Honesty Rocks! truth rules.

Overpopulation Overpopulation a growing issue, how should we deal with it?

HOME      >>       Science and Technology

HDuffRules

The problem with the one child to a family policy is that this does have some negative effects, and it would be inviable in a lot of western countries where pension and retirement plans for the elderly relies very heavily on new people joining the workforce. For instance, right now the way social security is set up, roughly social security tax from 2 or 3 working people goes to pay one retired person's social security benefit. However, in 20 years, the ratio will be one working person to 5 retired. This is why social security is going down the drain, there simply aren't enough people working to pay for all the retirees that are now living longer thanks to our great medical care. If we can fix this problem, then implementing the one family, one child policy could work in developed countries. However, in other, poorer areas, it is beneficial for people to have more children because children actually work towards generating income for the household, and if said family lives on a farm, having lots of kids = having lots of free labor. It would be much harder to get these people to only have one child. That being said, there are few methods of lowering population that doesn't involve suffering. Jared Diamond, the environmental determinist, author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, The Third Chimpanzee, and Collapse, looks at population in a few of his books. Basically, he notes that food production in first-world countries have been increasing monumentally thanks to advances in technology. Meanwhile, population in these countries is actually remaining fairly stable. Some countries in Europe are actually declining in population. Meanwhile, in third-world countries, populations are growing very fast, while food production remains stagnant, simply because these areas aren't great for farming. So basically what is hapenning is that the food surpluses from first-world areas is being sent to hungry third-world areas through aid programs like UNICEF. Daimond advocates that we should stop sending this food. Yes, lots of people will starve, but the ones that remain will be a sustainable number. Of course, I think I did see earlier in the thread that we shouldn't even be considering this, but its the only surefire way that I can see.


iGuest

over population by humansOverpopulationI have always thought that the human population of the earth was too great for the earth's resources. Human's expect too much without giving back to the planet. Our Earth is a delicate, dynamic living thing. We are really just passengers on board a beautiful place. I am not saying we should not have children but I personally have sacrificed that which many take for granted. On this Earth Day think about the burdens humans place on our planet. It's the only one we have. If we don't do green right now you may as well kiss your *bottom* goodbye.-reply by Dorothy Benedict

 


arjupun

Ya frens it is a dangerous matter of the world. Everybody should be attentive in this matter. Increasing the population is called over population and it brings many problems to the public of the world.Every people should maintain population by using many measures like family planning and so on for there future.


kleong

The one child one family policy might be a short term solution. But it will cause another in about 1-2 generations down the road. The country will be facing an aging population and will be struggle to find "replacement" to keep the economy alive. By then, in order to solve the problem, it will take another 2-3 generations. The damaged will be done and will take a long time to recover.


buxgoddess

Need for World War III on urgent basis or development of living environment in Jupiter whichever is faster will solve the over population problem of the world, assuming that the human brain will not deteriorate like the human society.An alternate is to provide weapons of mass destruction to the terrorists of the world and ask to execute any willing or non willing person on earth who thinks that the world will be a better place tomorrow.Also ask the sages as to how and when they will be ruling the world and if so they do rule will they make every human being stand in front of a wild ferocious beast unarmed and practice nonviolence until being killed and eaten.And for a healthy mind, ask the government to make rules that promote 'we two - our two', beyond which they pay an additional burden of work or pay fine for bringing up each child beyond two children in double the amount of work or fine.And all doctors please make arrangements for operation of family planning after two children.


jaychant

The greatest solution? Education. More intelligent people tend to have less kids than less intelligent people, so the key to preventing overpopulation is to educate. China's one-child policy is rather absurd. It isn't going to help very much. We shouldn't go to extremes to reduce population. Too little population growth can be bad for a country.


webishqiptar

Overpopulation is a subjective term in my thoughts. Europe is becoming older and older in time while China's fast growing population will bring them to lead world economy and have absolute power. These are negative effects of modern civilization, industry and highly advanced methods and techniques of medicine development. There are no resolving issues for this problem of overpopulation. People will continue to misuse the nature and the nature won't help us anymore on preventing global warming, and global warning is some steps before the end of the world.


jlhaslip

The greatest solution? Education. More intelligent people tend to have less kids than less intelligent people, so the key to preventing overpopulation is to educate. China's one-child policy is rather absurd. It isn't going to help very much. We shouldn't go to extremes to reduce population. Too little population growth can be bad for a country.

I can't argue with the idea that Education is a positive step towards a reduction in Population growth, both in the education level of the population, and also in the area of Birth Control in the Third World countries. However, I can argue against the thought that the Population of the Earth must continue to expand. The Planet has a 'carrying capacity' and we are (arguably) near the limit of the ability of the Earth to sustain what population we have. It has been noted in academic papers that should the entire population of the Earth achieve the North American standard of living, we would require 4 planets to provide the natural resources for that life style for all the population we currently have. Those statistics are not recent, so perhaps 5 planets might be required now.
Population must go down while the average standard of living is increasing. Or, the average standard of living must be brought under control to the point where all the goods and services being provided to the affluent societies needs to be re-directed to the Third world and providing a better standard of living there. North Americans need to adjust their lifestyles to allow for the more equitable sharing of the Earth's resources. Bikes instead of SUV's, walking instead of driving, eating less red meat allows for more grains for humans, less pollution and the list goes on. A more sustainable form of energy would be a good start. Hydro Carbons are not going to last forever, and the reserves we have today will run out, no question about that. What will be the alternative? I don't know, but it better happen quickly, or human civilization as we know it is doomed to fail. Look around and notice the global conflicts over resources happening today. Oil wars in the Middle East id just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Get ready for the day when other resources start ot become scarce and watch for even more conflicts.

Misanthrope

For the time being I will refrain from unsettling the proverbial apple cart and not argue with the premise of this much parroted argument, as it is obviously a popular one. I was once a card carrying member of NPG (Negative Population Growth), but that was two decades ago and an embarrassing by-product of my impetuous youth..... long before I discovered who was actually promoting this anti-human agenda, which I shall expound upon later. For those who endorse this agenda, I ask: WHO will decide who is worthy to propagate? And by what criteria? These are questions I humbly submit for your consideration.


jaychant

I can't argue with the idea that Education is a positive step towards a reduction in Population growth, both in the education level of the population, and also in the area of Birth Control in the Third World countries. However, I can argue against the thought that the Population of the Earth must continue to expand. The Planet has a 'carrying capacity' and we are (arguably) near the limit of the ability of the Earth to sustain what population we have. It has been noted in academic papers that should the entire population of the Earth achieve the North American standard of living, we would require 4 planets to provide the natural resources for that life style for all the population we currently have. Those statistics are not recent, so perhaps 5 planets might be required now.
Population must go down while the average standard of living is increasing. Or, the average standard of living must be brought under control to the point where all the goods and services being provided to the affluent societies needs to be re-directed to the Third world and providing a better standard of living there. North Americans need to adjust their lifestyles to allow for the more equitable sharing of the Earth's resources. Bikes instead of SUV's, walking instead of driving, eating less red meat allows for more grains for humans, less pollution and the list goes on. A more sustainable form of energy would be a good start. Hydro Carbons are not going to last forever, and the reserves we have today will run out, no question about that. What will be the alternative? I don't know, but it better happen quickly, or human civilization as we know it is doomed to fail. Look around and notice the global conflicts over resources happening today. Oil wars in the Middle East id just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Get ready for the day when other resources start ot become scarce and watch for even more conflicts.


I didn't mean that the population needs to keep getting larger, I meant that the population needs to not shrink. Currently, so few people are having kids in Japan that the Japanese government is worried, because once the aging population dies off, the population will be reduced dramatically. In this manner, the entire Japanese race could potentially disappear, and along with it Japanese customs, language, technology, etc. It is true that we don't want the population to grow too large, but we also don't want a situation like that, especially on a worldwide scale.

arjupun

Hey frens,I think this is a great problem for future.so, every body should focus in it and think to control this.If it is not controlled now than it will brings many such problem by which earth should walk in deadline.Therefore, Every one should maintain family size and also should control early marriage which leads to population increase.To control it people should follow family planning to control their family size.Reply by Arjun pun


networker

Whoever it was that mentioned that if every family had only one child the population would be greatly reduced,sounds like the right solution to me. Obviously, war is not a solution. Birth control and education are obviously the right way to go about doing things.


iGuest

3rd World Out of ControlOverpopulation

Western civilization is doing  its part.  It is the 3rd World that is out of control. Our populations are holding steady, or in many cases cannot even produce enough kids to support the population structure we currently have. This is true in the US, Canada,  All countries in Europe and Australia. As a matter of fact - the countries of the west have to rely on immigration to maintain and/or grow our population base. 

The 3rd world is a mess and has been for a long long long time. Corrupt governments and backward thinking are largely the source of there problems. Not all countries of this world need to jump on this control the number of babies being born propaganda.


iGuest

Limit kids to 2 or lessOverpopulation

More and more people are realising that only by limiting our global birth rates to 2 or less can we reduce our population to sustainable levels. So we can each do our part by spreading the word to every country ... 2 or less kids ...

This along with providing free birth control, more education(especially for women) and assisting with the economic development of poorer countries is the only way to go!

There will be the usual claims of racism ,eugenics etc but these reactionary attacks will fade if more and more people agree and start having less kids for our common good. Even if the few fundamentalists continue with their 12 or 15 kids the majority can compensate for their selfishness.

Thanks Andy

-reply by Andy


Shahrukh

In my opinion, the real problem is not the growth of population but rather the provision of amenities to the population.If everyone follows good ethics in the strictest sense, which is pretty improbable, the growth of number of people to feed and accommodate will not be a problem.Just as one example, if all the ten richest people of the world shared their assets with the poor people, many families will be able to move to places where they can live for generations without overpopulation being an issue in that area.There should be a limit to 'luxury', anyway, in my opinion. Simplicity is always best.


deadmad7

There should be a limit to 'luxury', anyway, in my opinion. Simplicity is always best.

That's breaking Human rights there, Shakrukh. You can't just put a cap on the amount of money people have -- that's worse than communism. Everyone doesn't have to follow the term 'simplicity' -- i'm sure if you were filthy rich -- you would want more money too and sure, you might donate some to charities. All rich people aren't devils -- only most.

Shahrukh

That's breaking Human rights there, Shakrukh. You can't just put a cap on the amount of money people have -- that's worse than communism. Everyone doesn't have to follow the term 'simplicity' -- i'm sure if you were filthy rich -- you would want more money too and sure, you might donate some to charities. All rich people aren't devils -- only most.


When we study economics, we are taught that the principal of diminishing marginal value of consumer goods and of money.
Which simply means that for each similar item you consume, you'll get less benefit from it.
e.g. when you are thirsty, the first glass of water will give more satisfaction than the next one and so on.

When this is applied to money, the very rich people have less use of the money than the poor people.
And putting a limit to one's maximum assets is wrong. I agree with that. However, only a selfish person would make his furniture out of gold when in the same city people have to sleep on the streets.
Therefore, I am not saying the government, etc. should enforce a maximum limit. What I meant was that people should feel responsible themselves to limit their luxury and do the general good rather than be selfish and swim in luxuries while others who did not get enough riches starve in their homes.

You took the simplicity wrong. It does not mean not wishing for more money. Or not spending that money on yourself. Or not wearing expensive clothing.
It means that you should spend your money to fulfil your needs and not waste it in...luxury.
e.g. When you can buy a decent Mercedes, you need not go for a WV Beetle, but going for a Rolls Royce would be using your money having lesser utility per dollar.
You could have used that elsewhere and made better use of the money.

I am not sure whether I made myself clear. And I did rather go off topic.
Anyway, I meant that money should be used more for the 'general good' rather than luxury, and that means after satisfying all your needs.

P.S. The names of cars are used just as an example for their price and class.
Also, some people may 'need' something which is a luxury for another.

magnafrost

The funny thing is if each couple decided to have just a kid or 2, the world population would start plummeting down. Both because of the direct math involved ( No. of people get halved each generation I guess) and because of diseases and so on. Even if it was 2 per couple, the population would still start going down gradually. But its surprising that there are so many people on the planet who seem intent on depleting all the resources! If only we could enlighten them, the world will be a much better place for us and for everyone else!


deadmad7

The funny thing is if each couple decided to have just a kid or 2, the world population would start plummeting down. Both because of the direct math involved ( No. of people get halved each generation I guess) and because of diseases and so on. Even if it was 2 per couple, the population would still start going down gradually. But its surprising that there are so many people on the planet who seem intent on depleting all the resources! If only we could enlighten them, the world will be a much better place for us and for everyone else!

I heard that that's what everyone says until they have their first kid... then another and another and so on. And there already rules like 2 kids per family and in China you could have only 1 baby. And most people don't see their kids as a old guy with beard going around trash at homeless people -- they think of them as cuddly babies who are sooo cute.

Almost everyone on earth know this by now... they just keep ignoring the facts as we lay them.

sheepdog

Stop making babies - control is the easiest way to fix our problem. Besides that doesn't require much money or effort.

Thank you.
Such a simple concept, I have to wonder why so few people get it. Every time I see one of those Send us your money so we can feed these poor starving children in this god forsaken hell hole third world country ads on TV, all I can think of is why on earth did those stupid women have those babies when they knew damn good and well there was no way they were going to be able to feed and care for them? Modern medicine has many proven, safe and effective methods of birth control. There is no reason what so ever to bring children into the world to starve and suffer and to do so is a terrible sin. And while some religions may have rules against birth control, you will never convince me that God intended little children to be born into this world only to suffer horribly and die to be a lesser sin than taking the pill.