What do you think should be done about over population..Honestly.

[Wicked_Syn]

Ok, the world is becoming way too crowded with us pesty humans. And if we keep sexing, sexing, sexing, sexing. I am most sure SOMETHING WILL happen. I am not referencing to 2012, but I do believe something bad will happen further down the road. We need to be prepared.

As for regards to what you think we should do about the over pupulating, I DO NOT mean kill people. Like should there be some time of law or something? I think in China that You're only allowed one or two children. I know that it's changed. But we seriously need to start taking care of our planet and start thinking about the future of it. Here just listen to this. Lyrics say it all!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsYVHZFukzc

[Iceman]

I think that... I have seen this before.
http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=89264&highlight=Over+population

[Sogeking]

>implying we're overpopulated

Seriously, the populations is bound to curve the way it is heading now, there's no avoiding it.

[scuba steve]

Death to the developing world from WHO manufactured artificial diseases of course, duh.

[lengthy_brochure]

I have deleted the contents of this post

[Sage]

We could easily sustain a far greater population if we had more efficient sources of energy and a better way of distributing resources.

[UnknownError]

Stop all this benefit shit and make fat ass parents work.
No benefits = No more children (Can't afford.) = More work time (To get money.) = More resources (Made my workers.) = Better planet.
Better planet = Better job = More money = Able to pay for own children.

It works for everyone. In my eyes anyway. All that might seem like confusing garbage to everyone else.

[Sugaree]

If there is a god, they made cement blocks and blunt objects for a reason.

Seriously though, Sage brings up a good point. If we had more efficient energy sources and better distribution, we could sustain a larger population than we have now.

[Sage]

Overpopulation is more of an issue in the developing world anyway- First world countries like much of Europe, Canada, and Japan are actually experiencing a decline in population as people are waiting until they're older to have children. The United States would be be seeing this same decline if not for the large number of immigrants they receive every year to expand the workforce.

[Amnesiac]

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa197/ausisorg/world-population-chart.jpg

Wait it out.

[Limelight788]

The problem with overpopulation isn't with the amount of people in this planet, it has more to do with how it is distributed. We know that there are a lot more people in third-world countries because most of the population isn't informed about the benefits of having less children and having families at an older age, not to mention third-world countries economy are far less developed then lets say United States of America.

It's going to take awhile, but eventually, a population decrease globally will occur as more nations become developed enough.

[sam_rock1516]

i think its all part of nature ...God will do his thing cause over population theres really not much you can do..... just wait and hope for the best.... i agree with most of yeah... 3rd world countrys do have more people then us in the u.s. china alone has 9 million people in counting ....

[embers]

i think its all part of nature ...God will do his thing cause over population theres really not much you can do..... just wait and hope for the best....

yeah, cause God's gonna kill loads of his creations to keep the numbers down.

[Wicked_Syn]

3rd world countrys do have more people then us in the u.s. china alone has 9 billion people in counting ....

9 Billion people? Holy fuck!

[Perseus]

yeah, cause God's gonna kill loads of his creations to keep the numbers down.

Well, it's not like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah) it wouldn't be like Him to kill people. He seems to enjoy it.
china alone has 9 billion people in counting ....
9 Billion people? Holy fuck!

Lolwut?
>mfw

[Sage]

9 Billion people? Holy fuck!

Do you just... instantly believe anything that supports your initial claim? There aren't even 9 billion people on the entire planet.

[Wicked_Syn]

Do you just... instantly believe anything that supports your initial claim? There aren't even 9 billion people on the entire planet.

Um no I don't? IS there any reason..why you just like got all up in my case about that? I know that earth has about 7 billion people, so I'm not that stupid. k?

[Perseus]

Um no I don't?
It sure looks like you did.

[Amnesiac]

why you just like got all up in my case about that?

Because you're in the debate section.

Anyway, overpopulation is not something that can be solved, really. It's too large of an issue. It seems that the only option is to wait it out, as I stated before.

[sam_rock1516]

i ment to say 9 million or something .... look it up.... this is a poll about over population ... right??

[embers]

i ment to say 9 million or something ....

That itself would be a massive understatement.

[Wicked_Syn]

It sure looks like you did.

True..I didn't realize the numerical value of 9 billion, so that's why I choked that up.

[Sebastian Michaelis]

I believe we should secretly let all of our criminals slowly go to other countries and then after a few years of being a good person they murder ppl!!!! jk jk jk jk jk :P

Nah, but seriously there needs to be a law stating that only two children per family anywhere and adoption comes 1st b4 anyone has anymore kids. i know there needs to be more specification but that should be the base.

[scuba steve]

There are conspiracies that governments are already doing things to slow population growth in developing, overpopulated countries through the WHO (World Health Organisation). For example: Swine and Bird flu affecting mostly South-East Asian territories and the two diseases being artificially made. This of course is a conspiracy and bears little purpose in this thread... But it's a thought.

[Sage]

This of course is a conspiracy and bears little purpose in this thread... But it's a thought.

A thought with no credible and factual basis of any sort in reality. Next.

[scuba steve]

A thought with no credible and factual basis of any sort in reality. Next.

Great job of expanding on what i'd just said.

[Sage]

Great job of expanding on what i'd just said.

If you yourself know an idea has no substance, don't spread it.

[Iceman]

Not help the people that need it.

[suza23]

Actually as a world we aren't overpopulated if everyone stood shoulder to shoulder they could fit in the state of California. We are good at wasting land. But we aren't overpopulated

[Amnesiac]

Actually as a world we aren't overpopulated if everyone stood shoulder to shoulder they could fit in the state of California. We are good at wasting land. But we aren't overpopulated

Just because humans don't take up a lot of space physically doesn't mean we're not overpopulated. Global food shortages and the fact that only 10% of the population lives in developed nations are both good examples of how we are overpopulated.

[suza23]

Just because humans don't take up a lot of space physically doesn't mean we're not overpopulated. Global food shortages and the fact that only 10% of the population lives in developed nations are both good examples of how we are overpopulated.

Well it should be survival of the fittest.

When any other species is over populated the weak die.

If you say we are overpopulated lets do the same. You don't see ants trying to save the ant colony down the street because they are hungry.

[lengthy_brochure]

I have deleted the contents of this post

[Iceman]

This is an interesting argument. You are correct, you don't see ants saving the colony down the street. Humans, however would. I'm not saying that we shouldn't, just that we should realize this.

Did you fail to see the other post about this.

And the ants don't know about the others down the street.

[suza23]

Did you fail to see the other post about this.

And the ants don't know about the others down the street.

wow socko I didn't realize you were an ant expert

[Iceman]

Aren't you fucking hilarious.

It's common sense, maybe something your lacking?

[suza23]

[QUOTE=Socko;1199683]Aren't you fucking hilarious.

It's common sense, maybe something your lacking?[/QUOTE

Lol common sense really?

Considering you are wrong I wonder who is really lacking that thing you call common sense.

Ants do know there are others in existence and when one crosses into there territory they usually just kill it.

I'm sure you will be requesting a documented case because that's just how annoying you are so here you go http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Ants

[Iceman]

Aren't you fucking hilarious.

It's common sense, maybe something your lacking?[/QUOTE

Lol common sense really?

Considering you are wrong I wonder who is really lacking that thing you call common sense.

Ants do know there are others in existence and when one crosses into there territory they usually just kill it.

I'm sure you will be requesting a documented case because that's just how annoying you are so here you go http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Ants

You said down the street. Not in the same yard.
Oh and your quote failed.

[suza23]

You said down the street. Not in the same yard. Dumbass.

Oh and your quote failed.

Yeah down the street.

Ants travel far for food not just 20 feet like you do.

[Sage]

Grow up you two. If you have a point to make, make it, and if someone doesn't get it (either through lack of clarification or ineptitude) then just calmly reiterate. We're not debating the behavior of ants- let's not go down that tangent.

[Iceman]

Grow up you two. If you have a point to make, make it, and if someone doesn't get it (either through lack of clarification or ineptitude) then just calmly reiterate. We're not debating the behavior of ants- let's not go down that tangent.

It's not that I don't get the point. It's just I am making one.

[suza23]

Socko what point are you making? That you're a complete ass

[Iceman]

I ened the rudeness, I would like for you to do ditto.
I'm making the point that the weak shall perish, but your ant point was completely absurd. My street is about a good three-quarters of a mile long. Now the ants on my side will never, never, see the ants on the other side. So there is no way they know they exist.

[lengthy_brochure]

I have deleted the contents of this post

[Sage]

It's a metaphor. The point I was trying to make was that animals don't save each other, why do humans do that?

Animals do do that in their own groups- especially among primates, and I'm sure anyone knowledgeable on wildlife could bring up better examples than I can. Humans do this even more because our greater intellect allows us to contemplate things more deeply. We're aware of other people in the world, we're aware of so many things that make us different and that make us all the same. We help one another because when our basic needs are taken care of and we're not worried about our own survival, we can make the entire world and our own lives better across the board.

Also, that's not a metaphor: That's an analogy.

[Wicked_Syn]

There are conspiracies that governments are already doing things to slow population growth in developing, overpopulated countries through the WHO (World Health Organisation). For example: Swine and Bird flu affecting mostly South-East Asian territories and the two diseases being artificially made. This of course is a conspiracy and bears little purpose in this thread... But it's a thought.


I never ever thought of that..and quite honestly, it seems to make lots of sense.

[Sage]

I never ever thought of that..and quite honestly, it seems to make lots of sense.

No, it doesn't, because some of the most disease ridden countries in the world (like many African nations suffering an AIDS epidemic) are also seeing the largest population growth.

[scuba steve]

No, it doesn't, because some of the most disease ridden countries in the world (like many African nations suffering an AIDS epidemic) are also seeing the largest population growth.

There may be no evidence to prove it and it's most likely just a made up story. But honestly can you say you could wake up one morning and see this on the news and be all that surprised? I just find it to be an interesting thought, I know it's very unlikely.

Without AIDs however, you could say that these countries would just become even more so unstable.

[Cosmic]

My thoughts on the matter rest pretty readily on mathematics. Allow population to grow to whatever we deem supportable (though arguably we've surpassed that already in our current state, though I acknowledge Sage's point about efficient energy usage), and then, once we reach that plateau, we should create some level of ruling whereby the number of children per family is limited.

Does this have moral implications? Of course, but sometimes morals need to move aside to ensure the successful survival of mankind, lest morality become entirely worthless because there's no-one left to indulge in such morals due to over-population.

On the level of families, I would say it's perfectly fair to limit families at 2 children. They still get to engage in that instinctual parental role, and they still get to enjoy the benefits and joys of having a family. Two people make two children, which keeps them sustained. Naturally, many people will never have children, but this deficit is presumably made up for by unlawful third births, and also people that move between relationships and perhaps have additional children.

Obviously I'm just theorising here, and recognise that my numbers above are undoubtedly ill-conceived; but you get the general gist of my argument, I assume.

[Severus Snape]

A. Sterilization at birth (we're not that far removed from that, since we mutilate the genitals of newborn males without a second thought)

B. Nature takes its course (Humanity reaches the marginal number of hungry mouths and we starve off in x amount of numbers. Africa witnesses a massive die off as do parts of Asia and South America)

C. A massive war over dwindling resources which will kill off a substantial amount of the population

D. Bacteria/viruses finally mutate into a megastrain that kills off a substantial amount of the population

[Iceman]

We can bring






<-----
back to life.

[embers]

(we're not that far removed from that, since we mutilate the genitals of newborn males without a second thought)

I don't consider my genitals mutilated, thank you very fucking much.

[Severus Snape]

I don't consider my genitals mutilated, thank you very fucking much.

Good for you.

[scuba steve]

I don't consider my genitals mutilated, thank you very fucking much.

To anyone who was unaware of the tradition mutilation is what it would seem like, just saying.

[Perseus]

My thoughts on the matter rest pretty readily on mathematics. Allow population to grow to whatever we deem supportable (though arguably we've surpassed that already in our current state, though I acknowledge Sage's point about efficient energy usage), and then, once we reach that plateau, we should create some level of ruling whereby the number of children per family is limited.

Does this have moral implications? Of course, but sometimes morals need to move aside to ensure the successful survival of mankind, lest morality become entirely worthless because there's no-one left to indulge in such morals due to over-population.

On the level of families, I would say it's perfectly fair to limit families at 2 children. They still get to engage in that instinctual parental role, and they still get to enjoy the benefits and joys of having a family. Two people make two children, which keeps them sustained. Naturally, many people will never have children, but this deficit is presumably made up for by unlawful third births, and also people that move between relationships and perhaps have additional children.

Obviously I'm just theorising here, and recognise that my numbers above are undoubtedly ill-conceived; but you get the general gist of my argument, I assume.
That would be completely pointless since the Western world is having a decline in population, as illustrated by the demographic transition model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition#Stage_Four).

[embers]

Good for you.

You missed my point, which is quite hard to do considering it was screaming at you in the face. Circumcision doesn't cause infertility, and for you to imply that it is mutilation / a step forward in sterilisation is just incredibly stupid.

[Cosmic]

That would be completely pointless since the Western world is having a decline in population, as illustrated by the demographic transition model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition#Stage_Four).

I should have perhaps specified in my first post that I'm concerned with the world as a whole, and thus humanity as a whole, rather than individual nations. We can relocate people to the "Western world" if it becomes under-populated. The question is "what do we do with overpopulation?" (paraphrased, of course), not "are we overpopulated, or heading that way?".

[Perseus]

I should have perhaps specified in my first post that I'm concerned with the world as a whole, and thus humanity as a whole, rather than individual nations. We can relocate people to the "Western world" if it becomes under-populated. The question is "what do we do with overpopulation?" (paraphrased, of course), not "are we overpopulated, or heading that way?".

The only places that are becoming over populated (excluding China and India, where their family laws make perfect sense) are places we keep assisting. Such as, places in Africa that are barren and just death. The people there have sex without contraceptives and don't worry about how many children they have. Thus in turn, they add a lot to the population, a population of which is in distress because of unfortunate situations, but yet, people go there and "help" them, which makes matters worse because they have the will to survive, which means more babies. These places shouldn't have as many people as they do. I don't want to sound heartless, but we shouldn't help. Let natural selection occur to keep the population down low where the people can survive and prosper. Helping makes things worse, such as population. The Western world doesn't need your idea, because well, we're not the ones with population problems. We are declining, while the under-developed world is increasing.

[Kaya]

Teenagers should have to have some sort of birth control and no kids after a certain age unless you adopt. That sounds good enough for me.

[Cosmic]

The only places that are becoming over populated (excluding China and India, where their family laws make perfect sense) are places we keep assisting. Such as, places in Africa that are barren and just death. The people there have sex without contraceptives and don't worry about how many children they have. Thus in turn, they add a lot to the population, a population of which is in distress because of unfortunate situations, but yet, people go there and "help" them, which makes matters worse because they have the will to survive, which means more babies. These places shouldn't have as many people as they do. I don't want to sound heartless, but we shouldn't help. Let natural selection occur to keep the population down low where the people can survive and prosper. Helping makes things worse, such as population. The Western world doesn't need your idea, because well, we're not the ones with population problems. We are declining, while the under-developed world is increasing.

A lot of the over-population is also due to the "requirement" for families to have children in order to help support the family financially, a product of Capitalism and the market-based survival that is forced upon these countries. In fact, a lot of the reason these countries are in such a state is due to exploitation from the richer countries in the past, which has paved way to where we are now. Also, you'll note that one source in that article you linked to demonstrates that at even higher HDI levels, fertility levels begin to increase again (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/abs/nature08230.html).

Anyway, we digress slightly. So, your answer to over-population is effectively "strongest survive", where strongest refers to those most equipped to succeed within a Capitalist world... Is that correct?

Might I ask why it is okay for Americans to have so much land for a relatively modest population (comparatively), when there are other countries cram-packed? Surely, before allowing nations to exterminate themselves in a heartless act of neglect, we should perhaps try and use the space on our world efficiently, and work from there? Or would you argue that the country you are born into is enough to allow your survival or death, depending, of course, on where you are born? If so, why? What is it about being apart of the Western World that entitles us to survival?

Teenagers should have to have some sort of birth control and no kids after a certain age unless you adopt. That sounds good enough for me.

Why do they sound good enough to you? What about the moral implications of restricting the age you can have children, and why is it acceptable to interfere with people's fertility, particularly at an age deemed most healthy for giving birth (late teens, early 20s)?

[Perseus]

A lot of the over-population is also due to the "requirement" for families to have children in order to help support the family financially, a product of Capitalism and the market-based survival that is forced upon these countries. In fact, a lot of the reason these countries are in such a state is due to exploitation from the richer countries in the past, which has paved way to where we are now. Also, you'll note that one source in that article you linked to demonstrates that at even higher HDI levels, fertility levels begin to increase again (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/abs/nature08230.html).
I don't want to sound like a complete dumbass, but I don't get exactly what your article is stating. How does fertility rate increase again when more precautions are used and people want smaller families? It doesn't sound right to me.

Anyway, we digress slightly. So, your answer to over-population is effectively "strongest survive", where strongest refers to those most equipped to succeed within a Capitalist world... Is that correct?
Is it capitalist in small villages? This is what I'm talking about. Not cities.
Might I ask why it is okay for Americans to have so much land for a relatively modest population (comparatively), when there are other countries cram-packed? Surely, before allowing nations to exterminate themselves in a heartless act of neglect, we should perhaps try and use the space on our world efficiently, and work from there? Or would you argue that the country you are born into is enough to allow your survival or death, depending, of course, on where you are born? If so, why? What is it about being apart of the Western World that entitles us to survival?
I don't know why it is. It has just happened. You know the answer to your question. And you can't just ship people around the world. If anything, that can make things worse. Their culture and language can hamper them when they're in a new setting. Just let the population thing itself. I don't know what makes it okay for mother nature to do it animals but not humans. Sure, we are conscious, but like someone said somewhere (I believe it was you), but we need to let morality stay out of the picture for some things. God, I sound evil.

[Cosmic]

I don't want to sound like a complete dumbass, but I don't get exactly what your article is stating. How does fertility rate increase again when more precautions are used and people want smaller families? It doesn't sound right to me.

The article I linked you to is just an abstract, a summary if you like, of the study. Presumably the reason for an increase in fertility at high levels of HDI is due to the quality of life allowing for more focus on the family, for whatever reason. Though not explicitly stated in the abstract (which would be an inappropriate place to put results), we can infer a few causes at high standards of living which might result in higher birth rates, or equally, lower death rates (subsequently increasing the number of concurrently living people).

Is it capitalist in small villages? This is what I'm talking about. Not cities.

They are small villages, and poor people, because of a Capitalist environment. I'm not sure why their status as a village makes them more ready for disposal though - in fact, surely, if they're a village, then there is still room for expansion, thus arguably, they have a right to survival because they have the room to survival.

That's perhaps a woolly argument, but I would argue no-more-so than suggesting that stopping aid would fix population issues.

I don't know why it is. It has just happened. You know the answer to your question. And you can't just ship people around the world. If anything, that can make things worse. Their culture and language can hamper them when they're in a new setting. Just let the population thing itself. I don't know what makes it okay for mother nature to do it animals but not humans. Sure, we are conscious, but like someone said somewhere (I believe it was you), but we need to let morality stay out of the picture for some things. God, I sound evil.

I fear we're still on slightly different lines of argument. I'm arguing for what I think should be the case; what would be the best way to handle over-population. Should Americans, and other similar nations, have access to more-than-necessary (whatever necessary is) land? Why?

I would argue not, because I would argue human life is more important than a big garden. Of course, there has to be boundaries, and we need room for nature in order to sustain life, but equally, there are excessive levels of land ownership which I would argue need to be addressed before we take more drastic measures of simply allowing nations to kill themselves off if they're unsustainable.

Country boundaries are arbitrarily placed lines on a map which encourage nothing more than in-group, out-group mentality. I would argue that that is simply an awful excuse for suggesting that we go laissez-faire on our approach to mankind's future as a whole. It is not purely nature that has put the world in the position it is in now; and thus it should not be nature to get us out of that (and it wouldn't be nature, anyway, it would be mankind). I don't like the moral implications that involves...

It is impossible to abstain from morality of some description. Work by Gottman as well as neuroscience as demonstrated that all processes have to engage within the amygdala before reaching the part of the brain capable of logic and critical thought. The amygdala is where we process emotions, although they are our more intrinsic, automatic emotions, more-so than our advanced ones. Regardless, bottom line is that morality is an inevitable part of action.

And yes, you are an evil bastard.

[Daniel_]

The United States would be be seeing this same decline if not for the large number of immigrants they receive every year to expand the workforce.


Expand? More like steal every fucking job..... It's killer to find a job these days. At least where i live, in the detroit-ish area.

[Cosmic]

Expand? More like steal every fucking job..... It's killer to find a job these days. At least where i live, in the detroit-ish area.

Check this article (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2051037/economic_theory_advantages_and_disadvantages.html?cat=3) out - a surplus of labour is not always a bad thing (within Capitalism, that is), and actually has quite some advantages. The article concludes it is, in fact, a "necessary evil", and so long as we remain within the domain of capitalism, I'd have to agree.

[Daniel_]

Check this article (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2051037/economic_theory_advantages_and_disadvantages.html?cat=3) out - a surplus of labour is not always a bad thing (within Capitalism, that is), and actually has quite some advantages. The article concludes it is, in fact, a "necessary evil", and so long as we remain within the domain of capitalism, I'd have to agree.

To an extent, yes, but to much of anything is bad-- and there is way to much.

[Kaya]

I also think that we should not try to...revive everyone who has died. I mean, I'm glad that we pulled the oxygen from my brother because he didn't suffer. and we -1 from the population, thus helping it.

Of course, I regret them not trying to save him...but in the end it was for the better.

[Iceman]

Not to be rude or anything, but reviving the dying will not do much of anything about over population.

[Daniel_]

I also believe that when you become so old as to where you sit around shitting and pissing in your grown-up diapers, and young nurses have to feed you and bathe you every day, sorry bud, it's time for you to go.



They should just turn nursing homes into shooting ranges.

No offence to anyone with family in a nursing home.

[Sage]

They should just turn nursing homes into shooting ranges.

You don't strike me as the type what would be able to say that to a senior citizen with a straight face, Daniel. Do try to think before you say something stupid.

[Iceman]

I also believe that when you become so old as to where you sit around shitting and pissing in your grown-up diapers, and young nurses have to feed you and bathe you every day, sorry bud, it's time for you to go.



They should just turn nursing homes into shooting ranges.

No offence to anyone with family in a nursing home.

A fucking shooting range. If you said that to a veteran, I am willing to bet, he would beat the hell out of you.

[Daniel_]

You don't strike me as the type what would be able to say that to a senior citizen with a straight face, Daniel. Do try to think before you say something stupid.

How can you stick me to a type, when you don't even know me? Sure, we have had some discussions in a few posts, but you don't really know me. Like, know me, so please don't simply stick me to a certain 'type' unless you actually know me.

That being said, i was not being literal. Not at all, as I said no offence. I mean, once people are to the age where they can't care for themselves, and can't keep themselves alive on their own, aside maybe certain emergencies, or perhaps needing assistance in activities such as purchasing food from the market, either family can care for them, or i guess their out of luck.

Or maybe that wasn't quite clear still, I guess to sum it up i mean to say once a person is not in their right mind, (i.e - can't make decisions for themselves, can't feed themselves, can't use the restroom by themselves, can't bathe themselves), whats the point of keeping them alive? All it's doing is sucking up tax payers money to keep them alive in nursing homes, and to add to this statement, i'd say that I would personally rather die then need some nurse wiping my ass for me 24/7.

Again, I truly am sorry if you are appalled with what I said, and I hope that clears things up. Again, as I said, it wasn't literal. Not one bit, just a figure of speech I suppose you could say.



A fucking shooting range. If you said that to a veteran, I am willing to bet, he would beat the hell out of you.

Again, not at all what I meant.

[Iceman]

It actually doesn't waste tax money. And if they're in that point they will die soon anyways, so just let them die naturally. And that is such a small portion of the world to actually make a dent in helping over population.

[Sage]

How can you stick me to a type, when you don't even know me? Sure, we have had some discussions in a few posts, but you don't really know me. Like, know me, so please don't simply stick me to a certain 'type' unless you actually know me.

That being said, i was not being literal. Not at all, as I said no offence. I mean, once people are to the age where they can't care for themselves, and can't keep themselves alive on their own, aside maybe certain emergencies, or perhaps needing assistance in activities such as purchasing food from the market, either family can care for them, or i guess their out of luck.

Or maybe that wasn't quite clear still, I guess to sum it up i mean to say once a person is not in their right mind, (i.e - can't make decisions for themselves, can't feed themselves, can't use the restroom by themselves, can't bathe themselves), whats the point of keeping them alive? All it's doing is sucking up tax payers money to keep them alive in nursing homes, and to add to this statement, i'd say that I would personally rather die then need some nurse wiping my ass for me 24/7.

Again, I truly am sorry if you are appalled with what I said, and I hope that clears things up. Again, as I said, it wasn't literal. Not one bit, just a figure of speech I suppose you could say.

tl;dr: "No offense, but anyone over a certain age who needs medical attention should be murdered."

[Daniel_]

It actually doesn't waste tax money. And if they're in that point they will die soon anyways, so just let them die naturally. And that is such a small portion of the world to actually make a dent in helping over population.

When people are unemployed, they will be allowed to keep their family members in nursing homes at the expense of the governments, insurance companies, etc.

Not always, not always at all, but it's a good enough chance that quite a lot of people get accepted. It's kind of like Social Security, i guess.


tl;dr: "No offense, but anyone over a certain age who needs medical attention should be murdered."
Thats not what i mean at all. Not murdered, die on their own. They shouldn't be kept alive past their use, if it's their time to go let them go, don't do everything in your power to keep them alive if they're 94 years old. Like I said, if you can't wipe your own ass, maybe you should realize it's about time to kick the bucket. Theres not a nice way to say it, so i just will. However you wouldn't even be able to, because I'm talking about being so old your not in your right mind, i.e, you can't hardly think or make decisions of your own at all.

For example, my friends great grandmother is god knows how old, i don't know but I know it's like 92 or something. She does absolutely nothing, she just sits and stares. I was over his house once and said hello to her when i first met her, and it was as if she couldn't even comprehend that someone was even talking to her. It's as if shes just a shell, not even thinking.

[Iceman]

That is like .000001% of the world's population. It won't do anything to help overpopulation, so why kill them?

[Daniel_]

That is like .000001% of the world's population. It won't do anything to help overpopulation, so why kill them?

Good god, i've said this how many times? I did NOT mean KILL them. And trust me, it's quite a hefty amount more than .000001%.

[Perseus]

The article I linked you to is just an abstract, a summary if you like, of the study. Presumably the reason for an increase in fertility at high levels of HDI is due to the quality of life allowing for more focus on the family, for whatever reason. Though not explicitly stated in the abstract (which would be an inappropriate place to put results), we can infer a few causes at high standards of living which might result in higher birth rates, or equally, lower death rates (subsequently increasing the number of concurrently living people). If more women are in the workforce, like they are now, there is likely for a rise in fertility rate. Why? Because no one wants to take care of twelve children while they are working nine to five jobs. And they can't financially support it. Reason why the Western world has lower fertility rate. We don't need many children anymore.



They are small villages, and poor people, because of a Capitalist environment. I'm not sure why their status as a village makes them more ready for disposal though - in fact, surely, if they're a village, then there is still room for expansion, thus arguably, they have a right to survival because they have the room to survival.

That's perhaps a woolly argument, but I would argue no-more-so than suggesting that stopping aid would fix population issues.
You obviously don't see my point. The villages are where these problems occur. Because in a lot of places, such as the Sahel, there are a lack of resources and such, which makes the village poor, though they still produce a lot of babies and are supported by American charities. And I have no idea what capitalism has to do with all of this.



I fear we're still on slightly different lines of argument. I'm arguing for what I think should be the case; what would be the best way to handle over-population. Should Americans, and other similar nations, have access to more-than-necessary (whatever necessary is) land? Why? You do realize places such as Africa have plenty of land, since it is one giant continent? Europe used to over crowded because of the size of it and Africa was completely fine because it is so large. There is plenty of unused land because of wars that are going on because of intolerance and greed. This was caused by the Europeans, not capitalism.

I would argue not, because I would argue human life is more important than a big garden. Of course, there has to be boundaries, and we need room for nature in order to sustain life, but equally, there are excessive levels of land ownership which I would argue need to be addressed before we take more drastic measures of simply allowing nations to kill themselves off if they're unsustainable. They're not killing themselves off. It's natural selection. The strong will survive. It's not killing off. I don't like death as much as the next guy, but for stable population and better environments to occur, things like this need to happen.

Country boundaries are arbitrarily placed lines on a map which encourage nothing more than in-group, out-group mentality. I would argue that that is simply an awful excuse for suggesting that we go laissez-faire on our approach to mankind's future as a whole. It is not purely nature that has put the world in the position it is in now; and thus it should not be nature to get us out of that (and it wouldn't be nature, anyway, it would be mankind). I don't like the moral implications that involves... I agree, but we are part of nature, so natural selection for this kind of things make sense, but it's obviously not the best solution because I'm sure there are better, though they cost a lot of money we don't have.

It is impossible to abstain from morality of some description. Work by Gottman as well as neuroscience as demonstrated that all processes have to engage within the amygdala before reaching the part of the brain capable of logic and critical thought. The amygdala is where we process emotions, although they are our more intrinsic, automatic emotions, more-so than our advanced ones. Regardless, bottom line is that morality is an inevitable part of action. Of course. We are social creatures.

And yes, you are an evil bastard.
I'm such an evil liberal atheist without any morals. :rolleyes:

How can you stick me to a type, when you don't even know me? Sure, we have had some discussions in a few posts, but you don't really know me. Like, know me, so please don't simply stick me to a certain 'type' unless you actually know me.

That being said, i was not being literal. Not at all, as I said no offence. I mean, once people are to the age where they can't care for themselves, and can't keep themselves alive on their own, aside maybe certain emergencies, or perhaps needing assistance in activities such as purchasing food from the market, either family can care for them, or i guess their out of luck.

Or maybe that wasn't quite clear still, I guess to sum it up i mean to say once a person is not in their right mind, (i.e - can't make decisions for themselves, can't feed themselves, can't use the restroom by themselves, can't bathe themselves), whats the point of keeping them alive? All it's doing is sucking up tax payers money to keep them alive in nursing homes, and to add to this statement, i'd say that I would personally rather die then need some nurse wiping my ass for me 24/7.

Again, I truly am sorry if you are appalled with what I said, and I hope that clears things up. Again, as I said, it wasn't literal. Not one bit, just a figure of speech I suppose you could say.





Again, not at all what I meant.
Well, goddamn. Why not just kill all the old people! I mean, people living is such a waste of taxpayer money, and they should just go away! Them living is so inconsiderate!

[Sogeking]

Daniel, with that logic, you're saying that we should get rid of(and by get rid of I don't necessarily mean kill) the people that can't take care of themselves. People who are born with physical and psychological disorders. I mean you wouldn't want to go to a group of special ed kids and say "You all are better off dead", would you?

[Severus Snape]

You missed my point, which is quite hard to do considering it was screaming at you in the face. Circumcision doesn't cause infertility, and for you to imply that it is mutilation / a step forward in sterilisation is just incredibly stupid.

African tribes taking machetes and removing the clitoris of young girls doesn't make them infertile, but it is disfiguring their vaginas. Genital mutilation has nothing to do with fertility, but physically altering the genitals in a disgusting way using sharp objects is. So, actually, no. You just feel offended for no adequately explained reason and jumped to utterly ridiculous conclusions.

Hell, I could undergo a surgical procedure to make myself sterile and my penis would look pretty normal.

[Iceman]

sorry bud, it's time for you to go.

They should just turn nursing homes into shooting ranges.



Well your certainly not giving them a back massage.

Sounds like you ARE saying to kill them

But I didn't read the massive rambles, so you could have said i
in there.
And I doubt it makes up more than .001% of the population.

Senior citizens are about 15% of the worlds population. 17% of those live in nursing homes. And some in nursing homes can walk, and do everything on their own.

[Sage]

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that maybe, according to the facts, western/industrialized nations actually aren't facing overpopulation? Is it so crazy to think that maybe before we go off debating the ethics of age-based or medicinal genocide, we give some tiny consideration to the idea that maybe we can support a lot more people if we make some simple changes? I mean, am I so unreasonable for suggesting that maybe in the first world, where we have the means to make a difference, we should try to? You know, instead of killing eachother?

I am shocked and appalled by how reactionary and drastic a lot of you are being.

[Daniel_]

Daniel, with that logic, you're saying that we should get rid of(and by get rid of I don't necessarily mean kill) the people that can't take care of themselves. People who are born with physical and psychological disorders. I mean you wouldn't want to go to a group of special ed kids and say "You all are better off dead", would you?

1. I didn't mean get rid of the people, for the thousandth time, i said get rid of nursing homes. Let family take care of the elderly.

2. Who the fuck said anything about kids with disorders? You just pulled that out of your ass, I didn't say anything about that at all. I'm talking about people who have lived for 90+ years, not kids with disabilities. Stop changing the subject to favor your side of the argument.




Well your certainly not giving them a back massage.

Sounds like you ARE saying to kill them

But I didn't read the massive rambles, so you could have said i
in there.
And I doubt it makes up more than .001% of the population.

Senior citizens are about 15% of the worlds population. 17% of those live in nursing homes. And some in nursing homes can walk, and do everything on their own.

1. If you have read the "Massive rambles", you would realize I DIDN'T say that.

2. Why try arguing a point if you don't even read my posts?

[Iceman]

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that maybe, according to the facts, western/industrialized nations actually aren't facing overpopulation? Is it so crazy to think that maybe before we go off debating the ethics of age-based or medicinal genocide, we give some tiny consideration to the idea that maybe we can support a lot more people if we make some simple changes? I mean, am I so unreasonable for suggesting that maybe in the first world, where we have the means to make a difference, we should try to? You know, instead of killing eachother?

I am shocked and appalled by how reactionary and drastic a lot of you are being.

It's completely reasonable, and in fact I beleive we can support more life if we did some simple changes, and/or, found new ways of doing things. I just figured that we are accepting the "fact" that it is happening.

[Daniel_]

Is it happening now? No.

Will it happen? Yes. It is inevitable, however things should balance themselves out. Should, but anything can happen. For all we know, some disease could wipe out half the population, and the world will end up being underpopulated. You just never know.

[Iceman]

If it's inevitable, then it's happening now.

[Daniel_]

If it's inevitable, then it's happening now.

Inevitable
–adjective
1.
unable to be avoided, evaded, or escaped; certain; necessary: an inevitable conclusion.
2.
sure to occur, happen, or come; unalterable: The inevitable end of human life is death.


It's going to happen, not it's happening. You are wrong.

[Iceman]

The population increase now, will help it happen in the future. So therefore, it is happening now. And if it wasn't then we wouldn't be ^ population.

[Perseus]

Is it happening now? No.

Will it happen? Yes. It is inevitable, however things should balance themselves out. Should, but anything can happen. For all we know, some disease could wipe out half the population, and the world will end up being underpopulated. You just never know.

No, it's not. A lot of countries have declining populations. What part of this do you not understand?

[Daniel_]

The population increase now, will help it happen in the future. So therefore, it is happening now. And if it wasn't then we wouldn't be ^ population.

Oh my god, use common sense. Clearly I meant it's not over populated not, but it will be. Sorry if i confused you.

[Iceman]

Oh my god, use common sense. Clearly I meant it's not over populated not, but it will be. Sorry if i confused you.

Well if our population stayed the same, our resources would still end up depleting, unless we make changes, as Sage suggested.

[Daniel_]

Well if our population stayed the same, our resources would still end up depleting, unless we make changes, as Sage suggested.

I wasn't talking about recourses.......................................................

[Iceman]

If were not talking about resources, than over populatioin will not happen for a while.
We have plenty of space, it's just resources we lack.

So if we're not talking about resources, than over population won't happen anytime soon.

[Daniel_]

If were not talking about resources, than over populatioin will not happen for a while.
We have plenty of space, it's just resources we lack.

So if we're not talking about resources, than over population won't happen anytime soon.

Ummmmmmmmmm....................... No?

[embers]

African tribes taking machetes and removing the clitoris of young girls doesn't make them infertile, but it is disfiguring their vaginas. Genital mutilation has nothing to do with fertility, but physically altering the genitals in a disgusting way using sharp objects is. So, actually, no. You just feel offended for no adequately explained reason and jumped to utterly ridiculous conclusions.

Hell, I could undergo a surgical procedure to make myself sterile and my penis would look pretty normal.

Well, you were generalising circumcision (or that was the impression I received), which made me forget for a moment the instances where the circumcision isn't surgical or done properly. (And vaginal 'mutilation' isn't really circumcision, to be honest, but I do get your point.)

[Nevermore]

For overpopulation kill the masses!!!

In all seriousness, I say put laws one how many kids you can have, if it becomes an issue.

[Iceman]

Ummmmmmmmmm....................... No?

You really think we're running out of space.
http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/3861701/Fo-Real-.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Antoine-Dodson

[Daniel_]

You really think we're running out of space.
image (http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/3861701/Fo-Real-.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Antoine-Dodson)

Now? No.

In the distant future, if the worlds population, by some miracle, keeps expanding the way it is, then yes.

[scuba steve]

Now? No.

In the distant future, if the worlds population, by some miracle, keeps expanding the way it is, then yes.

Isn't that what AIDs and Malaria is for though? Call me heartless but without diseases like this then those countries in the developing worlds populations would be expanding even more so into developed countries. So hide yo' kids, n hide yo' wife, cus they climbin' in your windows and snatchin' yo' people up!

[Iceman]

Right now it's projected to be 9.1 billion by 2050.

[Daniel_]

Right now it's projected to be 9.1 billion by 2050.

They've also predicted that by 2050 humans will have to repopulate another planet in order to survive, unless we stop living the way we are. Lets see what happens.

[Iceman]

Ha, they must have been drunk to say that.
It's not possible for us to reporduce that much, to have to find another planet.

[Sage]

Right now it's projected to be 9.1 billion by 2050.

They've also predicted that by 2050 humans will have to repopulate another planet in order to survive, unless we stop living the way we are. Lets see what happens.

Include sources or your points are moot.

[Iceman]

http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm (http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm)
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.php (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.php)
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=11 (http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=11)

All of them say 9 million to 9.3 million, still not enough to have to inhabit another planet.

[Daniel_]

Ha, they must have been drunk to say that.
It's not possible for us to reporduce that much, to have to find another planet.

It is completely possible for one, and two not for space, for lack of resources, which has been mentioned before. And have to be drunk? Not at all. With the combination of failing distribution of supplies, deforestation, pollution, etc etc. It is perfectly reasonable to make that prediction.

Include sources or your points are moot.

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

It's a large article, but search for it. It's there, straight from the UK, and not shitty-america.



All of them say 9 million to 9.3 million, still not enough to have to inhabit another planet.

Again, completely missing the point.

[Iceman]

That's odd your article is explaining how we will run out of resources.

[Daniel_]

That's odd your article is explaining how we will run out of resources.

Which is exactly what I said.

[Iceman]

I wasn't talking about recourses.......................................................

Ummmmmmmmmm....................... No?

Now? No.


Oh that's what you said?

I think that is what I said, and you disagreed. Hmm?...

[Daniel_]

Oh that's what you said?

I think that is what I said, and you disagreed. Hmm?...

Good lord. Read my post where I posted the article, please. Sorry if it's a little lengthy, but i'm sure you will find that it explains quite a bit.

I wasn't talking about it then, and never once have I stated that i disagreed. Of course I agree, it's true, you hear about it every day.

[Iceman]

I'm done with this, you say this, then you say you didn't, it's really pointless for me to continue.

Here is the ending though:

The Earth will end up running out of resources, not running out of space. However, as suggested by Sage, we can make slight changes which will change that. There is no need to inhabit another planet. That article is 9 years old, and mine are newer, and one is a government source. If we needed another planet, we would not be canceling NASA budgets the way we are. So, basically we are not going to overload the Earth for some time.

[Daniel_]

I'm done with this, you say this, then you say you didn't, it's really pointless for me to continue.

Here is the ending though:

The Earth will end up running out of resources, not running out of space. However, as suggested by Sage, we can make slight changes which will change that. There is no need to inhabit another planet. That article is 9 years old, and mine are newer, and one is a government source. If we needed another planet, we would not be canceling NASA budgets the way we are. So, basically we are not going to overload the Earth for some time.

Do you not understand the inhabiting another planet is not possible? And that it actually stated that in the article?

I think I see the flaw in your argument, however.

You judge over population solely on the space the human species as a whole takes up. Sure, our numbers might not be to great for the earth, however when we find ourselves lacking resources by means of human error or otherwise, you are experiencing over population, for if the size of the population was in a good range, you would not experience a lack of resources. True, there are changes that can be made to spread resources with better care and see to more resources getting to more people, however, clearly those changes haven't been made, and until those decisions have been made, there are not enough resources needed to survive to go around to everyone on the planet, hence there are to many people(Over population), and there currently is no plan that is being set in motion to get resources to those who need them.

[gingeylover14]

i dont think this is r biggest porblem but effects all the other problems we have which we meed 2 focuse on first

[Cosmic]

Do you not understand the inhabiting another planet is not possible? And that it actually stated that in the article?

I think I see the flaw in your argument, however.

You judge over population solely on the space the human species as a whole takes up. Sure, our numbers might not be to great for the earth, however when we find ourselves lacking resources by means of human error or otherwise, you are experiencing over population, for if the size of the population was in a good range, you would not experience a lack of resources. True, there are changes that can be made to spread resources with better care and see to more resources getting to more people, however, clearly those changes haven't been made, and until those decisions have been made, there are not enough resources needed to survive to go around to everyone on the planet, hence there are to many people(Over population), and there currently is no plan that is being set in motion to get resources to those who need them.

I'm not too sure why you guys are arguing about whether over-population is happening, or due to happen... that wasn't the question. We're meant to be discussing what should be done about overpopulation, not whether or not overpopulation exists.

i dont think this is r biggest porblem but effects all the other problems we have which we meed 2 focuse on first

Again, rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand... But your logic seems flawed to me. You say that overpopulation is not the biggest of our worries, fair enough, but you then say it effects all of our other problems... You then claim that from that, we can deduce that dealing with the other problems is more important - how does that work?

Surely the argument should be (and we're going to assume for a second that your argument that overpopulation effects all other problem is a correct argument, which I would hazard to say it isn't):

-There are many problems in the world.
-Overpopulation negatively effects all of these problems.
-Therefore, ending overpopulation should have a positive effect on the "many problems".

Anyway, your logic is flawed, your argument is unjustified and incredibly presumptuous, and you're off topic.

[Sogeking]

1. I didn't mean get rid of the people, for the thousandth time, i said get rid of nursing homes. Let family take care of the elderly.

2. Who the fuck said anything about kids with disorders? You just pulled that out of your ass, I didn't say anything about that at all. I'm talking about people who have lived for 90+ years, not kids with disabilities. Stop changing the subject to favor your side of the argument.


Geese, calm down . It was a small fact I overlooked because I was in a hurry. I said that because getting rid of only the elderly wouldn't have made sense.

[MariettaNate1995]

The earth can support a lot more human population than most of the overpopulationist crowd says. However, this higher level of support would cause mass extinctions of many animal species because of the increased need for farmland.

Historical population control will probably come in and adjust the world's population within the next 50 years. So either there will be pandemic disease breakouts or WW3. Remember the Black Death depopulated Europe by more than half.

[scuba steve]

Remember the Black Death depopulated Europe by more than half.

Remember, the average man isn't as unhygienic as to be an oriental flea carrier.

[Sugaree]

Remember the Black Death depopulated Europe by more than half.

Back in the time of the Black Death, hygiene wasn't a large issue as it is today. To contract Bubonic Plague now would take a considerable amount of uncleanliness.

[MykeSoBe]

I was just bout to start a thread on this issue.

I have always said to myself, "Can't some people just die off, as unfortunate as that may sound?" But then I realize that I'd have to be willing to die off myself, so I then retract my opinion. (This does sound very unchristian of me, sorry. It's just a random thought of mine.)

The earth can support a lot more human population than most of the overpopulationist crowd says. However, this higher level of support would cause mass extinctions of many animal species because of the increased need for farmland.

Historical population control will probably come in and adjust the world's population within the next 50 years. So either there will be pandemic disease breakouts or WW3. Remember the Black Death depopulated Europe by more than half.Very radical thought indeed, but unfortunately such is not at all impossible. That's why I don't support the Roman Catholic Church every step of the way, especially concerning contraception! (I'm against abortion though.)

[maestro15]

Im quite optimistic about this.
I do find the potential capabilities for this planet to accept overpopulation. The only issue is that man does not know how to properly distribute. you see, we are able to fit 7 Billion people in an area the size of Los Angeles county.

If we follow Webber's Central Place theory, i think we would succeed more. Furthermore, if we are to use cleaner and better technology down the road, overpopulation COULD BE HANDLED.

I could be wrong----

[Limelight788]

http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm (http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm)
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.php (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.php)
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=11 (http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=11)Something I've just noticed in here. The population is increasing, but the rate of increase is going down. That means that nature is already taking the problem into it's own hand and everyone will see it visibly by 2100 when population starts to go down (2100 is just a prediction). Almost none of us will live to see it, but it will happen.

By then, many developing nations will have been fully developed as said before, I don't see a catastrophic effect causing this. We've been though so many of these and yet none of us has made a significant dent on our population (Any decline was relatively slight if any).
Historical population control will probably come in and adjust the world's population within the next 50 years. So either there will be pandemic disease breakouts or WW3. Remember the Black Death depopulated Europe by more than half.I have yet to see a recent pandemic disease or a war take a significant toll on our population. If World War Two didn't totally decimate the world's population, neither will World War III. The world will rebuild itself from the war, however long that may take.

[Happz]

Humans will destroy the planet soon enough ;]. Over population solved!

But honestly, if we continue the trends of how population is increasing each year, we should slowely start to see recourses deminish, thus causeing population to decrease. It's really a cycle that can't be avoided unless something REALLY big gets involved. (2012 anyone? o.o) Just my 2 cents =P

[Sage]

But honestly, if we continue the trends of how population is increasing each year

It isn't- not everywhere. Populations are mostly increasing at an out-of-control rate in the third world, and if history shows us anything, it's that these populations are either going to industrialize and modernize their countries which in turn will stabilize the birth rate, or they're going to fail and largely kill themselves off. It isn't something to worry about.

[Spook]

Yeah...I think we should have a child birth limit, but no limit to adoption, so people will be more willing to adopt then have children. :D

[Peacehippie666]

Humans will destroy the planet soon enough ;].
Unfortunately, that's true. For now, though, they should put a limit of two children per couple, unless more than two children are produced at the same time.

[Continuum]

Unfortunately, that's true. For now, though, they should put a limit of two children per couple, unless more than two children are produced at the same time.

What about Triplets? Quadruplets? Anynumbermorethanfour-lets? What do we do with them? Unfortunately, any attempts for Nazi Eugenics cannot be done.

It isn't- not everywhere. Populations are mostly increasing at an out-of-control rate in the third world, and if history shows us anything, it's that these populations are either going to industrialize and modernize their countries which in turn will stabilize the birth rate, or they're going to fail and largely kill themselves off. It isn't something to worry about.

It's already happening in Africa. AIDS is already making the population dwindle in large quantities, and once I thought it was a conspiracy to depopulate the badly conditioned continent of Africa.

[Perseus]

Unfortunately, that's true. For now, though, they should put a limit of two children per couple, unless more than two children are produced at the same time.

America and most of the Western World are not over populated. What part of this do you guys not get? No sense in putting child limits on countries that are having population declines.

[embers]

What about Triplets? Quadruplets? Anynumbermorethanfour-lets? What do we do with them? Unfortunately, any attempts for Nazi Eugenics cannot be done.

Unfortunately, that's true. For now, though, they should put a limit of two children per couple, unless more than two children are produced at the same time.

...yeah.