.

Under the new Obama administration, she now advises Hillary Clinton.

"We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support many more people," Dr Fedoroff said, stressing the need for humans to become much better at managing "wild lands", and in particular water supplies.
Pressed on whether she thought the world population was simply too high, Dr Fedoroff replied: "There are probably already too many people on the planet."

Link & Entire: BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Earth population 'exceeds limits'