Population

[k-onmmunist]

Because that'll be the situation in a time not far away if we don't do something.

Very libertarian of you.

I've tried turning the other cheek when people have raved on about this, I've tried refuting it, and now I'm going to tell you all this.

SHUT THE F*** UP

you did it to me.

Did what?

Previous: -0.95,-4.28
Current: -1.94, -6.43

Why are you a Republican?

Once. I've had it done at least 10 times to me.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Because that'll be the situation in a time not far away if we don't do something.

Very libertarian of you.

I've tried turning the other cheek when people have raved on about this, I've tried refuting it, and now I'm going to tell you all this.

SHUT THE F*** UP

you did it to me.

Did what?

Previous: -0.95,-4.28
Current: -1.94, -6.43

Why are you a Republican?

Once. I've had it done at least 10 times to me.

Because you were pro-gun control, which is one of the stupidest positions anyone can have regardless of ideology.

[k-onmmunist]

Not anymore.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Not anymore.

We know.

[pogo stick]

The world population is slowly becoming a problem. People no longer can live happy lives. There are just far too many people on the planet. Hitler may be a murderer, but he was right about one thin: There are some people who just must leave. I believe we must stand up for what is right and let the starving people starve, so we don't all starve.

Hitler? is that you?

OMGZZ IT'S GLOBAL WAORMINGZ!


No..wait, it's not Global warming.. it's just some retarded guy.

[12th Doctor]

On the serious side of this discussion, and not directly addressing the OPgis....

The population itself is not the problem.  Over and over, since Malthus, people have been predicting that we would reach this critical point when all things would collapse.  Many in the UN, with their "scientific studies" suggest that we have now reached that point, yet again.  The problem with every single study that has ever been conducted on this topic is that they never account for future technological advancements and societal changes that are going to make their finding obsolete.

Yes, there is a problem with the level to which humans (in wealthy and poor countries) are currently consuming resources, but there has always been a problem with this.  What always changed was the demands on, and supply of resources, and often times, replacement resources, that we more plentiful, arose to take the place of what was previously required, in one fashion or another.  New resources, new technologies, better techniques... all play into consistently proving these people wrong.

More over, the technological explosion has gone hand-and-hand with the growth of population.  This again is no accident, for a simple reason.  The more people you have around, the more people you have to think things up, ideas spread more widely, and fast, because of the improved communications that come with larger populations, and this then feeds back into accelerating the progress.

These models always predict that agricultural production will increase gradually, while population will increase geometrically.  It has never been the case that agricultural production was dependent on this kind of growth model.  The United States currently has the capacity to produce twice as much food as it does now (we know this by tracking the number of farmers who are listed on subsidy rolls, but are not farming at full capacity, if at all).  The price of food is lower (as compared to incomes) than it has ever been.  If this were a true issue of demand being greater than supply, then it should work the other way.

Moreover, a significant amount of real agricultural production in the First World simply rots, because it can't get to the people who need it.  Cause of this?  Because Third World governments often take actions to prevent the food from getting to their citizens.  This is either due to lack of stability, taking actions that cut themselves off from the rest of the world, intentional efforts to starve their population (either to really kill people, or scapegoat someone else), etc, etc.  Often times, as well, countries lack the infrastructure to aide in transportation, usually because they invest their World Bank Loans poorly.

While it appears as though people are spreading out all over the planet and using up all the available land, this too is only a function of poor resource management.  In the future, as space becomes a bigger issue, we will be able to support a much larger population with less space, simply because it will be more economical for people to live in urban areas.  We are already starting to see this trend today in areas that have not traditionally had to deal with this (ie the U.S.).

We also have the technological capacity to wean ourselves off of using oil as a fuel, and the future will see more movement in that direction, through natural forces.  I would prefer this happens with ease, as people simply wake up and realize that certain ways of life cannot be sustained for ever, but more likely, the will be alot of SUV driving Joe Suburban's left over when the punch comes flying at them... oh well, they deserve it, as far as I am concerned.

The black cloud of doom has always been predicted, but never descended.  All of this is not to say that I do not think there is a point beyond which the Earth can no longer support any more people, but I don't think that point is 7 billion, any more than it was 1 billion.

[Psychic Octopus]

Democrat or Republican?


Seriously though, we need to cut population growth, but in a more humane way. Don't create a "one-child policy" but something like higher taxes on people with three kids or more, and lower taxes for people with one or two kids.

The problem with this is that high birthrates are almost exclusively associated with the working poor in the Western world (this is a reversal from even a century ago: today the working poor, with the assistance of nutrient-poor fast food, are capable of just sustaining a large family; formerly it was wealthy landowners with large farms who were only capable of, and who needed, a large family). You'd be increasing taxes on the lower brackets, who would, of course, be incapable of paying.

That is one of the flaws that needs to be worked out, but I am confident that this policy need not be implemented in Europe and Japan due to their stabilizing/declining populations.  But something must be done with Africa and the Middle East. Maybe we could offer economic benefits to those who have fewer children, centered around people in the lower-to-lower middle class.

[12th Doctor]

Democrat or Republican?


Seriously though, we need to cut population growth, but in a more humane way. Don't create a "one-child policy" but something like higher taxes on people with three kids or more, and lower taxes for people with one or two kids.

The problem with this is that high birthrates are almost exclusively associated with the working poor in the Western world (this is a reversal from even a century ago: today the working poor, with the assistance of nutrient-poor fast food, are capable of just sustaining a large family; formerly it was wealthy landowners with large farms who were only capable of, and who needed, a large family). You'd be increasing taxes on the lower brackets, who would, of course, be incapable of paying.

Oh I quite agree; That is one of the flaws that needs to be worked out, but I am confident that this policy need not be implemented in Europe and Japan due to their stabilizing/declining populations.  But something must be done with Africa and the Middle East. Maybe we could offer economic benefits to those who have fewer children, centered around people in the lower-to-lower middle class.

I would like to see some evidence to back this claim?  Anecdotal evidence, if nothing else would suggest that this has absolutely no truth to it what so ever.  Many poor farmers, as well as industrial workers had as many children as you claim the wealthy were having, and I think that, if you looked, you would see that many wealthy people were not, in fact, having children at a rate to outpace the lower classes.

You theory is ridiculous.  It reminds me, of no small measure, of people who were alarmed at the turn of the last century, that the immigrants that we were bringing in from other parts of the world were of inferior stock to native born Americans, because they were usually smaller and (well intentioned) scientific studies generally concluded that their mental development was inferior as well.

But, studies conducted with their children concluded that there was no difference, because their children had had better nutrition in the developing stages of their lives.  And that was exactly what happened.  There is no reason at all to suggest that "inferior people breed inferior children"... rather that a simple improvement of conditions leads to better results.  And there is no reason that couldn't happen again... and frankly, even that low-nutrition fast food is better than the diets that many had years ago, so there is no reason to suppose that the human race is regressing, even if that doesn't change.

You people are whacked, getting into this eugenics bullsh**t.

[Earth]

Because that'll be the situation in a time not far away if we don't do something.

Very libertarian of you.

I've tried turning the other cheek when people have raved on about this, I've tried refuting it, and now I'm going to tell you all this.

SHUT THE F*** UP

Then stop acting like a zealot.

[k-onmmunist]

Because that'll be the situation in a time not far away if we don't do something.

Very libertarian of you.

I've tried turning the other cheek when people have raved on about this, I've tried refuting it, and now I'm going to tell you all this.

SHUT THE F*** UP

Then stop acting like a zealot.

I'm not.

[Sbane]

Moreover, a significant amount of real agricultural production in the First World simply rots, because it can't get to the people who need it.  Cause of this? 

Is this true? I know a lot of food rots in third world nations as well but it's not due to the lack of demand, but rather due to the lack of proper cold supply chains (and various other factors). If a farmer has to haul their produce to market in the back of a bullock cart, he will be guaranteed to lose a large share of his crop. For example, the United States has the largest amount of arable land in the world and is closely followed by India. But if you compare the amount of food production in the two countries, the United States is well ahead. This is because agriculture in the United States utilizes the latest technologies while Indian agriculture doesn't. So just imagine the amount we can increase yields by implementing technologies that already exist. There are certainly hurdles that stop India from producing as much as the United States, but the point is that the world is more than capable of providing for a much larger population than which exists today (India already has enough food to feed it's people even with overpopulation and inefficient farming).