jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (30 posts)


  1. gmwilliams profile image84
    gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago

    According to the current United States Census Bureau report, the world population is 7.048 billion and counting.   This is totally beyond human sustainability.    If the population keeps on increasing, there will be more competition for the world's dwindling resources.   There is still poverty in the developing countries as a result of there are more population than there are resources available.    Many developing countries such as China have implemented a policy to control the human population with good results.    What methodology would YOU implement to control the burgeoning world population?

    1. Shanna11 profile image93
      Shanna11posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Female infanticide is a 'good' result?

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        No!  China has implemented a methodology which limits couple to one child per couple.    I was not addressing the dark side such as female infanticide-that is totally abominable!  Although some "cultures" are resorting to this!   What I was addressing is preventive methods!

        1. Shanna11 profile image93
          Shanna11posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Shouldn't we address the dark side of of preventive methods though? Ignoring the downfalls of such methodology can only be dangerous in the long run.

        2. EmpressFelicity profile image75
          EmpressFelicityposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Sadly in some cultures, female infanticide is the inevitable outcome of draconian population policies.

          Even if you implemented such a policy in - say - a country like Britain, it would result in a massive increase in abortion and would be a gross intrusion on people's civil liberties.

    2. EmpressFelicity profile image75
      EmpressFelicityposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I wouldn't.

      As more countries (hopefully) pull themselves out of poverty and implement better sanitation and medical care, the population will slow down naturally. This is because people won't feel that they have to have 8, 9 or 10 children (or even 4 or 5 children) in order to ensure that at least one of them lives into adulthood.

      This "everybody panic, the population is exploding!!" meme does my head in.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        We've been on the brink of meltdown for a long time, depending on who you listen to.

        These projectionists never take into account innovation and the natural decline of population growth as an area becomes more advanced.

        One reason: In a wealthy nation like the US, most upper-middle class families have to have two people working to sustain their lifestyle. Everyone wants that lifestyle, so it is more difficult to have children and also have wealth. The more wealth the 'Jones' have, the harder it is to keep up and have kids.

        1. EmpressFelicity profile image75
          EmpressFelicityposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, exactly. And parts of Europe (I think Germany and Italy to take two examples) are actually worried because their birth rate is too low to keep the population stable.

          Britain's population is only going up because we have a lot of immigration (and immigrants, who tend to come from poorer countries, have more children).

          You'd really think the population propagandists would have done some demographics/maths and figured all this out. But perhaps they have another agenda.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            From 1999 to 2008, Europe's population increased by 3 million, lol.

            Yeah, looks like they're full over there.

    3. Havenite profile image59
      Haveniteposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The US kills ten billion farm animals a year and feeds about 80% of its annual crops to them. I would get rid of all subsidies to meat farmers so people would be forced to eat the crops usually fed to animals. If this was done worldwide then seven billion humans or so would not be a problem.

    4. Jonas James profile image60
      Jonas Jamesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Overpopulation is a popular myth, but in reality there is no need to worry about it.  Population growth rate is in decline and has been since 1963.  Take a look at the conclusions of the UN report on World Population Aging to see why overpopulation is nothing more than a myth.

      http://www.un.org/esa/population/public … g19502050/

  2. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago

    I don't think it's unsustainable. The growth rate of the world is slowing, even as regionally in Asia and Africa we have huge growth. Every region independently follows a natural curve, where growth will slow.

    The thing is, we constantly make advances. We ween ourselves from limited resources as we grow. Very little of what we rely on is a limited resource(mostly oil), and we will naturally use less and less as new technology comes out.

    Consider the amount of technological growth we have had in the last two decades. Tech. growth builds upon itself in an exponential manner, meaning we are very likely to have the tech for 100% reusable everything in a relatively short period.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      +1 Over population may even get to be an issue in some areas for a small period but it is very rare for human overpopulation to be an issue (it happened a few times in ancient China) but as Jaxson pointed out our ability to create resources is constantly growing, technology has never advanced so fast and there is no reason to believe it won't continue to do so and even speed up.

      Having said that I don't criticize the one child policy despite some of it's effects being horrifying because China actually needed it at one point, I think that point may have come and gone however.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this


        We can't agree!

        I change my mind, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!


  3. fpherj48 profile image75
    fpherj48posted 5 years ago

    I assume you are suggesting that "government" implement a method to control a population surge?  Perhaps not.....but I doubt you were asking what each individual family might "choose" to do.....
    In the United States of America.....if we are to REMAIN the U.S. of America (and please, let us believe we are!).......the government would be blasted into outer space (where they belong anyway) by our country's people.  Government is pushing their damned luck, as it is, in imposing, obstructing and boring into the private lives/decisions of Americans.
    The best we might hope to implement may be an incentive program, to couples who would be willing to place a limit/restriction on the number of children they bring into the world.
    Whether or not I agree with the fact that there is pending doom to our very survival, due to this issue, I see no acceptable, realistic solution in terms of regulating a very basic human right and/or freedom. 
    On this same note...(.just an iota aside the subject you present).....I would be 100% in favor of a country-wide mission to improve our adoption laws and procedures, to encourage more and more couples to choose adoption rather than IVF.  There are hundreds of thousands of babies born each year that become adoptable.  However, IMO, the system is seriously flawed and as a result, is not a preferred choice to couples who might more readily consider adoption.  This needs to be dealt with and overhauled completely.   
    More adoptions (in lieu of IVF) would lower the birth rate considerably.....in a legal, healthy, and acceptable manner........    Just my opinion.

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      + 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times!  Totally concur!   I believe that education is the key.  When people are educated to the importance of effective contraception and the benefits it will be to the family and the society in general, they will be more likely to use contraception.    Government interference and mandates will only work initially but it is up to the person himself/herself to want to better their family situation and in turn, the society and planet!

  4. JKenny profile image95
    JKennyposted 5 years ago

    There are no easy answers when it comes to solving the overpopulation crisis. China's one child policy sounds good in principle, but in reality its very brutal and has created demographic problems. http://www.economist.com/node/18651512

    The fundamental fact is that over the last 10,000 years we have gradually eliminated all of the natural controls that limit every over organisms presence on the Earth. Farming means that we don't have to rely on wild food, medicine ensures that otherwise deadly diseases are kept in check and weapons helped us to stop predators from impacting our numbers.

    Education, as already mentioned is critical, but I wouldn't be surprised to see more drastic population control policies coming into play in the future when resources and land are severely depleted. Our best hope may lie in leaving Earth behind altogether, but where would we go?

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      This may seem outlandish; however, there are some proponents who propose colonization of planets beyond Earth.    Told you that proposal seems quite fantastical and outlandish for the present time being!

  5. maxoxam41 profile image76
    maxoxam41posted 5 years ago

    What do you mean by good results concerning China? Were you referring to their killing/ abondonment of their baby girls? Or were you referring to the inequality in the gender demography to the point that Chinese import Asian women to compensate?
    The only possible solution is the eradication of a part of the population! What about a disease that will affect the reproductive system or a good old world war?

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No, not abandoning the precious children nor killing of precious innocent female babies.  That is total and egregious barbarity which is beyond the pale.   What I was addressing is the judicious use of birth control i.e. preventives!   People DO use contraception as a means of having small families.

  6. maxoxam41 profile image76
    maxoxam41posted 5 years ago

    I don't think that China reached our level of development yet! What is your solution for their gender discrepancy linked to their birth control policy?

  7. maxoxam41 profile image76
    maxoxam41posted 5 years ago

    Very fantastical! The "liveable" ones are thousands years apart from us! Or do they intend to ship the elite to Mars and let us face our irreversible fate?

  8. LeanMan profile image88
    LeanManposted 5 years ago

    No problem; the more people there are the more chance that a killer virus will develop and spread rapidly. It has happened before and it will happen again, the flu killed millions of healthy young people from 1918 to 1920 - estimates suggest 3% of the worlds population at the time.
    It has been suggested a couple of times in the last few years that H1N1 or another virus will kill millions but thus far the scientists have been proved wrong; but it is only a matter of time before a deadly strain gets spread world wide and our population gets "controlled".

  9. prettydarkhorse profile image65
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    population distribution (people tend to overcrowd in the cities) could be a big problem - pollution, waste management and spread of deadly infectious diseases - epidemiology

    distribution of wealth - concentrated among the few

    1. A Troubled Woman profile image60
      A Troubled Womanposted 5 years agoin reply to this


  10. SoManyPaths profile image60
    SoManyPathsposted 5 years ago

    80% of the world's population lives  on the coast. so there is still land. I agree that resources are finite so control is necessary (not infanticide). Inevitably, a war or natural event will happen to wipe out millions. It's a natural law that seems to happen. With the weather being very unpredictable, there are less crops to produce foods, well unless you like artificial frankenstein type foods from Monsanto

  11. gmwilliams profile image84
    gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago

    Thank you all for your responses.   Keep the discussion going!

  12. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    The main factors that reduce reproductive rates are education, income and access to health care.  So my first suggestion would be universal free education to the equivalent of 8th grade.

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What about free universal education to the 12th grade level, that would suffice!

      1. psycheskinner profile image83
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        That would be better, but a national standard for the world that we don't even meet in the US. So perhaps a hypocritical standard to request.