The big Problem overpopulation.

[druez]

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

I happen to agree with this author on the topic of overpopulation. What sparked this was revrew announcing he was about to have his 10th kid.

Does anyone think that this is irresponsible? At the current rate the planet is growing, we will simply overpopulate the planet. Isn't there some kind of social responsibility?

1 billion in 1804
2 billion in 1927 (123 years later)
3 billion in 1960 ( 33 years later)
4 billion in 1974 ( 14 years later)
5 billion in 1987 ( 13 years later)
6 billion in 1999 ( 12 years later)

Any thoughts or ideas on this?

[CamEdwards]

actually, the population explosion is nonsense. I don't have the links at hand and I'm working right now... I'll try later.

[Blax]

condoms...

[rkmsuf]

underwater houses

[gottimd]

Houses in the sky.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

If population explosion is a problem, why did you reproduce?

[Tigercat]

Soylent Green. The other-other white meat. (Also available in darker and lighter varieties.)

[Senator]

Logans Run, baby!!!

[druez]

actually, the population explosion is nonsense. I don't have the links at hand and I'm working right now... I'll try later.

I would be interested in seeing that. Everything, I've read seems to show that the increase is growing exponentially.

Another interesting thought on this topic, the 3rd world countries have the most rapid growth. Basically the countries that have the least in the way of medicine, money, living conditions and education are the people who are the most irresponsible.

The poor have more kids then the affluent.

[druez]

If population explosion is a problem, why did you reproduce?

The target number is 1 or 2 children.

[Hammer755]

Everything, I've read seems to show that the increase is growing exponentially.

This comment struck me as an incredibly funny example of UIC. :D

[Yossarian]

I've heard stuff like, there wont be enough fresh water to support the world's increase in population.

Whilst that is probably somewhat... overstated perhaps, its still concerning that its even feasable for the population to grow that large.

Mibbe the folks behind the X-Prize can create an X-Prize 2 for colonisation of mars?

[Abe Sargent]

Overpopulation is the greastest environmental disaster that this planet faces. However, America is not the area in danger. American population is fairly steady, with only immigration increasing our numbers. As such, having ten children in America is hardly a contributory factor. Having ten children in, say, India or China might be argued to be such, however.

-Anxiety

[Ksyrup]

I'm not vouching for this one bit, but here's a quick link I found to the common comment I've heard/read about exeryone being able to fit in Texas:




<TABLE height=436 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width=495 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#33334c>Overpopulation Myths

</TD></TR><TR><TD width="68%" bgColor=#ffffff height=350>


Is the earth becoming overpopulated? It is not a question of the human population outstripping resources, since food production continues to exceed population growth and non-renewable resources become more plentiful each year as new sources are found.

Even in sheer numbers, though, there is growing evidence that the world's population is heading toward stability.

The growth rate of the world's population appears to have peaked around 1970, when the annual rate of growth was 2.09 percent.

By 1980, annual population growth was down to 1.73 percent, and by 1990 to 1.7 percent.

By 1995, the annual increase had slowed even more to 1.5 percent.


What is sometimes meant by overpopulation is overcrowding, or too great a population density. However, population density varies widely. Much of the world's land surface is empty, and many countries with dense populations have a higher standard of living than less crowded countries.

In 1992, the population of Hong Kong City was approximately 247,501 per square mile, while in New York City it was 11,480 per square mile, and in Houston 7,512.

If the entire population of the world were put into the land area of Texas, each person would have an area equal to the floor space of a typical U.S. home and the population density of Texas would be about the same as Paris, France.

In 1988, China had a population of 409 people per square mile and gross domestic product per capita of $320, while Hong Kong, with a population density more than 450 times greater, had a per capita GDP of $8,260.
One reason people are crowded together in cities is because it makes possible many more exchanges and greater specialization of labor, thus increasing living standards. Source: Jim Peron, "Exploding Population Myths," Fraser Forum, October 1995, Fraser Institute, 2nd Floor, 626 Bute Street, Vancouver, B. C., V6E 3M1, (604) 688-0221.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



http://www.ncpa.org/pd/pdint21.html

[Hurst2112]

I remember that we talked about this in high school, 11 years ago. My social studies teacher showed us that with the population of the world then (around 5 billion), you could put every person on earth on Lake Winnebago (east central wisconsin, 45 miles long, 4 miles wide) and we would all have 20 sqare inches to stand.

There is another one that says something about each person on earth could get 3 acres of land and it would fill montana, or something like that.

My point is, and his point was, that there is more an issue with food shortages than lack of land for the worlds population.

Just interesting to me...that's all. As far as the population, I am not worried. The monolith is late in arriving, but I would imagine that in 15 years, we will be able to live around Jupiter.

Either that or kill all the dorks in the world.

[albionmoonlight]

I would be interested in seeing that. Everything, I've read seems to show that the increase is growing exponentially.

Another interesting thought on this topic, the 3rd world countries have the most rapid growth. Basically the countries that have the least in the way of medicine, money, living conditions and education are the people who are the most irresponsible.

The poor have more kids then the affluent.
It's a very complex problem, but an over simplified version:

If you are rich, kids are an economic liability (school, health care, etc.).

If you are poor, kids are an economic asset (labor).

One of the ways to fight overpopulation is to fight global poverty.

Of course, if we are talking about environmental impacts, increasing the standard of living around the world will put a huge drain on the planet's resources.

Of course, denying people a higher standard of living because we don't want them to use all the stuff does not seem right either . . .

As I said, complex.

[Hurst2112]

thanks K...I figured somebody would come through with some info

[Suicane75]

If population explosion is a problem, why did you reproduce?

Must.......not....make.....innuendo.....regarding......hot........wife.

[druez]

It's a very complex problem, but an over simplified version:

If you are rich, kids are an economic liability (school, health care, etc.).

If you are poor, kids are an economic asset (labor).

One of the ways to fight overpopulation is to fight global poverty.

Of course, if we are talking about environmental impacts, increasing the standard of living around the world will put a huge drain on the planet's resources.

Of course, denying people a higher standard of living because we don't want them to use all the stuff does not seem right either . . .

As I said, complex.

Here is another point. If you have 10 kids and can afford them with no government assistance, then I have a bit more patience with you. At my work we had a secretary, who had 3 kids and was complaining about the goverment not giving her enough money for them. She then became pregnant again. I said to her, why are you having a fourth kid if you can't afford the three you already have.

Why is it the goverments responsiblity to pay for your kids. The biggest reason, I only have 1 child and not 2 is money. I can give my 1 child a very secure and economically stable life. I can make sure she has the best of everything from schools, to cloths, to toy's etc... I can make sure she has a car and goes to a college of her choice. If I add a second child at my current finicial level, I can't do those things.

[Radii]

Sounds to me like you have a problem with Welfare, not the world's population...

[Blax]

Sounds to me like you have a problem with Welfare, not the world's population...

It's not so much "welfare" for this country.
What eventually ends up happening is that we provide the "welfare" for too many other countries.
That's money we should keep and distribute in our own social programs and not just hand out because someones religion or government doesn't want them to put a helmet on the purple headed love soldier.

[Abe Sargent]

It's not so much "welfare" for this country.
What eventually ends up happening is that we provide the "welfare" for too many other countries.
That's money we should keep and distribute in our own social programs and not just hand out because someones religion or government doesn't want them to put a helmet on the purple headed love soldier.


Do you realize how little money we give to other nations. It's a very small amount. In addition, giving money to other nations is valuable for Americans - it increases good will abroad, helpful for those Americans travelling, it helps infrastructures in other countries, good for American businesses doing business in that country, stabilizes governments, good for Americans in lots of ways, and so forth. We give aid in return for better tarriffs, better trade, political help, and so forth. The very small amount of foreign aid that we give (and it is really small compared to the budget) had a lot of beneficial returns.

Most experts i the field agree that we should actually increase foreign aid to a level more inkeeping with the rest of the world because the benefits are so great.


-Anxiety

[AENeuman]

The enviromental impact from the matertial driven US is devastating.
If China and India produced/consumed/expelled a comparable amount (4 times as much as the US) enviromental problems would be epic.
Imagine if China had our fast food addiction. Just the impact from feeding and keeping millions more cows would be huge (feed, water, waste, soil, methane, etc).
I think we should all thank shiva that India will never have a big mac problem.

[Blax]

Do you realize how little money we give to other nations. It's a very small amount. In addition, giving money to other nations is valuable for Americans - it increases good will abroad, helpful for those Americans travelling, it helps infrastructures in other countries, good for American businesses doing business in that country, stabilizes governments, good for Americans in lots of ways, and so forth. We give aid in return for better tarriffs, better trade, political help, and so forth. The very small amount of foreign aid that we give (and it is really small compared to the budget) had a lot of beneficial returns.

Most experts i the field agree that we should actually increase foreign aid to a level more inkeeping with the rest of the world because the benefits are so great.


-Anxiety

We lead the WORLD in monetary donations to other countries for basic needs.
No other Nation can afford to give as much as we can.

Of course....no matter what we do...we'll still be spit on because we're the Superpower. If you think our massive donations to poor countries will get you any love from the citizens of those countries....you're crazy.

[John Galt]

Does anyone else think that Druez just stole his coworker's (Blax) computer after he got banned?

[Tigercat]

Someone get CBS over here to do a sentence structure analysis ASAP.

[Samdari]

We lead the WORLD in monetary donations to other countries for basic needs.
No other Nation can afford to give as much as we can.

Of course....no matter what we do...we'll still be spit on because we're the Superpower. If you think our massive donations to poor countries will get you any love from the citizens of those countries....you're crazy.

You are correct that we give the most total dollars in basic foreign aid.

But, we give by far the lowest as a percentage of GNP.

Thus, one could argue both that the US is most generous nation in terms of foreign aid, and the least generous, and be able to back up each argument.

Lies, damn lies and statistics :)

[Abe Sargent]

You are correct that we give the most total dollars in basic foreign aid.

But, we give by far the lowest as a percentage of GNP.

Thus, one could argue both that the US is most generous nation in terms of foreign aid, and the least generous, and be able to back up each argument.

Lies, damn lies and statistics :)

I think that percent is usually the most appropriate way of attributing spending. We spend around $1.50 for every $1,000 of our GNP on foreign aid. Foreign Aid is usually less than 1% of the annual budget. If I mae a million a year and pay $5,000 in taxes while you make $50,000 and pay $4,000 in taxes, you would be quite right in arguing that I do not pay my fair share, despite the fact that I am paying more real dollars that you.

Another example is that West Virginia is generally regarded as thesafest state in the union because it has the lowest crime RATE. When I tell people that, a few idiots respond that's because West Virginia has few people. In response, I point out that other states have even less population per acerage (Montana, Alaska, North and South Dakota, Idaho, etc.) and it's a rate, not the actua number. Percentage is usually a better gauge of social phoenomenon, especially for comparison purposes.

It has been proven in study after study, however, that the American public believes that we spend too much money on Foreign Aid. When studied, the public usually averges around 18-22% of our budget is spent on foreign aid. Even the best subculture (college-educated people) still overestimate the amount of foreign aid spending to be 10%.

Want the real number? Last year's budget had 11.4 billion slotted for foreign aid.

-Anxiety

[Blax]

Does anyone else think that Druez just stole his coworker's (Blax) computer after he got banned?

Nope. There's no way in hell I'd give him my forum account. Would you?
Thanks for asking though.

You are correct that we give the most total dollars in basic foreign aid.

But, we give by far the lowest as a percentage of GNP.

Thus, one could argue both that the US is most generous nation in terms of foreign aid, and the least generous, and be able to back up each argument.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Here we are. The double edge sword I was about to get to.
The "donations" by percentage of GNP is what seems to keep us in trouble.
That and the destruction of "milk factories" in [insert random middle east nation here].

[Blax]

Last year's budget had 11.4 billion slotted for foreign aid.


That's 11.4 Billion best spent on domestic programs for our needy citizens IMO. Unless Bunker Busting Bombs for Israel fall into that category which I don't think they do.

[Subby]

The biggest reason, I only have 1 child and not 2 is money. I can give my 1 child a very secure and economically stable life. I can make sure she has the best of everything from schools, to cloths, to toy's etc... I can make sure she has a car and goes to a college of her choice. If I add a second child at my current finicial level, I can't do those things. If this is your parenting philosophy, then you are worse at parenting than you are at game reviewing...if that's even mathematically possible.

[Blax]

If this is your parenting philosophy, then you are worse at parenting than you are at game reviewing...if that's even mathematically possible.

Huh?

I have three kids. If I add a fourth that becomes a real stretch on the pocket book. This isn't philosophy....it's math and common sense.
Dru may be a shitty game reviewer but he's a good parent.

What was your point exactly? Are you just bashing because its Dru or do really think people should have as many kids as they want without any concern for their well being?

[Sharpieman]

Here is another point. If you have 10 kids and can afford them with no government assistance, then I have a bit more patience with you. At my work we had a secretary, who had 3 kids and was complaining about the goverment not giving her enough money for them. She then became pregnant again. I said to her, why are you having a fourth kid if you can't afford the three you already have.

Why is it the goverments responsiblity to pay for your kids. The biggest reason, I only have 1 child and not 2 is money. I can give my 1 child a very secure and economically stable life. I can make sure she has the best of everything from schools, to cloths, to toy's etc... I can make sure she has a car and goes to a college of her choice. If I add a second child at my current finicial level, I can't do those things.
I guess its another attack on the welfare system/people who are on welfare. I've been amazed for years how people attack welfare and say that its a huge burden on our budget. One thing people realize about welfare is that those who are on it, contribute the largest percent of their income to the economy, usually 100%. Since they need that money just to survive month by month, 100% of their checks go right back into the economy.

[Subby]

Huh?

I have three kids. If I add a fourth that becomes a real stretch on the pocket book. This isn't philosophy....it's math and common sense.
Dru may be a shitty game reviewer but he's a good parent.

What was your point exactly? Are you just bashing because its Dru or do really think people should have as many kids as they want without any concern for their well being?
I think you missed my point, which was that "giving your kids the best of everything" is a shitty parenting philosophy.

I have no thoughts about how many kids someone should have because each case needs to be judged on its own merits. I will say, however, that parenting and child-rearing is a lot more than just a financial consideration. I know plenty of large families where the parents had little money but provided adequately for their kids with both love and other material essentials. I also know plenty of wealthy families that have one kid and probably have one more kid than they can "support".

[Blax]

I certainly don't see it that away. Welfare is a good idea for those who need it.
The abuse of the welfare system is what increases the burden on the budget.

Having additional kids, while on welfare, to get more money for said kids is an abuse of the system. How can welfare help you get out of your bind and get on your own two feet if you continue to compound the problem?

[Sharpieman]

I certainly don't see it that away. Welfare is a good idea for those who need it.
The abuse of the welfare system is what increases the burden on the budget.

Having additional kids, while on welfare, to get more money for said kids is an abuse of the system. How can welfare help you get out of your bind and get on your own two feet if you continue to compound the problem?
Yes, but don't you understand that that money for the "kids" just goes right back into the economy?

[Blax]

I think you missed my point, which was that "giving your kids the best of everything" is a shitty parenting philosophy.


Consider the point missed. Apologies.

However...

If you say you want to give your kids the best of everything that could mean clean clothes, three hots, and a cot depending on your financial situation.

[Subby]

If you say you want to give your kids the best of everything that could mean clean clothes, three hots, and a cot depending on your financial situation. I don't really think someone would describe those things as "the best of everything". Not worth splitting hairs over, though...

[Blax]

Yes, but don't you understand that that money for the "kids" just goes right back into the economy?

Beer and cigarettes?

I know exactly what you mean but you didn't answer the question. (Not that anyone has too mind you...)
How can welfare help you get out of your bind and get on your own two feet if you continue to compound the problem?

I give you money to help you buy groceries based on your income and family size.
You increase the family size which in turn causes me to give you more money.

On and on and on. Thats what I disagree with.

At what point do we say stop?

[Blax]

I don't really think someone would describe those things as "the best of everything". Not worth splitting hairs over, though...

I agree.

[Tom E]

I hate when people have 4 kids becuase they're using special hormones. Adopt why don'y ya...

[Sharpieman]

Beer and cigarettes?

I know exactly what you mean but you didn't answer the question. (Not that anyone has too mind you...)
How can welfare help you get out of your bind and get on your own two feet if you continue to compound the problem?

I give you money to help you buy groceries based on your income and family size.
You increase the family size which in turn causes me to give you more money.

On and on and on. Thats what I disagree with.

At what point do we say stop?
I agree with you, I think welfare needs serious reform, but the concept of welfare isn't the flaw. Its in the way it was written up and in the way its practiced here in America. However, I don't see it has a incredibly large problem because in the end it still contributes to the economy. If I were going to cut one program out of America's budget to save money, it wouldn't be welfare or any government assistance, it would probably the whole war on drugs campaign that really is a huge waste of money and time.

[Blax]

Agreed.

[ISiddiqui]

Overpopulation isn't a problem. Growth rates are falling and at this rate will stablize around 8 million. Look at Europe, they are having NEGATIVE population growth rate... and the only think preventing the US from doing so is immigration.

Now, the reason for the boom is that when developing countries actually start developing, population growth booms, mainly because the high death rates get reduced from medicine, but the true costs of having chidren (ie, the woman, at least, has to give up some productive years) don't go down until economic prosperity improves to a high level. Coincidentally, the states with more rights for women (like letting them work, right to vote, etc) have lower population growth rates, because it costs women too much from not working in the market.

[Desnudo]

Population growth and economic growth link together in the long term. So it's important that our population keeps growing. Fear of overpopulation is always looked at with a perspective that technological development will remain at a status quo.

[Crapshoot]

We lead the WORLD in monetary donations to other countries for basic needs.
No other Nation can afford to give as much as we can.

Of course....no matter what we do...we'll still be spit on because we're the Superpower. If you think our massive donations to poor countries will get you any love from the citizens of those countries....you're crazy.

dood, at a per capita basis- you give among the lowest in the western world. at least get the facts straight..

[Z²+]

ISiddiqui is absolutely correct. I took a few classes in development economics over the past 4 years, and this is the current "mainstream" thought in the field. Large population increases occur in developing countries as technology reduces the death rate, but the birth rate does not drop right away. A quick, crude explanation follows...
I can't remember the specifics off the top of my head, but it generally runs in three stages:

1) High birth rates ; high death rates
2) High birth rates ; low death rates
3) Low birth rates ; low death rates

Extremely undeveloped societies are in stage 1. Families need many children as economic assets to help support the family in basic means - helping grow crops or working to make money to buy food for the family, etc. Because the death rate is so high, probability says that at least a few of each family's children are going to die during childhood, and the mother needs to have as many as possible to make sure at least some survive to take care of the parents when they are old.

"Developing countries" are in stage 2. Technology, improvements in medicent, etc, have lowered the death rates. More children are surviving childhood. The birthrate does not immediately follow suit, however. Families are still having many children, as they are needed to help support the family still. At this point, the economic benefit is still greater for each child than the economic cost, so families continue to have lots of kids. Population rapidly expands.

As countries become "fully developed", as ISiddiqui mentioned above, the costs of children increase. They bring in less immediate economic benefits, and costs start to increase. It starts to make economic sense to have few children. Additionally, the costs for women to have children increase, as their time is now much more valuable in the market. The birthrate decreases, and the birthrate and deathrate are usually close to identical (with some residual population growth in most cases, although as in Europe right now the deathrate is higher and population is slowly declining).

There's a lot of good reading out there on the topic. I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the subject to read some of the later works of Amartya Sen, one of the leading developmental economists of today. I forget the exact title, but I read one of his books (maybe "Development as Freedom") talking about the providing freedoms to people (not only in a political sense, but in the most basic freedom to have dignity in oneself) as a way to aid in development of third world countries, and by that ultimately aiding in slowing down population growth.

[Z²+]

dola...

I'm sure Quiksand could pontificate on this matter quite intelligently :)

[digamma]

In my country there is problem,
And that problem is transport,
It take very very long,
Because Kazakhstan is big.

Throw transport down the well,
So my country can be free,
We must make travel easy,
Then we'll have big party.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

One of these days a influenza type pandemic will thin our ranks a bit. Seriously a global pandemic will probably start in the slums of (pick 3rd world nation) due to lack of sanitation/med care and spread from there.

[revrew]

Ooh, did I start this? Well, first off, I'm not offended by druez's original question. Though couched in the negative connotation of "irresponsibility", the underlying question is simply one of ethics. No harm done.

Three points I would have made already have been: a. that there is abundant land mass available (everybody in Texas example), b. Many nations, especially in Europe, are actually struggling with negative pop. growth, and c. overall world population is increasing largely because of high pop. growth in third-world countries.

As for the ethics of having x number of children, I cannot really confine the discussion to such an utilitarian context. In a utilitarian system, perhaps it is unethical for us to have x number of children. Of course, in a utilitarian system, it is "good" for governing authorities to ration such things as fertility. Our birth-control decisions are based on wholly other ethical criteria, namely issues of religion and faith (though, no, we're not Catholic). Under this ethical system, our 10 children are judged as good, even wonderful, a "blessing."

Now, as a humorous but still poignant barb, I bring up the question of determining ethical standards. Where faith and utilitarianism disagree, can they also coexist? Must we accept a certain tolerance of relativism to allow them to coexist? Or are they competing? Are they at odds, even at a "cultural war" of some sort? If they can co-exist, so be it. But--and here's the humorous barb--if they must compete...my descendants will outvote yours. ;)

[SFL Cat]

I would be interested in seeing that. Everything, I've read seems to show that the increase is growing exponentially.

Another interesting thought on this topic, the 3rd world countries have the most rapid growth. Basically the countries that have the least in the way of medicine, money, living conditions and education are the people who are the most irresponsible.

The poor have more kids then the affluent.

Every ten years or so, the Population Explosion scare once again rears its ugly head. There was a book back in the 70s (I'll have to see if I can find the title -- I don't remember what it is) that basically said by now all available living space on this planet would be exhausted.

Besides, if the AIDS epidemic in Africa isn't halted, there will be a lot of living space available on that continent in about 20-30 years.

[Crapshoot]

Every ten years or so, the Population Explosion scare once again rears its ugly head. There was a book back in the 70s (I'll have to see if I can find the title -- I don't remember what it is) that basically said by now all available living space on this planet would be exhausted.

Besides, if the AIDS epidemic in Africa isn't halted, there will be a lot of living space available on that continent in about 20-30 years.

the Club of Rome school of thought..

[Samdari]

no, we're not Catholic

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Way to tear down stereotypes rev.