Overpopulation Control

As we all know, the world is becoming extremely overpopulated and population growth is adding overwhelming numbers of humans to a small planet. Have we taken the time to look at the damaging effects of overpopulation? In fact, many people are beginning to recognize that they are living in crowded conditions. Their environment is becoming, for a lack of a better term, “squished”. Personally, I see this where I live (Miami, Florida). We are beginning to cluster together in cities/farms in order to live in some type of organizational order. The truth of the matter is, we are contributing to extremely damaging effects. The United Nations has already predicted using the current population increase in a varying degree of countries that the population would grow a bit above 10 billion people in this small world.

Overpopulation is also causing global warming and leading to gradual environmental destruction. Because as the population increases, so will the demand for more land and resources. Resources are very limited, and will become more limited. This also affects the animal kingdom, as they also need land to survive and grow. Some resources, such as coal, crude oil, wetlands, and arable land are nonrenewable. Once they are gone, they are lost forever. We also see the problem of deforestation which are huge problems in S. American and African regions of the world. Deforestation will cause imbalance between gases in the atmosphere, and global warming will add to the problem. Why? Because of the need for space.

Population increase is a global phenomenon, and there is no easy escape from it. Demographics reveal that industrialized countries have some of the highest population densities, and population growth is closely associated with national prosperity (education, health care, and GDP). We have to admit, that ever since humanity has entered the modern age, the dynamics between humans and the world (environment) has changed. I believe that we have to address this issue accordingly.

Our natural environment will be completely transformed!

What can be a theoretical solution?

Since overpopulation is mostly caused by sexual abuse (rape and incest) and sometimes even the self-indulgence of a mother, sexual abuse has to be taken care of before any long-term improvement can occur in other areas. I am sorry to say but maybe even reproductive rights have to be curbed :cry: As mean and cruel as this may sound, it serves for a much greater good: Our Future

Of course, I am not saying; “EXECUTE THE CHILD THAT WAS BORN” like they do in China. Rather, a more peaceful and amicable solution can be reached. There has to be consensus,through education that overpopulation is a very serious problem. Overpopulation kills everyone and everything. People of the Pacific atolls have learned to slow down population growth. Contraception is the way to go it may seem…safe sex education…etc The best way to control population growth is adopting children. By adopting, we will not be adding quite as many people to the Earth and in return this can help slow down the increasing population growth.

If humanity is to survive, it will have to change. Quality will replace quantity, and better education and standard of living for every human being will create responsible guardians of our unique planet.

What do you guys think?

Agree? Disagree? Other solutions?

Ono of the things people must realize before describing a country as “overpopulated” is that people generally produce more than they consume in an economic sense. They provide more to their community than they take from it.
The only limitation to growth in this fashion is an absolute resource limitation with respect to demand. And the only resource that is at present even close to being limited in this fashion is energy. If we had a source of practically unlimited energy (such as nuclear fusion, fission breeder, or space solar power), then there would be no limit to how much we could recycle or produce our other resources, which would also eliminate an upper bound on the population. More people would allow for more productivity, inventiveness, efficiency through specialization, and general welfare without bound once the resource limitation is solved. Technology will probably solve it. We already have the capability of using nuclear fission, which can sustain us for a few thousand years. We will shortly have space solar power capability (probably no later than a hundred years), and fusion will happen someday. We know there is no physical law preventing us from using it.
The only other psychological “limit” to growth is selfishness and an unwillingness to share the world with a greater number of people. We can always build bigger/taller cities to help people feel less crowded. If there is a demand for breathing room, there will be an economic response to the demand. At present, the response is suburbia. If we run out of room for suburbia, the next response will probably be multi-layered cities or something. After that, expansion or space colonization perhaps.

I don’t dread exponential growth, I anticipate it eagerly. Twice the present population will have twice as many inventors, engineers, newtons and einsteins, and will find solutions to their problems twice as fast. Each person will be participate in a more efficient economy that is closer to the perfectly efficient competitive ideal, and thus will enjoy greater productivity per capita, from which will follow greater wealth per capita. Greater per capita wealth will enable more complete recycling of resources and development of more difficult resources. All that this requires is greater per capita energy.

have fewer doctors, fewer drugs and more wars…

population problem eliminated.

-Imp

You’re misinformend in this part. In China children don’t get executed. The chinese government saw the problem of overpopulation coming as you do in your post. So they propagated the one-child-policy. If people get more as one child, parents would be sterilated. This program worked, because the population growth of China was halted.

Did you ever go outside Miami, Florida? In the states above you big families are a blessing.

If I raise a child I’d like to be it of my own blood.

Overpopulation would not bring humanity down (the stronger/richer would survive) but it creates misery. If you want to stop the population growth, people should have less children. So the Chinese method is quite effective, but rather harsh. UN is btw tackling this problem by education (of women) en information (on birth control) in the developing countries, where the birth rates are the highest.

The chinese mandate that there be only one child per family. But when life doens’t reflect law, they confiscate and kill the extras.

You had me going until this. Where on earth did you come up with this? The number of babies born due to rape and incest is minimal compared to the rest of the population.

You’re right, more people means better economy. But where does the eviroment and wildlife factor into this? Call me a Tree-loving Hippie, but I think we should worry about the extreme eviromental damage we are causing due to population overload before we rush into a 12 billion person earth.

Negative, where on earth did you get that information?

See above post.

Well, I primarily used that example, since organizations have addressed the issue of stopping world overpopulation through the usage of sexual education for women as evidenced by the following site:

overpopulation.org/birthcon.html

Sorry for the wording of my statement. I did not mean to say “most…”

Exactly. The environment is just as fragile as the economy. We depend on the environment for our basic survivals. Most of our physical needs come from the environment itself!!

No problem. I merely misunderstood you.

I agree with imp. Just have another big ww and BAM no more over populatng. Nuke the reallly dense sites of people (chinia) and there ya go. Or if your some peace monger then have nasa hurry up with the finding of a inhabitable planet. And then move half of us there for a colony. Of couse there would be a war to see who gets to colonize the planet.

Well, this has also been taken into consideration as well, but if you want to look at it in the economical perspective, you are going to have to take a look what huge sums of money we currently have for space exploration. We actually spend more money on space exploration then we do with environmental protection on earth. Space station projects have already taken considerable amounts of money from beneficial science projects such as stem cell research. Aeronautical research is all wonderful, but we also have to focus on the “home”-earth. The United States spends approximately $2.1 billion dollars on space exploration projects alone, and taking such giant leap as to “terraforming” a planet would be quadruple the amount of money we spend now.

Oh, and about the war thing… :confused:

Well, the most logical and likely thing that will occur is a war whether you like it or not. It is the most effective way to stop overpopulating, it kills people, halts all technology (especially that of medicine), and gets the guys out of town so less children will be “made”. To quote Albert Einstein “I do not know what weapons will be used in World War 3, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.” If we want to save the world we have to destroy humanity as we know it, if the people are gone then the problem is as well. Pollution would stop, forests would regrow, and the world would heal from the injuries man has placed upon it. Yeah for war!

I don’t believe that a world war or anything of that nature is really needed, what is needed is a re-direction of funds from the military/Nasa to the federal lands that are being overran by logging companies and who knows what else.

Or we could even start sell fedual lands to groups like Greenpeace that have much higher standards than our own souless government.

Another action that is need is a culture revolution where people will start caring about this problem and doing something about it (non-violently).

Thank you! :slight_smile:

This is what I mean. We have to focus on the issues that have direct impact on us. By redirecting funds from “defense” and space projects, we can contribute more federal funding to the environment and reforestation projects/water conservation projects.

Exactly. Who says things cannot be achieved nonviolently? We have seen this occur in the past, including the heated 60’s and the Civil Rights Movement. We can attain a social goal: REDUCE WORLD’s POP. without the use of destruction, as Apocalyptic_Hamster suggested. The nonviolent approach to social struggle represents a radical departure from conventional thinking about conflict, and yet appeals to a number of common-sense notions. This is why many important people such as Ghandi and King Jr. used nonviolence, because they were able to appeal to their audience in a sensible logical and emotional manner.

halts all technology (especially that of medicine), (end Quote)

 WRONG! Technology is made crazy fast (no pun intended) during and after a war. Examples 1. Great Depression, War starts we make war suppplies for other countries and develop our own wepons to prepare for the war. 2. the atom bomb was made to stop WW2 and after wards man thought "what if i could harness that energy???" The internet was started by the militarey, along with cell phones. New weapons of war increase , Abe lincon allowed the production of the first machine gun and always made a point to see the new weapons made in the civil war. Oh and medicine starts upping too, morphine, aputation, tuniqes, and the freanch made a plaster that held all the jucies of the body there next to the wound (actually the french were lazy and didnt change the dirty material with new clean ones.) and this mixture festured but, when they took off the cast the wound was clean and mostly healed!

crazy, the only reason why the military can progress so fast is because they have such a ridiculous amount of money.

besides, the wars youre talking about are nothing like the wars of today. the war in iraq is a pure drain. ww2 opened up a ton of factories and created a ton of jobs. iraq is merely sucking up tax money and giving it all to dick cheney.

when einstein said that there was a ridiculous amount of energy in atoms, you dont think anybody would have ever thought to make a power plant? if military money was dedicated to some kind of non-commercial medical research and communications research, you dont think they would have discovered morphine and cell phones? we’ll probably never know in this lifetime because the military will always be there to suck up our resources.

You’re misinformend in this part. In China children don’t get executed. The chinese government saw the problem of overpopulation coming as you do in your post. So they propagated the one-child-policy. If people get more as one child, parents would be sterilated. This program worked, because the population growth of China was halted.

[quote]

You’re misinformed in this part. The Chinese policy of one child per family resulted in thousands of children being abandoned, especially girls. The care given in the state orphanages was often terrible and the term ‘dying rooms’ comes from where children would be isolated and left to starve to death.

Personally, I don’t think there is a problem of global overpopulation; the world is a pretty big place (although global warming could make it significantly smaller!). Locally or nationally I can see the potential of overpopulation and so the awareness and availability of choices (contraception, sterilisation, abstinance etc.) is a positive. However, I think that it is a slippery and dangerous slope when governments start legislating over birth control.

Globally, if we just think a bit smarter and act a bit more cooperatively, overpopulation will never be a problem.

(quote)
crazy, the only reason why the military can progress so fast is because they have such a ridiculous amount of money.

besides, the wars youre talking about are nothing like the wars of today. the war in iraq is a pure drain. ww2 opened up a ton of factories and created a ton of jobs. iraq is merely sucking up tax money and giving it all to dick cheney.

when einstein said that there was a ridiculous amount of energy in atoms, you dont think anybody would have ever thought to make a power plant? if military money was dedicated to some kind of non-commercial medical research and communications research, you dont think they would have discovered morphine and cell phones? we’ll probably never know in this lifetime because the military will always be there to suck up our resources.
(end quote)

I'm sorry but this is the only response I can manage without critically damaging your brain and what little I have left of mine. ( the sane part anyway) 

                                    FOOLISH IMBECILE

I don’t want to sound cold hearted, but war is the easiest and most effective way to downsize a population boom. Not to mention the benefits of war, such as increased research and design on technology, and higher productive economies…

(quote)
I don’t want to sound cold hearted, but war is the easiest and most effective way to downsize a population boom. Not to mention the benefits of war, such as increased research and design on technology, and higher productive economies… (end quote)

   THANK YOU, finally someone understands what I've been saying....

Although I dont really want to sound evil, I believe killing off the mental defects and people who simply cannot bennifit society. A mental defect consume resources, require housing and all of the things basic people need minus the controbutions to people. Would a babbling moron be able to discover a new energy resource? Would they even be able to work a menial job by themselves? If we kill off all the dead weight in society it would reduce popluation and get rid off all the wasters. And the main reason why I say this is because I really, really want to see Darwin’s theory of natural selection take effect. They cant help themselves and often are hard to control if they are taken care of. It kills off all the bad genes before they can reproduce and pass on their defective genes.