Over population.

[Daniel_]

Well, I recently did a pro-abortion paper for my 11th grade English class, and I got into a subject that got me thinking about over population. There is currently around 6 billion people in the world, and scientists predict that by the year 2050, that number will increase to approximately 8.9 billion, yet people these days are ALREADY starving all over the world due to lack of recourses. I thought it would be an interesting piece of conversation.

Also, if your interested, here is a little blurb of the subject I did on my essay:
_______________________________________________________________________________

As I'm sure many people know, our planet is extremely over populated. There is approximately 6 billion people living on our planet, and that number has been increasing for years. There are so many people on the planet, that there aren't even enough supplies in the world to supply everyone with what they need to survive.
Millions and millions of people go hungry each day in Africa, which is prime example #1 of what would happen if we let the population keep increasing at this rate. I realize it sounds harsh, but it is a true problem. Scientists have predicted that by the year 2050, there will be approximately 8.9 billion people living in the world. Eventually, recourses will began to decrease, and decrease, and before long, there will be nothing left.
It may sound harsh, but abortion is one this that helps regulate the population of the world. Without it, there would be anywhere from 30 to 40 million more babies being born each year. Then those babies will have babies, and their babies will have babies, and in the end, the world will be so majorly overpopulated it will eventually become Anarchy. People fighting in the streets for what few remaining recourses they can get their hands on. It will be total chaos.

[Amnesiac]

It's a very complex issue that I don't think can be stopped. Eventually the world population will crest, but it'll be around 9 billion until then. To give every person a healthy lifestyle we in the West enjoy, we'd have to cut the population by hundreds of millions, probably billions, of people.

[Daniel_]

It's a very complex issue that I don't think can be stopped. Eventually the world population will crest, but it'll be around 9 billion until then. To give every person a healthy lifestyle we in the West enjoy, we'd have to cut the population by hundreds of millions, probably billions, of people.

I honestly believe that the system China uses is probably semi-efficient at least.

After 2 kids, you have to stop. If things get to extreme, they could even cut it down to one.

The thing is though, in the traditional Muslim society, I do believe they try and have as many kids as possible, and that is just stupid. (However don't quote me on this, I'm just going by others beliefs. I'v never personally researched it.)

[The Ninja]

Much like what happens in nature, if the population of humans gets out of hand it will correct itself. Like you said people will go to huge lengths to get resources, killing eachother over it possibly. This will continue until the population decreases greatly in which case there will be enough resources for everyone. This should also give those resources time to replenish much like the population will start to do. Before you know it the population will be back to its usual billions of people until once again it gets out of hand and the cycle repeats. I personally have no problem with abortion, people find this odd seeing as how i am a christian, but meh. Sometimes it is needed, I myself would never suggest it to someone, but if adoption isn't an option than abortion is about all you can do.

[Amnesiac]

I honestly believe that the system China uses is probably semi-efficient at least.

After 2 kids, you have to stop. If things get to extreme, they could even cut it down to one.

The thing is though, in the traditional Muslim society, I do believe they try and have as many kids as possible, and that is just stupid. (However don't quote me on this, I'm just going by others beliefs. I'v never personally researched it.)

I thought it was a one-child policy? I could be wrong, but that's what I always thought it was.

A major downside of organized religion is that it isn't progressive. The fact that major faiths like Roman Catholicism discourage use of birth control and approve of extremely large households, simply to keep their belief system strong for another generation, disgusts me. Without religion interfering with social progress, we wouldn't have as much of a problem with overpopulation — it would still exist, but it would be more manageable.

[ShaneK]

There are too many people already. We are destroying the planet anyways, it would be better off without people. It is in our nature to destroy ourselves and everything around us. There arent enough resources for us anyways. As for countries there all fucked in the way they do things. We need to become one with the delicate interwined system that is nature, not destroy it. Co-exist with animals instead of torturing and killin them for food.

No one has a clue, our oblivion might be the only chance the planet has

[Perseus]

We're not overpopulated. Africa is just in a predicament that can be solved, though it calls to drastic measures. Only China is overpopulated since they don't have a lot of livable land.

[Jess]

I honestly believe that the system China uses is probably semi-efficient at least.

After 2 kids, you have to stop. If things get to extreme, they could even cut it down to one.

The thing is though, in the traditional Muslim society, I do believe they try and have as many kids as possible, and that is just stupid. (However don't quote me on this, I'm just going by others beliefs. I'v never personally researched it.)

you have to stop after one kid, actually. but it doesn't seem to apply everywhere in China....I mean my grandparents (my mom's parents) had 3 kids, my mom and her sister and brother

[Iceman]

Thomas Malthus, first wrote about this. If a married couple has 1 child the population will decrease. 2 it will stay the same. This is saying everyone gets married and has a child before death. Anything above 3 contributes the the over population. Is the world overpopulated or have we just not found advanced way of energy and food supplies?

[Perseus]

Thomas Malthus

Lemme stop you right there. Thomas Malthus' theories do not hold validation in the twenty first century.

[Iceman]

Lemme stop you right there. Thomas Malthus' theories do not hold validation in the twenty first century.

Why wouldn't they. Maybe not the exact theory but it could still be possible

[Perseus]

Why wouldn't they. Maybe not the exact theory but it could still be possible

We have technology he did not have when he created his theories. He made an equation in I think the eighteen hundreds, but I do not remember exactly. But he created it before the assembly line, etc. And you have to remember: people back then had a lot of kids compared to now.

[Iceman]

People have alot of kids now! The population is growing at a faster rate. And by assembly line I'm guessing your talking about the food, and the earth has even less farmland then back then, which will decrease with population growth, and that is still necessary for food production.

[Perseus]

People have alot of kids now!

Not compared to then we don't.

[Iceman]

How? The populations is growing at the fastest rate ever. More people = Less space. Less space= less space for food. More people=less space for food. And more people need more space not less for food

[Perseus]

How? The populations is growing at the fastest rate ever. More people = Less space. Less space= less space for food. More people=less space for food. And more people need more space not less for food

The average family has one and a half to two and half children in America. We are not overpopulating.
http://www.china-profile.com/data/animations/ceu/ani_china_1S.gif
http://www.china-profile.com/data/animations/ceu/ani_europe_1S.gif
http://www.china-profile.com/data/animations/ceu/ani_usa_1S.gif
Many countries in Europe have declining populations, especially Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia).
The only places that have growing population are Africa and some parts of Asia. They don't use contraception in those places, and they have multiple children for obvious reasons.

Source for population pyramids (http://www.china-profile.com/data/ani_ceu_pop.htm).

[ShaneK]

Wanna censor reality. Great just what the world doesnt need more people. There is usually a difference between supposed and reality I find. Haven't we damaged the planet enough all ready?

[Iceman]

If you google population chart it even shows the us growing. Your not looking at the information right!

[Perseus]

If you google population chart it even shows the us growing. Your not looking at the information right!

Your point? It's not at some exponential rate. It's slowly going up, and it will probably decline in the future. Europe has a declining population. China has a semi declining population. There isn't a population problem. Thomas Malthus has no use in the twenty first century.

[Iceman]

Your point? It's not at some exponential rate. It's slowly going up, and it will probably decline in the future. Europe has a declining population. China has a semi declining population. There isn't a population problem. Thomas Malthus has no use in the twenty first century.

It will probably decline in the future? No it won't that's absurd! China has a semi declining because they put a policy in place because they know its being overpopulated! And Europe is slightly growing not declining!

[Perseus]

And Europe is slightly growing not declining!

ddjklasfsldfjskldjvkdfsjvsdklcakjdvmdskjgjrufhlsdhcldsiufhdsuivhdskucvhskuldcvnd skjlvlndsjvnshdvnsudvndsvjundskvndsklvudsjfukejhifjoafjsudgfdsgfv (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate)

[Amnesiac]

It will probably decline in the future? No it won't that's absurd!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/World-Population-1800-2100.png

[Iceman]

http://www.environmentupdates.com/images/world-population-chart.jpg

[Perseus]

http://www.environmentupdates.com/images/world-population-chart.jpg

http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/uu176/DaTrooper00/InmyEurope.jpg

You do realize that it's not going to decline instantly? It takes time, y'know.

[Iceman]

And besides thats 1 country and this is global population!

[Perseus]

And besides thats 1 country and this is global population!

Uh, no. Europe consists of many countries. Go back to ninth grade, buddy boy.

[Bmatlman]

go socko! come on you got this socko. you got this.

[Amnesiac]

And besides thats 1 country and this is global population!

Then see my chart. The world population is probably going to crest at 9 billion before decreasing. Haven't you read about it in The Economist's The World in 2011 (http://www.economist.com/blogs/multimedia/2010/11/world_population)?

[Iceman]

Yah its going to decrease because we are going to overpopulate and die;)
And thank you bob :D

[Amnesiac]

Yah its going to decrease because we are going to overpopulate and die;)
And thank you bob :D

Sigh.

UAIv15fWfHg

[Perseus]

Yah its going to decrease because we are going to overpopulate and die;)
And thank you bob :D

http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt109/Kiwi_065/TrollFace-1.png

[Iceman]

The population is growing and resources are shrinking its common knowledge

[Perseus]

The population is growing and resources are shrinking its common knowledge

Dude, I had a class last semester that went into this. The world is not becoming overpopulated. Just because some jackass thought that two hundred and ten years ago doesn't mean anything.

[Iceman]

Its not what a jackass 210 years ago thought its what I am thinking now

[Perseus]

Its not what a jackass 210 years ago thought its what I am thinking now

You brought up Thomas Malthus, so you have no credibility, really.

[Iceman]

Ok well lets forget him for now. Right now the population is growing. We don't know when or if ever it will decrease.

[Amnesiac]

Ok well lets forget him for now. Right now the population is growing. We don't know when or if ever it will decrease.

We don't know anything about the future. However, we can predict with a high level of certainty that it will decrease based on current trends. I really do hope you watched the video I posted.

[Iceman]

I couldn't pull it up for some reason :(, wish I could. Anyways interesting debate so far :P but I have to go to bed. Thanks for entertaining me though!:D

[Peace God]

go socko! come on you got this socko. you got this.
specialolympics.jpg

[karl]

Cutting down the number of births will cause the world's population to age. By the time we retire there won't be enough younger people working to pay our pensions

[The Dark Lord]

Its not what a jackass 210 years ago thought its what I am thinking now

given your extensive research and unrivalled analytical skills, it's an outrage people haven't taken you seriously

[Jenna.]

Well, I recently did a pro-abortion paper for my 11th grade English class, and I got into a subject that got me thinking about over population. There is currently around 6 billion people in the world, and scientists predict that by the year 2050, that number will increase to approximately 8.9 billion, yet people these days are ALREADY starving all over the world due to lack of recourses. I thought it would be an interesting piece of conversation.

Also, if your interested, here is a little blurb of the subject I did on my essay:
_______________________________________________________________________________

As I'm sure many people know, our planet is extremely over populated. There is approximately 6 billion people living on our planet, and that number has been increasing for years. There are so many people on the planet, that there aren't even enough supplies in the world to supply everyone with what they need to survive.
Millions and millions of people go hungry each day in Africa, which is prime example #1 of what would happen if we let the population keep increasing at this rate. I realize it sounds harsh, but it is a true problem. Scientists have predicted that by the year 2050, there will be approximately 8.9 billion people living in the world. Eventually, recourses will began to decrease, and decrease, and before long, there will be nothing left.
It may sound harsh, but abortion is one this that helps regulate the population of the world. Without it, there would be anywhere from 30 to 40 million more babies being born each year. Then those babies will have babies, and their babies will have babies, and in the end, the world will be so majorly overpopulated it will eventually become Anarchy. People fighting in the streets for what few remaining recourses they can get their hands on. It will be total chaos.

Finally! Someone else who sees things the way I do. Someday we're all going to run out of space and resources and then what's going to happen?

Off topic: I'm gonna do a pro abortion paper for my English class too. I'm excited to see all of the angry reactions to my opinion, where I live most people are pro life, and I'm glad I'm different. :rolleyes:

[Korashk]

Finally! Someone else who sees things the way I do. Someday we're all going to run out of space and resources and then what's going to happen?
Just so you know, we're NEVER going to run out of space. Resources are debatable, but space really isn't.

[Iceman]

Space isn't an option until we exceed trillions (which will never happen), but the resorcues. Maybe we haven't found that resource we need as Buzz Lightyear said.

[Bmatlman]

Space isn't an option until we exceed trillions (which will never happen), but the resorcues. Maybe we haven't found that resource we need as Buzz Lightyear said.

ok socko your makeing it hard for me to cheer for you by quoteing Buzz Lightyear.

[Iceman]

It may be time to bring Thomas Malthus back from the dead -- intellectually speaking. Believe it or not, the 18th-century thinker has a lot to say to us about problems that are here and now: population increase and the food needed to deal with it. Malthus saw the 18th-century phenomenon of continuous population increase as a threat to human civilization. Left unchecked, be believed, populations would double themselves every 25 years, a growth rate that would quickly outstrip the available food supply. This Malthusian idea soon took on the mantra of certainty: Unlimited population growth could only end in disastrous famines and starvation. This was a widely held belief throughout the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th century. Since the mid-20th century, however, Malthus' theories have lost credibility because the world has experienced (seemingly) unchecked population growth without the dismal result he predicted. Here we are in the first decade of the 21st century, with a world population of 6.6 billion --about six times what it was in Malthus' era -- and yet we're not starving. Malthus must have been wrong. Or was he? Until now, technological improvements have caused food supply to increase along with population growth -- something Malthus admittedly did not foresee. But as demand bumps up against supply, the green revolution may be over. In recent months, food prices have risen dramatically and suddenly. In the past year, the price of wheat is up 120%. The cost of cooking oil, rice and other staples have doubled since January. For the 1.5-billion people who live on less than $2 a day, food typically accounts for almost all of their meager budget. Soaring food prices represent a calamity for these people, which explains At current inflated prices, we can expect outright starvation in the poorer regions of the world why food riots have broken out across the globe. A significant factor straining the food supply is the entry into the market of large middle-class populations in China and India -- people who want to live (and eat) like North Americans and Europeans. Higher incomes in these nations have resulted in increased consumption of meat, chicken and other protein foods, all of which strain grain supplies. (It takes four pounds of grain to make one pound of meat.) The formerly poor are no longer content to eat rice, bread and lentils. During the 20th century, food production generally was not a restrictive factor on population growth. But that was during a period when only one-sixth of the Earth's inhabitants had incomes high enough to make them gluttons. This low ratio of rich to poor left enough of the pie for meager but sufficient distribution to the rest of the world. In other words, the world seems to have avoided Malthus' dismal outcome only because the vast majority of humanity did not eat well. They were able to eat amounts sufficient to procreate and have their offspring survive, but not enough to enjoy the health-giving effect of a high protein diet. That global social division between rich and poor is undergoing a shift, and it is one that has the potential for unleashing a massive humanitarian crisis. Malthus may yet be vindicated.

[Bmatlman]

It may be time to bring Thomas Malthus back from the dead -- intellectually speaking. Believe it or not, the 18th-century thinker has a lot to say to us about problems that are here and now: population increase and the food needed to deal with it. Malthus saw the 18th-century phenomenon of continuous population increase as a threat to human civilization. Left unchecked, be believed, populations would double themselves every 25 years, a growth rate that would quickly outstrip the available food supply. This Malthusian idea soon took on the mantra of certainty: Unlimited population growth could only end in disastrous famines and starvation. This was a widely held belief throughout the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th century. Since the mid-20th century, however, Malthus' theories have lost credibility because the world has experienced (seemingly) unchecked population growth without the dismal result he predicted. Here we are in the first decade of the 21st century, with a world population of 6.6 billion --about six times what it was in Malthus' era -- and yet we're not starving. Malthus must have been wrong. Or was he? Until now, technological improvements have caused food supply to increase along with population growth -- something Malthus admittedly did not foresee. But as demand bumps up against supply, the green revolution may be over. In recent months, food prices have risen dramatically and suddenly. In the past year, the price of wheat is up 120%. The cost of cooking oil, rice and other staples have doubled since January. For the 1.5-billion people who live on less than $2 a day, food typically accounts for almost all of their meager budget. Soaring food prices represent a calamity for these people, which explains At current inflated prices, we can expect outright starvation in the poorer regions of the world why food riots have broken out across the globe. A significant factor straining the food supply is the entry into the market of large middle-class populations in China and India -- people who want to live (and eat) like North Americans and Europeans. Higher incomes in these nations have resulted in increased consumption of meat, chicken and other protein foods, all of which strain grain supplies. (It takes four pounds of grain to make one pound of meat.) The formerly poor are no longer content to eat rice, bread and lentils. During the 20th century, food production generally was not a restrictive factor on population growth. But that was during a period when only one-sixth of the Earth's inhabitants had incomes high enough to make them gluttons. This low ratio of rich to poor left enough of the pie for meager but sufficient distribution to the rest of the world. In other words, the world seems to have avoided Malthus' dismal outcome only because the vast majority of humanity did not eat well. They were able to eat amounts sufficient to procreate and have their offspring survive, but not enough to enjoy the health-giving effect of a high protein diet. That global social division between rich and poor is undergoing a shift, and it is one that has the potential for unleashing a massive humanitarian crisis. Malthus may yet be vindicated.

you just posted that in another thread! what the heck!?!?!?!

[Iceman]

Yah I ment to be on this one, I edited that one though:D

[Iceman]

THE NEWEST EVIDENCE CONCLUDES THAT PRIOR STUDIES ONLY UNDERESTIMATE THE PROBLEM. WITHOUT COERCIVE POPULATION CONTROL; THE EARTH WILL BE DEAD BY 2050.
MCDOUGALL, Co-Chair of the Optimum Population Trust, AND GUILLEBAUD, Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health at University college of London, 2007
The Earth faces a future of rising populations and growing strains on the planet. Whatever else the future holds, significant population increase is inevitable and the current UN forecast of 9.2 billion by 2050 – itself a 40 per cent increase on the 6.7 billion in 2007 – may turn out to be an underestimate. The environmental damage resulting from population increase is already widespread and serious, ranging from climate change to shortages of basic resources such as food and water. By 2050, humanity is likely to require the biological capacity of two Earths. Without action, longages of humans – the prime cause of all shortages of resources – may cause parts of the planet to become uninhabitable, with governments pushed towards coercive population control measures as a regrettable but lesser evil than conflict and suffering.

EARTH HAS OVERSHOT ITS CARRYING CAPACITY; WE NEED TO BE AROUND 4 BILLION.

SCIENCE REPORTER FOR THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 2007
Every year, at least 91 million humans are born in excess of those who die. That's 1 billion people every 11 years. Some, however, argue that we are adept at adapting, and point to increased agricultural production and medical advances that fend off disease. Right now, Earth's carrying capacity is thought to be somewhere in the range of 4 billion to 5 billion people. There are 6.5 billion of us. In biology, the carrying capacity usually refers to the number of animals a given area can support with adequate food, shelter and territory or the space to reproduce.

There's your "evidence"

[Peace God]

socko: you should credit the author of your copypasta with a souce
Bmatlman: stop cheerleading before i -rep you

[Bmatlman]

socko: you should credit the author of your copypasta with a souce
Bmatlman: stop cheerleading before i -rep you

ok ill stop.

[Iceman]

socko: you should credit the author of your copypasta with a souce
Bmatlman: stop cheerleading before i -rep you

I edited the post so it's up there not a new post.

[Amnesiac]

I don't think anyone here realizes that we don't have enough resources to feed and shelter our current population. Stop saying "oh no, we'll eventually run out of resources!" We're already out of resources, the governments of the world just don't want to tell you.

[Iceman]

I don't think anyone here realizes that we don't have enough resources to feed and shelter our current population. Stop saying "oh no, we'll eventually run out of resources!" We're already out of resources, the governments of the world just don't want to tell you.

Not completely out just substantially gone

[Amnesiac]

Not completely out just substantially gone

The point is that there aren't enough resources to meet the needs of the world's population. That's why I don't believe in campaigns like "End Poverty", because it's not really possible.

[Iceman]

The point is that there aren't enough resources to meet the needs of the world's population. That's why I don't believe in campaigns like "End Poverty", because it's not really possible.

So you with reducing population?

[Perseus]

given your extensive research and unrivalled analytical skills, it's an outrage people haven't taken you seriously

I don't take him seriously. Especially since he's quoting Thomas Malthus.

Socko, population is not growing exponentially, and food is not decreasing exponentially. The West has plenty of food. We have factory farms that grow(Note my diction here) animals to be slaughtered. It isn't a matter of we are going to run out of food; it's a matter in third world countries that they don't have food. Africa is plagued by civil wars and drought and AIDS. We are not becoming overpopulated, nor are we running out of food. If I had my AP Human Geography book, I would bring food to the table, but I do not, so you are to go without fancy terms and examples.

[Iceman]

I don't take him seriously. Especially since he's quoting Thomas Malthus.

Socko, population is not growing exponentially, and food is not decreasing exponentially. The West has plenty of food. We have factory farms that grow(Note my diction here) animals to be slaughtered. It isn't a matter of we are going to run out of food; it's a matter in third world countries that they don't have food. Africa is plagued by civil wars and drought and AIDS. We are not becoming overpopulated, nor are we running out of food. If I had my AP Human Geography book, I would bring food to the table, but I do not, so you are to go without fancy terms and examples.

His avatar is heavy sarcasm may be present. Just to let you know he was being sarcastic. And its not just food its "resources" which is not just food.

[Perseus]

His avatar is heavy sarcasm may be present. Just to let you know he was being sarcastic. And its not just food its "resources" which is not just food.

http://craft1up.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/facepalm.jpg Oh whoops, plus one for you since I misread his comment, but he was still insulting you.
He was not being sarcastic. He was stating fact. And what resources are we talking about here, then?

[Peace God]

He was stating fact.
Well the part about people not taking him seriously was a fact...the rest however, was sarcasm.

[Iceman]

"The environmental damage resulting from population increase is already widespread and serious, ranging from climate change to shortages of basic resources such as food and water. By 2050, humanity is likely to require the biological capacity of two Earths. Without action, longages of humans – the prime cause of all shortages of resources – may cause parts of the planet to become uninhabitable, with governments pushed towards coercive population control measures as a regrettable but lesser evil than conflict and suffering"

[Amnesiac]

So you with reducing population?

It'll crest, as I've shown before, and fall within the next 40 years. This is a problem that'll probably solve itself.

[Iceman]

It'll crest, as I've shown before, and fall within the next 40 years. This is a problem that'll probably solve itself.

But do you think there is enough resources left for those 40 years?

[Perseus]

Well the part about people not taking him seriously was a fact...the rest however, was sarcasm.
Yeah, I got that.
But do you think there is enough resources left for those 40 years?

Explain resources. That is a vague term you're using here, buddy.

[Amnesiac]

But do you think there is enough resources left for those 40 years?

There aren't even enough "resources" (I'm talking about food and oil) now. Besides, what's your proposed plan to solve this massive problem? Just killing people?

[Perseus]

There aren't even enough "resources" (I'm talking about food and oil) now. Besides, what's your proposed plan to solve this massive problem? Just killing people?

No, there is enough food. It's just the West has it all.

[Iceman]

Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.
A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste

Resources: Food, water, plants, fossil fuels, etc.

[Perseus]

Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.
A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste
Stop quoting shit. You have avoided my question twice.

[Iceman]

I edited my post and I'm quoting it because people say I need proof from people, so I do it, then they say stop it! I already edited the last post and put what resources are!

[Amnesiac]

Resources: Food, water, plants, fossil fuels, etc.

Many of these resources are already scarce and will run out at their current rates. The fact is that there is no way to stop overpopulation — the world is already overpopulated, and it will continue to suffer until the peak in 2050. You still haven't proposed any sort of plan to combat this.

[Perseus]

I edited my post and I'm quoting it because people say I need proof from people, so I do it, then they say stop it! I already edited the last post and put what resources are!

The only thing we are running out of is fossil fuels, and when we run out, it will not be pretty. But water and food and plants we have plenty of. But it's what I have said. The West have it all. The only way to help places that are running out of food and are over populating is to let survival of the fittest to occur. Helping them just makes things worse. And why do you think we are running out of space, Socko? I assume you live in America.

[Iceman]

Yes and, "Space isn't an option until we exceed trillions (which will never happen)", I said this on page 3. I think they are wrong about the space. Once we exceed the amount of going horizontal we will start going vertical (skyscrapers). Not to mention things like the City at Sea, which houses everything needed to live.

[Perseus]

Yes and, "Space isn't an option until we exceed trillions (which will never happen)", I said this on page 3. I think they are wrong about the space. Once we exceed the amount of going horizontal we will start going vertical (skyscrapers). Not to mention things like the City at Sea, which houses everything needed to live.

Oh, sorry. I thought you said somewhere that we were running out of space.

[Iceman]

Oh, sorry. I thought you said somewhere that we were running out of space.

It 's alright, it may have been in one of those articles but I disagree with that aspect of the situation

[Sogeking]

Maybe if the west didn't suck away most of the resources like a tumor and become less selfish, third world countries wouldn't suffer so greatly.

[Perseus]

Maybe if the west didn't suck away most of the resources like a tumor and become less selfish, third world countries wouldn't suffer so greatly.

Third world countries suffer because of the imperialism European countries put on them. Like I said, helping just makes things worse because if they have food, they will breed, which means more starving children and people who will breed.

[The Dark Lord]

Maybe if the west didn't suck away most of the resources like a tumor and become less selfish, third world countries wouldn't suffer so greatly.

African couldn't cope with resources like the west. More african children would be born, accelerating the problem of over crowding. That point is totally self-defeating

[Amnesiac]

Maybe if the west didn't suck away most of the resources like a tumor and become less selfish, third world countries wouldn't suffer so greatly.

You can't blame the West for the lack of resources in poor nations. You can blame history (imperialism), religion, and the environments they've settled in, mountainous or arid areas that aren't meant for humans.

[Sogeking]

Third world countries suffer because of the imperialism European countries put on them. Like I said, helping just makes things worse because if they have food, they will breed, which means more starving children and people who will breed. What makes you think that just because there is more food on the table, that they will breed?

[Perseus]

What makes you think that just because there is more food on the table, that they will breed?

They aren't dead, and they want to have children. Sex is a natural desire.

[Sogeking]

I thought folks over there are selfish, they don't more kids eating up the food. I do see the population increasing, but thats because there are less deaths going around. And if they are smart , they wouldnt make more children to starve themselves and everyone else of the limited food suply.

[Perseus]

I thought folks over there are selfish, they don't more kids eating up the food. I do see the population increasing, but thats because there are less deaths going around. And if they are smart , they wouldnt make more children to starve themselves and everyone else of the limited food suply.

They don't have contraception there, either. Helping them just makes things worse, really.

[Sogeking]

They don't have contraception there, either. Helping them just makes things worse, really. we could send contraceptions there along with the food. Thats the best solution I can think of anyways.

[Perseus]

we could send contraceptions there along with the food. Thats the best solution I can think of anyways.

You're not seeing my point. Helping them makes things worse. Doing both of those in the conditions that Africa, mainly, is in, it's just silly. They're in droughts, etc. Sending them water, food, etc. just adds to their survival and their creation of children, which makes more people, which makes more people in need, which adds more people to the planet. I don't care that this sounds harsh; I know it does, but it's the only way of really make things work. They have too many people to live off of the land. Survival of the fittest would let the strong live, and it would let the population reduce and maybe they wouldn't be in these predicaments. But the warring nations this doesn't really apply.

[ShaneK]

That last post was crazy so his my crazy

Its not survival of the fittest its survival of those lucky enough to be in resource rich countries food wise. Here is an idea for over population - bye china, europe and american there we got rid of 2 billion people near enough who consume the most resources. Resources not consumed that could be put to use in growing food. Better environment and more food win-win

[Magus]

You're not seeing my point. Helping them makes things worse. Doing both of those in the conditions that Africa, mainly, is in, it's just silly. They're in droughts, etc. Sending them water, food, etc. just adds to their survival and their creation of children, which makes more people, which makes more people in need, which adds more people to the planet. I don't care that this sounds harsh; I know it does, but it's the only way of really make things work. They have too many people to live off of the land. Survival of the fittest would let the strong live, and it would let the population reduce and maybe they wouldn't be in these predicaments. But the warring nations this doesn't really apply.
"Show me an elitist, and I'll show you a loser."
~Tom Clancy

Yeah, let us talk about overpopulation in developing countries. How about the developed countries? Let me guess: There is no overpopulation.

[ShaneK]

All life is scared no matter where it is. Just because someone lives in a certain part of the world it doesn't make their life worth less than anyone elses or yours

[Perseus]

"Show me an elitist, and I'll show you a loser."
~Tom Clancy

Yeah, let us talk about overpopulation in developing countries. How about the developed countries? Let me guess: There is no overpopulation.

I never said there wasn't overpopulation in developed countries. Look at China and India. What I'm saying is tribal villages are getting overpopulated in Africa. America is not. In all honesty, I wasn't really touching on overpopulation in that post.

[Daniel_]

Just so you know, we're NEVER going to run out of space. Resources are debatable, but space really isn't.

Lol. You don't know HOW wrong you are.

Humans are matter. Matter is defined as an object that has mass and takes up space.

So if thats the case, if the number of people is increasing each year, there will be more mass, and more space being taken up.

So, unless we somehow find a way to journey to other planets and colonize in the near future, we most certainly WILL run out of space.

[Korashk]

Lol. You don't know HOW wrong you are.

Humans are matter. Matter is defined as an object that has mass and takes up space.

So if thats the case, if the number of people is increasing each year, there will be more mass, and more space being taken up.

So, unless we somehow find a way to journey to other planets and colonize in the near future, we most certainly WILL run out of space.
It is not realistic to think that we'll ever run out of space. There are near 7 billion people alive and most of the world goes under-populated. Reading this thread is evidence of this.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0310e/A0310E07.jpg

Take note of all the places with a population density 2 - 5 people per square km or less.

We will never run out of space.

[Daniel_]

It is not realistic to think that we'll ever run out of space. There are near 7 billion people alive and most of the world goes under-populated. Reading this thread is evidence of this.

Image (http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0310e/A0310E07.jpg)

Take note of all the places with a population density 2 - 5 people per square km or less.

We will never run out of space.

Do you know how much of that space is uninhabitable?

[Korashk]

Do you know how much of that space is uninhabitable?
Maybe antarctica and the north pole, but people could probably still live there. The thing about places that are "uninhabitable" is that typically, people live there.

[Daniel_]

Maybe antarctica and the north pole, but people could probably still live there. The thing about places that are "uninhabitable" is that typically, people live there.

Your logic is invalid, as how can an uninhabitable place be inhabited?

[Korashk]

Your logic is invalid, as how can an uninhabitable place be inhabited?
Notice how the word uninhabitable is in quotes. Usually when one does that it is to show that the term is an inaccurate one. Here's an explanation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes)

[Daniel_]

Notice how the word uninhabitable is in quotes. Usually when one does that it is to show that the term is an inaccurate one. Here's an explanation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes)

I did not notice the quotations, actually. And I know what it means, but thanks anyway.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

It is not realistic to think that we'll ever run out of space. There are near 7 billion people alive and most of the world goes under-populated. Reading this thread is evidence of this.

Image (http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0310e/A0310E07.jpg)

Take note of all the places with a population density 2 - 5 people per square km or less.

We will never run out of space.

You do release that all of the places with less then 6 people per Km2 are either Desert, Jungle or Tundra? They are places that can't sustain people of a large population. All of the worlds good agricultural land is already under cultivation, and around half of the worlds medium level agricultural land is under cultivation as well.

The fact is that we will run out of space to grow food, then we die of starvation.

[Perseus]

The fact is that we will run out of space to grow food, then we die of starvation.
That's where this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming) comes into play.

[Daniel_]

You do release that all of the places with less then 6 people per Km2 are either Desert, Jungle or Tundra? They are places that can't sustain people of a large population. All of the worlds good agricultural land is already under cultivation, and around half of the worlds medium level agricultural land is under cultivation as well.

The fact is that we will run out of space to grow food, then we die of starvation.

Thank you. -_-

[Peace God]

You do release that all of the places with less then 6 people per Km2 are either Desert, Jungle or Tundra?
I think you missed his point, most of those places are still habitable. I mean look at Canada.
Not to mention the fact that there's still a massive amount of space in normal climates too.

[Sogeking]

That's where this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming) comes into play.

Sounds to mouch of a hassle

[Daniel_]

I think you missed his point, most of those places are still habitable. I mean look at Canada.
Not to mention the fact that there's still a massive amount of space in normal climates too.

And how exactly, do you expect people to get sanitary food and water daily living in the middle of the Sahara desert?

[Sith Lord 13]

And how exactly, do you expect people to get sanitary food and water daily living in the middle of the Sahara desert?

Trucking and pipes.

[Daniel_]

Trucking and pipes.

Trucks need roads, not sand. Then, theres blinding sand storms, extreme heat, drought. The desert is bigger then the united states, so you will need a hell of a lot of pipes. Then theres all the venomous snakes, reptiles, spiders.

I'm just saying, if you lived there, you'd be fucked.

Now building cities over oceans. That would be something else. Quite an interesting concept, actually.