Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/16/2006 5:35:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 5:40:01 AM EDT by Dance]
It seems many of the problems today come from overpopulation, in this country and the world at large. Current world population is roughly 6.5 billion.

Looking at some numbers: The world has more then tripled population since 1927, and doubled population since 1965 geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm

Life expectancy is getting higher, and advances in medicine allow for women to give birth longer. This means the population will continue to grow quickly. geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/lifeexpectancy.htm

Advanced nations population growth rates are declining, while impoverished nations are growing quickly. geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/populationgrow.htm

Disease: AIDS, cancer, leperosy, hep, and other transmitted diseases thrive in high populations.

Quality of life: More people = less for all

Resources: more population=more resources used

Cities : Expand while rural areas grow smaller, cities/suburbs sprawling hundreds of miles

Illegal Aliens: add to population problems

Demographics: change totally changing what a country was and is and dilutes culture.

Countries: expand faster (China and India)

Eventually the population growth rate will have to decline, and something catraclysmic may happen which wipes out half of the population (plague, etc).
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:37:34 AM EDT
We just need to allow stupid people to kill them selves again. All the saftey build into everything is keeping stupid people from dying.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:39:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:
We just need to allow stupid people to kill them selves again. All the saftey build into everything is keeping stupid people from dying.



What about medical advances allowing more and more genetic/disease problems to get worse and worse?

Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:39:51 AM EDT
Take a drive from PA to CA along the Southern border, or even through Mid America. While you are driving hours and hours without seeing another house, and only the rare gastation, ask yourself this same question. You may come up with your own answer then.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:40:13 AM EDT
This is a popular subject that comes up every few decades with dire predictions of overpopulation, which never pan out.


They claim that our US population could be spread out over the country and we'd each have a huge chunk of land - I don't see it. Living on the East Coast, you can't hardly find someplace that is out of sight of "man"

When I lived out west, yes, there was more open land, but stilll...........



But, I digress - I think we need to keep our population around where it's at now, worldwide.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:45:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
This is a popular subject that comes up every few decades with dire predictions of overpopulation, which never pan out.


They claim that our US population could be spread out over the country and we'd each have a huge chunk of land - I don't see it. Living on the East Coast, you can't hardly find someplace that is out of sight of "man"

When I lived out west, yes, there was more open land, but stilll...........



But, I digress - I think we need to keep our population around where it's at now, worldwide.



Personally I could go for a few less people in the Middle East, Mexico, and Massachusetts.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:47:44 AM EDT


Personally I could go for a few less people in the Middle East, Mexico, and Massachusetts.



LMAO there are a few less people in the Middle East and Mexico. They are here in the US
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:47:46 AM EDT
according to NWO types, ideal population is less than 500 million...200 million is the number
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:50:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:54:09 AM EDT
I think we could stand to loose around 2.83 billion people.

-1.2 Billion from China ,the country that nearly owns us already.

-800 Million from India.They can't feed their own as it is,but
they have nukes ?
That won't end well .

-800 Million Arabs.It's gonna be them or us anyway ,unless
we bomb them into the stoneage and contain them so their
no longer a threat.

-30 Million illegal Mexicans and their descendants that
have snuck accross the border over the last 30 years.
Actually ,jus sending them packing would make me happy.

After their exile ,the crime rate in the southern states would
probably drop to 25% of what it is now,and the national
crime rate should be split in half.
Don't believe me ?
Check the wanted posters at your local Post Office and police stations.
This statement proves itself .
If 10 faces are on the board ,8 or more will be Hispanic.
At least 3 of those 8 don't speak English,or so they
claim.

Go ahead ,check for yourself.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 5:57:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:07:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jrosto:


Personally I could go for a few less people in the Middle East, Mexico, and Massachusetts.



LMAO there are a few less people in the Middle East and Mexico. They are here in the US



Heck I'd probably be okay with trading a few massholes for a couple Mexicans and Arabs, should the opportunity present itself.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:18:20 AM EDT
disclaimer, this is what I think, not what I believe in.

It would be easy to support the highest of those estimates if there was an EQUAL distribution of wealth, i.e. food, water, land, technology, health services, education etc.

We have barely scratched the surface of saving water through better farming methods, instant hot water heaters, reclamation, seawater conversion, and indeed just simple limits per person.

Most of these ideas are utopian and communistic but are portrayed as humanistic. Nothing wrong with them per se but they would require laws that infringe on present freedoms.

I think the US could survive some rather large cuts in power consumption and water usage just through more efficient systems and public cooperation. Just automating some things to happen at night, like laundry would more efficiently use power system capabilities. Add in individual solar power units and you could probably quit building plants for quite a while. Automating landscape watering, and better choices of plants would save a lot of water. More efficient weatherproofing would cut down on energy use. Some serious efforts by car manufacturers could extend mileage of SUVs and trucks (I'm picking on them because they've dodged the controls on sedans) without loss of utility.

Probably the hardest thing to do with a larger population is finding employment. Education would have to face up to the same problems of efficiency meaning your choices might be a little more dictated. These kinds of areas are where the SHTF and the rubber meets the road. Then there's the lazy and the criminal.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:20:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jrosto:
Take a drive from PA to CA along the Southern border, or even through Mid America. While you are driving hours and hours without seeing another house, and only the rare gastation, ask yourself this same question. You may come up with your own answer then.



I have done that drive quite a few times over the last 15 years, along with the northern route back to PA. Overpopulation can be seen, even in the desert areas and other low population areas.

How much has Phoenix grown population wise in the last 20 years? How about D/FW, Houston?

Nevada/Las Vegas? Montana? Idaho?

There are few remote areas in this country anymore, it's especially horrible on the east and west coasts.

Cities are eating more and more rural areas. Philadelphia is roughly 3 hours from me, and sometimes I have business there. Looking at a map, Philadelphia really extends in PA to north of Allentown and west passed Harrisburg. New York City, Atlanta, Phoenix, LA, etc can all be viewed in this way, as supercities that take up the city itself and many miles of suburb/city around it.

Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:37:05 AM EDT
A few have already said it.

Population density!!!

If we could spread everyone out so the population density was the same the world over we would find the Earth is a big place and there is room for plenty more people.

Quality of Land!!!

However, we would find out that there are large areas that would not support life comfortably or at all in some instances, for instance the artic, antartic, deserts, flood plains, mountin tops, etc. So we find everyone has congregated in the better areas, except were governments have placed restirctions on land use.

Quality of Life!!!

So the question for me isn't are we able to support a larger population in our existing livable land areas. NO!!! I don't want every American city (I know the question is world wide, but I don't care and my focus is on the US) to be like Singapore or any other super-dense-population centers. I want space between me and my neighbors. I want less interaction with other people, not more. I don't want all the problems that are the direct result of uncontrolled immigration. I say immigration since our population growth is almost entirely driven through immigration (illegal, chain, and anchor babies). Urban sprawl, crime, vanishing wild lands, vanishing open spaces, lowered wages due to market prices in a larger than needed labor market, out of control housing costs due to demand, increased traffic congestion, pollution, urban decay, increased government presence and control in our lives, and more taxes to fund the need for more services and control for out of control population explosions.

Is the world over populated? Don't care as long as they don't relieve their overpopluation pressures by sending them here. Oops, too late.

Yes!!! The world is overpopulated and we need a serious head count reduction.

Is the US overpopulated? Hell yes and we need a serious head count reduction. 30 million would be a good start. Coincidentaly I think that is the number of illegal aliens living among us, breathing our air, drinking our water, shitting in our waste water treatment centers, filling our lanfills, forcing our culture to change to suit them, casuing bilingual signs to appear every where, taking our jobs, raping our citizens, robbing us of our possessions, driving without a drivers license, driving without insurance, going to jail for medical treatments, going to the ER instead of a normal doctors visit, living on our welfare, getting diversity loans for houses, not paying taxes, on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.............................................
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:40:05 AM EDT
If we get rid of airbags,safety belts, and abs we will reach are target number in no time.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:49:25 AM EDT
I would argue that underpopulation is a problem for America. The socialist liberal policies have lead to a social security system that has the potential to bankrupt the economy AND the wholesale slaughter of 30+ million unborn taxpayers may bring an end to our way of life.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:50:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hmanjr:
A few have already said it.

Population density!!!

If we could spread everyone out so the population density was the same the world over we would find the Earth is a big place and there is room for plenty more people.




Yea, but it would really suck for the people stuck in northern Ural.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:54:36 AM EDT
entire world population would fit into Jacksonville ,FL with a 2x2 plot for each person
That being said, York,Pa is entirely too crowded
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:57:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 6:58:06 AM EDT by DK-Prof]
The world is not overpopulated (in the sense of too many people for too few resources), nor will it ever be. The population growth rates have been dropping for years - and it is pretty easy to look up when the world population is going to plateau and start to drop off. I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but it's not too drastic.

Use of resources and population density are obviously crucial issue to manage - but it's not a problem that cannot be solved. Plus, like others have said, some disease will at some point take a big chunk out of mankind, given our fast global inteconnectedness these days.


My guess as to the "ideal" world population is probably a couple of billion, though.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:58:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 7:00:40 AM EDT by Appelsientje]

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

They claim that our US population could be spread out over the country and we'd each have a huge chunk of land - I don't see it. Living on the East Coast, you can't hardly find someplace that is out of sight of "man"

When I lived out west, yes, there was more open land, but stilll...........




I once did the math, and there's roughly eight and a half acres of land in the United States for every american man, woman, and child.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:16:59 AM EDT
Read "the myth of too many" by julian simon.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:33:41 AM EDT
The ideal population would be me, and the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.
Trust me, I'd do my part to repopulate the planet.
OK, it might not be the perfect solution, but it works for me...
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:39:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:
Read "the myth of too many" by julian simon.




The Earth, with total (totalitarian) control of every resource and utilizing the best of every farming, conservation etc method could support something around 80 billion persons.

Comfort? Individualism? Freedom? Almost non-existent. But technically possible.

As for all of you who claim to want to see a reduction in current population . . . pppffffttt!!!

There is no 'population' problem in the US.

I got a mailer from some foundation that makes the same claim, saying that if we could reduce population in the US we would all be RICH!!!! Since everybody is RICH!!!! Nobody has to be POOR anymore. So tell me, Einstein, who empties the garbage in Utopia? Hmmm? Zero population hoodoo is moronically stupid.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:40:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 7:45:36 AM EDT by Dusty_C]
299,598,000 Estimated population of US this year.

150,000,000 Estimated populations of US minus liberals.


186,112,794 population of Brazil

93,056,397 Approximate number of women in Brazil


31,018,799 Approximate number of HOT women in Brazil


4,001,377,185 Population of Asia

97,837,453 Estimated number of HOT Asian women.


707,736,887 population of Europe.

17 Population of HOT european women after take out the liberal moonbats and women that don't shave their armpits.


Total acceptable world population.


150,000,000
31,018,799
97,837,453
+ 17
278,856,269

I think that about settles it.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:45:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
Read "the myth of too many" by julian simon.



As for all of you who claim to want to see a reduction in current population . . . pppffffttt!!!

There is no 'population' problem in the US.




I used to live on a hill without another house for miles.

Now I can throw a rock in any direction and hit one of the new homes that have been built in the last ten years.

To me that's a population problem.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:47:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jrosto:
Take a drive from PA to CA along the Southern border, or even through Mid America. While you are driving hours and hours without seeing another house, and only the rare gastation, ask yourself this same question. You may come up with your own answer then.



This is absolutely true. We are lied to constantly that all the "Open Space" is being eaten up by development. There are gigantically massive tracts of open aerable and hospitable land in the US and in all other countries.

The problems arise with regulations in this country that deny people the ability to utilize their land to its potential. One side effect is reducing the productivity of the land. Other times it is more profitable for farmers to destroy crops and take a subsidy from the government in stead of selling the food.

Overseas the majority of the problems arise from corrupt governments that stiffle personal freedoms and economic opportunities. They shy away from improvements projects such as dams which allow people to control water sources and create electricity.
These governments purposfully keep their people under their thumb by setting up the system to keep people poor and unable to make substantial technological advances.


Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:47:23 AM EDT
the "over population problem" was invented by guilty white liberals to reduce the number of white people. That's why the UN loves to find ways to solve it.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:51:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 3:57:01 PM EDT by texasAR]
Edited and removed because obviously I am an idiot to post something I heard in passing and did not verify. I beg for the forgiveness of the AR15 Gods and know it alls. I unfortunately have a life outside of the internet and do not spend my day verifying everything I hear.

I will refrain from posting and burdening all of you with my crap.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:52:18 AM EDT

There is no 'population' problem in the US.


It's all about perspective. You and me in the midwest have it pretty good as far as population crowding. Move to a big city or out east/ west and you would think differently.

I don't want to see Covington, Lexington, Cincinnti, Dayton, Columbus turn into a huge mega metrolpitian region. Although Cincinnati and Dayton are doing their best to do so. Poor Butler and Warren counties are right in the way of population growth and are struggling to cope with the demands of growth.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:13:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hmanjr:

There is no 'population' problem in the US.


It's all about perspective. You and me in the midwest have it pretty good as far as population crowding. Move to a big city or out east/ west and you would think differently.

I don't want to see Covington, Lexington, Cincinnti, Dayton, Columbus turn into a huge mega metrolpitian region. Although Cincinnati and Dayton are doing their best to do so. Poor Butler and Warren counties are right in the way of population growth and are struggling to cope with the demands of growth.



The 'population' then is not the problem. I really hated to see the mountain I grew up on down in AL get covered with suburban sprawl. The real problem is the sprawl, not the number of people.

Look at Lexington, KY. They took an old horse farm (Hamburg) and turned it into a shopping center. The plans that they proposed said that it would be a pedestrian friendly place, with homes placed close by, etc.

Fact of the matter is that pedestrians take their lives in their hands moving from one store to another, traffic is terrible and they have placed an entire mall's worth of stores across the acreage they could have placed 3 malls.

Then they have started working on the chintzy little cracker-box houses that will be torn down 20 years from now because they will be falling down (or lived in by the illegals cause nobody else will have them).

What people really hate is BAD planning, FAKE planning and the failure of city/county governments to even attempt to find real solutions that involve taking responsisbility for what happens. Which of course is where all of the zero populationists are heading. Take away people's freedoms, because THEY don't like what is done with it. Sounds familiar, eh?
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:20:10 AM EDT
Only Florida is overpopulated.

You damned yankees GO HOME.

There, I feel much better now.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:24:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:
The 'population' then is not the problem. I really hated to see the mountain I grew up on down in AL get covered with suburban sprawl. The real problem is the sprawl, not the number of people.

Look at Lexington, KY. They took an old horse farm (Hamburg) and turned it into a shopping center. The plans that they proposed said that it would be a pedestrian friendly place, with homes placed close by, etc.

Fact of the matter is that pedestrians take their lives in their hands moving from one store to another, traffic is terrible and they have placed an entire mall's worth of stores across the acreage they could have placed 3 malls.

Then they have started working on the chintzy little cracker-box houses that will be torn down 20 years from now because they will be falling down (or lived in by the illegals cause nobody else will have them).

What people really hate is BAD planning, FAKE planning and the failure of city/county governments to even attempt to find real solutions that involve taking responsisbility for what happens. Which of course is where all of the zero populationists are heading. Take away people's freedoms, because THEY don't like what is done with it. Sounds familiar, eh?



Well, we kind of agree.

I hate to see good land used badly.

Bad planning will waste a lot of land. A sure way to screw up anything is to put some government agency and their 'engineers' (lol) in charge of the planning. I don't know what the answer to creating good growth is, but civil servants+ politicians = disaster. Engineered places rarely work as designed.

But when I think of huge populations I think of huge suburbs. American's don't like to live in densely populated areas. I know you can squeeze more families into a given amount of land by limiting house and lot size, but most people want a decent sized yard with big lawns and a few trees. Urban style neighborhoods with houses sitting on top of each other doesn't inspire real people like the dense planning gurus demand. Everyone wants a nice house in the suburbs.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:27:19 AM EDT
1 less than what it is currently.

We voted.

You are the weakest link -- Goodbye!
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:31:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 8:34:44 AM EDT by TrollAccount]
Actually the way remember reading it somewhere was that if the all the people in the world were living at the same population density as the city of London - the entire world's population could fit in a land area less than the size of Texas with all other land on the planet being uninhabited.

The problem is not overpopulation. It's extremely poor land and resource use. Mostly because of political and cultural bassackwardsness.

Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:32:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By texasAR:
I seem to remember reading that if you gave every person on earth one acre of land they would fit into the State of Texas.

That being said a good portion of the earths surface can not be used for anything productive and unless the planet finds a new source of resources (ie, space) we are in for a rough time in the future.



There are 167.55 million acres in Texas. That would be enough for the ideal global population- all the females in Scandinavia, and ME!
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:35:07 AM EDT
Overpopulated? Hell no.

The carrying capacity (sustainable population level, where births will roughly equal deaths [although there are fluctuations, it's just the average]) for humans on this planet is estimated somewhere around 1.1x10^10 (11 billion). As for ideal, I have no idea. I, myself like mid-population-density (think DC, Philly, Pittsburgh, Richmond) urban areas rather than extremely low-population-density rural areas, but of course, you must have low-population-density areas for sustenance production... it's complicated, and not something I'd care to take the time to estimate.

We're fine as we are now, I suppose.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:38:42 AM EDT
The main problem is the lack of Democracy and capitolism throughout the world
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:41:07 AM EDT
Carl Sagan worked on this in his last years and the conclusions he came to were unsettling.

...especially how the mindset of people in poor, impoverished countries leads to humongous families, in the hope that the parents will be "taken care of" by their more successful children.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:58:42 AM EDT

We live in a time of cheap food, cheap transportation, and cheap pharmaceuticals. If any of the three falter, so will the population.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 9:03:14 AM EDT
Nature will take care of the over population. Dieases like Bird flu will wreck havoc on those over populated areas. You wonder why these dieases dont start in Wisconsin or Montana but always in Asia? Overpopulation of a certain area is devastating the population itself eventually.

If you have too many fish in a tank and the filter cant keep up, what happens?

Either this or war. The next war may result in several billion casualties.

Nature will right itself.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 9:04:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Robert2011:
We live in a time of cheap food, cheap transportation, and cheap pharmaceuticals. If any of the three falter, so will the population.



I have always thought that Americans whined too much about the cost of food . . . it seems to be really cheap. Not enough rich farmers.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 9:25:46 AM EDT
The ideal population is three.

Me and two women of my choice.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 9:31:29 AM EDT
The equation for the perfect world population is easy:

Current Population - Liberals - Commies - Terrorists = Perfect Population

Link Posted: 1/16/2006 9:47:34 AM EDT
A couple years ago I pondered this question with some bean counter friends who believed the earth was way overpopulated. Within an hour we figured we could take everybody on the planet and give then 1 acre in Texas and leave the rest of the earth uninhabited.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 9:49:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By leakycow:
Carl Sagan worked on this in his last years and the conclusions he came to were unsettling.

...especially how the mindset of people in poor, impoverished countries leads to humongous families, in the hope that the parents will be "taken care of" by their more successful children.



Seems quite common in this country as well.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:01:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 10:03:52 AM EDT by NoVaGator]

Originally Posted By texasAR:
I seem to remember reading that if you gave every person on earth one acre of land they would fit into the State of Texas.



Is this another one of those crazy things that they teach in TX? Like the secession thing? Or the flag thing? Or the state capitol thing?

There are about 170 million acres in TX.

There are billion Chinese in China.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:04:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brians_45:
The equation for the perfect world population is easy:

Current Population - Liberals - Commies - Terrorists = Perfect Population




Its not that there are too many people in the world--its that there are too many enemies of the American way of life in the world.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:07:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 10:09:09 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By Dance:
New York City, Atlanta, Phoenix, LA, etc can all be viewed in this way, as supercities that take up the city itself and many miles of suburb/city around it.



The entire population of the world can be fit within the boarders of Texas with the population density seen in New York City.

The planet is in no danger.

There are specific areas that have serious population problems, but that is a localized phenomenon rather than indicative of systemic global problems.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:07:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By billgow:
A couple years ago I pondered this question with some bean counter friends who believed the earth was way overpopulated. Within an hour we figured we could take everybody on the planet and give then 1 acre in Texas and leave the rest of the earth uninhabited.

There is over 6 billon acres in texas?
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:23:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By billgow:
A couple years ago I pondered this question with some bean counter friends who believed the earth was way overpopulated. Within an hour we figured we could take everybody on the planet and give then 1 acre in Texas and leave the rest of the earth uninhabited.



1. They should stick to counting beans.

2. They must be paid by the hour.


Texas has 268,581 sq miles . An acre is 1/640 of one square mile. Ergo 268581 * 640 would only give an acre to 171,891,840 people.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top