Overpopulation

2_of_Eight · October 2003

The world's population is increasing all the time. You can check the estimate on the world's population <a href='http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw' target='_blank'>here</a>. As you see, it increases by about 2 people ever second.
Think about that again. 2 people <i>a second</i>.
We can conclude from that that most families have 3 or more children.
Why? Do people not realize that the world won't (and doesn't) support so many people?
True, there is a lot of arable land on Earth left. But really, do we have to use every metre on Earth for farms just to support the population?
Do people not realize that millions are starving to death? They continue to have more children, more hungry mouths to feed?
When will people realize that they have to control the population? <i>Will</i> they realize that?
Post your thoughts.
[edit]
Sorry, this is a bit similar to my previous topic in this forum, but I think this deserves it's own thread. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Fieari · October 2003

Take this with a grain of salt until I can find collabaration on this, but here's some interesting information I've found...

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>World population growth is rapidly declining. United Nations figures show
that the 79 countries that comprise 40 percent of the world's population now have fertility
rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965-70 to
1.5 in 1990-95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960-65 to
1.70 in 1990-95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 — that is, effectively zero — in 1990-95.
And the annual rate of change in world population fell from 2 percent in 1965-70 to less
than 1.5 percent in 1990-95.

Worldwide, the number of children the typical woman had during her lifetime (total fertility)
fell from 5 in 1950-55 to less than 3 in 1990-95. (The number necessary just to "replace"
the current generation is 2.1.) In the more developed regions, total fertility fell from
2.77 to 1.68 over the same period. In the less developed regions it fell from more than 6
to 3.3. Total fertility in Mexico was 3.1 in 1990-95. In Spain it stood at 1.3, and in Italy,
it was 1.2.

Official forecasts of eventual world population size have been steadily falling. In 1992-93,
the World Bank predicted world population would exceed 10 billion by the year 2050. In 1996,
the U.N. predicted 9 billion for 2050. If the trend continues, the next estimate will be lower
still.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> I'm not certain of the date of this article either.

2_of_Eight · October 2003

Can't be true.
World population isn't declining, it's growing, and it's growing rapidly.

Fieari · October 2003

Ah, but then, that's WORLD population, where as what I just quoted referred to local population. You can see the difference there right off...

Also, what I just quoted was that population growth was declining, not that population itself was declining. The difference between a function and it's derivitive, to put it into calculus terms.

To use another turn of phrase, velocity is decreasing while still remaining positive.

V_MAN · October 2003

Some people really need to learn what a condom is ffs.

Hida_Tsuzua · October 2003

Worldwide population growth is slowing down. Most of the devolped world is at best barely keeping birth rates above replacing and even in devolping areas population growth is shrinking (as either birth rates lower and/or death rates increase). Now even the most pessismtic forecasts call for the population rise to continue until 2030s and then drop. Some place it during the 2020s. However such forecasts are more unreliable than Nostradamas's. Heck during the 70s some thought that from now on, we'll all strave and look back to the 70s energy crush as an era of plenty! The matter is that the carrying capacity of the Earth is unknown as well as that carrying capacity is increasing as well (the Green Revolution isn't fully over yet).

Kheras · October 2003

Over the next decade, a disgustingly large number of people will probably die from AIDS.

Fieari · October 2003

Not to mention that a large portion of the human race voluntarily lives in cities. If every human being on the planet lived in a city with about the same population density as new york, they'd only cover little more than texas.... which leaves a considerable amount of space for farms and woodlands and such. Not that I'd personally like to live in such a city, but then, there's plenty of room on this planet for some of us to have our suburbia.

Also, just to cut off any future concerns that may be brought about food....

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Availability of enough food for all can be attained. The 5.8 billion people in the world today have, on average, 15 percent more food per person than the global population of 4 billion people had 20 years ago. Yet, further large increases in world food production, through the sustainable management of natural resources, are required to feed a growing population, and achieve improved diets. Increased production, including traditional crops and their products, in efficient combination with food imports, reserves, and international trade can strengthen food security and address regional disparities. Food aid is one of the many instruments which can help to promote food security. Long term investment in research and in cataloguing and conserving genetic resources, particularly at the national level, is essential. The link between sufficient food supplies and household food security must be ensured. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

That's item five for the reasons that the "World Food Summit" exists. See <a href='http://www.fao.org/wfs/index_en.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.fao.org/wfs/index_en.htm</a> for more details.

15% more food on average. Interesting that we have a larger population than ever, yet we at the same time possess more food than ever as well. It's just not getting passed around well.

rm2kacer · October 2003

I read once(sorry i dont have a link), that if every food stuff produced today was evenly distributed among every human in the world, every one would have 3 times the amount to eat well.....

V_MAN · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kheras @ Oct 6 2003, 03:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Over the next decade, a disgustingly large number of people will probably die from AIDS.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
What about that vaccine that is being developed using them Kenyan prostitutes who have become immune to AIDS.

V_MAN · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Oct 6 2003, 03:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (V-MAN @ Oct 5 2003, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Some people really need to learn what a condom is ffs. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Your parents?

jk  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Cheeky bugger :/ seriously tho it makes me a little angry when I see people starving in some African country because they have had their 10th civil war and they are beeding like rabbits yet they cannot feed themselves.

RyoOhki · October 2003

Well you have to understand that for these people, another child means a) another potential helping hand and b) another chance at actually having a child that survives. Infant mortality rates in many Third World countries are very high, usually from disease, and the logical step for many people is to have more children. It's like a macarbe lottery: maybe this kid won't die, which means we'll have another person to help us out. Plus there are cultural and religious (*cough* Catholic Church *cough*) reasons for not using contraception.

A balance of sorts will eventually result. That's the most bloodless way of saying "A heck of a lot of people are going to die". The AIDs situation for example has the potential to almost destroy most of the Third World. Then of course we link into Monse's "Is it right to stop a global killer" thread.

Burncycle · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What about that vaccine that is being developed using them Kenyan prostitutes who have become immune to AIDS. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/619316.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/619316.stm</a>

fact of the matter is, perscription drugs really ARE more expensive than illegal drugs. Very few people are getting treatement

Nemesis_Zero · October 2003

What was proven herein is that it is <i>possible</i> to nurture an increasing world population. This, I wholeheartedly agree with. It <i>is</i> doubtlessly possible to increase the Third World countries social situations far enough to make high fertility less necessary (which would inevitably lead to a decline of the churches influence on this topic, as it did in the First and Second World). The really important question is whether the authorities both in our as well as the Third World countries have a sufficiently big interest in this.

DarkDude · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (V-MAN @ Oct 5 2003, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Some people really need to learn what a condom is ffs.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Agreed, though most population growth occurs in poorer countries like India and Indonesia where buying a condom can take a large blow on their cash reserves, and that's olny if they acctually have csh in the first place. In the richer area such as America, Canada, and Europe. you don't see as much population growth. What I think is gonna happen is as Asia and Africa's populations grow we will keep sending out more and more aid until eventually, we can't send out any more. We will start to run low because we also have large populations to feed and there will be a MASSIVE die out of humans in the poorer areas, and it pains me to say this but it WILL be good for the world in general. I'm not saying these people should die, just stating the fact that in the long run, this will help the world. It's sad really... <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'>

Nemesis_Zero · October 2003

Erm, Dude, seeing that our so-called development help is a) aimed to benefit the relative investor countries economy (p.e. European countries and the US flooding Third World markets with the food their own markets can't absorb) and b) only a fraction of the relative states debt and often largely used to pay parts of said debts back (to guess whom), I'd like to call the First Worlds bankrupcy due to development aid an improbable future.

[edit]The fact of the matter is that a large part of the industrialized world profits greatly off the cheap workforce the Third World houses. Raising its social standards (and conversely also wages), the key to efficient birh control, contradicts the economic interests of America as well as Europe.[/edit]

2_of_Eight · October 2003

Either a condom costs more than the food and everything else a child would need, or these people see only a minute into the future.
Condoms: I have no idea how much they cost, but it's less than $10, for sure.
Food for children: Please don't tell me that this'll be less than $10.
Conclusion: don't have so many children. 2 is enough.
PS. Even if the rate of increase is slowing down, population is still increasing. When will people stop? Please comment on that. "When will people stop". I really want to know.

Overpopulation

Comments