Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The entire Population Bomb theory has been discredited. The earth's population is growing at a much slower rate than predicted 20-40 years ago. As opposed to the doomsday scenarios in sci-fi and left-wing literature the population of the world will not reach 20 billion or 25 billion triggering a global die-off from diminishing resources. Evidence now suggests that world population will peak sometime between 2050 and 2100 and not even top 10 billion. With the exception of fossil fuels the world has PLENTY of resources to handle that many people.
There are people dieing off in famine and epidemics all over Africa. The idea of overpopulation is quite valid and it has caused people all over the planet to alter their outlook and activity. In China they have had a restriction on child bearing. There have been programs everywhere to increase awareness of fertility control. Planned Parenthood is not a figment of your imagination, nor Rowe vs. Wade. Do you really think having children is a trivial matter?
The quality of life is in some degree inversely proportional to population density. Many denizens of urban population centers will tell you this. If you don't know that, you are uninformed, deluded or inexperienced.
ROFLMAO. So clueless and so anxious to prove it to the world. You think Africa is experiencing famines and epidemics because ot overpopulation? The poulation density in Africa is the lowest in the world. A typical African country like Sudan, Nigeria or Somalia has a population density of 20-30 people per square mile. In England it's 700 per square mile, in Japan it's close to 1000. Care to offer some of your wonderfully humorous insight into the famine and disease running rampant in England and Japan due to their population density. You are completely, 100% ignorant. The famine and disease in Africa is attributable to one simple factor: Most of it is a freaking desert!! The land won't grow food. They can't feed their people and have nothing of value to trade for food. They have no economy so they can't buy medicine, they have no economy so they can't afford to build schools and teach people how to avoid diseases like AIDS. You can't have a viable economy when you live in the middle of a desert unless there's oil under it and most of Africa has no oil, no mining, no nothing.
You really need to close down ATOT once in a while, crack open a book and at least make an effort to educate yourself before spouting off on things you don't understand. The problem with starvation in Africa could not possibly be more unrelated to population density.
What's your problem you have to try to flame me? You have to be abusive? I never said the poverty famine and disease in Africa were because of overpopulation, although it's hard to argue against the idea that less population would lessen those problems. My other statements concerned the rest of the world, and it's true that overpopulation is a concern in Asia and elsewhere. This has been known for a long time and it's had some affect. Has it solved the problem? There's no simple solution. And I think you are a liar about ROTFLYAO, but that's the Internet I guess. Easy to pretend.
And your argument is specious:
From
http://dieoff.org/page27.htm
Density is generally irrelevant to questions of overpopulation. For instance, if brute density were the criterion, one would have to conclude that Africa is "underpopulated," because it has only 55 people per square mile, while Europe (excluding the USSR) has 261 and Japan 857. *32 A more sophisticated measure would take into consideration the amount of Africa not covered by desert or "impenetrable" forest. *33 This more habitable portion is just a little over half the continent's area, giving an effective population density of 117 per square mile. That's still only about a fifth of that in the United Kingdom. Even by 2020, Africa's effective density is projected to grow to only about that of France today (266), and few people would consider France excessively crowded or overpopulated.
When people think of crowded countries, they usually contemplate places like the Netherlands (1,031 per square mile), Taiwan (1,604), or Hong Kong (14,218). Even those don't necessarily signal overpopulation?after all, the Dutch seem to be thriving, and doesn't Hong Kong have a booming economy and fancy hotels? In short, if density were the standard of overpopulation, few nations (and certainly not Earth itself) would be likely to be considered overpopulated in the near future. The error, we repeat, lies in trying to define overpopulation in terms of density; it has long been recognized that density per se means very little.