Thread: Overpopulation (again).

If a poor country of 300 million people - were only 10 million people. Then the living standards of each individual would be alot higher due to less people.

I'm sick of deceiving "facts" like "30% of the world are using 80% of the worlds resources" and other misleading crap to make us feel bad.

"Overpopulation is your own damn fault!" Is what we should tell these whiny ultra-poor countries that breed themselves into poverty and blames other countries.

Where did the whole "poor overpopulated countries are the victims" come from? In my country we are 5 million people, and we have great living standards because of it. If other countries wanna breed theselves into extreme poverty - they deserved their fate. Not our problem.

The world today is so overpopulated that if the 3rd world war doesent start soon, we will cannibalize ourselves to death thanks to these retards.

IMO we NEED a world government to enforce birth control if humanity is to have a stable future with real progress.

As long as there is food aid to these poor countries, this allows them to become over populated. To cut them off and let them starve to death doesn't particular sit well with most people. The world is over populated in that we are taking valuable land space and resources from other species that we share this planet with. The problem is many people don't care if humans are the last ones living on the planet if it came down to human needs or other species needs in terms of taking land space and resources.

"I'm sick of deceiving "facts" like "30% of the world are using 80% of the worlds resources" and other misleading crap to make us feel bad."
So you don't like the facts?

"If a poor country of 300 million people - were only 10 million people. Then the living standards of each individual would be alot higher due to less people."
How do you figure? Afghanistan has a very low population for example and among the worse living standards. The worst living standards for any humans are probably tribes isolated in jungles of Indonesia and in the Amazon. Poverty and population are only loosely related to one another.

Those tribes isolated in jungles of Indonesia and in the Amazon most likely do not feel that they are living in poverty since they have not been anywhere else to compare it too.

How they "feel" has little to do with their actual extremely low living standard by most objective measures.

Lynx instead of nitpicking look at the big picture. The renaissance happened with much thanks due to the plague, which yet again led us into the modern era. Worker salaries and living conditions increased for everyone as people wasnt just expendable numbers anymore and just another "resource". The plague brought the population down to a normal level and great progress and stability followed. One shouldnt underestimate the importance of a healthy population, something we dont have today.

Also cultural values overlap material wealth. How many restaurant coupons and frequent flier points would you sell your grandmother for?

To the OP: Rather than world government sterilizing the poor, wouldn't it be more just forcing our worst hoarders to relinquish some land and resources, when it costs them practically nothing? I am in Canada, looking at Bangladesh. I'm also looking at the number of Iraqi refugees admitted to the USA.

So pointing out facts in counter argument is "nitpicking." You actually think the plague made living conditions better? I doubt you can really support that claim, because there were so many other big things happening at the time including the rediscovery of Greek literature and reasoning, shattering of the Catholic churches hold on Europe, perhaps the biggest things of all fueling change in society, the invention of the printing press.

But since you wanted the big picture...lets look at some data such as below. Do you see a strong correlation between per-capita GPD and population density? I don't either. For every slum, like Goma/(what ever the name is this week) there's a place like Hongkong or Manhattan that's wealthy and population dense.


Or how about in the US...doesn't seem true there either:

Dear Lynx Fox. Degree of available resources. ie; Two People. Garden of Eden. Utopia. Garden of Eden, 100 people, not so good. Can we make bigger Garden? If it only means that the population increases to enjoy the extra resource, then we defeat the purpose. No, Too much desertification now, there are Climate restrictions on food production. I'm not going to be negative about this, but the time is coming when some of us have got to voluntry put our hands up and make the ""Oates"""gesture. ( Scotts journey to the South Pole.). Rationing of resources would only prolong the agony. Birth Control sounds logical to me. Women choosing to go it alone. Men playing more golf and drinking Bromide. ( I'm an x National Serviceman.). westwind.

If you seriously want to reduce birthrates there are 2 requirements that must be met.

First and foremost. Probably 2nd, 3rd and 4th as well. People must be confident that the children they bear will survive. If raising your family means interspersing never-ending hard work with burials of infants and older children every few years, you will never, ever be convinced that having fewer children is a good idea.

This means that, far from stopping food aid, we should ensure that nutritious food, birth ' spacing' advice and appropriate medical care are provided to the maximum number of children (and the women who breastfeed them) in poor countries. People must see that children will survive to be convinced of the value of having less children.

The other support for such a strategy. Education of girls and women. Quite apart from the benefit to the women themselves, people who have been educated are much better able to follow advice on reproduction, health and hygiene.

(Though some advice has to be presented in a very direct fashion to get the message across. Dirty little secret: the loo that saves lives in Liberia | Global development | The Guardian )

I take it from this adelady that you wouldn't support Raziell's barely covert wish for ethnic cleansing of the materially disadvantaged on a global scale?
Whyever not? You can take human decency and rational thinking only so far, then the situation demands a properly emotional and bigoted action such as Raziell proposes.

Two People. Garden of Eden. Utopia.

If you haven't figured it out yet. Mythology as evidence doesn't go too far with me (nor most on a science forum). The mythology example fails anyhow because a 100 people are much more efficient per-person than two people because they can specialize and gain huge access to resources unavailable to a couple (with their snake pet)--so now a fisherman working off a boat built by another catches far fish than needed to feed his family for instance.

PS.
I'm not a Scott man either and think he was an incompetent buffoon compared to an historic figure of Shackleton, who I have the greatest respect for.

Population control is really simple: just provide educations. Women who go to school/high-school/college/university and/or pHD will less likely to get married during such period and also less likely to conceive child at younger age. This is clearly illustrated in BBC documentary: "How many people can live on planet Earth" with David Attenborough, and it is not religiously objectable proposition.

The idea that certain nation use 4-times the consumption of entire planet Earth is true, but by limiting population growth: nation across the world can provide a sustainable growth (rather than a rapid increase in poverty and lagging in infrastructure to support them).

The whole problem with such analysis is population isn't really the problem. If the whole earth were vegetarian we could probably feed 40 billion or more, on a US diet it's more like 5 billion. The current form of modernity and impact on the environment is more of a limitation than just population. Modern nations need to fundamentally change how they consume resources and help the developing world skip the destructive unsustainable practices of the 20th century as well as educate and provide birth control for the women to slow down the number of consumers of those resources.

If you are going to have children - yes - you should be able to support them. But it seems today that countries breed out of control. The result is that people who are smart enough to only have enough children that they can provide for, are also paying taxes to pay for the people giving birth to children they cant support. Also lots of children starve to death and suffer because there simply isnt enough resources.

The people over-breeding is basicly parasites feeding on the system that works - and where there isnt safety nets (Poor countries) the children suffer. It is immoral to have children you cant support, but we support this immoralism by HELPING them survive. The world cannot sustain this explosion of people in the long run (Thinking centuries ahead) and in the end everyone suffers on all sides.

Without population control - both resources for the living and the comming generations are strained and only causes more and more poverty and suffering.

Do we want a medium population with a majority of people living good lives, or a heavy overpopulated world where everyone suffers? I dont see how population isnt the main concern?

Also I'm not talking about any ethnic cleansing. I dont care about race or country but what is best for mankind in the long run. The more people there is - the less there is for each. This also affects the value of individuals, as more people means less worth per person as people become a resource in itself.

Another thing is what my teacher told me about fresh water. First she says "We have x amount of water" then talks about population and how we have less and less water. When the fresh water is pretty static while the growing population being the issue not the water.

Take these poor countries which overbreed, they are the irresponsible ones - and western countries get demonized for using most of the resources when they couldve had it way better themselves if they kept breeding to a sane level. Resources are finite - and thinking long term survival, we need to breed responsible for the sake of comming generations imo.

If we had habitable planets to colonize this wouldnt be an issue ofcourse. But his rock we live on is all we got.

Take these poor countries which overbreed, they are the irresponsible ones

And of course you get to set the definition of "overbreed?" My simple point is based on sustainability of resources, which seems to be one of the pillors of your argument, one child in a rich nation, consumes 5-10 times more than a child in one of the poorest nations and is only maintained by the unsustainable consumption of resources in it's own country and under the current international economic systems, by denuding the resources in the developing world. Hence an equitable model (different than fair) would limit rich nations to no kids or perhaps one, while allowing poor nations to have say 5 kids or more based on global sustainability.

Population is only half the problem.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Take these poor countries which overbreed, they are the irresponsible ones

And of course you get to set the definition of "overbreed?" My simple point is based on sustainability of resources, which seems to be one of the pillors of your argument, one child in a rich nation, consumes 5-10 times more than a child in one of the poorest nations and is only maintained by the unsustainable consumption of resources in it's own country and under the current international economic systems, by denuding the resources in the developing world. Hence an equitable model (different than fair) would limit rich nations to no kids or perhaps one, while allowing poor nations to have say 5 kids or more based on global sustainability.

Population is only half the problem.

Meh, you have a point.