How should over-population be solved?

[anemian]

There isn't an over population problem, there is a MASSIVE logistics problem. Agriculture(land, animal and sea) currently produces enough food to feed the world 2 times over. It could be increased to 4 or 5 times over if we cared to(increase food production to feed the world 4 to 5 times over), and even further than that if we were to mostly remove meat from our diets.

The problem will be water, "other" raw materials, waste and finding ways to actually be productive with all the people we do have. The last problem being almost unsolvable.

 

[BigApplePi]

There isn't an over population problem, there is a MASSIVE logistics problem. Agriculture(land, animal and sea) currently produces enough food to feed the world 2 times over. It could be increased to 4 or 5 times over if we cared to, and even further than that if we were to mostly remove meat from our diets.

The problem will be water, "other" raw materials, waste and finding ways to actually be productive with all the people we do have. The last problem being almost unsolvable.

So we can solve the distribution issue. Everyone will get some because a fair gov't will be in control, eh? No problem with 4-5 times population. We don' t need all the space we have. We'll just use every drop of water and recycle it. Unproductive people can sit and watch situation comedies. Productive people can distribute produce equitably and fairly. The only mountains and valleys will be the ones covered with produce, water and slums people. With all that wealth in view, no one will seek to covet it to themselves thereby depriving others of the bounty.

 

[jachian]

Ashitaria wrote:

Originally Posted by jachian
Say who?....... who defined this as the most impending issue that faces the world today?
Am not sure I agree with this.
Pff. See above post.

1) Am You lost me here......... Are you saying that YOU defined this as the most impending issue that faces the world today?...... Based of what?!!


What would be an acceptable level ?.............. who defines acceptable levels.
Must I really define acceptable levels? Okay, let's just say that an acceptable level would be when there is enough food production to go round.

Ah............ The currently IS enough food production to go around.... Actually more than enough......... The problem is that producers in the developed world as subsidized by their governments....... They then make produce in the developing world uncompetitive by flooding their markets....... so production in developing world becomes inefficient and governments and businesses dont/cant invest in equipment irrigation, expertise, etc........ therefore much of the food production capacity is idle....... MUCH !!..... because developed countries ARTIFICIALLY keep their prices low.

Also western markets and traders make it a policy to keep prices at a certain level.... by altering market forces of demand and supply......... so for example.... If for a particular month there is too much supply which causes prices to be low...... they actually dump(as in throw away produce to get the prices up to an acceptable level)........ I actually saw this happen in New york where traders order their cargo vessels to release stuff into the sea if prices are tool low......... while other people just dont have access to the same food.

Then you have the patented seeds and that are expensive for poorer countries to buy.......... they make decent yields....... but after three years..... you cant use the seed to plant more......... criminal......... so you have to for out a tonne of cash to buy new seed.


Over-breeding you say?!!.......... what is this?

I'd like to see you give a better definition.

hmmmp........ thats my point exactly........ what is overbreeding?....... who defines overbreeding?.............. You were the one who used the term......... so define it !!

clearly in china over-breeding will be having in excess of 1 child.......... Is this your definition too?!

Okay I live in a sparsely populated country....... so am I allowed to have 9 kids?....... am pretty sure I can take care of them comfortably ?........... or would I be over-breeding?


So whats the difference between a human an a robot?!............

If you taking about consumption of resources..... lets see.......
1) they both take up space
2) the both consume energy....... So we need to fuel of some kind.
3)They will require the exploitation of natural resources to to create electronic components..... thus causing mineral wars... especially in sub-saharan africa.

The first one, don't worry. Earth has plenty of space, especially if over-population is solved. The second one, they can be powered by solar energy, if not fuel, and still do as much work as the average human without wasting as much since they don't know the definition of slacking off. Three, ridiculous. How will robots cause mineral wars? Japan, as you know (or not, seeing your posts) is already one of the highest electronic produces. They have enough spare electronic parts already, so there won't be any stupid mineral wars.

Wait......... so all of a sudden you get rid of some humans..... replace them with robots and then.... POOF !! Earth has plenty of space......... fine......

Great so they use solar and dont slack off.......... good.....

Please..... Japan has no natural resources....... everything they use is imported...... so for example coltan used in cell phones and other electronic devices comes from the DRC in Africa....... a country that is constantly at war because the North Americans, Europeans, Chinese and Japanese(through the US)...... are pitting one faction against the other so that they can get access to the minerals when their faction controls the mines..... there War.....

So how do you think Japan is going to get their hands on these minerals....... Also the metals and elements needed to make solar pannels are made form these same minerals....... so how are they going to get then....... and they want them cheaply...

Well........ maybe your right.......... you could kill all the Congolese people and replace them with robots so you can work day and night for you to get your raw materials.....

Spare parts you say?............. well this requires energy......... Solar wont do...... you need nuclear (Uranium form congo again) or Oil(form maybe nigeria)........... Ah the never ending cycle....

And you cant recycle parts forever....... yield get worse........ eventually you need more minerals.


This is actually a pretty good Idea...... Americans consume to much and have excess free time.

Why thank you.

Your welcome.....

You see the problem as I see it is not over population....... the problem is one of greed and mismanagement of the earths resources.
I propose that the current rate of population growth can be sustained if we manage resources properly.

I beg to disagree, you see. In the present, the famine and droughts can be solved with good management, but in another twenty or thirty years, it can't be solved.

I still haven't seen the evidence for this......... Show me a proper paper

We misuse and waste too much... especially the developed world

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Ashitaria, you're being kinda rude.

Asking why overpopulation is a problem is a legitimate question.

If we don't halt population growth with justice and compassion, it will be done for us by nature, brutally and without pity - and will leave a ravaged world.

I don't really see too much of a problem.


So. Here's the thing. Overpopulation is caused by thousands of decisions. And they're not our decisions. Thousands of couples have children, and choose to keep them, with the belief, hope or optimism that they will be able to provide for them.

I recently read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. He pointed out something really good: We can try to stop starvation, by increasing food production. But as soon as we have more food production, our population immediately increases. We ALWAYS have more mouths to feed than we have food for. It's a chronic problem for society.

And since it's a chronic problem, sure. It sucks. It causes starving and suffering. And the children doesn't deserve. But, is it fair to reduce their freedom to try to have more kids? And try for a successful life?

I dunno. Birthrates in India have dropped now that it's becoming more industrialized. I think that the "underpopulation" problem of industrialized nations will spread to 3rd-world countries (as they become industrialized) and will eventually solve the overpopulation "problem".

As for resources, meh. Yeah, we use up a lot. But if we were actually running out, the prices of resources would be skyrocketing- it would be impossible for us to buy any of the materials because of the prohibitively high cost.


Also, your solution would be highly targeted at 3rd-world developing countries. It's not going to be popular, it's going to be seen as hurting their growth, as racism, as genocide, as disrespecting their culture, and as 1st-world manipulation.

 

[jachian]

So I present this solution..... I have not read other people's posts and am not sure if they came up with the same thing.

Even thought I dont agree with any of your premises this I will say this:

1) Observing history, socio-economics and the historical growth pattern of the now developed world we see that at present they have AGING populations........
this is the case for Japan (that's one of the reason's why research into robotics is a priority), much of Western Europe. North america is different because there still is a considerable gap between the rich and the poor and there is much more immigration.

So to sum it up the wealthier a country becomes the less children people have and the slower the growth in population.

So there is a correlation between national population growth and national wealth and in particular as the gap closes between the rich and the poor.

So there you have you solution !!

2) The solution is that to slow the population growth rate you need to accelerate economic growth and sustain it for at least a generation.......... and you have to close the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.... in other words create a viable and strong middle class.

There You do that in the poorer nations....... this together with improvements in technologies for energy, agriculture, etc and your on your way.


The problem is that the western world would die before they actually allow anyone else to become wealth.................... they will ensure unfavourable trading terms and will precipitate conflict to get what they want.

Hey........ look....... we have another solution.

3) Utterly destroy the current western developed nations and we have a chance to create a level they playing field for everyone else.... (of course things will be bad for a decade or so but they will stabalize).

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

The problem is that the western world would die before they actually allow anyone else to become wealth.................... they will ensure unfavourable trading terms and will precipitate conflict to get what they want.

I PASSIONATELY AGREE AND DISAGREE.

I know that a lot of liberals have "western guilt". :/ By trading with countries we are helping them a ridiculous amount! During this recession we have been outsourcing lots of jobs to India and other places, at the cost of employment for Americans! Trading with other countries is favorable to both sides. I don't know where you get this "unfavorable" thing.

Well, okay. I want to take it back a little. We are creating unfavorable trading terms- like with sugar.

Outside of the US, there is a LOT of cheap sugar. But because we want to protect our own sugar growers, we put on a lot of tariffs to restrict the import of cheap sugar. We're pretty much just propping up our own sugar growers at the cost of foreign sugar growers.

And I agree, we should reduce all those kinds of favoritism and protectionism. We should open up the markets, and just let the highest quality & lowest cost commodities rule. That would disseminate wealth.


So, in conclusion, I guess what I'm saying is... Trade is not unfavorable, it's only the lack of trade (or the government interventions on trade) that are unfavorable.

And we are performing a lot of trade to help the 3rd world; but we could do more by removing protectionist tariffs.

 

[anemian]

So we can solve the distribution issue. Everyone will get some because a fair gov't will be in control, eh? No problem with 4-5 times population. We don' t need all the space we have. We'll just use every drop of water and recycle it. Unproductive people can sit and watch situation comedies. Productive people can distribute produce equitably and fairly. The only mountains and valleys will be the ones covered with produce, water and slums people. With all that wealth in view, no one will seek to covet it to themselves thereby depriving others of the bounty.

Didn't mean that at all. Just blatantly stating that right now the only reason we have what people recognize as over population problems(Not enough food, water, or similar) are from socio-logistic problems rather than what could be considered "real" over population.
____

Then again you're first going to have to define what over population really is.
A)when population growth is "forced" to be stagnate or shrink
B)when keeping a current level of growth is impossible for the long run
C) where your current level of growth does "damage" that can be fixed in the long run(without needing to change your level of growth).
D) When the world can't sustain a "western" lifestyle for every person on the planet

D is clearly true, we're nowhere near A, I also believe we are nowhere near B but could get there in a few generations(with stupid choices).

If we were near A we'd be eating genetically modified algae that was tube grown in desert suns with CO2 that was from a burn anything power plant. Since we're not eating delightfully nutritous algae we're not there yet.
_____

As for Africa they just have the "old breeding methods". Essentially their social norms haven't adapted to more than a few children being a liability rather than an asset. The norms will change in a few generations and even sooner with education(any kind even if it's not sex education) just like it did in countries that got their first waves of industrialization, It's just taking the form of a new type of monster we haven't seen before(competition and lack of quality education is throwing a strange wrench in the works).

 

[BigApplePi]

And we are performing a lot of trade to help the 3rd world; but we could do more by removing protectionist tariffs.

I'm hardly an expert on international trade, but would you remove protective "fences" as well as protective tariffs?

If the U.S. removed protective immigration laws, the U.S. would soon be flooded with poor it would have to take care of. The world economy would even out eventually at present expense. I suspect that the why we have protective tariffs.

 

[Anthile]

I PASSIONATELY AGREE AND DISAGREE.

I know that a lot of liberals have "western guilt". :/ By trading with countries we are helping them a ridiculous amount! During this recession we have been outsourcing lots of jobs to India and other places, at the cost of employment for Americans! Trading with other countries is favorable to both sides. I don't know where you get this "unfavorable" thing.

Well, okay. I want to take it back a little. We are creating unfavorable trading terms- like with sugar.

Outside of the US, there is a LOT of cheap sugar. But because we want to protect our own sugar growers, we put on a lot of tariffs to restrict the import of cheap sugar. We're pretty much just propping up our own sugar growers at the cost of foreign sugar growers.

And I agree, we should reduce all those kinds of favoritism and protectionism. We should open up the markets, and just let the highest quality & lowest cost commodities rule. That would disseminate wealth.


So, in conclusion, I guess what I'm saying is... Trade is not unfavorable, it's only the lack of trade (or the government interventions on trade) that are unfavorable.

And we are performing a lot of trade to help the 3rd world; but we could do more by removing protectionist tariffs.

Well, yeah, the problem is, Indians don't vote for American presidents.

 

[ashitaria]

Answers will be in bold and underline.

Ashitaria wrote:

Originally Posted by jachian
Say who?....... who defined this as the most impending issue that faces the world today?
Am not sure I agree with this.
Pff. See above post.

1) Am You lost me here......... Are you saying that YOU defined this as the most impending issue that faces the world today?...... Based of what?!!

Huh? I was referencing you to a link that I posted.


What would be an acceptable level ?.............. who defines acceptable levels.
Must I really define acceptable levels? Okay, let's just say that an acceptable level would be when there is enough food production to go round.

Ah............ The currently IS enough food production to go around.... Actually more than enough......... The problem is that producers in the developed world as subsidized by their governments....... They then make produce in the developing world uncompetitive by flooding their markets....... so production in developing world becomes inefficient and governments and businesses dont/cant invest in equipment irrigation, expertise, etc........ therefore much of the food production capacity is idle....... MUCH !!..... because developed countries ARTIFICIALLY keep their prices low.

Also western markets and traders make it a policy to keep prices at a certain level.... by altering market forces of demand and supply......... so for example.... If for a particular month there is too much supply which causes prices to be low...... they actually dump(as in throw away produce to get the prices up to an acceptable level)........ I actually saw this happen in New york where traders order their cargo vessels to release stuff into the sea if prices are tool low......... while other people just dont have access to the same food.

Then you have the patented seeds and that are expensive for poorer countries to buy.......... they make decent yields....... but after three years..... you cant use the seed to plant more......... criminal......... so you have to for out a tonne of cash to buy new seed.

I would actually want a source for this. This is interesting, though I doubt the credibility of it, mainly because of three reasons:

1) Some countries are struggling to make enough food for the country itself, and since New York is part of America which although has some capitalist elements in the government, also have some socialist elements. No one, I'm sure would dump their cargo into the river mainly because it's illegal, the government regulates the market clearing prices (like I said, they have some socialist elements, and they have the power to set a fixed price) and of course, supplies food stamps. Dumping cargo in the water will not earn them any profit because of the reasons above and because the government pays for people who do not have financial support. As you can see, there aren't much starving people in America. The problem here is where the food is going. How to transport food. Where to send the food. Not what food is being dumped or not made.

2) There is no such thing as keeping prices "artificially" low. It's their prices, so they set it. If a price is a certain number, there's a reason for it. Again, the government does set limits on how high a food produce can cost, and does hand out food stamps. If a price is low, don't worry. The government can see if there is enough suppliers to support that low price. As for the rest of the "too much food and thus too low prices" mentality, it's kind of off, don't you think? If the market was flooded with too much food and businesses and companies had to stop producing food to increase the price, why are so many people starving these days? If it's because someone is unemployed, then it's nothing wrong since heh, he is unemployed, but if so many people are starving (one billion), there's something real wrong here.

3) Countries don't trade seeds. They trade food. Also, one of the reasons why farmers can't afford seeds is because of their land- that's right. Their land wouldn't be worth as much if population isn't so dense, thus taxes are imposed of them. Also, if the prices of seeds are high, doesn't that just support how valuable food is in those developing countries and how much need there is to cut down surplus poplation?

Over-breeding you say?!!.......... what is this?

I'd like to see you give a better definition.

hmmmp........ thats my point exactly........ what is overbreeding?....... who defines overbreeding?.............. You were the one who used the term......... so define it !!

clearly in china over-breeding will be having in excess of 1 child.......... Is this your definition too?!

Okay I live in a sparsely populated country....... so am I allowed to have 9 kids?....... am pretty sure I can take care of them comfortably ?........... or would I be over-breeding?

I define over-breeding when we clearly are reaching over-population or you can't financially support the children you make. For example, making nine kids and you can't afford to take care of them. It's the same thing as humans making three billion more children and being unable to care for them.

So whats the difference between a human an a robot?!............

If you taking about consumption of resources..... lets see.......
1) they both take up space
2) the both consume energy....... So we need to fuel of some kind.
3)They will require the exploitation of natural resources to to create electronic components..... thus causing mineral wars... especially in sub-saharan africa.

The first one, don't worry. Earth has plenty of space, especially if over-population is solved. The second one, they can be powered by solar energy, if not fuel, and still do as much work as the average human without wasting as much since they don't know the definition of slacking off. Three, ridiculous. How will robots cause mineral wars? Japan, as you know (or not, seeing your posts) is already one of the highest electronic produces. They have enough spare electronic parts already, so there won't be any stupid mineral wars.

Wait......... so all of a sudden you get rid of some humans..... replace them with robots and then.... POOF !! Earth has plenty of space......... fine......

Let me clarify your ridiculous point. First, robots do not poop. Second, they do not eat. Third, they do not make trash and stack them in piles that take up whole islands. Fourth, they don't drive cars. Fifth, they don't require houses, and the list goes on.

Great so they use solar and dont slack off.......... good.....

So?

Please..... Japan has no natural resources....... everything they use is imported...... so for example coltan used in cell phones and other electronic devices comes from the DRC in Africa....... a country that is constantly at war because the North Americans, Europeans, Chinese and Japanese(through the US)...... are pitting one faction against the other so that they can get access to the minerals when their faction controls the mines..... there War.....

Ah-hem. Excuse me? Do you know what recycling is? Because Japan is sure as hell using it. Nuff said.

So how do you think Japan is going to get their hands on these minerals....... Also the metals and elements needed to make solar pannels are made form these same minerals....... so how are they going to get then....... and they want them cheaply...

Recycling. Nuff said. And I'm sure we have plenty of minerals to supply them.

Well........ maybe your right.......... you could kill all the Congolese people and replace them with robots so you can work day and night for you to get your raw materials.....

Ridiculous. How do you know that those robots will be create for raw materials? Most likely, they will be used for agricultural purposes, and I even have a link for it:
http://www.robotmatrix.org/agriculture-robot.htm

Spare parts you say?............. well this requires energy......... Solar wont do...... you need nuclear (Uranium form congo again) or Oil(form maybe nigeria)........... Ah the never ending cycle....

Another ridiculous claim. How do you know that all energy needed from now on will be made from nuclear power-plants?

And you cant recycle parts forever....... yield get worse........ eventually you need more minerals.

You can't recycle forever, but you can certainly recycle quite a few times, frankly speaking.


This is actually a pretty good Idea...... Americans consume to much and have excess free time.

Why thank you.

Your welcome.....

You see the problem as I see it is not over population....... the problem is one of greed and mismanagement of the earths resources.
I propose that the current rate of population growth can be sustained if we manage resources properly.

I beg to disagree, you see. In the present, the famine and droughts can be solved with good management, but in another twenty or thirty years, it can't be solved.

I still haven't seen the evidence for this......... Show me a proper paper

I'm sure I have provided a good many articles in my past posts.

We misuse and waste too much... especially the developed world

Ashitaria, you're being kinda rude.

I'm sorry if I seem that way. I get very business-like when I'm debates.

Asking why overpopulation is a problem is a legitimate question.

I'm not bashing him for it.

I don't really see too much of a problem.

Neither do I.

So. Here's the thing. Overpopulation is caused by thousands of decisions. And they're not our decisions. Thousands of couples have children, and choose to keep them, with the belief, hope or optimism that they will be able to provide for them.

And that's the thing.

I recently read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. He pointed out something really good: We can try to stop starvation, by increasing food production. But as soon as we have more food production, our population immediately increases. We ALWAYS have more mouths to feed than we have food for. It's a chronic problem for society.

That's why we stop over-breeding.

And since it's a chronic problem, sure. It sucks. It causes starving and suffering. And the children doesn't deserve. But, is it fair to reduce their freedom to try to have more kids? And try for a successful life?

Yes, because by reducing their freedom to have kids, we are providing freedom for many others who will die from famine and won't even have a house to live in. Don't they deserve a chance too?

I dunno. Birthrates in India have dropped now that it's becoming more industrialized. I think that the "underpopulation" problem of industrialized nations will spread to 3rd-world countries (as they become industrialized) and will eventually solve the overpopulation "problem".

As for resources, meh. Yeah, we use up a lot. But if we were actually running out, the prices of resources would be skyrocketing- it would be impossible for us to buy any of the materials because of the prohibitively high cost.

Which is exactly why seeds in developed countries are so high-priced.

Also, your solution would be highly targeted at 3rd-world developing countries. It's not going to be popular, it's going to be seen as hurting their growth, as racism, as genocide, as disrespecting their culture, and as 1st-world manipulation.

Africa is a 3rd world developing country. But fuck, look at their population.

 

[jachian]

Ashitaria Wrote:

Africa is a 3rd world developing country. But fuck, look at their population.

Where do you get these things?!!................

First of all Africa is NOT a country.

What is their population again?......................... Actually Africa is still pretty sparsely populated. Compare the entire continent' population and look at its land mass and tell me again that the place is over populated ?!!You should me more concerned about the Indians and Chinese....... crap ..... all of Asia

As far as sustainability look to the wastage of North America and western Europe.

 

[ashitaria]

Ashitaria Wrote:

Africa is a 3rd world developing country. But fuck, look at their population.

Where do you get these things?!!................

First of all Africa is NOT a country.

What is their population again?......................... Actually Africa is still pretty sparsely populated. Compare the entire continent' population and look at its land mass and tell me again that the place is over populated ?!!You should me more concerned about the Indians and Chinese....... crap ..... all of Asia

As far as sustainability look to the wastage of North America and western Europe.

I meant continent, not country. A typo on my part, I wasn't thinking too much.

Also, Africa land's mass is hugely hostile. It has one third of all the arid lands in the world, and a huge area of desert to boot. Compare the population to the areas worth living in, and it's really really dense.
https://www.courses.psu.edu/test/test100_hkr/AFIM/Main_HTML/M_CL.html

And I am more concerned about Asia.

EDIT: To make it easier for me to read my answers to your above questions, I'll be highlighting them blue very soon.

 

[anemian]

In 20,000 years or so the Sahara will be covered in lakes and on it's way to being nice fertile grass land. Problem solves itself just need to wait, lets move on to the next continent.

 

[MrBlah]

Sorry for being late to the party here and for not having a more substantial argument but I don't feel what I have to say needs it.

There is no such thing as overpopulation (there is unsustainable growth though). The population of a group will always generally stay at the maximum of what its habitat/ecosystem will bear. Populations go up and down at different times, but will generally fluctuate around a certain level which is determined by the system they are a part of.

So really there isn't anything we need to do about the amount of people we have that isn't already happening. Now everyone can put their grand plans to control the unwashed breeding masses on hold for now.

 

[Alexk]

Logical and Optimal solution for the morally heartless, eugenics. I don't condone discrimination by any means, genes included, but think about the greater good. Although asking anyone to do anything for "the greater good" these days is not going to happen, or it will be twisted into some strange belief that something which isn't good for society actually is.

Slightly more ethical solution. Legalize drugs, let people put what they want in their body. Stop worrying about how long people live. A short life doesn't necessarily equate to a bad life. Higher mortality rate, lower population.

Wow. I must sound like a terrible person right now, but I think issues like this need to be tackled with a clear mind, clear of morals included.

"...morality is a hindrance to the development of new and better customs..."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[BigApplePi]

Slightly more ethical solution. Legalize drugs, let people put what they want in their body. Stop worrying about how long people live. A short life doesn't necessarily equate to a bad life. Higher mortality rate, lower population.

Cutting the life span in half won't work as soon as the population doubles. We need a more drastic solution. Re-double yer thinking.

 

[Mary]

Colonize new planets and terraform them. I see no reason to kill off/decrease the population.
I know the technology isn't available now. If, however, the need for new land becomes v3ery strong, the economic incentive for businesses would increase and they might figure it out on their own.
I just wish Obama wasn't cutting Nasa's budget.
;.;

 

[Saeros]

The only solution i can think of is to limit the amount of population growth by restricting the number of children each family can have. There aren't enough resources to support the current population at its current growth, and this is the only solution i can think of that doesn't involve mass murder.

Colonize new planets and terraform them. I see no reason to kill off/decrease the population.
I know the technology isn't available now. If, however, the need for new land becomes v3ery strong, the economic incentive for businesses would increase and they might figure it out on their own.
I just wish Obama wasn't cutting Nasa's budget.
;.;

And we would probably eventually inhabit every planet (given enough time). have you read a story by Isaac Asimov called "the last question"? it's very interesting.

 

[LAM]

The food problem is easily solved by simply managing resources better. However the world is full of fools and idiots. So I guess there will be a point where alcoholic beverage production will have to drop to meet food supply (the % of world's food production that is used for making alcohol (not even includingother drugs) is unbelievable. Sadly I do not remember it, although I think it was supposed to be approximately 50%.

 

[Black Rose]

Once again I would like to point out that once we have solar powered nanobots in our body's we will not need to reproduce or eat food. It will all happen in a virtual reality environment. Just like in the matrix trilogy food and sex will be virtual.

 

[kantor1003]

How bout you deleting your crappy face and getting the heck out of here?

You should make an arena thread. Oh, and I obviously don't like you either btw.

 

[Anthile]

The food problem is easily solved by simply managing resources better. However the world is full of fools and idiots. So I guess there will be a point where alcoholic beverage production will have to drop to meet food supply (the % of world's food production that is used for making alcohol (not even includingother drugs) is unbelievable. Sadly I do not remember it, although I think it was supposed to be approximately 50%.

Not to mention that less alcohol would also lower the birth rate in general.

 

[Mary]

And we would probably eventually inhabit every planet (given enough time). have you read a story by Isaac Asimov called "the last question"? it's very interesting.

Yes. I LOVE THOSE MIND CONTROL PEOPLE. That Mule guy made me sad, though.
I read it in 6th-ish grade, though, so I'm fuzzy on the details.

 

[Mary]

It shames me that I can't tell if that's a insult or a compliment.

If it was a compliment, I thank you.
If it was a insult, *rolls over, exposing his belly* I yield.

It went over my head, I know next to nothing about satirical poetry.
And when dealing with someone who's potentially outwitted oneself the wisest course of action is to yield most graciously, lest the jest continue or one's rebuke serves only to cement one's idiocy.

He's an old writer who suggested eating babies to solve population problems. It was satire.

 

[Mary]

Is that so? I never knew Africa was being invaded by external forces, and if this is the case, this is no longer the matter of letting AIDs take it's course, this is the matter of letting invasion and wars take it's course.

But if there are no soldiers included though, I don't see how letting AIDs run it's course be a bad idea. If we educate the people rightly, AIDs will help discourage breeding and won't kill anybody.

Africa isn't being invaded on a massive scale, but there are mass rape-happenings. My friend is working with an awesome nun (in her 80's but incredibly crazy) to send support for women in Africa. It's actually very upsetting to read about.. Some of those tribal leaders in obscure places just go nuts.

 

[ashitaria]

You should make an arena thread. Oh, and I obviously don't like you either btw.

Sigh...

I don't even know how to respond to that, my anger has long long faded away...

Tell you what. You don't bother me, I won't bother you. If you want to post in this thread, don't post and diatribe or any other crap. Deal?

EDIT: Btw, I hope that didn't sound too assertive.

 

[ashitaria]

Africa isn't being invaded on a massive scale, but there are mass rape-happenings. My friend is working with an awesome nun (in her 80's but incredibly crazy) to send support for women in Africa. It's actually very upsetting to read about.. Some of those tribal leaders in obscure places just go nuts.

I can already tell. o.O Africa is one hell of a wild place.

 

[Mary]

I can already tell. o.O Africa is one hell of a wild place.

Indeed.
There are many places where civilization flourishes, but there are others where the living conditions are.. unfortunate.

 

[VwllssWndr]

This thread's a hoot.

Worried about over-population? Easy enough: DON'T REPRODUCE.

What a novel concept. I know it's more pleasant to think about how we could more simply kill off people on other continents (or, by inaction, allow them to just die off in horrible ways), but how many of you are willing to do the one thing that will most certainly prevent more people living on this planet? (Or not do. Whatever.)

 

[aracaris]

There isn't an over population problem, there is a MASSIVE logistics problem. Agriculture(land, animal and sea) currently produces enough food to feed the world 2 times over. It could be increased to 4 or 5 times over if we cared to(increase food production to feed the world 4 to 5 times over), and even further than that if we were to mostly remove meat from our diets.

The problem will be water, "other" raw materials, waste and finding ways to actually be productive with all the people we do have. The last problem being almost unsolvable.

I don't see what the difference is between what you are describing and a population problem. It seems to me just an issue of cause, the effect is the same regardless of what you call it: large numbers of people are miserable and starving, and/or there are terrible ecological consequences. The problem can be caused by too few resources total, resources in the wrong place, too much of the wrong thing/too little of what is needed being produces, the end result is pretty much the same, it just means that their are varying solutions depending on the specific details of what's causing the problem.

A population that is a problem under one set of circumstances isn't a problem in another set of circumstances.

So there's not really a clear division between the two problems (resources, and population), as people not having sufficient resources for whatever reason is a defining trait of a population problem (having too many people to maintain healthy ecosystems can also be part of what makes up a population problem).

 

[Tyria]

Through technology and a planned economy.

 

[LAM]

Not to mention that less alcohol would also lower the birth rate in general.

Wow, the social consequences of less alcohol could be huge now that I've considered that and thought about it some more. The gap between poor and middle class birthrates would probably decrease, which would mean a decrease in the money gap. There wouldn't be as many alcoholics being made, as young people would be very hard pressed to regularly drink huge amounts of alcohol at the rate and cost needed to sustain the development of a drinking problem. There might be a decrease in almost all drinking being done, which would thereby decrease the number of DUI and alcohol related violence.

Less accidental pregnancies would mean less abortions, less children being born into a home that wasn't suited or prepared for them, less children being born into homes in which they might be resented (means probably less child abuse,) less children being given up or put up into adoption (there's too many at this time.)

Alcohol doesn't sound that good for society considering the amount of benefits we would get if we merely largely increased the price of alcohol. This is entirely feasible with taxation, except that as was with smoking, the government can't really do anything that will piss off such a large number of people.
Even though we can rid the world of hunger and decrease, it won't happen because of a minority of a self-harming minority... Some of the time fascism sounds like a good idea <_<

 

[hperowne]

It's particularly discouraging that those parents that are least capable of nurturing responsible future citizens and contributors to society are the ones birthing the largest burden of new people into the world. I think policies aimed at encouraging people that are well-equipped to have additional children while discouraging those who are going to birth children that are neglected will help our world become more prosperous in the future. Unfortunately, the current situation is the exact opposite. The more children a single mother with no income has, the more the government will subsidize her drug-seeking behaviors.