The Truth About Overpopulation

[one love]

Oxygen production of rainforest.

20% - http://pharmacy.nova.edu/Amazon/Activities_2001/Week_3/Rainforest/rainforest.html
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2003

Misleading - http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/background/rainfwld.htm

Not the lungs of the world - http://www.eatfirst.org/qf-rainforest.htm

 

[Madcoil]

School taught me that the amount of oxygen produced by the rainforests borders on insignificant.

 

[charityagape]

Wouldn't cutting down all the rainforest eventurally create a desert in that area?

 

[charityagape]

http://www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?idCategory=5&idarticle=274

For years, many environmentalists have expressed great concern about the fate of the rainforest. The Rainforest Action Network, for instance, has made the claim that the Amazon is losing "two to three football fields a minute, while actor William Shatner (a.k.a. Captain Kirk) has asserted that, worldwide, rainforests are being cleared at 20 football fields a minute.

But what's the truth about this jungle story?

Well according to researchers Marc Morano and Kent Washburn of the American Investigator, a T.V. news magazine, the facts about the rainforest can't be seen through all the emotion-driven trees surrounding them.

In their special report, entitled "Amazon Rainforest: Clear-Cutting the Myths," Morano and Washburn note:

Landsat data indicate that 87.5 percent of the forest is still intact. Of the 12.5 percent that is deforested, one-third to one-half is in the process of regeneration, meaning that up to 94 percent of the Amazon rainforest is left to nature.

Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace, says "the rainforests of the Amazon, Congo, Malasia, and Indonesia, ... are the least endangered forests [because] they are the least suitable for human habitation."

The idea that rainforests are the lungs of the world, i.e. they take up carbon dioxide and breath out oxygen, is a myth. Only their fast growing, young trees take in CO2, and because trees fall down and decay, rainforests actually take in more oxygen than they release.

Fears that man is destroying a raw source of medicine are unfounded because the rainforests are remarkably healthy. Incidentally, the sea holds more mysteries for medicine than the rainforests.

The researchers also looked into claims about 50,000 species going extinct each year in the rainforest. And what did they find? Well, when they asked a member of Rainforest Relief to produce even one species that has gone extinct, the individual replied "No we cannot, because we don't know what those species are." Apparently, the extinction statistics are generated by a computer at Harvard University and may, in fact, carry no more semblance to reality than "electrons on a hard drive."
*-*******************************************************************************

I always assumed all that rainforest stuff I heard in school was true. Now I'm not so sure, just googling it brings up a host of sites that say different. I'll have to research a lot more into this.

 

[Chosen One]

If you want truth on overpopulation, did you know the biomass of an ant is greater than that of humans and thus us more oxygen per annum?



http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=536123

Science - it's amazing!

Wow. No wonder some of those people eat chocolocate covered ants. A nearly inexhaustable supply of food.

 

[Affinity]

Some other statistics;
There were 1 billion people on the earth in 1804
2 billion in 1927 (123 years later)
3 billion in 1960 ( 33 years later)
4 billion in 1974 ( 14 years later)
5 billion in 1987 ( 13 years later)
6 billion in 1999 ( 12 years later)
6.5 billion in 2004 (5 years later)

The population will reach 7 billion by 2011, 9.5 billion in 2050, 11 billion in 2200 at current fertility rates.

These statistics don't seem to add up. The first group of statistics you present show a rather dramatic increase in population growth over shorter and shorter periods of time, demonstrating a sure and steady trend. However, the predictions you present for the future seem to defy this trend. For example, you predict that between 2050 and 2200, there will only be a population increase of 1.5 billion. That not only defies the trend demostrated above (1 billion increase in 12 years, 1987-1999, then 0.5 in 5 years, 1999-2004, ect.) but would, if it happens that way, be a dramatic improvement. Such a population increase rate would actually be less than that of which you present for the years 1804-1927. Are you therefore implying that a solution to the population growth problem will be reached in the distant future?

DLM

 

[Affinity]

no,
no,
and
no

you are wrong, if you want to be a Scholar i would suggest picking up a newspaper and reading at least once a week, but really i would try about 5 per day, maybe even one from over seas, esspically when you can read most major new publications on line, it makes it really easy, so yeah, quit digging your own hole, its painful to watch

And if YOU want to make sense and get your point across, I would suggest writing in complete, intellegible sentences, with at least decent grammar. As far as I can tell from your writing, you appear to have flunked out of the second grade of grammar school.

DLM

 

[Affinity]

ok now there is a lot being left out of this thread mainly because people forget there first day in chem I back in highschool, there are three laws that are constant in everything
1)the law of conservations of energy, the engery that goes into a reaction must be the engery that leaves a reaction
2)the law of conservation of mass, the mass that goes into and equation must be equal to the mass that leave the equation
3)the law of conservation of mass and energy the amount of engery that goes into an equation must be equal to the amount of mass that leaves an equation, e=mc^2

the above is for thoes whom have forgottne or have not got to that part yet, so what does that tell us, the more energy that we as humans have to use, the more stuff(more people inculded) we can create if you look at any stats you will see that population growth started growing rapidly around the time of the industial rev, not a big supprise there is an amazing amount of engery in foissl fuel the question is when are we running out of oil/coal, and how will that affect population growth, stagnation or decline, the long and the short of it is that people have been far to greed for more and more sources of power for far too long, the native americans while not haveing all the fun mathical and chemcial equations to go by still understood that everything is enterconnected and that taking from one thing ment you had to give back to another but western caplistist don't see that but see resouses as means to more money this bubble like all will burst there will come a time where there is just not enough energy to support this much mass, most people like to call this time mad max where this is no gas there is now power there is no AC there is no heaters just you and what you can find off the land hopefully by that time this hippe is far far away from all you crazy city slickers living in a cabin where there will no of you to bother me i don't care how far north i have to walk(thats right no more driving to starbucks) i'll get there too bad all ya'll don't have advanced outdoor/surival skills sucks to be you

And judging from the way you write, it would appear that you forgot your first day of grade school. You write like a person who spoke a different language and had never been exposed to english, and then one day found an English book. The person studied the book for about a year, but was lazy and had a bad attitude and eventually threw the book away, thinking that they knew enough to get by.

DLM

 

[Fledge]

Let's look at it another way for a bit. If every couple (married or otherwise) has precisely two children, then that means that when the current generation gets old, there will be exactly one child to take care of every parent, neither more nor less.

Now have any of you actually spent some time taking care of an elderly person? I only just recently finished a four month job in which I spent 120 hours a week taking care of an elderly man (this figure includes the night hours, but I lived in his house and helped him out at night when he needed it). Probably the only thing that saved me from complete insanity was the fact that I got weekends off, and during that time I could either come home or just spend my time goofing off.

During these weekends, one of the man's children would come down and look after him, so that he would still have someone to help him at any time. This job was so wearing on them that they had to divide the weekends amongst themselves so that no one person would be providing all the weekend care.

So if we do ever achieve this apparent ideal of an average of two kids per couple, how are we supposed to take care of the elderly? Admittedly, nursing homes and the like can take care of more than one person per staff member, but using a 2 - 1 ratio (107 beds to 53 staff in average US nursing home), but does anyone honestly expect that half of every generation is going to choose to work in nursing homes for a career?

Of course, none of this takes into account things like wars, famines, and natural disasters, all of which are going to further reduce the number of people available to take care of the elderly...

 

[hippepower]

Suffice it of me to say your debating tactic is left wanting.

check yourself budy, most people don't say that and leave with your balling like a little girl

 

[hippepower]

The problem with overpopulation is that the wrong type of people are being born. In the industrialed country- we have birth control and women work and put off having children. When they decide to have them (which they can now do)- sometime it is too late- or sometimes that don't have the "oops- one last baby".

In the third world- they don't have birth control and the men like to rape the women- especially the young girls- so they start having children earlier- and have more time to have them. Since the generations are closer- they also have more alive at any one time.

how un christ like of you, "the wrong type of people" that is by far the most hatefull thing i have heard all day, i'm sorry that people that don't live with all the capital or in contries that don't have good medical care or reproductive rights, but there is no wrong type of person, the only expction that i would condiser the wrong type of person is one that thinks that they can put themslef in a higher class, then somebody eles, i would suggest you stop talking you imperlistic bigot

 

[hippepower]

Che may have been a doctor but so what? He knew next to nothing about economic systems, and the one he preached: socialism. How industious are these nations which he helped 'liberate from evil capitalist'? Most of these countries are reforming because they realize the intial mistake.

ahh, i'll go with no again here is a line by line, and don't bother responding to this because you will just prove how worthless your point is

1) doctors have good educations that come at a high cost
a)the man was smater then you or i
b)he walked away from more wealth then you or i will ever see
2) when the caplistis nations had and still had a system of imperilism that exploits contries with less capital then yes we are evil
a)people are praticly slaving away in felds, mines, and other jobs for little pay no union respentation
b)labors in less industious nations don't have a market that can one use raw product or if they do they don't have the ablity provied for mass volume or export, because of tarifs, or high port entry fees
c)this means that every person in an less industually powerfull nation then say the US is forced into slavey by people like you that think they have the right to expolit other human beings, again check yourslef
3) che was more christ like then you
a)doctors tend to want to help people
b)he fought to his last breath to liberate people from ecomic slavey, when have you ever freed some one from slavery, OH YEAH YOU HAVEN'T BECAUSE YOU FIGHT TO JUSTIFY IT
c)denied himslef to help others that he had no reason to help other than he saw there suffing and was willing to set is own personal interst aside and fight for them, and aginst ingorant and bigotted people like yourslef
4)overview
a) your agurment makes a lot of claims with no substation or warrants you just again say that you think che was not smart, ok fine, i could say your a moron, but that is just a claim with nothing to back it up, it is just a waste of breath so i'm going to say i'm sorry for you for your wasting of people's vauable time, for having to read your unsubstanated hatefull diatribe

 

[LemmingLord]

how un christ like of you, "the wrong type of people" that is by far the most hatefull thing i have heard all day, i'm sorry that people that don't live with all the capital or in contries that don't have good medical care or reproductive rights, but there is no wrong type of person, the only expction that i would condiser the wrong type of person is one that thinks that they can put themslef in a higher class, then somebody eles, i would suggest you stop talking you imperlistic bigot

I hear what you are saying and agree. Although we should love everyone in the world, it is clear that it is more advantageous (at least from a healthcare and economic standpoint) to be born into certain societies. Ideally it would be the industrialized nations that were having 4 % annual increases; at least from what I know of quality of life in undeveloped nations.

 

[hippepower]

And if YOU want to make sense and get your point across, I would suggest writing in complete, intellegible sentences, with at least decent grammar. As far as I can tell from your writing, you appear to have flunked out of the second grade of grammar school.

DLM

well your wrong and you have just picked a debate that you will lose, sorry one i'll beat you regardless, and two i have the moral high ground in the debate so i guess your just up a creek

 

[hippepower]

And judging from the way you write, it would appear that you forgot your first day of grade school. You write like a person who spoke a different language and had never been exposed to english, and then one day found an English book. The person studied the book for about a year, but was lazy and had a bad attitude and eventually threw the book away, thinking that they knew enough to get by.

DLM

and you sound like some that can't really provied any postive or inteligent discourse to this so why don't you just go take a long walk of a shot pier

 

[HouseApe]

Some other statistics;
There were 1 billion people on the earth in 1804
2 billion in 1927 (123 years later)
3 billion in 1960 ( 33 years later)
4 billion in 1974 ( 14 years later)
5 billion in 1987 ( 13 years later)
6 billion in 1999 ( 12 years later)
6.5 billion in 2004 (5 years later)

The population will reach 7 billion by 2011, 9.5 billion in 2050, 11 billion in 2200 at current fertility rates.

These statistics don't seem to add up. The first group of statistics you present show a rather dramatic increase in population growth over shorter and shorter periods of time, demonstrating a sure and steady trend. However, the predictions you present for the future seem to defy this trend. For example, you predict that between 2050 and 2200, there will only be a population increase of 1.5 billion. That not only defies the trend demostrated above (1 billion increase in 12 years, 1987-1999, then 0.5 in 5 years, 1999-2004, ect.) but would, if it happens that way, be a dramatic improvement. Such a population increase rate would actually be less than that of which you present for the years 1804-1927. Are you therefore implying that a solution to the population growth problem will be reached in the distant future?

DLM

The population begins levelling off because you can't really grow more food to sustain a much greater population. So lots of people are still being born, just that the same amount are starving to death.

Pretty grim, but hey, that's for my great grandkids to worry about.

 

[HouseApe]

Let's look at it another way for a bit. If every couple (married or otherwise) has precisely two children, then that means that when the current generation gets old, there will be exactly one child to take care of every parent, neither more nor less.

Now have any of you actually spent some time taking care of an elderly person? I only just recently finished a four month job in which I spent 120 hours a week taking care of an elderly man (this figure includes the night hours, but I lived in his house and helped him out at night when he needed it). Probably the only thing that saved me from complete insanity was the fact that I got weekends off, and during that time I could either come home or just spend my time goofing off.

During these weekends, one of the man's children would come down and look after him, so that he would still have someone to help him at any time. This job was so wearing on them that they had to divide the weekends amongst themselves so that no one person would be providing all the weekend care.

So if we do ever achieve this apparent ideal of an average of two kids per couple, how are we supposed to take care of the elderly? Admittedly, nursing homes and the like can take care of more than one person per staff member, but using a 2 - 1 ratio (107 beds to 53 staff in average US nursing home), but does anyone honestly expect that half of every generation is going to choose to work in nursing homes for a career?

Of course, none of this takes into account things like wars, famines, and natural disasters, all of which are going to further reduce the number of people available to take care of the elderly...

You are not taking into account that most elderly people don't need to be taken care of. My grandmother is 84, lives with a friend, and they both get along just fine. My grandfather died of a heart attack at age 67. He never needed to be taken care of. My grandmother has my mother and uncle to look after her, my brother, sister and myself in a pinch. Soon she will have about 5 great grandkids to look after her if need be.

It is similar on my fathers side of the family. Basically, we have 2 elderly who don't need lookin' after, and 15 offspring who could lend a hand if needed. And that is done with an average of 2 children/generation.

 

[hippepower]

The population begins levelling off because you can't really grow more food to sustain a much greater population. So lots of people are still being born, just that the same amount are starving to death.

Pretty grim, but hey, that's for my great grandkids to worry about.

was a **** poor way of thinking, that it's not my problem so i'm not going to worry about it, that is the epimdimy of ilresponsibly that got the human race in the mess, and that numbs americans along with the rest of the western world into thinking that we can do what ever and when ever we want and not worry about how it affect anybody, but on the the line by line

1)no warrant you never tell me why your are right just that you are right, not good enough espically when you are resonding to that post
2)no reason to prefer you never tell my why your agrument is better so i'll just kick it our because even you think its pointless
3)vagunes, well it just sucks and blows but doesn't do anything eles

thanks for playing don't try again

 

[HouseApe]

was a **** poor way of thinking, that it's not my problem so i'm not going to worry about it, that is the epimdimy of ilresponsibly that got the human race in the mess, and that numbs americans along with the rest of the western world into thinking that we can do what ever and when ever we want and not worry about how it affect anybody,

Dude, you will never get people to stop having babies as long as they believe that God told them to be fruitful and multiply, that the world was made for Man, and that our real lives are in Heaven, not here on earth. The masses are sheep. All I can do is everything I can to make sure my offspring are not one of the starving. Everybody else is on their own.

but on the the line by line

1)no warrant you never tell me why your are right just that you are right, not good enough espically when you are resonding to that post

It is not important enough to me to spend 30 minutes digging up references, so feel free to disregard the post.

2)no reason to prefer you never tell my why your agrument is better so i'll just kick it our because even you think its pointless

I honestly have no idea what you are saying. I wasn't making an argument, just letting the poster know why the population levels off. It is not projected that the world will become industrialized, secular countries with low population figures. It is projected that the world can only produce so much of certain types of food. We will run out of capacity to do that.

3)vagunes, well it just sucks and blows but doesn't do anything eles

What are "vagunes"?

thanks for playing don't try again

It's not your playground, hippie. I'll play what and whenever I please.

 

[hippepower]

Dude, you will never get people to stop having babies as long as they believe that God told them to be fruitful and multiply, that the world was made for Man, and that our real lives are in Heaven, not here on earth. The masses are sheep. All I can do is everything I can to make sure my offspring are not one of the starving. Everybody else is on their own.

1)no warrant, why did God give us Earth you don't tell me how or in what scope
2) no reason to prefer why should i listen to your lose interpation of a bible verse which you take out of context and do not understand
3) most bibles state that humans are to have dominion over the earth and its creatures but the hebrew word used is when taking the context of the passage means GARDIANS
4) we are all one body in christ where there is suffering you should be christ to that suffering and take it upon yourself not just say i don't care about, i don't really recall any story in the bible where Jesus said your on your own buddy i don't care, are you even kidding me
5) don't deflie the bible or God's word to support your uncaring and unloving point

It is not important enough to me to spend 30 minutes digging up references, so feel free to disregard the post.

1)feeds my no warrants arguments, thanks for the help
2)if you don't know what you are talking about educate yourslef don't come on here and prove your lack of knowlage about subject matter you know nothing about
3)i would love to but you keep talking and did not heed my advice to stop so you get more of my proving you wrong

I honestly have no idea what you are saying. I wasn't making an argument, just letting the poster know why the population levels off. It is not projected that the world will become industrialized, secular countries with low population figures. It is projected that the world can only produce so much of certain types of food. We will run out of capacity to do that.

1) cross appply your point from above that you haven't done enough reading on the subject to know what you are talking about at the very least this mitages this point
2) cross apply my orginal post where i break down the laws of conservation
3) cross apply the peak oil theory which as been left unrefuted by you or anybody eles for that matter
4) no link what does this have to do with what we are talking about your red harring

What are "vagunes"?

1) well i can't spell, and you can't congagate the verb 'to be' so i guess its even
2)vaugnes(i'll try that)--the state of being unclear or underdeveloped

It's not your playground, hippie. I'll play what and whenever I please.

1) fourms are here to educate and provoke though if you can't proved for either, which i have proven you can't then i'm more qulifed to speak then you on this subject matter
2) hippie is not a bad word in this debate the bad word would be caplist christian conserative, why because ya'll are destorying a gift God gave us to protect not rape like a drunk prom date
3) if you want to keep making your slef look bad sure keep playing, perhaps i would best you to attemp to beat me in another subject that i know less about, being a 'hippie' i kind of know a few things about well the envroment, politics, and social issues hit me up when i wonder into a theology thread maybe then you can teach me a thing or two