M
mlchance
Guest
That depends on where you live. Large hunks of the world have been slowly committing demographic suicide for decades: The Demographic Winter and the Barren Left.
– Mark L. Chance.
- Status
– Mark L. Chance.
P
panoikei
Guest
Yes. The world has far too many of me in this world. That’s why I’m working to get out of here soon.
LA, Chicago, New York…to crowded. So maybe the country…
Actually the drive to state that the world is overpopulated is really a fear tactic. It fits in there with encouraging people to kill their babies before their born. I so glad I won’t live forever though. I will eithe get one of three things, eternal salvation, eternal damnation or nothing. So since salvation sounds like the best solution I’m working on it.
Say for a moment that the world is over populated. Compare that to the scenario that actually does happen and has happened to my MIL [solo scriptura]. Someone made a derogatory comment about her having so many children, 8. She said which one would you have me get rid of? Not bad for a non-Catholic who’s not against contraception.
LA, Chicago, New York…to crowded. So maybe the country…
Actually the drive to state that the world is overpopulated is really a fear tactic. It fits in there with encouraging people to kill their babies before their born. I so glad I won’t live forever though. I will eithe get one of three things, eternal salvation, eternal damnation or nothing. So since salvation sounds like the best solution I’m working on it.
Say for a moment that the world is over populated. Compare that to the scenario that actually does happen and has happened to my MIL [solo scriptura]. Someone made a derogatory comment about her having so many children, 8. She said which one would you have me get rid of? Not bad for a non-Catholic who’s not against contraception.
M
Morgo
Guest
I do not believe the world is overpopulated, but even if it was, it would not be something that we need to worry about. Here’s why:
- God made us reproduce at the rate we do when it is uncontrolled (as opposed to having something like a one child law). This means if we don’t regulate human population growth it will turn out how God intended it. God did not make us reproduce at an exponential rate on accident.
- Matthew 24:22 says “But God has already reduced the number of days; had he not done so, nobody would survive. For the sake of his chosen people, however, God will reduce the number of days.” I’m pretty sure that this means God isn’t going to let people go extinct, if that’s what these overpopulation people are concerned about.
- Looking at it from a scientific perspective, if the world ever did become overpopulated in the future, the worst thing that would happen is that we wouldn’t have enough food and water for everyone. This means that some would starve to death or die of thirst. There are currently starving people out there and we have the capacity to feed them! Why are these scientists trying to prevent hunger in the future, when that exact problem is occurring in the present and they do nothing about it?
S
sinnerdexter
Guest
Let me see. I use metric system.
Well, the state of Texas is what I call a peri-desert; a near desert. Only on places not far from the sea there is enough rainfall in a year. En temperatures are horrible during the summer.
Well, a sq mile is about 2.56 million sq. meters.
And not going as far, as Texas, I don’t like Texas, we have the seven billion people of the planet nearly can be put into a sq mile.
Let me see. 7,000 million/2,56 million= 2,734 persons per sq.meter, using a sq. mile.
This is a little crowded, but if you take as much as 2,734 sq miles, you have one person per sq. meter.
And this 2,734 sq miles are just (216914/2,734=0,01) you only need the 1% of the surface of Texas to put a person of this planet into a sq. meter.
That is, a person per 10 sq. foot. It is not that bad. You have the rest of planet empty.
The problem is that no many people would like to live in the desert of Texas.
Real state is not the real problem when we speak of actual overpopulation. The main problem is the energy. Not yet for us, not yet at present, but in the near future.
If you look into this link
nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop_gro_rat-people-population-growth-rate
you will find that the most poor nations of the planet are growing at rate far higher than 2% a year.
1 Maldives: 5.566% 2008
2 United Arab Emirates: 3.833% 2008
3 Liberia: 3.661% 2008
4 Uganda: 3.603% 2008
5 Kuwait: 3.591% 2008
6 Mayotte: 3.465% 2008
7 Yemen: 3.46% 2008
8 Burundi: 3.443% 2008
9 Gaza Strip: 3.422% 2008
10 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 3.236% 2008
11 Ethiopia: 3.212% 2008
12 Oman: 3.19% 2008
13 Macau: 3.148% 2008
14 São Tomé and Príncipe: 3.116% 2008
15 Burkina Faso: 3.109% 2008
16 Benin: 3.01% 2008
17 Madagascar: 3.005% 2008
18 Niger: 2.878% 2008
19 Western Sahara: 2.868% 2008
20 Mauritania: 2.852% 2008
etc.Then I am fed up of hearing that we are to blame for the hunger in the world.
T
Timothy17
Guest
Come to Canada.
It is not overpopulated. Chilly for a few months. But not overpopulated.
It is not overpopulated. Chilly for a few months. But not overpopulated.
B
buffalo
Guest
NO - you can take the entire worlds population and put them in 2000 sq ft houses and they won’t fill up Texas.
M
markbrumbaugh
Guest
Of course it is. Just ask all the folks on the threads about AGW who think we are killing the planet.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
No, this silly propaganda was first used to help justify legalized abortion. The overpopulation myth was floated at about the same time as the “New Ice Age” propaganda, oddly enough. 
Most Westernized countries aren’t even at replacement level, let alone overpopulated.
we have a lot of land that isn’t very inhabitable, it’s true…lots of Africa, the whole of Antarctica, parts of Canada (sorry Canucks!)…
and yes, energy might be a problem…
But I have faith in God and I wish we would stop killing his children!!!
Most Westernized countries aren’t even at replacement level, let alone overpopulated.
we have a lot of land that isn’t very inhabitable, it’s true…lots of Africa, the whole of Antarctica, parts of Canada (sorry Canucks!)…
and yes, energy might be a problem…
But I have faith in God and I wish we would stop killing his children!!!
S
sinnerdexter
Guest
But there is not enough resources. For example if you measure by people’s ecological footprint, rather than the size of their house. After all, people don’t just want a house, the also want to eat, have a job, and have fun, all of which require resources. By some estimates, our ecological footprint is already at 1.4 earths, or 40% more than the earth can sustain. We can do that because we’re coasting off the earth’s historical reserves of resources, eg coal which we use both for energy but also to produce the fertilizer we need to sustain our huge population.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint
S
St_Francis
Guest
As more people want limited resources, those resources will become more expensive. At that point, it will become economically efficient to use things like wind and solar power, and as more people use them, they will become cheaper and, being unlimited, will not go up in price.
I recently went to a place where some of the businesses have put up those skinny windmills to generate power. It looks odd right now because it is rare, and it probably won’t work as a solution everywhere, but I expect this to spread as it becomes economically feasible for people by the price going down, and as the price of electricity goes up.
The same place uses salt water for its city water by putting the water through reverse osmosis. I don’t understand precisely how this works, but it’s a system whereby the salt water goes in, and the tap water comes out. We have a lot of water in the oceans…
S
sinnerdexter
Guest
None the less even this will not even come close to being enough if our numbers continue to rise…
None the less even this will not even come close to being enough if our numbers continue to rise…
None the less even this will not even come close to being enough if our numbers continue to rise…
No matter how efficiently we use our resources at some point we will run out. I have no doubt technology will delay this but around the world even now there is not enough to go around and with every child born it gets worse.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
There is a lot more petroleum in the ground than many organizations will admit. It fits their agenda that we are running out of fuel and need to use other energies instead, although there is no current energy that will substitute for petroleum.
People who espouse this fatalism do not have sufficient faith in God. What if He had already sent us the solution to any future energy problems, in the form of a baby who would grow up to discover/invent a wonderful, clean, renewable energy for the world, which would remove the stranglehold and power of the Middle East, but we aborted that child?
B
buffalo
Guest
Catholics remember - “God will provide.”
C
Calliso
Guest
Yeah the issue isn;t space like many people seem to make it. We could probably fit a trillion people on the planet maybe more. The issue is resources. And many of our resources are limited. For instance while I have little to no worries about oil and coal running out in my life time or even the next generations life time…at some point it will become more and more scarce. And right now our society is very very dependent on fossil fuels to sustain its large population. So the question of course then is will more renewable resources have taken the place of things like fossil fuels by then? Hopefully but one can;t be sure. Then the question of course still is will they be able to support us at the same level fossil fuels have? Issues like providing clean fresh water is another one. The Earth may have tons of water but the vast majority of it isn;t fresh water. And right now as I understand it desalinating seawater is something that takes lots of energy. Also some people have mentioned things like space travel to other planets. But we can;t assume we can rely on that in the future. Realistically we may never physically be able to get past the speed of light and even that may be an (name removed by moderator)ossiblity. So traveling even to the next solar system would take years. And yes there is always the planets in our solar system and I am sure in the future their resources will help us immensely. But if we ever needed another Earth well we may never have the techology to reach another planet like ours. And we can;t see into the future and see when mining other planets in our own solar system will become a viable option. I am guessing at some point it will be…but would it be in time to save our butts so to say? Before things got really bad? I donlt know.
E
edwest2
Guest
Only the rich are concerned about this. There are too many peasants.
In 1968, a great year for propaganda and the rise of the Hippies, a man named Paul Ehrlich put out a book titled The Polpulation Bomb. He was wrong about his prediction of mass starvation, but his book did influence some people.
amazon.com/Population-Bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/1568495870
Why doesn’t the United States send more food to more people who are starving? Who’s going to pay for it? Who is going to ship it? Who is going to distribute it?
In the US, farmers are paid billions of dollars every year to grow nothing.
businessweek.com/news/2010-05-04/most-u-s-farm-subsidies-go-to-10-of-recipients-group-says.html
Why? Supply and demand. For example, if the government knows that the average amount of corn grown each year is around a trillion tons, then that’s it. That’s enough corn for food, cattle feed and any other use you might think of. They can’t grow more. Why? Because no one will buy it and prices will go down.
Farming is a business and every business needs to make a profit.
And even if some surplus grain could be shipped to Africa, who pays for shipping? The taxpayer? And once it gets there, the corrupt government may impose an import tax, and then trucks will have to be rented to bring it to the villages. The other problem is bandits and even militaries who kill the drivers and take the trucks and food.
Here, resources can be recycled. But, the problem is always money. If we recycle more aluminum, then the people who mine bauxite, the mineral from which we get aluminum, will mine less, which is good and bad. Less work means less employees, but it will stretch our supply of aluminum into the future.
China has shown us a concrete method of population control in their one child policy.
Here is a chart that shows where most population growth is occurring.
chartsbin.com/view/xr6
In the United States, we have fewer kids. That’s why schools, public and private, are closing. The Baby Boom generation is beginning to retire and is mostly past its prime child bearing years.
No need to worry. This is alarmist talk that falls apart under scrutiny.
God bless,
Ed
In 1968, a great year for propaganda and the rise of the Hippies, a man named Paul Ehrlich put out a book titled The Polpulation Bomb. He was wrong about his prediction of mass starvation, but his book did influence some people.
amazon.com/Population-Bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/1568495870
Why doesn’t the United States send more food to more people who are starving? Who’s going to pay for it? Who is going to ship it? Who is going to distribute it?
In the US, farmers are paid billions of dollars every year to grow nothing.
businessweek.com/news/2010-05-04/most-u-s-farm-subsidies-go-to-10-of-recipients-group-says.html
Why? Supply and demand. For example, if the government knows that the average amount of corn grown each year is around a trillion tons, then that’s it. That’s enough corn for food, cattle feed and any other use you might think of. They can’t grow more. Why? Because no one will buy it and prices will go down.
Farming is a business and every business needs to make a profit.
And even if some surplus grain could be shipped to Africa, who pays for shipping? The taxpayer? And once it gets there, the corrupt government may impose an import tax, and then trucks will have to be rented to bring it to the villages. The other problem is bandits and even militaries who kill the drivers and take the trucks and food.
Here, resources can be recycled. But, the problem is always money. If we recycle more aluminum, then the people who mine bauxite, the mineral from which we get aluminum, will mine less, which is good and bad. Less work means less employees, but it will stretch our supply of aluminum into the future.
China has shown us a concrete method of population control in their one child policy.
Here is a chart that shows where most population growth is occurring.
chartsbin.com/view/xr6
In the United States, we have fewer kids. That’s why schools, public and private, are closing. The Baby Boom generation is beginning to retire and is mostly past its prime child bearing years.
No need to worry. This is alarmist talk that falls apart under scrutiny.
God bless,
Ed
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
There was a Peanuts cartoon in which Sally Brown commented: “*Everyone thinks that the world is overcrowded, but no one wants to leave.”*
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Quite right. Good show.
S
St_Francis
Guest
People have been singing this sad old song since Malthus in the 1700s, and the sky hasn’t fallen yet.
S
sinnerdexter
Guest
Well, see the problem is that your scenario requires destiny, that is to say that people’s fates are pre-determined. But if this were the case, then the abortion was always destined to occur and your baby genius could not have been born.
On the other hand the alternative option, no predestination, means that your comment is still an unstructured appeal to emotion that has no relevance to the thread, OP.
This has all the hallmarks of the “my initial strongly-worded claims eventually turn out to be a complaint that something is commonly misnamed” type of thread.
I should point out, TheRealJuliane, that overpopulation is in fact real. If you consider any given habitat, up to and including the scale of the entire planet, you will find that you have a finite resource pool. Since biological organisms require finite resources to live, elementary mathematics dictate that there must be an upper limit to the number of organisms which can simultaneously and continuously access those resources. In population biology that limit would be the carrying capacity k of the habitat.
Now it is true that you can modify the value of k by altering the efficiency of resource utilisation, speed of replenishment, per capita minimum requirements, etc. But at some point you go as far as you can with changing those numbers and your only achievement is that you have shifted k, not removed it altogether. You can’t remove it. Resource utilisation by definition cannot be infinitely low.
M
markbrumbaugh
Guest
So you think we are at the ultimate “k”? I don’t think so. We engineers with the help of our God given brains have increased “k” many times over during our brief time on earth. Perhaps God created more than just earth so we will eventually migrate. Who knows?
- Status