Overpopulation

BraziliaNZ

Am I the only one who believes this is the biggest problem on our planet? Why aren't governments taking action to curb population growth? What do you think can be done about it? As we already live in an unnatural environment with computers and cars and what have you, shouldn't we introduce unnatural reproduction rules to save the planet? We are no longer just animals!

TestTransmission

Ask China to use condoms??? :D

BraziliaNZ

I'm talking about every country not the Chinese. Look at Ireland, no forests left, just a patchwork land of farms, and urban sprawl all over the place. Shouldn't we be aiming to keep our population (relatively) low?

orestes

But then Jesus and his dad would get angry with us!

BraziliaNZ

ok wasn't sure where to post this but could someone move it to an appropriate forum?

TestTransmission

Our population is 4.6 million or something...
We had a population of over 8 million people in the 1840's.
And we have one of the lowest population densitys in Europe..IMO,there's still plenty of open space

Xavi6

I don't think excessive ridin' as it were is the problem in Ireland.

The EU has meant that every Tom, Dick and Harry (or there Eastern European equivalents) can come and go as they please. Ireland had a booming economy, people in poorer countries could move no hassle so they seized the opportunity. Simple really. I believe our population is now around 20% foreign nationals (the highest in Europe). It's just the way things have gone. Maybe during the inevitable recession everyone will feck off to the next booming economy and the population will go back down again.

EDIT: Could be one for Humanities?

BraziliaNZ

jackncoke wrote: »

Our population is 4.6 million or something...
We had a population of over 8 million people in the 1840's.
And we have one of the lowest population densitys in Europe..IMO,there's still plenty of open space

There isn't plenty of open space in Ireland. It's all farms farms farms everywhere. Our population may be a lot less but the country is a lot more developed.

TestTransmission

Where in ireland do u live?
Do you consider every field a farm?

BraziliaNZ

Sligo but living abroad now. Yes most fields are farms or owned by farmers and not forested.

TestTransmission

Well,i guess thats what happens when you live in NZ .You start to see what open space really is

Caoimhín

Re the over population. Maybe we need a massive global cull. A flu epidemic or nuclear war would do the trick.
I'll get working on that.

Dont be at yourself

Looking at the likes of Germany and Japan, it is clear that young people are needed to sustain the existing population and, in economic terms, look after a large elderly population.

So, it seems clear to me that the solution is not birth-control, but rather a Logan's Run style cull of people over the age of, say... 55?

Chakar

Looks like Garrett Hardin is still making waves with his text 'Living in the Lifeboat'.

Conar

My parents think I'm trying to fob them off by not having more than the 2 kids already, but I'm definitely sticking to 2 so that I stay population neutral.
Sounds stupid but I reckon its one easy way I can say that I'm not adding to a another problem.
Now if only I could cut down on the amount of electricity all my techy stuff uses, I'd be a model citizen.

passive

jackncoke wrote: »

Well,i guess thats what happens when you live in NZ .You start to see what open space really is

The constant Orc attacks probably get tiring too...

togster

According to Karl Pilkington its sea life we have to be worried about.

SimpleSam06

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Am I the only one who believes this is the biggest problem on our planet? Why aren't governments taking action to curb population growth?

The world is not overpopulated. You could comfortably fit the entire population of the planet in an area the size of Texas, and I mean with a house and small garden each. Likewise for food supplies and resources, we could merrily support many many billions more people. That social and economic reasons cause famine in some countries and shortages in others does not detract from this fact.

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

As we already live in an unnatural environment with computers and cars and what have you, shouldn't we introduce unnatural reproduction rules to save the planet?

Lets get this straight. There is nothing "unnatural" about what we do. We are products of nature and live within nature, so nothing we can do can be considered unnatural. We might destabilise the status quo a bit, but hey, 99% of life on the planet has already been wiped out four or five times already, so its hardly a new thing.

Abi

Conar wrote: »

but I'm definitely sticking to 2 so that I stay population neutral.

I agree. Ive two and thats my lot. Makes no financial sense for me to have anymore either. But I think our line of thinking is lost on those on losers whacking out the kids because all they see is child payments and 3 and 4 bedroom social houses.

Ive heard some really skin-crawling conversations in my local post office, somewhere I avoid like the plague. Thats if you can get in for all the buggys.

Pherekydes

Abigayle wrote: »

I agree. Ive two and thats my lot.

You need to have 3. Not every woman can have children, so the ones that can have to take up the slack. The fertility rate in Ireland is already 1.8 and dropping.

Conar

Slow coach wrote: »

You need to have 3. Not every woman can have children, so the ones that can have to take up the slack. The fertility rate in Ireland is already 1.8 and dropping.

Possibly so, but we can always allow more people in.
I think of it more on a global scale.
I think its a bit rich to say that India or China need to stop having children but we can cos we have more space.
Anyway, I'm not ruling out adopting.

judas101

Ethnic cleansing ftw

Kev_ps3

China has a 1 child policy so lets not attack them.
The big problem with having lots of people on the planet is resources. We in the west will have to realise that we will have less resources as the 2nd and 3rd world counrtys want their fair share.

Sherifu

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

China has a 1 child policy so lets not attack them.

We all know you love them! Don't worry.

funk-you

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

China has a 1 child policy so lets not attack them.
The big problem with having lots of people on the planet is resources. We in the west will have to realise that we will have less resources as the 2nd and 3rd world counrtys want their fair share.

And then they get nuked for being cheeky trying to get our stuff. Where's the problem? Do you not know it's us white western men keeping the third world and wimmen folk down. As it is now, has and ever shall be life without conscience amen. :pac:

-Funk

Affable

Ireland can't be anywhere near as over populated as England, escpeically the south-east.

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I'm talking about every country not the Chinese. Look at Ireland, no forests left, just a patchwork land of farms, and urban sprawl all over the place. Shouldn't we be aiming to keep our population (relatively) low?

Cormic

Ireland is not overpopulated. It was at over 8 million before the famine. If all you care about are forests then I suggest you go live in the Amazon basin.

Black Swan

The trend is for countries to reach zero or negative population growth after they have reached a certain level of development. Look at Japan, Sweden, and especially Germany for instance. The Germans are having to import labor to run their factories because of population decline. The USA continued to grow past 300 million, but would have reached zero population growth if it hadn't been for a reported 3 million illegal immigrants crossing their borders every year from the south. You should check out the population pyramids site online and compare underdeveloped, developing, developed, and highly developed countries, which go from a pyramid shape (high pop growth), to a column (zero or declining).

Canaboid

Global population has tripled in the last 70 years.
This doesn't strike me as sustainable.

Kev_ps3

Sherifu wrote: »

We all know you love them! Don't worry.

I dont love them, its just I hate those attacking them. If they were attacking mars then id stand up for mars!!

Kev_ps3

Canaboid wrote: »

Global population has tripled in the last 70 years.
This doesn't strike me as sustainable.

Of course its not. In Haiti they are rioting because of the price of staple foods, they are even eating 'mud cakes'.

Hogmeister B

jackncoke wrote: »

Our population is 4.6 million or something...
We had a population of over 8 million people in the 1840's.

Yes, and remember what happened next? Nature stepped in with a nice cull to keep everything under control. (Hint: it involved potatoes.)

Caoimhín

Hogmeister B wrote: »

Yes, and remember what happened next? Nature stepped in with a nice cull to keep everything under control. (Hint: it involved potatoes.)

Nature stepped in to control the potato population? That's the only logic of your statement.

Jigsaw

Overpopulation is of no concern to me whilst my personal wealth ensures that I am in no way affected by it.

Sherifu

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I dont love them, its just I hate those attacking them. If they were attacking mars then id stand up for mars!!

Roman war God eh. Interesting. When are they planning to attack? Tell me the truth!

Andy-Pandy

What the world needs is a good plague, brink back the black death i say. Theres far to many of us and we are making a balls of it. A good culling of lets say 4/5's of the worlds population and that will start to bring nature and wildlife back to the fore.

Loomis

caoibhin wrote: »

Re the over population. Maybe we need a massive global cull. A flu epidemic or nuclear war would do the trick.
I'll get working on that.

Not being funny but we're actually over due a pandemic

dsmythy

jackncoke wrote: »

Our population is 4.6 million or something...
We had a population of over 8 million people in the 1840's.
And we have one of the lowest population densitys in Europe..IMO,there's still plenty of open space

The island of Ireland was around 8 million back then. Right now the Island has just under 6 million or so living in it. There is plenty of open space but is that not what Ireland is all about? Wide open countryside and a breath of fresh air?

We could fill that space but do we really want to?

ojewriej

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

China has a 1 child policy so lets not attack them.

Plus they already actively combat overpopulation, don't they? What with all the executions.

Resources is more of the issue than space.

Caoimhín

Yis know, this brings me to another of my half baked theories....
In past generations, a lot of the young men were shipped off to war where they fought with each other and got the fighting/killing thing out of their systems.. This is not the case in Ireland 2008 and has resulted in the pent up aggression and violence we see from this age group on an average Saturday night.

Lets start a war.

bleg

2 words why governments aren't doing anything about it: pandemic influenza.

why would people try to keep tabs on people when nature will do the job.

Wertz

IMO a much bigger problem than predicted climate change and one that has and has had, a direct bearing on that change.
Sea level rises leading to coastal flooding (where population densities are highest around the globe), changes in rainfall patterns and the desertification of once habitable land will lead to a huge surge in migration as people move to where there is more available water and thus agricultural land.
The world isn't overpopulated in terms of land area...it's overpopulated WRT availability of essential resources. That's resulting in rising prices for now....give it a decade or two and we'll see it resulting in death through war and famine.
But climate change will result in a cut in the world populace in the long run...an adjustment in the natural balance. Obviously those in poorer countries closer to the equator will feel the pinch most, but it will filter upwards.

As for what can we do about it? Nothing...nature will take it's course.

SimpleSam06

Wertz wrote: »

The world isn't overpopulated in terms of land area...it's overpopulated WRT availability of essential resources.

Not especially. There is energy to burn, so to speak - what nuclear can't cover geothermal handily does. Moving from petrofuels to purely electrical machines would be quite a step, but doable. Food shortages have much more to do with political situations than any particular shortage of food.

For example the Philippines used to be a net exporter of rice, now due to decades of crappy government and poorly managed corporate deals, they are the largest importer in southeast asia. Which means, of course, in the current situation they are humped. They could if they wanted to go back to their previous situation however. India did just that, became a net rice exporter in under a generation.

Wertz

I'm not too sure on the initial set-up costs of geothermal energy, but nuclear is very expensive to get going and to maintain/service...which puts it beyond use in many poorer nations. Those same nations are developing a thirst for energy which they didn't require even a decade or two ago...the energy will come from the cheapest and most readily available source, which is usually finite fossil fuel reserves....China and it's reliance on coal being the obvious example.

Food shortages as they stand now, are of course political and economic. The reliance of poorer nations on the sale and export of cash crops to richer, western nations also hampers the production of food locally and leads to a rise in prices...however that's not my point on food shortage; my point is on the actual shortage of food crops that could be caused by predicted changes in weather patterns in major growing areas. One of the most likely to be affected is rice, the staple of almost a third of the world's peoples...the incursion of sea water onto plains where rice grows could hamper production on a wide scale, as could any change in the rainfall totals in those areas.
Our favourite, wheat is due to be similarly affected, either by drought in current 'bread basket' regions or by a possible rise in rainfall in those same regions. The dust bowl is a good example of that, and it's long before anyone ever mentioned human influenced climate change...
A lot of this growing land is also subject to competition between food crops and the new demand for biofuels.
We're currently clearing rainforests for shortlived grazing pasture...a lot of the time that same land is desertified in a matter of decades.

I'm not saying we can't change our habits as a race...but we're no longer operating within the status quo...climate change means we're now playing on an undulating playing field, where old ways and rules don't necessarily apply. The candle is being burned at both ends and we still want more light...unfortunately we only have one candle...

SimpleSam06

Wertz wrote: »

I'm not too sure on the initial set-up costs of geothermal energy, but nuclear is very expensive to get going and to maintain/service...which puts it beyond use in many poorer nations.

Surprisingly enough, nuclear isn't that expensive. 90% of the cost is regulation and inspection (government response to environmentalist hysteria imho), and servicing the loans required to pay for this, historically. France is a good example of a country that gets most of its energy from nuclear power.

Wertz wrote: »

my point is on the actual shortage of food crops that could be caused by predicted changes in weather patterns in major growing areas.

Well you're taking a hypothetical (radical weather and climate change) and superimposing it on the actual reality as it stands today. If there were to be large scale flooding of inland areas, the knock on effects would be considerably more drastic than food shortages. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that if it was to happen, getting a dinner on the table would be the least of the worries of the general population.

In any case, I'm confident in the ability of humanity to turn increased sea levels into a food resource, especially given that we would have no choice in the matter, and it would extend over a period of decades.

Overheal

caoibhin wrote: »

Re the over population. Maybe we need a massive global cull. A flu epidemic or nuclear war would do the trick.
I'll get working on that.

Sure thats why we launched AIDS

but then those god damned hippies showed up with their ideals and other people invented the condom :mad:

Wertz

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Surprisingly enough, nuclear isn't that expensive. 90% of the cost is regulation and inspection (government response to environmentalist hysteria imho), and servicing the loans required to pay for this, historically. France is a good example of a country that gets most of its energy from nuclear power.

Hmm, I was under the impression that building actual reactors and waste management facilities, and to a lesser extent importing nuclear fuel (assuming no domestic supply) was the main cost factors.
WRT to France, it's a first world country and had the resources from former colonies (mainly Canada) to enable it's nuclear ambitions. It also had a lot of money poured into it after WWII to help with funding. I think they're still paying off those loans...but at least they're self sufficient when it comes to power supplies...

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well you're taking a hypothetical (radical weather and climate change) and superimposing it on the actual reality as it stands today. If there were to be large scale flooding of inland areas, the knock on effects would be considerably more drastic than food shortages. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that if it was to happen, getting a dinner on the table would be the least of the worries of the general population.

In any case, I'm confident in the ability of humanity to turn increased sea levels into a food resource, especially given that we would have no choice in the matter, and it would extend over a period of decades.

Thankfully yes, it's all sci-fi for now....but it's predicted in many studies and is more a case of when not if. The weather changes don't have to be that radical...I believe around 3 degrees is where the real trouble starts.
Large scale flooding comes at a later stage...for now, shifting patterns of rainfall and dry seasons are the thing that we have to worrry about...as far as putting the next meal on the table goes, nothing else really matters when it comes down to basics...an empty belly and a dry mouth are motivation enough for just about anything, be it social unrest, conflict, mass migration...we're only 3 meals away from anarachy as the saying goes. None of this ahppens overnight...it's a gradual change but it's only 3-4 generations away if you believe some pundits.

I'd be confident of that too, if it wasn't for our track record on not acting until it's too late.
I'm being the naysayer here, without having that intention.
We've kind of wandered OT...my whole motive to bringing up climate change was just to make the point that it's our whole population's reliance on the planet's shrinking resources, one is feeding the other...the more of us there are, the more pressure is placed on the resources and the more the planet bites back. Jame's Lovelock's "Gaia" series of books, especially the last one, makes these points far better than I ever could.
The Earh was never meant to sustain so many top level predators...it is only our use of technology that allows us to continue, but it's that technology which is in turn destroying the very thing that brought us into existence...

rossie1977

over-population doesn't make headlines simply because most western countries are very under-populated.

Flying over ireland on monday from knock to london with no clouds gives one a clear view of how underpopulated this country truly is; looking down from above all one can see is green or brown fields with a tiny scattering of houses, even dublin city looks small from 37,000 feet up, i could see dun laoghaire harbour all the way to the north dublin coast and from my seat it was hard to believe over 1 million people live there, especially after flying over places like chicago, new york, los angeles, paris and london in the past.

Nobody lives in Canada or Australia if truth be told, 30 million in those gigantic countries; The USA is really underpopulated too despite its huge cities at 31 people per square km, if the USA had the same population density as england there would be 4 billion people living there.....

there are more cattle in ireland than people i believe and there is 3 times as many sheep in New Zealand than people :eek:

bleg

well in fairness, people don't want to live in the bogs in ireland, the frozen wasteland of canada or the desert of australia

RoyalMarine

caoibhin wrote: »

Re the over population. Maybe we need a massive global cull. A flu epidemic or nuclear war would do the trick.
I'll get working on that.

nah. flu or nuclear is too easy. lets just say the last 50million alive win.

rossie1977

bleg wrote: »

well in fairness, people don't want to live in the bogs in ireland, the frozen wasteland of canada or the desert of australia

people will make their home anywhere; las vegas and phoenix are the two biggest growing cities in america located in the hottest desert in the world; some 19 million people live in Cairo metro area smack bang in the middle of the sahara; ditto Riyadh; most of amsterdam and new orleans is below sea-level, Winnipeg one of the largest cities in canada has an average day-time winter temperature of -16C

california is america's most populated state despite the risk of earthquakes, people live in the Caribbean despite the risk of hurricanes for 6 months of the year and 5 million live in the shadow of mount vesuvius knowing another eruption is long overdue