Having more than two children will destroy the planet...

[HIGH ON PIE 14]

I agree with this. Didn't the economist Robert Malthus predict humanity's demise due to starvation, given that production of food is subject to diminishing returns? He was right about diminishing returns but failed to anticipate technological change.

 

Yes he did predict that. I just learned that in AP Enviro last week.

 

The tricky thing about global population of that it grows exponentially. New technology brings about ways to produce more food but increases in technology also brings about high population growth rates - we saw it during the Industrial Revolution and through the rise of agriculture. New medicine lowers death rates, prolonging lifespans.

 

@Tommycat: we don't need to worry about producing more food as we produce enough food to adequately feed the whole world - it is a problem of distribution.

 

I agree with DY. When it comes to overpopulation, it is mostly in developing countries. I know China's system of controlling population is a bit harsh but they have a decent idea that they just implemented wrong. They have a serious overpopulation problem, more than the rest of the world.

 

I think that at some point or another (sooner probably more than later) we will have a serious problem with overpopulation. It is hard to argue either way because there really is no one set limit at which the world is overpopulated. The more people on earth, the less resources there will be for each- it depends on the quality of life that we desire.

 

~HOP

[Tommycat]

@Tommycat: we don't need to worry about producing more food as we produce enough food to adequately feed the whole world - it is a problem of distribution.

I thought so, I mean I could have sworn I read somewhere that we(the US) grew enough food to feed everyone in the world.

 

I agree with DY. When it comes to overpopulation, it is mostly in developing countries. I know China's system of controlling population is a bit harsh but they have a decent idea that they just implemented wrong. They have a serious overpopulation problem, more than the rest of the world.

Again, it may seem cold to say it, but the overpopulation in those areas is offset by the starvation. This naturally limits the population. We go in and start trying to limit the population, the starvation could kill the population all together. Once a population reaches critical mass, the chances are a major disease will decimate the population of an area, as living in such close proximity to others increases transfer rate. I think any kind of government mandated killing of children is a bad thing.

 

Why is it somehow acceptable for a government to tell a woman she has to get an abortion(even if she wants the child), but it isn't ok to tell a woman that she must carry the child to term? Are those of you who support that kind of population control pro-choice? or actually in this case it would be more appropriate to call it pro-abortion since the choice portion of it is taken out of the equasion.

 

I think that at some point or another (sooner probably more than later) we will have a serious problem with overpopulation. It is hard to argue either way because there really is no one set limit at which the world is overpopulated. The more people on earth, the less resources there will be for each- it depends on the quality of life that we desire.

 

~HOP

Again, this is where innovation kicks in. We think we're getting close to our upper limit, and we find a new way to live. Or the world decides it's time for a cleaning and kicks out a new disease for us to battle. I mean the Influenza outbreak wasn't that long ago(relatively speaking). I'm sure there will be another outbreak that will help cull the population far more effectively than the "You can't have more chilluns" method.

 

We developed a new way to live the last time we neared our population limit. Look at New York City and see how much we have grown. In the early 1800's we would have considdered the sheer number of people living there an impossibly high number.

[Darth Avlectus]

The tricky thing about global population of that it grows exponentially. New technology brings about ways to produce more food but increases in technology also brings about high population growth rates - we saw it during the Industrial Revolution and through the rise of agriculture. New medicine lowers death rates, prolonging lifespans.

 

A lot to take in at once but I believe that I learned this in General Economics, in the modernization segment. Again, in Micro Economics, but in small part--participating in a simluaton activity lesson where you were in some situation affected by that very thing. Distributors faced a grim decision at the end:

Do you as an owner of a distribution company:

a) cut and run before it gets really bad

b) cut and run while it is good to minimize your losses

c) stay it out

 

While I can elaborate on these, I will leave it to the imaginations of you all to add to the end of the answers above and take those for what you will.

(Hint: A very ugly picture if you are thinking about it properly)

 

it is a problem of distribution.

Ah. Here is when principles and ethical behavior come into play--or at least they should. However, you are subject to the cyclical changes like everyone else. In positions where the economy is riding upon you more so than others...temptation is a little hard to resist because it would seem that you are only punished for doing the right thing. You become another casualty because the economy elsewhere might come undone and the backlash will in effect hit you. (I wish I didn't have to sound so cryptic but there is no other concise way to express this).

 

I think that at some point or another (sooner probably more than later) we will have a serious problem with overpopulation. It is hard to argue either way because there really is no one set limit at which the world is overpopulated.

 

Which, unfortunately, legitimizes black markets in the areas of cannibalism, organs on ice, and prostitution. Worse yet, eugenics and neo-eugenics. On both scales social and genetic engineering. 1934's "tomorrow's children" comes to mind. Groups that want to cap off the worlds population.

And yet they are at odds with that because they need chattel/cannon fodder with which to feed their machine.

 

Also it's a bit of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" for governments. It pays, yet it doesn't in both ways; to do something, or to look the other way.

Both have negative and positive consequences. It's just a question of which is the lesser of 2 evils.

 

The more people on earth, the less resources there will be for each-

Unless people themselves (slavery) is a commodity and a resource.

 

OK my loves, I know boys have to talk about sex, but keep it in the vicinity of 'clean'.

 

 

You shouldn't wink at me while talking of copulation, I may punch you in the eye

 

Mr. Manners: Maybe there's hope for you to learn some manners, yet. (puts hand on Beavis' shoulder)

Beavis: AAAGH! Don't touch me @$$wipe! (ducks out from hand on his soulder)

 

War: I just feel it is more ethical of a choice to other means of population control. Generally because it tends to exist without being FOR population control in itself. We start other means of population control and war breaks out, we end up with an underpopulation problem.

Population controls of all kind, not just war, all end up making us underpopulated. The other ones (which comparatively just take off edges and spikes on the whole problem itself) are considered distasteful because

1) many consider it murder

2) it impedes rights

3) its results are not immediately felt until a fair chunk of time later

 

Say, 15 years, and you will figure out what your actions as of now actually do. Trouble is, that is a bit hard to foresee and you can't really undo what you have done once you get there.

==============

@ D.Y. I agree, however I would suggest also that nutritional knowledge for caloric intake relative to your line of work is something most people just won't do in the US. I'd agree that ought to change...unfortunately, I have my doubts about high up on the list of priorities that "change" is for our president. Especially if he wants to be likable. Besides, the diet (con artist) racket for health nuts is also a form of economy infrastructure--though seriously I wish it otherwise.

 

If we skipped feeding most of it to livestock and instead grew crops for human consumption, we could sustain a larger population than we already have in the US.

True enough. I would agree with you more except: some lines of work sort of require eating calorie rich foods in order to have enough energy to do it sustainably.

 

While we do not require a great deal of animal proteins, normally (just enough to keep our brain and muscle mass), plant proteins

1) can wear away teeth faster due to grittier nature and texture

2) require a greater size of volume for meals in order to give the same level of nutritional value

3) meat is easier to digest quicker than plant

 

The human stomach can only cram in so much and what's more is that obesity and overweight problems are just as much a result of lifestyle and food quality as they are for quantity of food and genetics.

 

The issue we currently face is that we in America have been leading our economy by the idea of spend, spend, spend... but that's what lead to the housing crisis we face.

 

I would agree to a point. People, credit wise, have generally been unwise of recent years. People born in the 80's to mid 90's, according to Clark Howard, have not been good on saving money lately. Now having said that, guilty parties also extend to Goniffs (yiddish word for a thief in charge--more or less) making policies in banking loans, then taking the money and running when the time is right.

 

After all: Why would you lend to people who in your estimation, are probably not capable of paying the loan back with even a reasonably good interest rate? You wouldn't, unless made to.

 

I think the question is not necessarily about 'how many children a family has' but rather 'who has children'.

 

Interesting. Would you care to elaborate on this?

 

<snip>the chances are a major disease will decimate the population of an area, as living in such close proximity to others increases transfer rate. I think any kind of government mandated killing of children is a bad thing.

Is it any less bad to look the other way? (Hint: that's what will happen if a proactive role is too difficult to implement)

 

I will be very blunt with you: The government looking the other way on homosexuality probably occurs for these reasons

FACT 1: It does not reproduce, it cannot reproduce.

FACT 2: STDs and blood-borne diseases do not care what type of sexual activity spreads them.

 

On the side, prostitution that is indiscriminant has potential to be profitable.

 

(Disclaimer to both sides: This is not necessarily a reflection on my opinions in this matter.)

 

We developed a new way to live the last time we neared our population limit. Look at New York City and see how much we have grown. In the early 1800's we would have considdered the sheer number of people living there an impossibly high number.

 

The growth rate is frightening, especially considering that technology is still rocketing upward more and more as time goes.

[Darth_Yuthura]

While I'm all for improving eficency' date=' not using fertilizer seems like a waste, since it is available, why not use it?[/quote']

 

Straying from the subject, I'll just make a note here: The issue with fertilizers is how much should be used to make the most of the resource. If you increase the amount of water or fertilizer applied to a field, you increase crop yield at a diminishing rate. The idea would be to accept a reduced usage to make to most of the resource because don't forget that the majority of nitrates and fertilizers used are chemicals, not animal waste. By accepting a 10%-20% drop in crop yield, you might be able to extend supplies of these chemicals by decades where you will have an overall greater amount of food produced in the long run.

 

In agriculture, there will always be demand for livestock, but if we were to only use products that we would normally just throw away or are undesirable; that would be a means to utilize waste products for meat production. When I said 'most' farmland, I mean using much more of the land for human consumption. The potato has most of the nutrients we need to live, not to mention the highest calorie-land ratio of any food.

 

I simply would suggest that the ethanol production that we have in placed be abandoned and only used on a limited scale where the products used are not grown on prime farmland or with corn planted for that purpose. Only when something would otherwise be thrown away as waste should biomass be used for animal feed or ethanol production. With more food can come more to export or a greater population carrying capacity.

 

Also the issue of growth rate depends upon birth/death rates. When a population multiplies, it's because the death rate declines, but birth rate remains the same. Once there is an abundance of technology and people, then the birth rate falls. The problem after that comes from either an unbalanced population pyramid with fewer children to elderly, or highly variable birth rate that depends on the economy.

 

If we can prepare a plan where a state can sustain a population reduction, anticipating fewer children and more elderly, then great. However, Japan and Italy doesn't have such a plan; but they aren't even willing to accept foreign born children to take the place of the declining population of offspring. They need to increase the number of children they have, or they will suffer economic problems for a generation or more.

[mur'phon]

The idea would be to accept a reduced usage to make to most of the resource because don't forget that the majority of nitrates and fertilizers used are chemicals, not animal waste. By accepting a 10%-20% drop in crop yield, you might be able to extend supplies of these chemicals by decades where you will have an overall greater amount of food produced in the long run.

 

Eh, nitrates can be manufactured just about anywhere, the limiting factor is energy, which isn't all that much of a deal in the long run asuming we invest in expanding production.

 

Also the issue of growth rate depends upon birth/death rates. When a population multiplies, it's because the death rate declines, but birth rate remains the same. Once there is an abundance of technology and people, then the birth rate falls. The problem after that comes from either an unbalanced population pyramid with fewer children to elderly, or highly variable birth rate that depends on the economy.

 

A simple way to reduce this problem drastically would be to accept more imigration, makes it better for their home countries too as a bonus.

[Web Rider]

A simple way to reduce this problem drastically would be to accept more imigration' date=' makes it better for their home countries too as a bonus.[/quote']

 

How does more immigration make the problem better? People leave a country for very few reasons, better opportunities, overpopulation, or just plain old don't like it. So, if we're got a lot of people immigrating from a country were you just DONT want to be, that's not going to be pretty, better opportunities is variable, but this can often lead to the problem we have in the US where immigrant families are having lots of kids but living for a long time. And if they're already overpopulated there, then won't they do the same here?

[Darth Avlectus]

<SNIP>

In agriculture, there will always be demand for livestock, but if we were to only use products that we would normally just throw away or are undesirable; that would be a means to utilize waste products for meat production. When I said 'most' farmland, I mean using much more of the land for human consumption. The potato has most of the nutrients we need to live, not to mention the highest calorie-land ratio of any food.

 

I am so proud of you DY: most in college I have met would suggest either the extreme of Vegan militancy, or Steak slaughterhouse.

 

You have hit it on the nose.

 

We do need animal protein, just not very much in most cases for most people.

The rest an be covered elsewhere. Most of what we need can be grown.

 

...Now if only fellow students in past would have parked their pride to say what you just said.

-------------

That would help the resources we have here on earth.

 

===============

If we can prepare a plan where a state can sustain a population reduction, anticipating fewer children and more elderly, then great. However, Japan and Italy doesn't have such a plan; but they aren't even willing to accept foreign born children to take the place of the declining population of offspring. They need to increase the number of children they have, or they will suffer economic problems for a generation or more.

 

Well, and also they don't have the vicious circle present today in the US.

Nor the large scale shift in demographics.

 

In the US, It isn't that our, shall we call them, pre-existing core population is not breeding (Didn't we just have some invitro-fertile woman give birth to octuplettes on top of having six kids already?); It is that other populations come into the country that tend to have more offspring and larger families. These families are populating the US, and with it a spiraling exponential growth simply outnumbering its preexisting core population. There are problems with too much of this happening as well.

 

Quoted For Emphasis:

How does more immigration make the problem better?

Also consider: Not all Americans are these lazy, incompetent people who won't do certain jobs which need doing: a problem here is that now undercutting for jobs is occurring even here. What's more is that colleges even consider making admission requirements easier on foreigners and illegals--these are not dumb people and they are moving up by taking any advantage they can get. It is not only the low end jobs being taken.

 

People leave a country for very few reasons, better opportunities, overpopulation, or just plain old don't like it. So, if we're got a lot of people immigrating from a country were you just DONT want to be, that's not going to be pretty, better opportunities is variable, but this can often lead to the problem we have in the US where immigrant families are having lots of kids but living for a long time. And if they're already overpopulated there, then won't they do the same here?

 

Plus there are those who remain under the radar that manage to be able to survive and work here in the US, and send their money back to where they came from...meanwhile they do not intend to integrate here, fully. When it is in their best interests, they just split instead. Even if this does not contribute to overpopulation in a permanent way, it does end up weighing the economic engine down and taking up resources. So another set of problems exist here as well as for those who stay.

[mur'phon]

Web Rider

but this can often lead to the problem we have in the US where immigrant families are having lots of kids but living for a long time. And if they're already overpopulated there, then won't they do the same here?

 

Since imigrant families will tend to be in their, ah, most rabitish years, then yes, you'll have a certain increase in fertility, though the efect will usually wear off after a (relatively) short time as children of imigrants have fewer children themselves.

 

 

GTA

We do need animal protein, just not very much in most cases for most people.

The rest an be covered elsewhere. Most of what we need can be grown.

 

Actually if you think a bit before you eat, it's not very hard to manage without. Been living on a (for all intents and purposes) no-animal diet no problem.

 

In the US, It isn't that our, shall we call them, pre-existing core population is not breeding (Didn't we just have some invitro-fertile woman give birth to octuplettes on top of having six kids already?);

 

Last time I checked the "core" population had a birthrate a bit below 2, so yes the "core" isn't substaining itself.

 

It is that other populations come into the country that tend to have more offspring and larger families. These families are populating the US, and with it a spiraling exponential growth

 

Funny, I seem to remember fertility taking a big drop amongst second generation imigrants. Anyway, it's not as if the US is "overpopulated".

 

simply outnumbering its preexisting core population. There are problems with too much of this happening as well.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that a majority of hispanics would be a problem? If so, why?

 

Also consider: Not all Americans are these lazy, incompetent people who won't do certain jobs which need doing: a problem here is that now undercutting for jobs is occurring even here.

 

As long as they are legal imigrants folowing the rules, I don't see a problem with this, though you could always strenghten employee rights for all workers if it gets too far.

 

What's more is that colleges even consider making admission requirements easier on foreigners and illegals--these are not dumb people and they are moving up by taking any advantage they can get. It is not only the low end jobs being taken.

 

A big reason for this is simple, foreigners tend to pay more than Americans for the same education. As for taking higher paid jobs, why not? If they are better qualified, why not let them?

 

Plus there are those who remain under the radar that manage to be able to survive and work here in the US, and send their money back to where they came from...meanwhile they do not intend to integrate here, fully. When it is in their best interests, they just split instead. Even if this does not contribute to overpopulation in a permanent way, it does end up weighing the economic engine down and taking up resources. So another set of problems exist here as well as for those who stay.

 

Since this is mainly done by hispanics, this works hardly hinders the US much. While remitances are fueling their home country's engine, that engine is very much linked with the US, so what helps one benefits the other.

[Ray Jones]

Interesting. Would you care to elaborate on this?

Quality weighs more than quantity.

[Darth Avlectus]

This argument has veered sharply towards immigration. I'll try to inject as much as I can re: environment. However I think the only environments that are affected here are living environments.

 

Of course, transit and traffic would have to be considered.

 

Actually if you think a bit before you eat, it's not very hard to manage without. Been living on a (for all intents and purposes) no-animal diet no problem.

 

I've never seen any definitive proof either way. Still, it would make sense that human nutrition requires at least some animal proteins to sustain muscle mass, and organs.

 

It is nice to see you using yourself as an example. Again I reiterate, we can only take in so much quantity of food per meal. 1 lb of meat vs 2.7 lbs of plant. Perhaps if people were to manage more short meals a day rather than 3 huge ones on average I could maybe see that working? If they didn't also gorge on junk foods, maybe. If they kept a constant control, maybe. OR maybe I have it wrong?...

 

Still, this is a good thing to consider for both the health and environmental aspects.

 

Last time I checked the "core" population had a birthrate a bit below 2, so yes the "core" isn't substaining itself.

 

Well that is considering *percentages*, not necessarily actual numbers.

You DO have a point here; however, when you take into considerations that immigrants and illegal aliens (both now being considered citizens) and more keep coming at a faster rate than the core population can reproduce, it would make the core population's numbers seem to stand still and maybe even decrease even if their numbers are (if ever so slowly) climbing.

 

I will admit, though, the core population is on a decline currently. It won't stay that way. There may still be just about as many people now in this core grouping as 10 years before. Birthrates are declining and so are death rates. Consider: The population looks like it is declining when it may not actually be.

 

So this is roughly neutral. Why are we not doing mass transit via a rail system? There was another thread where darth yuthura and I were speaking of this. I think what it came down to was that this does not cover all, and in fact it leaves a significant number out. Most are not willing to pay for this anyway.

 

Funny, I seem to remember fertility taking a big drop amongst second generation imigrants. Anyway, it's not as if the US is "overpopulated".

 

Not getting overpopulated? True it is not overpopulated overall. I think the US would rather it stay that way, too. However with a tremendous loss in jobs (thank you NAFTA and CAFTA) the number of jobs available is lessened with those coming in. So there is a bit of crunch. If things are not going anywhere in a hurry, that doesn't bode well.

 

Depends on where you live in the US, I guess. Consider the differences between CA and NV. Huge. CA has the highest foreign population of any state. NV, not so much though it has been somewhat on the increase both foreign and core populations. NV has probably seen a population increase in both. However it appears to have a much lower foreign population than CA--it's as if all the core population from CA are movin' there. Not to say all the other states on or near the Mexican border don't have their population of foreigners, but if you look at CA you'll find it much higher than its neighbors.

 

I would not be surprised if foreigners are cutting and running contributing to the overall decline you speak of. In fact a joke comes to mind how Mexcio will finish the fence to keep Americans out of their country when America collapses, and fill in the underground tunnels with concrete just in case it's really bad. Funny, I'm not laughing.

 

 

After this point I think it gets into immigration more than environment. Which I will deal with you on that issue privately or in another thread. In fact it ties in on free trade--and not to worry, I'll get back to on that soon enough as well.

 

Suffice it to say, it is not all as black and white as you'd evidently like to believe in your post. The long and the short of it is: I do not see how it is a good thing to have illegals taking from the US to make their economy better, only to turn around and cut us off once their country is strong enough, in returned. Seems like other countries we have been doing business with have also been acting that way. Why the **** not? They see what is happening and don't want to be part of it "when the **** hits the fan". All the while the US is stagnant and threatening decline. With jobs lost overseas (gee, thank you NAFTA & CAFTA), now we are burning the candle from both ends on both high and low ends of the economy w.r.t. jobs and education. What we will have is a rat race.

 

This isn't a problem? Maybe not to you, it isn't. I beg to differ since I am in danger of being undercut.

[mur'phon]

Well that is considering *percentages*, not necessarily actual numbers.

 

No, it is number of children on average pr woman, lower mortality only reduce the effect, it can't cancel it, and the increased lifespan would have to make incredible jumps in order to make up for birthrates.

 

The rest of your post either belong in the free trade thread (clicky) or in an imigration thread (feel free to start one).