6 billion and counting

This might be true if terraforming a planet was the only reasonable alternative to off planet living...but as we both know I think...it isnt. for quite sometime, nasa has already been considering permanent stations on the moon..and we arent terraforming that.

In my opinion, population currently looks like a problem because of humans desire to form communities....to be near one another. If we continue to help under-developed contries to improve their standard of living and reform some of our own standards of living, I think those areas of concentration could dilute.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

exactly who's "freedom" would be secured?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

good question..........ruling elite?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

-ulp

suddenly I feel a strong need to secure my freedom

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

and how would you do that? Hopefully you wouldnt put your security of freedom in the hands of the ruling elite....err i mean government.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

By "looking off planet for the answer"... I'm assuming you mean populating other planets?
If not - and all we do is drag resources to Earth - we exacerbate the problem (more people on Earth than Earth has resources for etc).

However, the idea that we can shift an ever growing population off-world is even more ludicrous - and just pure fiction.

Even to maintain a 6 billion population - growing at 1% a year - we would need to off-load 60,000,000 people each year.

That's roughly 200 per second finding some means of leaving the planet.
Roughly one shuttle per second.


Simply put, overpopulation will NEVER be resolved through moving people off-planet - unless "overpopulation" is in the order of 1,000s of people a year or so.

 

A huge population needs feeding. Since gays are a net burden on resources how can they be needed?

 

wouldnt that be 2 a second?

 

You are quite right - I must have transposed the decimal somewhat. (/shame-on-me!)

Anyhoo - the point still stands - it is an unrealistic idea.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm sure mama nature will cook up a nice little parasite.....

 

Personally, I dont agree. I agree that it may be unrealistic by today's terms of what space travel is, who runs it, how much it costs...etc. But, I think by the time population REALLY becomes a problem we will either hopefully be far more advanced by then and spacetravel will be as trivial as getting on a subway to get to work.

The reality of it is that comet will probably hit us in 2012 and we wont have to worry about the population for another 500 years...

 

If killing off a few 100 000 will save millions, I'm all for it. Just make sure that It's the murderers.. Surely there are over 100 000 murderers around the world.

Otherwise, If its like a lottery, No thanks.

 

Yes indeed!
And if it's not a parasite, mama nature will do it some other way but we really are in for one hell of a slapping down.

 

Lift your skirts the floods are coming!

 

How are you so sure a solution to overpopulation exists? In a happy-go-lucky world every problem has a solution; however, in the world that Kurt Godel once walked, it's just not so. For example, even if an equilibrium of human:resources exists and a balance is reached, human nature itself could disrupt it through greed. I don't even want to touch the assumptions made in space-age living being a plausible success. So much credit is given to the logic of human society, when in reality, human kind is irrational and cursed with emotion-driven characteristics.

 

Title: More and more people would be glad to live, so rather than reducing birthrates, explore how to populate denser and more efficiently. Duh?

What about considering more, the greater good of the many, in welcoming people to enlarge their numbers?

When I add up all the compelling reasons for people to have as many children as they do, and humanity's powerful reproductive urges, it all adds up into a global goal and natural desire, to enlarge the entire human race, for the greater good of the many.

The natural remedy for reproductive urges, is pairing up and marriage, and of course, pregnancy. The natural remedy for pregnancy, is childbirth. And to welcome the natural flow of human life to increasingly fill the planet, respects nature and nature's creator God. The natural increase of humans is quite natural and to be expected.

We should set a good example for a growing world of people, by multiplying ourselves, and showing the world how it is best done.

Why not let human population growth get "out of control" throughout the world? It's what people apparently want, and all the more people who can then experience life. What control freaks would you trust to "control" us all, in such personal and intimate of ways?

There's some Utilitarian Principle thing that suggest that often the best thing to do, is that which most benefit the most people. Even some website remarked on the population implications, that it suggests population growth so that more people may be around to benefit from whatever.

Each and every human life is sacred, and God has some purpose for each person, so the flow of human life should be unhindered. It better shows children how much they are "wanted," when their parents explain to them why their family doesn't practice any means of "birth control."

Such profound matters as population size, can only be morally decided by "a higher power." For pets, their "higher power" is their adopting masters, we humans, so we are free to get our pets "fixed," because they don't have "human rights" anyway. But to deny the right to procreate, to humans, is but one small step from denying the right to live. Our "higher power" is God, who made the matter clear with his commandment to people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. So what part of "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," do we not understand? Maybe the part about God designing what populates the planet, to be extremely pleasurable, a nagging reminder of most people's duties to pair up, marry, and of course, reproduce. Maybe the part about how each successive generation is naturally supposed to grow larger and more populous, than the previous? Or do we think that it was merely a suggesting, and not an instinct designed into our genes? Well it's a rhetorical question. Obedience would seem to imply shunning unnatural "birth control" and welcoming babies to happen as they happen.

I don't think that China's 1-child policy was even their idea. Commie Chairman Mao, claimed that a large and growing population would make China strong. Maybe, maybe not. But at least it would allow all the more fellow human beings, to enjoy life. I think it came from western power-monger globalists leaning on China to get its huge soaring human population more "under control" for fear of "as goes China, so goes the world." If the world's most populous country can't reign in its burgeoning human numbers, what does that do to the entire planet? And it further encourages people in other countries to also breed prolifically, making highly populous and dense countries, seem all the more, the norm. But I already advocate a more densely and efficiently populated planet, for the greater good of the many, so I encourage large families worldwide, so that far more people may enjoy life. Chinese peasants or whoever, should be encouraged to enjoy having their "traditionally very large" families, in China, or wherever they happen to live.

I like the metaphor of "the baby in the womb," to describe the planet's human population condition. A baby that could somehow "control" and stop its growth, would be in serious trouble. It must "outgrow" the womb, in order to escape and emerge into the vast, wonderous, better world. All parts of the "pregnancy" can be expected to grow, all at the same time. Some very noticable belly swelling, is normal and natural and beautiful, and to be expected. So if the planet is becoming "pregnant" with people, so much the better. It means that we must be doing something right then.

 

At what point though does it get to where there are so many people on the planet you can’t enjoy life? Life is no longer enjoyable and each person created will share in this.

From dealing with asshole A) cutting you off in traffic and damn near killing you to asshole Z) trying to govern your life.....

At what point does your life infringe on my quality of life and vice versa?
At what point does the quality of life get so low you can’t enjoy it, but only survive it and get through?

Wouldn’t you agree that too many people on the planet would throw the entire planets balance of life off? Man is already the cause of extinction of certain animals and infringing on their habitat by expanding ours. As the only intellectual being on this planet I think we have a responsibility to keep ourselves in check......otherwise there will be nothing left. Humans consume more of nature than they give back......it will catch up to us.

 

Title: The natural flow of human life has an intelligent underlying design, so letting it take its course, generally much improves things.

We will never reach such point, or it is ellusive. Consider that children in a more supposedly "crowded" future, would think it just the normal thing, and worry even less about it, than we do. Consider in The Jetsons futuristic cartoon, most everybody lives in highrises, and we are never told whether it is due to the extreme density of the population that people are routinely stacked into the sky, or whether it's just the "futuristic" way of doing things, or whether it's just for the scenic view—of other nearby highrises. I can't imagine that living in highrises does anything to help launch their flying cars. Why don't they tell us? Because nobody in the future, is even worried about it, they are so prosperous. Mr. George Jetson works 3 hours a day, 3 days a week, and apparently that's "full time" work, and what does he do at work? Push buttons. Why such a short workweek? Maybe it's the "overpopulation" and cutting hours to leave enough work for so many other people to have jobs too? If that's typical of future "overpopulation" problem, I am quite sure I can live with a nicely shorted workweek.

And much enjoyment of life comes from family and natural family growth. People need their freedom, which of course means that many will yearn to go on having their babies.

You are extrapolating the wrong trends, that aren't likely to go that way into the future. Want to talk future predictions? I predict that people shouldn't be allowed to drive anymore. Too many human drivers are stupidly unprofessional. As computer software is much improved, computers will be our drivers, and drive far more safely and professionally. And cars taking to flying through the sky, will eliminate roads and traffic congestion? Will all that happen? Maybe not, but it will, long before population reaches the scary levels that you suggest. And don't you think that unnatural restrictions on childbearing, fall under your category of Z) trying to govern your life?

Far better to live on an "overcrowded" planet, than not at all, because there were too few births for you or I to have come along.

"World population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born." somebody posted somewhere

Some liberals or feminists may try to claim that how many children they have, is nobody's business but their own. If ever that was true, it isn't anymore. What if everybody had large families? Wouldn't society be forced to populate denser? So our childbearing affects everybody. But my point is that the effects are largely positive, so it is society that ought to encourage large families, and advocate the natural flow of human life. People should be honest on census forms, if they have no reason to fear any "punishment," for the sake of proper development planning, and especially Constitutional population-proportional election requirements, as natural family growth is not a "private" matter, but a rather "public" matter perhaps a bit more so in an increasingly populous world. But that only means we can expect to hear from our parents or friends or whatever, "When are you going to give us some grandchildren?" Or the customary "Congratulations." It doesn't at all diminish our God-given right/duty to procreate.

People don't exist as mere cogs in some vast socialist society machine. No, society is merely a collection of individuals, for serving the many needs of individuals. We are all unique and have some God-given purpose. God created people, and he created us in his image, and everybody have great value and the right to live. Therefore, societies have no right to "limit" their population size, but it's more like, population is what it is. Our ancestors seemed to understand these things better, before all the confusion brought by the rampant contraceptive pushers and radical eco-freaks, so how is it that we so readily forget what with all our modern "education?"

Haven't you heard the "everybody could live in Texas" examples? The planet isn't anywhere near full. Don't we all "infringe" upon one another, in perhaps a few minor ways? But it's a fairly simple concept that by merely "scooting over" a bit, quite a lot more people can fit onto the planet. I am quite willing to "scoot over" for your children, if you will do the same for mine. How can people go on having their precious darling babies in a world with so many people alive already? Simple. By populating more densely and efficiently. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Welcome the various cities to grow larger and closer together, and build additional cities and towns in between the various growing cities, so that everybody may have their affordable place to live, and enjoy having "all the children that God gives."

In nature, most all life seeks to expand into most every availabe niche. Why should it be so different then, for man? I don't agree with the radical "environmentalists' " sense of "balance," because it doesn't leave enough room for man. Humans need to expand habitat, to keep housing affordable for the working poor, and to allow the human race to grow more naturally and relaxed, without growing too "overcrowded." God commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, so we have no responsibility to keep our numbers "in check," but such matters are up to God, and we already have his word on the matter.

And that's another "environmental" error. Humans don't have a parasitic relationship with nature, but more of a symbiotic one. As our numbers grow, humanity and nature become more the same thing. A human-dominated nature, is a more urban form of nature, to which nature doesn't object if cities are designed right, because for humans natural increase is quite natural. People are part of nature, so too must the the cities it takes to hold all the people. I disagree with "environmentalists" drawing arbitrary lines that say that human habitat is unnatural. Upon what basis? Are we "intruding" aliens from another world? Not.

Human population growth is beautiful, because people are wonderous creatures, and with our natural multiplication, all the more people then have opportunity to enjoy living. The human race is supposed to blossom, and if the planet begins to "bulge" and become "pregnant" with people, so much the better, as pregnancy signifies a miraculous transition towards something much better, an impending "birth" of some sort. Like a child, the human race can't remain "little" forever, but the time comes to "grow up." It's all for the good, of people at least. And surely at least many parts of nature, if not nature in general, benefit from the rising human presense. "Man's best friend," dogs, seem to like it. When we multiply, they get to multiply too. Pets probably are already populated far denser than their natural wild levels would allow, so the only way they can multiply further, is for there to be more human homes to adopt them into. And pets seem to much prefer life with "strange" companion/company/friends humans, than left out on their own in the wild.

 

We humans are way due to another disease going around the globe and whipping out a few million people. If not that, peak oil is going to put a cap on overpopulation....

 

It's just a reflex from days of old when you had to create as many babies as you could in order for a few of them to survive.
In the West that instinct is largely overrun and there's actually a decline in population.

The new developing countries like India and China haven't yet mentally switched from the previous state, but it's only a question of a few decades, imo, till they too get into modern norm.

I don't think this is a really long term problem.

Another problem is Africa which the western countries keep feeding irresponsibly, so they are breeding irresponsibly. Stop food aid and stop lots of population growth in Africa. Any way, Africa is a special case, just close the borders and let them deal with themselves, assist only with educational and engineering aid.