If you've been to any city in south Asia or sub-Saharan Africa there is absolutely no way you could still say that the planet's not overpopulated. Absolutely none. We're in awful trouble now, even those of us in Europe and America who can't see any problem because it hasn't bitten us on the arse: yet. In the meantime it's all going off in a third world near you.
i'd say that sounds like more of a population vs. technological advancement problem than straight over population.
it's a problem in developing countries because they don't have the resources to deal with the problems associated with more people. they don't have the money to plant trees to stop erosion. don't have the fertilizer to produce enough yeild on the fields they have etc.
overpopulation is in direct proportion to the technological level of a society. there is overpopulation in some areas of the earth, but that doesn't mean that the earth couldn't easily support this many people.
These are all very interesting points.Re density, sustainability.
& I don't really have any clear answers.
But I want to make a couple of points concerning the issue of overpopulation.
Firstly,
Three of the world's most "over-populated" countries ( China, India, & Indonesia ) have by and large no problem feeding their populations. What problems there are, are related to management of resources.
Second point,
While it is all well & good for people in theWest to sit back & point the finger @ 3rd world countries, we often forget that many 3rd world countries have cultural & social perspectives @ variance to our own ecological models. ( Ecologists often make poor Sociologists ).
In most 3rd world countries, having lots ofchildren is not a "choice" but a necessity. Poverty, generally poor state social infrastructures mean that most people need to have large extended families in order to guarantee that they will be looked after as they get older.
The bottom line is short of mandatory sterilization / birth limit programs like those enforced in China as well as the ham fisted attempts by the UN to enforce mass sterilisation through trickery & promises of aid..which many African states in particular have experienced; we are left with the big issue of who is going to be snuffed to make way for who ?
It is an eco-ethical problem of great significance & not just some neat little cafe-latte chat.
Q: How to bring explosive birthrates under control?
A: Give women a decent E D U C A T I O N . It never fails.
Nice sentiments.
If that was the case, perhaps you might explain to me, why there is such a high level of young teenage pregnancies in Western countries with the highest levels of "education" on the planet !
If that was the case, perhaps you might explain to me, why there is such a high level of young teenage pregnancies in Western countries with the highest levels of "education" on the planet !
That my friend, is not a straw man. It is trying to show you the ridiculousness of the validity you give this certain science. If I were calling it a religious study you wouldn't give it a shred of thought. You would dismiss it outright. You would call it assumptions based upon assumptions. However because it meets your humanist "religion" you welcome it with open arms. They can't say with certainty what the weather is going to be in a month, but they are 100% certain that humans control the weather trends on this planet.
Wow, you are ignorant. Never once do I (or anyone here for that matter) say anything about 100% certain. Go re-read my posts and maybe you'll understand. I doubt it though, because you have to believe something about me that's perposterous to 'win' an argument.
I say pollution is bad. We should clean it up. Luckily to clean that up we also clear up the potential global warming problem.
That's what I said and I'll stand by it. Make up whatever picture you need to but it's just false.
Wow, you are ignorant. Never once do I (or anyone here for that matter) say anything about 100% certain. Go re-read my posts and maybe you'll understand. I doubt it though, because you have to believe something about me that's perposterous to 'win' an argument.
I say pollution is bad. We should clean it up. Luckily to clean that up we also clear up the potential global warming problem.
That's what I said and I'll stand by it. Make up whatever picture you need to but it's just false.
Yes and you define pollution as....
That is the real kicker isn't it. It isn't as if we are talking about plastics, crude oil spilling into the ocean or things of that nature. It isn't as if we are even talking about carbon monoxide and acid rain.
We are talking about things that occur naturally. Carbon dioxide is what we breath out. It is released when land it tilled under, it is released when things die. That isn't my definition of pollution, but it is yours. That is why I claimed micromanagement. We are not talking about factors that humans control exclusively. If cows fart and volcanos erupt, they aren't strawmen and they aren't pollution. They occur naturally.
We are talking about things that occur naturally. Carbon dioxide is what we breath out.
Well I stand corrected. If this is only about carbon dioxide, that's less relevant than the other examples you just gave. Personally I see the global warming issue as more than just that, but that might be my mistake.
EDIT: Just to clarify, the fact that we're talking about something that occurs naturally doesn't really make a difference. Water occurs naturally, but if we were to start producing more water, let's say triple the current amount, even though water is natural and healthy and necessary, tripling the current amount of H2O in the world would kill all humans & mammals, and just about everything else including most sea life.
Hello, folks. We're talking about overpopulation of the world here, me and Fangorn, so if it's climate change and "SPJ's a dickhead no Trumptman's a twat" you want, move along.
No. We are not hasty. We are in terrible, terrible trouble already.
You're fortunate enough to live somewhere where you're insulated in almost every possible way from the consequences of global overpopulation, which are awful. I've seen a lot of the developing world (well, Africa and Asia) and I've seen land erosion, pollution, poverty, hunger and thirst with my own two eyes. And it's nothing to do with 'density' of population.
{deleted for space}
Ah, yes, there are starving people in the world, with that I agree. But I do NOT believe that we are beyond the ability of the planet to sustain us. Starvation is a matter of distribution, not production.
I haven't seen Asia or Africa, but I have seen large, wide open undeveloped or underdeveloped regions in my own country--the Midwest and Alaska come right to mind. Couple that with the U.S. government PAYING farmers not to grow food; oversupply lowers the price of basic food so that farmers can't make a decent profit off their crops.
Yes, the technology in (most?) third world countries sucks and so do the economies (usually the result of command-and-control style governments). But again, it is distribution. In Somalia and Ethiopia the famine was a human product.
Finally, it is an error to simply associate population with starvation. Since it's founding, the U.S. has never experienced a famine (not counting Jamestown, which really predates "founding"); yet the Native Americans (Indians) experienced frequent famines althought their population density never even approached that of even the early colonies.
I'm sure I'm somewhat disconnected and not systematic, but I'm writing off the top of my head. I have to get back to work.
Comments
If you've been to any city in south Asia or sub-Saharan Africa there is absolutely no way you could still say that the planet's not overpopulated. Absolutely none. We're in awful trouble now, even those of us in Europe and America who can't see any problem because it hasn't bitten us on the arse: yet. In the meantime it's all going off in a third world near you.
i'd say that sounds like more of a population vs. technological advancement problem than straight over population.
it's a problem in developing countries because they don't have the resources to deal with the problems associated with more people. they don't have the money to plant trees to stop erosion. don't have the fertilizer to produce enough yeild on the fields they have etc.
overpopulation is in direct proportion to the technological level of a society. there is overpopulation in some areas of the earth, but that doesn't mean that the earth couldn't easily support this many people.
if that made any sense.
& I don't really have any clear answers.
But I want to make a couple of points concerning the issue of overpopulation.
Firstly,
Three of the world's most "over-populated" countries ( China, India, & Indonesia ) have by and large no problem feeding their populations. What problems there are, are related to management of resources.
Second point,
While it is all well & good for people in theWest to sit back & point the finger @ 3rd world countries, we often forget that many 3rd world countries have cultural & social perspectives @ variance to our own ecological models. ( Ecologists often make poor Sociologists ).
In most 3rd world countries, having lots ofchildren is not a "choice" but a necessity. Poverty, generally poor state social infrastructures mean that most people need to have large extended families in order to guarantee that they will be looked after as they get older.
The bottom line is short of mandatory sterilization / birth limit programs like those enforced in China as well as the ham fisted attempts by the UN to enforce mass sterilisation through trickery & promises of aid..which many African states in particular have experienced; we are left with the big issue of who is going to be snuffed to make way for who ?
It is an eco-ethical problem of great significance & not just some neat little cafe-latte chat.
A: Give women a decent E D U C A T I O N . It never fails.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Q: How to bring explosive birthrates under control?
A: Give women a decent E D U C A T I O N . It never fails.
Nice sentiments.
If that was the case, perhaps you might explain to me, why there is such a high level of young teenage pregnancies in Western countries with the highest levels of "education" on the planet !
Please don't make me laugh
Nick
Originally posted by aquafire
Nice sentiments.
If that was the case, perhaps you might explain to me, why there is such a high level of young teenage pregnancies in Western countries with the highest levels of "education" on the planet !
Please don't make me laugh
Show me the statistics.
Originally posted by trumptman
That my friend, is not a straw man. It is trying to show you the ridiculousness of the validity you give this certain science. If I were calling it a religious study you wouldn't give it a shred of thought. You would dismiss it outright. You would call it assumptions based upon assumptions. However because it meets your humanist "religion" you welcome it with open arms. They can't say with certainty what the weather is going to be in a month, but they are 100% certain that humans control the weather trends on this planet.
Wow, you are ignorant. Never once do I (or anyone here for that matter) say anything about 100% certain. Go re-read my posts and maybe you'll understand. I doubt it though, because you have to believe something about me that's perposterous to 'win' an argument.
I say pollution is bad. We should clean it up. Luckily to clean that up we also clear up the potential global warming problem.
That's what I said and I'll stand by it. Make up whatever picture you need to but it's just false.
Originally posted by bunge
Wow, you are ignorant. Never once do I (or anyone here for that matter) say anything about 100% certain. Go re-read my posts and maybe you'll understand. I doubt it though, because you have to believe something about me that's perposterous to 'win' an argument.
I say pollution is bad. We should clean it up. Luckily to clean that up we also clear up the potential global warming problem.
That's what I said and I'll stand by it. Make up whatever picture you need to but it's just false.
Yes and you define pollution as....
That is the real kicker isn't it. It isn't as if we are talking about plastics, crude oil spilling into the ocean or things of that nature. It isn't as if we are even talking about carbon monoxide and acid rain.
We are talking about things that occur naturally. Carbon dioxide is what we breath out. It is released when land it tilled under, it is released when things die. That isn't my definition of pollution, but it is yours. That is why I claimed micromanagement. We are not talking about factors that humans control exclusively. If cows fart and volcanos erupt, they aren't strawmen and they aren't pollution. They occur naturally.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
We are talking about things that occur naturally. Carbon dioxide is what we breath out.
Well I stand corrected. If this is only about carbon dioxide, that's less relevant than the other examples you just gave. Personally I see the global warming issue as more than just that, but that might be my mistake.
EDIT: Just to clarify, the fact that we're talking about something that occurs naturally doesn't really make a difference. Water occurs naturally, but if we were to start producing more water, let's say triple the current amount, even though water is natural and healthy and necessary, tripling the current amount of H2O in the world would kill all humans & mammals, and just about everything else including most sea life.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Hello, folks. We're talking about overpopulation of the world here, me and Fangorn, so if it's climate change and "SPJ's a dickhead no Trumptman's a twat" you want, move along.
No. We are not hasty. We are in terrible, terrible trouble already.
You're fortunate enough to live somewhere where you're insulated in almost every possible way from the consequences of global overpopulation, which are awful. I've seen a lot of the developing world (well, Africa and Asia) and I've seen land erosion, pollution, poverty, hunger and thirst with my own two eyes. And it's nothing to do with 'density' of population.
{deleted for space}
Ah, yes, there are starving people in the world, with that I agree. But I do NOT believe that we are beyond the ability of the planet to sustain us. Starvation is a matter of distribution, not production.
I haven't seen Asia or Africa, but I have seen large, wide open undeveloped or underdeveloped regions in my own country--the Midwest and Alaska come right to mind. Couple that with the U.S. government PAYING farmers not to grow food; oversupply lowers the price of basic food so that farmers can't make a decent profit off their crops.
Yes, the technology in (most?) third world countries sucks and so do the economies (usually the result of command-and-control style governments). But again, it is distribution. In Somalia and Ethiopia the famine was a human product.
Finally, it is an error to simply associate population with starvation. Since it's founding, the U.S. has never experienced a famine (not counting Jamestown, which really predates "founding"); yet the Native Americans (Indians) experienced frequent famines althought their population density never even approached that of even the early colonies.
I'm sure I'm somewhat disconnected and not systematic, but I'm writing off the top of my head. I have to get back to work.