jump to last post 1-33 of 33 discussions (123 posts)

Do you Believe We're Overpopulated? If so, what should we do to fix it

  1. ThompsonPen profile image82
    ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago

    I personally believe we are extremely overpopulated, and I don't believe enough is being done to fix it. I think that we need to have stricter laws about how bit our families can be, and I think that adoption should be a first priority.
    Every one has their dreams, and I know that it is hard to let go of that dream, especially when we're biologically driven. But at what point do we stop thinking of our individuality and start thinking about the worldly good in order to survive as a species?

    1. ritsukakunx profile image64
      ritsukakunxposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That would work if adoption didn't cost so much, but of course, somebody has to pay for the child's foster care. But I think more people would adopt if it were affordable. Me, for instance. I would not have another baby myself - 1 is enough - but if I were able to adopt, I might do it. Able to adopt in the sense of actually being able to afford all the fees. :p So I don't think that is an option for most people, especially today.

      I do think a limit might be great, maybe limit it to two per couple, but you have to think about it for a second. Where is the majority of the population growth in the world? China and India - not the US. As those two counties become more and more industrialized, those people will become more like us in Western counties - consumers. And what does this mean? They'll start using tons of resources just like an American citizen. Except it will be even MORE devastating to the world because  these are counties with billions of citizens. Right now, more than limit the population, we need to somehow come up with clean energy. Or so that is what I believe. But if lawmakers in the US are more concerned with lining their pocketbooks from oil companies, there is not a lot that can be done to save this world, even if a limit was set.

      1. cam8510 profile image93
        cam8510posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        2009 births in US      4,131,019
        2009 deaths in US    2,436,000
        2009 net gain            1,695019

        Yes, we are growing, but, to put it bluntly, we are in for two very harsh occurrences. 
        1.  Massive retirement from the work force
        2.  Massive numbers dying of old age

        Those two things are due to the aging of Baby Boomers.  Nothing can be done about the number of coming retirees.  We are just going to have to cope with lots of people leaving the job market and not enough to fill their shoes.  And we will pay lots more in taxes to support those retirees if we decide to keep Social Security and Medicare around. 

        And then what happens when the Baby Boomers all die?  We are going to have the opposite problem from what the discussion here is right now.  We won't have enough people to operate the country. 

        Anyway, just some fuel for the conversation.

        1. ThompsonPen profile image82
          ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is interesting - thank you for the numbers! However, we are complaining that there aren't enough jobs, now there will be more than enough smile

          1. cam8510 profile image93
            cam8510posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, jobs in the future will be plentiful, but that doesn't help right now, does it.  I don't think space is a problem either.  And there is plenty of food, it just doesn't get to the people who need it because of corrupt governments.

            1. ThompsonPen profile image82
              ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That is true to, the government does have a large and antagonistic roll in our evolution and humanity.

    2. 2besure profile image85
      2besureposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A two child limit would be a good start.  How to implement this would be another thing.  You would definitely have to violate some individual rights.

    3. djdaniel150 profile image61
      djdaniel150posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My brother doesn't agree with you! He has more kids to more girlfriends than I could ever count.

    4. Ericdierker profile image77
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We are just beginning to explore 3 frontiers: Space, Undersea and arctics. I do not think we need to panic yet. Limiting births by fiat is just plain scary when taken to it's inevitable conclusion.

    5. A Thousand Words profile image80
      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      i totally agree. It's why I always say that I only want to give birth to one child, but I do want to adopt because there are plenty of children who need parents and I don't want my son/daughter to be an only child.

      1. ThompsonPen profile image82
        ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think that is a good mentality for people who want a family. One of your own, and then look into the adoption agencies. There are many lovely children who want loving home, and you still get the chance to satisfy the personal need of having a child of your own.

    6. stayingalivemoma profile image90
      stayingalivemomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ?? Whatever happened to "be fruitful and multiply"? Anyway, as a mother of five children, I can honestly say, that I reject a limit on the number of children you can have. If you can afford to take care of them, why not?

      Why not limit how much coffee you can drink too? Or how much water we can use? Or, a limit on how much electricity we can use a day? Since we're so overpopulated, how about a limit on how much food you can buy in a week? Come on people, seriously?

      1. A Thousand Words profile image80
        A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "If you can afford to take care of them" is the problem. People are having more kids than we can all "afford" for them to have, as resources are limited, etc, thus, the topic of the thread. We are producing more people than can be fed according to what's available, what individual families can afford, and there is a lack of equal distribution because we treat food like a luxury and not a necessity.

        In Ny, limits had to be put on how much gas people could buy after Hurricane Sandy. Why? Because gas was scarce and everyone needed to be able to get some. If we treated food the same way, (a necessity) no one would be hungry, and this country would certainly be a lot less obese. But people enjoy the freedom to kill themselves in which every manner they please, and people keep having more babies than they can afford. Since food won't be allocated equally as it takes money to be able to feed people and everybody doesn't have that, than not much will change.

      2. profile image0
        Beth37posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I find this post highly disturbing. It's this kind of reasoning that causes crazed politicians to try to control the population. Mass abortion, euthanasia and genocide aren't far behind.

        http://endoftheamericandream.com/archiv … on-control

    7. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Approximately 11% of land in the U.S. is populated. No! We are not overpopulated.

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I wish there were a like button.

  2. Rain Defence profile image96
    Rain Defenceposted 4 years ago via iphone

    I read something today. There are 6.9 billion people in the world. There are 6.9 billion square metres in Lincolnshire, so there's enough room for everyone in the world to stand in Lincolnshire without touching.
    If you don't know Lincolnshire, it's a county in England. Look it up on a map.
    Lots of room left on earth!

    1. Shaddie profile image88
      Shaddieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So are you saying that people would be content to live in a roughly 3-foot-square area, surrounded by over 6 billion people who are also kept in cramped conditions with no room to sleep or even use the restroom? Where would you be buying your food? Where you go to work? Would you be drilling for oil, or butchering meat? Where is the room for those facilities? Certainly you wouldn't want to mine for fossil fuels in the same place where you nursed your child - perhaps you would need to spread out a little? Maybe you would need to separate yourself from the 6 billion other people you share your neighborhood with. Perhaps you wanted to own a farm, and maybe your kids wanted to start a sprawling business as they got older. Employees would want money to buy their own houses, you would have to account for the space those would take up. Obviously people would want to get dogs, so residences with yards would become quite popular. And what about the people who don't want to live in Lincolnshire because of its crappy weather? Maybe someone wants to live in Texas? Maybe they fancy Japan? Maybe they take their entire family to Germany and decide to strike up a colony of their own, with their own businesses, properties, laws, and populations?

      The statement that humans are able to fit into an entire county, or state, to prove that overpopulation is not an issue is as ridiculous as me saying all the flies in the world could fit into my house. Whether it is true or not, it doesn't mean there isn't a hell of a lot of flies.

  3. profile image0
    An AYMposted 4 years ago

    I believe we're horrifically over-populated.  I agree with the two child limit proposed earlier.
    I wouldn't be unhappy if another large plague took another large fraction out of humanity.

    1. stayingalivemoma profile image90
      stayingalivemomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      seriously?

    2. profile image0
      SandCastlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And would you volunteer to be one of the people killed in the plague? People usually say these sort of things when they are sacrificing the lives of others, "it was a risk I was willing to take", as long as the other sucker dies and not me.

  4. dailytop10 profile image88
    dailytop10posted 4 years ago

    I think there's no solution to overpopulation other than finding another inhabitable planet. Through infinity and beyond! hehe

  5. Shaddie profile image88
    Shaddieposted 4 years ago

    Humans are grossly overpopulated, and the only humane solution I can foresee is abstaining from procreation at all costs. I will never contribute to the numbers in our society.

    I have lived my entire life childless and have made it my priority to never birth a child of my own. It's the same logic as it is with feral cats. Spay and neuter! Humans for some reason think it's okay to populate beyond the capacity of their environment, but it is sickeningly underestimated how the long-term effects of making a hundred babies who will make a thousand babies who will inevitably make a million babies will have on the future of this planet.

    1. ThompsonPen profile image82
      ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I completely agree! We have to get over the ego which says we deserve to procreate more than anything else, and look at the long term bigger picture!

      1. theupside profile image60
        theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        TP: your crazy ideas are just that to me. T.P.
        Guilt is not a virtue. Sorry. I think you missed the bigger picture and just painted your own...

        1. ThompsonPen profile image82
          ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Responsibility is a virtue. I respect your different ideas. We are each a speck of colored pigment which helps to create the vast rainbow of existence, we couldn't be complete without you. smile

  6. theupside profile image60
    theupsideposted 4 years ago

    Wow. You all probably despise the sight of children. I feel sorry for you. Life is amazing. By the way. Did you guys come up with this theory all by your selves? Amazing. There are millions of acres that are unpopulated. Dont believe me? Hop in a plane and go somewhere.

    1. ThompsonPen profile image82
      ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      habitable places? That's the key, is those places aren't populated for a reason. not only that, but it isn't just people that we need to be thinking about. We are not the only creatures on this earth, and are not the only ones deserving to live here. Plus, keeping in mind too that we still need plants and trees to help us to breathe, oceans to sustain our life, area to grow and raise food, etc

      1. theupside profile image60
        theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe they should put you in a cage too and send you to the zoo? Since animals have the same rights as people... What makes you better than them? Why should your fate be any different?

        1. ThompsonPen profile image82
          ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          exactly, what DOES make me any better than them?

          1. theupside profile image60
            theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            obviously your ability to pass judgement.. of course... but, once you despise your own greatness (intellect) and take up a place in the same level as an animal, you are now on a way trip into guilt and shame-ville which then allows other human beings without your same concern for nature, to convince you of your grave and ''unnatural'' flaws (wanting to procreate, eating meat, etc..) and tax you to DEATH. This is the modern and 'CIVIL' way of doing life. Mind you these other humans are the same ones who convinced you nature is worth ''fighting'' for. Looks like you have been had.

            1. ThompsonPen profile image82
              ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, when you have no trees to help you breathe and no system to help sustain life then you'll realize nature is always worth fighting for. I suggest you take a look at the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It's got some good ideas in it.

        2. ThompsonPen profile image82
          ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          We created this mess, we need to be responsible enough to fix it. We have gotten out of control, and drastic measures should be taken. And if that just means only two kids per house hold then so be it. If that means that a generation doesn't have kids between the years of 2020 and 2030, so be it. But things can't continue on the way they have been

          1. theupside profile image60
            theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            WE? No no, I am me. Not the vast population that came before. Like I said, the guilt trip... its a bitch.  appreciation for yourself goes out the window...

            1. ThompsonPen profile image82
              ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              taking responsibility isn't taking on a guilt trip. That's like saying I feel guilty because my roommates don't like to do the dishes and leave them everywhere. But for the quality of my health and their health I clean up after them. I take the responsibility of doing what they wouldn't.

          2. EmpressFelicity profile image80
            EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hmm, I believe China tried limiting family size in the way that you're suggesting. It's resulted in horrific abuses - forced abortions and imprisonment.

            Also, We. Are. Not. Overpopulated.

    2. scottcgruber profile image89
      scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Have you ever heard of this thing called "food?"

      It's what we grow on those millions of acres of "unpopulated" land. People don't just need a place to physically be. We need food, water, clothing, and livelihoods. The more of us there are, the fewer of these resources are available.

      Life isn't so amazing when the entire planet is starving.

      1. theupside profile image60
        theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Food. Yeah I heard of it. What do you think I am... stupid?

        1. scottcgruber profile image89
          scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The evidence is certainly pointing in that direction.

          1. theupside profile image60
            theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Haha. I enjoy some good passive aggressive behavior. But anyway. To reply to your last two posts pointed in my direction. I do think food is unevenly distributed, and that millions of starving people located in one place on the planet makes it LOOK like they are over populated, but no, they are not. Hungry people tend to huddle together to share body warmth. Poor bastards.

            1. scottcgruber profile image89
              scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That's pretty much the definition of overpopulation. Millions of people starving in one place on the planet because they aren't able to obtain enough resources to survive. That IS overpopulation.


              I'll add this to the evidence pile.

              1. theupside profile image60
                theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Millions of people in one place aka the third world countries. Once food is distributed properly
                ''overpopulation'' ceases. Many people gathering together to hopefully get another day to live, may look like overpopulation to you, but to those who are hungry, this is not a problem, but a solution to a greater threat. They have better chances of survival working together. I still say food distribution is the real problem.

  7. theupside profile image60
    theupsideposted 4 years ago

    Maybe all you people who believe that the world is overpopulated should go on and <TOS violating text snipped>? Since you really believe all your opinions are worth more than the average person's, you shall give them the example. Be the change so to speak?

    What? None of you educated folks are followers of Ghandi? I bet you are

    1. ThompsonPen profile image82
      ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Telling people to go kill themselves is not appropriate. This is a hot topic, and an important topic. It is not meant insight disrespect or heatedness. This is a civil discussion

      1. theupside profile image60
        theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        civility is an accuse to hide the real world away from your sensitive eyes. You can not go on public forums thinking everyone should take the nightmarish things you say lightly. Sorry if I offended. Don't take it personal. My opinions are from an objective point of view, aka non personal.

        1. ThompsonPen profile image82
          ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I realize it is a debate, and I'm not being overly sensitive. It is a reasonable discussion and as I said before, a real problem. There are ways to have polite discussions/debates without being rude.
          Not once has any one on here said that their opinions are worth more than any one else's. As you've said, this is a public forum, it is an idea place. No one is saying people are wrong for wanting to do what they are biologically designed to do. I asked what people though, and people are responding.
          It is no one's fault that they are born here. We have inherited a great many problems from generations which lacked the foresight to see the troubles we are facing now. It is no one's fault they were born, however, what we do with that life, to help the world as a whole or to live individually is up to that person. We no longer have the luxury of being able to think just what we want on a small individual scale. We need to consider what is right as a whole.
          No one is suggesting mass genocide. There are no nightmareish ideas here.
          I just want to ensure that every one is respectful about communicating their ideas, sir

          1. theupside profile image60
            theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ahh. Don't you see Individuality is the only way to grow in life? If you don't think for yourself, you will never truly experience anything that you can call your own.  Overpopulation is not a problem. Just because it is on the news does not mean it is true. (Think for yourself 101. ) We do have the luxury of thinking what ever the hell we want, but many do not see it. They are too busy worrying about how wrong they are all the time. Free will is now not free.

            "Hey! You gotta pay for that!"

            1. Shaddie profile image88
              Shaddieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You wax the promotion of individuality, yet when the individuals in this topic who hold opinions that differ from yours voice their own personal beliefs, you jump on them faster than a Tsavo lion. It would be redundant to state the hypocrisy of your actions.

              I am unsure of how you believe overpopulation to be a nonproblem at this time, but I am more amazed that you deny the fact that it will be eventually. Many scholars and economists throughput the years have predicted that humans, if they continue the way that they have been, will eventually run out of resources. This is scientific fact, due to the fact that there is a finite amount of said resources, and an unending supply of humans.

              Overpopulation is common in animals. The cycle that biologists document is a complete utilization of natural resources (food, water, etc) by said animals, followed by a period of starvation or disease brought on by the stress and difficulty of survival in less-than-ideal conditions. After a significant drop in numbers, the land is able to replenish itself. The cycle then begins anew...

              It is not degrading or presumptuous of someone to say that humans fall to the same basic rules of animals in nature. We are all a part of the Earth, and it's not "hippie mumbo jumbo" to understand that we are subject to its carrying capacity.

              1. DS Duby profile image89
                DS Dubyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I couldn't agree more and those who do argue are generally the ones who have 6 kids and are unable to support them without assistance. it's really selfish stupidity on their part.

                1. theupside profile image60
                  theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I actually have zero kids. I am smart enough to not bring another life into this world. It sucks. I don't see the outlook being too bright either.

            2. profile image0
              An AYMposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              To say overpopulation isn't a problem reflects a lack of insight into how Biology actually works, TheUpside.  Maybe we can alter the landscape enough to sustain ourselves but it atrociously diminishes the population of all other species.  I don't live in a big city, but I still never see anything larger than a squirrel or pigeon because those were the only things that happened to be lucky/smart/off-the-ground enough to avoid all being dead.

              Out of 2.6 billions years of evolution you're somehow the one single product of it that's too important to never have to sacrifice anything?  Yes, how dare anyone propose over-population and a need to live responsibly, all other life is dirt beneath your feet. It's about having some reverence for life and caring about anything other than our own inconsequential selves.

              Life is of equal merit, regardless of the species.

              1. theupside profile image60
                theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It's not overpopulation that is the problem. It's over production and uneven distribution of food. Somehow the experts can't seem to figure out to fix that problem..

                1. ThompsonPen profile image82
                  ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  experts haven't thought one through? Oh, silly experts, you must not have that expertise that comes along with being an expert. Don't worry, we the laymen have the answers for you. Don't you fret.
                  Perhaps they considered that as well?

                2. ThompsonPen profile image82
                  ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm sorry, that wasn't a very nice way of coming across. My apologies, honestly.

                  1. theupside profile image60
                    theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't sweat it. I am not here to make friends.

                3. scottcgruber profile image89
                  scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You seem to think these are unrelated problems. They are not. They are, in fact, two aspects of the same problem. Population growth rates are highest in the least-developed countries, while most-developed countries get disproportionately more of the world's food and resources. These two problems go hand-in-hand, and you cannot hope to address one without also tackling the other.

                4. profile image0
                  An AYMposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Overpopulation IS the problem.  Consuming 2000 calories a day at the global average lifespan of 67.2 years when multiplied by the global population is 342,103,712,569,248,000 (I know a lot of people eat less than 2000 a day, a lot also eat more than 2000 so it's not a perfect figure).  There's a reason higher tiered organisms tend to have lower populations than producers and primary consumers - because the energy exchange between tiers is inefficient due to us not all being perfect machines.
                  We are very much overpopulated.

    2. profile image0
      An AYMposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think that's actually a valid and good question.  I actively find pleasure in my existence.  What's your perspective on that, since you seem not to?

      1. theupside profile image60
        theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, serious answer.
        With enough exposure to and experience in the dirty places of the world, one's world becomes more and more depressing to look at. Seeing all the countless people suffering is damaging to one's soul. I do gain pleasure out of life by gracing the world with my presence and speaking my mind.

        I think its funny so people love to point out all the problems but never do shit about it. That is the point to my post. Those people ''over there'' seem to be in some kind of trouble no? Well instead of talking about it, do something about it. Your concerns never reach their bellies or cure of them of their sicknesses. In general, I believe humanity is losing it's empathy.

        Who is going to come to your aid when it is your turn to die?

        1. profile image0
          An AYMposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with you whole heartedly in regards to humanity losing its empathy.  I think we've lost empathy for different life more than empathy for human life.  And I'm glad you find pleasure in life.

          My plain, serious answer, is that I really don't think humans are worth more than other life.  Callous as it might sound my concern isn't about people starving in different places.  I care more about the capacity for life we suck out of everything else to further ourselves.  I'd rather more people everywhere simply die and be taken over by weeds/bugs/animals/ect.

          We may think eachother's perspectives are wrong, but it makes me happy to be able to exchange the core values to each our sides if nothing else.  I suppose it makes further debate... more or less unnecessary on this little branch of this.  My attention goes elsewhere now.

          1. djdaniel150 profile image61
            djdaniel150posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            My aunt says empathy is something that must be taught, or you will never have it. I don't know if this is entirely true or not. But, I will say this, my father once presented me with a scenario, a very logical one at that. If you have 2 dogs, and you teach one to fish, teach it tricks, show it lots of love and affection, but you ignore the other dog, what will happen to the 2nd dog that was ignored? Basically what he meant was, our external influences greatly shape who we are, how we behave, and how we perceive and value anything, including life itself. All being said, if you aren't shown empathy, you will never have it. I have to agree with his thoughts, this seems pretty logical. For instance, our intelligence is not fixed either, it depends a lot on our external influences from the world around us. I discovered this in college as I took an IQ test before beginning college, in which my IQ was 104. After 2 years of college my IQ is now 135. Our external influences can seriously shape our lives, who we are, and bring about a positive or negative nature for ourselves. People don't make themselves violent or angry, its the negative influence of others that cause this.

            1. profile image0
              SandCastlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't agree that people are not shown empathy are not empathetic. No, some people are naturally giving. It's nature and nurture, not just nurture. And it is scary to say that people do not make themselves violent and that their violence is caused by the negative influences of others; that takes away personal responsibility, "he made me do it". No, we have a choice.

              1. profile image0
                SandCastlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                correction: people who are not shown

            2. profile image0
              SandCastlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't agree that people are not shown empathy are not empathetic. No, some people are naturally giving. It's nature and nurture, not just nurture. And it is scary to say that people do not make themselves violent and that their violence is caused by the negative influences of others; that takes away personal responsibility, "he made me do it". No, we have a choice.

      2. profile image0
        SandCastlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "I actively find pleasure in my existence"",  yet you wish a plague on others. Nice.

  8. PeppermintPaddy profile image70
    PeppermintPaddyposted 4 years ago

    No.

  9. PeppermintPaddy profile image70
    PeppermintPaddyposted 4 years ago

    Shaddie, I don't know about you, but I have yet to feel cramped. The population is unequally distributed throughout the world.

    1. theupside profile image60
      theupsideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My thoughts exactly...

  10. Rain Defence profile image96
    Rain Defenceposted 4 years ago via iphone

    Of course I'm not! But take a look at how tiny that area is on a map and it will show you there is still lots of room.

  11. innersmiff profile image71
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    Do you know how population is stabilised? By giving people a good quality of life. The need for extra children is most prevalent in poor countries where many children is of benefit of the parents to work the land. Allow these countries free trade and stop preventing them from building coal plants so they can produce goods people want to buy and therefore give the country great prosperity.

    Then, I say, the more the merrier!

    Shame on those who suggest child limitation policies. Not only is this barbaric and a violation of individual rights (the only rights that exist), I think we have learned that such policies produce horrific side-effects.

    1. profile image0
      An AYMposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My concern is that when everyone turns their land into nothing else than space for crops and livestock it pushes out other biodiversity.

      I think it's more ethical to ask people to live responsibly than it is to dominate all other known life.  We are not the only thing that matters, but ego disagrees.

      1. innersmiff profile image71
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Define what you mean by biodiversity.

        1. profile image0
          An AYMposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A variety of species with a healthy enough population to sustain themselves.  Plants, bugs, subterranean life, small mammals and reptiles, larger mammals/reptiles/insects, birds, everything?  Altering the plant population changes/limits things from the ground up.

          1. innersmiff profile image71
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ok, well, people exercising their right to grow crops and raise livestock is not 'dominating other known life'. There are initiatives to promote bio-diveristy that don't involve violating individual rights too.

    2. scottcgruber profile image89
      scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Who is preventing poor countries from building coal plants now? They already are, and they are seeing the "benefits" in increased rates of lung disease.

      Yes, the best way to reduce population growth is to improve quality of life - access to credit, quality health care, etc. But these take time to show results, and a policy that discourages large families can help bridge that gap.


      Know what else is barbaric? Famine. Famine is very efficient at killing children, especially the very young.
      More is not merrier when there's not enough food to feed the planet. There are terrible side-effects of any policy, but these pale in comparison to the side-effects of unlimited population growth.

      1. innersmiff profile image71
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Global environmental programs penalise power companies that build plants. However, in economically developing countries, fossil fuel power is often the most efficient. LED countries have the highest pollution levels, but the answer is not prevent them from developing economically by cutting off their power, it is to let them develop. As the country grows, the market can take measures to increase safety and reduce pollution, but there has to be the resources and capital there to do it. This may take a bit of time, yes, but the important thing is raising people's quality of life.

        Famine is bad, but nobody is suggesting creating famine on purpose. If you accept the point that good quality of life stabilises population, your point is unnecessary - we've already established that not artificially inhibiting population growth does not necessarily equal famine. In my opinion, non-violent solutions have to be preferable to violent ones. And guess what? Allowing free trade and economic growth in third world countries will free up more resources for more effective farming and avoid famine.

        1. scottcgruber profile image89
          scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What programs, exactly?

  12. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    The average person is already having less children, one or two seems to be the norm. You can't legislate how many children people have.

  13. profile image0
    Bronwyn J Hansenposted 4 years ago

    With my family, the number of children per marriage has declined with each generation since we arrived in Australia 150 years ago. I have no children, while my three brothers have two each. Our mother was raised an only child, while our father was one of six boys, five of whom had children, ours being the largest branch (4). My grandfather was the eldest of four, and his mother and father were one of eleven and fourteen respectively. The generation before that is the exception, with six children.
    There was a call by the Federal Government here in Australia in the 90's to have more children. They even introduced a AU$5000 payment per child. It became known as the plasma (TV) bonus, because most parents spent the money on anything but the child.
    I believe that better town/community planning and education on land use is the answer, not legislation.

  14. Healthyannie profile image76
    Healthyannieposted 4 years ago

    Yes there is a going to be a massive problem in the future especially when you consider the economic downturn. Will there be enough jobs?
    I think we will certainly need think carefully about our resources such as food, transport, work and much more. Perhaps we need to move away from thinking about our world as countries and adopt a much more global perspective. Annie

  15. DS Duby profile image89
    DS Dubyposted 4 years ago

    I personally agree completely especially the people who usually have the  most children are the ones who can't provide for them without assistance and they offer their children no chance to become successful.

  16. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Yes a two baby limit !Blond hair , blue eyes  That works !,and while your a it , limit free speech again , and oh by the way  why should anyone have more that  one thousand dollars to thier name or this . If you fail at marriage once , you're out !---------Nooooo  No more for you !  Listen all kidding asside , nature has a way with dealing  with  overpopulation in  any species . And humans are about as forthinking as   Lemmings ....., leave it to the little "hitlers" of society  to control others ! Makes me think alot of " Solar and Wind towers are great but  Not in my back yard  ".

    1. profile image0
      An AYMposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You have an interesting relationship with grammar.

    2. ThompsonPen profile image82
      ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'd have solar and wind towers in my back yard. There are plenty of orphans out there waiting for families. Why doesn't society focus on adopting as an amazing alternative?

    3. Ericdierker profile image77
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Horse back makes a good case.
      I am youngest of six and adopted. And while I am no great shake. My children have made amazing contributions to this world and the inhabitants thereon.

  17. Bradley Coldbrook profile image51
    Bradley Coldbrookposted 4 years ago

    I agree with theupside smile. If you've traveled by plane, it is clear to see there is planty of room to expand civilization. Utilizing our technologies, human resources, and will to get along, there is plenty of room on Earth, and even more throughout the universe.

    1. A Thousand Words profile image80
      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Overpopulation doesn't mean there is no more inhabitable space. It means that, with the spce currently occupied, the resources, etc, there are MANY people who are starving. Anytime there's not enough for EVERYONE to eat, or it can't be evenly distributed, there are too many people. Many people equate overpopulation with what one might see in India (people are EVERYWHERE), but on a global scale, that is not the case. India as a country is overpopulated, though. But not because of the number of people, it's because they can't feed all the people who live there.

  18. Matthew Kirk profile image86
    Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago

    David attenborough ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough _ believes that we should all pledge to have no more than two children, this would maintain the current population level and reduce it naturally due to unfortunate but inevitable deaths and diseases that occur naturally in children and adults as well as accidents etc... I think that is something we can all do, and though I have not had children yet, I will follow this rule.

    1. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Totally concur!

  19. aware profile image70
    awareposted 4 years ago

    we are not over populated  . we are to densely populated. . all humans standing side by side would fit into the state of Utah.. we  throw away 40% of our food resource worldwide every year.  a dumpsters lid is a well fed mouth.

  20. wtaylorjr2001 profile image77
    wtaylorjr2001posted 4 years ago

    Although I don't know if we are overpopulated I believe that there are at least two ways to deal with that subject. The first valid way, as you suggest, is to limit population growth. In my opinion your suggestions are both valid and intelligent. Another valid way of dealing with population size is to expand  the size of the livable environment. As technology improves and capitalism runs its course, this, I believe, will be the most feasible.  This post http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 358AAW25xg suggests that it is feasible even now to begin a migration seaward. We can expand the potential size of our living environment by moving into the sea. As larger numbers of people and communities do so, products for those people will be produced by more and more suppliers, and competition will drive prices down. I personally think that this is the best solution to overpopulation because it will drive an improvement in our economy.

    1. ThompsonPen profile image82
      ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That is an interesting idea and solution. Thank you for sharing. The concern I have with expanding seaward (I have read about people who have essentially built a floating island) is what it might do to the oceans. Our oceans are very crucial to how our ( the Earth's) system works to sustain life.

      1. wtaylorjr2001 profile image77
        wtaylorjr2001posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You have an excellent point. I never even considered how moving seaward would effect the earth. Any action is going to produce results. Some of the results are knowable, hopefully these would include the goal of said action. Some results are unknowable. Knowable results can be modeled and predicted. Here we have the various sciences to help us, to guide us. Here is where your idea concerning the limitation of expansion is crucial. (This occurred to me after you brought up the possibility of ruining the ocean) Regulations must be set after a thorough analysis of the project by system scientists and system engineers. But that's not all. In order for something to be knowable it must be a pattern. It must be repeated. There must be a record, a memory of it. I don't know a lot about oceans, but I do think that they make up the majority of the planets volume. I think that it is possible to experience phenomena outside of what is predicted by science. (Not likely, just possible) I am not talking about supernatural affects, just relations outside of things covered in our scientific models. Obviously for these I have no idea what to do. The only thing I can think of is to have the experience and develop models for it. So moving into the ocean, in my opinion, needs to be regulated as you have suggested for population growth.

    2. djdaniel150 profile image61
      djdaniel150posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting idea taylor!

  21. frantisek78 profile image82
    frantisek78posted 4 years ago

    Why not try to fix something a little bit more manageable - like eating less junk food - than global overpopulation? You'll be a lot happier if you just let these sort of things go and just go with the flow. Governments have been unable to do much about overpopulation, so do you think people are responsible enough to "save ourselves as a species"? What is there to save anyway? This is just like people trying to stop global warming. The process is probably irreversible. All we can reasonably do is just see what happens in the future without getting on some moral high horse and complaining about why "humanity" doesn't do anything about these "problems". Stop trying to pretend that you and your ideas are not products of this same humanity. These are the cards we were dealt at this point in history, no use complaining about it or trying to solve unsolvable problems. Relax, it's just people!

  22. peeples profile image88
    peeplesposted 4 years ago

    I agree we are over populated, however I am one of those people who has 3 children. I see many solutions, but none would be allowed. Just in the USA we have over 500,000 children in the foster care system. To put it bluntly (I'm sure not in a nice way) these children should have never been born (me included since I was once one of them). People should be required to meet certain criteria before having children. Age, stability, employment, and mental state should all be evaluated before being allowed to have children. Birth Control should be free for all (both women and MEN). Abortions should be free to anyone who could not meet the reguired criteria yet still ended up pregnant, but there should be community service issued to those women (and the man who helped concieve) to help repay their debt. Schools and parents should provide more sex ed, spending more time on teaching safe sex. Lastly we should encourage people who want to adopt to do it from foster care where the price is much more affordable (though they may not be able to get the cute blue eyed white newborn they could have gotten from an agency).

    1. ThompsonPen profile image82
      ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. I have always said that I think people should have to go through a process similar to getting a license. It would provide classes on the best means of anger management, strategic problem solving for things that might come up such as money issues, money management, and so on.
      And i very much agree with you that birth control should be free for men as much as it is women, and same with abortions.
      I agree with you all around. Thanks for your input!

    2. Matthew Kirk profile image86
      Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @peeples

      What a scary thing to propose! Good job you're not in power!

      How would you police people who fail in their 'applications to become parents'? Compulsory abortions? Why not sterilize the population, everyone undesireable or who can't afford kids? Or as you say fine them for having children! It is our biological right and instinct to have children, neither you or anyone else has the right to try and force people not to have children. It sounds to me that you just want to diminish the working class.

      How many of those 500,000 (if it really is that number) orphans have lost their parents tragically in accidents or to disease? Should they not be allowed too? Also your proposal that blue eyed white newborn babies are somehow more desirable than others? Only the people who can pay for them are allowed to have the blue eyed, blonde haired white ones?

      You should probably change your name to 'the fuhrer'. If I were HP staff I would ban you for your above post.

      1. peeples profile image88
        peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So funny. Reading your post I can tell you have never actually studied the adoption rates or the foster care system. White babies are sadly the demand here in the USA and sadly 500,000 is a conservative number. Usually children whos parents have both died end up in the care of family not foster care. 73% of adopive parents are white. In private domestic adoptions 50% of adopted children are white.
        You are correct about one thing, it is our right to have children. That doesn't mean everyone should. I suppose you are in favor of encouraging released pediophiles to reproduce? You can't honestly say that there aren't people who shouldn't have children. As for the restrictions I mentioned, age is showing to be one of the most importnant aspects. In illinois over 60% of children in foster care were born to teen moms. Now that doesn't mean all teen moms will abuse their children, however it does mean we need to start looking at the facts and trying to prevent the problem. By the way, I never said I had a right to do anything, and I actually said that none of them would ever happen.

        1. Matthew Kirk profile image86
          Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          They would never happen for good reason!

          You still suggested white babies should be paid for, where others should not!

          1. peeples profile image88
            peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't say that. I am saying that it is what happens. It's crap that the stats are that, but they are. Personally I don't think ANY child should be "bought". However white babies are the biggest demand by baby buyers. I am stating facts not my opinion.

        2. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If they won't adopt a non-white or disabled baby then their "need" for a child must not be very strong.  What next, only picking kids that match the decor?

          1. peeples profile image88
            peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sadly yes. The people who do this should not be allowed to adopt, but if they didn't the private adoption agencies would go out of business.

      2. scottcgruber profile image89
        scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Godwin's Law ++

  23. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    I have to say though , on a radio  talk show a couple of years ago , I listened to a group of moms talking about thier choices  to quit thier jobs , raise their kids at home , to hell with latch-keying thier families !  Younger moms and dads too ! And I thought -perfect , no more working moms .What a change that  would make to the mental health of the next generation .  This whole american  system of requiring two incomes is  bogus and incredibly difficult for families.

    1. Ericdierker profile image77
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Whoa horseback, My wife and mother of our son works. She could no more stay home all day everyday than jump to the moon. Our decision to have a child was combined with the knowledge of my love to teach and be with our child. It works great.  On the funny side, her income pays taxes and for health insurance and her car stuff and not much more.

  24. Bard of Ely profile image88
    Bard of Elyposted 4 years ago

    I don't think the planet is overpopulated but the way people are crammed into cities and on islands causes it to look as if it is because it is obviously impossible to produce enough food for these people where they are. The UK, for example, is badly overpopulated and so is Tenerife where I live. It would be impossible to give each person or family enough space for a garden in such places because there is not enough land. So a vast number live in high rise blocks and flats. Food and other goods have to be imported.

  25. ocbill profile image70
    ocbillposted 4 years ago

    Population studies show that 80% of the people live near the coast.  I know , NV, AZ, UT, TX has a lot of  undeveloped interior land. As far as food resources available, you are right the demand will become too much which is why we get franken-foods. Don't look-up that term as you may not eat what you normally eat anymore. Even food scientists have now changed their habits.

    1. ThompsonPen profile image82
      ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A lot of areas are undeveloped because they can't support quality living in those areas. look at those states you've listed. All are mostly in desert, which means it's difficult to get water to those areas

  26. prettydarkhorse profile image64
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    No, the people are concentrated in some areas and countries, population density. With regards to who consume the resources, some countries consume more with less population,.

  27. Joseph Renne profile image69
    Joseph Renneposted 4 years ago

    I say do nothing! The strong will survive! Earth can take care of her self.

  28. Joseph041167 profile image59
    Joseph041167posted 4 years ago

    I remembered this and came back to it through the HP search box. It is too lengthy for me to read all the comments now, I read some. I need to study more on this to make a real good comment. Reality, Truth, our Universe, is somewhere between casually indifferant to overtly hostile. Reality is not meant to cater to our needs and make us comfortable. Darwin said that any given species will eventually over populate. They then go to war and kill each other off. Right before war starts though, desease, famine, and plague happen. You see this in the animal kingdom. Chimpanzees, even deer, have war, just like we do. Any herd has to self regulate, if the state doesn't help it out with bag limits. People are no differant. I got on Google a while back and punched in something like how many people are on earth, and then, how many acres of land are there. I did not like what I saw. The conclusion was that there were only 4.5 acres a peice, and this too will be gone in a single generation. I do not know if they took into account of how many acres are actually habitable. Nobody wants to live at the South Pole. We are looking at a war with biblical monster proportions. I suppose we could do birthing policies as China has done. All of these are unpopular notions, nor do I like them. I hope that some of the comments that I read in here are correct, about all the baby boomers dieing off and a huge surplus of jobs, that would be absolutely awesome. I need to research that though, and I fear the worst.

  29. Joseph041167 profile image59
    Joseph041167posted 4 years ago

    I forgot to mention. I live here in Nashville, since 84. I am miserable. It is elbow to elbow. We are tripping over each other. We are always waiting in line. There is no privacy. There is noise pollution everywhere. We are always in a long line. There is traffic everywhere. The roads are congested. It is impossible to go shopping. You cannot walk down the isle. There are too many people everywhere. It is elbow to elbow and we are really tripping over each other. In another generation, insanity is going to be quite common.

    1. profile image0
      Beth37posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That has not at all been my experience of Nashville.

  30. profile image0
    SandCastlesposted 4 years ago

    Interesting discussion. What about people who are stigmatized for not having kids? Childless adults are often called selfish. I've heard women say that women who are not mothers aren't real women. Many even stigmatize people who adopt-what you can't have your own? I don't have kids. I have pets. Animals need to cared for too. I chose not to have kids because I don't have any extended family. Yet the first thing I hear from many people is, "So do you have any kids?" followed by a strange look, "Oh, no kids eh?"  It's interesting how many people seem to resent people who don't have kids yet the world is supposedly overpopulated and if more people didn't have kids it would mean more resources for others. And people who don't have kids can make great volunteers and can help kids and the world in other ways.

    1. profile image0
      SandCastlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      correction: animals need to be cared for too. Sometimes the world forgets about the other forms of life out there and living space for animals and enough room for them to live and hunt and roam.

      1. ThompsonPen profile image82
        ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly, I've been saying that! People don't take into account that the world doesn't just belong to Humans. Animals live here too, and what's more, have a valuable part in the health of the planet. Look at bees! They don't take up very much room (Other than flight space, which can go on for miles), they're insects - but if they die off completely then we have no way of pollinating vegetation, which puts a huge problem on food production. The creatures of the sea, too, have a huge impact on our ocean (obviously), and contribute to the way it functions too, once again, provides healthy food for us, and has other ecological duties.
        And I agree also with your point about the social expectancy to reproduce. It's an old belief that we need to have children, ingrained in all of us from times long ago when survival was more difficult, and a family which produced ten children may only see three of them reach maturity. There's that instinct to keep the herd alive, to keep the population up, but at the end of the day, our population has exceeded what nature intended

        1. profile image0
          SandCastlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I read an article and a female boss who said she wouldn't hire someone who didn't have kids. That's prejudice. I also have Asperger Syndrome (diagnosed) and while anyone has the right to have kids, without family support, it wouldn't be wise for someone like me to tackle having children when it's so hard for me to figure out how to live in the world myself. How would the kids be socialized? I think kids need a loving family support system. Sometimes people have kids just to say that they can and they do not even consider if they would make good parents. I have heard that many parents say that they don't even like their kids and that breaks my heart.

          1. profile image0
            SandCastlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            correction: I read an article about a female boss

    2. profile image0
      SandCastlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      correction: animals need to be cared for too. Sometimes the world forgets about the other forms of life out there and living space for animals and enough room for them to live and hunt and roam.

  31. profile image0
    Beth37posted 4 years ago

    There's plenty of room in Canada. Let's everybody just squish north a few miles.

  32. Monis Mas profile image81
    Monis Masposted 4 years ago

    There is also plenty of room in Poland!

  33. profile image0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago

    I think one needs to define what over popularion means.

    If there are fewer resources than there are people, then, yes, we are over populated.

    If you look at the oil situation, you find that the USA cannot provide enough gas for all the people that require it, so that's a sign of overpopulation.

 
working