Overpopulation. Resources running out. What do we do about these things?
- Thread starter lucky_sharm
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I remember back when I was in Grade school in the early 90's that we were supposed to have over 12 Billion people by now, and experiencing exponential growth.
I remember back in the early 90's that according to the 'experts' we wouldn't be able to walk around outside in daylight without head to toe clothing and sun screen because mere moments of exposure to sunlight would cause horrible UV burns because we wouldn't have any Ozone layer left.
In the 70's, it was predicted that by the 90's we would be facing mass starvation because of population growth and regions like India and Africa should be 'sacrificed' and not sent any food to conserve valuable resources.
In the 70's, it was scientific FACT that by the year 2000 Los Angeles would be covered in Glaciers and the earth would be in the grip of another Ice Age.
In the 1950's, it was predicted that the world supplies of crude oil would be exhausted by the year 2000.
In the 1950's it was supposed that earth would be a radioactive cinder due to nuclear technologies by now, not bombs per-se.
The point I'm making is that Experts have always been predicting imminent doom for mankind, and yet the imminent doom never seems to materialize. Too often the people who proclaim that the world will be facing 'terrible consequences' tend to merely see humans as consumers and takers from the planet, they never attribute the innovation and capabilities of the human mind in overcoming problems and dealing with problems. Invention, imagination and intellect are things that are never taken into account. We speak of 'over-population' but such over-population never seems to bear out on the level that is predicted. Decreasing resources is always seen as the overwhelming end of all things, and yet it's never realized that humanity has this amazing capacity to adapt and overcome challenges that stand before it.
Limiting the numbers of children in societies, enacting euthanasia for surplus population, we find ourselves looking at a society that simply does not place value on human life. If we step to the point where we simply say a human is a number, and that number must be reduced to reach an 'optimal' number, we sacrifice humanity itself. We reach that point where we simply decide to give up innovation in exchange for an arbitrary number, we will give up the thing we're trying to save, the human race. So what if we survive, what kind of survival would we find if human lives are culled to serve a greater good?
Innovation, intellect and scientific development is what is needed, faith in the most intrinsic of human attributes, not in the sacrifice of human life to maintain the status quo.
I remember back in the early 90's that according to the 'experts' we wouldn't be able to walk around outside in daylight without head to toe clothing and sun screen because mere moments of exposure to sunlight would cause horrible UV burns because we wouldn't have any Ozone layer left.
In the 70's, it was predicted that by the 90's we would be facing mass starvation because of population growth and regions like India and Africa should be 'sacrificed' and not sent any food to conserve valuable resources.
In the 70's, it was scientific FACT that by the year 2000 Los Angeles would be covered in Glaciers and the earth would be in the grip of another Ice Age.
In the 1950's, it was predicted that the world supplies of crude oil would be exhausted by the year 2000.
In the 1950's it was supposed that earth would be a radioactive cinder due to nuclear technologies by now, not bombs per-se.
The point I'm making is that Experts have always been predicting imminent doom for mankind, and yet the imminent doom never seems to materialize. Too often the people who proclaim that the world will be facing 'terrible consequences' tend to merely see humans as consumers and takers from the planet, they never attribute the innovation and capabilities of the human mind in overcoming problems and dealing with problems. Invention, imagination and intellect are things that are never taken into account. We speak of 'over-population' but such over-population never seems to bear out on the level that is predicted. Decreasing resources is always seen as the overwhelming end of all things, and yet it's never realized that humanity has this amazing capacity to adapt and overcome challenges that stand before it.
Limiting the numbers of children in societies, enacting euthanasia for surplus population, we find ourselves looking at a society that simply does not place value on human life. If we step to the point where we simply say a human is a number, and that number must be reduced to reach an 'optimal' number, we sacrifice humanity itself. We reach that point where we simply decide to give up innovation in exchange for an arbitrary number, we will give up the thing we're trying to save, the human race. So what if we survive, what kind of survival would we find if human lives are culled to serve a greater good?
Innovation, intellect and scientific development is what is needed, faith in the most intrinsic of human attributes, not in the sacrifice of human life to maintain the status quo.
This has been happening throughout history and we've always managed by progressing in science and technology.
When animals overpopulate they end up dying off either by starving or fighting each other over food. This happens because they never truly develop any way to get more food, although some may adapt to eating other food.
However, when humans encounter this problem we turn to science and technology. When we begin to run out of space we will build in the skies, when we run out of food and water we will make artificial substitutes and the cycle will continue to repeat until we find another planet to do this on.
The human race will be fine for a while yet.
When animals overpopulate they end up dying off either by starving or fighting each other over food. This happens because they never truly develop any way to get more food, although some may adapt to eating other food.
However, when humans encounter this problem we turn to science and technology. When we begin to run out of space we will build in the skies, when we run out of food and water we will make artificial substitutes and the cycle will continue to repeat until we find another planet to do this on.
The human race will be fine for a while yet.
I mused the idea once that we should wipe out the people in the Congo/darfor region, use it for farming and development, and do the same with violent poor areas that are in need of UN help.
Just saying.
Just saying.
I know this is mean but the only real solution is the same one nature has usually used to try to keep us in check but us humans are stubborn little bastards and now where-in lies are problem too many births and too little deaths in comparison.
So poisoning old people slowly to die quicker? Limiting amount of children people can have? Let poor people die of starvation?
These are all horrible unethical solutions but we need less people.
So poisoning old people slowly to die quicker? Limiting amount of children people can have? Let poor people die of starvation?
These are all horrible unethical solutions but we need less people.
This makes no sense how will that stop over population? If anything religion helps prevent it what with absitinance and all.CrazyCapnMorgan said:
I say colonize Mars! The 51st state!
Overpopulation is a myth. Let me explain. China has the worlds largest population, but the one child policy is going to cause a population crash and likely a revolution in China (4-2-1 issue, little emperors, and the male preference). India will still have population growth, but selective abortion is a huge problem. Most MEDC's (More economically developed countries) are facing a population decline, with the major exception being the US, although it has a large number of immigrants. This is because it is getting too expensive and time consuming to raise a child, and feminism/women working is causing this to be even more severe. Also, you got the HIV crisis in Africa, which for better or worse, is slowly population growth. Finally, birth control is a lot cheaper/easier to get than it as ten years ago, so that can slow population growth.
TL;DR: We are facing population decline sometime soon, not overpopulation
TL;DR: We are facing population decline sometime soon, not overpopulation
FTW!BudZer said:
Also the more liberated women are, the more choices they have, the lower the birthrate. It's almost like when we women actually have choices, we reject the notion that motherhood alone makes you a worthy person. and then we do cool things like get educated... join the workforce... gasp.
So yeah: if you are worried about the world going down the drain: become a feminist. Support women's rights.
Oh I wouldn't try taking action it might start some pretty insane goings on, but witht he population on the rise as you stated, sooner or later there will be a new disease, it will have results like the plague, it will not be pleasant, and BECAUSE of the high population = low living space rule, it will spread like wildfire and everything will sort itself out. It's nature's way.
Make it so that you can only have one child. Worldwide. Unless you're a farmer or some other kind of job in which you need more help on the farm/job, which is best provided by family.
Of course this is impossible to enforce (unless you make some kind of suppression field gizmo that makes it impossible to fertilize the opposite sex), and while I'm sure a lot of people would party hard (no need for birth control!
), I'm positive that a large and vocal group would start seeing this as an attack on their God-given right to become the next octo-mom and have more kids than they can support, and then they'd raise hell over it, dooming us all.
I don't see how we can implement that without there being some kind of armed uprising. Even though we can CLEARLY see that we're expanding way too fast. Especially in places like china (who are having trouble enforcing that one kid only law), and africa, and a lot of other places.
So...since the best solution won't ever happen, I'll just hope we find that Prothean technology on mars and get out into space before our world ends up like the Drell homeworld.
BTW, this one kid only rule should be lifted/relaxed once humanity's numbers go down a little bit.
Of course this is impossible to enforce (unless you make some kind of suppression field gizmo that makes it impossible to fertilize the opposite sex), and while I'm sure a lot of people would party hard (no need for birth control!
), I'm positive that a large and vocal group would start seeing this as an attack on their God-given right to become the next octo-mom and have more kids than they can support, and then they'd raise hell over it, dooming us all.I don't see how we can implement that without there being some kind of armed uprising. Even though we can CLEARLY see that we're expanding way too fast. Especially in places like china (who are having trouble enforcing that one kid only law), and africa, and a lot of other places.
So...since the best solution won't ever happen, I'll just hope we find that Prothean technology on mars and get out into space before our world ends up like the Drell homeworld.
BTW, this one kid only rule should be lifted/relaxed once humanity's numbers go down a little bit.
No idea will work because total global implementation will never happen. What will happen is the first world countries will continue to consume with little regard to the consequences as our resources dwindle and the effort to find/use more cost more energy/money that basically price out the lowest classes of humanity. We'll be fine for a while as innovation and original thought are one of the human races strongest traits but without a hegemony of some sort to enforce world-wide doctrine then no measure will work effectively and even then there would be large patches of resistance (welcome to star wars on earth). Space colonization and exploration are pretty much our final option (hello star trek federation) as the raw resources are widely available in the cosmos and we have the rudimentary technology right now to combine them to our needs.
First, really define "overpopulation". I don't see the world as overpopulated as of yet except in a few countries most of which are 3rd world or oppressive as hell.
Second, there is no solution except that nature has a way of running its own course. Biosphere's tend to adjust accordingly, so don't worry about that.
Second, there is no solution except that nature has a way of running its own course. Biosphere's tend to adjust accordingly, so don't worry about that.
I guess that if there was a logical yet draconian attempt to enforce no pregnancy for three years, the rate of dying people vs newborns would greatly reduce the population and space and resource issues. However, a thing called humanity is in the way because there is NO way you could stop people from breeding...there would be wars for sure. Places like Japan have upside down pyramids, with tons of old people and few younger people. Plus, we have two countries in line to be superpowers, and you cannot stop them from wanting the same level of satiety that Western countries have enjoyed for their time at the top.
I can entertain romantic ideas of living on another planet..but what about vitamins everyone..we are made of Earth and it is only earth, and perhaps the Vit D our sun creates that we thrive from. Oh, maybe with nanotech and stuff we can make vitamins and minerals that replicate those made by geologic processes and the complex evolution of plants and animals.
There have been times that on the smaller level, people's supply lines dried up and they either died or re created society...the myths that created the Arthurian myths grew out of the fall of Rome, and people who thrived in Greenland had something or other cut off their plenty.
So we can play Fallout, or other post catastrophic event genre game..and know that the system of raiders or bandits adapts to fill in lost power structures when social centers fall.
I can entertain romantic ideas of living on another planet..but what about vitamins everyone..we are made of Earth and it is only earth, and perhaps the Vit D our sun creates that we thrive from. Oh, maybe with nanotech and stuff we can make vitamins and minerals that replicate those made by geologic processes and the complex evolution of plants and animals.
There have been times that on the smaller level, people's supply lines dried up and they either died or re created society...the myths that created the Arthurian myths grew out of the fall of Rome, and people who thrived in Greenland had something or other cut off their plenty.
So we can play Fallout, or other post catastrophic event genre game..and know that the system of raiders or bandits adapts to fill in lost power structures when social centers fall.
More big wars? I'm sure, deep down, mankind's fascination with killing itself off is some sort of unconscious, genetic form of population control. "They don't agree with us/look different/have more resources/come from a different place, they must die" is pretty much how most conflicts start in the natural world. Conflicts often leads to deaths which keeps population down.
But that's the cynic in me talking.
Otherwise, the problem won't be likely to solve itself until the creation of a cheap/free, easily renewable energy source that everyone on Earth has access to. Without having to worry about energy, our petrol consumption would go down drastically, food would be easier to grow in truly epic quantities, transportation of this food around the world would be functionally be free. Wars would end, famine would cease and the world would start moving towards becoming a better place. Basically, when we have replicators, we'll be set to have a bright Star Trek-style utopian future. Not to mention, free energy would eventually render the concept of money moot since the only real cost is in time and not resources.
So.......WWIII or free energy? I don't see the later happening before the former, unfortunately.
But that's the cynic in me talking.
Otherwise, the problem won't be likely to solve itself until the creation of a cheap/free, easily renewable energy source that everyone on Earth has access to. Without having to worry about energy, our petrol consumption would go down drastically, food would be easier to grow in truly epic quantities, transportation of this food around the world would be functionally be free. Wars would end, famine would cease and the world would start moving towards becoming a better place. Basically, when we have replicators, we'll be set to have a bright Star Trek-style utopian future. Not to mention, free energy would eventually render the concept of money moot since the only real cost is in time and not resources.
So.......WWIII or free energy? I don't see the later happening before the former, unfortunately.