Nobody is concerned with overpopulation?

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Muse

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.

What are you, insane, illiterate or just stupid? Read the highlighted part of your very own post. "The quality of life is in some degree inversely proportional to population density. Many denizens of urban population centers will tell you this."You have it completely 100% totally bassackwards. Generally speaking, the quality of life is best in developed countries with the highest population density and it's the worst in the most sparesly populated countries. The concept of "brute density" is attributable to Paul Erlich who is now regarded as a complete fraud because NONE of his theories held up. And you're quoting him to support your point? ROFLMAO!! With how badly Paul Erlich's writings have been dragged through the mud quoting him on population issues is like quoting the Catholic Church of their views regarding pedophilia. You need to be able to read and understand, not merely link to some tripe that is as known to be complete BS. The countries where the standard of life is the best are those where the economy works. You don't need to be able to grow food if you can buy it from other countries. You don't need to be able to develop cutting edge medical technology if you can buy it. No matter what the "brute density" is in Africa, whether it's 1 person per square mile or 1000 per square mile, those countries will NEVER be able to feed themselves. They can't grow food, they can't buy food, so they're not going to have food.

Please, please, please, stop pouting over your hurt feelings, read a little and educate yourself. It's not my fault you barged into a thread where you were not able to grasp the facts. Paul Erlich was a doomsday-monger who spewed forth a lot of scenarios more increbibly insane than Scientology's Xenu. Paul Erlich had it ALL WRONG and there is not a single scientist on earth that will mention his "theories" with anything other than howls of derisive laughter. When you attempt to use Erlich to support your misguided ideas you make yourself look dumb.

 

[Muse]

GagHalfrunt,

Your style is rather over the top. Many who live in dense population areas regard the density as a problem in itself. Just because you have enough food and water doesn't mean you have quality of life. I don't have to quote any authority to know that. Watch Koyaanisqatsi and get the message. Or listen to "Out on an Island" by Cocksparrer. Artists often have a firmer grasp of certain issues than scientists.

Regards,

Muse

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: ta8689

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
You must live in or around a large metro area. Ever been to the midwest or even Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas? There's plenty of room.

Actually I used to live right by chicago, moved out here to the middle of bum-fvck egypt, and this town is pretty small. And i dont mean that there wont be enough room for everyone, i mean not enough food, energy, etc.

We have more than enough food. In fact, we pay farmers NOT to grow food. Energy, will also not be a problem in the future as we trend towards other alternative sources.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
You must live in or around a large metro area. Ever been to the midwest or even Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas? There's plenty of room.

yah but who wants to live in those crapholes =P

yes Im very worried about overpop..
humans are like a virus spreading and destroying every habitat on earth with no regard for anything but themselves..

what people seem to forget is.. once the ecosystem is destroyed we go also...

and yes longer lifespans and more kids = trouble

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
You must live in or around a large metro area. Ever been to the midwest or even Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas? There's plenty of room.

we already can't make enough food to feed everybody.

What? yes, we do.

 

[Bassyhead]

Like others have said, overconsumption of resources is a bigger concern. The US is mostly undeveloped. I think human population might self regulate like other species do.

 

[Accipiter22]

for those that sya the U.S. is fine...we're deforesting at an alarming rate, the environment here is being slaughtered....mainly because there's just too many people

 

[Accipiter22]

for those that sya the U.S. is fine...we're deforesting at an alarming rate, the environment here is being slaughtered....mainly because there's just too many people

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
for those that sya the U.S. is fine...we're deforesting at an alarming rate, the environment here is being slaughtered....mainly because there's just too many people

The US has the finest environmental record AND the lowest population density of any major country on earth (except for Canada and Australia, which IMO should not count because of their large tracts of uninhabitable land, the same goes for Siberian Russia).
I think you need to unplug from some of that propaganda.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: uhohs

Originally posted by: ta8689

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
Aside from India and China, some countries are in a population crisis. Like Japan, where they aren't having enough children.

Who cares if youre not having enough children? As far as i know, japans population is doing fine.

japan has too many old people and not enough being born. their population is declining/going to decline in the near future.

This is why they are building robots. Soon all Japanese children will be robots and will live forever.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Promethply
Overpopulation??? Nature will tell us if we've overstreched it -- don't sweat it

like rwanda?

eh, its true, they killed other hutu's where there were no tutsis to kill. farm plots had grown too small to support the population.

aids in africa = population control through beneign neglect?

OHH OHHH RACIST RACIST!!!! YOU HEATHEN

 

[Muse]

Paul Erlich was a doomsday-monger who spewed forth a lot of scenarios more increbibly insane than Scientology's Xenu. Paul Erlich had it ALL WRONG and there is not a single scientist on earth that will mention his "theories" with anything other than howls of derisive laughter. When you attempt to use Erlich to support your misguided ideas you make yourself look dumb.

You contend that Erlich has been thoroughly discredited. Can you support that? Links?

I'm not a disciple of Erlich and haven't read The Population Bomb. However, it was an extremely influencial book and I'm no stranger to the issue of overpopulation. If you cannot make an argument other than to say people are howling all over the planet at Erlich's ideas, you are making yourself out worse than "dumb," that is a boor.

 

[Rill22]

America is spoiled. No babies for me, thanks.

 

[Muse]

In this post I'll just deal with my personal experience. Not having traveled to Asia or Africa, Europe, etc. my knowledge of them is through this and that, the media, etc. I live in a medium density metropolitan area - the S.F. Bay area, specifically Berkeley, a suburb famously home to a world renowned university campus. Not terribly dense, you rarely see a residential building over 2 stories.

I generally go to the market where I buy much of my food right when it opens, in the hopes of scooting through the store quickly so I can get in line and out of there before the density of customers becomes really irksome. Pity the person who goes in there on a weekend. The density of customers makes for an uncomfortable experience. Besides the difficulty of getting around and finding the items you want, the lines at checkout become formidable.

When I grew up, there were about 1/3 as many people on the planet as there are today. The city where I grew up is hardly recognizable (L.A.) in the extent to which it has become dense, and L.A. is hardly an extremely dense metropolitan area. It's rightly referred to as sprawling. Even so, the density it has, spread over a very very large area has resulted in serious problems. They used to have only occasional clogged freeways (once the freeways came to be in the late 1950's and after). Now, you can and do get them at any time. The same is true for where I live now.

If the planet's population triples again, it will be seriously pushing the limit. Is overpopulation an issue? Yes!

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
for those that sya the U.S. is fine...we're deforesting at an alarming rate, the environment here is being slaughtered....mainly because there's just too many people

The US has the finest environmental record AND the lowest population density of any major country on earth (except for Canada and Australia, which IMO should not count because of their large tracts of uninhabitable land, the same goes for Siberian Russia).
I think you need to unplug from some of that propaganda.

finest environmental record??? did you just make up that award yourself? Last I checked we consume resources at a higher rate than any country on Earth...by a gargantuan margin. And yes, consumption is tied into the environment and population

 

[loic2003]

Hey, don't you worry now, you've got to remember we've still got the muslim-westerner world war, the outbreak of disease, long overdue giant volcanic eruptions, the collapse of the US and possibly UK along with potential civil war, not to mention metorite hits to get through. You need all the people you can get! Hopefully they won't all eat themselves to death!

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
for those that sya the U.S. is fine...we're deforesting at an alarming rate, the environment here is being slaughtered....mainly because there's just too many people

The US has the finest environmental record AND the lowest population density of any major country on earth (except for Canada and Australia, which IMO should not count because of their large tracts of uninhabitable land, the same goes for Siberian Russia).
I think you need to unplug from some of that propaganda.

finest environmental record??? did you just make up that award yourself? Last I checked we consume resources at a higher rate than any country on Earth...by a gargantuan margin. And yes, consumption is tied into the environment and population

Exactly. I think that person has been listening to GWB's speeches. Few others would have to gall to say the US has a decent environmental record.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
for those that sya the U.S. is fine...we're deforesting at an alarming rate, the environment here is being slaughtered....mainly because there's just too many people

The US has the finest environmental record AND the lowest population density of any major country on earth (except for Canada and Australia, which IMO should not count because of their large tracts of uninhabitable land, the same goes for Siberian Russia).
I think you need to unplug from some of that propaganda.

finest environmental record??? did you just make up that award yourself? Last I checked we consume resources at a higher rate than any country on Earth...by a gargantuan margin. And yes, consumption is tied into the environment and population

You are confused. I suggest you visit the rest of the world and see what's happening. And no, I don't listen to GW's speeches, dipsh!ts. Nor did I vote for him. The US has the cleanest air, the cleanest water, and the cleanest ground of any major industrial country on earth. Go to Brazil and see them burn down the rainforest to build sugar plantations to make ethanol fuel. Check out the environmental record of Russia, both Soviet and post-Soviet (worst in the world). Check out the smog in Northern Italy (worst in the world).

I think you and Muse listen to too much luddite-left propaganda. If you think technology brings pollution, go check out a horse's "exhaust" someday, eh? Or the sewage treatment plant downstream from a cholera-infested tribal village of mud huts. :roll:

 

[Crono]

Overpopulation isn't a problem, it's wealth distribution. The earth could support billions more people if land and food weren't so unequally shared among the populations of the world. Some people own thousands of acres of good farming land, while others own no land and live in barren areas or overpopulated cities.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Crono
Overpopulation isn't a problem, it's wealth distribution. The earth could support billions more people if land and food weren't so unequally shared among the populations of the world. Some people own thousands of acres of good farming land, while others own no land and live in barren areas or overpopulated cities.

Exactly.

 

[akubi]

Originally posted by: ta8689
Lately i have heard all this tuff about people saying that abortion is bad, etc. Well i dont disagree with you that it is in a way taking a life, but then I sat down and watched something on the discovery channel or something about overpopulation. I remembered talking about it in biology 2, and It seems to be getting worse. Think about it. We are developing new medicine to keep us healthier longer, and that means that there will be more people on this planet longer. Im not saying that developing medicine is bad. Im all for it. I just think that people who have 5-6 kids, or even 3-4 should really cut down on how many children they have. And with people trying to abolish abortion, well theres more people. And people say, "well just because the parents cant handle it right now doesnt mean you should kill it" Well... i think that may help in keeping our numbers down. It my seem mean, but I think that reducing birth is the most humane way of keeping numbers down. Isnt it better than death??

no

 

[esun]

I believe John Stossel reported on the "issue" of overpopulation recently. It's just sensationalist reporting, as always. There is plenty of room in the world, and right now overpopulation should be one of the last things on people's minds. The world easily has the real estate to support many, many more people agriculturally. Parents having 5-6 children isn't a problem if they can support those 5-6 children. If they can't, then that's where the problem lies. It's not that our world doesn't have enough space for those 5-6 people, it's that those parents may not financially be able to support them, leading to further problems.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Vic
I think you and Muse listen to too much Luddite-left propaganda. If you think technology brings pollution, go check out a horse's "exhaust" someday, eh? Or the sewage treatment plant downstream from a cholera-infested tribal village of mud huts. :roll:

The US has a sterling environmental record?

Accepted fact: The per-capita consumption of oil in the USA is the highest in the world. You can safely deduce from this that the USA is one of the world's greatest contributors to one of the worst problems we are facing - global warming. That's environmentally friendly?

Known fact: The USA has the greatest stockpile of nuclear materials. This begs the question, what will happen to these materials, what will be the legacy we leave in terms of radioactive pollution? Fact: There is no such thing as a safe repository of spent nuclear materials.

Fact: The policies of the Bush Administration have been almost consistently in favor of US corporate interests. When balancing policy decisions where environmental issues weigh against corporate profits, the teeter toter virtually invariably swings down to the right.

For the record, I am not a Luddite (not even close). Nor am I willing to give blind allegiance to technologists (corporate interests) or their lackeys in the educational system or the government. Also for the record (since this thread is about overpopulation), I am in favor of the right to choose.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Vic
I think you and Muse listen to too much Luddite-left propaganda. If you think technology brings pollution, go check out a horse's "exhaust" someday, eh? Or the sewage treatment plant downstream from a cholera-infested tribal village of mud huts. :roll:

The US has a sterling environmental record?

Accepted fact: The per-capita consumption of oil in the USA is the highest in the world. You can safely deduce from this that the USA is one of the world's greatest contributors to one of the worst problems we are facing - global warming. That's environmentally friendly?

Known fact: The USA has the greatest stockpile of nuclear materials. This begs the question, what will happen to these materials, what will be the legacy we leave in terms of radioactive pollution? Fact: There is no such thing as a safe repository of spent nuclear materials.

Fact: The policies of the Bush Administration have been almost consistently in favor of US corporate interests. When balancing policy decisions where environmental issues weigh against corporate profits, the teeter toter virtually invariably swings down to the right.

For the record, I am not a Luddite (not even close). Nor am I willing to give blind allegiance to technologists (corporate interests) or their lackeys in the educational system or the government. Also for the record (since this thread is about overpopulation), I am in favor of the right to choose.

Does your rhetoric have a point? We're not discussing your political agenda (or even views). The inequality of wealth distribution has NOTHING to do with overpopulation. I also support the right to choose and sometimes wish it could be done retroactively so that people like you would be forced to put their agenda where their mouth is.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Vic
I think you and Muse listen to too much Luddite-left propaganda. If you think technology brings pollution, go check out a horse's "exhaust" someday, eh? Or the sewage treatment plant downstream from a cholera-infested tribal village of mud huts. :roll:

The US has a sterling environmental record?

Accepted fact: The per-capita consumption of oil in the USA is the highest in the world. You can safely deduce from this that the USA is one of the world's greatest contributors to one of the worst problems we are facing - global warming. That's environmentally friendly?

Known fact: The USA has the greatest stockpile of nuclear materials. This begs the question, what will happen to these materials, what will be the legacy we leave in terms of radioactive pollution? Fact: There is no such thing as a safe repository of spent nuclear materials.

Fact: The policies of the Bush Administration have been almost consistently in favor of US corporate interests. When balancing policy decisions where environmental issues weigh against corporate profits, the teeter toter virtually invariably swings down to the right.

For the record, I am not a Luddite (not even close). Nor am I willing to give blind allegiance to technologists (corporate interests) or their lackeys in the educational system or the government. Also for the record (since this thread is about overpopulation), I am in favor of the right to choose.

Does your rhetoric have a point? We're not discussing your political agenda (or even views). The inequality of wealth distribution has NOTHING to do with overpopulation. I also support the right to choose and sometimes wish it could be done retroactively so that people like you would be forced to put their agenda where their mouth is.

You insinuate that I'm egregiously off topic, however it was you who were discussing technology and pollution, asserting the latter is no result of the former. Look above at your text I quoted. That included a dig at me. Then you assail me for being off topic when I retort! That's just wildly outlandish, the opposite of the obvious truth. Some people just can't help themselves and I guess you are among them.

Do you just have to be insulting? I don't have a political agenda, FYI. I also made no mention of inequality of wealth distribution. You attempt to belittle me by pretending I'm in a category of people you would just as soon kill. Take a hike.

BTW, your last sentence is gibberish. I can't make any sense of it at all.