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 Malthusian argument tends to keep failing, for the same recurring reason: just as it seems that population-growth is about to exceed capacity, new capacity is found. Yes yes, the earth is finite, etc. But there are lots of other planets out there... lots. Where Malthus would get the last laugh, is if we plateau in our capacity to technologically innovate. If it won't be until 2069 that we return to the moon, or 2169 until we reach Mars, then yes, we're going to have a bit of a pesky competition for resources, real-estate and clean water/air. But somehow I doubt that. Somehow I think that in the year 3000, humanity will be a trans-solar-system species. And in the year 4000, well - there's no point in unbridled ambition, is there?
What per cent of the population currently (or within the next 50 to 100 years) wants to live on another planet? Meanwhile, quality of life on planet earth is discernibly declining.
But, in the last couple of decades--I've heard very little discussion about overpopulation.
The topic crops up on these forums almost monthly.
Re Urban Planning; Re Un/Under Employment; Re "Great" Debates
The threads that limit themselves to JUST the US seem to progress better.
None has progressed to more than an airing of views.
Finding some new millenial generated name for long understood concepts (like ZPG) is common.
I haven't seen one that improved anything.
What per cent of the population currently (or within the next 50 to 100 years) wants to live on another planet? Meanwhile, quality of life on planet earth is discernibly declining.
At the moment, maybe 0.001%. But pressures evolve, and justification for radical moves evolves.
What percentage of Europeans would be willing to relocate to the New World in 1550? Other than Spanish, ahem, explorers... probably 0%. But as pressures at home rise, and infrastructure on board increases, there is both a pull and a push. The push is deteriorating conditions at home. The pull is a greater appeal in the destination.
How many American women would be willing to immigrate to China, to marry Chinese men? Writing in August 2020, probably... very few. But what if policies change? What if circumstances change, both here and there?
This is a weird discussion. Why some people think that somebody will need to limit population growth? I think it was done only once, in China, to prevent famine, and as future showed, it backfired (although we'll see the true result later, in couple decades).
The issue is declining birthrates. While the world itself is still growing (but much slower), all first world countries are declining, some more, some less. Interesting thing is that the effect is ALREADY here: read about pension crisis, everybody is concerned about it.
For example, in the US, Social Security fund is supposed to run out of surplus money in ~2030, after it will be either tax increase, cap lifting or simply paying less money than was before. Same story with Medicare, and every other program for elderly.
The solution would be to increase fertility rates and attract immigration, USA is in a pretty good position here, as there are historically many immigrants, but with falling birthrates, there would not be a lot of them in future.
---
Anyway, back to the question about benefits. The world will be very old people-friendly, so I guess many things will change to cater to this age group. Otherwise, I am not sure there will be a lot; maybe it will cause a massive push towards technology to aid people, like robots to help you living without a nurse.
People that claim the earth needs fewer people are geographically challenged and have swallowed the myth that climate change is 100% negative 0% positive. They are clueless to how much empty land is out there, how many millions of acres of wilderness are still around the globe (1/4 of the earth last I heard), how little of the earth is used for agriculture, and how well animals and people can live together. They have this notion that the planet was some sort of giant national park before human habitation, and we're turning it into a giant version of the detention pond behind AutoZone by year 2100. The earth was kind of sucky when it was all covered over with glaciers.
Overpopulation is a local problem, not a global one. The answer is to spread people out more.
Do people create environmental problems? Yes. People can also make the environment better than it was naturally as well. Blaming population is a scape goat and wishful, diverted thinking. The more impactful solutions are to address specific environmental concerns and to develop people, our infrastructure, and our public land more.
People that claim the earth needs fewer people are geographically challenged and have swallowed the myth that climate change is 100% negative 0% positive. They are clueless to how much empty land is out there, how many millions of acres of wilderness are still around the globe (1/4 of the earth last I heard), how little of the earth is used for agriculture, and how well animals and people can live together. They have this notion that the planet was some sort of giant national park before human habitation, and we're turning it into a giant version of the detention pond behind AutoZone by year 2100. The earth was kind of sucky when it was all covered over with glaciers.
Overpopulation is a local problem, not a global one. The answer is to spread people out more.
Do people create environmental problems? Yes. People can also make the environment better than it was naturally as well. Blaming population is a scape goat and wishful, diverted thinking. The more impactful solutions are to address specific environmental concerns and to develop people, our infrastructure, and our public land more.
You know what. I really, really like wide open spaces. A natural environment is calming in a way a house covered hill or a suburban housing tract is not. Of course one can go to the parks for a bit of nature. Fifty years ago, one could visit a National Park like Yosemite without too much planning ahead. Now one needs reservations just to drive through it.
What per cent of the population currently (or within the next 50 to 100 years) wants to live on another planet? Meanwhile, quality of life on planet earth is discernibly declining.
Everything, except for sitting in traffic for a daily commute from home to work in large cities seems to have improved to me.
Crime, famine, lack of opportunity in employment, inadequate education. The destruction of the environment and climate change. Increased costs of basic necessities like housing and food. The decimation of forests and wildlife habitats. Water shortages. Overpopulation negatively effects our quality of life.
A few decades ago, people were talking about Zero Population Growth. That conversation seems to have been vanquished by economic considerations--more people means more customers. Who thinks more and more people is a sustainable and good thing?
I would argue that a decrease in population would improve quality of life for most.
It wouldn’t. You would have a lack of skilled people for anything from food growing to medical care. What do you know about growing food, processing and harvesting, farming animals, house repairs, medical care, policing, electricity and utilities etc.
Things would be more expensive as people who know how to do those things would have greater power. If there is only one doctor for a area the doctor can only treat so many people per day, do so many surgeries etc. so the care and services would suffer. Not to mention the doctor would rely on someone else to get the medicines. Who will rely on someone else to make the medicine or get the needed materials. Who someone has to make or refine. Apply this to anything. There is a chain for everything.
Even self sufficient people are only gonna be self sufficient for so long. Eventually something breaks they can’t fix, something happens they can’t do or is beyond them. You would have a lack of supplies as it would take a while to form new contacts and supply lines.
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.
