Are we really overpopulated?

There are hundreds of BILLIONS of GALAXIES out there.

There might well be an "overpopulation" problem in some areas of the world, currently. Frankly the problem is: The quality, is being overwhelmed by the quantity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now see what you did? He is here..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Overpopulation refers to the relationship between the population number with the
available resources at a certain area. If there is 10 people in one area but there is
only resources for 8 people in that area, then the area is overpopulated.

Today's world population isn't equally distributed, but so does the resources. Capital
cities of any countries are normally the most dense cities within countries, but they
also have the most resources (easiness to find resources, center of employment, etc).

In general, I would say that as long as the rate of providing resources (food, drink,
places, etc) is higher than the rate of population growth, then it isn't overpopulated.
Is today's world in general overpopulated? I would say yes.. we can see it from
constant war (fighting for resources), increasing death of hunger, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another problem with the term "overpopulation," is as it is typically used, the term is unbelievably vague, hardly appropriate to a supposedly "scientific" or logical discussion of the presumed "problem."

For example, might maybe somebody define "overpopulation" as having more human bodies, than you have beds for them to sleep in? That may suffice as a general oversimplistic portrayal of quite a lot of the discussion of the topic. I certainly am a bit inclined to think that most people, with the possible exception of married couples, should usually have their "own" bed.

And yet temporarily sharing beds in a crowded motel room on a trip, isn't particularly likely to be fatal. I consider such "sharing" preferable to spending big money for my own private room, when I could have simply stayed home and had that. And small children very easily share beds. Older children often share beds as well, especially in small homes, or in poorer developing countries.

Such "problems" are much more like minor "growing pains," than they are any real overpopulation "problem." And what of all the ample alternative solutions that don't require actually limiting human numbers? What do we think bunk beds were invented for?

 

Hmm, I was just sitting here thinking ...What do we mean by "overpopulated"?

If a group of people can't feed themselves with their own resources, does that mean that the area is overpopulated?

If people outside of, say New York City, decided not to sell any food supplies or water to the residents, would NYC then become overpopulated because it can't feed it's own people?

At what point does the "independence factor" come into play in the term "overpopulated"? If one area, one group of people, one society, is totally dependent on another group of people, would they be considered overpopulated ...because they can't feed themselves?

Or is this one of those overly liberal posts where all humans are considered equally responsible for all other humans? ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

 

Holy shit! I just met Scrooge, the ACTUAL man!

I went to Taco Bell to eat some food, they were asking people to donate 1 dollar to feed starving children. Some guy walks up to the counter and he says "No I don't like children, especially not starving children." So I laugh, thinking he was just tight on money. I go outside on my way out, he has a stinking red Ferrari parked over two parking spots!

I wanted to spit in his rolled down window.


A good point however is, do starving children grow up to create more starving children for which donations are asked?

I still vote that that man IS surplus population!

He may arrive at the Pearly gates and find that the elevator only has a down button. :shrug:

 

Oh no, Baron and Pronatalist in one thread, that IS overpopulation!!!

Overpopulation is like recession, when you feel like it is, THEN it is....

 

Agreed. On top of that I think those numbers would only be (theoretically) possible by replacement of all other life on earth.

 

He's been back lately, it was only a matter of time. We can dream though....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Reply to Repo Man:

The first picture, was from a forum, obsessed with "environmental" gloom-and-doom. A whole huge folder on Environment, or Population, or something. For some strange reason, enviro gloom-and-doomers, get tired of people who don't sing the same gloom-and-doom song. But then, did they ever really send me the same song rap sheet to sing off of? You know that one, that must have been passed around, when every channel on the TV, tells the same lies or distortions, as if somebody had passed a memo around to everybody, to get them talking off the same sheet.

The latter picture, a Mod said I was too old. That was Govteen forum. Somehow they claim a man posting on a boys forum, isn't quite right. Not due to anything I said, but due to the narrow group for which the forum is supposedly for. My posts were too intelligent, to have been written by but a boy, so he baited me to tell him my age. And yet they don't advertise their age requirements, for fear that people would just make up an age. That hardly seems quite right either. Now how can I be responsible for being too old, other than to lie about how old I am? Like it's anybody's business anyway? So either than banning was unfair, or the reason for it, is irrelevant at this forum, as there doesn't seem to be any "have to be but a child" requirement around here.

And then, anybody who posts on a dozen different forums often enough, saying anything more controversial than the endless praises of the Mods, is going to, sooner-or-later, end up on the outside end of a selfish immature Mod-gaggle-of-yesmen clique somewhere.

Anyway, if you are going to go out there and google up but one side of something almost irrelevant, then I think people deserve to hear the other side of the story.

BTW, Repo Man, how many forums have you been banned from? As if it has any relevance to anything? And what's your criminal record like? Oh never mind. Perhaps it's not relevant?

 

Or feeding children, among other wise decisions, leads to less starving people in the future, but also vaster and denser populations of well-fed people.​

I disagree very much, with what is called the "Lifeboat Ethic." I thought that view may have been authored by Garret Hardin, but now I'm not quite so sure if he was the author, although a population phobic. Anyway, the Lifeboat Ethic, claims the world is like a lifeboat, that can only hold but so many. Put too many people onto the lifeboat, and everybody sinks, supposedly. So we then debate who to kill off, rather than how to save or help as many people as reasonably possible. It's an example of how immoral liberals pervert certain questions of social justice. Anyway, if we give (or sell) food and medicine, it says, to the already "overpopulated" lesser developed countries, it increases longevity, decreases infant mortality, and encourages more childbearing, which only serves to worsen their presumed "overpopulation." So should we help, or do nothing?

What? Compassion and kindness, no longer are virtues? We should do evil to one another? I totally reject the lifeboat ethic, as a huge perversion of logic. I already advocate a more densely populated planet, as about the most obvious ADAPTATION to the often-exxagerated global population situation, so I'm fine with people living longer, fewer babies dying, and more babies being welcomed to be born. Surely we can "scoot over" a bit, and find or make room for so many as there might or might not, come to be.

Yes, "Scrooge" seems to be the right name, for such a selfish person. The guy didn't have to donate, but neither did he have to dislike children either. Did Scrooge, as the tale goes, ever say something to the effect, lamenting the "surplus population?" Like Scrooge isn't part of that "surplus" himself then? What makes him any different or better, other than his unusually selfish streak? Ironically, many of the most poor, would probably have shared their meager food, given an opportunity.

Some years ago, I talked with some old lady, who opined something or other, about how selfish rich people tend to be. She said it's the poor people, who put up the most Christmas lights upon their homes. Is that how it is? Poor people are often more generous, and less overly "tight" or "stingy" with their money, than many "rich" people? Maybe they sympathize better with other people's plight, for they know more, how it is.

Sure, I don't believe it's a good idea, to feed wild animals, for something of this reason, it attracts them and makes them more dependent upon people. So unless I want to adopt a pet, I'm not going to feed most types of wild animals. Most wild animals have better human-friendly behavior, when we don't feed them. Many wild animals aren't so smart. If you feed the crockodiles, or bears, then they wander into areas where people are, or bears break into people's cars, looking for food. Problem animals then may have to be relocated or eliminated.

But starving children are a far cry different than wild animals. I don't believe that feeding starving children begets more starving children. Humans are supposed to be intelligent, capable of solving problems, highly ADAPTABLE. The right kinds of help, helps reduce future problems, and helps people possibly become far more self-reliant. We feed our own children, don't we? Do our children soon grow up and reproduce more starving children? Of course not. We teach them to get an education, move out, go get a job. Hopefully make many wise decisions.

Another example. I heard that scientists did some experiment with apes, putting more and more apes into a confined space, with unlimited food, to sort of simulate what humans might be doing to the planet. The apes took to grooming one another and sought to avoid conflict. Whoops! Where's the propaganda value in that? They adapted? So we almost never hear that story, but only the one about the disfunctional mice. I consider that academically dishonest. How are we to make informed decisions, if we are denied access to all the data and the whole story? I suspect the scientists may have "tainted" their experiment, as the apes may have behaved too well, thinking their human captors expected it of them. Well doesn't religion similarly "taint" us? Put too many people too close together, and they make friends and try to get along? They ADAPT too readily? They even think it's normal or natural?

If some dumb apes can adapt, why can't we? Also, it occurs to me, I'm a bit like those (friendly) apes. I am a kind person, and rather frugal, prefering to save as much money as I can for future plans, or for a wife and children to help me spend it. So when I go on some trip with friends, I would much rather share an overcrowded motel room, share a bed, or sleep on the floor, than pay big money to rent my own motel room. (Here, I think I am referring to my earlier post, trying to clarify it better, the one with the "more human bodies than beds" example.) If I wanted my own room, couldn't I have just stayed home? Put "too many" people in a room, and generally I'm fine with it. Takes so much less energy to "share" than to "fight." Especially if the people are much like me, and friendly. I hear guys don't like to share beds with guys, near as easy as women do with women. And generally I don't. Very rarely have I ever found the "shortage of beds" situation, especially if we or I brought our sleeping bags. But if there's more people than beds, what else to do? The Bible says that man shall not lie with man as with woman. Meaning that sexual relations are, by definition, supposed to be among opposite sex, preferably married. What does this mean? Isn't it obvious? If a guy shares a bed with a guy, it's not the same. It's different. You're supposed to turn in the opposite direction, and not have any interest in the other guy. Imagine you are in simply "half a bed." Women appear to be less likely to think there's anything "sexual" about sharing a bed. Or perhaps women generally don't get possibly embarrassing "morning wood?"

The idea here is, in my view, the world may technically be facing ultimately that (experiment) situation of "unlimited food." That supposedly limited food availability, is not going to be the suspected restraint upon just how huge human populations might ultimately get. People will adapt, and find or obtain or produce even more food, as needed, especially people with a little power and money to buy or push for such things. So I refuse to deny people food, as a scheme to rob them of their children. Intelligent people, are going to have to deal with such things, in a more intelligent way. I say it's not the rampant, unnatural, anti-life pushing of shoddy contraceptives, contrary to their natural yearnings to have possibly many children, but affirming as our ancestors did, that natural family growth is quite natural and to be expected, and that we can ADAPT.

 

No we not. are The elite aren't able to handle the population since they think they're wealth will be threatened. The earth does be able to handle everything.

 

By Amish level I meant consumption, not farming...

 

Yeah, I understand it, Fraggle, but it's also quite frightening ...should be for y'all, too. Just think of it, the people of New York City are essentially being held hostage by growers and distributors of food ...well outside their own sphere of control. And some of y'all call that "freedom".

No, the term "overpopulation" must or should address that issue of control of resources ...and it doesn't even mention it. A tiny little force of enemy soldiers could blow up some essential bridges on major roads to NYC and that city would starve in virtually no time. Freedom?

Nope, many, many areas of the world are overpopulated, y'all just see it as the amount of land it takes to lie down on. You'll learn.

Baron Max

PS - I see you still haven't learned to minimize your posts, Fraggle. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you've actually increased the amount of bullshit you spew forth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Our resources aren't returning or gaining surplus as fast as our population is growing, so we are certainly facing some serious problems in the near future...the competition will only get worse...

 

Epiman, your stupid moos will be deleted and YOU WILL BE BANNED...no doubt about it.

Bye bye Epiman...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

we are underpopulated.

 

by the time our pouplation reaches 100 billion we might have the technology to explore other worlds like the moon or mars or even underwater.