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

[savge17 0]

Overpopulation is a growing issue in our world that must be dealt with. But how? Animals and Humans are both organisms in this world however the things we do to animals to control their population in general wouldn't be considered humane; that is if the same methods were used on humans. Our world is growing exponentially and very quickly, million of people are born each day. Of course many people die each day too but our population is growing faster than it is declining. As a human species we have developed many different ways with dealing with overpopulation. For example War, some might not think of this as a method of dealing with it but usually during war people die. With that is this a viable way to deal with overpopulation? War is human nature, but in my opinion it really isn't a way to deal with overpopulation because along with war comes unwanted effects on the environment, pollution. Birth control is another method used by many humans to control the population, however some use this method and some don't and therefore is part of the reasons why it isn't a reliable source.How would we deal with overpopulation with the human species? I think that the best method in dealing with this would have to be developed by scientists in where they can control the amount of children one person would be able to conceive. Not letting children have children alone would be in a way cruel and in humane because its part of life to be able and have a child of you're own. What do you think would be a viable humane way with dealing with the issue of overpopulation, remember war and killing isn't the answer to this issue, because dealing with it in those ways alone could cause chaos and eventually a systematic collapse of our society. Not only would these things cause this collapse, but the impacts of overpopulation would by itself destroy everything.

Edited May 14, 2008 by savge17 (see edit history)

[jlhaslip 4]

In this Wiki page, there is some historic information as to the study of over-population that is worthy of review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus
Malthus lead the way in the field of Population Theory and is quoted yet, today.

The following quotation covers an important factor in Population control:

Malthus suggested that only natural causes (such as accidents and old age), misery (war, pestilence, plague, and above all famine) [book I, Ch. 2], and vice (which for Malthus included infanticide, murder, contraception and homosexuality) [book I, Ch. 5.] could check excessive population-growth.

Several more recent discussions can be referenced from this Wiki link, including Limits to Growth.Another consideration is not necessarily the Control of Population, but asking "what is the Threshold of Population on the Planet Earth?" At what population level does the earth become incapable of supporting the resident population? Interesting discussions can result from this last observation.

[adriantc 0]

I think overpopulation should be the number 1 concern of mankind. All our problem are a direct or indirect consequence of overpopulation. The need for ever growing supplies of energy and food result in burning oil, the ONLY fuel that can power our ever growing greed. Thus comes global warming and with it a dozen new problems. According to the UN by 2050 the world population will reach a staggering 10 billion people. If 6 billion is a lot and comes with all this problem only imagine what 10 billion people means! What we don't realize is that overpopulation is one of the easiest problems to fix. And as I have said fixing that problem would fix most of our other problems. So what is the solution? I already stated this in another thread but I shall do it again in detail. Yes a war could lower our numbers, but taking in consideration the power of the weapons, at the end of it, we will probably be back in the stone age. It will fix our problems, but not the way we want it. As for a deadly plaque... many scientist say that isn't possible. It's extremely hard even to invent a virus in the laboratory with 99,9% mortality and even if there were in a few hundred years we would have the same problem all over again. And there is one more reason for why all of this solutions aren't any good... because they require for people to die, suffer, etc. There is one more alternative that doesn't involve all that suffering and dieing... Stop making babies - control is the easiest way to fix our problem. Besides that doesn't require much money or effort. Mathematics can show us how many children we could have in order for our numbers to slowly decline to a certain level and then stay on that level. Everything must be done slowly since our society relies on young people to supply money to old people. Scientists say that the perfect number of people would be 1.5 billion, a level at which our planet would have much more to offer to us. No more huge demand for fossil fuels, no more hunger since the planet will be perfectly capable of taking care of that. A theory I like says that with one child per family policy by 2075 the population of he world will be reduced by almost half to 3.43 billion. By the year 2100 to 1.6 billion, the level of population from the 19th century. Wouldn't that be a lot better then the predicted 10 billion people by 2050?!

Edited May 15, 2008 by adriantc (see edit history)

[Tag 0]

I am not sure if this will qualify for a combination topic of being on subject and bringing up others, but I will try to get to the point.As previously said, overpopulation is indeed a problem. The biggest problem is with regards to the maximum holding capacity of the planet. In our world, there are plenty of ways to transport food and potable water to wherever it needs to be to feed those without. that is not the problem, so we do not have to look at individual areas with different maximum carying capacities. only the carying capacity of the world.the first problem is food. there is not enough of it to go around. it is a sad fact, but if we (wealthier nations) stopped sending all of our money out to the poor nations that cannot produce enough food for themselves, then we would be fixing to problems at a slow rate. first off, larger nations would not be increasing their national defecits, and the poorer nations would lower their population.Recent studies have shown that the birth rate in relation to the death rate in industrialized contries is around 1 to 1. some countries are a little higher on death or birth, but an average of 1 to 1. in "developing" contries, the birthrate is about nine times the death rate even counting the epidemics sweeping these nations.so, one method to fix the overpopulation would be to stop sending money out of your own country and reinvesting the money in you own country and let natural selection get back to work. as our nations have grown, the people have essectially told natural selection to go sit in the corner. we have people on repirators and machines to keep them alive, we have people doing dumb things like sharing needles, then we use medicine to fix the problem, even if it is only temporary. we need to let natural selection come back and do its thing.just an idea or two.

[csp4.0 1]

Well, firstly you've got to recognize what a big problem over-population, unlike depicted in Sci-Fi shows, in maybe one thousand years time, Earth won't look like Holy Terra, or Coruscant, but in fact look like a giant barren, war-torn wasteland...It would be impossible to keep the population under control, and no organisation, let along person can lead an entire planet... The main problem with this is resources, you can't have a good civilization unless you have ample resources...Our resources are already running out, if they almost completely run out, we'd be fighting over the last remains of resources, and starting with relatively high-tech weapons and ample munitions, the fighting would slowly degrade to bow and arrows with people charging at enemies with sharp sticks tied around their waists...We would only have enough resources IF we mine the moon for Helium-3, it would give us such a big boost in the search for nuclear fusion power... and if we colonise Mars and prepare it for growth of crops to sustain the food supply for Earth, and not to mention the Iron Ore extracted from Mars' surface will indeed be very, very helpful on Earth, Atmospheric scrubbers will remove the dangerous chemicals from the atmosphere on Earth and Oxygen would be created from "Tree Farms"That would be the ideal way of life, but if we don't do something quick, it's back to Nuclear Winter

[disneyreporter 0]

Over population is a really important issue human beings face today, especially in countries such as China and India. One potential solution is limiting the number of children a family can have which I believe they are currently doing in China. While most people don't like to think about it, the earth is constantly trying to keep an equilibrium between all of its components. It can only sustain so much life without collapsing. If we let it, the environment will fix the over population problem, though not in a way we like. Like it or not, poverty and famines are ways nature is attempting to fix the problem. It's removing a portion of the population from its surface in an effort to replenish its resources. The problem is, we as the human race, are not allowing nature to do its job. As moral human beings, we're trying to prevent poverty and famines, but this isn't necessarily the correct thing to do. If we keep saving lives, the earth will go haywire because it won't be able to fix itself naturally. Another potential solution, though not one I nor most people want to turn to, is genocide and war. This kills off a large portion of the population, and it does work. War is horrible, but it helps the over population problem. Imagine if the Holocaust, WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, etc had not occurred. The population would be so much larger today, and the over population problem would be a whole heck of a lot worse. So, there are solutions to the problem. The real question is, when will we become so plagued with disaster from over population that we'll have no choice but to use these solutions.

[baphometslayer 0]

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1]Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.
Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust. The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[2] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, William Keith Kellogg and Margaret Sanger.[3][4] G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Funding was provided by prestigious sources such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Harriman family.[5] Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenics' scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany.

Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of undesired population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning of eugenics and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era.

Eugenics played a huge part in European history as it was a widely accepted philosophy. There are some old time movies about it that are pretty interesting to watch as they show the true horror of it.


Another solution would be to end the worthless philosophy of socialism. All it does is promote despotism which in most cases leads to higher birth rates, as poor people will birth like crazy knowing the government will take care of their baby.

[kobra500 1]

Don't blame me, I hate kids

 

No your right it is a serious problem but then what are you going to do? You can't just stop people making babies, okay you can educate them about it but then that wont stop the majority of the population who want children from having them, and to be honest isn't the whole so called meaning of life "to reproduce" keep the species going. I dont really see a way out!

[jopak134 0]

well a plague or war can be a solution . but a more realistic solution is a government funded incentive to family with less than 3 children.

[godfather89 0]

Overpopulation is a very serious issue. There are lots of ways it can be controlled. For example in China you're penalized for having more than two children. This however won't work in a capitalist system as it requires a great deal of control over the local population. Than there can be incentives offered to those who two or less children. As for your solution of scientific method, it has various issues. For example if a women is married to someone and has her quota of two children, than she gets divorced, and gets married to a man with no children of his own. How would they conceive a baby. Another example could be babies from one night stands, will they be counted in the quota. A scientific method would have numerous social consequences, so I won't recommend it. As for exercising government control would mean compromising one's freedom of decision which would most probably never go through in a capitalist society. The best way to control population is to increase awareness. The biggest increases in population has been seen in the third world countries, and those are the countries with the highest illiteracy. So we can see that there is a direct relation between awareness and population growth. The problem with this method is it is slow. We need to pace it up a bit. Although various organizations are working on it, the word isn't spreading fast enough. This means government of third world countries today should priotirize population control as a major problem. Unless more resources are dedicated to deal with this problem, it can not be controlled.

[daftpunk 0]

The Government is trying to stop overpopulation by not funding cancer research therfore many people die of cancer (sadly) but if there is too many people food will run and everything will run out fast they need to keep birth and death rate steady so overpopulation doesn't happen so.. i hope i dont get cancer touch wood. as godfather said about birth quota is right and good point.Edit:another reason i think there are lots of hurricanes etc because the planet knows too many people are there so it kills many off i think maybe im right maybe im wrong but its a possibility what do u think?

Edited September 12, 2008 by daftpunk (see edit history)

[HappyAlex 0]

I think big developing countries such as China and India should be strict in controlling population.The population of China is 1.4billion! So many people!

[Lightning73 0]

another reason i think there are lots of hurricanes etc because the planet knows too many people are there so it kills many off i think maybe im right maybe im wrong but its a possibility what do u think?

Seriously this made me laugh, the planet CAN NOT know things. It's just a big mass.. Perhaps you're talking about God.

Anyway I also think overpopulation is a massive problem. Especially because the only things that solve them cause massive uproar in the media(think of wars, tornado's, cancer, etc..). But I guess humans will always whine about something...

[PilzzE 0]

I think one of the reasons of overpopulating is whe help weaker people ( think about sick people, wounded people etc. etc. )Therefore the human lifespan is increased to roughly said .... 80 years.Years and years ago the human lifespan was around 40/50 years,and more years and years ago it was even less then that.What I want to say is if we stop the treatment of weak people they would die therefor human lifespan would decrease.Eventualy the popluation is decreasing to. Also you will have the stronger humans left.

[Lightning73 0]

I think one of the reasons of overpopulating is whe help weaker people ( think about sick people, wounded people etc. etc. )Therefore the human lifespan is increased to roughly said .... 80 years.

Years and years ago the human lifespan was around 40/50 years,
and more years and years ago it was even less then that.

What I want to say is if we stop the treatment of weak people they would die therefor human lifespan would decrease.
Eventualy the popluation is decreasing to. Also you will have the stronger humans left.

That is true, however the problem is the influence of the media on the politicians. They would never allow such things to happen. It is also against most people's morals. Wouldn't you want your sick relatives to be taken care of and get healthy again? I would...