C
cynic
Guest
I couldn’t imagine a more biased discussion on the overpopulation ‘myth’.
- Status
C
cynic
Guest
whoever thinks that the earth has the potential to support an unlimited number of people has got to be joking, or crazy, it religiouse/denominational bias clouding judgement and basic common sense. some day the earth will reach its carrying capacity.
P
PraRFLEsEkHm
Guest
I don’t believe that is anybodies statement here.
B
BryPGuy89
Guest
Yes, but did you know that each American requires about 24 acres a person to supply and continue to live the life they do now. An ecological foot print is what it is called. If everyone in the world lived as an American it world take roughly 6.5 Earths to support the current population. Plus over population also includes food, water, and shelteer. ther is only so much farmable land that can support large yeilds and to make room for cropland we would have to destroy forests and natural ecosystems. Water is very sparse, only 3% freshwater in the world and 1% is above the surface. Shelter is hard to provide in certain areas and you can cram as many people you want into a small area, but that doesn’t help any, more centralized disease. It would be amazing if we could reach a level sustainability, but at this rate it wont happen soon.
S
sinnerdexter
Guest
So until we are all crowded into .027 acres all over the earth we are not over populated? No room is needed to grow crops? No room for anything but people, rats, and cock roaches? there is much of the earth that is not suitable for humans. when i was young the earth had 3.5 billion people, now it has close to twice that many people, i can feel the crowding, can’t you?
The earth is over crowded, yes if we stood shoulder to shoulder we could have many more people but feeding and clothing them would be impossible. feeding and clothing the worlds people is difficult even now and most humans live in squalor. If we all lived in squalor we could accommodate maybe twice as many as we have now but why let it come to that? Why not start trimming down the population now with birth control? Even if we managed to freeze our population at 7 billion we would still be straining to provide everyone with a decent life.
The earth is over crowded, yes if we stood shoulder to shoulder we could have many more people but feeding and clothing them would be impossible. feeding and clothing the worlds people is difficult even now and most humans live in squalor. If we all lived in squalor we could accommodate maybe twice as many as we have now but why let it come to that? Why not start trimming down the population now with birth control? Even if we managed to freeze our population at 7 billion we would still be straining to provide everyone with a decent life.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
It also plugs up landfills, polutes the air, sucks up resources, destroys forests to keep up with the paper, wood, and other demands, and houses crop up all over the place where verdant pastures, forests, desert, and beautiful natural settings once stood. And as far as growing the economy—the more people in this lousy economy, the more out of work, the more out of work, the more unemployment and food stamps and strain to make ends meet, the more unemployment the more the country goes down financial toilet bowl.
I often wonder, how much is enough? How many people would the pro-large family/large population people like in here? another billion? another two billion? How many is enough?
I loved my little town in 1977 when we moved here—a charming little community that was tight-knit, friendly, everyone knew and cared about each other, walnut groves throughout town, cotton fields, orange groves, few red lights, down home fun feel. Around 25,000 when we came here.
Then by 2010 we have around 125,000. Nothing but pavement, Walmarts, Targets, red lights every six inches, the air is the WORST in the United States, highest teenage pregnanacy rate in the United States, major league METH problem, gang violence, less agricultural and tight-knit, more distant and unfriendly.
Yep, population is great!
I often wonder, how much is enough? How many people would the pro-large family/large population people like in here? another billion? another two billion? How many is enough?
I loved my little town in 1977 when we moved here—a charming little community that was tight-knit, friendly, everyone knew and cared about each other, walnut groves throughout town, cotton fields, orange groves, few red lights, down home fun feel. Around 25,000 when we came here.
Then by 2010 we have around 125,000. Nothing but pavement, Walmarts, Targets, red lights every six inches, the air is the WORST in the United States, highest teenage pregnanacy rate in the United States, major league METH problem, gang violence, less agricultural and tight-knit, more distant and unfriendly.
Yep, population is great!
S
sinnerdexter
Guest
over consumption is the most immediate problem, but it is exasperated by “increases in population” even if you don’t want to use the term over population. It’s worth noting that focus applied to poor nations, is most first world nations (or “rich populations” if you prefer) have a negative or very low population growth.
Secondarily, regardless of how we deal with over consumption, if humans continue to reproduce at exponential rates we would not have enough resources on the planet to make up their molecular structures, so there is a literal maximum even if we don’t reach it due to other factors.
Thirdly, I can’t speak to your consumption or the consumption of your family, but you also have to consider the raw manufacturing and growing/raising of the food your family consumes. If your children also have larger families than “every person you know” no amount of saving will offset the consumption. Your progeny could consume 1/100th of that of your neighbors, and still use more than their progeny.
Additionally, if you use 1/100th of the resources your neighbors do, they can always learn to also use 1/100th of their resources as well, but you can’t reduce the size of your family.
P
pnewton
Guest
Because it is intrinsically evil. Immoral means may not be used for any end. - Moral Theology 101
C
CharlesDarwin
Guest
birth control is less evil than brining children into the world who will suffer hunger, malnutrition disease, and starvation and thirst
assuming we ONLY AND I MEAN ONLY eat plants no meat no dairy no raising cattle of any kind. we could give about 10 billion people 2,000 calories a day. this assumes no spoilage and waste, in practice lets say 9 billion for waste and spoilage.
this also assume we clear cut all forests and other arable land. assumes no unforseen things such as drought, insect swarms, or floods. So in practice this time lets say about 7 billion people could be safely fed every year with 2000 cal/day.
The problem here comes from meat, 16 pounds of grain go into one pound of meat. So the more meat that is produced the less people the earth can support at 2,000 Cal/Day
Currently it takes about 1.5 acres of land per american to produce the food we eat every year. there are 7.68 billion acres of suitable farm land on earth. At current population growth by 2040 there will be only .6 farm acres per human on the planet Adding to this is that currently we lose almost 40,000 acres of farm land every year, so the total will be closer .5 farm acres per human being.
Water is another problem.Only 0.014% of water on the earth is actually available for drinking.We could get rid of this issue if we had a powerful energy grid capable of producing cheaper power, we could just de salinate the ocean water and pump it anywhere it was needed but right now that is unbelievably expensive.
The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason I have never used any other and I trust I never shall. - Thomas Paine
P
pnewton
Guest
I see this as a false dichotomy. Many people do not use birth control and do not bring children into the world that suffer hunger and disease. Furthermore, it does not change a basic principle of moral theology: one can not commit a mortal sin to avoid evil. In other words, a good end can never justify an evil means.
Bear in mind that just as the use of artificial birth control is seen as a mortal sin in the Catholic Church and not universally, this principle of moral theology is not universal. Trying to weigh this argument outside of the Church is putting the cart before the horse. It is like trying to argue how to be pleasing to God with an atheist.
C
CharlesDarwin
Guest
if more people used birth control, condoms, etc there would be less people being born and therefor less people placing more and more demands on finite resources.
you say its a false dichotomy…but what do you suppose we do to make less resources work for more and more and more and more and more and more people?
N
NE_Catholic
Guest
some places are over populated, others not.
some countries are aging, some are young
kinda ironic that the countries that need children are the most secular. O
some countries are aging, some are young
kinda ironic that the countries that need children are the most secular. O
C
CharlesDarwin
Guest
yeah…ironic how the people who actually care whether there will be enough food for everyone to eat in the next 5 decades is non religious. kinda says something about religion huh?
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
N
NE_Catholic
Guest
kinda ironic they are losing population and importing religious people. They care more about trees than people.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
I wouldn’t mind having more of California to myself. Less traffic…less people at the beach…ah, yes!
P
pnewton
Guest
Argumentum ad populum fallacy. You are stating as fact something as if it is common knowledge.
C
CharlesDarwin
Guest
or were just smart enough to manage resources for sustainability?
C
CharlesDarwin
Guest
indeed…I notice you didnt go after NE for the same thing though
W
Whitacre_Girl
Guest
Actually, I think it’s more ironic that you’d come onto a religious board and make a comment like this…troll much?
- Status