Do you worry about over-population?

  • 118 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by -RocBoys9489- (6222 posts) -

I know it's a kinda random topic, but with an exponential increase in world population since the industrial revolution, with no sign of growth stopping, does the issue potentially worry you a bit?  There's only so many resources on this planet and we are going through them very quickly as other countries are beginning to consume more, particularly China and India.  How much longer do we have til civilization as we know it cannot sustain itself?  50 years? 100 years? Longer? Explain.

#2 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

We may go through some growing pains, but I think we'll be fine overall.

#3 Posted by KiIIyou (27145 posts) -
Yeah I don't wanna be crowded.
#4 Posted by KingKinect (540 posts) -

No. I figure the Chinese will take over and kill us all soon enough anyways.

#5 Posted by Dogswithguns (10737 posts) -
Better than under, the world still has plenty of room.. so no.
#6 Posted by Kats_RK (2080 posts) -

Yes,sometimes ¬¬

#7 Posted by Oleg_Huzwog (21885 posts) -

The rich and powerful always get first dibs on resources, so I'm not concerned.

#8 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

i don't worry about population growth. people have been worrying about crowding for centuries and we've always found a way to sustain more people through better farming methods, new discoveries, and all that. hell, i'm sure cavemen gathering around the fire worried their tribe might grow too big during boom times.

i think the bigger thing is how we sustain growth in a way that doesn't mess everything up than it is the growth itself. i mean, we could stay the same population but rely on unfiltered smokestacks and still do plenty of damage.

#9 Posted by musicalmac (22962 posts) -
Not when everyone in the world could comfortably fit inside the state of Texas.
#10 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
Nope. Population always flattens as a country gets more developed.
#11 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

Birth rates in many developed nations are decreasing, so it's turning into less of a problem. While there is limited space for resources, we still have a long way to go with technology, specifically fo recylicing.

Sooner or later, we'll go out to the other planets and colonizes, which will alleviate the problem.

#12 Posted by Ace_of_Spades90 (717 posts) -

This is going to sound selfish, but why worry about something that has no impact on us at the moment?

 

Like a few have stated above me, I, too, feel that we haven't reached the limits of technology, and all that it has to offer us. I'm sure there are ways to  simultaneously sustain resources and the like, while at the same time, for it to not have a negative effect on the environment. To clarify, I'm not implying that we should all not care about the prospect of an over-populated world; we should care. We can all do our part, but we shouldn't be worrying about it like fanatics either.

#13 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
No because only poor people have to worry about food, water, and necessities.
#14 Posted by Dogswithguns (10737 posts) -
Not when everyone in the world could comfortably fit inside the state of Texas.musicalmac
True true.. that's what I heard.
#15 Posted by Legend002 (7085 posts) -

No. The more the merrier.

[spoiler] *Sarcasm [/spoiler]

#16 Posted by JohnF111 (14088 posts) -
Yeah we need highly contagious incurable diseases to control the population. Medicine thinks it's so great but really it just means more people die in the future, like cutting down forests to build homes, it's only short term relief from an immediate need. I'm just glad I'll be dead by the time it becomes a real issue.
#17 Posted by zenogandia (912 posts) -

I do. I believe most countries are over populated, some need polutation control to be honest. Thanks Jesus for the gays. 

#18 Posted by hiphops_savior (7874 posts) -
There will always be some crazy dictator trying to kill people or a new strain of disease that decimates a population base. Cruel, I know, but it's the world that's cruel and fragile.
#19 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -

i sorta do.

 

people can claim over population is B.S but, the day where we are bascly forced to all live in gaint appartment buildings due to space or EAT labortory food is no way for me to live...

 

#20 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
Not when everyone in the world could comfortably fit inside the state of Texas.musicalmac
Lack of resources is the problem.
#21 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -

This is going to sound selfish, but why worry about something that has no impact on us at the moment?

 

Like a few have stated above me, I, too, feel that we haven't reached the limits of technology, and all that it has to offer us. I'm sure there are ways to  simultaneously sustain resources and the like, while at the same time, for it to not have a negative effect on the environment. To clarify, I'm not implying that we should all not care about the prospect of an over-populated world; we should care. We can all do our part, but we shouldn't be worrying about it like fanatics either.

Ace_of_Spades90

that statement right there results future issues becoming too large to handle.

#22 Posted by yellosnolvr (19302 posts) -
slightly. won't happen anytime soon
#23 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -
Not when everyone in the world could comfortably fit inside the state of Texas.musicalmac
comfortably lol get real dude...
#24 Posted by Masculus (2834 posts) -

I don't feel that population growth is itself a problem; fertility rates are decreasing really fast all across the globe and we can safely expect a slowdown in the world population growth. The real issue to be solved is the crowding of urban spaces and the effects of an ageing population over the economy.

#25 Posted by -RocBoys9489- (6222 posts) -
And one thing to think about: Oil isn't just used as a source of fuel, but is put into so many consumer products/electronics/plastics etc. What are we going to do when it's all gone?
#26 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (15969 posts) -

People? No. Not where I am.

Skunks? Yes. Too many of them end up as roadkill and they stink.....really bad. Catch one whiff and all the windows come rolling down.

#27 Posted by Evil_Saluki (4878 posts) -

When I find myself waiting to pull out at a T-Junction for over 2 minutes, I pray for an epidemic.

#28 Posted by Squeets (8184 posts) -

Nah... We have 25% the population of China in just as much space, and they get along fine.  I doubt our population will increase 400% in my lifetime, and even if it does, by the time it happens I will be old and half dead so I won't give a sh-t anyways.

I'm not saying its nice in China, but humans don't really need a lot of space to live.  And in the USA, we have plenty of space.

#29 Posted by Dogswithguns (10737 posts) -
And one thing to think about: Oil isn't just used as a source of fuel, but is put into so many consumer products/electronics/plastics etc. What are we going to do when it's all gone?-RocBoys9489-
there will always be corn oil, cooking oil.. lard.
#30 Posted by Pierst179 (10766 posts) -

Not when everyone in the world could comfortably fit inside the state of Texas.musicalmac

It sure does not feel that way when I am on a crowded subway. :(

#31 Posted by BLKR4330 (1698 posts) -

the biggest issue isn't over-population in the sense that i think that there's plenty of room for more. what i do think is a problem is those hundreds of millions of chinese that with growing prosperity want to live their lives the same resource devouring way we in the western world have done the past decades. even if we can bring ourselves to take a few steps back in living standards, which will be hard enough, we have zero credibility in convincing others to do the same.

#32 Posted by PannicAtack (21021 posts) -
Given that our way of life isn't particularly sustainable...
#33 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18398 posts) -
We will be fine, there are companies looking into using resources other than the current ones.. look at wind farms, solar panels etc.. things like this help.
#34 Posted by k2theswiss (16599 posts) -
And one thing to think about: Oil isn't just used as a source of fuel, but is put into so many consumer products/electronics/plastics etc. What are we going to do when it's all gone?-RocBoys9489-
some scientist from UK already found a way to duplicate oil :)
#35 Posted by Blueresident87 (5339 posts) -

I sometimes think it's ridiculous how many people there are in the world, but 'worry' about it I don't think I really do.

It is what it is...we'll figure it out.

#36 Posted by hummer700 (10190 posts) -
Watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html Its really interesting. Population isn't as big of a problem as you may think.
#37 Posted by rocinante_ (1666 posts) -

[QUOTE="musicalmac"]Not when everyone in the world could comfortably fit inside the state of Texas.DroidPhysX
Lack of resources is the problem.

more like distribution of resources

#38 Posted by Ovirew (6343 posts) -

I think we are already over-populated, I think many scientists have actually declared the world as being over-populated?  But from what I gather, we are still producing enough food to supply the world and then some.  It might be another factor besides having enough food that makes us over-populated, though.  Like waste production, or something.

I am worried that we will reach a point where there isn't enough healthy food for the world population.  So far, I think everyone has claimed that there are enough animals and enough crops for everyone, but I'm not so sure I believe that.  Heck, from what I've read, the FDA sure doesn't know a whole heck of a lot, or doesn't monitor things as well as one would hope.

I wasn't surprised one bit when Burger King came out saying they had used horse meat in their Whoppers the other day.  I am sure we are all eating more than beef and chicken in most of our food these days.  Horse meat, 'pink slime' beef, and probably everything including the kitchen sink.  It would just be nice if the government and all parties involved were at least honest in telling us what we're really eating.

It would be nice if people kept better tabs on population.  But so many horror stories have come out about Chinese abandoning baby girls, and Indian parents having their little girls' sex changed...  The whole thing just makes me cringe.  Maybe the solution is just to sterilize a couple of generations of people over there til we're out of the danger zone.

#39 Posted by -RocBoys9489- (6222 posts) -
[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"]And one thing to think about: Oil isn't just used as a source of fuel, but is put into so many consumer products/electronics/plastics etc. What are we going to do when it's all gone?k2theswiss
some scientist from UK already found a way to duplicate oil :)

What?! So we can still make plastics and consumer products?
#40 Posted by tocool340 (20495 posts) -
I worry about the effects of over population. Not just resources, but the higher likelihood of a insane maniac deciding to go on a mass killing due to the denser population...
#41 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

Not at all. There are far more important things to worry about.

#42 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

i don't worry about population growth. people have been worrying about crowding for centuries and we've always found a way to sustain more people through better farming methods, new discoveries, and all that. hell, i'm sure cavemen gathering around the fire worried their tribe might grow too big during boom times.

i think the bigger thing is how we sustain growth in a way that doesn't mess everything up than it is the growth itself. i mean, we could stay the same population but rely on unfiltered smokestacks and still do plenty of damage.

LoG-Sacrament

This, frankly, is a pretty scary attitude to have.  Technology is not some magic wand we can just wave and make everything better, people need to understand that there are limitations on what we can do and that technology will not magically solve all of our problems.  No matter how advanced our farming methods are, farming still takes nutrients out of the soil and water from local sources.  If we were using the most sustainable methods of farming right now that would still be true, and we're not using those methods even though they could increase sustainability.  Here's another point about an optimistic outlook, if we know what we have to do now and we're not doing it then why is there any reason to think we'll make a sudden turnaround when the sh*t really hits the fan?

There's an excellent book on the subject called Collapse by Jared Diamond, and if you don't read anything else from that book you should try to at least read the section where he addresses individuals who are overly optimistic on the issue of resource consumption.  2033, I believe, is the date he gives for where current growth is not sustainable.  Keep in mind that even if we're able to completely stop the increase in resource consumption and remain at current levels we will not be able to sustain our current levels indefinitely, and societies looking to move to our standard of living will not be able to without creating a conflict over resources.  It's true that China and India are going to level out at some point in the near future, but they're already putting a massive strain on global resource use and that's going to increase before it gets better.  Sure, we will probably find a way to pull through it, but what will that world look like?  What if computers are reserved for the wealthy?  Or advanced medical equipment?  Or running water?  That world could look massively different from the one we are used to.

#43 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

Not at all. There are far more important things to worry about.

Vari3ty

Like what, exactly?

#44 Posted by -RocBoys9489- (6222 posts) -

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

i don't worry about population growth. people have been worrying about crowding for centuries and we've always found a way to sustain more people through better farming methods, new discoveries, and all that. hell, i'm sure cavemen gathering around the fire worried their tribe might grow too big during boom times.

i think the bigger thing is how we sustain growth in a way that doesn't mess everything up than it is the growth itself. i mean, we could stay the same population but rely on unfiltered smokestacks and still do plenty of damage.

theone86

This, frankly, is a pretty scary attitude to have.  Technology is not some magic wand we can just wave and make everything better, people need to understand that there are limitations on what we can do and that technology will not magically solve all of our problems.  No matter how advanced our farming methods are, farming still takes nutrients out of the soil and water from local sources.  If we were using the most sustainable methods of farming right now that would still be true, and we're not using those methods even though they could increase sustainability.  Here's another point about an optimistic outlook, if we know what we have to do now and we're not doing it then why is there any reason to think we'll make a sudden turnaround when the sh*t really hits the fan?

There's an excellent book on the subject called Collapse by Jared Diamond, and if you don't read anything else from that book you should try to at least read the section where he addresses individuals who are overly optimistic on the issue of resource consumption.  2033, I believe, is the date he gives for where current growth is not sustainable.  Keep in mind that even if we're able to completely stop the increase in resource consumption and remain at current levels we will not be able to sustain our current levels indefinitely, and societies looking to move to our standard of living will not be able to without creating a conflict over resources.  It's true that China and India are going to level out at some point in the near future, but they're already putting a massive strain on global resource use and that's going to increase before it gets better.  Sure, we will probably find a way to pull through it, but what will that world look like?  What if computers are reserved for the wealthy?  Or advanced medical equipment?  Or running water?  That world could look massively different from the one we are used to.

I hear that water-wars may be happening in the near future, I need to research this, but I heard the Bush family already bought a huge water reserve lol.

Yea, apparently they bought 100,000 acres of land in Paraguay that has the largest aquifer in the world

#45 Posted by whipassmt (14024 posts) -

Yeah we need highly contagious incurable diseases to control the population. Medicine thinks it's so great but really it just means more people die in the future, like cutting down forests to build homes, it's only short term relief from an immediate need. I'm just glad I'll be dead by the time it becomes a real issue.JohnF111
Who says we have to cut down the trees, maybe we could live in big tree forts on top of the trees like Lothlorien.

#46 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Not when everyone in the world could comfortably fit inside the state of Texas.musicalmac

The issue isn't space, it's resources.

#47 Posted by whipassmt (14024 posts) -

No I don't. Actually last week I was watching a documentary on tv about underpopulation, so called "Demographic winter" which was showing that birthrates globally are declining and that they are below replacement level in many developed countries, which is starting to cause economic problems and it also means that there won't be enough young people to take care of the old people.

#48 Posted by -RocBoys9489- (6222 posts) -

No I don't. Actually last week I was watching a documentary on tv about underpopulation, so called "Demographic winter" which was showing that birthrates globally are declining and that they are below replacement level in many developed countries, which is starting to cause economic problems and it also means that there won't be enough young people to take care of the old people.

whipassmt
The only country I'm aware of where that is an actual problem is Japan. It's called a population pyramid and their's is upside-down.
#49 Posted by bnarmz (1425 posts) -

uhmmm. no.

Theres an over abundance of land and resources. There are still uncharted place on this planet so how can this be a fact? It's what the elites want us to think because the system they get rich off of is becoming weary. They don't want to adapt for the benifits of everyone...just a few. For instance: I can just take a 10 hour drive on any interstate and see a whole lot of unused land. Greed is the real problem we face. Most westerners create so much waste its ridiculous if you really think about it, and even then theres still plenty for everyone. When we empower ourselves with couragewe can control our greedy governments, therefore making it more efficient. We have the technology to produce free energy; we have the means to spread wealth and health. But, Its our blind selfishness putting us in this situation. Corporations are trying to gain control of the globe and if that happens humans will get exactly what they deserve. Life is not fair only because we choose to make it that way through neglect and insensitivity. Our demise will only come at our own hands, once we get rid of our parasitic ways we will all easily see that there is hardly anything to worry about.

#50 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

No I don't. Actually last week I was watching a documentary on tv about underpopulation, so called "Demographic winter" which was showing that birthrates globally are declining and that they are below replacement level in many developed countries, which is starting to cause economic problems and it also means that there won't be enough young people to take care of the old people.

-RocBoys9489-
The only country I'm aware of where that is an actual problem is Japan. It's called a population pyramid and their's is upside-down.

Yeah, the situation in Japan is really worrying. That's why xenophobia is silly, folks.