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.
A very astute observation on your part regarding the positive aspects of the death of a couple of posters. Yes, you are possessed of quick wit and thoughtful commentary.
Yes, we know what the problems are and whence they come, that's been hammered out here fairly well. Now for your solution if it's not education? Even if the education may "take generations," do you propose to do nothing about said education?
Understand your sensitivities to the subject, but what about the perspective that this isn't really an issue at all (my earlier posting has a link to a couple of articles presenting an alternative point of view concerning population). I'm not understanding how folks have concluded this is an issue and should be addressed.
Understand your sensitivities to the subject, but what about the perspective that this isn't really an issue at all (my earlier posting has a link to a couple of articles presenting an alternative point of view concerning population). I'm not understanding how folks have concluded this is an issue and should be addressed.
And how about the links I posted that clearly show that it IS an issue?
I believe that those who claim that population is not an issue in our near futures, and of even greater concern to our children's, are doing a great disservice to humanity in general. It is the worst kind of head-in-the-sand attitude because of the grave dangers that will be created; there will be no good solutions once they are upon us.
And how about the links I posted that clearly show that it IS an issue?
I believe that those who claim that population is not an issue in our near futures, and of even greater concern to our children's, are doing a great disservice to humanity in general. It is the worst kind of head-in-the-sand attitude because of the grave dangers that will be created; there will be no good solutions once they are upon us.
Your link, to WOA, is an advocacy site, which was solely developed to provide support for a predetermined point of view. The Economists is a news magazine originating in London, and does not have a specific point of view on this topic. The information is presented analytically.
Going with your sentiments for a minute here, what is the critical breaking point of population, and why is it that specific number? What is your criteria for defining the breaking point in terms of human supportablity?
There are too many people on the planet.....What do you think will happen?
Resources are limited. Let's have a discussion on how to deal with overpopulation. Think out of the box....Think any way you please but think about this and submit your responses. Thank you.
Spiritwalker
Why do you think there are too many people on the planet? Yes, there are problems with individual govt's and food distribution, but I don't believe it is because of overpopulation. Are you reading extreme leftist stuff? If so, great. But you might want to think out of the box yourself.
Why do you think there are too many people on the planet? Yes, there are problems with individual govt's and food distribution, but I don't believe it is because of overpopulation. Are you reading extreme leftist stuff? If so, great. But you might want to think out of the box yourself.
Ah, a kindred spirit. I was getting kind of lonely challenging the assumption of excess population.
Now that you bring up the left, it rings kind of an ironic bell. I know many threads have discussed the left ragging on the right because of their dismissal (to varying degrees, I don't want to lump everyone together) of science in issues like evolution, global warming and genetics/stem cell. Yet, here is an issue where the reaction from the left is exactly what they criticize, jumping on a bandwagon on a belief basis without hard analytical facts to support their position (at least none used to support their responses so far).
Interesting, I never noticed that before your statement.
I read the article in the Economist and it postulated that populations grow (it used a bacteria in Petri dish example) along a “S” shaped curve until they approach the carrying capacity along a hyperbolic curve. This is a mathematically elegant illustration that just happens to be wrong. Populations do indeed grow along an exponential curve until they exceed the carrying capacity of the environment (be it a Petri dish or a continent). Then the population becomes susceptible to one of the Horsemen and drops precipitously to below the carrying capacity, and occasionally to zero. If there are survivors from the decline they again reproduce exponentially until they again exceed the capacity of the environment. If none survive they cannot reproduce and are extinct. In this case another creature occupies the niche and commences it’s own boom and bust population sequence. In “natural” population dynamics there is only oscillation, there is no static equilibrium. Humans may have the capacity to control their reproduction enough to create a static equilibrium but I really doubt that they will. There is too much of a social and economic bias toward “unlimited” growth in the existing system to let a controlled system evolve.
IMHO humans are rapidly approaching the carrying capacity and in some places greatly exceeding the ability of the ecosystem to sustain the population. These places are setting themselves up for a tremendous population crash in the next couple of generations. I just hope the resulting conflagrations do not take the industrialized world with them.
Why do you think there are too many people on the planet? Yes, there are problems with individual govt's and food distribution, but I don't believe it is because of overpopulation. Are you reading extreme leftist stuff? If so, great. But you might want to think out of the box yourself.
Traveling as I do I SEE the enormous problems caused by the present state of the population of the planet. Furthermore while I attempt to stay current on as much literature as I possibly can reading "Leftist stuff" is by far my LEAST favorite reading material. I base my findings on what I observe...Lastly I have gone as far out of the box as I can thus far......I'll take a deep breath and go out a little farther.....Do you live in Antarctica ?
Spiritwalker
Your link, to WOA, is an advocacy site, which was solely developed to provide support for a predetermined point of view. The Economists is a news magazine originating in London, and does not have a specific point of view on this topic. The information is presented analytically.
Going with your sentiments for a minute here, what is the critical breaking point of population, and why is it that specific number? What is your criteria for defining the breaking point in terms of human supportablity?
Neither you nor I--nor The Economist--can determine that. There is much more data available that points to upcoming disasters. You may choose to ignore it. However, it won't matter much because actions will be taken without your assistance.
The U.S. Census Bureau is an advocacy group as well?
The Economist has its own agenda, NewToCA, and is not a periodical I'd use to establish an opinion on social issues that will impact ALL populations around the world.
Neither you nor I--nor The Economist--can determine that. There is much more data available that points to upcoming disasters. You may choose to ignore it. However, it won't matter much because actions will be taken without your assistance.
The U.S. Census Bureau is an advocacy group as well?
The Economist has its own agenda, NewToCA, and is not a periodical I'd use to establish an opinion on social issues that will impact ALL populations around the world.
What is the Economist agenda concerning a stance on population growth? I don't recall any historical position taken on this issue by their publication.
The U.S. Census Bureau information didn't portray a problem, it was simply a projection of growth through 2050. Was there supporting analysis showing that those numbers constituted an unsupportable population level? Also, that is only U.S. population, the overall discussion in this thread is world population. In a similar vein to the U.S. information you provided the Russian population is projected to decline from about 141 million today to 109 million in 2050.
I haven't seen any analysis presented yet showing what the limit is on sustainable world population. You mention upcoming disasters, are these predicated on population or use of resources by the current folks?
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.
Huh?????????
