World Population

[YoshiSlayer]

Re: World Population

We should try to promote things that kill people. Such as war, extreme sports, and the death penalty.

Mod Says: Watch your mouth in this forum, or it will be shut for you.

Since when in history was it ok to kill random people? What happens when your family is killed? I doubt you will think your "ideas" will be great then. Before you even attempt to come up with an idea think of how it would affect your life before you decide it is a worthwhile thought.

[foilman8805]

Re: World Population

UN, in my opinion, is only effective at its hunger and relief scheme. They aren't allowed to raise arms, thus, not so effective in conflict resolution.

Their power is in diplomacy, and their ability to levy economic sanctions. The latter can stop a growing country dead in its tracks, and once the targeted country realizes its economy is being choked off, the diplomacy kicks in.

There is conflict resolution without arms and violence. Though, in my honest opinion, arms and violence puts people in line way faster than economic sanctions and diplomacy.

[benguino]

Re: World Population

I honestly think that you, Reuben, will go no where in life, let alone have a life, if you think killing people is fine.

Since when in history was it ok to kill random people? What happens when your family is killed...

Did I say I want to kill random people? No, I said I want to promote things such as war. Humans have been at war with each other for a long time and it seems to work as one of those things that kill people faster.

Try imagine if there was never war, never natrual disasters, no death penalty,etc... The population of the planet would be at astronomical rates.

What I meant to say when I said we should promote things like that was that making birth laws is not working and we need to find a alternative solution.

[Mans0n]

Re: World Population

Honestly, i Agree with the fact that; There all always people dying everyday, every hour. And Death > Birth.

So it pretty much evens everything out. and if there was to be an overwhelmingly large amounts of birth to occur, good 'ol mother nature will step in and kill a ****load of people. So ironically we should be happy earthquakes happen, and hurricanes and what not. Not saying i want to happen. Just that they help keep population down. dont mean no disrespect.

[foilman8805]

Re: World Population

Is it ironic that a recent magnitude 8 earthquake in central China has been estimated to have killed 60,000+ people, and a cyclone in Burma (Myanmar) has potentially killed upwards of 80,000 people all in the last week?

Is this good enough for you?

[inflames07]

Re: World Population

Did I say I want to kill random people? No, I said I want to promote things such as war. Humans have been at war with each other for a long time and it seems to work as one of those things that kill people faster.

Try imagine if there was never war, never natrual disasters, no death penalty,etc... The population of the planet would be at astronomical rates.

What I meant to say when I said we should promote things like that was that making birth laws is not working and we need to find a alternative solution.

Like everyone has said already, you can only propose bills in your own country and I guarantee a bill like that would never be discussed by congress. Humans have the natural ability and rights to pass along their family name.

Also, there is a ton of open space left on the planet and will probably never be filled. Go ahead and try to promote what you said to people "Hi will you please kill your children, join the military and cut off your genitals to regulate the population? thx"

Oh, and if you feel so strongly about the population, you can set an example to others by jumping off a bridge or something.


Right now there isn't a problem with population, at least one that outweighs the current issues of pollution and such. However in the next 1,000 years it might become one with the life expectancy of humans increasing. But as the others said above, there will always be natural disasters.

[Zythus]

Re: World Population

What I meant to say when I said we should promote things like that was that making birth laws is not working and we need to find a alternative solution.

There is no other HUMANE alternative. Unless you would suggest something I haven't thought of. Killing, warfare, genocide, etc. are all out of the question. At NO time would government(s) ever initiate such a protocol to limit population growth. It is not realistic.

It might as well be said we will meet our doom due to overpopulating. And that is why there is space exploration going on, to extend the human inhabitant's borders. Society is in its way naive and empathic which will not accept something like killing. We just use birth control and hope it lessens our load. Obviously, its not working, but it does some contribution.

Inflame, its not always the worry about space or land. Resources have a limit and their finitude will eventually be depleted someday. But as time passes, technology also evolve. The hopes of space and celestial bodies seem very promising.

[Dolphin2016]

Re: World Population

The reason why exponential growth is occurring in 3rd world countries is because people can't sustain themselves and their children like we do (people living in 1st world countries). Therefore, they must resort to having so many children to work for them and support them. However, as the children grow up, their needs to survive also grow rapidly, so they end up having a bunch of children to support them, resulting in exponential growth.

Until the country's infrastructure, economy, etc. shapes up, this cycle will continue. Many countries (especially in Africa) have little to no resources, meaning it will take hundreds in not thousands of years for them to develop into 1st world countries by themselves. How do we fix the overpopulation problem? We (the 1st world countries) must step in and help, even more so than today. If every single one of us even donates a penny, that will do wonders as compared to suggesting mass-massacres.

[benguino]

Re: World Population

The reason why exponential growth is occurring in 3rd world countries is because people can't sustain themselves and their children like we do (people living in 1st world countries). Therefore, they must resort to having so many children to work for them and support them. However, as the children grow up, their needs to survive also grow rapidly, so they end up having a bunch of children to support them, resulting in exponential growth.

Until the country's infrastructure, economy, etc. shapes up, this cycle will continue. Many countries (especially in Africa) have little to no resources, meaning it will take hundreds in not thousands of years for them to develop into 1st world countries by themselves. How do we fix the overpopulation problem? We (the 1st world countries) must step in and help, even more so than today. If every single one of us even donates a penny, that will do wonders as compared to suggesting mass-massacres.

Never mind, your plan seems a whole lot better.

[Waffl3]

Re: World Population

Humans destroyed natural selection however our society couldn't handle it. IMO we should all go back to living off the land with no docters and farm but this won't happen lol.

QTF
I like the idea of living off the land.

Limiting the amount of children a family can have is the only thing that i can see actually be enforced. No lives would be at risk, and we wouldn't be promoting ideas such as war. I am very against war and think that the world would be better off without it. All violence as a matter of fact is unneeded imo.
I completely agree with what dolphin said.

[irishknight]

Re: World Population

The reason why exponential growth is occurring in 3rd world countries is because people can't sustain themselves and their children like we do (people living in 1st world countries). Therefore, they must resort to having so many children to work for them and support them. However, as the children grow up, their needs to survive also grow rapidly, so they end up having a bunch of children to support them, resulting in exponential growth.

This is true. Most 3rd-world countries are in the 2nd demographic transition stage which coincides with exponential population growth. It has been theorised that economy affects population growth.

In case some of you are not familiar with the demographic transition stage, there are four stages. Each stage demonstrates birth rates/death rates/growth/economy.

1st stage -- Hunters and Gatherers (no countries are in this stage anymore)
2nd stage -- Agriculture (almost all 3rd world are in this stage)
3rd stage -- Industrialisation (U.S. is in this stage even though they're tertiary-based economy.)
4th stage -- Tertiary/service-based economy (Some countries in Europe this stage)

The way I learned this, population growth reaches equilibrium when in both 1st and 4th stages. Population can indeed be controlled without enforcing law in well-off areas following this model. An example of this would be Switzerland. Their population is basically at equilibrium and they're placed at the 4th stage of demographic transition.

More about exponential growth in population: it has been theorised by Thomas Malthus. Neo-Malthusians today still fret over exponential growth with worries of food shortages even though this isn't really much of a problem now in our well-off areas. However, if I remember correctly, there's a limit of rice.

Now my response to this thread:
The way I see it, Population will eventually cease in growth when all countries are in stage 4. Well-off societies will reach this event first, obviously. Also, there's even a possibility in reverse population growth (as seen in Sweden).

Also, a 5th stage of demographic transition is possible. I've read that countries such as Sweden are losing population. The 5th stage has been said to have a lower birth rate than death rate. So it's possible that we can lose population due to economy.

If we're only looking at 1st world countries, I'm sure we'll be fine in population in the future. Only time will tell when the population of the U.S. is in this equilibrium. It's not like we're going backwards through the stage model. That is, unless a cataclysmic event were to occur.

In 3rd world countries, I agree that they will take a long while to stabilise in population growth.

I might be ignorant on this, but I don't see why Africa's population will affect our societies seeing how they don't tap into our surplus of supplies (with exception of U.N.). With their population increasing, I don't see how they'll affect our environment since we're here, and they're over there.

[ddr_f4n]

Re: World Population

Although people may think that the world is really crowded in terms of population, there are still countries with a lot of available space. Here in Canada, a majority of our population is at the south of Ontario, near the border of the U.S. If we are willing to spread out and move up north, out country wouldn't look so populated as it is in the south now.

And we're pretty much reaching the limit of the "baby boomers" age, so we can see a huge decline in population once they die from some natural disease.

[irishknight]

Re: World Population

Although people may think that the world is really crowded in terms of population, there are still countries with a lot of available space. Here in Canada, a majority of our population is at the south of Ontario, near the border of the U.S. If we are willing to spread out and move up north, out country wouldn't look so populated as it is in the south now.

And we're pretty much reaching the limit of the "baby boomers" age, so we can see a huge decline in population once they die from some natural disease.

Northern Canada isn't ecumene-worthy, I've heard.

EDIT: Well it isn't so much about habitable land or climate now. Urban environments attracts residents to reside in suburbs to commute back and forth. I don't think they'll be very willing if most of Canadian cities as well as employment opportunities are prominent in the southern areas as opposed to northern areas. I'm not really sure how they'll grow some other city in the north when most of Canada's primary economic sectors reside in the South.

[chunky_cheese]

Re: World Population

If it wasn't for immigration, Canada's population would actually be declining right now. Like it was said earlier, the real problem lies in third world countries where they both need several children working to get the very basic neccesities, and the lack of use of condoms, due to poor education and poverty. By helping these countries develop, we can basically solve this "horrible world population growth rate" that we have. Or we can just all move to Canada, eh.

[OneHandNow]

Re: World Population

The population of the world will not be a problem by the time we die, so it shouldn't worry any of us here..

Also, there are a lot of countries in which birth rates are falling drastically..

(Singapore is a good example, 1.24 children per household, and the government is making How to Make Love classes in universities..)

(In Japan, households with young wives prefer dogs over having children, which explains why in Japan, there are more dogs than kids. The women don't want to take of a baby/child for 10+ years...)