EPTWhy is there Overpopulation and Population Growth - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
InFdude
Bulgaria619 Posts
| ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On February 08 2011 17:03 darmousseh wrote: There is no overpopulation. There's plenty of room for everyone. Plus as countries become industrialized the birth rate drops. Eventually population will slowly cap out. The best way to ensure this is to start modernizing. some documentary on the BBC said that if we were to all consume at the rate of the standard American, the world can only support ~4billion people, Europeans something about 6 or a more eastern lifestyle the number is much higher. overpopulation is a relative term based on how you want to live your life. if we all want to be Americanised the world is already 50% beyond the sustainable cap | ||
|
lowercase
Canada1047 Posts
But yes, once the oil starts to dry out there's going to be a huge spike in food prices, and starvation around the world is going to be something scary. | ||
|
Rhythm.102
United States56 Posts
On February 08 2011 22:10 DanceSC wrote: Rhode Island, 50, 1545 sq mi, 4002 sq km. 1545 (sq mi) = 43,072,128,000 sq feet Latest official current world population estimate, for mid-year 2010, is estimated at 6,852,472,823 43,072,128,000 / 6,852,472,823 = 6.28563281 sqr(6.28563281) = 2.50711643 Conclusion: If you give everyone in the world their own 2.5ft x 2.5ft box, you can fit them all in the small state of Rhode Island. If you think the world is over populated... then move. Earth = 148940000 km2 land (29.2 %) out of 510072000 km2 148940000 km2 = 1,603,176,817,464,746.2 ft2 1,603,176,817,464,746.2 / 43,072,128,000 = 37,220.7479 ft2 land per person Now assuming that only half of the land is inhabitable you still have 18 610.374 ft2 per person WAIT!! I DID THAT WRONG *update* world / rhode island = how much larger your 2.5 x 2.5 box can be* 1,603,176,817,464,746.2 / 43,072,128,000 = 37,220.7479 sqr(37 220.7479) = 192.926794 192.926794 * 2.50711643 = 483.689935 Conclusion: There is enough room for everyone to have their own 483.5ft x 483.5ft plot of land | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On February 08 2011 23:42 Rhythm.102 wrote: Earth = 148940000 km2 land (29.2 %) out of 510072000 km2 148940000 km2 = 1,603,176,817,464,746.2 ft2 1,603,176,817,464,746.2 / 43,072,128,000 = 37,220.7479 ft2 land per person Now assuming that only half of the land is inhabitable you still have 18 610.374 ft2 per person WAIT!! I DID THAT WRONG *update* world / rhode island = how much larger your 2.5 x 2.5 box can be* 1,603,176,817,464,746.2 / 43,072,128,000 = 37,220.7479 sqr(37 220.7479) = 192.926794 192.926794 * 2.50711643 = 483.689935 Conclusion: There is enough room for everyone to have their own 483.5ft x 483.5ft plot of land more then 70% of the Earth consists out of water, and on top of that you have mountains, deserts or barren landscapes which are fairly inhabitable. Edit: bad reading comphrehension. Still the problem is not how to fit the population on the Earth, it is if the amount that people consume can keep up | ||
|
DanceSC
United States751 Posts
On February 08 2011 23:35 InFdude wrote: Yeah I am sure your precious Rhode Island supports itself with food , water , electricity and recycles 100% so that you don't stack up grabage. Also here we have a problem with a certain ethnic group which is the only group going fast in numbers and all i can say is atleast 90% of them are unemployed.They start having children at 13 for the child support and recently it was discovered that some of them sell their children in Greece. Double also Europe DOES have a problem with over population.Thats why all the borders are starting to have more and more strick control(and because of another big problem that is a result of the overpopulation but lets not get into that).France even sent back to us this ethnic group because even they couldn't handle them.Soon it's going to be FFA ..everyone trying to push the masses of unducated somewhere else untill we can't push anymore. And I'd say we are already overpopulated.Even if you can fit people in 2.5ft x 2.5ft boxes the polution that goes along with supporting humanity will overwhelm us. That is given everyone their own 2.5 x 2.5 space, you CAN fit the entire population of the world in Rhode island. and Rhode island is 1 / 37,220.7479 th's of the Earths land. if you take the 6.25 (2.5 * 2.5) area^2 and multiplied that by 37,000, you would get about 231,250 ft2 per person... The topic was *WORLD OVERPOPULATION* not *EUROPE OVERPOPULATION* if you have a problem then like i said... "move" (you didn't address what ethnic group btw) Im sure with 37,220.7479 ft2 space per 2.5ft x 2.5 box everyone has, they have plenty of room for your "food , water , electricity and recycles 100% so that you don't stack up grabage (*sp garbage*)" | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
2. Overpopulation is also not Much of a problem... because a lot of the resources that we use are based on people (at the very least based on technology that more people come up with.) 3. Underdevelopment IS a problem, and it ties into the other two... in underdeveloped countries, more children are good for the family (both culturally and economically) and the population isn't able to contribute as much. | ||
|
apalemorning
Canada509 Posts
| ||
|
jackinthebox
United States19 Posts
| ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On February 09 2011 00:17 Krikkitone wrote: 1. Population Growth is not a problem long-term. Population growth world wide is slowing, and we may have the problem of underpopulation by 2200 What are you basing that on? We gained over a billion people in the last decade. 2. Overpopulation is also not Much of a problem... because a lot of the resources that we use are based on people (at the very least based on technology that more people come up with.) Not a problem for us here in the States who are fortunate enough to have a high standard of living already. Technology needs to *drastically* improve if we're going to maintain such ridiculous levels of population growth. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On February 08 2011 23:37 lowercase wrote: Yes there's overpopulation, OP. Because people just don't understand the exponential function. But the world's not getting fucked because of that - it's us in the wealthy countries that consume the vast majority of the world's resources. Pointing the finger at the abundance of poor people is a cop-out. But yes, once the oil starts to dry out there's going to be a huge spike in food prices, and starvation around the world is going to be something scary. You got it backwards. There is fear of overpopulation because some people who barely managed to figure out the exponential function think they now have a clue about the dynamics of population growth and technological progress. If "the world as we know it" should ever come to an end due to humanity, it will surely not be due to the fact that there were just too many people, but because a significant minority of those people did something terribly wrong. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
Also, be aware that population growth in the world is not a Malthusian trap. There is PLENTY of food to feed everyone, and if people would only open their eyes to science and GM food, more than enough to feed 15, maybe 20 billion. The problem isn't enough food. It's that the food isn't where it needs to be. | ||
|
Dr. Von Derful
United States363 Posts
The core issue of overpopulation is the arithmetic rate in which we grow food and gather resources as compared to the geometric rate in which our population grows and consumes. It's a problem of commodities not land. The specifics of this aren't limited to food, it is a HUGE misconception that we are suffering from a food shortage. In fact, we produce more food than we could eat (assuming that everyone had access to the food), the problem is that we don't have the means to deliver and secure the food to the people that need it. The real issues that lie ahead for us with overpopulation are: fresh water and fossil fuels. I can't wait until everyone has to grab a ticket and wait in line just to get a bottle of water. War and Disease used to be the way that the population was kept in check. As Diplomacy and Medicine has made great advances in the last 100 years, we've seen huge spikes in population and overcrowding in many areas. While in the last decade the developed world has seen, for the most part, a normalization of population growth, the undeveloped world has gone unchecked. A more specific sub-category of the problem of overpopulation (as hinted at before) is population density. As population grows, it becomes more susceptible to new forms of diseases and viruses. And, given that we now live in an industrial age, you have to worry about quality of living, air, and environment. Land plays a very small role in this equation, even more so when the people doing the math include areas of the world that aren't livable for their "we can all live in Texas" or "everyone can fit shoulder to shoulder in Rhode Island" math. There is only one answer to this problem: education and women's rights. It is a proven fact that when women are educated, have access to higher forms of education, and means to provide for themselves, that birth rates drop, marriages occur at later ages, and family sizes are smaller. Even if overpopulation isn't an issue, even if population growth is peachy, there is no argument anyone can make against education and universal rights being given more attention on the world stage. | ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
On February 09 2011 00:40 Babyfactory wrote: There is only one answer to this problem: education and women's rights. It is a proven fact that when women are educated, have access to higher forms of education, and means to provide for themselves, that birth rates drop, marriages occur at later ages, and family sizes are smaller. Even if overpopulation isn't an issue, even if population growth is peachy, there is no argument anyone can make against education and universal rights being given more attention on the world stage. It's hilarious and ironic that a person with the handle "Babyfactory" would post this, but you're absolutely correct. This is the right answer to "solving" population growth. | ||
|
Dr. Von Derful
United States363 Posts
On February 09 2011 00:46 MangoTango wrote: It's hilarious and ironic that a person with the handle "Babyfactory" would post this, but you're absolutely correct. This is the right answer to "solving" population growth.  It's a huge sticking point I have with politics for the simple fact that politicians won't address this issue due to it being "political suicide". I've only heard two political figures even begin to address this issue to a suitable degree and they are: Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger. Bill Clinton has given speeches about promoting both education and women's rights with the overtone being to address the issue of overpopulation. It's a shame that we think we need more airport security and tougher regulations on wall street instead of high standards of education and a society that is actual equal. If I can find them, I will post. edit: It tickles your fancy even more, I'm conservative and strongly disliked Bill Clinton's presidency. However, I have to say, I love everything he's done before and after it. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On February 09 2011 00:57 Babyfactory wrote: It's a huge sticking point I have with politics for the simple fact that politicians won't address this issue due to it being "political suicide". I've only heard two political figures even begin to address this issue to a suitable degree and they are: Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger. Bill Clinton has given speeches about promoting both education and women's rights with the overtone being to address the issue of overpopulation. It's a shame that we think we need more airport security and tougher regulations on wall street instead of high standards of education and a society that is actual equal. If I can find them, I will post. edit: It tickles your fancy even more, I'm conservative and strongly disliked Bill Clinton's presidency. However, I have to say, I love everything he's done before and after it. Joe Biden as well. Everyone only really knows him as "that guy who says a lot of dumb stuff on TV", but he's done fantastic things for women's rights over the course of his political career. Education, (for both men and women), and women's equality is huge in preventing large birth rates. Consensual sex simply isn't a reality for women in all parts of the world. Combine this with a lack of understanding/access to contraceptives, and poor/uneducated women end up having a lot of children they can't support. | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
And maybe (but that's just my theory), in a mostly patriarchic society it's the man who decides when to engage in intercourse (  ). Plus, he is rarely the one who has the "burden" of carrying the child and nourishing it, so he will not care too much about prevention if the woman can't somehow force him to. Furthermore, where there's no working legal system, an impregnated woman will never get the begetter to pay for the child if he decides to leave the woman. I think the lack of law and the lack of social development towards an equal (man-woman) society is playing a huge role here. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On February 09 2011 00:34 Haemonculus wrote: What are you basing that on? We gained over a billion people in the last decade. Yes, and next decade we will grow at a smaller % and probably between 2050 and 2100 we will start losing hundreds of millions each decade. On February 09 2011 00:34 Haemonculus wrote: Not a problem for us here in the States who are fortunate enough to have a high standard of living already. Technology needs to *drastically* improve if we're going to maintain such ridiculous levels of population growth. The developed world is losing population (naturally, immigration make up the difference) Technology mostly needs to Change. As population stabilizes+declines worldwide, technology will continually improve living standards. (by 2200 any society that has been stable for the past 200 years will almost certainly have their people economically living much better than the US/other developed countries now) | ||
|
tryummm
774 Posts
| ||
| ||
