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 earth isn't overpopulated. However, the distribution of population in regard to food production is not appropriate. Take one of the impoverished arid African countries for example. People are starving because the land cannot produce the food necessary (at least using the technological level of the natives) to sustain the population. Unfortunately, it's generally the people that don't have enough food that overbreed, and those that do have ample food available are voluntarily limiting their reproduction.
There is a definite negative correlation between family size and living standard. The more likely the parents are going to have surviving children (higher standard of food, shelter and medical care) to support them the fewer children they have. Extreme cases like Europe and the US (less the immigration numbers) actually have decreasing population. This creates its own set of problems, mostly economic, that has the greatest effect in a must always be growing consumer economy.
I think the most humane way of achieving a stable population within the carrying capacity of the Earth is increasing wealth widely distributed throughout the entire population.
There is a definite negative correlation between family size and living standard. The more likely the parents are going to have surviving children (higher standard of food, shelter and medical care) to support them the fewer children they have. Extreme cases like Europe and the US (less the immigration numbers) actually have decreasing population. This creates its own set of problems, mostly economic, that has the greatest effect in a must always be growing consumer economy.
I think the most humane way of achieving a stable population within the carrying capacity of the Earth is increasing wealth widely distributed throughout the entire population.
How does the US have a decreasing population rate less immigration when the average couple has 2.2 kids? Isn't 2.2 > 2?? Not to mention the millions of babies born each year to unwed mothers who often times don't have just one child to cancel out themself, it's 2, 3 or more. Unless there are millions of single men out there who never get a woman pregnant (which I don't think there are), then I don't see how we have a decreasing population rate. Even if you add in gay couples (estimates show probably around 2-5% of the population) taking the high end of that estimate, the rate is still 2.2 to 2.1.
I do agree w/you though on the better standard of living one has, the more responsible they are in family planning. However, your last point sounds very socialist like...I'm all for individuals giving to help the less fortunate, but I'm not for the government doing the wealth distribution b/c they have a track record of doing a poor job of that.
buckeye - The non immigrant fertility rare is closer to 2.0 than 2.2 for US families. Our growth rate had stabilized but both the rate, due to the lower prosperity in the immigrant population and the absolute numbers, has continued to grow. A birth rate of 1.2 children per woman is considered the steady state zero growth rate. This accounts for the medical and accidental death of children before they reach reproductive age.
Some governments, like the Scandinavian, do quite a decent job of rearranging the wealth. Ours does as well, only ours takes from the productive and delivers to the upper management drones. A proper taxation system would redistribute the money to the worker bees in the form of wages for rebuilding our infrastructure. Thai would leave us with a prosperous working class and set of new and safe bridges. Failing to do this will only increase our poverty and birth rate as well as endanger the population with failing bridges and dams etc. The latter is a very poor policy for any country and disastrous for ours.
Do you agree that overpopulation is having a negative impact on the earth?
Why or why not?
Is there anything you're personally doing to NOT contribute to overpopulation? Adoption? Sterilization or a vasectomy? Family planning?
Funny thread discussion, where was the humor in P&OC?
Regarding the issue in the OP, no I do not think that overpopulation is having a negative impact on the earth. Poor use of resources and failure to adequately focus on technology are culprits, but not overpopulation.
As far as what I am doing about it personally...I got old.
Regarding the issue in the OP, no I do not think that overpopulation is having a negative impact on the earth. Poor use of resources and failure to adequately focus on technology are culprits, but not overpopulation.
I agree.
We do not have overpopulation, and it is not having a negative effect on earth.
Rather folks are horrible at usage of resources, and horrible at distribution of resources.
T African countries for example. People are starving because the land cannot produce the food necessary (at least using the technological level of the natives) to sustain the population. .
In most African countries, there is adequate land and technology to feed the population. However, the land is controlled by international marketing giants, and it is used to grow non-nutritional cash crops (coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, oils, etc.). These are exported and sold abroad for profits that never come back to the country of origin, and the workers are then forced to buy imported food with their meager earnings.
Do you agree that overpopulation is having a negative impact on the earth?
Why or why not?
Is there anything you're personally doing to NOT contribute to overpopulation? Adoption? Sterilization or a vasectomy? Family planning?
Vasectomy. We're done having kids. We figured that 14 is enough.
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.
Isn't 2.2 > 2?? Not to mention the millions of babies born each year to unwed mothers who often times don't have just one child to cancel out themself, it's 2, 3 or more. Unless there are millions of single men out there who never get a woman pregnant (which I don't think there are), then I don't see how we have a decreasing population rate. Even if you add in gay couples (estimates show probably around 2-5% of the population) taking the high end of that estimate, the rate is still 2.2 to 2.1.
