Global overpopulation

[rahdam]

The world's population is growing exponentially while its resources are not. In my mind, the single biggest threat to the human race is overpopulation. How do we combat this?

China has a one child policy which I used to abhor, but I can now accept; at least China makes an attempt to combat overpopulation.

I work in a very urban area, and I see new teenagers getting pregnant everyday, and I cannot imagine that these kids will have the supportive environment necessary to launch them into a successful life; they will simply exist, like the neighborhoods in which they live. I see this as a microcosm for the rest of the world.

Another point: People with low intellect are outbreeding people with high intellect by a fair margin. Highly educated people statistically produce less offspring than people with minimal education.

With this in mind, where is the world heading?

[Sean O]

Another point: People with low intellect are outbreeding people with high intellect by a fair margin. Highly educated people statistically produce less offspring than people with minimal education.Reminds me of the movie Idiocracy.

Anyway, I don't know if overpopulation is the biggest threat to mankind (that would probably be nuclear war, which incidentally would take care of the overpopulation problem :cheesy:), but I agree that it ranks up there at the top. I also doubt that it can be stopped before escalating to the point where life in human civilization would no longer sustainable. Of course, at that point, after enough people die off, the balance of resources and humans would be restored, allowing life to become sustainable again and hopefully leaving us with an important lesson learned in living with the land, as opposed to living off of it.

Hopefully enough of us highly educated/intelligent folks survive that long, so that someone will actually remember the lesson. :rolleyes:

[Wufnu]

Self correcting problem, imo.

[Jakalwarrior]

I read that the population of the US would be holding steady or decreasing if it weren't for immigration. Most developed countries stop breeding so darn much once the quality of life is up. I do agree that stupid is allowed to breed too much. Result of welfare IMO. Not that I dont think there should be a social safety net but I think it needs some logic applied to it so it doesn't encourage making babies for the state to feed etc...

[rahdam]

Self correcting problem, imo.

You and the poster above you are right, and I have thought about this.

But you have to think that the self-correction will be extremely violent, as great numbers of people enter into conflict for a limited number of resources. I'm not convinced it is naturally self-correcting on the personal level, as another poster stated; poor people with minimal education are breeding at very high rates, unable to support the baby.

[blueback]

You aren't the first.

The problem is that civilizations have to go through a transition period between what I will call old and new (for simplicity). In the old system morality is high and birthrates are high to compensate. During the transition period mortality drops but the birthrate stays high because no one believes that things are getting better. This results in huge population growth. In the new system mortality is low and birthrates are low.

A few areas made the transition to the new system but now A LOT of areas are trying to make the transition and their populations are skyrocketing accordingly. They will move into negative population growth just like everyone else. . .in 50 years. In the mean time we have a problem.

[rahdam]

You aren't the first.

The problem is that civilizations have to go through a transition period between what I will call old and new (for simplicity). In the old system morality is high and birthrates are high to compensate. During the transition period mortality drops but the birthrate stays high because no one believes that things are getting better. This results in huge population growth. In the new system mortality is low and birthrates are low.

A few areas made the transition to the new system but now A LOT of areas are trying to make the transition and their populations are skyrocketing accordingly. They will move into negative population growth just like everyone else. . .in 50 years. In the mean time we have a problem.

Can you elaborate on "morality"...oh, you meant mortality. I was horribly confused as your first "mortality" is actually spelled to be "morality," and it skewed my thinking. I agree with what you posted in the first part, but I do not see how lower mortality rates will force lower birth rates without violence and a general lack of resources; most of the population is not aware enough to track mortality rates and adjust their own breeding habits accordingly. That is why I am concerned. I've kicked around the idea of moving to China at some point in my life; they seem to be run by INTJs who are methodical in their pursuit of China's best interests, and who are willing to tackle large problems that are socially disdained. My two cents.

P.S. thanks to anyone who indulges in this topic. I find it very interesting, but most people find it inappropriate or macabre when discussions of population control arise. This is about the only place where I think it is safe to discuss.

[Tocsin]

I was first seriously exposed to the concepts of ovrpopulation and its effects on the planet in a college course I took called "Politics of the Future" back in 1982. I still have the text from the class.

In the text, there is a comic strip called "What's your problem?" that left an impression.

There are two people in the comic strip, an older, white haired, white business man in a suit, and a brown skinned farmer with an open shirt and a shovel who is working the land - obvious personifications of the first world and third world denizens:

Mr 1st Worlder: I don't wish to interfere, but do you realize that world population is going to increase by nearly 50% in twenty years (remember this was 1982)? What are you going to do about it?

Mr. 3rd Worlder: What's wrong with people? I like people.

1st Worlder: Well, so do I, of course. But you see, the world's resources can't support an ever increasing population.

3rd Worlder: I see. So It's a problem of resources as well as people?

1st Worlder: Yes!

3rd Worlder: So, the answer is resource control as well as birth control?

1st Worlder: Ye...es.

3rd Worlder: Well then, I don't want to interfere, but do you realize that the rich 10% of the world consume about 90% of the resources? What are you going to do about that?

Actual overpopulation is not really a problem as far as the planet is concerned. When there are too many people for the planet to support, they starve - or they kill each other off fighting for food and resources... not a problem for the planet unless it involves a massive nuclear war.

The problems for the global ecosystem comes from pollution - a problem primarily caused by fisrt world consumption; and deforestation - a problem jointly caused by first world consumtion of woods and third world burning for agricultural expansion.

So, don't get tricked into thinking that the problem is simply "too many people."

[blueback]

most of the population is not aware enough to track mortality rates and adjust their own breeding habits accordingly.
People have high birth rates because it's practical. If there are high death rates they need a bunch of new kids to repace the dead people. They aren't aware of this, it's just an automatic cultural reaction, if it doesn't happen the culture disappears. It takes time for the culture to change when the mortality rates rise. For a while people still think that it's imortant to have a lot of kids. Once the cost of raising the kids skyrockets they will change their minds.

[sMoKeY]

With overpopulation there are two solutions to the problem:
1. Have less children. (best option)
2. Just wait because eventually the environmental conditions will be such that population will decrease. (eg. too many people fighting for dominance = nuclear bombs = dead bodies every where, over population in certain areas resulting in faeces being flushed into water supplies = super virus/bacteria/parasite = dead bodies every where) , I could go on with global warming, PMCs (MGS4 anyone?), depleted food supplies, Cold War II (Russia and china are conducting joint military exercises, Russia resurrected their nuclear bomber squad, after Rice signed the agreement for the SAM in Poland), but you get the point.

Option one is the best solution in my opinion, however some of the outcomes in option 2 can solve some of your natural selection issues that you mentioned at the end of your post.

Now to implementing option one. The one child policy may work in China (or does it, the policy has resulted in a toddler generation in which there is 1 male to every 3 females, as well as ethical issues such as the child trade) but I doubt that it will work in Russia or the USA.

For USA and Russia they need some sort of policy where something that you would usually get for families with 3 or more children is taken away (some sort of benefit or maybe introduce a tax), I don’t live in either countries so I don’t know what sort of benefits families get. This policy might be difficult to implement but it would be effective. The main problem will be the religious fanatics in the US that believe we should be breeding like rabbits.

For countries like India and the poor African nations you need to educate them first then think of implementing some sort of policy.

[rahdam]

For a while people still think that it's imortant to have a lot of kids. Once the cost of raising the kids skyrockets they will change their minds.

I see what you are saying, but it sounds like there is a fundamental assumption that most pregnancies are planned. I do not think they are; my evidence would be anecdotal at best, but sex feels great, and people like to have sex, and sex has been known to produce babies. These babies are not planned, but simply byproducts of sexual relationships. They just...happen.

[Mozzes]

With overpopulation there are two solutions to the problem:
1. Have less children. (best option)
2. Just wait because eventually the environmental conditions will be such that population will decrease. (eg. too many people fighting for dominance = nuclear bombs = dead bodies every where, over population in certain areas resulting in faeces being flushed into water supplies = super virus/bacteria/parasite = dead bodies every where) , I could go on with global warming, PMCs (MGS4 anyone?), depleted food supplies, Cold War II (Russia and china are conducting joint military exercises, Russia resurrected their nuclear bomber squad, after Rice signed the agreement for the SAM in Poland), but you get the point

Of course we could further develop the technology that would allow for a more efficient use of resources while simultaneously working on colonizing space. Can you see beyond your own nose?

Births are already below the replacement rate in most of the first world with population data to suggest much of the world and in particular China and India will follow the same trend. I suspect the sky is going to stay where it is.

[rahdam]

Births are already below the replacement rate in most of the first world with population data to suggest much of the world and in particular China and India will follow the same trend. I suspect the sky is going to stay where it is.

To confirm, you mean to say that the mortality rate in the first world is above the birth rate? or is the replacement rate a different statistic I am unaware of? Thanks.

[Cicatrix]

To confirm, you mean to say that the mortality rate in the first world is above the birth rate? or is the replacement rate a different statistic I am unaware of? Thanks.

He might mean the Population Growth number, although this usually takes into account factors such as immigration as well.

If you just look at the straight birth rate minus the mortality rate , I think virtually all first world countries are in decline. Thats why most first world countries depend on some level of immigration to help stem the flow.

[Krazy P]

The world's population is growing exponentially while its resources are not. In my mind, the single biggest threat to the human race is overpopulation. How do we combat this?

China has a one child policy which I used to abhor, but I can now accept; at least China makes an attempt to combat overpopulation.

I work in a very urban area, and I see new teenagers getting pregnant everyday, and I cannot imagine that these kids will have the supportive environment necessary to launch them into a successful life; they will simply exist, like the neighborhoods in which they live. I see this as a microcosm for the rest of the world.

Another point: People with low intellect are outbreeding people with high intellect by a fair margin. Highly educated people statistically produce less offspring than people with minimal education.

With this in mind, where is the world heading?

I think you are a little behind the curve on this one. The real problem with population is that it is projected to fall - and fast in the developed world and in the developing world. This creates the problem of "A world without children".

Current projections call for the world population to peak around 2050 and then start falling. In the developed world this will happen sooner and who will support all the old people?

You might want to do a little checking on this yourself to learn the latest facts on this issue. Facts are pesky things.

Have fun!

[rahdam]

I think you are a little behind the curve on this one. The real problem with population is that it is projected to fall - and fast in the developed world and in the developing world. This creates the problem of "A world without children".

Current projections call for the world population to peak around 2050 and then start falling. In the developed world this will happen sooner and who will support all the old people?

You might want to do a little checking on this yourself to learn the latest facts on this issue. Facts are pesky things.

Have fun!

Projections are not facts, but I will give this a go this weekend when I get time.

[metamagnet]

Soilent Green anyone? :)

[dragonsscout]

Soilent Green anyone? :)
IT'S PEOPLE!!!!:shocked:

Never seen it though.

[MindOverMatter]

One way or the other it's a self correcting problem.
1. The population rebalances itself when starvation hits (worst case)
2. The population levels off as a result of the need for smaller families.
3. Technology keeps up with the growing population allowing for continued growth.

[Delarge]

The human species should not be permitted to continue to profilerate as bacteria does in a petri dish. It is imperative that we as a society gain a true understanding of the implications of over-population. Surely there is some humane, intelligent manner to address this problem. If we do not, if instead we continue on this course, we will be greeted with yet more famine, yet more pestilence, and undoubtedly, more organized violence amongst ourselves.

The people of the world would benefit from a stable population in addition to a stable economy.

[rahdam]

The human species should not be permitted to continue to profilerate as bacteria does in a petri dish. It is imperative that we as a society gain a true understanding of the implications of over-population. Surely there is some humane, intelligent manner to address this problem. If we do not, if instead we continue on this course, we will be greeted with yet more famine, yet more pestilence, and undoubtedly, more organized violence amongst ourselves.

The people of the world would benefit from a stable population in addition to a stable economy.

I like what you are saying here. We need to learn to use our intellect to override our base desire to procreate at high levels.

And what is this thread necromancy?

[Dave C C]

This reminds me of Thomas Malthus and he was writing in the early 1800's, and we are still around.