Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
there is plenty of room on earth for a lot more people. we are nowhere near any kind of overpopulation problem. the hatred of humanity that school have baked into people is disgusting.
Problem is the population is not divided so some countries people are on top of one other like China and India and other countries hardly any people like Canada and Russia but very big country.
Problem is the population is not divided so some countries people are on top of one other like China and India and other countries hardly any people like Canada and Russia but very big country.
i think it has more to do with particular cities that are very densely populated than countries.
It is not about physical space, but having the resources to maintain a high standard of living and quality of life.
Yes, the end result is the world could live in 200 square foot apartments and eat only bulk crop items like corn and oatmeal, and never have the opportunity for the quality of life we have now. The family can get excited when their once every ten year chance comes to go visit a national park due to quotas having to be enacted.
I;m not sure how much land China and India has to build new cities .In Canada and Russia 99% land is empty so even if people left overcrowded cities and moved there and build new cities where is that money going to come from to build new cities.
Also by 2050 they say there going to be major water and foot shortage if the population keeps going up.
In Africa in many places there is major water and foot shortage now.
I;m not sure how much land China and India has to build new cities .In Canada and Russia 99% land is empty so even if people left overcrowded cities and moved there and build new cities where is that money going to come from to build new cities.
Also by 2050 they say there going to be major water and foot shortage if the population keeps going up.
In Africa in many places there is major water and foot shortage now.
where did the money come from to build places in more successful countries? we will not run out of resources, we will find new ways to be more productive. future generations do not need to not exist because people starve in africa. those problems have nothing to do with lack of resources. we will run out of water? well, most of earth is covered in water so we will find ways to efficiently turn it into usable water. we can innovate to accommodate more people.
We've already found ways to be more productive.
What's the result? A need for *fewer* people.
To what end? How is anything better for anyone with that excess?
There IS a saturation point in everything and there IS a point of diminishing returns.
I contend that we have already passed both.
im not sure how to answer "to what end?" if you want to think like that, whats the benefit of you being alive? or me? you are sitting pretty living while deciding that future life's dont deserve an opportunity to live.
i dont think ways to be productive has led to a need for fewer people. it has led to the opportunity to add more people. sure, it takes less people to make a car and you lost employees in the factory. but that doesnt mean that those former employees have no value living. the economy can adapt to that and people can still have great lives.
...while deciding that future life's don't deserve an opportunity to live.
Come on now! Deciding? Deserve? Opportunity? I've said nothing of the sort.
Quote:
...the economy can adapt to that and (some) people can still have great lives.
I suppose it *could* do lots of things. But that isn't the question.
The question is whether there is any great likelihood of that ideal coming about.
Let's say I'm doubtful. Especially as regards the already far too large bottom.
But it plays out at the top too.
I contend that a US with one lawyer per 1000 people is objectively better than a US with one per 265.
To the degree that we can adapt (consciously engineer or just nudge) the world to change behavior
I suggest that ways that promote 225 million fully employed and engaged Americans will have a far
greater likelihood of achieving that "great lives" standard than continuing down the road we're on.
Last edited by MrRational; 01-26-2013 at 09:19 AM..
We are not are the breaking point, not even close. However I think it would be wise not to get to that point, and in many parts of the world birth rates have been falling so.. The biggest danger is when the populace is coerced into yielding power to "solve" this problem.
The biggest danger is when the populace is coerced into yielding power to "solve" this problem.
That is a "how" question. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Quote:
We are not are the breaking point, not even close.
That is an opinion. I have a different opinion...
or perhaps just define what you are calling the "breaking point" differently?
Quote:
However I think it would be wise not to get to that point,
and in many parts of the world birth rates have been falling so..
Now we're back to considering the ideas and the issues. Good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
