Overpopulation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Iamsemisweet -> Overpopulation (9/1/2011 12:57:50 PM)

A couple of threads have discussed this lately.  It seems blatantly obvious is me, but I guess not to everyone.  Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I thought I would post this for anyone interested in informing themselves.  Feel free to move on if it doesn't interest you.


The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth is an international scientist consensus document discussing and demanding a halt of the population expansion. This was the first worldwide joint statement of academies of sciences, and their cooperative InterAcademy Panel on International Issues. It was signed by 58 member academies and hence ratified in 1994. Contents [hide] Background Between October 24 and October 27, 1993, an international "scientist's top summit" was held in New Delhi, India, with representatives from academies of sciences from all over the world. This grew out of two previous meetings, one joint meeting by the Royal Society of London and the United States National Academy of Sciences, and one international meeting organised by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The scientists discussed the environmental and social welfare problems for the world population, and found them closely linked to the population expansion. In the year 1950, there were approximately 2.5 billion (2,500 million) humans alive in this world. By 1960, the number had reached 3 billion, and by 1975 was at 4 billion. The 5 billion mark was reached around 1987,[1] and in 1993, at the New Delhi meeting, academics estimated the population to be 5.5 billion. For some time, world food production had been able to roughly match population growth, meaning that starvation was a regional and distributional problem, rather than one based on a total shortage of food. The scientists noted that increased food production on land and on sea in the previous decade was less than the population increase over the same period. Moreover, by increased food production and otherwise, the population growth was contributing to a loss of biodiversity, deforestation and loss of topsoil, and shortages of water and fuel. The academics noted that the complex relationships between population size and various environmental effects were not fully understood, but that "there is no doubt that the threat to the ecosystem is linked to population size and resource use". They were aware of the problems with increasing greenhouse emissions and other environmental threats, and found these linked to the population growth. The scientists decided to adopt a resolution on the problems and on the means to solve them, and that this resolution should be put to vote by the respective national academies of science. In 1993, they also established the InterAcademy Panel, in order to coordinate this and future similar consensus resolutions on important global issues. Statement summary The academies note that "the world is undergoing an unprecedented population expansion", and that it is necessary to stop it. In fact, we must reach "zero population growth within the lifetime of our children", if we are to achieve the "common goal", which was defined as "the improvement of the quality of life for all, both now and succeeding generations", including "social, economic and personal well-being while preserving fundamental human rights and the ability to live harmoniously in a protected environment". Moreover, these goals are achievable, but in order to achieve them it is not sufficient to halt the population expansion. At the same time, a number of actions need to be taken, in order to improve health and welfare, and lessen the negative human impact on the environment. Finally, more research in these areas is needed. The proposed actions are concretised in 21 points. Those directly dealing with halting the population growth include furthering equal opportunities for women, easy access to cheap and safe contraceptives, family planning programmes, broad primary health care and education, and increased research on cultural, religious, and other factors, which "affect reproductive behavior". In accordance with the respect for fundamental human rights, the measures do not include any kind of coercion, but enabling and encouragement for choosing to limit the number of children in a family. Other points include governmental policies recognizing longer-term environmental responsibilities; assistance from the industrialised to the developing world for environmental problems; pricing and taxing that take environmental cost into account, and thus influence consumer behaviour, and transitions to less energy consumptive economies.





Fightdirecto -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 1:16:41 PM)

One of the arguments against population control is who decides which group gets told, "You cannot have children" and which group gets told, "you can have children".

And zero population growth, as I understand it, says you and your partner can have a maximum of two children (your biological replacements) and no more. If you are infertile, you can adopt a biological replacement child, thus reducing the child surplus.

What penalties do you give to someone who has a child, despite the fact that they belong to a group who has been told "You cannot have children" or someone who already has their two legal children/replacements? The death penalty for the mother, the father and the child? The mother and father involuntarily sterilized and the (extra) child given to a infertile, childless couple to raise and be one of their biological replacements?




jlf1961 -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 1:33:52 PM)

How about we exterminate the terminally stupid people on the planet.

I am talking about people who have an average to high IQ who do really stupid things, the people that they have to put warning labels on blow dryers advising folks not to use them in the shower, or the people who are the cause for a chainsaw warning "do not stop blade with hands or genitals."




Marc2b -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 1:36:10 PM)

quote:

How about we exterminate the terminally stupid people on the planet.


But then I'd be all alone.

ETA: you knew someone was going to do it... I just got there first.






Iamsemisweet -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 1:36:35 PM)

I don't think anyone is proposing coercive methods like you are describing.  I certainly couldn't support that.  The key, just like the report I cited says, is education and improving opportunities for women, including availability of family planning.  This appears to work since developed countries where women have more opportunities tend to have lower birth rates.  I don't think anyone wants to bring children into the world to suffer.  If we continue as we are, though, the gap between the haves and the have-nots is just going to get wider.





Arpig -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 1:38:32 PM)

Zeig Heil!!! [8|]

Exactly how do you propose to do anything about it?




lovmuffin -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 1:41:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

How about we exterminate the terminally stupid people on the planet.

I am talking about people who have an average to high IQ who do really stupid things, the people that they have to put warning labels on blow dryers advising folks not to use them in the shower, or the people who are the cause for a chainsaw warning "do not stop blade with hands or genitals."



I would conclude you're referring to exterminating trial lawyers.




MileHighM -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 1:42:03 PM)

War has always been the great means of control...The russians have loved it for centuries.

The question is at what point will the Earth's population reach its breaking point. While China has managed their system without creating civil war, I doubt the same would be true in other nations. Take India. Once the poplation pains of that country are too great to manage, and they are not able to export enough citizens fast enough, I would imagine they would want to refocus their population's rage on something else. War is really good at that and it reduces poplulation. Pakistan is a natural enemy. Both countries being densely populated would probably not resort to lobbing nukes right away as they can just throw bodies into the maw for a long time.

Any conflict of this nature would likely spark massive global conflict and lords knows what would happen after that.




StrangerThan -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 1:45:48 PM)

US population growth is declining and forecast to decline dramatically in terms of babies born. Where we're not declining from immigration, a decent swath of which is illegal.

So before you go telling people they can't have babies in the US, how about solving the illegal immigration problem first?

As far as the babies go, China is a good demonstration of what happens when you start telling people they can and can't have them.




popeye1250 -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 1:48:42 PM)

And the U.S. keeps feeding countries like Haiti and Somalia and many others and they wonder why there's so much overpopulation???
We're growing WAY too much food in this country and our tax dollars are taken to pay for that stuff.
Of course the Democrats "solution" is to bring more third worlders to the U.S. (again using our taxdollars!) and causing overpopulation here!
Or increasing "foreign aid" which just gets stolen.
Many people in the U.S. want to stop all immigration and I'm one of them.
Can you imagine 600 million people in this country? (Double our current population.) Freeways would need to have 12 lanes going in each direction, we'd be burning twice as much gasoline as we are now, we'd need twice the number of coal burning power plants, and all kinds of other things!
Our taxes would go up tremendously to pay for all that. And, with all those "free-trade" deals and factories moved overseas how are you going to get everyone working? We already *know* that a "service economy" was nothing but a lie by government and big business!
"Another 850,000 people signed up for unemployment last week....."
"The last of Western Pennsylvania's forests have been cut down for new housing and Arkansas is following close behind."
"NYC is in the process of annexing 1 million acres of land in N.J. and Conn.for it's rapid expansion...."
I don't think I'd want to be around to see even 400 million people in this country!
Oh, and where is all the fresh water supposed to come from to support 600 million people? Maybe start draining the Great Lakes? What do they do then after 30 years of that?
I have a friend who's a scientist at Tufts Uni in Boston. I asked him how many people could the earth support. He said; "Probably between 16 and twenty billion." "But, you wouldn't want to be around for that!"




StrangerThan -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 1:50:56 PM)

They get the Aral Sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aralship2.jpg




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 1:59:16 PM)

The entire population of the world could live in Texas with 1,000 or more sf per person, and the current food wasted would support a 50% increase in world population. Im not worried just yet.




Louve00 -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 2:01:39 PM)

This may sound nonchalant but I feel it should be left as it is.  Thoughts of quelling over population lead to things like eugenics.  Someone is bound to come up with the bright idea of "If we're limiting the amount of births to keep our population down, then we should at least improve the gene pool to have the most efficient population.  I hear you loud and clear about stripping the earth of the rain forests and losing all the benefits the earth has to offer that way.  But I think we should grow up and not out.  Meaning, its time to build taller buildings, or time to develop undeveloped land. 

Man has come to the point of wanting to be invincible.  And the truth of the matter is man is not invincible.  He is here on this earth and will eventually become extinct, like every species that has already become extinct.  I sometimes think all this searching in space for a planet like earth, that can support life as we know it on earth, is just an attempt (or a hope) to prolong the obvious.

If we stop reproducing, we will most assuredly become extinct since man doesn't live forever.  And who are we going to allow to reproduce, when the time comes?  Again, the word eugenics comes to mind.  Or they may just by-pass eugenics and go straight to test tubes...or cloning.  The quality of life never has been equal for all. 

I think all the scientific thought about human population will be defeated by the earth itself.......in time.  As George Carlin said in one of his comedy skits, when the earth is ready, its going to shake all us humans off like a bad case of fleas.  Just my opinion. [&:]




domiguy -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 2:04:34 PM)

It would be so lovely if we could get the majority of people to move to texas and then make it look like glass.




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 2:08:11 PM)

At the risk of repeating myself:

quote:

The proposed actions are concretised in 21 points. Those directly dealing with halting the population growth include furthering equal opportunities for women, easy access to cheap and safe contraceptives, family planning programmes, broad primary health care and education, and increased research on cultural, religious, and other factors, which "affect reproductive behavior". In accordance with the respect for fundamental human rights, the measures do not include any kind of coercion, but enabling and encouragement for choosing to limit the number of children in a family. Other points include governmental policies recognizing longer-term environmental responsibilities; assistance from the industrialised to the developing world for environmental problems; pricing and taxing that take environmental cost into account, and thus influence consumer behaviour, and transitions to less energy consumptive economies.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Zeig Heil!!! [8|]

Exactly how do you propose to do anything about it?





StrangerThan -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 2:59:03 PM)



quote:

"affect reproductive behavior".


Don't fuck. Is that what that line means?




StrangerThan -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 3:05:03 PM)

I have to apologize semisweet. I know the topic is one that has merit. However, you'll find explosive growth rates tied to a lot of developing countries, whereas those who smugly refer to themselves as developed are experiencing a decline or expected to. So what will come out of this is a shitload of laws that cover everyone rather than dealing with the places with the problem.

Shrug. That makes really discussing it a non-starter for me. It makes no sense to me to have 3 bullies on the playground and beat the shit out of the nerds while you're bashing their heads.




hardcybermaster -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 3:12:06 PM)

maybe if we helped the developing countries instead of just using them and fighting them they wouldn't have explosive growth rates
quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

I have to apologize semisweet. I know the topic is one that has merit. However, you'll find explosive growth rates tied to a lot of developing countries, whereas those who smugly refer to themselves as developed are experiencing a decline or expected to. So what will come out of this is a shitload of laws that cover everyone rather than dealing with the places with the problem.

Shrug. That makes really discussing it a non-starter for me. It makes no sense to me to have 3 bullies on the playground and beat the shit out of the nerds while you're bashing their heads.






flcouple2009 -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 3:17:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
I would post this for anyone interested in informing themselves.


Translation:

I am going to bash you over the head with it until you agree with me.

Isn't that what you've been trying to do?




jlf1961 -> RE: Overpopulation (9/1/2011 3:21:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

How about we exterminate the terminally stupid people on the planet.

I am talking about people who have an average to high IQ who do really stupid things, the people that they have to put warning labels on blow dryers advising folks not to use them in the shower, or the people who are the cause for a chainsaw warning "do not stop blade with hands or genitals."



I would conclude you're referring to exterminating trial lawyers.



Actually, I am referring to people like short boarders (people who use short boards to surf) since from below (a sharks point of view) a person on a short board looks like a big, fat juicy seal.

Or the people that cut across four lanes of traffic to hit an off ramp.

The people that put a paper cup full of HOT coffee between their legs and manages to burn his OR her genitals.

The people that put metal in a microwave.

The people that drink and drive.  Especially those who drink and drive and manage to kill people without suffering a scratch.

People that are too stupid to think for themselves and let some fanatic make their choices and decisions for them, like terrorists.  Although a small percentage of these idiots have a nasty habit of killing themselves and taking innocent people with them.

People who are racist.

These are the types of people I am talking about.




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875