Is the growing world population a problem?

SnaFu · 10-22-2009, 12:09 AM

I found this site. BS or legit?

http://www.mwillett.org/Politics/bigprob1.htm

It's kind of a long read. The first two paragraphs set the tone....

The biggest crisis facing the planet today is so big and so surrounded by delicate issues that most people will not face it. Simply put there are at least 200,000 more people alive today than yesterday. Tomorrow there will be at least another 200,000 more.

These are net figures, I am not talking about births I am talking about the average daily surplus of births over deaths. To put it into perspective there are more extra people alive each new day than died in both atomic bomb attacks on Japan.

dk · 10-22-2009, 12:12 AM

Build up and down, not out. Saw a cool documentary where they have begun effectively farming in skyscrapers in Singapore. Unless the idiots win, people will find a way to survive, even if it isn't pretty.

Biru San · 10-22-2009, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnaFu

I found this site. BS or legit?

http://www.mwillett.org/Politics/bigprob1.htm

It's kind of a long read. The first two paragraphs set the tone....

The biggest crisis facing the planet today is so big and so surrounded by delicate issues that most people will not face it. Simply put there are at least 200,000 more people alive today than yesterday. Tomorrow there will be at least another 200,000 more.

These are net figures, I am not talking about births I am talking about the average daily surplus of births over deaths. To put it into perspective there are more extra people alive each new day than died in both atomic bomb attacks on Japan.

In my senior years, I have learned that situations such as these are out of my control, therefore, not worthy of worry... Life is short... enjoy it... Biru San

DougP · 10-22-2009, 12:49 AM

Not all that worried, this population pandemic supposedly should have taken the world by storm and left us to die of starvation long ago. The doomsday prophets come and go. Thomas Malthus once predicted the world's population would outpace food production sometime during the 19th century. Paul R. Ehrlich predicted over population and famine would occur in last century (70's 80's). I'm sensing a pattern here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM

Quote:

Human population growth rate
Annual population growth rate in percent, as listed in the CIA World Factbook (2006 estimate).[2]

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been steadily declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2007 the growth rate was 1.19% per annum. The last one hundred years have seen a rapid increase in population due to medical advances and massive increase in agricultural productivity[3] made possible by the Green Revolution.[4][5][6]

The actual annual growth in the number of humans fell from its peak of 87.8 million per annum in 1989, to a low of 74.6 million per annum in 2003, after which it has been rising again, to 76.6 million per annum in 2007, and 77.0 million per annum in 2009. The growth rate is expected to peak in 2010 at 77.2 million per annum, then decline steadily to about 43 million per annum in 2050, at which time the population will have increased to about 9.3 billion. Growth remains high especially in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, and also in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. [7]

Some countries experience negative population growth, especially in Eastern Europe (mainly due to low fertility rates and emigration). In Southern Africa, growth is slowing due to the high number of HIV-related deaths. Some Western Europe countries might also encounter negative population growth.[8] Japan's population began decreasing in 2005 [9]

Yeah, not scared, I'm not even convinced every nation on the planet needs to start building up or down. Plenty of spacious nations out there with elbow room.

shleywren · 10-22-2009, 12:52 AM

A) its true there are a lot of people in the world, but with better healthcare and more food how can you expect there not to be?
B) dk has a point more and more countries are learning to build up not out and inventing creative ways to sustain large populations.

I don't really think its a crisis. I know there are those that would say it is. The entire tone of the article sounded let's say superior. This person thinks that population should be controlled. This writer is of the same mindset as many dictators in the world. We definitely need less of those.

If the population did grow to tremendous proportions yes indeed it would be controlled by natural causes. Sometimes you have to let nature control the course. Even if there was population control there would still be starving kids in Africa because many of the countries are unstable and ruled by dictators.

I do not agree with the two child regulation at all. Let's talk hypothetically, say a woman has twins and then even on birth control she gets pregnant again. What happens then? does the government say we're going to make you get an abortion? What if someone had triplets? Do they say we're going to abort one? Often selective reduction in multiples will kill all of the babies not just one or two. What if this woman loses all of the triplets then has to have an emergency hysterectomy due to cancer a year and a half later? This standard has caused this woman to lose any chance of having children. The amount of children someone has is their choice not the government's choice or society's choice. If a person can support their kids, no matter how many they have, it shouldn't matter how many kids they have.

We have to remember that the countries where this two child standard was introduced, for example China, were ran by a dictator. A dictator who actually said, " if someone is trying to commit suicide don't stop them because we could do without a few people." People are listening to ideas originally pitched by a murderer and saying " hey this is a good idea". Life is sacred no matter what tenant of faith or no faith you hold to.

This article also uses stereotypes to prove its point, which just isn't good practice all around. the article assumes that all mormons and all catholics have tons of kids. This just isn't true. I know plenty of catholics and mormons who have one or two kids. For catholics, strict catholics anyways, its actually part of their belief not to use birth control. When you put into act something like a two child standard, you are in fact cutting into their freedom to practice their religion. You may not agree with religion, but countries like the US were founded on the ability to worship as a person saw fit.

People are smart. They figure out amazing ways to accomodate themselves. I've seen the engineering shows about basically an entire city inside a skyscraper or on a ship. ITs amazing what people can come up with.

There will be natural disasters, there will be outbreaks of disease, but these are our history. we know this stuff happens and lots of people die. You may be thinking oh this is just unfair. Well you can't prevent an earthquake and you can't truely prevent a mutated disease from spreading. The writer of this article has this air of superiority in believing that things like this can be prevented if population control was enacted, but they can't.

To me this article sounds like a load of progressive mumbo jumbo. I can see the facts and see that the population is increasing, but this is the world, its not some program or game someone can play and control everything. People cannot control nature.

dk · 10-22-2009, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougP

Yeah, not scared, I'm not even convinced every nation on the planet needs to start building up or down. Plenty of spacious nations out there with elbow room.

I'm not convinced it's needed yet either, but it wouldn't hurt to get our methods inline before we have a problem. Plus, it just makes more sense, in my opinion.

DougP · 10-22-2009, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dk

I'm not convinced it's needed yet either, but it wouldn't hurt to get our methods inline before we have a problem. Plus, it just makes more sense, in my opinion.

Depends on where you are at. I don't think it would be necessary at all to start packing people in to high rise or subterranean apartments in Japan where the population is steadily declining and is expected to decline by 30% before or around 2050. That would be a lot of money wasted on building projects that would be virtually empty. Not to mention it wouldn't be economically feasible to maintain such facilities until the time they are needed which could be several centuries in the future.

Blues · 10-22-2009, 01:10 AM

Problem Solved 40 Years ago

SnaFu · 10-22-2009, 01:10 AM

Good catch Shley!

One of the things that I find most disturbing is that people of great wealth and power have used these theories to promote eugenics as a tool to "better the human race" and to ultimately promote selective breeding. Whenever I hear of theories and solutions dealing with social matters in terms of ones and zeros it sends up a red flag.

DougP · 10-22-2009, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnaFu

Whenever I hear of theories and solutions dealing with social matters in terms of ones and zeros it sends up a red flag.

lol, in more ways than one.

View Poll Results: Is the growing world poulation a problem?
Yes	9	50.00%
No	7	38.89%
Don't have a clue	2	11.11%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

10-22-2009, 12:09 AM	#1
SnaFu Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Okinawa Posts: 1,321 My Mood: Thanks: 1,466 Thanked 1,488 Times in 831 Posts Groans: 50 Groaned at 42 Times in 33 Posts Credits: 45,360	Is the growing world population a problem? I found this site. BS or legit? http://www.mwillett.org/Politics/bigprob1.htm It's kind of a long read. The first two paragraphs set the tone.... The biggest crisis facing the planet today is so big and so surrounded by delicate issues that most people will not face it. Simply put there are at least 200,000 more people alive today than yesterday. Tomorrow there will be at least another 200,000 more. These are net figures, I am not talking about births I am talking about the average daily surplus of births over deaths. To put it into perspective there are more extra people alive each new day than died in both atomic bomb attacks on Japan. __________________ General George A. Custers last words at Little Bighorn... "Holy crap! Where did all those f&ck'n indians come from?"

10-22-2009, 01:10 AM	#9
SnaFu Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Okinawa Posts: 1,321 My Mood: Thanks: 1,466 Thanked 1,488 Times in 831 Posts Groans: 50 Groaned at 42 Times in 33 Posts Credits: 45,360	Good catch Shley! One of the things that I find most disturbing is that people of great wealth and power have used these theories to promote eugenics as a tool to "better the human race" and to ultimately promote selective breeding. Whenever I hear of theories and solutions dealing with social matters in terms of ones and zeros it sends up a red flag. __________________ General George A. Custers last words at Little Bighorn... "Holy crap! Where did all those f&ck'n indians come from?"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-22-2009, 12:52 AM	#5
shleywren Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 95 Thanks: 3 Thanked 58 Times in 37 Posts Groans: 1 Groaned at 6 Times in 6 Posts Credits: 6,340	A) its true there are a lot of people in the world, but with better healthcare and more food how can you expect there not to be? B) dk has a point more and more countries are learning to build up not out and inventing creative ways to sustain large populations. I don't really think its a crisis. I know there are those that would say it is. The entire tone of the article sounded let's say superior. This person thinks that population should be controlled. This writer is of the same mindset as many dictators in the world. We definitely need less of those. If the population did grow to tremendous proportions yes indeed it would be controlled by natural causes. Sometimes you have to let nature control the course. Even if there was population control there would still be starving kids in Africa because many of the countries are unstable and ruled by dictators. I do not agree with the two child regulation at all. Let's talk hypothetically, say a woman has twins and then even on birth control she gets pregnant again. What happens then? does the government say we're going to make you get an abortion? What if someone had triplets? Do they say we're going to abort one? Often selective reduction in multiples will kill all of the babies not just one or two. What if this woman loses all of the triplets then has to have an emergency hysterectomy due to cancer a year and a half later? This standard has caused this woman to lose any chance of having children. The amount of children someone has is their choice not the government's choice or society's choice. If a person can support their kids, no matter how many they have, it shouldn't matter how many kids they have. We have to remember that the countries where this two child standard was introduced, for example China, were ran by a dictator. A dictator who actually said, " if someone is trying to commit suicide don't stop them because we could do without a few people." People are listening to ideas originally pitched by a murderer and saying " hey this is a good idea". Life is sacred no matter what tenant of faith or no faith you hold to. This article also uses stereotypes to prove its point, which just isn't good practice all around. the article assumes that all mormons and all catholics have tons of kids. This just isn't true. I know plenty of catholics and mormons who have one or two kids. For catholics, strict catholics anyways, its actually part of their belief not to use birth control. When you put into act something like a two child standard, you are in fact cutting into their freedom to practice their religion. You may not agree with religion, but countries like the US were founded on the ability to worship as a person saw fit. People are smart. They figure out amazing ways to accomodate themselves. I've seen the engineering shows about basically an entire city inside a skyscraper or on a ship. ITs amazing what people can come up with. There will be natural disasters, there will be outbreaks of disease, but these are our history. we know this stuff happens and lots of people die. You may be thinking oh this is just unfair. Well you can't prevent an earthquake and you can't truely prevent a mutated disease from spreading. The writer of this article has this air of superiority in believing that things like this can be prevented if population control was enacted, but they can't. To me this article sounds like a load of progressive mumbo jumbo. I can see the facts and see that the population is increasing, but this is the world, its not some program or game someone can play and control everything. People cannot control nature.

10-22-2009, 01:10 AM	#8
Blues Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Yoshinoya Posts: 2,820 My Mood: Thanks: 1,620 Thanked 2,776 Times in 1,383 Posts Groans: 239 Groaned at 195 Times in 158 Posts Credits: 1,089,798	Problem Solved 40 Years ago

User Name		Remember Me?
Password