• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

Overpopulation isn't really much of an issue

WeedZ

Possibly an Enlightened Being
Global Moderator
Joined
Jan 13, 2015
Messages
3,825
Trophies
1
Location
The State of Denial
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
5,656
Country
United States
I'd consider the extinction of several species, the ever growing list of endangered ones, continued loss of natural habitats, global climate change due to pollution, and ever dwindling resources all pretty good signs of overpopulation. Just because we'll be OK for a while doesn't mean it's not a problem. People seem to think we're the only species that matters. I'll argue that human beings aren't that important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

Taleweaver

Storywriter
Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
8,685
Trophies
2
Age
43
Location
Belgium
XP
8,066
Country
Belgium
People make a big deal out of overpopulation but in the grand scheme of things it isn't a huge problem. First of all there is a lot of unused land that people could live on currently and second of all there's a pretty equal amount of people dying and being born so the population is pretty stable. The only way I can see this being an issue is in dense areas like India and (I think) New York.
Might be wrong, feel free to obliterate my opinion if you wish but this is how I see it.
Erm...I'm afraid that's a pretty oversimplification of the problem (seriously? Three pages and no direct quote on this?).

Keeping people fed isn't exactly the problem. Food production has increased in efficiency so much that ending world hunger is well within our grasp. As said by blujay: this isn't a problem of population but of capitalism. There's simply put more profit to be made if food is scarcely divided.
There IS however, a problem if everyone is going to adopt a Western diet. Cattle production actually has a far larger ecologic impact than I originally anticipated. All those animals we eat need to eat themselves as well (hopefully before they're killed ;) ), and that stacks up if everyone (especially large and currently relatively undeveloped countries like India and China) decides that meat is the way to go.

The problem with this "pretty equal amount of people dying and being born" is with the 'pretty equal' not actually being equal. Even with trends like aging population in quite some countries, the total number is still rising. That ceiling of 11 billion may be a correct estimate, but the problem is that the earth's capacity to regenerate resources does so at a slower pace than we consume them (in fact, we've passed this so-called line of "what does the earth provide for us in 2017" line about a week ago). This means that as a species and in general, we're no longer living off the land but rather plundering the land. And even with a small rise in overpopulation, this means that every 'new' human cannot but live off resources that won't be regenerated.

The first sentence in your post is something I'd agree to, but probably not how you mean it: there's also climate change that plays into that "grand scheme of things". The effects are already here, but not yet to a degree that they can no longer be denied (okay, unless you're a scientist. But quite some people assume that as long as they can ignore bad news, it'll go away somehow). Places like India will work out the overpopulation. If not by humans, then by the consequences of heat waves or tropical storms. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seliph

Meteor7

Guess where this thumb goes.
Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
1,336
Trophies
1
Location
a fit of spasms and accidental black magic
XP
4,639
Country
United States
Anyone who thinks there's a problem with how many people are alive in the world should go kill themselves. No joke.
If the goal is to improve people's quality of life, going around killing people/encouraging suicide is counterproductive. The problem can be solved without any early deaths at all as long as it's given enough time, and awareness of the issue is spread to enough people.
 

V0ltr0n

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
484
Trophies
0
Age
39
XP
542
Country
United States
Please N. Korea set off an emp so we can watch all the blind "there's plenty for everyone. Poulation is no problem" people just cower and wither away when they realize there indeed isn't enough to go around in the most real and crude way.
 

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
Please N. Korea set off an emp so we can watch all the blind "there's plenty for everyone. Poulation is no problem" people just cower and wither away when they realize there indeed isn't enough to go around in the most real and crude way.
?? I don't get what you're trying to say
 

tetrabrik

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
67
Trophies
0
Age
39
XP
86
Country
United States
generally it's been the case that the problem is not the capacity for production, but the means of distribution that limits people's access to resources. in other words, we have the technology to produce food and shelter for everyone, but there's not much sustainable monetary incentive to do so.
 

V0ltr0n

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
484
Trophies
0
Age
39
XP
542
Country
United States
?? I don't get what you're trying to say

Basically, all these ppl that are saying that overpopulation isn't a problem will get a rude awakening if a large scale emp happens. 3 properly detonated nukes could take out the entire united states. With no power, perishable goods will all quickly spoil. Animals will be slaughtered and eaten quickly with no thought of how long it will take to recover. In a year, the population could be reduced by 80% if we are lucky. If not, then total extinction. Add to that the ppl that rely on electricity and/or cooled medications to stay alive. Then the increase of common ailments becoming a serious threat.

Only ppl who live in 1st world countries and are oblivious to very real threats think population is no problem. Kill electricity and everything will deteriorate in 2 weeks or less. While all that is going on, it leaves your country open for other countries to easily overtake. Sustainability being an issue could be displayed with one catastrophic event. There isn't enough food for everyone as it is, let alone if the population grows.

But nobody will think a threat like that is realistic. Then you get shit like 9/11.
Complacency breeds weakness. Nobody would be unaffected if a large scale event such as i explained went down, and it's more possible than you would think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saiyan Lusitano

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
Basically, all these ppl that are saying that overpopulation isn't a problem will get a rude awakening if a large scale emp happens. 3 properly detonated nukes could take out the entire united states. With no power, perishable goods will all quickly spoil. Animals will be slaughtered and eaten quickly with no thought of how long it will take to recover. In a year, the population could be reduced by 80% if we are lucky. If not, then total extinction. Add to that the ppl that rely on electricity and/or cooled medications to stay alive. Then the increase of common ailments becoming a serious threat.

Only ppl who live in 1st world countries and are oblivious to very real threats think population is no problem. Kill electricity and everything will deteriorate in 2 weeks or less. While all that is going on, it leaves your country open for other countries to easily overtake. Sustainability being an issue could be displayed with one catastrophic event. There isn't enough food for everyone as it is, let alone if the population grows.

But nobody will think a threat like that is realistic. Then you get shit like 9/11.
Complacency breeds weakness. Nobody would be unaffected if a large scale event such as i explained went down, and it's more possible than you would think.
A nuke isn't an EMP though... and yes, a crisis situation would drastically affect global supply, but as it currently stands there actually are enough resources (at least in the US) for us to sustainably feed and house our entire population
 

ShadowOne333

QVID PRO QVO
Editorial Team
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
12,137
Trophies
2
XP
32,671
Country
Mexico
Unused land?
Excuse but since when are we the owners of the Earth and it's lands?
It's otherwise, the Earth owns us, and nature by itself has shown us that.
The fauna and flora of our planet also needs its own space, nature itself does.
Ecosystems are essential to the planet, and overpopulation is killing this.

Overpopulation is a problem, as it creates the need more resources, economy per family, more food, more space, more jobs, more pollution and contamination, etc.
With the increase of technology, jobs are getting scarce by the day, and no, technology is not to blame, it's humankind by itself who is to blame.

People fuck left and right without a care in the world if they have 3,4,5 or whatever kids.

Also, take into consideration that the standard life-span of most countries is now above 70 years old.
That means there are a lot more generations alive living with each other than ever before.

This extends the meaning of overpopulation.

My suggestion to counter this kind of issue would be to make laws that limit how many children a married couple can have.
Similar to that of China, you can take China as a clear example of overpopulation.

Makes sense.
How many people are usually involved in a marriage? Two right?
Then let's set the limit of children to 2 per married couple.
Two for two, makes sense.
Once the elderly couple dies, only the two children are left.

Of course doesn't take into account the increase in life quality we are getting, but would be a huge improvement.
I can also guarantee you, that most families would have a better economy.
 
Last edited by ShadowOne333,
  • Like
Reactions: cvskid

V0ltr0n

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
484
Trophies
0
Age
39
XP
542
Country
United States
A nuke isn't an EMP though... and yes, a crisis situation would drastically affect global supply, but as it currently stands there actually are enough resources (at least in the US) for us to sustainably feed and house our entire population

Guess i should've explained more thoroughy?

A nuke detonated above the earth's atmosphere causes no fallout, or radiation threat for ppl on earth. What it does create is a massive emp.

And no, there is definitely not enough food and other supplies to sustain life for everyone on the planet. If that's not fact, and we have ppl dying of starvation every day....then that means we have the means to feed everyone but ignore them...which is more cruel then? The human race would see drastic population reduction by the end of 2 weeks, let alone a year.
We are for damn sure overpopulated. But, ppl will continue to keep their blinders on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saiyan Lusitano

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    SylverReZ @ SylverReZ: @salazarcosplay, Morning