Is overpopulation a problem? If so, how should it be dealt with? - General

I'm sure most of you have read the news recently. The world population is now estimated to be over seven billion. The debate of overpopulation has been around for a while, but what do you think? Has the world population got to the point where we would need to consider methods of reducing it? If so, what methods do you think should be considered? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Not a debate thread - post your side of the argument" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

There are no methods a sane man would advocate save for abstinence of childbirth/conception. As for overpopulation, yeah, we're over by about 5 billion. As for worrying about it, it's waaay waaaaaaaaay past time to have worried about it. We'll run out of fossil fuels with no viable per-logistical use alternative in sight and we've got a couple megacalderas (Yellowstone, Anak Krakatau) fixing to go off, and those will forcibly reduce the population by a metric fuckton, if we survive at all. Nature has a way of "fixing" itself, more or less, and those ways are coming up pretty quick, geologically speaking; and we haven't covered extraterrestrial impacts or GRB or the assload of methane on the ocean floors. Mankind's number will come up, same as those who went before.

Every crime=execution v:v:v

Of course it's a problem. Solution? Zombie Apocalypse.

We are far from overpopulation, the real problem is the way the people are distributed with way more in poorer parts of the world than there are in the richer parts. So really the way to fix our population troubles would be to share the wealth a lot more but that is almost an impossibility in today's worlds.

An increase in quality of life often brings a decrease in birth rate. If people were more charitable and willing to help, countries could pool in to help develop poorer nations, slowing down the overall birth rate of the world. Not a solution, but it's an idea.

[QUOTE=27X;33067152]As for worrying about it, it's waaay waaaaaaaaay past time to have worried about it. We'll run out of fossil fuels with no viable per-logistical use alternative in sight[/QUOTE] How long until the fossil fuels will run out? If it's 25 or so years from now I'm certain electrical cars or some other way of propelling cars will have been fleshed out properly so it's actually a viable choice compared with petrol cars.

[QUOTE=27X;33067152]There are no methods a sane man would advocate save for abstinence of childbirth/conception. As for overpopulation, yeah, we're over by about 5 billion. As for worrying about it, it's waaay waaaaaaaaay past time to have worried about it. We'll run out of fossil fuels with no viable per-logistical use alternative in sight and we've got a couple megacalderas (Yellowstone, Anak Krakatau) fixing to go off, and those will forcibly reduce the population by a metric fuckton, if we survive at all. Nature has a way of "fixing" itself, more or less, and those ways are coming up pretty quick, geologically speaking; and we haven't covered extraterrestrial impacts or GRB or the assload of methane on the ocean floors. Mankind's number will come up, same as those who went before.[/QUOTE] As long as we can keep a sustainable population somewhere safe we should be able to keep going through most disasters. Global population go down from 7 billion to about 1 million but apocalypse isn't the end of the world. Not saying it's going to happen or even likely, just a huge crash like that could wipe out most but not all. And fossil fuels running out is going to fuck with our infrastructure a huge amount and cripple everything for a while but at most it's going to cause famines until we develop a stable position and eventually get an alternative. It'll be slow and cost us but again, not the end of humanity.

I think you're overstating the current batches' resilience, even in ultra agrarian set ups. When we were reduced to 2000 peoples or so via hypervolcanism in the past there was lot more land and stuff to forage off of. That isn't remotely the case anymore, and whilst we have way better tools and vastly more hugerest knowledge-base comparatively, neither of those are much help unless actuated on continually. We've been burning through a fuckton of stuff that cannot or has not been replaced, and there's no slowage of consumption, which is an epic recipe for disaster. Mankind is smart, mankind is not tough, and you'll need both to survive here longterm. Logistically speaking, there are WAY too many people using up way too much stuff in most areas of the world, and there will be reckoning, one way or the other. [editline]1st November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lalelalala;33067473]How long until the fossil fuels will run out? If it's 25 or so years from now I'm certain electrical cars or some other way of propelling cars will have been fleshed out properly so it's actually a viable choice compared with petrol cars.[/QUOTE] Fossil fuels are used for [I]way[/I] more than transportation.

Agriculture rather than foraging? If anything survives worth foraging, we can probably cultivate it. Even if in the last moments of civilisation we make something that can survive that well enough that we can cultivate. Knowledge base doesn't need to stay at this level, just put the data in an archive somewhere where it can survive, let someone far in the future discover it. As much as we use, the only problem is the soil not being fertile any more if we're worried about sustainable population. No fossil fuel or iron ore reserves are meaningless if we're back to farmers. We're bound to crash if the sustainable stuff doesn't come through but unless we go all the way back to the ground being molten then it's not impossible.

Human society is the problem, the rich use too much and the poor don't get enough. IMO, overpopulation wouldn't be such a problem is everyone was living in the same standard, but so far that has proven impossible due to human instinct and corruption. Like right now, I am using a computer to type this, and the reason I have this computer is because I was born and raised by a family that lives in the USA, therefore having a much higher chance of being "rich" by global standards.

I was thinking.. You know, other animal populations stabilize somewhat early. It get's crowded and not enough food and blabla, the kinda stuff humans are not concerned about. (Well, we have starvation but anyway the population is going up.) If you put a female cow and male cow on an island with full of grass, they will make baby cows and they will eat the grass and eventually there's cow skeletons, not much grass left, and the last remaining cows eating. So , I'd kinda laugh if nature came up with a lethal virus that would just cut a big chunk of human population when we've are at about 15 billion, which is probably a lot more than nature would want it to be by then.

A countries population usually begins to level out when it becomes significantly developed. Over population will only really be a problem for the third world.

Tighter regulations on immigration. Just because a country doesn't have practically open boarders doesn't make them "racist" or other dumb terms pro-immigration people will throw at them. Look at Switzerland or South Korea for an example of "anti-immigration' (not the best term to use but I can't think of a better suited one)

[QUOTE=RubberFruit;33067312]Of course it's a problem. Solution? Zombie Apocalypse.[/QUOTE] Dying a horrible painful death is the solution. And seeing your relatives and friends ripped to shreds.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;33067490]As long as we can keep a sustainable population somewhere safe we should be able to keep going through most disasters. Global population go down from 7 billion to about 1 million but apocalypse isn't the end of the world. Not saying it's going to happen or even likely, just a huge crash like that could wipe out most but not all. And fossil fuels running out is going to fuck with our infrastructure a huge amount and cripple everything for a while but at most it's going to cause famines until we develop a stable position and eventually get an alternative. It'll be slow and cost us but again, not the end of humanity.[/QUOTE] The issue with dwindling fossil fuels and our reliance on them is that when they start to truly run out countries will quickly start to horde and extort others and eventually war will break out over fuel. The fact that it's almost as important as electricity, and in some areas required for electricity society itself could collapse into chaos in a bid for fuel.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;33072408]Tighter regulations on immigration. Just because a country doesn't have practically open boarders doesn't make them "racist" or other dumb terms pro-immigration people will throw at them. Look at Switzerland or South Korea for an example of "anti-immigration' (not the best term to use but I can't think of a better suited one)[/QUOTE] We have many immigrants in Switzerland. Maybe not as many as in France but still, this is really far from an "anti-immigration" system. Swiss nationality is more dificult to obtain but that's another subject.

The problem fixes itself eventually. Eventually the whole world will have the same standard of living that we enjoy in NA/EU/OC, and with a higher standard of living, you have less births per person/family.

Raising peoples standard of living and getting people educated has proven to cause people to have less kids. Its either that or in a few years or everyones standard of living goes down because there wont be enough resources to share.

Its an after effect of the industrial revolution. If overpopulation does become a problem, I suggest 2 children limit per family.