The Over Population Problem

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Liebling, Feb 10, 2009.

  1. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well the only Nation that is Technically over crowded is Japan, and several of the Pacific Islands. Several Nations in Europe are reaching the technical limit, England, Germany, and France are just about to reach that point.

    So what that means is that Unitied Nations needs to veiw the Human circumstances and allow Imagration from those Nations as they reach that point of technical over crowedness.


    Generally, the earth has enough croppable space, and the average person should be able to gather up the daily meal (6 to 12 lbs) in a area of about 2,000 feet in diameter. (Circumfrence 6283 FT.). Finding nurshiment should be no more difficult than walking 2,000 feet, and along they way gathering the meal, be it digging up roots or spearing a frog.

    So why have Humans in industrial nations made it so difficult.


    DwayneD.L.Rabon
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. eddie23 information sponge Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Maybe if the media did not prop up idiots that have 14 kids on welfare, or families like John and Kate plus 8 maybe we could get down to 1 or 2 kids a family and controll at least the population problem in our country.
    This is by no means a cure but I do beleive it would be a step in the correct direction.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well the natural birth rate for a female would be the birth of a child/ new born every four years (natural birth rate), first pregancy starting at 16 years of age. The female Ovums are good for about 30 years, when eliminating the occurances of damaged ovums. which makes for about 4 children per female.

    Also there is the fact that females that give birth regulary, or in a frequent manner save more eggs and are fertile for a longer duration of thier life and so can have more children say 6 to 8 in a life time.

    So women could have more than that under a determine mine set. As getting preganat becomes easier after the first pregancy, as the femalr cevrics is broken, females that retain pregancy fat shed a more proccessed plamsa to the second child when they have consequtive pregency. so it seems that having more then one produces a better crop of humans living in a society.

    Not to mention, the state of development that comes from a women that has a family history of women who concevie and deliver successfully, genetics, traits of preformance of uterus that keep the human race functioning decade after decade.
    Specially so when, it is nessacary to have a birth rate of four(4) children per female to compete with the inbreeding rate. It does not take long for Human biological Stature to fall.
    Certainly men are not going to make the biological change into a female to give birth, few men if any have such a active biology and biochemistry although every man has the ablity. They are not taught by any society or goverment currently in operation,to preform in such a manner, so the female will have to get preganat. Thats how humans live and thrive as a lifeform on earth.

    The current birth rate of industrial nations is far to low at 2 births per female, 2 birth per female is not enough to compete with the imbreeding rate,or to even gain a lead on the imbreeding rate. Industrial nations that continue to harbor such a low birth rate amoung their female populations will have to depend on the practice of interacial breeding, bascially importing people from different parts of the world or selective regions. Even so with a low birth rate thhe abltiy of the female uterus to preform will decrease over time, reducing the ability of human survial amoung industrialized nations, the female population may accidently by chance at a given stage become infertile in large numbers, causing serious problems in maintaining human stature in the general population.

    Certainly their is enough land space on earth, and enough natural resoruces to support that natural birth rate of four births per female.

    DwayneD.L.Rabon
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    You are not taking into effect, uninhabitable land or land that is subject to drought and ecological disasters. Much of Africa is current uninhabitable because it is a desert and contains very little water. I would even venture a guess that on at least 1/6th of the worlds land or more, that the average person would not be able to gather up the daily meal in a area of about 2,000 feet in diameter with any kind of reasonably sustainable nutritional value that would make them thrive. In fact;
    From the report here.

    It is not necessarily the case that women who have more children are superior genetically than women who do not. Many women in this century understand that having many children is not necessarily better for society or the environment so they do not. Also, in industrial countries, the lower birth rate is probably due more to social awareness, freedom of choice, careers, and the empowerment of the general female population of the right to not breed. In fact, studies show that the more intelligent a woman is, the less likely she is to breed with impunity. She is likely more aware and more conscious of the ramifications of her reproducing, as well as the resources needed to raise a child well.

    Scientifically, some of the scenarios you are interjecting might be somewhat valid, but it occludes the human psyche and it is thusly inaccurate and misleading. To accurately theorize on human science, humans themselves must be considered.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2009
  8. charles brough Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
    Seems to me that stress builds up because we are evolved through millions of years of primate evolution to live ONLY IN SMALL GROUPS. The only way we manage to feel safe and secure in such huge conglomerates of people in cities, nations and societies is that we have ideological systems that bind us together a little and help bridge over the hostility that is natural in one small group for another.

    For example, the largest monkey in the New World is the howler. It will congregate at its border with the next group and howl at them. In effect, they are saying each to the other group that "you stupid, helpless ninnies, if your measly territory were any good, we would come over there and take it away from you."

    Then, they would all go back to feeding feeling much better.

    That is why every civilization has a theocratic age, an age where people all tend to believe the same general ideology. It gives them a feeling of security.

    charles
    http://atheistic-science.com
     
  9. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Actually according to other people I have discussed with on this site about this not too long ago, there isn't really any population problem whatsoever.

    Of course I'm usually skeptical until I find something considerable. (such as what I've seen on that thread)..
     
  10. charles brough Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
    This is a great illustration! I copied to my files . . .
     
  11. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Maybe you should just look at the evidence and make up your own mind.
     
  12. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Isn't it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Good suggestion...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Toy with it for a while.
     
  15. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    toy with what

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    You'll figure it out, don't worry.

    Oh by the way, as of right now, you're on ignore. Have a great life.
     
  17. charles brough Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
    I lived in Java for three years and it happens to be about the most densley populated area of the world, yet it includes mountains, forests, and a lot of fields of rice and tea. What is most interesting is that the people there are used to it whereas we in the US are for several hundred years more used to vast empty spaces. That this affects us and makes us so stressed by our crowding may be more epigenetic rather than genetic.

    People here wonder why our medical system is in such bad shape. The answer may be that we have so much inner hostility and stress (our feeling of being crowded) that we have to over-use the medical system to keep alive. After all, stress does underlie most disease.

    charles
    http:atheistic-science.com
     
  18. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Very rude.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    This also touches on another big issue in over population. The more crowded we get, the larger the epidemics when disease does rear it's ugly head. And the harder it will be to save people, because there will never be enough curatives and widespread panic and rioting would break out to be the first in line. I think also, this feeds into our me against the world mentality and adds to our selfish nature. The more crowded we get, the less we feel like we are a valuable asset to our community as a whole and we isolate ourselves from it thinking that we should just save ourself. It's reverse psychology, but look at what happens to any group that has to cull it's number... people start looking out for number one and not worrying about anyone else.

    I think that people just need to realize that they are not alone on this planet and breeding out of control actually does more harm than good, no matter what your current situation and status is. Just because you can have children, or just because you can afford to raise them doesn't make it good to have more than two children. While you may not think that you are harming society at the moment of conception, there might be another million people thinking that at the same time and the addition to our already crowded systems will do harm to that system. The current numbers are not sustainable, considering the amount of land we are currently living on and how badly we are damaging it with our pollution and overuse of the land. We can't just build a garden in the desert and pray for rain. Just like you can't plant a seed in an already depleted landscape and pray that it will survive to live a long and happy life. Being a responsible global citizen, you can reduce the possibility of doing harm by not adding to the problem that already exists. The numbers and statistics are there, regardless of how willfully you ignore them and the future does not look like wine and roses for future generations. If we make an effort to spread the word now, to prevent future harm... what harm would it do not to have an extra child or two? What valid reason that isn't a selfish reason is there to have more than enough children to replace yourself?
     
  20. charles brough Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    476
    Yes, and hostility tends to build between individuals because the more there is of something, the less of value it has to us. That means that it is more humane to execute murderers than make room for them in prison. It means that abortions, sterilization and birth control should all be promoted. But they are all opposed by both our religious and secular systems.

    We need a new belief system in order to get control of this most important problem. We cannot solve the overpopulation problem by trying to reform a combined world-view belief system that is inherently opposed to the very need to ultimately save the human race from a first rate population crash like we have never experienced before.

    charles
    http://atheistic-science.com
     
  21. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    I would believe that it is only a religious issue, but I believe that hubris also has a play in it in some cases. I think that people think they have superior genes and intelligence and breed also for that reason. I think the it is more religious than egotism, but they are both part of the problem.

    Getting rid of religion is an insurmountable task, given humanity current society. Humans need a purpose, and a drive to live day to day. Most humans find that to be religion, and it comforts them. When most people lose their religion, there is even often a period of lose and/or hopelessness. A lack of direction. Love of humanity is not enough for some people, and I would even wager that some are incapable of understanding that kind of compassion, because of their religion or belief system.

    I think the problem is twofold both a religious and a human ego problem.
     
  22. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I haven't checked into this thread in a while. Did you guys somehow miss the news that the second derivative of population went negative a couple of decades ago? That the birth rate will hit replacement level before the end of this century... and keep dropping? That the planet's population will never double again, but rather peak at a more-or-less manageable level just short of ten billion, and then start falling? Because prosperity is the best contraceptive?

    The birth rate in the wealthiest countries has already fallen below replacement level. The only thing that's propping up our Social Security Ponzi Schemes is immigration.
    I can't speak for all death penalty opponents, but for many of us it has nothing to do with being humane to the perpetrators, who after all are supposed to forgo life's niceties because that's what "punishment" means. We're concerned with the effect of execution on the people who are still alive. You put a bad guy in prison, his kids visit him periodically, and by talking to him they may learn that doing something really bad can get them thrown in prison. But if you kill their daddy, the only thing on their minds is the fact that you're the bastard who killed their daddy. You end up with one of those escalating clan feuds where two hundred years later nobody remembers what their guy did, but they only remember that our guy killed him for it. Capital punishment is nothing but revenge and revenge is one of the most evil emotions.
    Do you guys actually know any parents that you have discussed this with, or are these academic positions based on stuff you read in a book? In 65 years I've never met anyone who had children because they thought it would improve the gene pool. That's the way we dog breeders manage our bloodlines, but it doesn't work that way with humans. In fact, the more intelligent and thoughtful people are often the ones who decide not to breed because they don't want to add to the population problem, or because despite their modicum of superiority they don't think they'd be very good at raising the kids, or because they just don't want the responsibility to interfere with their other endeavors, or because they prefer the company of adults and don't want children around bothering them with childish stuff.
     
  23. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    That's speculative, and the current statistics dispute that. In the wealthiest countries there has been a decline, but there has been an incline in impoverished countries and among the very faithful. It has not dropped off enough to save us from widespread pandemics or violence, and we are currently overpopulated in a lot of countries. You have to keep in mind depleted, vanish or uninhabitable land. There is a lot of land out there, but it lacks the resources or infrastructure to maintain life.

    As for breeding with intelligence;
    Actually, my husband and I discussed it when we planned our second son. I know several people who are having just two children (only enough to replace yourself) because they are intelligent adults who are more likely to have intelligent productive children. It's not the only reason, but it's talked about widely in some social circles. I disagree with you about intelligent people not wanting children to bother them, they are more likely to breed because of ego and not less likely. Especially the ones who make large amounts of money with their knowledge/expertise, because there is always a nanny around in need of a job or a dumb wife to marry. I know several very intelligent men who purposely married someone who wasn't as smart or intellectual, just because these women were a good caregiver and didn't bother their men too much, and was also easy on the eyes and would make good children. Men who are highly intelligent can be also very logical and pragmatic, and romance just isn't their thing. I actually have a fair amount of respect for people who function that way, as opposed to people who live in fairytales and completely dysfunctional marriages with zero communication. I know too many couples who exist for their kids and would have parted ways a long time ago, my parents included. It only got better for my parents when they realized their marriage was more of a business proposition and not the fairytale they wanted to believe in.
     

Share This Page