| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 139529 | 2015-05-18 04:36:00 | Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot | pctek (84) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1400922 | 2015-05-18 04:36:00 | populationspeakout.org Click on it to view pics. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1400923 | 2015-05-18 05:13:00 | Its all very emotive language, so hardly a balanced view I would guess. If we didnt cut down tress we would still be living in the bush . If we didnt mine for metals we would still be in the stone age. |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1400924 | 2015-05-18 07:18:00 | I agree with the Idea the world is overpopulated. I don't think it's about not cutting down trees or not mining, progress is something I support. I just think it's short sighted to simply keep growing until we cut down ALL the trees and mine ALL the resources. It's all about balance and sustainability, so in that respect it's a very balanced view. Nobody is suggesting we all revert back to being cavemen, just that the worlds population needs to be kept at a sustainable level for our own survival and that of all other species on the planet. Over 7 billion people on the planet is enough I feel. Let's at least leave SOME room for other animals to use. Look at China and their hugely unpopular stance on one child per family - made necessary because the country simply cannot sustain any more population growth. If we don't voluntarily do something every nation will eventually be force to implement some kind of measures. Not that I'm a fan of China, just illustrating the point. How much of the planet should be dedicated to Humanity in your opinion? 100%, 90%, 50%, what ? Then go for a drive around NZ, one of the less densely populated countries in the world and see just how much natural bush is left. Offically 30% of NZ is protected bush, just so happens that much of it in inaccessible land that's difficult to farm. That means in our little "Green" corner of the world with no population issues we are still using up to 70% of the land for ourselves. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1400925 | 2015-05-18 08:12:00 | I agree with the Idea the world is overpopulated.If all the people in the world alive today stood side by side they could all fit onto the island of Jamaica. | Greg (193) | ||
| 1400926 | 2015-05-18 13:05:00 | If all the people in the world alive today stood side by side they could all fit onto the island of Jamaica. So what, they couldn't survive there. I can stand on a square foot of land, I can't produce enough food and shelter to feed myself without considerably more space than that. How many people can physically fit in the world is irrelevant and not a goal to strive for. How many people can the world comfortably support without placing undue strain on the environment, that's the important question. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1400927 | 2015-05-18 18:53:00 | The world could comfortably support its current population and considerably more if all the resources spent on military and other non-essential services were directed more appropriately. So what, they couldn't survive there. I can stand on a square foot of land, I can't produce enough food and shelter to feed myself without considerably more space than that. How many people can physically fit in the world is irrelevant and not a goal to strive for. How many people can the world comfortably support without placing undue strain on the environment, that's the important question. |
Greg (193) | ||
| 1400928 | 2015-05-18 20:53:00 | If all the people in the world alive today stood side by side they could all fit onto the island of Jamaica. I doubt that. And in any case, it's not just about our bodies, it's out carparks, housing, fields, roads etc. We can't live without the other animals. And I agree with dugimodo, it's about population. We keep breeding like flies, we take up more space with our roads, mines, and whatever. We need about 6 billion people less. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1400929 | 2015-05-18 22:06:00 | Look at China and their hugely unpopular stance on one child per family - made necessary because the country simply cannot sustain any more population growth. If we don't voluntarily do something every nation will eventually be force to implement some kind of measures. Not that I'm a fan of China, just illustrating the point. Yet they still had a population growth of ~200million between 1990 and 2010 (~17%). New Zealand's growth as a percentage in the same time was about 31%, but this amounted to just over 1million. India in the same timeframe had a whopping 40% growth rate, going from ~870million to over 1.2billion, an increase of ~350million. So we're at the stage where, as with China's example, even relatively strict growth controls are not enough - some of these nations populations are massive enough already that even if we kept their growth rate to 10%, we're still talking hundreds of millions a year. Which leaves the question, what realistic options are there? Most studies conclude the largest population growths in the past, say, 50 years, have been in Africa, Middle East and Asia, with Latin and North America not that far behind. I don't think many would find genocide a suitable option. Honestly, I think we need to direct significant global resources towards extrasolar colonization. |
inphinity (7274) | ||
| 1400930 | 2015-05-18 22:06:00 | I doubt that.It's simple arithmetic. | Greg (193) | ||
| 1400931 | 2015-05-18 22:06:00 | If all the people in the world alive today stood side by side they could all fit onto the island of Jamaica. ... and when they did, farting would carry the death penalty. Picking pockets would be easier, but the get-away might be farcical. ;) |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||