1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

Is it time for the enforcement of population control? (serious discusson)

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by yoshi, Jan 27, 2004.

  1. yoshi


    Jul 12, 2002
    England, London
    -------NOTE: NONE POLITICAL!!--------
    Evenin' chaps (and chapesses).

    Over the last few years, I couldn't help notice but take in literally hundreds of human related facts thrown at me by the media and vacummed from observation, all of which get me thinking; where's the human population going?

    I'm not talking laws or even morality but on a more basic level; NUMBERS.

    It seems to me that for as long as 'weve' been around there's been limiting factors regarding to our potential growth as a race. Nowadays, thanks to conquering the food chain and mastering skills like farming and economy, such factors have been totally thrown out of the window and the human racehas exploded.

    It's a fact that ther'll be a point where the earth cannot support any more people and when that point is reached what's the plan, to re-enact 'Logans Run' en-mass?

    Therefore (whilst avoiding a lengthy post and refernce to politics + ongoing events) I think that some sort of population control IS call for, similar to that seen in urban area's of China.

    Hopefully there'll be some good discussion on this one..

    PS - I'm not posting this on a whim/to ratlle cages/to try and act inty-lekchu-al.

    Edit: Logans run is a sci-fi film, clickfor description.
  2. jazzbo


    Aug 25, 2000
    San Francisco, CA
  3. I'm with the Gaia Hypothesis on this ol' chestnut.

    This is basically the theory that the Earth rebalances itself. Maybe not in a "Hmm, I'll top some kiddies to stop those pesky homo rapiens being losers" way, but just in the way that there won't be enough food, etc.

    It's the same as how people are crying about global warming and how we're hotter than we've ever been - yet all the while neglecting the fact that we're coming out of an ice age. It was hotter in 1300's when there were no cars, and from then it got colder til 1800's when there was a semi ice-age, and now it's heating up again. Burning fossil fuels like they're going outta fashion makes as much sense as the average plot-line of Sesame Street, but that's not to say it's the root of all evil as all the happy clappy people would tell you.

    So...er...yeah, people will regulate people just because of the increase of diseases, viruses, war, famine, etc.. Well, if certain people (let's keep it non-political) distributed food instead of getting subsidies for stock-piling it we'd most likely all be dandy from a food standpoint, but anyway, it'll sort itself out.

    No, really ;)

  4. Matthew Bryson

    Matthew Bryson Guest

    Jul 30, 2001
    I've thouht this for a long time. I think we spend way too much energy advancing medical science, keeping people alive that would have died with out our science, and making almost everybody live longer than people ever did before. Why? It is only compounding what is man kinds greatest problem - we are over populated. I think that medicine should improve our quality of life and ease the suffering of the ill - but I really do not think that we should be curing the terminal or prolonging life in any way. It's not mans place and it's causing our greatest problems.

    yes, I realize I just said we should not try to cure the terminally ill - go ahead and let the flames begin.
  5. What angers me is transplant waiting lists. There's this "famous" footballer here - well, he was in the 60's - who is an alcoholic and refuses to do anything to "give up" or whatever. Equally, he's a womaniser and so on. Anyway, he drank his liver to death. And, as such, he was skipped up the waiting list and had some 20-year-old guy's kidney. Now, months on, he's drunk himself silly again, split up with his wife, and now he needs a new liver.

    He's getting one soon, I think.

    Does he deserve to live? If you or I pumped ourselves up with alcohol 24/seven, we know we're screwed. Yet he can almost be immortal just because he is 'George Best'.

    Similarly, 40-a-day smokers get lung transplants ahead of people who have just happened to contract lung cancer. Hmm.

    Anyway, I don't see the point in wishing for a retardation of progression or anything. We're creating new medical potions and contraptions to end our pain which seems like a good thing. I don't think making the old/sick suffer more is going to mean the world is going to be a better place.

  6. pkr2


    Apr 28, 2000
    coastal N.C.
    I believe that the human population falls under the same controls of nature that the rest of the creatures are controlled by.

    I don't know how it works but if the population of a species starts getting out of hand something seemingly unrelated will bring the population into balance. If there are too many rabbits in the field, the foxes will gain in population to control the rabbits. If nothing else, disease will prevail to bring about balance. If a disease is eradicated, another, different and possibly unheard of disease will become prevalent. I have to believe that AIDS and some of the other relatively new diseases are the result of nature trying to maintain a balance.

    The big question in my mind is: exactly what or who is "mother nature"?

    Good subject.

    Harrell S.
  7. Matthew Bryson

    Matthew Bryson Guest

    Jul 30, 2001
    You may have missed my point, which is simply that higher survival rates and longer life spans both are contributing to over-population, which is a huge problem.
    My opinion - organs should not be transplanted. In my opinion, scavanging human remains for spare parts is the epitome of sick and wrong. I'd rather die than go against the laws of nature. I am offended by this practice. I will not sign up as an organ donar, I would never receive a donated organ - even if some quack said it was the right thing to do.

    In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway.
  8. Oysterman


    Mar 30, 2000
    The ones who are kept alive are the people of the rich world, who are in minority. And to my knowledge, population isn't increasing that much in the western world (e.g. Sweden would have a population decrease without immigration). So this is not the problem IMO.

    When medicine becomes cheap and readily available all over the world, on the other hand... greed has prevented that from happening so far - could it be a blessing in disguise? :meh:
  9. Some questions:

    Isn't this pretty much how we were, but without the topographical land-marks? This is what we were - what we've come from. What makes you think that it would be any different? There'd still be too many people and they would live up to the "Homo Rapiens" monicker given to us now as they gorged themselves on the landscape. There's no such thing as a true environmentally friendly area. Our ecological footprint will still be huge, no matter what we do. With humans as we are, we're still going to have to rely on the environment giving us it's fruits for us to live simply because we're so appalling "made". We sacrificed all physical ability when we evolved from apes (unless of course you're Jehovas Witness or whatever...), and now we have to use whatever technology we have to restructure our situ to make it easier for us.

    Secondly, what is the point in un-doing the hard work of millions of people who have fought, struggled, and died to give us the things we today take for granted?

    Anyway, I had more to make a point of, but I need a wee.

  10. funkcicle


    Jan 9, 2004
    Asheville, NC
    is it? really? seriously? when was this proven? by whom? how? I presume there are detailed studies, documentation, and publications.. if it's a fact.

    is the earth's population the highest it's ever been? yes.

    is the earth over populated? no. not in the least.

    the inherent problem with these sorts of conversations is that they suppose likely future scenarios with outdated, past circumstances. no we're not invincible, our race might not last forever, heck, we may even overpopulate this planet one day... but I think that would take billions of people to do.. even by today's standards! the earth has almost always had the "highest population it's ever had".. and thusly, has almost always bordered on "overpopulation" by the standards of the day.

    I rented Logan's Run on DVD last week.. GREAT dolby surround sound! horrible(HORRIBLE!) movie! I've been wanting to rent it for a good 5 years or so now, it has such an intetresting premise, and so much potential to be a great movie.. I can't begin to fathom how on earth they managed to make it so awful! There's nothing worse than a director royally screwing up a great idea!

    ...might make a good remake, though! :D

    back on topic!

    I remember when I was in the 7th grade and my social studies teacher opened up a "Time Capsule from the Future".. it was laughably cliché, but still kind of fun. It was full of black-and-white portraits of people dressed in uniform, with 1980s haircuts.. newspaper clippings with ads for churches for sale, and an article about "The 6 Billionth Baby", a subtle hint at earth's overpopulation.. pen-pal letters talked of how everybody lived in high rises.. one kid "knew a kid" who claimed to have once walked on real grass... at school the teachers knew them by number and not by name, etc etc..

    yes, what a mess the world would be, if the population were to reach 6 billion!

  11. canopener


    Sep 15, 2003
    Isle of Lucy
    Modern Malthusians will be proved wrong just for the same reasons the man himself was sometime ago, imao.
  12. pbd

    pbd Commercial User

    Jul 17, 2003
    Metro Detroit
    owner Procables N Sound
    How do you really feel about the movie? lol

    If you take the entire population of the earth and gave everyone 1 square foot, they would all fit into the state of texas!
  13. Marlat


    Sep 17, 2002
    London UK
    The same argument could be used to say that we should not feed starving children.

    Exactly who would determine when someone is "terminally ill"? In some countries people die everyday from diseases which are no more than an inconvenience in other countries. Should we provide medicine to the sick?

    What if "easing the suffering" results in the prolonging of life? What would you do then? (Burns victims come to mind - I understand they can die from the "shock" of the burns, and pain killers can keep them alive and ease their pain).
  14. jive1

    jive1 Commercial User

    Jan 16, 2003
    Owner/Retailer: Jive Sound
    Actually if you gave the entire population of the earth 1250 square feet they would fit in the state of Texas. If you took 4 billion people (currently the total population is somewhere around 5.8 Billion) and divided them into families of 4 and gave them 50' by 53' pice of land, they would fit into the state of Oregon. If you took the entire population of the Earth and gave them a 5' radius of space, they would all fit in the city of Jacksonville, FL. Human beings take up about 3% of the Earth's land surface. Sure we live in overcrowded conditions, but we crowd together in cities for economic reasons, such as to exchange goods and services.

    Population explosion?
    United Nations figures show that the 79 countries that comprise 40 percent of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965-70 to 1.5 in 1990-95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960-65 to 1.70 in 1990-95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 — that is, effectively zero — in 1990-95. And the annual rate of change in world population fell from 2 percent in 1965-70 to less than 1.5 percent in 1990-95.
    Worldwide, the number of children the typical woman had during her lifetime (total fertility)
    fell from 5 in 1950-55 to less than 3 in 1990-95. (The number necessary just to "replace" the current generation is 2.1.) In the more developed regions, total fertility fell from 2.77 to 1.68 over the same period. In the less developed regions it fell from more than 6 to 3.3. Total fertility in Mexico was 3.1 in 1990-95. In Spain it stood at 1.3, and in Italy,it was 1.2.

    Overpopulation causes environmental problems?
    Seventy-nine scientists issued the "Leipzig Declaration" in 1995 saying ". . . There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about . . . greenhouse warming. . ." Additionally, the satellite readings of global temperature, available on the NASA Web site at www.nasa.com, do not show a warming trend. And further, respected climatologists dispute the notion of a global warming danger.
    The world forested area, estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. (FAO), currently amounts to four billion hectares, covering 30 percent of the land surface of the earth. Few people realize this is the same figure as in the 1950s. In the United States, vast forests cover a third of the land, according to the U.S. Forest Service. That's equivalent to two-thirds of the amount of land that was forested when the Europeans arrived in the 1600s. This acreage has not declined since 1920. In fact, annual forest growth today is more than 3 1/2 times what it was in 1920. Two-thirds of the nation's forests are classed as timberland, capable of producing at least 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial wood annually. Another fact: Trees are growing 33 percent faster than they are being cut. The highest volumes of growth occur on privately-owned forest industry land, while the government-owned national forests, where the trees are older, have the lowest volumes of tree growth. Also, if you want to get into the rainforest stuff, realize that Brazil has less than half as many people per square mile (31.2) as the world average (101).
    Air and water pollution levels have been highest in the centrally-planned economies of Eastern Europe and China, where population growth is low or negative. Legendary air pollution in Poland and Russia has occurred in areas with thinly-settled populations. In the United States, air pollution is declining significantly. The federal government's National Acid Precipitation assessment Program recently reported "no widespread forest or crop damage in the United States" related to acid rain.

    Not enough food?
    According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, world food supplies exceed requirements in all world areas, amounting to a surplus approaching 50 percent in 1990 in the developed countries, and 17 percent in the developing regions. "Globally, food supplies have more than doubled in the last 40 years . . . between 1962 and 1991, average daily per caput
    food supplies increased more than 15 percent. At a global level, there is probably no obstacle to food production rising to meet demand," according to FAO documents prepared for the 1996 World Food Summit. The FAO also reported that less than a third as many people had less than 2100 calories per person per day in 1990-92 as had been the case in 1969-71.
    At present, farmers use less than half of the world's arable land. The conversion of land to urban and built-up uses to accommodate a larger population will absorb less than two percent of the world's land, and "is not likely to seriously diminish the supply of land for agricultural production," according to the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology in 1994.

    Overpopulation causes poverty?
    In reality, problems commonly blamed on "overpopulation" are the result of bad economic policy. For example, Western journalists blamed the Ethiopian famine on "overpopulation" but that was simply not true. The Ethiopian government caused it by confiscating the food stocks of traders and farmers and exporting them to buy arms. That country's leftist regime, not its population, caused the tragedy. In fact, Africa, beset with problems often blamed on "overpopulation," has only one-fifth the population density of Europe, and has an unexploited food-raising potential that could feed twice the present population of the world, according to estimates by Roger Revelle of Harvard and the University of San Diego.
    Economists writing for the International Monetary Fund in 1994 said that African economic problems result from excessive government spending, high taxes on farmers, inflation, restrictions on trade, too much government ownership, and overregulation of private economic activity. There was no mention of overpopulation.
    The government of the Philippines relies on foreign aid to control population growth, but protects monopolies which buy farmers' outputs at artificially low prices, and sell them inputs at artificially high prices, causing widespread poverty.
    Advocates of population control blame "overpopulation" for poverty in Bangladesh. But the government dominates the buying and processing of jute, the major cash crop, so that farmers receive less for their efforts than they would in a free market. Impoverished farmers flee to the city, but the government owns 40 percent of industry and regulates the rest with price controls, high taxes and unpublished rules administered by a huge, corrupt, foreign-aid dependent bureaucracy. Jobs are hard to find and poverty is rampant. This crowding leads to problems such as sporadic or inefficient food distribution, but this problem is caused — as in Ethiopia — by that country's flawed domestic policies.
    It is often claimed that poverty in China is the result of "overpopulation." But Taiwan, with a population density five times as great as mainland China's, produces many times as much per capita. The Republic of Korea, with a population density 3.6 times as great as China's, has a per capita output almost 16 times as great. The Malaysian government abandoned population control in 1984, ushering in remarkable economic growth under free market reforms, while Ecuador, Uruguay, Bulgaria and other countries complained at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo that though they had reduced their population growth, they still had deteriorating economies.


    Special thanks to Dr. Jacqueline R. Kasun, an economist and the author of The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of World Population Control who provided the stats and research.
  15. funkcicle


    Jan 9, 2004
    Asheville, NC
    great post!
  16. I say one kid only. Then they can be a spoiled prick and then the human race will reach optimum profecency.
  17. pbd

    pbd Commercial User

    Jul 17, 2003
    Metro Detroit
    owner Procables N Sound
    Wow! awesome post. Great stats!
  18. i have been an advocate at my school for population control (and in some cases abortion). i post fliers once in a while on the hallway corkboards with facts about population and such.
  19. MJ5150

    MJ5150 Moderator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Apr 12, 2001
    Olympia, WA
    Dang jive1, you did all my research for me. I read the original post, and my thoughts immediately turned to your last comment. I was just about to go searching for all of those facts, but I decided to read the thread all the way through to see if anyone would even agree with me.

    Thank you for that hard work. I agree with you completely.

  20. Excellent and informative post, jive1. :)


    Mike :cool:

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.