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

[isdrobotica 0]

well I think that the goverments of the world ...all of them not just china or the others...will have to make a law about one child per household and I'm not suggesting that this is my solution but I'm saying that this is what will most likely happen in a not so distant future....my solution will be in robotics...colonize another planet and make it subtable like mars..I know the implications of this but at the "long" term this will be our hope...There should be a world wide funded an cooperative project for this....and to try to make the most advancements in this until we can colonize...this project i think will aslo bring many many breakthroughs in interdisciplinary studies, so it wont be like oh lets stop making advancements in cellular therapy and lets focus on mars...noooo it will be the contrary a world wide cooperation and asimilation that we might become a dying species because "soon" there wont be anything to eat.

[shddgfgc 0]

after 2001 census, the population in India as on 1st March 2001 stood at 1,027,015,247 personsIndia literally a balloon which is overinflated.We have only only and only 2.4% of land area and in this we are fitting over 16% of world's population.Every year India adds an australia to itself.Hey i'm not saying anything bad bout australia.I mean that the size of australian population is the increment every year to indian population

[innosia 1]

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.

Yes I really dislike overpopulation. Like when we see how Japan is so crowded, then some group exist for suiciding.
Not only war control population but virus like HIV is also taking a major role. Though the spreading is wide but still i think this virus is ineffective of controlling population. We still remember how those old times people often relates HIV with homosexuality, and how HIV is spreading to remote place in Africa, I don't really think that this method is effective.

How about creating a virus that spreads very fast and air borne, which by coming into contact (close body contact) it spreads, and then the time till the death is given like a year, by doing this, the spreading is continue in the progress (one year limit time of spreading) and then after a year the person dies, then this will surely good for controlling population or even world domination, how's that my opinions?

In some view, we really know that the overpopulated places will suffer from distress, mental and physical illnesses. People is living in agony, and it's become harsh to even think about living not to mention thinking about future. I think the world suffer a lot from Human Rights, like being used to against euthanasia, and while human rights stop people from killing the population is not dropping while stress is growing.

[moutonoir 0]

Need a humorous view on population control? Google "Church of Euthanasia." It's quite an...interesting...read...

[gjaldon 0]

Savge17: Although I very much agree that the human species must find a way to address the problem of overpopulation, I do not agree to your extreme suggestion of having scientists develop a method that would lead to people capable of only having one offspring. That is quite impractical and highly unethical. Instead, I believe it would be best for all those hugely populated countries to set up and effectively execute government policies on family planning that would greatly encourage their citizens to have just 1 child or even none at all by giving benefits (such as tax cuts) to those couples that follow the family planning policy. Also, to impose a punishment in form of added taxes and such. In this way, having lots of children would be a privilege that has to be earned and not a right. The policies should of course also be applied hand-in-hand with education on family planning, especially to those people that live in the less industrialized areas. Anyway, just my opinion on this matter. I'd love to ETHICALLY depopulate the world. No killing or anything. Just implement controls.

[HDuffRules 0]

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 3]

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 0]

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 0]

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 1]

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 0]

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 0]

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 4]

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 0]

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 0]

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.