Human Overpopulation

[Loopy Grumpkins]

Does human overpopulation exist? If so, what can we do reduce the effects of it/slow it down or even stop it?

On a side note, do you agree or disagree with any of the following methods of slowing down human over population.

1) Laws limiting each family to only one child (Possible punishments: Fines, "excess" children being adopted by other families without the biological parents' consent)
2) Colonizing other planets (in the future)
3) The government assigning jobs so that more people produce necessities like food and work in manufacturing rather than other jobs like professional athletes, writers, film directors, actors, artists, etc.

[Groovy Jones]

Of course we have overpopulation already.

One family one child laws don't stand a chance in most of the world either through human freedom or the inabilty of governments to govern. Here, mentioning tax credits for keeping families small in the US will throw 180 metric tons of C4 onto the abortion debate and making it seem like women are going to become chain abortionists for their taxes or avoiding fines is the one move I think strong enough to get Roe v. Wade overturned. The places with the biggest population challenges usually got that way because of a whole set of circumstances that would make a policy like that a pariah. What makes that policy viable in China is the same thing that also makes Tienanmen Square possible.

Space? Not for 100 years at least, I'd guess 250. We're regressing on manned space presence, NASA's manned space budget just got cancelled.

About 70% of the US workforce is in the Services category, only 20-25% in manufacturing anymore. But that aside, how does putting us to work stop us from screwing? Anyone remember what Danny Elfman had to say about Wild Sex (In The Working Class)? Side note: I think that -very deep down- is one of the most romantic songs I've ever heard.

[Loopy Grumpkins]

If more people were to work on producing necessities, then there would be more of those items - increasing the supportable population.

[Eystein,]

Well that's the point of overpopulation isn't it? Not lack of people, but lack of resources necessary to produce these necessities. The planet can only provide so much. If everyone are to live like westerners, then Earth is already overpopulated, but if everyone are to live on just the basics, then we probably can get as many as 30 billion. But what then? ...and what would be the point?

[Loopy Grumpkins]

Before I say anything else, I need to say that I don't support this option. That being said, people could revert to a way of thinking like that of the people of the 24th Century in Star Trek TNG where people work for self betterment rather than possession.

[MandaPlz]

THIS. safe sex plz

[Eystein,]

Hi, I'm an ideological supporter for the quest for immortality, or "the cure of aging" as it would be in real life, not cure of death... So this overpopilation scenario is something I'm concerned about. I'm in no doubt that aging will be cured in a not too distant future, maybe in our lifetime, and way ahead of any huge scale space colonization projects, so that will concequently lead to some difficulties. Both practical and ethical. It will be reached prematurily to put it mildly.

But too focus on the present. I think the third world is in desperate need on some though incentives combined with intense information campaigns through health clinics, radio, and what ever else available. And of course an ample supply of contraception as mentioned... I don't think we're ever going to get rid of poverty if our numbers continue to increase. I hope we can reverse the trend soon, and ideally see a steady but slow decline. (If we stop aging, this will not be possible however...)

I think overpopulation, and the misery it leads to, is the biggest threat to human health and dignity. And combined with global warming, it holds the potential to create disasters that would make biblical stories sound minute. In theory the planet can feed at least twince as many people as today, but modern humans demand and deserves much more than just food and water! If we double our numbers, we will also press an already pressed natural world to a state where all preservation initiatives of to date, will have been futile. We will loose all big cats, empty the sea, loose all flatland forest, and hundreds of thousands of anynomous species that we take for granted will die out. Are we really that much worth that should allow this? And what will we do when there's no more land to cultivate, and no more fish in the sea? I for one, hope we never have to find out!

I think India is very unresponsible with it's leniancy towards growth. They have the reasources and organization to deal with this, so no excuse for them. China is a bit extreme, but at least they have acknowledged the problem. The problem with choosing such a radical solution is that the population decline will get too extreme, but they're loosening up I think, at least wealthy people can buy permit for additional children, and haven't managed to completily stop the growth either.

[The Black Knight]

As of now its manageable, but no one gives a fuck. So, I think we should start giving at least a few fucks. At some point its going to be unmanageable unless drastic changes are taken into account. Right now we are near 6 billion but anywhere near 7.5-8 billion Earth is just going to be a giant clusterfuck.

[Eystein,]

I would suggest a two child policy. That would cause a very weak decline in numbers.

With the exception of the US, there's no need for such limitations on other developed countries, as our numbers going down already. And I have no idea on how to impliment it on the developing world... But someone need to start talking about it.

I have a feeling 3 billion is the optimum number for us, but I guess that is impossible for now. But I rather see it happing thru sensible planning, than thru starvation, death and destruction.

[David]

I don't think were necessarily think overpopulation is a serious concern, it may be in the far coming future. Although for now the Green Revolution and Globalization have basically set our standards of how the world is organized.

[Eystein,]

Why not exactly? I strongly disagree! Talk to any ecologist, and they'll tell you that all natural enviroments are under severe stress.

Green Revolution? The world won't be much green once everyone have reached our meterial standards. It's not enough to just feed the people.

Globalization? I don't get it. How will this help? Doesn't help to ship a billion poor people to Canada, if you can't provide for them.

[David]

Also, we have plenty of room up in Canada for people to migrate to if anyone's interested :)

[Lenore103]

1) It's a good idea on theory, but no. Then you end up with the problem China had-- everyone wanted sons so if they had a girl they'd sent her to a seedy orphanage or abandon her. Maybe limiting a couple to two children (one for each parent) might be more affective, but you'd still run into problems.
2) Yes, but I don't think we could affectively take care of another planet until we learn to take care of our own. As it stands, we're doing a pretty poor job of that.
3) NOOOoooo! This is a major infringement on freedom. Besides, who says we don't need those other things? They aren't necessary for survival, but we need artists to make life worth living.