Population Overload

Gaynna · 10-12-2012 03:49AM #1

Here is an interesting documentary on our world in the future if we continue to over-populate the planet. The potential aftermath of over-population is the reason why I'm staunchly pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia. It's also the reason why I'm desensitised to news of mass death such as pandemics, war and natural disasters - basically I don't get my knickers in a twist when people on the other side of the planet perish, just as long as my friends and family are okay.

Here's a estimation of the Earth's population over the years from Wikipedia :

1800: 1 billion
1927: 2 billion
1960: 3 billion
1974: 4 billion
1987: 5 billion
1999: 6 billion
2012: 7 billion
2025: 8 billion
2043: 9 billion
2083: 10 billion

There's another one on this website: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

(not too sure about their accuracies)

1ZRed · 10-12-2012 03:56AM

Gaynna wrote: »

basically I don't get my knickers in a twist when people on the other side of the planet perish, just as long as my friends and family are okay.

Well if we're going to kick start the depopulation/culling process, the selfish people wouldn't really be missed

Eathrin · 10-12-2012 03:58AM

Gaynna wrote: »

It's also the reason why I'm desensitised to news of mass death such as pandemics, war and natural disasters - basically I don't get my knickers in a twist when people on the other side of the planet perish, just as long as my friends and family are okay.

But those are other peoples' friends and families.

I am pro-abortion, but another person's injust death I can't ever say is a good thing.

Canis Lupus · 10-12-2012 04:11AM

Well jokes aside it's an interesting concept. At what point do we have to look globally at people having de babbies and tell them to stop? Can we? No ecosystem can support an unlimited population. At what point is enough enough and what's going to happen?

T-K-O · 10-12-2012 04:15AM

So the planet is over populated due to a lack of abortion and euthanasia?

1ZRed · 10-12-2012 04:17AM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Well jokes aside it's an interesting concept. At what point do we have to look globally at people having de babbies and tell them to stop? Can we? No ecosystem can support an unlimited population. At what point is enough enough and what's going to happen?

Don't worry. I'm working on a gay version of this. Be grand

Cookie_Monster · 10-12-2012 04:23AM

Governments need to sit down and address this just as they do with emissions or trade links or nuclear controls. Until that happens nothing will change and very few countries seem bothered about it in the slightest.

Instead of giving people money to have kids taxing them would be a good way to start addressing it.

T-K-O · 10-12-2012 04:25AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Governments need to sit down and address this just as they do with emissions or trade links or nuclear controls. Until that happens nothing will change and very few countries seem bothered about it in the slightest.

Instead of giving people money to have kids taxing them would be a good way to start addressing it.

I would imagine collecting such a tax will be difficult in the 'problematic areas'

Maximus Alexander · 10-12-2012 04:31AM

So countries like Ireland who already have a declining populations should discourage people from having kids, because population is on the rise in Asia? Right.

If there is a limit on how many people the Earth can support, then the problem will solve itself once we reach that limit. There's no need for eugenics.

Not to mention that in developed countries birthrates always drop below equilibrium and the populations are bolstered by immigration. So, the solution is not to dictate who can have kids, but to work on developing the rest of the world.

Lapin · 10-12-2012 04:32AM

Don't cull any fat ladies OP.

Or its curtains for us all.

im invisible · 10-12-2012 04:36AM

We'll reach a sustainable level at some stage, probably cut down all the rain-forests for farmland, peak at 15 billion, run out of oil, run out of food, and die back to about 4 or 5 billion, be grand shur

Canis Lupus · 10-12-2012 04:37AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Governments need to sit down and address this just as they do with emissions or trade links or nuclear controls. Until that happens nothing will change and very few countries seem bothered about it in the slightest.

Instead of giving people money to have kids taxing them would be a good way to start addressing it.

Where will over population be a problem though? I thought most of the first world has fairly stable (and in some cases declining) birth rates. Do we force other countries (most likely developing ones) to enforce taxation or other methods to control their populations?

Should we take active measures before they decide to get pointy sticks and start looking for lebensraum(sp?)?

smash · 10-12-2012 09:15AM

I we population? Fcuking ghost estates all over the place...

UCDVet · 10-12-2012 10:03AM

Supply and Demand will ensure this non-issue remains a non-issue.

The only real problem is stupid parents.

'Gee - I'm poor. I have trouble feeding myself. I live in a crappy village and everyone around me is having lots of babies even though they are poor and can't feed themselves.

I KNOW! I'll have MORE BABIES!!!!!'

F***ing retards.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 10-12-2012 10:08AM

Gaynna wrote: »

Here is an interesting documentary on our world in the future if we continue to over-populate the planet. The potential aftermath of over-population is the reason why I'm staunchly pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia. It's also the reason why I'm desensitised to news of mass death such as pandemics, war and natural disasters - basically I don't get my knickers in a twist when people on the other side of the planet perish, just as long as my friends and family are okay.

Here's a estimation of the Earth's population over the years from Wikipedia :

1800: 1 billion
1927: 2 billion
1960: 3 billion
1974: 4 billion
1987: 5 billion
1999: 6 billion
2012: 7 billion
2025: 8 billion
2043: 9 billion
2083: 10 billion

There's another one on this website: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

(not too sure about their accuracies)

Thos figures would indicate a slowdown...
1974-1999 - A jump of two billion takes 25 years.
1999-2025 - A jump of two billion takes 26 years.
2025-2083 - A jump of two billion takes 58 years.

the groutch · 10-12-2012 10:24AM

UCDVet wrote: »

Supply and Demand will ensure this non-issue remains a non-issue.

The only real problem is stupid parents.

'Gee - I'm poor. I have trouble feeding myself. I live in a crappy village and everyone around me is having lots of babies even though they are poor and can't feed themselves.

I KNOW! I'll have MORE BABIES!!!!!'

F***ing retards.

and the first world's countries' solution to it is to just keep throwing money at them to keep more and more of them barely alive.
the fact that foreign aid to 3rd world countries is still needed nearly 30 years after Live Aid is a clear sign that it doesnt work.

Grayson · 10-12-2012 10:47AM

UCDVet wrote: »

Supply and Demand will ensure this non-issue remains a non-issue.

The only real problem is stupid parents.

'Gee - I'm poor. I have trouble feeding myself. I live in a crappy village and everyone around me is having lots of babies even though they are poor and can't feed themselves.

I KNOW! I'll have MORE BABIES!!!!!'

F***ing retards.

Globally, the biggest cause of death for females under the age of 18 is childbirth.

these are teenage girls who have no access to birth control or sex education. They are married off young and they start having kids. It is not their fault.

@everyone who mentions that we (the developed world) have a declining birth rate. We still use **** loads more resources than the rest of the planet. Even with a declioning birth rate, every one of those kids will probably use 10 times more resources during their life times than a child born in the slums of calcutta.

Grayson · 10-12-2012 10:48AM

the groutch wrote: »

and the first world's countries' solution to it is to just keep throwing money at them to keep more and more of them barely alive.
the fact that foreign aid to 3rd world countries is still needed nearly 30 years after Live Aid is a clear sign that it doesnt work.

That would mean that everyone we gave aid to is dead? Cos the purpose of live aid was famine relief.

10-12-2012 11:22AM

UCDVet wrote: »

Supply and Demand will ensure this non-issue remains a non-issue.

The only real problem is stupid parents.

'Gee - I'm poor. I have trouble feeding myself. I live in a crappy village and everyone around me is having lots of babies even though they are poor and can't feed themselves.

I KNOW! I'll have MORE BABIES!!!!!'

F***ing retards.

Professor Daniel Nettle (Behavioural Science), Newcastle University

"Evolutionnary theory predicts that if you are a mammal growing up in a harsh, unpredictable environment where you are susceptible to disease and might die young, then you should follow a 'fast' reproductive strategy - grow up quickly, and have offspring early and close together so you can ensure leaving some viable progeny before you become I'll or die. For a range of animal species there is evidence that this does happen. Now research suggests that humans are no exception"

Hope this helps.

10-12-2012 11:29AM

The only problem with what you are saying is

The population in the west is falling, as a society becomes wealthy populations tend to fall so the solution is for the rest of he world to become more wealthy and there will be a drop in population and the world will find equilibrium.

Firefox11 · 10-12-2012 11:41AM

Good BBC Doc on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa3ZDEZj3P8

donegal_road · 10-12-2012 12:30PM

the demand for oil will be too great in the near future, considering that it is a finite resource

Mr Benevolent · 10-12-2012 12:32PM

Here we go again. People were panicking about this in 1810, 1890, 1920, 1950, 1990... and yet we've still got plenty of space and food. In fact things have improved immeasurably.

dlofnep · 10-12-2012 12:38PM

Get rid of China and India, and you reduce the world's population by a third. Scary to think that two countries have more people than the entire continents of Europe, North America, South America and Australia combined.

hooradiation · 10-12-2012 12:41PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Supply and Demand will ensure this non-issue remains a non-issue.

The only real problem is stupid parents.

'Gee - I'm poor. I have trouble feeding myself. I live in a crappy village and everyone around me is having lots of babies even though they are poor and can't feed themselves.

I KNOW! I'll have MORE BABIES!!!!!'

F***ing retards.

I don't believe you have the as firm a grasp on the situation you think you do.

loveisdivine · 10-12-2012 12:42PM

I know people are saying theres still plenty of space and resources and such but the point is which would people prefer, a world stuffed to the brim with just enough resources to go around until eventually we run out and everything goes pear shaped.

Or we address the issue now and we have less people living an infinitely better life. Safe in the knowledge that we have enough to carry on for x amount of years into the future.

Thats how I see it anyway. I'd rather less people, living well than lots of people fighting over resources.

dark crystal · 10-12-2012 12:46PM

Surely this has more to do with people living longer because of improvements in healthcare and better general living conditions, not so much to do with having more children.

For instance in 1930, life expectancy for men was 58.1 years and for women 61.6 years. In 2010, life expectancy for men was 76.2 years and for women 81.1 years. Go back further and life expectancy was even much shorter than that.

Also, the infant mortality rate is much higher; again, related to improvements in the area of pre and ante natal care.

BraziliaNZ · 10-12-2012 12:48PM

It's more about consumption, not population. Westerners consume about 300 times what a Bangladeshi person would consume. So why do people always blame the poor countries? There may be loads of them but they can't afford to buy anything. It's mass consumption that's destroying the planet.

Mr Benevolent · 10-12-2012 01:04PM

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

It's more about consumption, not population. Westerners consume about 300 times what a Bangladeshi person would consume. So why do people always blame the poor countries? There may be loads of them but they can't afford to buy anything. It's mass consumption that's destroying the planet.

Sorry about that. I'll take that packet of Toffee Pops back to the shop. Will you be happy then?

WindSock · 10-12-2012 01:10PM

The only way to address this in a humane and sustainable manner is to invest in education in third world and developing countries. Particularly with young women.

NIMAN · 10-12-2012 01:11PM

I am a believer in the planet sorting itself out. It will only support so many and there will be a limit to the numbers that survive. If too many try to live here, there will be more pandemics etc to lower the numbers.

When you see all the research to cure diseases and improve medical techniques, this is making people live longer and add to the problem.

Doesn't help either that the rich Western countries are obsessed with gathering 'stuff' or possessions that they don't need, and now the Chinese and Indians want these things too, and this is having a huge effect.

In future wars will be fought on energy resources and water.

Population Overload

Comments