[dsenette]

There are many people speculating that we are on our way to over population and that there's no turning back. Is this true? or is it mallarkey?

Economists have stated that for an economy to survive the birth rate must stay somewhere around 1.5 to 2 children per family otherwise the mortality rate isn't compensated for. therefore leaving an overworked population of young people to take up the slack of the retiring and dying elderly population.

at the same time, environmentalists say that this rate of growth poses problems to the environment, the worlds food supply, and the amount of physical space left for expansion.

some helpfull knowledge can be founde at http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/ to help you in your discussion

[Advertisements]

I tend to side with the environmentalists (for once) on this. I am not really confident in an economists view on infant mortality.

I think the main problem isnt with the people having 1-2 children, if everyone did that, we would have a balanced population, thats fine. The problem I have is with the folks with more than 2 kids. I understand that in parts of the world, this is considered a good thing, but in reality, for the sake of the planet, its not good at all.

As for the rest of your question, is there a way to turn back, yes. But it wont be easy and many people wont like it. For now, we need to limit the number of children per woman to 2. Worldwide. The reason I didnt say couple is because of the high divorce rate.

This may accomplish a number of things. First, it might entice folks to keep it in their pants until they are sure they are serious about their partner. Second, it would lower the population after awhile, which needs to be done.

Just some ideas to get things started.

ScHwErV

[ScHwErV]

I tend to side with the environmentalists (for once) on this. I am not really confident in an economists view on infant mortality.

I think the main problem isnt with the people having 1-2 children, if everyone did that, we would have a balanced population, thats fine. The problem I have is with the folks with more than 2 kids. I understand that in parts of the world, this is considered a good thing, but in reality, for the sake of the planet, its not good at all.

As for the rest of your question, is there a way to turn back, yes. But it wont be easy and many people wont like it. For now, we need to limit the number of children per woman to 2. Worldwide. The reason I didnt say couple is because of the high divorce rate.

This may accomplish a number of things. First, it might entice folks to keep it in their pants until they are sure they are serious about their partner. Second, it would lower the population after awhile, which needs to be done.

Just some ideas to get things started.

ScHwErV

[dsenette]

ok....so if you limit the birth rate...(wich i would assume would have to be done by government mandate)....don't you suppose you would see an increase of the actions taken by the chinese where the birthrate is already limited to two children per family? you get pregnant...you find out if it's a boy or a girl...if it's a girl..you abort no matter what? that way you can preserve the bloodline?

[ScHwErV]

Whats the alternative? A world where we dont have any farm fields and everyone lives in sky scrapers?

ScHwErV

[dsenette]

stop offering health care to the elderly? stop trying to fight nature by extending the average life expectancy?....the only time's in history where the human population was any where near "balanced" (based on growth and mortality) was when our life expectancy was somewhere around 38 and we had like 17 kids per family.....the ballance needs to be found between people dying and people being born....wich is suggested at around 2 kids per....but....legally limiting this will cause HUGE issues....people genetically manufacturing babies so that they only have the kids they want...since they can only have 2...or like the chinese....doing away with the children that don't fit the desire...

the most valuable sollution that i have seen yet proposed is to start breeding smaller people (sounds very stupid but..) because then we will take up less space

[warriorscot]

In some countries though a greater number of children is needed. most pf europe is in the situation where our population is shrinking and its causing us all sorts of bother, yet on these matters people are desinged to be selfish its all fine and dandy saying not have any more than two, but in the western world we can have as many children as we want or need and can support it as we have the complete monoply over the worlds resources, what we need we can and more than likely will take evetually.

[dsenette]

i'm glad you joined us warriorscot....i was thinking this would be a 2 person thread....

that's the issue...it's not total population...but the distrobution there of

a good 35 to 40 percent of the planet is unpopulated...granted they are hostile environments...like desrerts and antarctica....but we could make those areas livable with the right technology.....there are also many portions of south america and africa that are just uninhabited

[warriorscot]

Ah yes but there lies the rub, those areas NEED to be underpopulated the a large amount of south america is rainforest, sure people can live there but they would only further destroy that rainforest and we kind of need it to clean the air we breathe as well as the vast natural resources that come from the forests ecosystem itself.
And deserts are lived in but they can only support limited populations and again are very fragile ecosystems, antartica is also a dangerous place it has a 6 month night, and to get there, you can only go there in the summer months and it is surrounded by the most hostile seas on the planet, your talking waves that a tanker can sit flat on the bottom of at times. Also we cant produce enough food to feed everyone in the way we feed ourselves, most of the african continent is populated beyond the means of the lands sustenance, if it wasnt for western aid maintaining the populations artificially there wouldnt be half as many people.

There is also the question of resources, metals and hydrocarbons are finite and everyone wants them we use more and more of them and as other nations develop they want the same. Its just not possible for this planet to support 6 billion people living in the western fashion, It can barely support a couple of billion for that matter.

[warriorscot]

You can pretty safely desalinate water these days and 3 percent of the earths water is alot considering we live on a planet more water than land. You can make water though pretty easy you pump out a fair bit when you use your car, makes nice bang as well when you make it from its pure components.

In terms of the stars, relativitey and the frailty of our bodies are the big limiting factor mars and the moon are possible options but both require extensive amount of resources just to get them to work, we can get alot of metals that we need form space even most of our fuel, but the question is we keep leaving doing this later and later(we could have had the first large scale orbital asteroid mining facility going by the 70s if it hadnt been for ignorance and the cold war). Are we going to have the resources left to make a go of making the leap into using the resources of the solar system to replace and replenish the earths.

[Dr. Gutstein]

The Nature do her job.People are not good for earth.You must accept this!!!
That's the true.
Everythink is destroying:
-Overpopulation
-Little usable water
-AID'S and others
-The Antartic i falling down slowly
-More Earthquakes
-Hurricanes
and more,more and more others reasons

[HarryMay]

It's too,too late to change what has happened.If what happened only leads to a foregone conclusion,an indication of where we are headed if you please,then one might as well sit back and try to enjoy this ride in as much comfort as possible.Just one example being that the near extinction of the native buffalo herds being replaced by the cow was/is responsible for a much greater effect to our planet than most think.Cows degrade the land thru overgrazing,they are also at fault for a big percentage of the greenhouse effect(bovine flatulance,really)their hoofprint also destroys the land they feed on.Buffalo on the other hand are migratory,moving to and fro looking for fresh fields to chomp.The buffalo has hooves that actually turn the soil they've grazed making the land more fertile.The planet will take care of itself,no matter our interference.
It is up to us wether we prolong or accelerate the inevetable.If each of us took it upon ourselves to take full responsabilities of ourselves and act accordingly I believe we could continue for a long time to come.Simply put:if the Avian flu evolves like it is,we may not have to worry about overpopulation.Nuclear holocaust,don't think so.Polar icecaps melting and flooding our drylands,nah.A simple yet effective tool this flu is.Like I said,sit back.,relax and be good to yourself and the ones you love.

[Michael]

Personaly I am not that worried about overpopulation. For one thing I live in Australia with 20 million others and we relay on emagrants to stop the popualation form falling!

China has only one child per family, most being boys thing is going to mean if nothing is changed China will have very few people a lot quicker than they think. I have read the same is going to happen to Japan. Abortion is doing the same for most Europeian contaries and North America. Every where else is under populated so who cares.

Also might like to add that if every one lived one city as dense as Tokyo it would be the size of Tasmainia, and the reast of the world would be open to what ever else.

[LuNa7ic]

Chinese Boy Pop. 80 percent
Chinese Girl Pop. 20 percent

Oh yes, there will be a rush to be able to get married.

I take they are hoping the population of their country will go down?

Yep, but they massively overcompensated. They now have an 'Old' population, with too many people of a retiree age and not enough young people of a working age to support them. In the next 20 years I reckon that Chinas gonna go haywire because of it.