Population Overload

Ziphius · 10-12-2012 08:11PM

sock puppet wrote: »

Why do so many people repeat this rubbish? It's like saying Sleepy was the tallest dwarf, therefore he must be tall.

No it's not. Ireland has the highest birth rate in the EU. That doesn't mean it's abnormally high by world standards. But the population is growing and has been growing steadily since the 1960's.

sock puppet · 10-12-2012 08:27PM

Ziphius wrote: »

No it's not. Ireland has the highest birth rate in the EU. That doesn't mean it's abnormally high by world standards. But the population is growing and has been growing steadily since the 1960's.

So the implication that Ireland has a high birth rate is rubbish then. Good thing we got that sorted. The birth rate is not the reason for population growth in Ireland recently. That's down to immigration and the low death rate.

Ziphius · 10-12-2012 08:38PM

sock puppet wrote: »

So the implication that Ireland has a high birth rate is rubbish then. Good thing we got that sorted. The birth rate is not the reason for population growth in Ireland recently. That's down to immigration and the low death rate.

The poster you quoted said the "highest in Europe". So by European (and probably the developed world's) standards yes we do have a high birthrate. And it's at or above the replacement rate need to maintain the population.

If you compare us with Zimbabwe or somewhere yeah sure the population isn't that high.

Yes, population growth is a sum of births, deaths, immigration, and emigration and not simply down to birthrate.

number10a wrote: »

Haven't we got the highest birth rate in Europe? And aren't we one of the only member states in the EU with a growing population? We're predicted to have a population of 7 million by 2050. That's an extra 2.5 million people in the country, an increase of over 50% on 2011 census figures in 39 years.

Potatoeman · 10-12-2012 08:38PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

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.

Developed countries use more resources and produce more waste. Look at Chinas increase in consumption.
They are trying to make insects more acceptable to eat in the west as they can live on waste and are more environmental than mammals.

sock puppet · 10-12-2012 09:03PM

Ziphius wrote: »

The poster you quoted said the "highest in Europe".

In response to a point that Ireland had a declining population. So they countered a point that was simply wrong with one that was entirely irrelevant.

Cookie_Monster · 10-12-2012 09:31PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Where will over population be a problem though?

everywhere. just because India and China are vastly overpopulated in comparison to say the EU, US or Australia doesn't mean much. The vast amount of resources used by these countries will only continue to increase, especially as they continue to buy more of Africa and South America. (not only India and China, most developed countries are just as culpable).

You only need to look at the rate forests are chopped down in Brazil / indonesia etc or the general decimation of global fish stocks or the dwindling number of so many species to see there are far too many people already and they're making too big an impact too.

PucaMama · 10-12-2012 09:47PM

WindSock wrote: »

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.

it takes females AND males to increase population :rolleyes:
try tackling young men in those 3rd world countries too. especially in the areas where women cant deny their husbands sex. and are not allowed contraception.

mandrake04 · 10-12-2012 10:24PM

NIMAN wrote: »

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.

You are right, I was in China a few months ago and they all want the latest iPhone, iPad, Apartment and car. China are heavily investing in Australian farms and resources for food for the future, there is a phrase that the 2000's is going to be the Asian century where counties such as China and India will mature. They might have a majority of poor but but their tiny fraction of super rich currently outnumber moderate/rich people of western countries.

India is still a way off but have a look at their IT sector, they might still be using wooden outhouses for a crap but so was most of Ireland up until the 60's.....

sock puppet · 10-12-2012 10:30PM

mandrake04 wrote: »

India is still a way off but have a look at their IT sector, they might still be using wooden outhouses for a crap but so was most of Ireland up until the 60's.....

The Indian IT sector has matured somewhat though. They're not seeing the kind of growth that they've had for most of the past decade.

james142 · 10-12-2012 10:31PM

Gaynna wrote: »

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

I lost any interest in this post after reaching this sentence.

number10a · 10-12-2012 10:51PM

sock puppet wrote: »

In response to a point that Ireland had a declining population. So they countered a point that was simply wrong with one that was entirely irrelevant.

Yet you cleverly chose to omit the rest of my comment in your quote. Notice that the rest of my comment relates to Ireland's current population growth and predicted growth in the years to come. I've emboldened it for the benefit of your selective vision.

number10a wrote:

Haven't we got the highest birth rate in Europe? And aren't we one of the only member states in the EU with a growing population? We're predicted to have a population of 7 million by 2050. That's an extra 2.5 million people in the country, an increase of over 50% on 2011 census figures in 39 years.

Iwasfrozen · 10-12-2012 10:53PM

james142 wrote: »

I lost any interest in this post after reaching this sentence.

You know stuff on wikipedia is referenced? You can't just dismiss the world's largest database of knowledge because it's too mainstream.

Falcone · 10-12-2012 10:56PM

Nature will find a way of eliminating the human masses. Most likely a virus like the Black Death or just as likely, nuclear war, but probably something else.
Its not going to be pretty, we are heading for a big bottleneck in human evolution. It is going to happen. It is Nature's way. It is Mother Earth's way.

Hopefully a few Humans can survive and continue to evolve. Humans will need to be very very smart.

MadYaker · 10-12-2012 11:04PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You know stuff on wikipedia is referenced? You can't just dismiss the world's largest database of knowledge because it's too mainstream.

He probably doesn't understand the concept of referencing.

I'm not too worried tbh. I reckon by the time this comes to a head ill be long since deceased. A lot of people seem to think that in the future wars will be fought over access to fresh water rather than politics, religion or oil. But I think this problem will solve itself, once the planet reaches maximum capacity the population will stop growing.

coolhull · 10-12-2012 11:04PM

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.

The Government can't even work out how to tax Child Benefit, never mind conception

10-12-2012 11:21PM

Saruman wrote: »

There is plenty of physical space for people to live. It's resources that are a problem.
Australia has a tiny population for its size with the majority of the land unpopulated.

There's a very good reason why Australia has historically had low population density compared to other places.

Piriz · 10-12-2012 11:32PM

gayness is on the increase which is a natural reaction of our specie to curb unsustainable levels of population growth with in our planetary ecosystem.. true story!

ive spent alot of time thinking about this and watching documentaries on the subject and i find solace in the thought that we will at some point in the next 1000 or so years deplete all resources to sustain our lives and the human specie will become extinct....not really a bad thing as this will then allow a balanced eco system to emerge and flourish over time...we have wrecked this planet and it will be once again a beautiful place when we are gone... as long as there is humour tho; thats been the best thing since the dodo...

and religion will be extinct too..woohoo!

Madam_X · 11-12-2012 10:42AM

UCDVet wrote: »

Whose fault do you think it is?

Does it have to be someone's fault? It's more complicated than them deciding "All the people around me are having children and struggling to feed them; ah shur feck it I'll still pop out a few sprogs anyway."
You're calling them retards but it's your view that's retarded. You're not even attempting to put yourself in their place, you're just looking at the situation one hundred per cent from your own perspective, your own experience, your own position... which is a world away from theirs.
What contraception can they use? What education have they had? They can't even read and write. Can we even be so sure that they know sex is what causes pregnancy? Should they just refuse their husbands sex - just like that? Some of these societies view women as merely existing to serve men. What about religions and cultures that expect pro-creation whether the people can support the children or not? What about superstition and all that craic that's been instilled in them from day one? It's much more complex than you like to think it is. Having lots of babies when they can barely manage to provide for themselves is obviously a disastrous situation, but until they have access to birth control and education, they really do not deserve to be judged.

In Ireland not particularly long ago there were massive families because of lack of education and church instruction - were they all just simply "retarded"?

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If aid to the third world countries was stopped tomorrow their population would fall

It would?

Piriz wrote: »

gayness is on the increase which is a natural reaction of our specie to curb unsustainable levels of population growth with in our planetary ecosystem.. true story!

On what basis is it a true story? Genuine question.

WindSock · 11-12-2012 11:06AM

PucaMama wrote: »

it takes females AND males to increase population :rolleyes:
try tackling young men in those 3rd world countries too. especially in the areas where women cant deny their husbands sex. and are not allowed contraception.

Don't roll your eyes at me, young man. I wasn't talking just about sex education. General education means there is a delayed onset of family starting. More educated and skilled women means more likelyhood of gaining some sort of decent employment instead of marrying at 13 and toiling in the fields for 40 years.

Cavehill Red · 11-12-2012 11:15AM

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.

This is must-reading for anyone who believes aid works. It actually retards African progress in a load of different ways - http://www.dambisamoyo.com/books-and-publications/book/dead-aid

shruikan2553 · 11-12-2012 03:07PM

Madam_X wrote: »

It would?

I would hope so otherwise they dont actually need our money

Madam_X · 11-12-2012 03:49PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I would hope so otherwise they dont actually need our money

I guess it would in terms of mortality rates but I doubt it in terms of birth rates.

Gaynna · 11-12-2012 04:15PM

Madam_X wrote: »

So you're worried about humanity due to over-population... and how you expess this is by... *not* being worried about humanity.

Ok.

Madam X, if cancer cells are found in a person's leg and it's damaged beyond repair, you amputate the leg to preserve the rest of the body.

Problem with you, Madam X, is you're thinking with your morals instead of your brain, though, It's obvious you severely lack in the latter.

Madam_X · 11-12-2012 04:28PM

Gaynna wrote: »

Problem with you, Madam X, is you're thinking with your morals instead of your brain, though, It's obvious you severely lack in the latter.

Resorting to personal abuse/telling someone they're thick when you don't know anything about their level of intelligence...?

*Someone* is upset at highlighting of the stupidity of their statement and the lack of thought that went into it.

Gaynna · 11-12-2012 05:09PM

Madam_X wrote: »

Resorting to personal abuse/telling someone they're thick when you don't know anything about their level of intelligence...?

*Someone* is upset at highlighting of the stupidity of their statement and the lack of thought that went into it.

I didn't mean to insult you, it was an honest and accurate assessment of your intelligence. This was comfirmed by you ignoring my amputee comparison, obviously you couldn't refute it because it's an exceedingly valid point, thus rendering your statement as stupid.

Also, what's with the asterisks around "*someone*"? Is that creative writing supposed to make your comment look unique and special or something? Not working.

Madam_X · 11-12-2012 05:14PM

Of course you meant to insult me - you said, based on one post, that I'm "obviously severely" lacking in brains.

The asterisks are to denote emphasis as I couldn't be arsed finding the italics function on my phone.

I don't think your cancer analogy is valid. We're talking about humans, not cells. And since when is there something flawed about thinking with one's morals? And why is that and thinking with one's brain mutually exclusive?

joseph brand · 11-12-2012 05:20PM

Grayson wrote: »

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.

So racist. Just because someone is Indian, does not automatically mean that they are good at slums.

/ I'll show meself out.

laoch na mona · 11-12-2012 05:23PM

did no one do lc geography once you hit the limit it sorts itself out

ScumLord · 11-12-2012 05:28PM

Piriz wrote: »

ive spent alot of time thinking about this and watching documentaries on the subject and i find solace in the thought that we will at some point in the next 1000 or so years deplete all resources to sustain our lives and the human specie will become extinct....

It would take something major to completely eradicate the human race. We're born survivors. All we're really doing is destroying the nice comfortable ecosystem we have at the moment. If that happens humans can survive in enclosed ecosystems of our own designs. A bit like spaceships that don't go anywhere.

Even the people stuck out in a completely changed world would probably find a way to scrape by. Humans are very versatile and the fact we're good omnivores means as long as there's something organic out there we'll probably be able to eat it or turn it into edible food through one of our many food preparation techniques.

Piriz · 11-12-2012 10:55PM

ScumLord wrote: »

It would take something major to completely eradicate the human race. We're born survivors. All we're really doing is destroying the nice comfortable ecosystem we have at the moment. If that happens humans can survive in enclosed ecosystems of our own designs. A bit like spaceships that don't go anywhere.

Even the people stuck out in a completely changed world would probably find a way to scrape by. Humans are very versatile and the fact we're good omnivores means as long as there's something organic out there we'll probably be able to eat it or turn it into edible food through one of our many food preparation techniques.

I do agree with your synopsis of future outcomes but i cant imagine there wouldnt be much beauty left in such a world... its interesting to think 'what is beauty without humans to experience it?' in the lifespan of the planet scaled down to 24 hours we (humans) are only here for one minute so far... we are undergoing one of the largest mass extensions of living creatures in the planets lifespan due to our over consumption of natural resources and disruption of environments, apparently over 50% of the fish stocks have been fished in the last 50 years and the continuation of this leaves no possibility for this stock to replenish...the killing of shark for shark fin soup is nearing the extinction of main predator in the oceans causing further disruption to the food chain, global warming, mega cities, food and energy demands, 9 billion people by 2050, currently 1 in 6 is severely malnourished, i predict large wars will break out over remaining resources and huge populations will suffer and experience chaos to survive... will we be economically capable of developing sophisticated methods to sustain 9, 13, 20 billion people in the future when resources are less available... supply and demand will hike the price of what is in short supply and poverty and famine will increase...probably resulting in the wealthy being left to further consume what is left... what will the world look like at this point? and 500 years from this point?

pass the dutchie to the left hand side

Population Overload

Comments