Do you think the world is overpopulated? (state, Arizona, Oklahoma)
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.
Originally Posted by Atilla I believe overpopulation could be solved if everyone with an I.Q. of under 103 would swim out into the ocean and feed the fish. There would then be no more liberals and the world would be a wonderful place to live. But then who would run the government? Huh?
Wow! A world without liberals would be a world without genuine empathy and compassion. Who would like living in a world like that? And I'm not even going to get into the fact that IQ and political ideology has little to do with one another. There are smart liberals and smart conservatives, and dumb liberals and dumb conservatives.
To answer the OP questions: Yes, the world is dangerously close to be over populated. Our resources will soon not be enough to cover all the needs.
Last edited by Wayland Woman; 12-10-2009 at 08:34 AM..
Reason: changed word 'nothing' to 'little'
Wow! A world without liberals would be a world without genuine empathy and compassion. Who would like living in a world like that? And I'm not even going to get into the fact that IQ and political ideology has little to do with one another. There are smart liberals and smart conservatives, and dumb liberals and dumb conservatives.
To answer the OP questions: Yes, the world is dangerously close to be over populated. Our resources will soon not be enough to cover all the needs.
A world without liberals would be a world withougdt "genuine empathy and compassion". Now that is a hoot. It is a statistical truth that conservatives give mor than liberals. Than sir/maam is a fact. If you are a giver you should maybe encourage your political kin. I fear that you are confusing being a giver with being a carrier
War/Death loving, God Hearing (voice hearing), science hating people, huh?
Imagine that for our country.
That is sexy. I would do him.
LOLLOLLOL. All the while whisteling the tune from the Jeffersons. Movin on up Just kiddin LV, you might be turnin Kevin K on though. Did you know I heard his middle name was Kuhkla
I remember some years back I visited the place where Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah come together and nobody lived around there. Very few people live there. I thought if I had the money I could build a metro of 10 million people there. Easily.
Not easily. Four Corners is in the Navajo Nation and government owned land, and doubt seriously they would allow anyone OTHER THAN a Navajo to "civilize" the area. I have been there as well many times, and would be a shame to start up a large "metro" area in such a beautiful untouched part of the country.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,750,914 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin
A better topic is "Can the earth support our population of elders if we increase the average age of death by 20%" ?
What if the normal person lived to 100 to 120 years of age ? How would this effect our planet ?
That is an interesting question. If life was extended to 110 years, in order for society to function, the average PRODUCTIVE life would have to be extended as well. Right now the standard of living dictates that a person have about 1/3 of their life as "non productive consuming" 2/3 productive. So you begin life and, usually, for the first 16 years, you are totally non productive (in school and not contributing to the economy) and usually you spend that last 10 to 15 years non productive.
If life spans increased to 110, there is no way people could be allowed to retire at 62 to 65 as they do now. If they were, the weight on the economy would be so much that it would collapse. The retirement age would have to raised to 85 or 90 even. So then the question would not be how long we have made people live but how long we keep them healthy and productive.
This is a question that we may soon face because more and more horribly injured, disabled and ill people are living much longer lives than they would have even 20 years ago. They cannot contribute productivity to the economy and many of them are quite negative productive in that they not only draw money out of the economy but require attendants and care takers which also takes productivity.
Our economy is designed for a certain percentage of the people to be productive. As people live longer and require more care, that model is upset and then the choice becomes do we squeeze more work out of the productive population or do we cut back on care for the non productive population or a combination of both.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,750,914 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilypad
Not easily. Four Corners is in the Navajo Nation and government owned land, and doubt seriously they would allow anyone OTHER THAN a Navajo to "civilize" the area. I have been there as well many times, and would be a shame to start up a large "metro" area in such a beautiful untouched part of the country.
We could always give them back Oklahoma! It is beautiful. That is why you want to live there.
It is not that we are overpopulated, it is just that everybody is in just a few places. spread out some folks, there is lots of room out there. People tend to "herd" up
Well, I can still get lost for days in the Mexican desert with no stores or villages around....so as long as that can happen somewhere, no we are not overcrowded.
That's not a very good way to look at it. Just because you have some elbow room doesn't mean there's enough earth for you.
You need to think about the amount of land needed to support your lifestyle. Where is the food you eat grown? Where is your energy coming from? Where does your waste go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by archineer
The Earth can support 2-2.5 billion people at a Western European standard of living. At an American standard (well rate of consumption, since living standards with Europeans are mostly comparable)- 1.5 billion. So yes it's overpopulated, unless we all live like Rwandans- then it can support up to 18 billion!
It is not that we are overpopulated, it is just that everybody is in just a few places. spread out some folks, there is lots of room out there. People tend to "herd" up
There are a lot of faults in this statement.
Read the post above for some of them.
The reason that people 'herd up' is because modern farming has made family farming next to impossible to exist from. If you can't farm you probably need to go to the city where the jobs are.
57 million square miles on the planet earth not including the water, and approx. 6.8 billion people on the planet equals out to about 119 people per square mile.
how is 119 people per square mile overpopulated?
See above
Plus,
You really think that every square mile of the earth is equally habitable by humans?
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.
