The Truth About Overpopulation

[fragmentsofdreams]

Unfortunately, a lot of aid is misdirected. Poor countries don't need massive infrastructure; they need infrastructure that will help the poor create an income.

 

[Illuminatus]

Chop down the rainforest and build farmlands if you want these people to eat.

Of course, as long as they don't need to breathe, they'll do just fine.

 

[Illuminatus]

Well soon we might not have to worry about overpopulation. With as fast as tetions are rising between countrys the biggest thing will have to worry about is rodioactive fallout. And finding something to eat.

Jonathan Swift had this all figured out a long time ago.

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

 

[SallyNow]

Jonathan Swift had this all figured out a long time ago.

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

I wanted to be the one to post that!

Unfortunately, a lot of aid is misdirected. Poor countries don't need massive infrastructure; they need infrastructure that will help the poor create an income.

Local trade and sustainability create world-wide wealth.

In essense, 3rd world countries don't need factories that will create below-living wage jobs and enviromental problems for the 3rd world countries, and goods for 1st world countries; they need farms that can sustain themselves, ways of preserving and creating water quality, local factories that create goods for within their borders, etc.

That's one that so many don't realize about America and Canada: Yes, we had industrial revolutions. Yes, the trickle-down effect worked. But we created goods and services for ourselves, not others; and that's the key to local succes: first creating small infrastructures, enough food and clean water and basic goods for the locals, then branching out.

Chop down the rainforest and build farmlands if you want these people to eat.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone but me understands you can't survive with greenlands. I also wonder if North America has turned not into a moral compass, but one based on greed, that the current motto is: "I want cheap plastic garbage, I don't care if others starve because their farmlands (and the natural forests needed to sustain them) are taken down to create my cheap plastic stuff! "

Of course, as long as they don't need to breathe, they'll do just fine.

Mind you, someone who do understands the basics of land preservation (and human life preservation) usually does remind me that I'm not only one who...um...understands. (huh...I need to find my thesaurus and find another word for "understands")

 

[Eudaimonist]

In the first world, there are population implosions, not explosions. If Sweden didn't have immigration, it would be shrinking dramatically in population.

According to population experts, the big problem that will face the world after about 50 years or so is declining population. Wealthy people tend not to have enough children to replace people that die. This might require some sort of cultural movement that honors having families.

 

[charityagape]

Thank you, Eudaimonists, for shedding some truth on the overpopulation "we're all gonna die, cause we used everything up" myth.


One thing said earlier, that I do agree with, we really don't need to continue cutting down rainforest.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

In the first world, there are population implosions, not explosions. If Sweden didn't have immigration, it would be shrinking dramatically in population.

According to population experts, the big problem that will face the world after about 50 years or so is declining population. Wealthy people tend not to have enough children to replace people that die. This might require some sort of cultural movement that honors having families.

Do you have a source for this? I've never heard it before.

 

[Jennifer615]

In the first world, there are population implosions, not explosions. If Sweden didn't have immigration, it would be shrinking dramatically in population.

According to population experts, the big problem that will face the world after about 50 years or so is declining population. Wealthy people tend not to have enough children to replace people that die. This might require some sort of cultural movement that honors having families

Yes, we have a similar problem here in Australia. Our fertility rate is dropping. We also depend alot on immigration. One of our biggest problems is our aging populations. In the future there won't be enough young working people to sustain all the retirees. The government will either need to increase taxes dramatically, or make people work until they drop.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

In the first world, there are population implosions, not explosions. If Sweden didn't have immigration, it would be shrinking dramatically in population.

According to population experts, the big problem that will face the world after about 50 years or so is declining population. Wealthy people tend not to have enough children to replace people that die. This might require some sort of cultural movement that honors having families.

Okay, as i said earlier, I've never heard this. I was sufficiently interested to do a bit of research. I decided to use just the USA because (a) it's the biggest single nation in the first world and (b) there are more statistics available on the net about it

And guess what? In regard to the US, at least, Eudaimonist is right. The US' birth rate has been shrinking more or less consistently for the last sixty years. In 1955, it was 25 births per annum per 1000 people; in 2000, it was 14.7. That's a huge drop - over 40% (source for all these figures is www.infoplease.com). But (thought I), the idea that the population is actually shrinking because of a lowering birth rate doesn't take into account that the death rate is also shrinking, does it now? So I checked out the death rate in the US for the same period...and I was right. It's been shrinking, too. But nowhere near enough to make up for the lowered birth rate. In 1955, the US death rate was 9.3 deaths per annum per 1000 people; in 2000, it was 8.7. A drop (and it was a steady drop, too), but nowhere near enough to match the falling birth rate.

In short, in regard to the US, what Eudaimonist says is perfectly correct. The US' population (and note that this disregards immigration and emigration entirely) grows every year...but every year it grows by a smaller amount (proportionally). Eventually, it'll stop growing, and actually start to shrink (again, note that this is aside from immigration) - and the US will be in the same position as Sweden. But when, I hear you ask? Well, using the figures from the last 50 years and using the good ol' Microsoft Excel extrapolation algorithm...2023. In that year (the algorithm states), the US' birth rate will be 7.689517, while the death rate will be 7.869073...and for the first time (probably since Independence), the US' birth/date rate will actually be negative.

While there's no doubt that us people in the Western world leave a much bigger ecological footprint than those in the third world, it also appears to be true that (intentionally or not), the West's birth rate is declining...which, of course, given the global increase in birth rate, means the birth rate in the 'non-West' is rising alarmingly. For which there may well be a large number of causes...but still...food for thought...

 

[Governed Apology Exploded]

From what I've heard the fertility rate is below 2 in just about every first world country. This means the population will decrease without immigration.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_tot_fer_rat

This of course doesn't mean overpopulation isn't a problem, because the population is exploding in most places.

 

[John812]

According to population experts, the big problem that will face the world after about 50 years or so is declining population.

Personally, I would prefer the numbers declining until humanity would be able to sustain everybody through the basics of food, clothing, shelter and medicine.


God bless ya!

 

[LienShen]

While there's no doubt that us people in the Western world leave a much bigger ecological footprint than those in the third world, it also appears to be true that (intentionally or not), the West's birth rate is declining...which, of course, given the global increase in birth rate, means the birth rate in the 'non-West' is rising alarmingly. For which there may well be a large number of causes...but still...food for thought...

It is slightly declining, but there are children and adults starving in the U.S. as well. There are plenty of people living hand to mouth in the streets of every large city. It is not declining enough, and we obviously can't support those people we do have now, or there wouldn't be millions of homeless and starving people. There wouldn't be a need for soup kitchens and food depositories. It is not declining fast enough, and these people who breed out of control (4-12 kids) are not helping the problem at all. They add more strain to the system then they want to realize or admit.

 

[Ledifni]

Chop down the rainforest and build farmlands if you want these people to eat.

So we should destroy the Earth's ecosystem so that we can have as many babies as we like? What do you suggest we do once we've cut down all the rain forests and there aren't any more to cut down?

 

[LienShen]

Whaddya wanna do? Stop making babies? Sorry, hormones don't agree with that.

Hormones may not agree with that, but moral responsibility should. The earth is not a self-replenishing resource. Once we've screwed it up beyond repair and the population grows too large to be substainable, there is no turning back and it will lead to a steady decline. But we can avoid making that decline horribly painful by being aware of the problem now and encouraging education and a reduction in reproduction now. It's important that people know that we are over-populating the planet, and it's important for people to be socially responsible for that.

And yes, I believe that anyone in a first world country that has more than four biological children is selfish and is probably ignorant to the rest of the world. We need to realize now that there is a problem, to prevent our grandkids' grandkids from starving to death when it could have been prevented.

 

[Scholar in training]

And yes, I believe that anyone in a first world country that has more than four biological children is selfish and is probably ignorant to the rest of the world. We need to realize now that there is a problem, to prevent our grandkids' grandkids from starving to death when it could have been prevented.

Um - did you read the links provided on the last page? First world countries are not being overpopulated. Most industrialized countries have already undergone a jump in population growth. Now pop. growth in industrialized countries is actually declining. Many third world countries still haven't had a population BOOM like industrialized countries have. Remember that first world countries have medicine and an abundance of food/water. More babies survive in an industrialized country, meaning that population growth occurs for a time.

 

[LienShen]

So in your opinion, we should be continuing to breed even faster to make up for the declining birth rate here in North America? With current immigration laws, the overpopulate countries right to the south of us have people streaming in by the hundreds each and every day because of their own overpopulation problems. Mexico is an industrialized nation, and it has major overpopulation problems that are now coming into North America so that they can get food/water from our resources.

We need to train people globally, and here in North America to be more responsible for the world. It is our responsibility to do so. Just because the current growth is on the decline, doesn't by any means show that our population is declining in any way, and in fact it is increasing both in North America and most of the world. The overpopulated have to go somewhere when they've depleted their own resources.

Bottom line is that the world population as shown no signs of decline, despite what's happening right here, right now. Since we are at the top of the heap, we need to set a better example for people all over the world by showing we are globally conscious of a worldwide problem.

 

[Scholar in training]

Just because the current growth is on the decline, doesn't by any means show that our population is declining in any way, and in fact it is increasing both in North America and most of the world.

Not in the U.S. it ain't. Population growth grows whenever the birth rate is higher than the death rate, but numbers aren't as high as they were in the "Baby Booming" years.

 

[charityagape]

It is slightly declining, but there are children and adults starving in the U.S. as well. There are plenty of people living hand to mouth in the streets of every large city. It is not declining enough, and we obviously can't support those people we do have now, or there wouldn't be millions of homeless and starving people. There wouldn't be a need for soup kitchens and food depositories. It is not declining fast enough, and these people who breed out of control (4-12 kids) are not helping the problem at all. They add more strain to the system then they want to realize or admit.

Are these people starving and homeless because the earth cannot sustain them? Or because they cannot sustain themselves and no one has compassion on them?

A wealthy one child household (and having only one child will increase your spendable income, no matter what bracket you're in) will not necessary take care of anyone else, they'll just spend more on themselves.

I don't know that the problem is the earth's inability to physically sustain the amount of people on it, so much as the wealthy have no compassion for the poor.


Also, which people that breed out of control, poor people in third world countries? People that can afford as many children as they want?

What's the solution? Imposing forced sterilization after certain child limits are met? What happens to a woman's right to choose then?

 

[LienShen]

U.S. Population growth from July 1, 1970 - July 1, 1999

Date | U.S. Pop | Increase | % of Increase
July 1, 1999 | 272,690,813 | 2,442,810 | 0.90
July 1, 1998 | 270,248,003 | 2,464,396 | 0.92
July 1, 1997 | 267,783,607 | 2,555,035 | 0.96
July 1, 1996 | 265,228,572 | 2,425,296 | 0.92
July 1, 1995 | 262,803,276 | 2,476,255 | 0.95
July 1, 1994 | 260,327,021 | 2,544,413 | 0.99
July 1, 1993 | 257,782,608 | 2,752,909 | 1.08
July 1, 1992 | 255,029,699 | 2,876,607 | 1.14
July 1, 1991 | 252,153,092 | 2,688,696 | 1.08
July 1, 1990 | 249,464,396 | 2,645,166 | 1.07

July 1, 1989 | 246,819,230 | 2,320,248 | 0.94
July 1, 1988 | 244,498,982 | 2,210,064 | 0.91
July 1, 1987 | 242,288,918 | 2,156,031 | 0.89
July 1, 1986 | 240,132,887 | 2,209,092 | 0.92
July 1, 1985 | 237,923,795 | 2,098,893 | 0.89
July 1, 1984 | 235,824,902 | 2,032,908 | 0.87
July 1, 1983 | 233,791,994 | 2,127,536 | 0.91
July 1, 1982 | 231,664,458 | 2,198,744 | 0.95
July 1, 1981 | 229,465,714 | 2,241,033 | 0.98
July 1, 1980 | 227,224,681 | 2,169,194 | 0.96

July 1, 1979 | 225,055,487 | 2,470,942 | 1.10
July 1, 1978 | 222,584,545 | 2,345,120 | 1.06
July 1, 1977 | 220,239,425 | 2,204,261 | 1.01
July 1, 1976 | 218,035,164 | 2,061,965 | 0.95
July 1, 1975 | 215,973,199 | 2,119,271 | 0.99
July 1, 1974 | 213,853,928 | 1,945,140 | 0.91
July 1, 1973 | 211,908,788 | 2,012,767 | 0.95
July 1, 1972 | 209,896,021 | 2,235,344 | 1.07
July 1, 1971 | 207,660,677 | 2,608,503 | 1.26
July 1, 1970 | 205,052,174 | 2,375,228 | 1.17


Funny, I don't see a decline there at all. Not for one year since the "Baby Boom".

http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt

 

[Scholar in training]

Funny, I don't see a decline there at all. Not for one year since the "Baby Boom".

That's because you're equating population increase with birth increase.