U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:18 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,144 posts, read 9,223,353 times
Reputation: 9016

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
India is not out of control at all. It is the fastest growing economy in the world, and they are aborting 10% of all pregnancies. If India can stop population growth, through improved economy, fair distribution of wealth, and reduced birth rate, all of which are being done, India will be less overpopulated than the USA during this century. India is already less densely populated than England. India spends 4.1% of its GDP on education, not far behind the 5-6% of EU countries.
List of countries and dependencies by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nation Pop.; km2.; pop/km2
INDIA:1,030,618,000; 3,287,263; 344
USA: 305,825,000; 9,629,091; 31
UK: 60,776,238; 242,900; 246

Assuming the USA doubles population every 50 years, it will only reach 124/km2 in 2109.

Indian subcontinent is not less densely populated than the UK.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:25 PM
 
9,912 posts, read 12,194,182 times
Reputation: 7257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
List of countries and dependencies by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nation Pop.; km2.; pop/km2
INDIA:1,030,618,000; 3,287,263; 344
USA: 305,825,000; 9,629,091; 31
UK: 60,776,238; 242,900; 246

Assuming the USA doubles population every 50 years, it will only reach 124/km2 in 2109.

Indian subcontinent is not less densely populated than the UK.
That's a really interesting link jg!

I thought it was getting squishy here and by comparison to how it was when I was growing up it is, but we're WAY down on the bottom of the list and seemingly have MUCH more personal space than most countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:39 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,653,762 times
Reputation: 35881
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
[

Indian subcontinent is not less densely populated than the UK.
I said India is less densely populated than England which it is. (383 per sq km.) Scotland, a large part of the UK, has only 66 per square km.

Last edited by jtur88; 05-21-2009 at 10:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,144 posts, read 9,223,353 times
Reputation: 9016
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshadow View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
List of countries and dependencies by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nation Pop.; km2.; pop/km2
INDIA:1,030,618,000; 3,287,263; 344
USA: 305,825,000; 9,629,091; 31
UK: 60,776,238; 242,900; 246
I thought it was getting squishy here and by comparison to how it was when I was growing up it is, but we're WAY down on the bottom of the list and seemingly have MUCH more personal space than most countries.
Need more elbow room?
Russia__ 143,201,600__ 17,098,242__ 8.4
Canada__ 33,271,000__ 9,984,670__ 3
Australia__ 21,468,700__ 7,682,300__ 2.84

Paradise is not overcrowded - yet.
HAWAII: 72.83/km˛
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2009, 10:59 PM
 
9,912 posts, read 12,194,182 times
Reputation: 7257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Need more elbow room?
Russia__ 143,201,600__ 17,098,242__ 8.4
Canada__ 33,271,000__ 9,984,670__ 3
Australia__ 21,468,700__ 7,682,300__ 2.84

Paradise is not overcrowded - yet.
HAWAII: 72.83/km˛
Yeah, I do need more elbow room!

Don't know where I'm gonna go for that though! I'm already at 2.84 and I can't say that Namibia, Mongolia or Greenland look as appealing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 01:13 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,653,762 times
Reputation: 35881
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshadow View Post
Yeah, I do need more elbow room!

Don't know where I'm gonna go for that though! I'm already at 2.84 and I can't say that Namibia, Mongolia or Greenland look as appealing.
Namibia is actually quite nice. I haven't been to the other two, but I understand they are pretty damned cold.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 01:30 AM
 
9,912 posts, read 12,194,182 times
Reputation: 7257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Namibia is actually quite nice. I haven't been to the other two, but I understand they are pretty damned cold.
Would all probably fall under my "nice place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there" category. Not even for more elbow room. I guess I'm just finding it ironic that I live on one of the least populated continents on the list and even I'm finding it difficult to come to terms with the population explosion. If I think about it though, when I was growing up the population here was probably only around 16 million and because I'm in the second largest capital city we probably have had a significant proportion of the extra 5 million people that have been added to the population since then. I know! I know! Cry me a river the Indians would say but still, it's been noticeable here so I can't even fathom what it has been like for the more populous countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 06:23 AM
 
129 posts, read 508,330 times
Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshadow View Post
Given that once impregnated a woman is out for 9 months for gestation and the man that impregnated her can potentially have sex and impregnant hundreds of women over a 9 month period, I'd suggest if you are fair dinkum with your simple solution then it would make more sense to take away the fertility of the male.

oh so its the males versus the females on this post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 08:17 AM
 
9,912 posts, read 12,194,182 times
Reputation: 7257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
And men. Have you ever heard of vasectomy?
I suspect responding to your post would prove problematic for some in that a man suggesting that men are also responsible for population control doesn't provide the opportunity to twist things into the usual misogynistic arguments as they would like to.

A very valid point you make. I cannot understand why it is whenever discussing population control and by extension birth control it inevitably ends up being about more hoops for women to jump through for some. Not ONE of the however many billion there are of us on the planet is likely to have been an immaculate conception OR a case of parthenogenesis so it seems to me that equal burden and equal responsibility needs to be placed with both genders.

Last edited by moonshadow; 05-22-2009 at 08:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 08:38 AM
 
129 posts, read 508,330 times
Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshadow View Post
I suspect responding to your post would prove problematic for some in that a man suggesting that men are also responsible for population control doesn't provide the opportunity to twist things into the usual misogynistic arguments as some would like to.


If humanity were looking at this issue honestly the gender debate would be a part of it . And naturally most men and women would each protect there own genders right to breed. Trying to label all people who suggest the women should get the fertility control instead of the man as misogynist or a reactive woman hater is quite untrue even though some may be, and it is a reactive and ignorant statement in itself and just as silly as labelling all people who suggest that men should get the fertility control as male haters even though some may well be just that.

Which one gets the fertility control the male or the female in a hypothetical argument would be quite interesting . I can imagine a room full of women on one side and a room full of men on the other and I know you moon shadow would be a fervent supporter of the female side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top