World Population

[Short Circuit]

The worlds population is expected to reach 7 billion within the next 3 days, can we sustain such a vast amount of people all at once?

Food is not matching demand, clean fresh water is becoming scarce and harder to find. There has been no major epidemic to "cull" the population (last one was AIDS in the 80's)

So whats your answer? Could we take a leaf out of the Chinese book, and limit the amount of children we are allowed to bring into the world?

Your thoughts?

[Sage]

Food is not matching demand, clean fresh water is becoming scarce and harder to find. There has been no major epidemic to "cull" the population (last one was AIDS in the 80's)

There is enough food to feed everyone, it just isn't distributed evenly because we've institutionalized a profits-before-people mindset. Short of passing socialist policies, there's not much that can be done about feeding the third world (where the bulk of population rise is occuring).

First world countries are only seeing a rise in population because of immigration, not because of an increased birthrate, so limiting the number of children you can have in countries like the USA or Germany would be useless. Moreover, China's policy does not expressly forbid people from having multiple children, rather, state benefits are cut from extra children which makes them a great financial burden.

Also, it's already happened, there are over seven billion people.

[DerBear]

I think we will not see signs of the nations countries i.e UK USA ECT decline to 3rd world countires level any time soon. so I am not really woried about it. All you can do is your bit to help

[Jupiter]

Well, I'm sure that if we did find an answer to the solution, we would somehow screw it up.

[Black Eight]

Human population will plateau as developing countries industrialize, and after that human population will decline so we don't have much to worry about.

[supadupahitz]

I don't see population growth slowing down, ever. So yes, eventually we will outgrow this planet. The only question is if we will destroy it first.

[Amaryllis]

Could we take a leaf out of the Chinese book, and limit the amount of children we are allowed to bring into the world?
Oh yeah, man. Lets get some hammers for the babies' heads.

The worlds population is expected to reach 7 billion within the next 3 days, can we sustain such a vast amount of people all at once?
The middle and upper class citizens will be fine. The poor? Not so much.

Food is not matching demand,
You mean, rich people are wasting it and leaving half the food on their plates.

clean fresh water is becoming scarce and harder to find.
Maybe that's cause we take 30 minute showers and take it for granted. Maybe it's because we throw away what we have instead of giving it to people in desperate need of it.

There has been no major epidemic to "cull" the population (last one was AIDS in the 80's)
Key sentence here: AIDS in the 80's.

So whats your answer?
Share.

EDIT: I'm really, really sorry for this. It's nothing personal. I'm just too lazy and schtupid to type everything in a paragraph.

[Sage]

I don't see population growth slowing down, ever.

Then you're completely ignorant of how birth rates work.

[aperson444]

Actually he's right in a sense. Normal organisms have a "carrying capacity" in their environment at which point the death rate equals the birth rate (followed by a decline in population when resources become scarce -- this is especially obvious with bacteria). We as humans push the carrying capacity. We have the ability to do that. I think that the only way to curb this is to kill a percentage of the human population. I'm not trolling here. In order to make this population elimination completely random, we must have an apocalypse. Something to return us back to a lower population level. Capitalism and Capitalist ideology will only speed up our demise. We won't even know it. Only the poor feel the effect of resource scarcity. While the rich may have to pay more, they won't directly suffer as a result of resource scarcity. The rich of course is pretty much the Western nations, but even there, the poor exist.

So all in all I suggest that we somehow either eliminate a portion of human population -- by means of a virus, nuclear or chemical war, I care not. Either that or we curb the birth rate or needs of human population. I suggest that we look at Swift's "Modest Proposal" where he suggests that we eat children. It does sound barbaric, but what if we harvest humans for consumption? Is that not saving resources and providing food? The latter idea seems more ethically.... wrong. So it's best to somehow reduce human population or find more space to live in. My interest would be space and beneath the Earth. Water can be recycled, as it always has been. We should begin distilling sea water as well. The only way to do this efficiently is by creating an energy source that does not use too much energy itself.

[Neptune]

Nature will respond, eventually. A new pandemic will strike earth, like the swine flu, but, maybe worse. That'll limit the population growth. I don't think it's a problem, really.

[Rawwwrr]

Human population will plateau as developing countries industrialize, and after that human population will decline so we don't have much to worry about.

The developing countries are not the issue. The problem is the third world countries that haven't even begun to industrialise, places like Africa. The problem is that: what if by the time we hit an unsustainable population, and we're getting close, they haven't yet industrialised?

Bearing in mind we're already unsustainable because we're reliant upon fossil fuels and every time anyone tries to make Green energy mainstream, the oil companies step in and shut it down. They're more concerned with profit than the future of the world.

[UnknownError]

Im gunna get so negrepped for this.

Why do starving Africans or people that cant feed themself have kids? I dont get it. If you cant feed yourself what hope do you have of feeding yourself AND your kids?

But anyway the planet can cope with far more people than 7 million aslong as people arent douche bags.

[kenoloor]

Im gunna get so negrepped for this.

Why do starving Africans or people that cant feed themself have kids? I dont get it. If you cant feed yourself what hope do you have of feeding yourself AND your kids?

But anyway the planet can cope with far more people than 7 million aslong as people arent douche bags.

Agree.
Problem is, people ARE going to be douchebags, because they're more concerned with themselves than sustaining the human race. Although...can't say I blame them. Who would want to contribute to the sustainment of this awful race?

[Jupiter]

Did you guys know that they are looking at Mars, and they are trying to do something how like.. they can make living conditions there? hmm..

[Perseus]

Im gunna get so negrepped for this.

Why do starving Africans or people that cant feed themself have kids? I dont get it. If you cant feed yourself what hope do you have of feeding yourself AND your kids?

But anyway the planet can cope with far more people than 7 million aslong as people arent douche bags.
I honestly believe the way to fix that problem is by not helping at all. By giving these drought stricken places aid, be it food, etc., we are only helping the problem. They will have more children, which leads to more people you have to feed, which puts a hamper on their village or whatever. By not helping at all, survival of the fittest would kick in and the amount of people the carrying capacity can hold will reach and eventually the conditions won't be so bad, and eventually when the drought is over they won't have a large amount of people so they would be able to get things moving along and start having large amounts of children to help and start to industrialize.

Did you guys know that they are looking at Mars, and they are trying to do something how like.. they can make living conditions there? hmm..
That's terraforming. At the very least, it'd take one hundred years and there a lot of problems with terraforming Mars, mainly it would be extremely dangerous to live on there, with or without oxygen.

[Neptune]

Im gunna get so negrepped for this.

Why do starving Africans or people that cant feed themself have kids? I dont get it. If you cant feed yourself what hope do you have of feeding yourself AND your kids?

But anyway the planet can cope with far more people than 7 million aslong as people arent douche bags.


I agree with you. Why bring a child into the world if you know that it'll probably not be alive in 13 years? Oh, and, why even get pregnant? For atleast 3 of those 9 months, the mother will be unable to work like she usually does - providing even more hardship. People are just selfish, the want the company, they never think of the offspring and it's life.

[Amaryllis]

I apologise in advance if I come off as bitchy or rude.

Im gunna get so negrepped for this.

Why do starving Africans or people that cant feed themself have kids? I dont get it. If you cant feed yourself what hope do you have of feeding yourself AND your kids?
Because a lot of the women are raped. A lot of them have sex because there is nothing else to do. They don't have a vast majority of contraception methods like we do in MEDCs(More economically developed countries), nor do they have knowledge of them. A lot of the women and children are left abandoned.

Abortions are hard to come by. Unless they use coat hangers. But heck, coat hangers are hard to come by in a lot of the countries suffering from poverty.

P.S. I didn't neg rep you ;)

The developing countries are not the issue. The problem is the third world countries that haven't even begun to industrialise, places like Africa. The problem is that: what if by the time we hit an unsustainable population, and we're getting close, they haven't yet industrialised?
Maybe that's because MEDCs horde all the natural resources... Maybe that's because their government is corrupt. So maybe places such as Australia, Europe, the US etc, should donate 10% of their taxes, aye? (partial sarcasm here)

I agree with you. Why bring a child into the world if you know that it'll probably not be alive in 13 years? Oh, and, why even get pregnant? For atleast 3 of those 9 months, the mother will be unable to work like she usually does - providing even more hardship. People are just selfish, the want the company, they never think of the offspring and it's life.
Don't have a condom? Can't get an abortion? No education and what-the-frack-are-these-white-people-talking-about? Stop having sex! :D

Husband left you to fend for yourself? Raped? Oh, I'll just kill my baby.

Lonely? Nothing to live for? Nothing to do? Want to give yourself a better life? I'll just live a miserable life!

Poor =/= Miserable. I can tell you now that a lot of these kids living in LEDCs are happier, funnier, bubblier, kinder, more matured than you'll ever be.

Bearing in mind we're already unsustainable because we're reliant upon fossil fuels and every time anyone tries to make Green energy mainstream, the oil companies step in and shut it down. They're more concerned with profit than the future of the world.
"Green energy" is insufficient and hard to come by. Some people hate windmills, not to mention that they don't generate that much energy, anyway, and can only function in windy highlands. Plus, bird flies by? Gets whacked in the face. Bird die.

Solar power is expensive, not everyone can afford it. It will not work in places without much light. Perhaps this will work in tropical countries. But most MEDCs aren't all that sunny.

Water power, sure... You'd need tides, though. And more pollution. Woo... Where would all the fish go? Mmm, I wonder.

Green energy's a wonderful idea. But as of now, is difficult for everyone to have. It's expensive and not everyone can afford it. Humans are too lazy and durr-I'm-just-one-person to recycle, turn off the lights, have shorter showers, use paper back to back and whatnot.

<----------------------->

The "problem" isn't in poorer countries. It isn't in women who are too stupid to abstain from sex or use protection. It's in the selfishness, lack of empathy and wastefulness of people in richer countries. We take things for granted, kids skip school and throw things away when tons of children living in poverty would have jumped at the chance.

They have too little, and we have too much.

[Efflorescence]

I honestly believe the way to fix that problem is by not helping at all. By giving these drought stricken places aid, be it food, etc., we are only helping the problem. They will have more children, which leads to more people you have to feed, which puts a hamper on their village or whatever. By not helping at all, survival of the fittest would kick in and the amount of people the carrying capacity can hold will reach and eventually the conditions won't be so bad, and eventually when the drought is over they won't have a large amount of people so they would be able to get things moving along and start having large amounts of children to help and start to industrialize.

The way to fix this problem is to provide them with better education as much as possible.

But not helping them at all and leaving everything to 'survival of the fittest' would be mean. We're not talking about animals here, we're talking about human beings who all have the right to food and aid.

[Perseus]

The way to fix this problem is to provide them with better education as much as possible.

But not helping them at all and leaving everything to 'survival of the fittest' would be mean. We're not talking about animals here, we're talking about human beings who all have the right to food and aid.

That doesn't matter when they're over their carrying capacity. Helping them with all the aid is what is making things worse. Education doesn't matter when there the carrying capacity has gone over. Emotions is what worsens it. For at the very least, for 250,000 years humans were able to survive without all this technology. Let them fix their problems on their own when they aren't overpopulated. When that's done, we can give this oh, so precious education that they have to have.

[huginnmuninn]

The way to fix this problem is to provide them with better education as much as possible.

But not helping them at all and leaving everything to 'survival of the fittest' would be mean. We're not talking about animals here, we're talking about human beings who all have the right to food and aid.

why do they have the right to food and aid? who suddenly decided everybody has the right to survive? how come survival of the fittest has worked for ... um a long time... and suddenly it goes against whats right?

[kenoloor]

why do they have the right to food and aid? who suddenly decided everybody has the right to survive? how come survival of the fittest has worked for ... um a long time... and suddenly it goes against whats right?

Survival of the fittest is still very much a real thing. But what defines "fit" has changed. Being more educated is more "fit." Just like having more money, and living in a first world country. All of these things contribute to our fitness as a race. Some people are more fit than others.

[Efflorescence]

That doesn't matter when they're over their carrying capacity. Helping them with all the aid is what is making things worse. Education doesn't matter when there the carrying capacity has gone over. Emotions is what worsens it. For at the very least, for 250,000 years humans were able to survive without all this technology. Let them fix their problems on their own when they aren't overpopulated. When that's done, we can give this oh, so precious education that they have to have.

why do they have the right to food and aid? who suddenly decided everybody has the right to survive? how come survival of the fittest has worked for ... um a long time... and suddenly it goes against whats right?

I wonder how you would both feel if you were born in these under-developed countries and you need help and instead of helping you, other countries would refuse to do it and leave everything to 'survival of the fittest'. They would refuse to help you because the population needs to decrease and you have to basically suck it up. I wonder if you would think in this way then. Try to imagine yourselves in this situation.

[Sage]

who suddenly decided everybody has the right to survive?
People who aren't fucking assholes.

survival of the fittest has worked
Of course it worked for you, you live in the western world.

[Perseus]

I wonder how you would both feel if you were born in these under-developed countries and you need help and instead of helping you, other countries would refuse to do it and leave everything to 'survival of the fittest'. They would refuse to help you because the population needs to decrease and you have to basically suck it up. I wonder if you would think in this way then. Try to imagine yourselves in this situation.

It doesn't matter. Sure, I wouldn't like it, but helping them does is what makes it worse. If there was a way to help without making the matter worse, I'd be all for it. But going in there and giving them food when there is none to be grown and water when there is none to be found, you are escalating the problem.

With that, I'm more talking to places in drought. Third world countries raging with war are a different story. Helping there is completely different than helping in a drought strickened place.