overpopulation?
- Thread starter Mouse88
- Start date
The problem with overpopulation is the term itself! What we should be talking about is ....REGIONAL.... overpopulation.
And to get somewhat technical, there's even a sense of overpopulation in, say, sections/parts of Mexico City, Mumbai, and other large cities of the world. But you'll note that large areas of Mexico and India are practically unpopulated.
Baron Max
Yes, to many humans, like a virus, spreading itself all over the place with no control. The environment is being destroyed, starvation is happening in many countries, wars are going on and many other problems are happening because of the overpopulation problem.
More people than the available resources can support.
And you should be aware of that the term "available resources" means just that ....available. If people in Bangladesh are starving to death for lack of arable farm land, land area in the mid-west USA is NOT "available" to them. If you wish to divide up the resources and land area among all of the people on Earth, please be aware that all that land is NOT "available" to all of the people on Earth.
I think only mamby-pamby liberal doo-gooders talk about overpopulation in terms of the entire freakin' planet. Only mamby-pamby liberal doo-gooders think they can divide up the entire planet and give that land to the world's population ....then stand back and say, "See? Plenty of land for all!"
Baron Max
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So you think that the term 'overpopulation' only has bearing on its effect on humans? Ok..
Overpopulation, and not just that of humans, can affect a whole range of ecosystems and the organisms that are a part of them.
Yeah. As a friend of mine always says about wars and conflicts and such ..."I everyone lived about 10 miles apart, there'd be no conflicts in the world." He says there's too many people packed into too small a spaces ...it's natural for man to feel trapped, which makes him feel angry, which makes him lash out, which causes problems.
Baron Max
Overpopulation can also be in terms of other animals, but this OP is talking about humans. So I naturally limited my discussion to humans.
Wanna' talk about the overpopulation problem of ants in Lousiana? Or ...what?
Baron Max
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The OP is talking about the effects on nature caused by the current number of people in the world. Get with the program already..
Are you angry? Do you want to "lash out" at others?
Where does it say that?????
But even so, that all goes along with "regional overpopulation" ...in the same way ..."available resources" ....for man or animals.
Baron Max
We waste so many resources. If we stopped throwing away food, water, and raw materials we could easily afford to have more people on Earth. Culture would have to change. Japan seems to be experiencing going through a unique cultural experience, where compassion is finely mixed with a lack of unique identity. Most low estimates of Earths carrying capacity are built on the assumptions that we will waste at current standards, our efficiency will stay identical, and environments will be minimally impacted. Not bad assumptions given our history of behavior. But far from what we're capable of.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It's not just about the resources, Max.
Not unless someone can afford to get those resources to the people who need them. Shipping costs are enormous, not to mention the cost of trucking the food, etc to the people in villages all over the world.
It's always easy to talk about waste and vast resources of regions, but it doesn't do anyone any good if they live to far away to enjoy it.
Baron Max
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
And?? Do you mean you don't care, or are you asking what more it's about?
Pollution, space, hunting to near extinction, climate change, etc.