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.
It would appear that everything except the size of the universe, has limits. This would therefore include the capability of the Earth to support human life, to "human" standards.
Of course our problems are results of overpopulation. That is undeniable, the question is why are we overpopulating the earth when we know it is self destrutive. Because it benifits the people in power. Goverments and corporations run on greed. Govenments want more taxes, and corporations want more sales, it is that simple. The majority of the worlds overpopulation problems come from poor countries where they are litteraly unable to afford bith control. The richer countries have decreasing birth rates. Unfortunatly immigration offsets lower birth rates in those countries.
I've been terrified of overpopulation since a kid in the 60s. But I must admit that there is alot of progress. In a nutshell, since women have been liberated in modern times (only some countries excluded), women are having far fewer babies then they used to. Granted 3.5 kids per woman (typical example) is still way too high but it beats 5.0. So the tide is turning. In America, our growth would be about flat if not for (mainly Hispanic) immigration.
But I think it's too late, we've degraded the earth probably beyond repair. And we have far too few progressive minded people willing to sacrifice in the slightest to make changes for a healthier sustainable Earth.
I'm all for poor people not being poor, but the price is exponentially more energy/resource consumption. But to be fair, the higher the income the lower the birthrates.
the majority of people don't live like we do, they subsist on about one dollar a day and don't consume the electricity/gas/products we do. It's scary to think of what this world would be like if they lived even close to what we do.
But your're completely correct, the more affluent a society becomes the less children they actually have. in this way it's almost more a problem of global poverty.
if the living standard of the world's poor people could suddenly be raised to an adequate level we would actually see the population hold steady and then trend downward after time.
I used to think overpopulation was a big problem but I really think it's lack of living standard. We can grow enough food for everyone, it's a matter of distribution.
It appears as though we have encouraged illegal immigrants not only to supply cheap labor, but to expand the consumer base and when we complete the process of legalizing them, which we will because both parties are pushing for it, we will have taxpayers to aid our social security problem.
We need to find another way, and that will mean that the needs of corporations cannot drive our politics; which in turn means we have to start devising a way of politicians running for office with limited funding which can no way be dependent on private contributions.
Doesn't Italy now have a negative population growth?
The only countries that are popping out batches of offspring seem to be third world, and I have had that explained to me because they have no social safely net as well as having more kids makes a more productive farm.
Bill Gates has explained his charity (and the Clinton's and Bush's) to bring better health care to the third world - he says that (I believe I got it right) making them healthier will make them better workers which makes them wealthier and statistics show that wealthier people have less kids. So his idea is to curb population by giving them better health. That's a stretch, in my book.
In India the new found wealth is not trickling down to the poor, but staying within the middle class. I may have read something similar concerning China, but I'm not sure.
So, it might be that all of our jobs going overseas are not really pulling the third world out of their dilemma.
When we have more taxpayers, won't we also have more consumers? People who have large families will also use resources and then retire and enjoy social security benefits. I don't know why government is pushing for legalizing immigrants, the problem will still be there, just a bigger problem.
Bill Gates said that? I thought he was intelligent but making people healthier (when people are poverty stricken) will not make them wealthier, the higher paying jobs are not given to people who are healthier. I'm pretty dumb but even that rationale seems retarded. And Bill Gates professed that? hmmm
the majority of people don't live like we do, they subsist on about one dollar a day and don't consume the electricity/gas/products we do. It's scary to think of what this world would be like if they lived even close to what we do.
But your're completely correct, the more affluent a society becomes the less children they actually have. in this way it's almost more a problem of global poverty.
if the living standard of the world's poor people could suddenly be raised to an adequate level we would actually see the population hold steady and then trend downward after time.
I used to think overpopulation was a big problem but I really think it's lack of living standard. We can grow enough food for everyone, it's a matter of distribution.
If people with limited life choices breed more than there is that possibility that lowering the expectations of the West (necessary for better food distribution, no?) might cause us to breed more, too.
I opt for quality of life over quantity.
Those in the third world do, as well, since when they achieve a better lifestyle they curb their numbers. It is because the wealth makes the need for big families redundant. The extra kids, instead of being old age insurance for the parents, actually eat up the extra resources that the parents have gained.
When we have more taxpayers, won't we also have more consumers? People who have large families will also use resources and then retire and enjoy social security benefits. I don't know why government is pushing for legalizing immigrants, the problem will still be there, just a bigger problem.
Bill Gates said that? I thought he was intelligent but making people healthier (when people are poverty stricken) will not make them wealthier, the higher paying jobs are not given to people who are healthier. I'm pretty dumb but even that rationale seems retarded. And Bill Gates professed that? hmmm
I heard him say this on Oprah, as I remember. Nobody easily calls Gates on his faulty logic. This is in no way meaning that I don't support helping the poor and needy, just that I hate lying and 'bs' and the assumption that we are all so stupid by those with power and wealth.
Of course our problems are results of overpopulation. That is undeniable, the question is why are we overpopulating the earth when we know it is self destrutive. Because it benifits the people in power. Goverments and corporations run on greed. Govenments want more taxes, and corporations want more sales, it is that simple. The majority of the worlds overpopulation problems come from poor countries where they are litteraly unable to afford bith control. The richer countries have decreasing birth rates. Unfortunatly immigration offsets lower birth rates in those countries.
No Jim, curb the conspiracy thinking on this subject please. Overpopulation is mostly a homo sapien thing, it's about wombs, genitals, love, hate, religion, tradition, labor, and slowly influenced by economics.
Granted sometimes governments stimulate birthrates up or down and corporations influence behavior too but the flesh wants what it wants.
No Jim, curb the conspiracy thinking on this subject please. Overpopulation is mostly a homo sapien thing, it's about wombs, genitals, love, hate, religion, tradition, labor, and slowly influenced by economics.
Granted sometimes governments stimulate birthrates up or down and corporations influence behavior too but the flesh wants what it wants.
Then explain the direct correlation between poverty and birth rate. The countries with the highest birth rate are the most impoverished countries. People all over the world understand that limiting the size of their families will improve both their living standard and the chances of their children becoming educated and living a better life. That is the goal of all people regardless of geography. Given the choice they would choose to act in their own best interest. The problem is most cannot afford contraception. Rich countries are reproducing at a rate that does not even replace the current population because they have a choice. There is only a small group of people who benefit from overpopulation. If you want to know the truth, follow the money. There are two basic emotions that control conscious human nature they are fear and greed. Overpopulation is obviously not a result of fear, that only leaves greed.
Then explain the direct correlation between poverty and birth rate. The countries with the highest birth rate are the most impoverished countries. People all over the world understand that limiting the size of their families will improve both their living standard and the chances of their children becoming educated and living a better life. That is the goal of all people regardless of geography. Given the choice they would choose to act in their own best interest. The problem is most cannot afford contraception. Rich countries are reproducing at a rate that does not even replace the current population because they have a choice. There is only a small group of people who benefit from overpopulation. If you want to know the truth, follow the money. There are two basic emotions that control conscious human nature they are fear and greed. Overpopulation is obviously not a result of fear, that only leaves greed.
Yes there is a correlation between income and birth rate. But humans are a very fertile species. We are closer to rats then eagles or mountain lions, both whom only breed enough to comfortably fill wide territories. We can breed any time of year, the same woman can have 20 children in a lifetime! You get my meaning...
Yes there is a correlation between income and birth rate. But humans are a very fertile species. We are closer to rats then eagles or mountain lions, both whom only breed enough to comfortably fill wide territories. We can breed any time of year, the same woman can have 20 children in a lifetime! You get my meaning...
This is a very good point, humans do not seem to have an instictive and innate "Shut Off" mechanism that instructs them to back down or temporarliy cease reproduction.
Our society can encourage breeding and reproduction on a 24-7 schedule with laws and incentives covering anything from a family man or woman receiving a promotion or not being let go over a single person. A family man or woman receiving a lesser punishment in a criminal situation over a single person who commited the exact same crime. Tax breaks for married couples, more breaks if they have children, cheaper travel over singles traveling, etc..etc..
Nobody ever seems to reward the single for being environmentally and poulationally (is that a word?) responsible. Go figure....
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.
And Bill Gates professed that? hmmm
