Here's an essay on the subject

Quote:There are people who regard the question of population as one of the most important and urgent of all, because, they claim that we are threatened with over-population, indeed, that it is already at hand. Therefore this question must be specially treated from an international standpoint, for nourishment and distribution of the population have become more and more a matter of international concern. There has been much discussion on the law governing the growth of population since Malthus. In his famous and notorious book, an “Essay on the Principle of Population,” that Karl Marx has described as a “school-boyish, superficial plagiarism on Sir James Stewart, Townsend, Franklin Wallace, etc., declaimed in a priest-like manner and not containing a single original thought,” – Malthus propounds the theory that mankind has the tendency to increase at the ratio of geometrical progression (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc.), while food increases only at the ratio of arithmetical progression (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.). The consequence, he asserts, is that a disproportion arises between the number of human beings and the food supply which must lead to wholesale starvation, and that, therefore, it becomes necessary to impose abstinence upon one’s self in the procreation of children. He, who has not sufficient means to support a family should not marry, as there would not be sufficient room at “nature’s table” for his descendants.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/18...m/ch30.htm

(August 14, 2012 at 2:36 am)cratehorus Wrote: fuck you shell b......

here's CNN if it makes you feel good about yourself

Quote:"Nothing ever continues at its present rate, neither the stock market nor population growth," said Doug Allen, the dean of the school of Architecture at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and an expert in the history of cities and urban design, which he's taught for more than 31 years.

"There is a substantial body of evidence that the world population will flatten out in about 30 years," he said. "Built into that model would be an assumption that more of the world's population will become urban, and as such the population will begin to decline."

Citing historical evidence of falling birthrates in urban populations, Allen looks to Italy as a current example of the phenomenon.

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-09-25/tech/..._s=PM:TECH

My, overreact much?

Look at the earliest known population of humans. Compare that to now. What makes you think that for some reason, in your lifetime, that growth will stop? Don't be daft. Even catastrophic diseases like the flu have failed to stem population growth.

Next time, don't cite a fucking source that has "agenda" in the goddamn site name and I won't suggest you're a troll.

Easter Island. Read about it. Oh, and this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulat...ld_animals

For the record, I don't think overpopulation is an immediate threat, as in will kill us all soon. I just happen to also think you're a fucking idiot if you don't think it can.

(August 14, 2012 at 3:11 am)Shell B Wrote: Easter Island. Read about it. Oh, and this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulat...ld_animals

Examples of animal overpopulation caused by natural cyclic variations include......locusts

every species that overpopulation effects is something introduced to a foreign enviroment, birds, fish, vermin, things like that........are you saying human beings are a species of locusts? That's very cynical of you

Well, ignoring this spat and assuming problematic population growth, an interesting puzzle occurred to me.

It's in response to Ryantology's musing about the point of it all. A common view from the position of biological evolution is that there is no point; life is a statistical phenomenon. More, better, faster, is blind to truth and meaning. Evolution cares about what works, not what's right, or what's important. (I don't agree with this estimate, but it's a useful starting point.) As someone else mentioned, life aims to live longest and fullest. The more a specimen can sustain itself, the more likely it's genes will outcompete its less stalwart rivals in being represented in the gene pool. But this raises a quandary. (And yes, I'm blurring some lines between viewing evolution at the species level and at the individual level, which isn't technically valid, but bear with me.) By definition, those who voluntarily or otherwise limit their reproduction are deliberately reducing that sustainability. If we look at evolution as an individual phenomenon (bad, bad, bad), then those who do not limit themselves reproductively, have a better chance of their traits — mayhaps including the traits which made them less willing to limit their reproduction — being well represented in the next generation of the gene pool than those whose traits lead them to limit themselves reproductively (or to be limited by others). It would seem, at this level, and ignoring the technical faults, that traits that lead to reproductive manageability are self-limiting, and not genetically robust. (Anyway, I'll leave it to Chuck or some science whiz to demolish my pretensions).

I think, ultimately, what this world needs is a predator that is a match for man. It's not customary to think in these terms, but a virus, bacteria, self-destructive set of memes, famine or other deadly shortage would probably be the most expeditious. If the phenotype of the psychopath is largely genetically caused, perhaps a race of psychopaths. There's also a few possibilities that are hard to predict. We may have sufficient knowledge of genes or brains within the relevant window to redesign humanity to rectify the problem. Unlikely that such would be expeditiously implemented, but perhaps if the re-engineered human also doubled as a predator, it might work.

(August 13, 2012 at 7:23 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Actually, there is one solution, but it's extremely drastic. A worldwide pandemic meant to wipe out 95% of the world's population would immediately stop the human race from pumping more shit into our atmosphere. At least then, both the planet and the human race would have a chance.

Problem with that is that we'd have to sacrifice our sense of humanity, all of it. We'd be telling our children that we've wiped out billions, men women and children.

If such an act be the only way to survive as a species, I'd rather just go out as a human being with my humanity intact.

The problems we have are very easily fixed. The reason the problems are so great is because we are not doing anything about it. Most of us don't care or don't think there's a problem.
For nature, it's an easy fix. All she's gotta do is release all that methane.

---

(August 13, 2012 at 11:58 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Now, as far as why people have so many children. It is pretty well established that economically dis-advatanged people tend to have more children.

This is true, over here young girls and boys reproduce even before they even have a job or a place of their own. Why? Because they're paid benefits for each child they have and given top priority on the housing list. It's actually beneficial to have multiple kids. Most don't even bother thinking about getting ready or simply thinking about the whole situation at all. It's normal here seeing a teenager or a woman in her early 20's having multiple kids, and often without the dad and so they find other men to reproduce with and end up with even more kids.
It's nothing short of MADNESS!
I've noticed many of them end up depressed, stressed and very unsatisfied with their lives. So I guess it's not entirely beneficial. Still comes at a high price.

One thing that has been shown to work (according to Stephen Fry) in reducing the amount of procreation in the less developed world is to empower women, raise their status, let them take an economic role in their communities, and give them control over reproduction. With economic security (e.g. respite from the fear of starvation) and more control over their lives, not many women want to be perpetually pregnant between the ages of 16 and 36.
The last sentence is a bit of a presumption, but pregnant women I've known (including my wife) don't seem to enjoy the experience so much that they want to do it all the time.

Regards

Grimesy

Over population is not a problem for nature. If we run out of food, the population decreases until there is enough food for everyone.

As sad as it sounds, this is also the solution to foreign AID, which does more harm than good. 30 years ago, Etheopia had 1 million starving people due to food shortages. We fed them, and now they have 10 million starving people (since people who don't starve make babies). If they had been left to starve, there would be enough of them to feed themselves.

All developed countries learned this the hard way, but look at them now.

Though after a fashion, I agree with your first point, interestingly enough, Ethiopia is considered by many to have actually made strides forward in comparison to how it was in the '70s.

http://www.gadling.com/2010/11/04/ethiop...y-of-life/

(August 14, 2012 at 7:26 am)Tiberius Wrote: If we run out of food, the population decreases until there is enough food for everyone.

As sad as it sounds, this is also the solution to foreign AID, which does more harm than good. 30 years ago, Etheopia had 1 million starving people due to food shortages. We fed them, and now they have 10 million starving people (since people who don't starve make babies). If they had been left to starve, there would be enough of them to feed themselves.

All developed countries learned this the hard way, but look at them now.

This I totally agree with. Nature thins its own herds.

Tiberius Wrote:Over population is not a problem for nature.

This I don't agree with. When there were only a few million people on this planet we had no problem with greenhouse emissions. Even when we had 1 or 2 billion people on this planet, global warming was still not something to be concerned about. However, nature is now definitely having a problem with our over population. When we double in size in 50/60 years, "nature" is going to be overwhelmed with humans.

Also everyone, food is not the ONLY issue that need be considered when over-population is in question. Water is a much bigger issue and so is the amount of other resources/fuel needed to keep everyone on this planet alive and hospitable. Food will definitely be an issue, but I don't think it will be the largest by any stretch of the imagination.

(August 14, 2012 at 7:26 am)Tiberius Wrote: Over population is not a problem for nature. If we run out of food, the population decreases until there is enough food for everyone.

If by nature you mean the universe, this is true.
If you mean the biosphere, there may be a threat that mass starvation could lead to something like a nuclear war that would threaten it. Probably not though, just lots of dead bodies.

(August 14, 2012 at 7:26 am)Tiberius Wrote: As sad as it sounds, this is also the solution to foreign AID, which does more harm than good. 30 years ago, Etheopia had 1 million starving people due to food shortages. We fed them, and now they have 10 million starving people (since people who don't starve make babies). If they had been left to starve, there would be enough of them to feed themselves.

Even if this conclusion is correct, it would be interesting to see a politician explain how he/she is introducing this into his/her foreign policy.

(August 14, 2012 at 7:26 am)Tiberius Wrote: All developed countries learned this the hard way, but look at them now.

Isn't that a bit like your Dad saying "Bread and dripping were good enough for me, so it's good enough for you"

Regards

Grimesy