Population (interview, borders, illegal immigration, cost)
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.
Do you think that overpopulation is the cause of many ills in today's society?
Yup, overpopulation and a complete refusal to let places unfit for human habitation go the way of nature.
Quote:
Global warming, lack of jobs, lack of potable water, tainted food, epidemics, wars over territory, illegal immigration. It seems as though many of our systems break down when attempting to handle populations on a large scale. Even a controlled economy; such as the Soviet Union experiment, if I may call it that; failed.
Correct. Any sensible person who can think in an impartial manner can only conclude that in the vast majority of places we live we outweigh the carrying capacity of the land. I'v read too that everybody could live in one big city. But the fact remains that even if 6.5 billion of us lived in one place we would still mutilate most of the remainder to support ourselves.
Quote:
Would it be an act of mercy to future generations to curb our reproduction?
It would be common sense.
Quote:
Is there a natural balance of life on this planet that is very skewered because of:
. health care keeping people alive and reproducing longer
. industries' need for an ever increasing consumer base
Theres a natural balance we screwed up as soon as we started farming, keeping livestock, building cities ect.
Quote:
If we suspect this is the case, what sort of government/economy/life would be your ideal in the future and how could we practically get there if we had enlightened leadership (I cannot ever envision this happening)?
The sad truth is no govt or economy will ever help. The better govt gets the worse off the planet will be. The more advanced humanity becomes the more we will corrupt nature. Our technology comes at great cost environmentally but we keep on trucking.
Theres a natural balance we screwed up as soon as we started farming, keeping livestock, building cities ect.
Isn't success the very definition of natural balance? Isn't it what defines which species are to spread and which are to die out? Ants build cities, keep aphids as livestock, etc. and are very successful did they screw it up too?
If so how is success upsetting to the natural balance, is there a natural balance that only exists if you don't do well?
Zekester, I often wonder about the people who so loudly condemn overpopulation. I wonder how many children they have or if they recycle or if they drive SUVs. Many people see the problems of overpopulation, particularly in China (#1), India (#2) and sub-Saharan Africa, but rarely do the same people acknowledge that the U.S. is the #1 global polluter with China fast on our heels.
Overpopulation is an environmental problem, a political problem, an economic problem, a global problem. The 2004 PBS documentary called "World in the Balance" looked at this issue.
It's complex and different nations and regions have different problems. The keys to solving the problem, IMO, are education and job opportunities, particularly for women. In northern India, for example, the birthrate is approx. 5 children per woman. One reason is the strong boy preference. If education and job opportunities were available for girls and women, having a male would be less important. However, the system is extremely patriarchal. Women in the north have little to no control over their reproductive lives - the men and parents do. Education would go a long way in this region. Family planning organizations are helping to curb the numbers (down from 7 children per woman, I believe), but tradition runs deep. Some family planning organizations have created spin-offs that focus on job skills (like sewing and weaving) for women. This has helped in the areas where it's been implemented.
Sub-Saharan Africa and China have completely different problems. Japan has a negative growth rate. Yes, the U.S. and some European countries keep up their population numbers through immigration.
One poster said the government will not intervene (to deal with overpopulation) because of economics. There is some truth to that. Japan is seeing a bit of an inverse population triangle as more and more women opt for one child - due to high education costs and working long hours like men. Neither the government nor private companies are able to deal with the large number of elderly, particularly outside the cities In France (among others) the government is trying to encourage women to have more than one child. There are tax breaks and perks given to families with children so the country will have an inverse population triangle like Japan.
We do the same thing in the U.S. According to The Childless Revolution by Madelyn Cain (2001), in 1999 (which I realize is 11 years ago), the average childless couple paid +/- $2500 more in taxes than the average couple with two kids. This assumes that both families make $70,000. While that isn't necessarily a lot of money, there is a clear bias toward people with kids.
Some people have suggested a tax break for a couple with no kids, smaller break for 1 kid, no tax breaks or penalties or 2, and then tax some percent for families with more than 2. This becomes complicated with divorces, widow(er)s, and Brady bunch families.
So back to OP's questions: "Do you think that overpopulation is the cause of many ills in today's society?"
Yes, but it's a complex issue. "Would it be an act of mercy to future generations to curb our reproduction? "
Yes, but how to do it is, again, complex.
More people and less resources equals more problems, so the short answer is yes, overpopulation has created a greater demand on those things that are supplied by nature. The fact that most nations tend toward a stratified wealth distribution means more people will be vying for those resources that will only be affordable to the few. This of course causes friction between economic classes and ultimately renders more of the populace to a condition of permanent poverty. When the book titled The Population Bomb was published most people hadn't thought much about the threat of overpopulation, also, the authors pointed out the erroneous thinking that had human population density mapping as the one determining factor in figuring the earths ability to sustain life, now we know it's a matter of resources and not just square miles of land.
In those poorer nations where children are seen as the ticket to ride in ones old age we see the no win situation of those in dire poverty contemplating their plight and having more children than they can possibly raise to adulthood. Here in the US there is no good reason to have children if you are poor. ADC types of welfare schemes have made baby factories of so many of America's poor, this is one huge stumbling block to those parents in poverty that hope to change their situation, we could have just as easily paid folks for not having children. The way I see this entire dilemma of overpopulation shaping up is that the battle lines will be drawn along class lines, children will be the affordable burden on those with the resources, those without will see their children as an intolerable weight. I suppose education among our own poor would be advisable at this point, but the notion of children being one more thing that the poor can't afford may be a tipping point in the rage that usually rests just below the surface of those societies with huge economic imbalances.
One thought that comes to mind is the fact of our world growing more dependent on the industrialized constructs that displace family farmers, in the book, A Planet of Slums author Mike Davis chronicles the migration of the worlds poor to those large industrialized cities that now are horribly overpopulated by people and disease. More of the worlds populace lives in these kinds of environments than ever before in human history, even in the US we have a loss of population from the rural towns because of the lack of jobs there, our kids are leaving the midwest regions for the coastal areas and the promise of jobs. Many of these American youths end up in their own scenario of poverty, just as economically displaced as those youth in the third world. We will not be the first society to see our prospects of survival diminished by the fact of overpopulation, Anthropologists have figured out that many older societies were done in by their own lack of restraint. Our natural resources are not infinite, we are in trouble around the globe with regard to water, oil, and a lot of the necessary minerals, our air is sometimes of dubious quality also. Those who can't see the inevitable outcome of man's inability to control that which ultimately leads to his demise will continue to seek "solutions" to our collective problems, meanwhile, nature also seeks it's own solution to the problem of too many humans.
Is this a call for survival of the fittest? Because your not going to cxhnage human nature ;that is for sure.
You know, there are a lot of yahoos up in the hills, digging in and getting off the grid, waiting for the big collapse and thinking that they will have a better probability of survival in the future than the Wall Street types.
What we do see, though, is that so long as there is a monetary system it is the wealthy that will be better off. Those multitudes are being pushed lower and lower and become mere serfs for the wealthy. It is hard to live off the grid when the land is so parched you cannot grow anything and water is way too expensive. Everyone will be either bartering, probably illegally, or praying for a job serving the wealthy.
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.
I agree. I wish everytime those power wealthy talked to, someone not near as powerful as they are would be told just how silly they sound...publicly--but I doubt we see that happen. Unless it is on a spoof news station.
I believe the reason the wealthier people have less children is because they are busy with careers and pay a lot of attention to keeping up with the Joneses and can't afford (pun?)to have children because that would take away their career time. I don't think wealth is the reason, I think careers and time are the reasons.
"we need to get our asses into space and find ways to inhabit the galaxy".
This option is totally not feasible. Even the planets closest to earth are covered by poisonous gas, or are thousands of degrees too hot or too cold, making them completely hostile to human life. The planets furthest away, are even more so, and totally impossible to travel to.
"we need to get our asses into space and find ways to inhabit the galaxy".
This option is totally not feasible. Even the planets closest to earth are covered by poisonous gas, or are thousands of degrees too hot or too cold, making them completely hostile to human life. The planets furthest away, are even more so, and totally impossible to travel to.
To answer the initial query , yes , there are too many people. Everywhere I travel , I see humanity's footprint. It's a matter of time before culling will be the way to go. I hear friends , relatives inquire of my having children. Every time , I negate this. I mean , there are just too many humans. Sad part about it , those who spew the 'be fruitful and multiply' mantra are experiencing this on a smaller scale. A 4 room domicile , with 5 kids , and the effects of a strain on resources is felt daily. But , that's on them. Maybe if there were payouts for sterilization , more would follow suit , but 9 times out of 10 , some fools with strings of babies , a stretch Hummer , smaller SUV for 'roughing it' , coupled with an annoying nasal sounding voice will complain , saying everyone shall feel the burden of the bad choices they made with those kids. However , when population control does arrive , it will progress 'like a thief in the night' , so to speak. I think of several poisons that can be clandestinely slipped into food/water supplies , build in the body until demise , then appears to be a simple 'chemical imbalance'. I pity the fool!!
Secondly , Venus and Mars are the closest bodies beyond the moon and asteroids. Their surfaces are not 'thousands of degrees too hot or cold'.
Venus , yes. Mars , no. The equatorial temps during summer are between 50 to 73 Fahreinheit. All any colonists will have to do is find ways to adapt. Hell , if people can manage to find comfort in places like Barrow , Alaska , finding comfort on Mars should be no problem. We just will need to adapt.
To answer the initial query , yes , there are too many people. Everywhere I travel , I see humanity's footprint. It's a matter of time before culling will be the way to go. I hear friends , relatives inquire of my having children. Every time , I negate this. I mean , there are just too many humans. Sad part about it , those who spew the 'be fruitful and multiply' mantra are experiencing this on a smaller scale. A 4 room domicile , with 5 kids , and the effects of a strain on resources is felt daily. But , that's on them. Maybe if there were payouts for sterilization , more would follow suit , but 9 times out of 10 , some fools with strings of babies , a stretch Hummer , smaller SUV for 'roughing it' , coupled with an annoying nasal sounding voice will complain , saying everyone shall feel the burden of the bad choices they made with those kids. However , when population control does arrive , it will progress 'like a thief in the night' , so to speak. I think of several poisons that can be clandestinely slipped into food/water supplies , build in the body until demise , then appears to be a simple 'chemical imbalance'. I pity the fool!!
Secondly , Venus and Mars are the closest bodies beyond the moon and asteroids. Their surfaces are not 'thousands of degrees too hot or cold'.
Venus , yes. Mars , no. The equatorial temps during summer are between 50 to 73 Fahreinheit. All any colonists will have to do is find ways to adapt. Hell , if people can manage to find comfort in places like Barrow , Alaska , finding comfort on Mars should be no problem. We just will need to adapt.
I watched an HBO documentary last night about poor kids. These are families who live in Motels and consider themselves lucky that they are off the street. On was a nurse whose husband lost his job and they lived with their 4 kids in one room.
It's easy to feel sorry for the kids but if you cannot sterilize the parents I feel no need to throw more money at them. People must save and plan ahead and not just reproduce, willy-nilly.
People not only must save, but with two people working, instead of residing in a place that takes two salaries, live in a place more easily supported on one salary.
Funny, when people have all those kids others will smile and say nice things to their faces and scowl when their backs are turned. I think it's disgusting for anyone to bring kids into a world of such deprivation.
Some older people say that couples who don't want kids are selfish, but it's just the opposite. People who have large families tend to be selfish (and sloppy).
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.
I wish everytime those power wealthy talked to, someone not near as powerful as they are would be told just how silly they sound...publicly--but I doubt we see that happen. Unless it is on a spoof news station.
