# Overpopulation- What do you think?



## Amba1027 (Jun 26, 2009)

My mom and I just got into an argument about overpopulation. She thinks China has the right idea with limiting how many children people can have, because she believes that the biggest problem with the world is overpopulation. She believes that overpopulation is the cause of global warming, homelessness, poverty, etc. I said that that was ridiculous. There has always been poverty and homelessness, even when there were far less people. (We didn't get into the global warming part, but I'm pretty sure people are going to destroy the world no matter what. More people will probably just make it happen faster).

Anyway, I won't go into the specifics of our arguments. She finally yelled at me to look it up, so I am. I started reading her things that weren't in agreement with what she was saying, and now she is ignoring me. I haven't read too much yet, though I will admitt I was more looking for things that supported what I think. I didn't have to look hard to find things though. So I am wondering what you all think. Do you think overpopulation is causing all of these problems and that if we had some sort of population control, things would get better?


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

Oh wow... *Crosses fingers this thread survives*

What China is doing seems to make sense on paper, but doesn't work in practice. In the chinese culture (and in other cultures) men are highly valued to pass on the family name, DNA, etc while women are seen as inferior. As a result female infants have been neglected, abandoned, or aborted under poor conditions because a male was desired. There was talk of some sort of stipend if you had a female child (don't know if that ever came to be) and quite a few are now up for adoption. 

Population isn't the problem persay. It is the consumerism. A individual from a developed country is going to use many MANY times the amount of resources as a child from a undeveloped or poor nation. 

I believe it is the USA, China and one other who I can't think of for the life of me that consume some insane amount of the worlds resources. 

While I actually do see the line of reasoning for what China is doing, I don't think it is effective. It opens up too many moral dilemas. Only allowing a family one child not only influences the gender they pick (and the effect that has on the community in the generations to come) but genetic makeup and things of that nature. Eugenics is a very very scary and slippery slope.


----------



## Amba1027 (Jun 26, 2009)

Yeah I figured this might get a little heated since it stemed from my mom yelling at me lol. But I hope I can get some good imput before (if) it starts to go in that direction.

I think it would be a good idea to do _something _about the number of children people have (my mom was saying have the limit be 2 not 1). You see these shows with people who've got numbers of children well into the double digits and I just think, if you want another kid please, _please_ adopt one. There are enough in the world without homes. You don't need an 18th child of your own. Of course there is the moral side of it, as you said. I think it would be something very hard to do without upsetting a whole lot of people. That's a whole other set of arrguments. Actually, I'm just torn on this issue. It's not really right to be telling people how many kids they can have. But really, do you need to have 8, 10, 20 of your own? Adopt some!!

But, I don't think the overpopulation is the cause of the problems. I think it's just another problem. 

You reminded me, with the consumerism stuff, I have info on that in my bio book I think. It's got charts showing how many Earths each country would need to survive if everyone on the planet lived like the people in that country. Or it was how many Earths they would go through in a year. Something like that. I will have to find it.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

I'm siding with your mum, not entirely about how China is going about it, but regarding over population. 
The more people in the world that there are, the more fossil fuels are required to keep them alive, the more water is required, the more land that must be cleared to produce food for them and housing. 
We cull animals because there are too many in one environment and they're eating themselves out. Us humans are doing exactly the same thing to ourselves and doing nothing about it.
If the world's population continues to grow at such an unbelievable rate, where will we find the room to grow crops, meat animals, build shopping centres to supply us with food and other essentials, where will we build enough houses? Where will we come up with enough water? I can tell you that where I live, we have MAJOR water shortage problems, we have only one river that feeds the entire capital city and most of the state as well as supplying water to our agriculture and horticulture. This river ALSO feeds 3 other states for the same purposes, so by the time it gets here, we get the dregs. And yet the government is STILL trying to encourage population growth?? It is just ludicrous! 

We absolutely, CANNOT justify wiping out every, single last little square of natural, undeveloped wilderness just because us humans are such selfish, greedy creatures. I personally find it very hard to live with being a human as far as how our culture treats the world that we live in. It is absolutely disgusting. We are draining every last resource from the planet, wiping out other 'inferior' species, taking out every last inch of natural habitat just so we can keep breeding. 
Bloody revolting. I am ashamed.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Oh and just to add, if we are so desperate to pump out babies and be such selfish, vile creatures, we can at least try to find a more sustainable way of living. Having every person living in a big house, in suburbs, owning 2 or 3 cars for each family, consuming and wasting huge amounts of produce, air conditioning, fuels, leaving lights on... it all adds up. We MUST have a more sustainable way of living


----------



## RedTree (Jan 20, 2010)

I'm siding with your mum as well...
We often had discussions in class about this last year and in theory what China is doing is good on paper but as above mentioned China values males more then females as they pass on the family name and the wife of the male I think cares for the parents... or something like that.
If China continues to do the one baby approach there will be only males left in say 50 years or so....
I think they have introduced a ruling that if your first child is a female then you are allowed to bare another child, but that doesn't stop them having another female.
Over populating in general is causing worsened poverty, global warming and everything.
In Australia, our maximum population was predicated to be 23 million for a sustainable country, however we have had predications that our population will reach 27 million by 2020.
Using up all the land will worsen global warming as we need to cut down trees which use CO2 and release O2.
We will start to burn more fussil fuels which will worsen the green house gas effect.
Everything is related to each other, you increase something it's gonna have an effect.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Population tends to stabilize itself when:

People have enough wealth, health and security in their future that they don't feel the need to have 8 children so that 2 or 3 survive.

Women are educated so that they have the means to add to their family's wellbeing and future security and are not solely dependent on the husband, therefor without any say in their OWN future and whether they want to be endlessly pregnant.

Women have enough education to realize that they are intrinsically valueable as human beings, not just as a womb to produce more "sons" for the honor of their husbands and themelves.

People realize that they want to be able to provide a better quality of life for their children and since their children have better healthcare and a better chance to live to adulthood, then the parent can provide for two or three children better than for 6 or 7.

Young people are gauranteed a good, and full education that keeps them from beginning their childbearing years at 15, because they are busy in the middle of a 5 or 8 year secondary education.

Young males have a future where a meaningfull job is available to them and enough females to become their mates (a future problem in China and India, where female infanticide is openly practiced) such that strife over mates does not erupt into total civil strife and war.

Remember that every human being, even the least educated, least literate, poorest, dirtiest, humblest , ragged man or woman is driven by the same dictum; I WILL survive! And I WILL provide for MY children first.
This is the way of all living things, and we cannot blame the others for something we would never blame ourselves for obeying.

I hope that governmenst and organized religions will gently encourage people to consider the smaller family as better for everyone. I , too , fear overpopulation is at the root of many of our problems, but forced birth control terrifies me.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

Hmm. Another point is with developed countries, people are living a very long time. So much of our money is spent keeping the elderly or very sick on life support or end of life care. It sounds harsh, but by keeping these people alive we are spending valuable money as well as they continue to use resources and things of that nature. 

If a person dies at 55 instead of 85 they will be using much less resources as well.

Not saying we should stop giving health care to the elderly or very sick, but just a point to consider. It's an issue that the developed world needs to face more so than the undeveloped.


----------



## RedTree (Jan 20, 2010)

they are living longer but also working longer.
Australia the retirement age has been increased over the last few years I think it's now 65 or something.


----------



## ShutUpJoe (Nov 10, 2009)

Ok BUT people had more children years ago than what they are having now. My grandma was one of eight, she had six children and has 10 grandchildren and 21 great grandchildren. That's about two kids per grandchild. My in-laws had four kids and only two of their children had kids. 

Anyway, I drive around and look at how many empty houses there are and wonder why we need to build brand new ones? Why are we taking up so much space? There are over 13,000,000 houses for sale within 200 miles of me, or something like that, on realtor.com. 

But I do agree that we are keeping people, including children, alive that before would have not survived. Not saying they don't deserve to be alive just that they wouldn't be. 

I don't know if any of you have read the books Among The Hidden but it is a fiction story written about illegal third children. I don't think making more children illegal would solve anything.....


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Spastic_Dove said:


> Hmm. Another point is with developed countries, people are living a very long time. So much of our money is spent keeping the elderly or very sick on life support or end of life care. It sounds harsh, but by keeping these people alive we are spending valuable money as well as they continue to use resources and things of that nature.


Spastic, we could also argue the same thing about babies and children who require expensive and perhaps lifelong medical care. Why are _these_ children being kept alive when so many other_ healthy_ ones would benefit from the care that these few are receiving?

The problem is once we start down that slippery slope of deciding who is more 'worthy' of care, it's likely to snowball very quickly. Just _who_ gets to decide one versus another is more worthy? The government? Health care providers? Doctors? That truly scares me.

Places like China and India have decided that male children are more worthy than girls, which is why we see so much female infanticide in those countries. China especially, since they've been forced into only one child per family. That hasn't worked so well for them, and the repercussions are already starting; China has far less young females than males now, and many men will never marry or reproduce unless they leave and find a wife elsewhere.

The more wealthy countries are _not_ the ones who are the major contributors to overpopulation. It's the third world and backward nations that are churning out millions of babies each year, many of them being born into grinding poverty. What those countries need is sex education and birth control, _not_ population control. Education and choices are the lynch pins of all wealthy, successful societies, not forced participation in having less children.

As far as people having 2 or 18 children, I say if they can afford them, it's not my place to tell them they need to stop. It's when they expect the taxpayers to fork over money to feed and clothe their children, is when I say enough.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

tinyliny said:


> Population tends to stabilize itself when:
> 
> People have enough wealth, health and security in their future that they don't feel the need to have 8 children so that 2 or 3 survive.
> 
> ...


This..


----------



## Hali (Jun 17, 2009)

I agree with tinyliny.

Also, although China and India (for example) have over population issues - in NA (specifically Canada) we may run into the issue where we don't have enough population to sustain our economy. The average Canadian family has 1.3 (will need to check this stat, as it may be old information) children which is a significant drop over the years. Take into account the number of baby boomers who will be retiring over the next few years and the general size of our country, and it could be an issue. Which is why I'm all for immigration (and entirely different kettle of fish, I know) because it helps in many ways as it allows those in other countries to come and make a good life for themselves as well has helps sustain our economy.

I speak for Canada solely, as I'm not educated on the situation in the USA, although I do know that their population is MUCH MUCH higher than ours (Canada I believe has approx 35 million people).


----------



## lacyloo (Jul 1, 2008)

Alot of people will probably get ****ed off but...

I believe this is where abortion plays an important role in society.


----------



## Dusty1228 (Dec 2, 2010)

I agree with EVERYBODY on this, actually.
Well, at least on some points. 
The children that we DO have need to be educated, lack of education (In the US) is the (In my opinion) root of alot of these issues. Teen pregnancy, ONGOING teen pregnancy (Those who just don't seem to be able to stop) a lot of our crime issues etc. 
If we had a strong education system, from DAY ONE there would be a serious decline in teenage pregnancy and the fact that it is running rampant. A) The women, as stated above would be busy furthering their education, mind busy, body busy, goals in place. B) Would be educated enough to realize that there was more out there for them than to be a welfare drain on society. 
DON'T attack me, I am not saying all people who got pregnant as a teen are horrible, or even most. I got pregnant at 15. Due to self education and sheer will power I have bettered myself and not ended up like most of my friends, who by now have 3,4 or 5 children, are living in government housing and claiming they can't work and take care of so many children.

All I'm saying is that if we as a people were educated, we would kill two birds with one stone. No population bombs, and also just betterment of ourselves and our whole society.

With more education young people wouldn't be so prone to be swayed by today's media that clearly makes us believe that if we don't drive a BMW and own a dozen $200.00 pairs of shoes, we are worthless, hence the crime rate would drop drastically. We would be able to set forth goals and not stew with envy.

We would be able to look forward to lives where we used our smarts to become doctors, lawyers, vets, designers, painters, lucratively so that we wouldn't have to find other means to support ourselves and our habits.

Ok, I know I jumped around and I could rant for hours, but basically what I mean to say is that I take up for both sides, in a way.

Rant over.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

lacyloo said:


> Alot of people will probably get ****ed off but...
> 
> I believe this is where abortion plays an important role in society.


I'm not angry lacy, but I am curious. Please expound on what you mean.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

Hali said:


> I agree with tinyliny.
> 
> Also, although China and India (for example) have over population issues - in NA (specifically Canada) we may run into the issue where we don't have enough population to sustain our economy. The average Canadian family has 1.3 (will need to check this stat, as it may be old information) children which is a significant drop over the years. Take into account the number of baby boomers who will be retiring over the next few years and the general size of our country, and it could be an issue. Which is why I'm all for immigration (and entirely different kettle of fish, I know) because it helps in many ways as it allows those in other countries to come and make a good life for themselves as well has helps sustain our economy.
> 
> I speak for Canada solely, as I'm not educated on the situation in the USA, although I do know that their population is MUCH MUCH higher than ours (Canada I believe has approx 35 million people).


^^It's same here in Finland. If we don't have more babies/immigration in future, we don't have people who take care of our numerous elderlies.


----------



## lacyloo (Jul 1, 2008)

Speed Racer said:


> I'm not angry lacy, but I am curious. Please expound on what you mean.


_(I'm typing this fast so there may be a few flaws, gotta go to the feedstore before it rains.. )_ 

I look at it like horses slaughter, its a necessary evil correct? Its a way to keep more balance. I believe abortions shouldn't be so frowned upon in todays society.

Years ago people died of just small illnesses because they couldn't get to a doctor, didn't have the money, there wasn't a cure etc...

Now they have cures for ALOT. Premature infants that would have died are kept alive for weeks until they develop more. If abortion was outlawed today we would have around 42 million babies worldwide a year. 

You have teens out there making "pacts" and having children just because they are "kute wittle babz".

And if anyone doesn't think I know how abortions are done _etc, _I do. My previous Christian school brought over a _pro life_ family. They explained to everyone about how abortion is evil etc and showed us videos and pictures. So I know its not a pretty thing to think about but I still think it is necessary. Does that mean if I ever fool around and get pregnant I will have an abortion just to "get rid of it?" No. I am on two forms of birthcontrol and strive to stay safe and baby free till I am financially stable one day. Honestly I may not even _want _kids. 

I'm sorry for turning this into a possible abortion debate. I was just voicing my opinion.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Well, I won't argue about abortion being right or wrong because it's legal in the U.S., and what a woman chooses to do with her body is between her and her doctor.

I will say that to use it as a_ primary_ form of birth control is all sorts of wrong. However, if you've taken every precaution and still wind up pregnant, I say it's your call what you do at that point.

I don't think it's a viable alternative when we're considering overpopulation, though. Forced abortions are what the Chinese government does, and I'd rather we didn't go in that direction as a country.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

I agree with abortion very much! If you think you can't take care of a child, then destroy it. I can think up at least 3 or 4 situations where abortion would be a positive thing for everyone.
As well as passing on a lot of bad characteristics or "conformation faults" We could say.
I also think useless/stupid people be killed.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Ray MacDonald said:


> I also think useless/stupid people be killed.


What governing body gets to decide just _who_ these useless/stupid people are, Ray? Just like denying care to the elderly or infants, who gets to make those types of decision?

Besides, stupidity/uselessness are in the eye of the beholder. Are you saying all mentally challenged people should be killed? Because they certainly can and do function as contributing members of society. What defines uselessness? The crippled? Those who need long term care? Coma patients who may or may not come back to consciousness?

It's not as black and white or cut and dried as you would seem to imply.


----------



## lacyloo (Jul 1, 2008)

> I will say that to use it as a_ primary_ form of birth control is all sorts of wrong.


I agree with you there.


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

lacyloo said:


> Alot of people will probably get ****ed off but...
> 
> I believe this is where abortion plays an important role in society.


I agree. That is why I'm for it.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

Speed Racer said:


> What governing body gets to decide just _who_ these useless/stupid people are, Ray? Just like denying care to the elderly or infants, who gets to make those types of decision?
> 
> Besides, stupidity/uselessness are in the eye of the beholder. Are you saying all mentally challenged people should be killed? Because they certainly can and do function as contributing members of society. What defines uselessness? The crippled? Those who need long term care? Coma patients who may or may not come back to consciousness?
> 
> It's not as black and white or cut and dried as you would seem to imply.


Who decides anything in the world? I was thinking more like druggies...


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

Ray MacDonald said:


> Who decides anything in the world? I was thinking more like druggies...


It's there choice to do drugs, it's not up to us to kill them cause they do drugs. It's my personal believe that no one is stupid, it's just the decisions people make that can be very stupid. We can't just go and kill druggies no matter how stupid people think they are. Rehab was created for a reason, and it's a very stupid decision for a druggie not to receive help. 

Killing "stupid" people is not an ethical way to manage the population.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Ray MacDonald said:


> Who decides anything in the world? I was thinking more like druggies...


You _are_ aware that police investigate murders of drug users and prostitutes as well as more 'useful' people, right? They don't just say, "Oh, she was a crack usin' 'ho, so we're not going to waste our manpower on solving HER murder."

If we killed all the drug users, Hollywood would be empty. Robert Downey Jr. would never have had a chance to redeem himself and become the much admired (and lusted after) Iron Man. RDJ has drug and alcohol problems, and from what I've heard can be an SOB even when sober, but by your ideals should have been killed long ago. 

Miley Cyrus and Lindsey Lohan both would have been done away with by now, as well as Paris Hilton, who is famous for just being rich, from what I can gather. Oh, but do celebrities get a pass because they're celebrities?

Anyway, as fascinating as this little side trip has been, it's not really about overpopulation, which is the real topic of the thread.


----------



## Hali (Jun 17, 2009)

The beauty of a democracy is the personal CHOICE to have an abortion. Once you let the goverment decide on who should or should not have abortion you take away that freedom and then where do you draw the line?


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

Speed Racer said:


> Spastic, we could also argue the same thing about babies and children who require expensive and perhaps lifelong medical care. Why are _these_ children being kept alive when so many other_ healthy_ ones would benefit from the care that these few are receiving?
> 
> The problem is once we start down that slippery slope of deciding who is more 'worthy' of care, it's likely to snowball very quickly. Just _who_ gets to decide one versus another is more worthy? The government? Health care providers? Doctors? That truly scares me.
> 
> ...


You're right. Sorry, I meant to include them in the 'incurable illness' part and I spaced it. That's exactly what I meant in my first thread though where if you decide who can live and who can be born, it's going to become very dangerous territory. Not only those with physical ailments but also mental disorders or mental handicaps, etc become a target. 

Like I said before, I think overpopulation is a problem, but only part of the larger issue of us using more resources than our environment can handle.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Spastic_Dove said:


> You're right. Sorry, I meant to include them in the 'incurable illness' part and I spaced it. That's exactly what I meant in my first thread though where if you decide who can live and who can be born, it's going to become very dangerous territory. Not only those with physical ailments but also mental disorders or mental handicaps, etc become a target.
> 
> Like I said before, I think overpopulation is a problem, but only part of the larger issue of us using more resources than our environment can handle.



Completely agree with you. It's an extremely complex problem, but it does need to be addressed, and sooner rather than later.

Most of the world's resources go to a minimum of the world's population, so the inequity between the haves and have nots grows exponentially every year.

We here in the U.S. have the lion's share of food, clean water, and other resources. Very few Americans would survive long on what other countries have available for their citizens.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

Speed Racer said:


> You _are_ aware that police investigate murders of drug users and prostitutes as well as more 'useful' people, right? They don't just say, "Oh, she was a crack usin' 'ho, so we're not going to waste our manpower on solving HER murder."
> 
> If we killed all the drug users, Hollywood would be empty. Robert Downey Jr. would never have had a chance to redeem himself and become the much admired (and lusted after) Iron Man. RDJ has drug and alcohol problems, and from what I've heard can be an SOB even when sober, but by your ideals should have been killed long ago.
> 
> ...


It's not like something IS going to be done. And I don't really care if those celebrities die... Or any other ones die.

I'm just very anti-drug... It's been drilled into my head way too many times.


----------



## GreyRay (Jun 15, 2010)

How 'bout everyone keeps their legs closed and their pants on untill they KNOW they can take care of a kid. I do not understand WHY sex is such a huge deal these days. I dont inderstand why RELATIONSHIPS are such a big deal these days.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

I guess some girls think it's kool to be a ****.... I don't get either... Guess it feels good? lolol

I don't get why you have to have 18 or 19 children!!! I think THAT is ridiculous!


----------



## lacyloo (Jul 1, 2008)

> How 'bout everyone keeps their legs closed and their pants on until they KNOW they can take care of a kid. I do not understand WHY sex is such a huge deal these days. I dont understand why RELATIONSHIPS are such a big deal these days.


One day you will understand the essential parts of a healthy relationship. Its a part of life. 



> I guess some girls think it's kool to be a ****.... I don't get either... Guess it feels good? lolol


Now for the teen girls that have multiple partners are just craving attention. I believe most of that reverts back to family issues. When a child is reaching out for attention they can do anything to get it.


----------



## Saskia (Aug 26, 2009)

I don't think its just population that is the problem, but more how we populate the plant. We now exist in large cities where virtually no food in grown nearby. This means that food needs to be packaged, preserved and transported in very large quantities. This uses a lot of extra resources.

I think as a society we have to move away from heavily populated groups to smaller settlements that grow most of their produce, or at least the base produce like wheat, meat, potatoes etc. There will always be a place for trade but I think communities need to become more self sufficient. Large cities are not really good for anything.

I was looking into permaculture a while ago and discovered that on a well managed house block a family can grow most of their needed produce. People should start growig their own foods.

I know this is a really weird and a bit OT idea but i always thought it would be really neat to use roofs for growing things. People could have some sort of greenhouse roof where they grow food, which would increase what they could successfully grow. If we could start using suburban areas to grow produce we'd be a lot better off.

I think education can fix most of the problems in the world. Educated women often have far less children but there is also a good quality of life for these children.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Saskia, your roof idea is not crazy at all. In fact there are already some places in the world that have engaged this idea and are growing produce on their roofs. 

Also we need to be looking hugely into re-newable energy sources. My house has a solar hot water system installed, and it is only in the coldest part of winter that we need to turn the electric system on. In the middle of summer, like it is right now, we have so many boiling hot, cloudless days that it is just insane not to be installing solar panels on roofs. Houses during an Australian summer would generate enough power to get them by until winter. 
Another thing with Australia - we have so much virtually unusable land in the middle of the country. Very little grows, there is sunlight and heat for 95% of the year, why waste that space? We may not be able to grow and produce food products or build cities, but we can sure as hell put some solar panels out there without bulldozing the entire natural environment.


----------



## Snookeys (Sep 23, 2010)

We can't put regulations of life. Humans are complex in that they can adapt their environment to them instead of the other way around. Eventually it will leave a big bite mark in the asses of our future generations. So all these babies we're producing now (because conditions are "ideal" for reproduction, if you're thinking of it in a biological way) are going to suffer later on when they simply don't have the resources to sustain a huge population, like we have now.

"Safe sex" is not easy to come by for a lot of people. The majority of the people who are having a ton of kids are having them because they won't practice safe sex. Then, they can't adequately take care of them, even if they are completely healthy children.

Take my family for example... My mother's side of the family is conservative. She has 3 kids, all from the same dad, and we all grew up together. My oldest sister is married, my brother is engaged, and I'm too young to get married and whatnot, but I am in a serious relationship. None of us have kids and we all are responsible when it comes to sex (even the married one!). Then take my step-dad's family. He's got two kids, a son and a daughter. The oldest is separated from his wife because of alcohol problems and drugs. He has 2 daughters. The youngest had very bad meth problems and would steal from us often. She had 3 children - 2 of them live with her mother's parents, and one of them lives with my step-dad and my mother. They're all under 5 years old. Now if you looked at it from the perspective of which family SHOULD have kids, what would you think?

Have you ever seen that move Idiocracy? It's satirical, really. It's not meant to be serious but it makes a valid point. "The dummies have tons of kids, and the smarties are too responsible to have any" Very blunt. I know it's a lot more complex than that, but think about it... lol.


----------



## Amba1027 (Jun 26, 2009)

Saskia said:


> I don't think its just population that is the problem, but more how we populate the plant. We now exist in large cities where virtually no food in grown nearby. This means that food needs to be packaged, preserved and transported in very large quantities. This uses a lot of extra resources.
> 
> I think as a society we have to move away from heavily populated groups to smaller settlements that grow most of their produce, or at least the base produce like wheat, meat, potatoes etc. There will always be a place for trade but I think communities need to become more self sufficient. Large cities are not really good for anything.
> 
> ...


I found this on a website I was looking at last night. I know your thoughts are more on the effects of urban areas on resources, but I thought it would be good to point out the apparent benefits of urban areas.



> In 2008, the World Bank put out a paper called “Urban Poverty: A Global View,” which discussed the effects of urbanization (the process of more and more people moving to crowded, or “urban” areas). According to the World Bank, people who moved to urban areas were not only more likely to escape poverty, but were also likely to be better off over time because “urbanization contributes to sustained economic growth which is critical to poverty reduction.”
> “Overall,” the World Bank continues, “the urbanization process has played an important role in poverty reduction by providing new opportunities for migrants and through the second-round impact on those who stay in rural areas …the urban economy provides opportunities for many and is the basis of growth and job creation.”


About China: I was looking through my bio text (for some other info I wanted to post here but haven't found yet) and I found a graph that is interesting. It shows China's population numbers for age groups (in 5 year increments) with the youngest group being 0-4 and the oldest being 85+. The graph shows how many people China has in each age group (I'm assuming it's fairly recent data as it is the newest edition of the text). It also shows how many are male and how many are female. There isn't a huge difference between the number of males vs females in any of the age groups. So either they don't kill the girl babies as much as everyone thinks, or they just have so many girls that it's not making that much of a difference. 

I can't find the other info I'm looking for...


----------



## RedTree (Jan 20, 2010)

Saskia said:


> I don't think its just population that is the problem, but more how we populate the plant. We now exist in large cities where virtually no food in grown nearby. This means that food needs to be packaged, preserved and transported in very large quantities. This uses a lot of extra resources.
> 
> I think as a society we have to move away from heavily populated groups to smaller settlements that grow most of their produce, or at least the base produce like wheat, meat, potatoes etc. There will always be a place for trade but I think communities need to become more self sufficient. Large cities are not really good for anything.
> 
> ...


I liked what you said, I think cities should shrink in size or become more dependent.
Roof growing actaully sounds like a great idea.
Education would fix a lot of things, it's just getting people out there volenteering to educate the uneduacted.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

lacyloo said:


> One day you will understand the essential parts of a healthy relationship. Its a part of life.
> 
> *When you are 13-16, you do not need sex to have a good relationship.
> And isn't GreyRay like 17? lol*
> ...


I see it all the time! lol People soing things JUST to get attention. It's really annoying.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

I had quoted a bunch of things that SR posted but it is stupid to quote them here just to say I agree. I will leave it at I agree with all of SR's posts above.



GreyRay said:


> How 'bout everyone keeps their legs closed and their pants on untill they KNOW they can take care of a kid.


You are very smart, Grey! I totally agree!



Ray MacDonald said:


> I guess some girls think it's kool to be a ****.... I don't get either... Guess it feels good?


Lots of things in life feel good. It does not make them all good things (for that time or that place). I agree, that there seems to be a large quantity of girls (and guys) who think it is very cool to out **** every one else.




Snookeys said:


> "Safe sex" is not easy to come by for a lot of people. The majority of the people who are having a ton of kids are having them because they won't practice safe sex.


I am confused by these two statements being together.
For starters, safe sex is not difficult to come by. You either say, "no" or you get some protection. Which is available for free in many places if you are not willing or able to pay for it. Safe sex is not difficult if you are willing to do it. 
Your second statement is accurate.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

We have a "Health Center" that gives out free pills/shots/patches of birth control and condoms.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

How did we get on people being '****s' or 'hos'? That has _nothing_ to do with overpopulation, and just sounds like someone's pet peeves. :?

The U.S. is an aging society, just like Canada. We may have more people per square mile than Canada does, but we have the same problem; people getting older and not enough babies being born to take the place of those who can no longer be productive.

The _truly_ overpopulated countries have ignorance and culture working against them. Until women are considered more than just male heir producers, their worth will continue to be tied into making babies.

You can't change a culture like India's overnight. Their whole identity as a society is based on producing as many children, hopefully male, as possible.

Seriously people, look past the end of your own noses and do some research. This is a crisis of global proportions, and until we start looking at the big picture instead of pointing fingers at those in our own neighborhoods, _nothing_ is going to change.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

Nope, nothing is going to change. Doesn't mean we can't talk about it.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Ray MacDonald said:


> Nope, nothing is going to change.


You're dead wrong, Ray.

There have been great inroads made in third world nations by caring people who are willing to educate both women _and_ men, because both sexes need to be on board with birth control and having only as many children as you can support. However, changing a culture is a delicate process and takes a very long time.

The problem is that change can't keep up with the babies being born, plus the apathy by the majority of people who would rather just blather on about it, and do nothing.


----------



## Snookeys (Sep 23, 2010)

Alwaysbehind said:


> I am confused by these two statements being together.
> For starters, safe sex is not difficult to come by. You either say, "no" or you get some protection. Which is available for free in many places if you are not willing or able to pay for it. Safe sex is not difficult if you are willing to do it.
> Your second statement is accurate.


Sorry, I agree that is confusing - let me clarify. "Safe sex" is difficult to come by, as in finding people that actually use some method of birth control during sex. Not the birth control itself. Even when birth control is offered to people at clinics, they just won't go through the trouble of going to get it. It's ridiculous...


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Speed Racer said:


> The U.S. is an aging society, just like Canada. We may have more people per square mile than Canada does, but we have the same problem; people getting older and not enough babies being born to take the place of those who can no longer be productive.
> 
> The _truly_ overpopulated countries have ignorance and culture working against them. Until women are considered more than just male heir producers, their worth will continue to be tied into making babies.
> 
> Seriously people, look past the end of your own noses and do some research. This is a crisis of global proportions, and until we start looking at the big picture instead of pointing fingers at those in our own neighborhoods, _nothing_ is going to change.


This X1000. 

Now if you look at things from an entirely environmental perspective, as mentioned in the OP then yes, perhaps less humans would be beneficial to the planet and you could argue that point.

If you look at things from the perpective of the dangers of creating stagnant economies in the developed world as the population ages (in some European countries, population growth is already _negative_) then one could argue that in fact we need _more_ humans.

Life is not black and white, it is infuriatingly shades of grey.

As a sidenote, why is it always the 'skanks' and 'ho's' that are blamed for unplanned pregnancy? They didn't get pregnant by themselves. Women historically cop enough blame for enough things without unplanned pregnancy to add to it. Takes two to tango. Sure 'keep your legs closed' as so eloquently put earlier but also perhaps something should be said for men 'keeping it in their pants?'


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

Good post, Sarah!



sarahver said:


> As a sidenote, why is it always the 'skanks' and 'ho's' that are blamed for unplanned pregnancy? They didn't get pregnant by themselves. Women historically cop enough blame for enough things without unplanned pregnancy to add to it. Takes two to tango. Sure 'keep your legs closed' as so eloquently put earlier but also perhaps something should be said for men 'keeping it in their pants?'


I believe it was said to keep your pants on.

ETA - yepper, it did.



GreyRay said:


> How 'bout everyone keeps their legs closed and their pants on_ <snip>_


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Ah I apologise GreyRay, at least you represented both sides of the argument!

Still, it irks me when people talk about skanks like they are the only guilty party. Poor skanks.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

Ahahha I do agree with you. It isn't always skanks that get preggers, boyfriends put pressure on the girlfriends to have sex so they can look and act cool.

Why don't we just move all of the people to different countries so they could have a better life?


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

Because that'd be taking their freedom. You can't just deport people cause they get pregnant. How would you feel if someone just tried to deport you?


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

You know, it's interesting: I have been to some very poor areas of the world, lived in Vietnam in the nineties for a couple of years and travelled around a lot of South East Asia during that time.

I saw what we would call 'poverty.' People didn't have a lot of 'things'. But they were far and away happier than a lot of people that I know of in more developed nations. I saw kids in rags playing soccer barefoot in the dirt with a ball that was half flat and cracked all over. They were among the happiest kids I have seen.

It seems to me that people in the developed world have this yearning for more 'stuff': New iPod, new flatscreen television, new car, designer clothes, whatever their neighbour has they want a better version. Keeping up with the Jones, it's a sickness. Still, no matter how much 'stuff' we accumulate, there is always someone with more. However, we are no happier than those without a single material possession to their name in other parts of the globe.

Personally, I don't think that reducing the population is the answer, it is the way that we are living that is doing the damage.

Mind you, if people stop wanting all that 'stuff' then the economy is equally screwed, so again it is two sides of the coin.

A happy medium might be the answer.


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

sarahver said:


> You know, it's interesting: I have been to some very poor areas of the world, lived in Vietnam in the nineties for a couple of years and travelled around a lot of South East Asia during that time.
> 
> I saw what we would call 'poverty.' People didn't have a lot of 'things'. But they were far and away happier than a lot of people that I know of in more developed nations. I saw kids in rags playing soccer barefoot in the dirt with a ball that was half flat and cracked all over. They were among the happiest kids I have seen.
> 
> ...


I have to agree


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

Katesrider011 said:


> Because that'd be taking their freedom. You can't just deport people cause they get pregnant. How would you feel if someone just tried to deport you?


I meant everyone, like whole families. Hey, if I was given a chance to get out of a poor, even dangerous, country to go to a new country where I would get better health care and education, I would think I was blessed!


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

Oh you meant taking the people out of the poverty stricken areas. Well still I'm pretty sure that's no where near as easy as it sounds.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

But I would think it would be a better choice? maybe cheaper in the long run? They have to send all of the stuff over there continusly.


----------



## GreyRay (Jun 15, 2010)

I think it would be easier to give their economy a boost, instead of moving them to a different part of the world. There has to be SOMETHING where they live that is worth money, they just need to find it


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

Dirt? ..... Maybe someone could set up a solar energy plant?


----------



## Katesrider011 (Oct 29, 2010)

But who would pay the money to set up a multi million dollar solar plant? Don't forget, everywhere in the world is affected by the state the economy is in right now.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

Yeah, you don't think people would make money off of it? Who is sending all of the supplies over their right now?


----------



## GreyRay (Jun 15, 2010)

Yeah, like dirt! What can grow in the dirt? What kind of rock is in the dirt? Stuff like that. The biggest problem with a large factory/plant is you would have to teach the people how to run it, but they need to have an education system anyway.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

Isn't it like really hot and dry there?


----------



## lildonkey8 (Dec 12, 2010)

i agree with amba. who cares how many babies people in china can have? not me.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

Speed Racer said:


> As far as people having 2 or 18 children, I say if they can afford them, it's not my place to tell them they need to stop. It's when they expect the taxpayers to fork over money to feed and clothe their children, is when I say enough.


_This. Great example is the Duggar Family. They have 19 kids, but do not use government money at all to support their family. They have made the right choices (for them) and it works. _


_I am neither for abortion or against it, but I do not see it as a good solution for population control....as in you are only allowed 1 kid and you are pregnant again so you MUST have an abortion. However, if there was a chance to not bring a child into this world who was just going to be a hinderance to society, that would be acceptable._

_What worries me the most is the thought that eventually we will not have enough agricultural land to grow food....to feed ourselves and to feed what we eat._

_Really, the best thing would be better education to countries who do have children being born into poverty. Yes, we would most likely have to fund it, but it would help them to have access to several forms of birth control._


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Regarding overpopulation and poor people, we "ain't seen nothin' yet". In the coming 50 years, if global warming continues as is predicted, there will be so many shifts in weather patterns that many millions and millions of people will be forced to move. To abandon the farm land that NOW is only marginal, but if drought conditions worsen, will be untillable. If the ocean currents are disrupted, and the Monsoons do not get to India, then MILLIONS of people will not have the rainwater they need to grow their crops. The poorest people have NO CHOICE. They must move or die. We might see their immagration into our land as a nuisance or a "problem", they see it as survival. 
We will need to find ways to insure that they either have somewhere to go, or ways to adapt to climate change, 'cause it looks like it is gonna happen.

Sounds grim . Sometimes I fear when I think of the future. My mom , age 75, assures me that all generations have thought that way about the future. Somehow, our future just seems scarier. But then, I grew up with practice Abomb raids, and that was pretty scarey.

I digress hugely.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

GreyRay said:


> I think it would be easier to give their economy a boost, instead of moving them to a different part of the world. There has to be SOMETHING where they live that is worth money, they just need to find it


This is just my humble opinion and how I have been taught, but I think those countries have lot of resources (mainly natural resources) that they can use. Many of these countries have still been colonies of some other countries back in history and even them are independent now, them haven't managed to fight their way into a state in which they'd be equal with developed countries but the situation is in imbalance. In many cases, they still use their natural and other resources to produce cheap products to developed countries and that doesn't often serve the best of their own country nor let them really benefit their resources. I think that if we want better conditions & incomes in countries like that, we need to recognize and admit that and then do something with it. Sure we help countries like that but sometimes help just isn't like it should be. The good example would be boats that Finland delivered to some African country (if my memory serves me, them were might fishing boats that were meant for more effective fishing). Anyways people just didn't know how to use those boats or how using them would improve their previous methods there so the boats were left to corrode in dock. Would it be more effectively if besides delivering the boats we'd have also delivered some information of them with them?

I think that it's important that developing countries will have their conditions in good track, it's one of the requirements that people can become more educated, which is related to family sizes and number of offspring. I also stand firmly behind Tinylily's quote that I already quoted in the page 2, the state of woman is important: 



tinyliny said:


> Population tends to stabilize itself when:
> 
> People have enough wealth, health and security in their future that they don't feel the need to have 8 children so that 2 or 3 survive.
> 
> ...


This sure isn't meant against any religious group but I think that it isn't good that some religious groups want to prevent for example use of condoms in poor countries. I think that effective birth control methods are important when regulating the size of human population somewhere.

I think that I haven't stated my opionion of overpopulating itself yet. Like you may already anticipated, I think it's possible and might gonna happen if we don't do something. I think that it's just how nature works, it has its tolerance limit: if some (wild) animal population grows too much, something that brings it back under the limit happens: there will might be lack of food when the most weakest animals will be eliminated or population of beasts will grow too and that limits the animals. Might it's some pandemic disease which start to spread when there are lot of animals in the population. I think human isn't an exception to that; sure we can play some time and change some things in the situation, but if the population grows too fast and too much, the tolerance limit will be crossed and something will happen. In my opinion the most greatest treats are lack of food, how long can we still feed our growing population? Or then the way we use & strain the other resources around us.

I want still mention that I'm not that radical or eco-person myself: I believe in common sense and finding the golden mean in things like that. I think the soft methods that I described above would do a lot when limiting the size of population.


----------



## LauraKate (Jan 9, 2010)

Good grief, people! Have you not heard of this thing called "The sanctity of human life"? No? Well, I guess that's just too "old fashioned" and "weird" to even bring up! 

Sorry, I just had to get that out first... I totally agree with making the most of our natural resources, it is much cheaper and healthier to grow your own food, and generate your own energy. I think it is much more productive to focus on being responsible than to try to "control the population", which kind of reminds me of Nazi Germany. People are treasures, whether they are a newly-conceived fetus, a nursing home-bound grandma, or a mentally/physically disabled person.

As for birth control, I guess you can see where I stand on this subject. Abstinence is the best birth control. We do not need sex education; I can just bet they can find that out themselves! We need abstinence education! There is no such thing as "safe sex" outside of marriage. Period.

What we need to do is raise up hard-working, responsible children who will, as one poster so eloquently put it, "keep their pants on", take care of us in our old age, and be good stewards of this world we have been given. 

Now, I will step off of my soap box, and go back to being a weird, judgmental, self-righteous Jesus-freak who clings to her guns and her religion. 

GOD bless America! (We need it!)

P.S. Really sorry about the abrasive parts, But I will not apologize for my standards. Drives me nuts when people imply that "anything goes".


----------



## Amba1027 (Jun 26, 2009)

I do not want this to turn into a sex vs abstinence debate, but I believe it has been shown that sex ed is far more effective than teaching absetinence only. It is silly to believe that teens aren't going to have sex just because someone in a classroom told them they shouldn't. Yes, some may listen to this line of teaching, but not all of them. And if they are going to be having sex they should be as educated as possible about it to prevent undesirable results.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I have a hard time seeing the connection between the guns , Jesus and abstinence


----------



## LauraKate (Jan 9, 2010)

I agree, up to a point. Sex education is more effective, but the birds and the bees should me left to mom and dad. We do not need schools to raise our children. What I meant was that sex should be kept out of schools. I know not every kid is going to listen, but if they won't listen to mom and dad, they won't listen to anyone, especially the schools. 

Oh, and I am sorry for getting into this subject. It just kind of got my dander up, talking about birth control and all that.


----------



## LauraKate (Jan 9, 2010)

tinyliny, what I mean is, I probably sound like one of those "conservative extremists" who are pro-life, anti-big government, anti-gun control, etc. (Which I am )


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

That's the thing though, parents aren't talking to their children about birth control of any sort. 

I know plenty of early teen agers who think that oral sex is safe. They aren't aware of the passing of diseases, they just know they can't get pregnant. Plenty who think that if there is no penetration, they are completely safe which is not necessarily true. 

I can appreciate the idea of wanting to be the one to educate your children. But I think that people need to actually do it.

For those that are not preaching education, there needs to be facts and availability. 

Sexualy active indivuals need to know that not all birth control methods are created equal. It sounds like common sense, but many don't understand this -- especially the younger generation. 

Plenty don't even want to put for the $8-10 to buy a pack of condoms. At most family planning clinics, they have them set out for free. 

Unfortunately, rather than being free to ask their parents, many individuals go to the media or their friends to learn about sex. While it is perfectly okay to preach abstinence, I think it is important that individuals have someone to ask questions to and not feel embarrassed. Be it a parent, relative, or their teacher.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

Over here we have sex education at school. I think it's good since school gives often unbiased education with generally accepted facts and all youngsters will have at least basic knowledge then. If there are some religious reasons or something like that, you can forbid your kid to have that education.

Also I don't think it's very good that even younger and younger youngsters start their sex life earlier and earlier. If it's gonna happen, it's still good that you are educated and know how to be safe or a least try. As to sex education, it gives also a great base if you end up to start your sex life later in your life. Sex can be very natural and beautiful resource of joy, enjoyment and committment for most of people even they wouldn't want to have a baby just at the moment. That's why most of people go for it and I think requesting pure abstinence from everyone wouldn't work and, IMHO, I don't know if it was even fair to ask people to do it. That's why I think proper sex education, knowledge, BC methods and even an abort as the last resort if everything else has gone wrong should be available to everyone. Sure I highly appreciate it if you're very strong in faith or you do have some other reason to carry that abstinence yourself.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

TaMMa89 said:


> Over here we have sex education at school. I think it's good since school gives often unbiased education with generally accepted facts and all youngsters will have at least basic knowledge then.


There is no school any where that give out anything close to 'unbiased' education on any topic.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

When saying unbiased, I mean something open and generally accepted in the society (may kind of 'scientific' would be a better expression?)

About my experience, at least most of parents don't seem to have problems with that here.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Alwaysbehind said:


> There is no school any where that give out anything close to 'unbiased' education on any topic.


True, but as far as sex education, one hopes that they can stick with the facts; this is how you get pregnant, this is when it can happen, this is how to prevent it (multiple ways, including, of course, abstinance), these are some of the worse things that can happen if you have unprotected sex. NUFF SAID. No judgement need be included either pro or con.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

tinyliny said:


> True, but as far as sex education, one hopes that they can stick with the facts; this is how you get pregnant, this is when it can happen, this is how to prevent it (multiple ways, including, of course, abstinance), these are some of the worse things that can happen if you have unprotected sex. NUFF SAID. No judgement need be included either pro or con.


That's how I've experienced it over here. Tho I'd have hoped that they have told something more about sexuality overall.


----------



## Gidget (Jan 19, 2010)

Okay,first off...I only read the OP message so sorry if I missed something but I do not feel like going through pages. 

The world is overpopulated. I think China is doing the right thing to keep population down as it is extremely populated there.
My husband and I are not having kids for many reasons and for me this is another reason. There are too many people in the world and thousands of unwanted children. I know that people want to pass down their DNA and have there family tree keep going,etc but I see adoption being a wonderful thing if a family decides they want a child  
Over population won't end. There are a lot of people out there that don't care if they get pregnant and then realize it's more difficult taking care of a child if they are not phyically,financially,and emotionally ready.


----------



## Ray MacDonald (Dec 27, 2009)

I agree that just not having sex would solve anything... Education is the best. Because when you don't say "Hey this will happen if you have sex" They will find out on their own... In a bad way. Wasn't there a movie on something like this? But they had to like get rid of it because it had underage kid sex lol


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

_But I can have sex as an adult and use protection to keep from getting pregnant. Yes, abstinance is also a great birth control, but not one I like. LOL_

_There still has to be a better way then the government coming in and saying that you can only do "this" instead of doing "that". Maybe if they put a cap on how many kids you could get a baby bonus for, maybe it would cut down on how many kids "welfare mommies" have. (I have no problem with a family having a lot of kids if they are going to support themselves) Make birth control more affordable in all forms....shots, inserts, and pills. _

_What worries me more then people reproducing is urban sprawl. They do go hand in hand though, but if the cities keep expanding into our agricultural land, how will we survive without being able to grow food? Some of our food has to be fed first before it can be butchered,_


----------

