Interesting answer, but you did not answer the question.

The Earth is already 4 times over populated. That is, it would require 4 planets the same size as Earth to sustain the human race at the present.

If you knew the problem at hand and it's consequences, would you sacrifice having children to make a difference?

(April 18, 2009 at 9:44 am)g-mark Wrote: Interesting answer, but you did not answer the question.

The Earth is already 4 times over populated. That is, it would require 4 planets the same size as Earth to sustain the human race at the present.

If you knew the problem at hand and it's consequences, would you sacrifice having children to make a difference?

Where did you get that figure from and how is that calculated?

@g-mark

Please cite your evidence that the earth is overpopulated.

I wasn't aware. I am aware that some COUNTRIES seem overpopulated and that many (including my own) have the capacity for many millions more.

My understanding is that the world is perfectly capable of feeding itself right now. I may have misunderstood. I'll be pleased to learn of any evidence to the contrary. The fact of starvation is not such evidence.

I think that if we relocated people from arable land and set up massive farms, we could easily feed the current population. Of course, that would lead to the entire population living in deserts and other unsuitable land.

You only have to look at the size of Georgia (USA) which is about 3/5 the size (area) of the UK, and yet has 15% of the population size of the UK. Most states in America aren't very crowded at all.

Quote:Where did you get that figure from and how is that calculated?

This figure was taken from a documentary. I am researching the exact source at the moment. May take some time, given the amount of information available.

Quote:Please cite your evidence that the earth is overpopulated.

http://digg.com/d15h4V - Calculate your footprint.

http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment...h-sustain/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12...ation.html

http://www.cosmosmith.com/human_population_crisis.htm

http://www.overpopulation.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BbkQiQyaYc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJVMh2-5Lr0

http://www.wri.org/

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/ear...-9buy.html

There are literally millions of sources. Including scientific journals. It is taugh today at University as part of Sociology classes. It is common fact.

Although there is a debate amoungst some, the amount of resources needed to sustain the current human population far exceeds to capacity of the earth to produce such resources.

This is reflected in the current Global Climate Change and the Current Global Recession. Which is undebatable, as it is fact.

It dooes not take a University degree to understand that an overabundance of one particular organism within a confined area will lead to the host being overwhelmed.

The debate is over, it is time for action. You of all people must understand this.

The problem is more than serious and is going to affect the lives of perhaps our generation ,not later than the lives of our next generation.
The greenhouse effect,the disappearance of species under our very eyes,the climate changes,all these are more or less the direct result of the already 8 billion men living on our planet.The populatoin is going to triple herself in the following 50 years.
What is the solution?
The last desired solution is a third nuclear world war.It is not desired but it could hapen .Einstein who has regretted his contribution to the creation of the first A-bomb said that he doesn't know what weapons will be used in the III WW,but he is sure that in the IV WW people will use sticks.
We as simple mortals cannot do anything but hope that it will not hapen.
Other solution proposed such as an international government or transfer of populations so as to optimize the utilization of the soil seem to me as non feasable in the near future.
It seems to me that the chinese model of population control is the most probable to be extended
to other countries.The existence of the chinese model is determinated by at least two political conditions:the existence of a totatitarian system combined with a secular/atheistic/non religious/not imposed multiplication by religion,population.
Let's not forget that China has achieved this situation by a bloody revolution in the wake of which many million of people ( they say that the figure is about 20) have lost their lives.
From the point of view of religious believes it seems to me that in spite the immense population of prerevolutionary China their multiplication was not imposed by confucianism or other local religions.
Now,the situation is toally different in the Christian word and especially in the Muslim world.
In countries which are essentially christian the birth rate is not very high due to the modern conditions of life so even if the christian priesthood speaks against population control
the practical effect of it is not very high.
In countries like Russia,France,Germany and other the christian population is even decreasing.
So the main problem remains with the Muslim world where the population control is regarded as a crime against the Islam.
The muslim population expands itself in the whole of the world and gains together with it's growth political power and finally also warfare power.
The ideal way of population control would be totalitarian or quasi totalitarian countries whith imposed secular/atheistic believing population.
To achieve this model it is, in my opinion, almost sure that the world will undergo bloody revolutions in which the muslims will play a very nasty role.If exrtermist muslims will be in posession of nuclear weapons they will use it.
Pesimistic prognosis ? yes.
Prepare yourself to tell your future grandchidren about a golden age when life was beautifull with plenty of food and people who where free.

Hmmm, this is an interesting topic. I don't know what the right answer is though, or which side I support. On one hand, we are extremely overpopulated and with our recources not increasing, its obvious whats going to happen... But on the other hand, I dont know if the government should be telling people how many children they can have. Once you do that, its a slippery slope to other things.

(April 19, 2009 at 12:58 am)g-mark Wrote: The debate is over, it is time for action. You of all people must understand this.

Which debate? The one regarding over-population, climate change or the global recession?

Quote:The debate is over, it is time for action. You of all people must understand this.

In science no debate is ever truly over. Everything remains open to question. Neither is anyone under any obligation to accept anything you say or to even try to understand anything you assert. That people do not agree with your perception does not imply they don't understand,it only implies they don't agree. To argue a person disagrees because they don't understand is an ad hominem attack,a basic logical fallacy.


The argument you've provided falls onto one side of a dichotomy; dystopian vs utopian views. The former has been argued in modern times since Thomas Malthus. (1766-1834)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

It certainly seems that critical population levels will eventually be reached.However, I don't accept that position has yet been reached.I DO accept it's probably inevitable. That is not the same as a certainty. Science does not ague absolutes. Nor indeed do any of the social sciences. I can't remember any of my sociology or anthropology professors ever arguing any position as simply a fact.

Quote:There are literally millions of sources. Including scientific journals. It is taught today at University as part of Sociology classes. It is common fact.

Argument from authority,not proof.There is no such thing as "THE" sociological perspective". There are several basic schools ,and several models within each school,often providing different explanations. The only reliable thing about "common facts" 'is that they are as likely to be wrong as correct.

(April 19, 2009 at 10:52 pm)athoughtfulman Wrote:

(April 19, 2009 at 12:58 am)g-mark Wrote: The debate is over, it is time for action. You of all people must understand this.

Which debate? The one regarding over-population, climate change or the global recession?

All of them.

---

g-mark Wrote:The debate is over, it is time for action. You of all people must understand this.

padraic Wrote:In science no debate is ever truly over. Everything remains open to question. Neither is anyone under any obligation to accept anything you say or to even try to understand anything you assert. That people do not agree with your perception does not imply they don't understand,it only implies they don't agree. To argue a person disagrees because they don't understand is an ad hominem attack,a basic logical fallacy.

What is 1 +1 =

Is the world Flat?

Is the Sun the Centre of our Solar System?

Is there a suppermassive blackhole at the centre of our galaxy?

It is common fact amoung scientists that the debate is over. If a person is unable to understand this, their reasoning skills maybe flawed.

padraic Wrote:It certainly seems that critical population levels will eventually be reached.However, I don't accept that position has yet been reached.I DO accept it's probably inevitable. That is not the same as a certainty. Science does not ague absolutes. Nor indeed do any of the social sciences. I can't remember any of my sociology or anthropology professors ever arguing any position as simply a fact.

Do you consider wiki a relevant source of information, as it is only other peoples opinions. We all have opinions.

g-mark Wrote:]There are literally millions of sources. Including scientific journals. It is taught today at University as part of Sociology classes. It is common fact.

padraic Wrote:Argument from authority,not proof.There is no such thing as "THE" sociological perspective". There are several basic schools ,and several models within each school,often providing different explanations. The only reliable thing about "common facts" 'is that they are as likely to be wrong as correct.

Why do Sociologists work for the government? We are measured as a whole, and policies are implemented this way. Sociology Class at University will show you this.

Please cite evidence for your assertions.