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

[arjupun 0]

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 0]

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 3]

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 3]

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 0]

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 4]

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 0]

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 0]

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 4]

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 10]

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.

[fermin25 3]

Yeah there is a theory: the malthusian theory. Thomas Malthus said that to control the overpopulation each disaster like the earthquakes, the wars, hurricanes, everything is necessary and people have to die to control the population and a better food distribution for all the survivers. But the nature(or maybe the human I don?t know) has another methods to control the population like the AIDS, cancer and a lot of eventually diseases like the SARS and another virus like AH1N1 that kill a lot of people. But I think that maybe there are another ways like the topic?s author said like the born planification and the control of maternity. But now I want to tell you about some strange methods, well they are no methods but in my country we have like 10 years with the same population: eigth million. Since 2000 the cense said that Honduras has eigth million of people living and the most of people is young. But in 2009 the cense reported that all the population in Honduras is eight million, also. Analizing all the situation in Honduras I see another ways to contron the population.In Honduras there are a lot of social problems that contributes to the control of population like:1. Organized Crime(mafia, drug dealers).2. Ilicit Associations(maras).3. Vices(drink, smoke, cocaine).4. Car accidents.In the point number 1 the organized crime commanded by the drug dealers and the political and economical mafias are responsible of a lot of deaths. For example in Honduras is common to see a morning that in the forest appeared three unrecognizable bodies. All these deaths are ocassionated by the drug dealers who kill to members of the competence between the Carteles or by thieves that kill to another thieves for the terrotory to steal to the people. But in almost all the circunstances all the crimes are made by the drug territory and for control all the distribution of cocaine for a cartel. In 2010 there are aproximately 2000 deaths by persons linked with the drugs market and with the thiefs and the other deaths are innocent victims of the street violence because they opposed to allow one assault and the thieves simply kill them. In the new this is the daily bread. The violence in the street kill to a lot of people and make a balance between the born children and the people that dead daily.In the point number 2 are the ilicit associations known in my country like "maras". The mara is a group of young people who are dedicated to assault to the citizens, sell drugs in the street and extort to the business with the "war tax". In 1990?s the mara growth and a lot of young men joined to the maras who didn?t have a father because in the most of cases their fathers had emigrated to the United States to get a better job, a better life to their sons.This social crisis brougth the complete chaos in the street because I remember that in some cities you cant to go to a market without the danger to suffer an assault or be killed if you resist to give your things to the thieves. All one generation of the Honduras?s young men was lost in the maras. When Ricardo Madura won the elections in my country, his son was killed by the maras, and he started an agressive campaign against the maras with some death cars who killed to all the Mara?s boys in one street. In some ocassion is suspected that he ordered to burn a jail full of mara?s boys where aproximately three hundred mara?s boys dead. In conclusion a complete generation of young men was lost in the mara?s time and the rest of them are honest citizens or are in the jail.In the poin number 3 are the vices typical of my country like the drinks and the people who smoke cigarettes. Here is esential to a boy to be a man and this starts going to a night club, get drunk and pay to have relations with a woman. All of this is pleaceful to the men and the adiction to this lifestyle is so big in my country that a lot of men dies because they get an alcohol intoxication or get AIDS or simply dies in the typical fights under the alcohol effects. This is cultural and contributes to stop the overpopulation.In the point number 4 are the car accidents ocassionated by people who are drunk and drive whitout any precaution. In the north zone of my country this type of accident are catastrophycal and a lot of people dies because the accidents between two vehicles of the public transport is very common. The car accidents contributes to the death of aproximately two thousand people every year.In conclusion my country is perfect to stop the overpopulation because here aproximately born the same amount of people that dies everyday. So maybe this system is bad for the human society but good for the nature and the planet. For example Mexico is a country with the same system of kill, kill and die. I am fortunated I think not because maybe one of these days I can be in the staticts also. :D Thank you for read my post and please post your opinion about the overpopulation is a very very interesting topic. Really.

[iGuest 3]

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?

What do you mean by the planet "knows" too many people are there? I honestly think natural disasters such as hurricanes are just natural, not having anything even remotely to do with overpopulation. Also, the government spends billions of dollars per year on cancer research. Maybe you yourself should do some research before posting.

[Iniyila 2]

overpopulation is not a problem in developed countries but only in poor countries with little income per family. actually i think being poor is the reason why people are making babies. they should have many children to help them like in farming. the main reason that poor families have many children is that they want to have more labors and because they have no money to employ anyone they have to born them. in modern countries where government pay to peoples who don't have work, they are loosing their population and most of their peoples are old (like germany). so only teaching people is not important actually teaching is useless when they are poor and governments have to provide support for poor families until they do not need more children for more income.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Iniyila (see edit history)

[Harlot 2]

I don't really think over population is a big problem at the moment - especially not in countries such as the United States. It is estimated that the U.S. population won't double until somewhere around 2090. This means that in 2090, we are expected to have around 600-650 million people. Based on the resources that we currently have, we would have no problem handling that kind of population growth. The fact is that human beings only new 3 things for survival. Food, water, and shelter. Of course, a lot of people will disagree with that, but it is a fact. Human beings are nothing more than mammals, and the majority of mammals only have food, water, and shelter. When I say "shelter", that consist of things such as clothing, a structure, and warmth. Those are the only three resources human beings need, unless you want to be technical and include free stuff as oxygen. Come to find out, there is an abundance of food, water, and shelter. There is so much food, we throw it away. In fact, we burn crops so that they won't flood the markets. The true reason that people are against population growth is because it will transform life. People always tend to be against change. Just as the industrial revolution caused drastic change in the way society function, so would a large growth in the world's population. In a society with a huge population, where resources must be managed wisely, capitalism could not exist. You could not have 1% of the population owning 80% or 90% of the wealth. There would be no Bill Gates and Oprah. You couldn't have a single person with $60 billion and others without two pennies to rub together. I take that back, capitalism could exist, but the three basic needs of life would most likely be rationed and moved outside of the monetary system. Those three basic needs being food, water, and clothing. It would be impossible to peacefully live in an overpopulated world with social inequality determining who can and can't eat. I noticed that most revolutions start two ways - or probably all revolutions. The first way is nationalism or an equivalent emotional appeal. The second way is starvation. A hungry people is an angry people. As long as people have food, they are usually willing to come to terms with whatever other hardships are going on in their life. As soon as you take away the food, the poor are burning the country down. Nevertheless, I don't think overpopulation is a problem for the US. Although, I may not be looking at the big picture, because on an international level, the population of the world in general will eventually effect the resource availability for others countries. It is especially true if you live in a country that is import based such as the US. I think the most important thing to do, based on the fact that India and China population is set to double between 2070-2100, is to become more self reliance. The question is, "Does the U.S. have access to enough raw material to be self reliant". I can't answer that question, but I can say that the biggest problem with be oil. In the next 70 years, our top agenda should be finding an alternative to fossil fuels or developing cars that take 1/3 of the fossil fuel that it takes to operate currently. But then that even lies on the question of "Is the world's supply of fossil fuel really running out?" It depends on a variety of factors, but I don't believe that the population growth for the next 100-200 years will be so large that the resources of the earth, if properly used, can't hand it. People will have to learn how to use resources wisely and spread them out in a way that is more equal. I actually think it will do a semi-good thing. People in the world are already too greedy and materialistic. They cling to religion, but they forgot the chore teachings of Jesus, who was to give to your neighbor and put your neighbor before yourself. We don't do that unless we are forced to by circumstances. Even now, in a world with so many resources, no one should be starving. However, since we want to ensure the food prices stay high, we are willing to increase demand and price by forcing the less fortunate to starve. I also agree with the idea of education. Nevertheless, I don't think the educational purpose should be less babies. I mean, that could be an aspect of it, but what I am saying is that people are stupid to be active citizens, and that must change. As I stated previously, a poll showed that 50% of Americans can't name a single branch of government. That same percentage don't know the name of their congressional representative. I wonder what percentage doesn't know the earth is round, and believe it or not, I had a guy who recently argued that it was flat. His logic was that, "If it was round, why don't we fall off?" I told him gravity, and after I explained to him what gravity was, he still didn't understand why we were not falling off of the earth, and then he asked me, "Why do we not walk upside down on certain parts of the planet then?" I am happy that he asked such questions, it shows that he has the potential to become a thinking person, but the fact that he didn't already know at his age shows us that we have serious problems with educating our people. In fact, I think over 14% of Americans believe that the sun revolve around the earth...No Kidding! If we have that kind of misinformation going on, how do we expect people to demand equality. How can they see right through the lies placed on FOX News, and in some cases, MSNBC. For example, you have people in the U.S. who say that they support cutting spending. Nevertheless, they don't know where the majority of U.S. spending goes. A large percentage of Americans that think 25% of U.S. spending goes on foreign aid, when its under 1%. The majority of U.S. spending goes to Medicare, Defense, and Social Security. Ironically, the same people calling for the government to cut spending, will march in the street and get ready to burn the country down if their medicare and social security is taken away...lets not even talk about defense spending. So I do think that education is one of the variable.