Thread: Is World Headed For Overpopulation?

Damn there are so many people that they are ruining everything on the planet now.
Not enough water, forest products, food, space, I would say it was over populated when it was 4 billion

Originally Posted by blackgang

Damn there are so many people that they are ruining everything on the planet now.
Not enough water, forest products, food, space, I would say it was over populated when it was 4 billion

I totally agree, BG.

It seems no one really pays much attention to this topic.

And also, I do not see any way to stop population growth.

Lower birth rates in these countries? I don't see it happening.

Famine, AIDS, and war will not reduce the increase of the population enough.


I don't think the Earth's future is limited to Global Warming, although it's an issue that is likely going to be serious.

Overpopulation will be very serious.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by blackgang

Damn there are so many people that they are ruining everything on the planet now.
Not enough water, forest products, food, space, I would say it was over populated when it was 4 billion

I totally agree, BG.

It seems no one really pays much attention to this topic.

And also, I do not see any way to stop population growth.

Lower birth rates in these countries? I don't see it happening.

Famine, AIDS, and war will not reduce the increase of the population enough.


I don't think the Earth's future is limited to Global Warming, although it's an issue that is likely going to be serious.

Overpopulation will be very serious.

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. Of
course a fair distribution of resources isn't going to happen
anytime soon. On a national scale some countries have a very
serious problem given that they lack the resources needed to
sustain their populations and that whatever resources they have
are generally stolen by the political and military elites. I think that, like
many world problems, the solutions are available but not implemented
because they provide no benefits to the powerful and the greedy.

The blame doesn't lie with those at the bottom of the heap but with
those who take more than their fair share.

Wrong. Increased living standards = increased appetite for resources. Do you really want to see what happens when 2-3 billion people have living standards like those in the U.S.?

The guy in Los Angeles driving his Expedition to work every day places more demand on world resources that a family of 15 in Issan.

Good news for countries like Thailand who are net exporters of food and many other consumable products.

Good news for countries like the USA where "wide open space" is becoming a valuable commodity.

There are no more 'wide open spaces' where people actually want to live

Originally Posted by DrB0b

The blame doesn't lie with those at the bottom of the heap but with
those who take more than their fair share.

Good point. Although some regions seems overpopulated for the resources they have. But I do agree with you. the U.S. has x amount of the world's population (minute) but waste 50% of the world's energy, so they say.

Originally Posted by surasak

Wrong. Increased living standards = increased appetite for resources. Do you really want to see what happens when 2-3 billion people have living standards like those in the U.S.?

Who is talking about the US? When I speak of increasing living standards for the poor, I am talking about access to clean water, proper health care and education and free information about family planning. Surely you wouldn't want to deny anyone these "privileges"?

None of this need to have a detrimental effect on the environment, or the worlds renewable resources. More likely, it will improve the situation - provided the poor don't get as ignorant and egocentrical as you yanks are.

Consider this as well: the poor are most likely to get things locally. What are the chances that my wife's family buys a single imported item? Very small. In the U.S. what are the chances something is imported? Very high. Imports = more waste and more pollution.

The wealthy, on the other hand, are too willing to pay $5 for that bottle of mineral water which was flown half-way around the world just to be pissed down the toilet.

Overpopulation by the poor threatens very little when compared to how wasteful others are.

The world is over populated now.
As was said, about everything in the US is imported, they have outsoursed all the jobs in factorys and people are out of work by the millions I would say, Homeless and others just barely getting by because of no jobs and immigrants by the thousands or millions coming every day with no chance of a job. The only thing that they export anymore is foodstuffs, mostly grain. Millions out of work.

Thailand does export some consumables, world top exporter of rice, some chickens going out but not many,,bird flu, Not many shrimp going out because they are raised in contaminated ponds. And lots of people out of work.

India ,lots of people, lots of jobs now but most are filled and a lot of people out of work

Most of africa has a lot of people, do no work and have no food or money to pay someone else to grow it for them, lots of people out of work.

When the worlds population gets to such a point that there are millions of people out of work and looking for jobs and a hungry gut,, now thats over population.

Does anyone know of a place in the world that has a lot of jobs and no people living there that can do the work?? I don't mean jobs and a lot of people not working, but where everyone that wants a job can have one??

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by surasak

Wrong. Increased living standards = increased appetite for resources. Do you really want to see what happens when 2-3 billion people have living standards like those in the U.S.?

Who is talking about the US? When I speak of increasing living standards for the poor, I am talking about access to clean water, proper health care and education and free information about family planning. Surely you wouldn't want to deny anyone these "privileges"?

None of this need to have a detrimental effect on the environment, or the worlds renewable resources. More likely, it will improve the situation - provided the poor don't get as ignorant and egocentrical as you yanks are.

Originally Posted by surasak

Overpopulation by the poor threatens very little when compared to how wasteful others are.

Being ignorant and egocentric is not a learned trait. It comes natural for plenty of people. I don't want to sound like I'm beating up on the poor but they aren't saints. Out of necessity or ignorance many strip the trees for fuel, over fish the waters, overgraze their pastures, over hunt wild game, and they pollute their water supply. According to Al Gore one-third of the CO2 released into the atmosphere is from people setting fires to clear land or make charcoal.

Off topic: I agree raising the living standard eventually brings about a a slower population growth. So what is the problem with the basic liberal economic theory of globalization? It's raising the living standards in less developed countries. As the foreign currency moves through the economy it can be taxed and used for public projects. It's up to their learning institutions to educate the people not to be too egocentric.

You're going to have to convince me that a poor person clearing a patch of land using fire is worse than another person in one of the industrialized countries who buys a new computer every year because his old one is infected with pop-ups and porn.

Do you realize the amount of environmental destruction caused by someone in Southen California, for example, by the time he or she burns up one gallon of gasoline (including the destruction caused to produce the car they replace every few years as well)? I seriously doubt that on a per capita basis that the guy in Issan burning the rice paddy comes even remotely close to the typical lifestyle of a Westerner when it comes to CO^2 production let alone liquid or solid waste.

Overfishing? Do you not think the real cause of overfishing is caused by the hungry appetites of those in restaurants in aflluent societies thousands of miles away? Every bit of the frozen seafood I see in my local markets comes from either China, Vietnam, or Thailand. How wasteful is it to carry those items nearly 10,000 miles from their point of origin?

What about the typical method in the West of using tons of chemicals and petroleum based fertilizers to produce the same food that is grown without those items in the poor parts of the world because the poor cannot afford them?

Originally Posted by attaboy

I agree raising the living standard eventually brings about a a slower population growth. So what is the problem with the basic liberal economic theory of globalization?

Look at China and the social and environmental probs created.

Originally Posted by surasak

What about the typical method in the West of using tons of chemicals and petroleum based fertilizers to produce the same food that is grown without those items in the poor parts of the world because the poor cannot afford them?

Careful, developing countries aren't exactly squeamish in their use of chemicals.

Originally Posted by blackgang

Does anyone know of a place in the world that has a lot of jobs and no people living there that can do the work?? I don't mean jobs and a lot of people not working, but where everyone that wants a job can have one??

Yes, Ireland, we have to import people to fill all the available vacancies.
The only unemployed are those who can't work or don't want to.

Labour shortage here too (British Columbia); plenty o' panhandlers on the street, though.

Surasak said,

You're going to have to convince me that a poor person clearing a patch of land using fire is worse than another person in one of the industrialized countries who buys a new computer every year because his old one is infected with pop-ups and porn.

Do you realize the amount of environmental destruction caused by someone in Southen California, for example, by the time he or she burns up one gallon of gasoline (including the destruction caused to produce the car they replace every few years as well)? I seriously doubt that on a per capita basis that the guy in Issan burning the rice paddy comes even remotely close to the typical lifestyle of a Westerner when it comes to CO^2 production let alone liquid or solid waste.

Overfishing? Do you not think the real cause of overfishing is caused by the hungry appetites of those in restaurants in aflluent societies thousands of miles away? Every bit of the frozen seafood I see in my local markets comes from either China, Vietnam, or Thailand. How wasteful is it to carry those items nearly 10,000 miles from their point of origin?

What about the typical method in the West of using tons of chemicals and petroleum based fertilizers to produce the same food that is grown without those items in the poor parts of the world because the poor cannot afford them?

From local papers,

There is widespread criticism of the cabinet decision on Tuesday to give the smog problem another week to clear up before the government takes any action.

Traditionally, before the rains and at the end of the hot, dry season, local farmers in the mountains burn off the preceding season's accumulation of vegetation to provide nutrients for the soil.

This year, however, the region has been especially dry, and vulnerable, to having such fires spread out of control.

Together with burn-off fires moving east and south from neighbouring Myanmar's Shan State, Thailand is besieged with conflagrations and smoke accumulation over a wide area of the region, and is on the edge of declaring an emergency zone in the northern provinces due to spreading clouds of choking smoke, clogged with dust and micro-particles of partially-burned wood, leaves and other vegetation fed by raging brushfires and forest fires.

This is done every year and the whole north of Thailand is so smoke polluted that it puts a lot of people in hospitals.

A lot of the fish and sea foods sold there are farm raised in rivers and ponds that are in themselves polluted and not caught at sea.
Japan has fished the continental shelf of the US so heavily that it is almost depleted of marine life, They have almost depleted the Marlin fishery in Mexican waters with huge long lines that catch and kill not only Marlin but massive amounts of Shark,
Russia has had a hand in doing that also and has completely devastated the HAKE fishery in the north pacific that were supposed to be used in the fish flour plant at Aberdeen WA. to furnish protien flour to the poor countrys of the world, plus the wild salmon runs have been depleted by Japan and Russian fisheries.

Thailand also uses tons of chemicals both fertilizers herbicides/pesticides yearly.
what with cess pools at almost all houses, all the water is polluted in wells as in ponds and streams.
Poor country's are not immune to doing their share of polluting the land as well as the atmosphere.

You seem to think that it is only the rich country's that are doing it, but every country has a hand in it and sometimes it is the poor that do a lot more of certain types than the rich..

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by blackgang

Does anyone know of a place in the world that has a lot of jobs and no people living there that can do the work?? I don't mean jobs and a lot of people not working, but where everyone that wants a job can have one??

Yes, Ireland, we have to import people to fill all the available vacancies.
The only unemployed are those who can't work or don't want to.

Yes, but you still have people that do not want to work/refuse to work that add to the world population count, But some places they have massive amounts of people that would work if jobs were available.

Hootad BinkyLabour shortage here too (British Columbia); plenty o' panhandlers on the street, though.

But we don't want to get SURASAK started on BC for pollution by the rich because of the huge labor force working the oil sands jobs.555

Originally Posted by blackgang

Originally Posted by drb0b

Yes, Ireland, we have to import people to fill all the available vacancies.
The only unemployed are those who can't work or don't want to.

Yes, but you still have people that do not want to work/refuse to work that add to the world population count, But some places they have massive amounts of people that would work if jobs were available.

They don't want to work because they're rich enough to have the
choice. I'd make the same choice given the option.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Like I said I don't want to sound like I'm beating up on the poor but they aren't saints. So I guess that aspect of discussion (one-third of the CO2 released into the atmosphere) is out of bounds else I'll sound like a capitalist pig. You stated the poor are most likely to gather things locally. They can and do devastate the environment locally I don't know about you but when I change my oil I don't pour it out on the side of the house. I don't have a garbage dump in my backyard where I throw all my paint cans and solvents. Have you ever seen a toilet which is a plank of wood extending over a river so you shit right in the water? The poor can be educated and they can participate in reforestation programs. It's a form of a farming and it's low tech. You make good points. But don't word them as if I personally believe the burden should be on the poor to clean up the mess so I can sip water from France.



Here's a couple of pics of the deforestation and subsequent erosion of Haiti's landscape. It's caused by a demand for charcoal. Can the land be restored or is it lost? Where will the funds come from to restore it after the damage is done? The mud from the hills rushes down into the sea and destroys the fishing grounds. The silt drifts out into the ocean and chokes reefs as it settles. In November of 1994 they had mudslides which killed 800 people. I don't have that obvious of an impact on my local environment and I don't know if I do on the earth overall. The Haitians are doing a hell of a job destroying things around them.


Here's a pic of the Haitian/Dominican Republic border. Granted somewhere else along the border might not show such a glaring difference in the two methods of stewardship.

Also the Dominicans have designated certain reefs out of bounds for fishing. Those specific reefs renew the fish stock in other areas so the available food source is sustainable. They also regulate size limits for fish and the type of nets used. The Haitians don't do any of these things and their waters are nowhere near as productive. (note I have not personally been to Haiti or the Dominican Republic so I must rely on media sources for information)

As you pointed out the devestation is largely a local issue.

What about all the electronics destined for the U.S. or Europe which are produced in countries such as China? The kinds of pollution that are created during those processes from start to finish so we can buy cheap crap at Wal-Mart are far more devestating on a global level (especially because subsequently those products are either flown or shipped very long ways) than localized burning of vegetation (which is a natural process, by the way, commonly caused by lightning, volcanoes, etc).

Is dumping tons of benzene in a river a natural process? The poor aren't doing this; a company providing products for the consumers of North America or Europe is doing this.

Much of the pollution in Asia is due to consumption outside of Asia. We think we have solved the issue of dirty air and water in the West, but, we simply placed the burden on someone else to deal with it.

The key question is thus: can we stop overpopulation while at the same time ensuring that the economic mobility of that population doesn't cause them to all consume just like we do?

It won't be a question of telling them that a wooden plank over a river is unsuitable for use as a toilet. The question will be to ensure progress without overconsumption (as we unfortunately are guilty of doing).

Look at the price of oil simply because India and China are moving up in the world. If they consume as much as we do what then?

Children 'bad for planet'

By Sarah-Kate Templeton in London
May 07, 2007 12:00am

By Sarah-Kate Templeton in London
May 07, 2007 12:00am
Article from:

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.


co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.
"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."


In his latest comments, the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental

consequences.


"The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added.
Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.


The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.
The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.


The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

Link: Children 'bad for planet' | NEWS.com.au



-
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.