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.
The "world" can't be overpopulated, as there are vast areas of earth with no living humans. The world has a distribution problem not overpopulation problem.
*Much of the Earth's landmass consists of desert or mountains. Not exactly ideal areas for human habitation.
*Much of ideal areas are used for raising livestock to feed humans.
*Other areas are used for growing crops to feed both livestock and humans.
Geez I don't want to keep going round and round. You just don't understand and have so many wrong assumptions not to mention just lacking in knowledgeable about human over population and how it's driving this current Mass Extinction event.
So I will simply post scientific data that crushes your opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
That's the point, you were spoiled and now you complain about Californian water prices, which however are still way too low, for instance compared to Europe. Since gallons don't mean anything to me, I used one of those conversion tools to calculate the price in euros per cubic meter. And it is 1/8th of what Germans pay per cubic meter.
But first: No I was not spoiled in my home state. I was accustomed to prices there and Californians are accustomed to prices here. There is a saying that most people who move to CA experience sticker shock...i.e price sticker shock.
I have an American friend who lives in Germany and has lived there for a very long time. He grew up in my home state and I just sent him an email asking him what the cost of water is in Germany compared to the US. Let's see what he says because I don't believe for one second that the cost of water in Germany is higher than the cost in CA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
And again, the biggest problem in terms of resources are industrialized countries, where there is no overpopulation.
We have overconsumption/overproduction etc., whereas developing countries have overpopulation - and in the long run our problems unless we soon become a sustainable example for them to follow.
Wrong we have both overpopulation and over consumption. And how do you think this is panning out for people who need work? Have you ever heard of the Easterlin effect? Do look into it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Yes, those exact sciences are fine for measuring pollution etc.
This is laughable and I will post links later to show you that yes science does much more than measure. Scientists make predictions and then test those predictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
And when you wonder if you should have a baby, you usually don't care about the environment.
That's just your reality not mine. It certainly factored into why I chose not to have kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
But it is all just guesswork, models, simulations, theories, no exact, reliable numbers because of all the factors mentioned in the Wiki article.
Wrong again. Scientists made spot on predictions of what earths population would be by 2000 and hit the nail on the head.
The predictions they are currently making are panning out as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
There might already be too many humans, or not, nobody can tell for sure.
Yes somebody can tell for sure and they already have...in fact many already has confirmed this.
The earth would not be in the condition it's in if human overpopulation were not an issue. The current Mass Extinction event would not be occurring if human overpopulation were not an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
The reason for mass extinction is not overpopulation, but human behavior.
Wrong again.
The overarching driver of species extinction is human population growth and increasing per capita consumption. How long these trends continue—where and at what rate—will dominate the scenarios of species extinction and challenge efforts to protect biodiversity.
The population extinction pulse we describe here shows, from a quantitative viewpoint, that Earth’s sixth mass extinction is more severe than perceived when looking exclusively at species extinctions. Therefore, humanity needs to address anthropogenic population extirpation and decimation immediately.
Mass extinctions have happened long before there were humans.
Not like this current event. This one is different due to human over population.
The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. The trigger for this event is human overpopulation. It's really not difficult to look this information up.
Boundary areas of the Serengeti-Mara region in East Africahave seen a 400 per cent increase in human population over the last decade, while more than three quarters of the populations of some of the larger species of migrating animals like wildebeest, zebra and gazelle have been wiped out, scientists revealed after examining 40 years of data.
Now what were you saying science is only good for when it comes to the study of human over population? Oh yes to measure pollution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
My point is that the megafauna was natural, yet it lead to climate change. I am against the notion that humans are basically bad for our planet just because they are humans. Millions of bisons etc. have disappeared and been replaced by humans.
Humans are not necessarily bad for the planet but modern humans are. For example the native American Indians took good care of this earth. Our ancient ancestors who lived here long before modern humans evolved took care of this earth.
The Holocene extinction continues into the 21st century, with meat consumption, over fishing, ocean acidification and the decline in amphibian populations being a few broader examples of an almost universal, cosmopolitan decline in biodiversity. Human overpopulation (and continued population growth) along with profligate consumption are considered to be the primary drivers of this rapid decline.
And yet we have shills saying that we need even MORE immigrants to take these mythical jobs that don't exist
I think you would be surprised how many people from poor countries want to work at jobs 'first world' people do not want to do. Undoubtedly we will have to change our attitude to work as AI and robotics becomes more prevalent. It will mean there are fewer jobs available and society will break down if folks do not have jobs to keep themselves above the poverty line.
In China and other poorer countries, there is a series of recycling steps which are held by people at various levels of society. So, you throw away your waste into a bin anywhere and someone collects plastic bottles and sells them to the recycling plant. Someone else collects cardboard and paper packaging and sells that, Someone else collects old scraps of metal and sells that. This is how it works in a poor country, but as the country develops, these people are forced out of this kind of role and there is not enough money for them to make a living. However, it does mean that the waste is efficiently recycled and incinerated, not dumped into landfill or the ocean when it does not have to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
We already see it here in Portugal. Villages where schools have closed because there simply are no children. Old people still having to work because there is no money for decent pensions. So they drive tractors at 80 years of age and every year there are fatal accidents. Others just sit around the whole day, basically waiting for death to set them free. Their adult children live far away, many have emigrated.
Schools move from rural areas into city areas as people try to find jobs. It is a problem with our society and stems from our reliance on money and energy perhaps. Why do people work? They need money. What do people do when they retire? They take life easy and enjoy themselves, they do not wait to die unless they have ill-health.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I find that very egoistic. You benefit from the fact that your parents did not think the same way, else you would not have been born in the first place. Yet, you deliberately contribute to the demise of society that will hit the next generations. Devil may care!
This is a ridiculous thing to say. People who are not born, do not experience life.
Who cares if society dies? It will be a perfectly natural event which has probably happened thousands of times before to other worlds and to other cultures on this world. There are other planets out there which will flourish and then die as well.
Most people do not know what they are getting themselves into when they do not have children and then 'want a child'. They do not realise the pain, worry, and emotional rollercoaster they will be going through when they decide to have children. I am not saying it is not worth the effort, but I wonder how many people would choose to be childless if they were subsequently given a magical choice after the event and could turn back time. For example - many men leave the relationship pretty soon after the first child is born.
Geez I don't want to keep going round and round. You just don't understand and have so many wrong assumptions not to mention just lacking in knowledgeable about human over population and how it's driving this current Mass Extinction event.
So I will simply post scientific data that crushes your opinions.
But first: No I was not spoiled in my home state. I was accustomed to prices there and Californians are accustomed to prices here. There is a saying that most people who move to CA experience sticker shock...i.e price sticker shock.
I have an American friend who lives in Germany and has lived there for a very long time. He grew up in my home state and I just sent him an email asking him what the cost of water is in Germany compared to the US. Let's see what he says because I don't believe for one second that the cost of water in Germany is higher than the cost in CA.
Wrong we have both overpopulation and over consumption. And how do you think this is panning out for people who need work? Have you ever heard of the Easterlin effect? Do look into it.
This is laughable and I will post links later to show you that yes science does much more than measure. Scientists make predictions and then test those predictions.
That's just your reality not mine. It certainly factored into why I chose not to have kids.
Wrong again. Scientists made spot on predictions of what earths population would be by 2000 and hit the nail on the head.
The predictions they are currently making are panning out as well.
Yes somebody can tell for sure and they already have...in fact many already has confirmed this.
The earth would not be in the condition it's in if human overpopulation were not an issue. The current Mass Extinction event would not be occurring if human overpopulation were not an issue.
Wrong again.
The overarching driver of species extinction is human population growth and increasing per capita consumption. How long these trends continue—where and at what rate—will dominate the scenarios of species extinction and challenge efforts to protect biodiversity.
The population extinction pulse we describe here shows, from a quantitative viewpoint, that Earth’s sixth mass extinction is more severe than perceived when looking exclusively at species extinctions. Therefore, humanity needs to address anthropogenic population extirpation and decimation immediately.
The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. The trigger for this event is human overpopulation. It's really not difficult to look this information up.
Boundary areas of the Serengeti-Mara region in East Africahave seen a 400 per cent increase in human population over the last decade, while more than three quarters of the populations of some of the larger species of migrating animals like wildebeest, zebra and gazelle have been wiped out, scientists revealed after examining 40 years of data.
Now what were you saying science is only good for when it comes to the study of human over population? Oh yes to measure pollution.
Humans are not necessarily bad for the planet but modern humans are. For example the native American Indians took good care of this earth. Our ancient ancestors who lived here long before modern humans evolved took care of this earth.
The Holocene extinction continues into the 21st century, with meat consumption, over fishing, ocean acidification and the decline in amphibian populations being a few broader examples of an almost universal, cosmopolitan decline in biodiversity. Human overpopulation (and continued population growth) along with profligate consumption are considered to be the primary drivers of this rapid decline.
Indeed, there is no point in going round and round. We can't convince each other regarding overpopulation and the role of our way of life.
Mass extinction doesn't have to be bad. For instance, I couldn't care less that dinosaurs (except for birds) and such beasts died out, their extinction enabled mammals to flourish. Humans have achieved more in 10k years than dinosaurs in millions. What is the point of nature when all its beings do is eat, reproduce, die? What is the point of evolution when you want us to keep behaving like normal animals? Frankly, to me our planet is kind of worthless unless considered the garden of humans. To me as a human mere survival is not the goal of life. Humans have to do all kinds of things other animals can't.
There are certain species of course that are very important to a domesticated world, bees for instance. Other species however won't be missed, though, polar bears, wolves etc. Sooner or later humans will turn most of our planet into human habitats, except for inhospitable areas and natural parks. The Amazon should be turned into a natural park.
Regarding water, Americans use about 300 liters per capita and day, Germans 120 according to the table on https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserverbrauch
And I think the low price of water in the US is the main reason.
It says the average American family pays 40 dollars for water each month. Since the monthly global flat fee is a big part of that, only a small part of those 40 dollars are based on actual consumption, which means, people are not encouraged to save water.
There are specific numbers for German cities and a few US cities here, but the page is in German: https://company.billiger.de/presse/p...sserkosten.php
In Berlin water is 2x as expensive as in NYC, in Cologne it is 4x as expensive as in NYC. Even in LA water is not much more expensive than in NYC (20% more), i.e. still several times cheaper than in German cities.
Here it says that on the national level water in Germany is 4x as expensive as in the US, namely 0.2 vs 0.05 euro-cents per liter. https://www.trinkwasser-wissen.net/s...eistungswasser
This diagram shows the same relative values: https://www.trinkwasser-wissen.net/m...012.jpg?mw=600
And it confirms the correlation between consumption and price in Europe. Italy and Spain consume much more water than Germany and Belgium, and at the same time the price is about half in Italy and Spain.
Scientist make predictions, yes, and sometimes those are flat wrong. It depends on which models they use. There are always competing models.
It is relatively easy to predict population growth for countries, but not what exactly that population growth means for the country. Global trends, sure, but not specific values.
You mention the Serengeti, but that is in Africa, a developing continent, the continent with the highest fertility rates. Of course that is a huge problem there, I am not saying anything else. But Europe is not Africa, nor are the US, Canada, Russia, Japan etc. Since we are developed, we have the luxury to be able to think about the environment, the consequences of our behavior and so on. The typical dad in Kenya or the Congo does not have that luxury. He is in survival mode.
"Now what were you saying science is only good for when it comes to the study of human over population?"
No, I didn't say anything like that.
Forget it, your oh so responsible native Americans were no better. Their arrival in the Americas lead to the end of much of the megafauna. For instance, they would chase huge herds of animals off cliffs.
Schools move from rural areas into city areas as people try to find jobs. It is a problem with our society and stems from our reliance on money and energy perhaps. Why do people work? They need money. What do people do when they retire? They take life easy and enjoy themselves, they do not wait to die unless they have ill-health.
This is a ridiculous thing to say. People who are not born, do not experience life.
Who cares if society dies? It will be a perfectly natural event which has probably happened thousands of times before to other worlds and to other cultures on this world. There are other planets out there which will flourish and then die as well.
Most people do not know what they are getting themselves into when they do not have children and then 'want a child'. They do not realise the pain, worry, and emotional rollercoaster they will be going through when they decide to have children. I am not saying it is not worth the effort, but I wonder how many people would choose to be childless if they were subsequently given a magical choice after the event and could turn back time. For example - many men leave the relationship pretty soon after the first child is born.
Go to the Portuguese hinterland and you will see that most old people there are not enjoying themselves, despite the high life expectancy.
"Who cares if society dies?" Sorry, I don't have that depressing, fatalistic, egoistic attitude of yours...
"Who cares if society dies?" Sorry, I don't have that depressing, fatalistic, egoistic attitude of yours...
What part of that is egoistic? Please explain - if you can.
You might think it is depressing, but it is realistic too because many civilisations have disappeared to a greater or lesser extent.
Finding something depressing says something about ourselves because emotions are purely a personal thing. They only arise in us and are due to our culture, upbringing, expectations, experience in life. No-one else can cause us to "feel depressed" as emotions are generated inside of us.
If we dont like what someone says to us we generate the feeling of anger INSIDE OURSELVES. We have a choice whether we allow those words to generate the emotions inside us or not.
This is true even with the reason some people give for us not being overpopulated. That reason to try to explain we are not over populated? "We have enough land to fit everyone". Seriously, this is the number one reason some people use to say we are not overpopulated.
Yes, there is plenty of space and land to live on here in the US and yes we have plenty of land and space to live on throughout the world. This is the single biggest reason people give and it is the single biggest reason a number of people continue to bury their head in the sand and say "fake news!", its all a "hoax", "I have tons of land by me" and there is "tons of land" in location "X". "Humans are not overpopulated" and "Humans negative impact on the environment is fake news". However, when looking objectively at all the facts, becoming more versed and traveling the world and speaking to those in areas most affected by climate change and human population over saturation, we realize humanity is over populated for other reasons and there will be consequences to this overpopulation. There already are consequences from this over population. Especially as time marches on and humans overall do not want to seem to reasonably address this.
The summer of 2019 Popular Science magazine on page 81 said it best:
"Over consumption, pollution, climate change, and the increasing demands of a swelling population are drying out key agricultural regions like California, the Mediterranean and Central America." That issue went on to explain other areas that humans are having an impact on the environment and ways we humans are trying to address these consequences.
There will be tremendous consequences to our ever expanding civilization. There already are. We are already seeing the disastrous effects of over population.
If one does not believe we humans do not have an impact on climate change and are not negatively affecting and changing the environment I would like them to talk to some specific people and visit some specific places:
1. China - air pollution - the are literally selling cans of clean air there - perhaps if one buys in bulk they could get a discount
2. Those who own properties on the coast (increased insurance premiums due to increased natural disaster threats, decreased land values as people are realizing with a rising sea level those properties will be underwater or at serious risk of being underwater due to rising sea levels
3. California - increased droughts, wildfires
4. Manila, Haiti, Yemen - increase in hurricanes - natural disasters such as hurricanes will increase in number and intensity with climate change
5. United Arab Emerites - It is getting so hot there that this area is literally trying to air condition the outdoors - seriously
6. The great barrier reef - please look at older pictures of science books and schedule your excursion to see the bleaching and dying of the reefs yourself - destruction of the great barrier reef is an ecosystem to many animals
6. Antarctica and Greenland - melting ice - again, book your excursion to see for yourself after looking at before photos in whatever science book in whatever year you chose.
The list can go on and on.
Continued depletion of drinkable water, soil issues from over production, climate change leading to increased natural disasters, bleaching of important ecosystems, manual destruction of forests which is oxygen producing and animal habitats, overproduction of livestock contributing to climate change (methane gas) and destruction of arable lands because of our insatiable appetite for animal products and we are raising billions of these animals for billions of us beings (this is Billions with a B, not an M), decreasing ice caps leading to destruction of endangered species, bird species and other animal species dying off due to climate change which will affect the food chain. On and on and on the list can continue to go.
People who deny climate change and the negative effect our ever swelling population (as Popular Science put it) are burying their head in the sand. They will sleep well at night with their head buried in the sand but their children and grand children will not. Not reasonable admitting and addressing these issues now will have disastrous effect for our future world. The future world of our children and their children and so on down the line.
Last edited by txbullsfan; 10-23-2019 at 09:52 AM..
Yes it is overpopulated, most of our problems are sheer numbers. Deforestation for farming, lack of water resources, destruction of marine life and food chain, sewage disposal to support current population.
Some very poor choices out of desperation add to the problem.
you could fit all 7 billion ( the WORLD POP) people in the continental USA, giving them 1/4 acre each..every single one (including each child out there)..........so no the world is not overpopulated
What part of that is egoistic? Please explain - if you can.
You might think it is depressing, but it is realistic too because many civilisations have disappeared to a greater or lesser extent.
Finding something depressing says something about ourselves because emotions are purely a personal thing. They only arise in us and are due to our culture, upbringing, expectations, experience in life. No-one else can cause us to "feel depressed" as emotions are generated inside of us.
If we dont like what someone says to us we generate the feeling of anger INSIDE OURSELVES. We have a choice whether we allow those words to generate the emotions inside us or not.
The person making such statements is egoistic because they enjoy having been born as well as the benefits of a human society. But at the same time they do not want to contribute to the biological continuation of that society.
Your analysis is odd. I will not change my positive mindset to a negative one just so that I no longer find misanthropic statements depressing.
I like human society, it is the only thing that matters to me as a human being. Sure, nature is nice, but only when it benefits humans directly or indirectly. I am not one of those naive treehuggers that consider the brutal battlefield called nature some sort of nice being, Mother Earth etc.
Emotions are reactions to the world around us. Unless of course there is a mental disorder like with depression. Luckily I do not suffer from any such disorder, so I am a positive person and see no reason whatsoever to change.
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.
