Political Crossfire Forums

[8810385]

this is a big problem that we need to deal with. i think right now there are way too many people around as is. they're ruining it for everyone. making each human life more and more worthless day by day.

but if from now on, everyone has only 1 kid, then the problem will be solved. and also the kid has a better life because more of the parents' resources will be available to them to thrive, like more money and attention.

if people want to have more than 1 kid, then they must pay a big tax.

[Wolverine]

MYTH #7 — The World Is Getting Too Crowded


We've heard protests about this for decades: News articles warn of "the population bomb," and "a tidal wave of humanity," and plead: No more babies.

The world population today is more than 6 billion. It seems like so many people. But who says it's "too many?"

There are lots of problems all over the world caused by too many people

But there's no space problem. Our planet is huge. In fact we could take the entire world population and move everyone to the state of Texas, and the population density there would still be less than that of New York City.

But, you might wonder, won't we run out of resources, like food?

Paul Ehrlich wrote the book "Population Bomb," and warned 65 million Americans would starve in a "Great Die Off" in the 1980s. The 1973 movie "Soylent Green" predicted food riots would erupt in the year 2022 but it doesn't look like that will happen.


According to media mogul and philanthropist Ted Turner, population growth is "a time bomb waiting to happen." If it continues, at the current rate, according to Turner, "Eventually you stand around in a desert with nothing to eat." But that too is a myth. We see the pictures of starving masses in populous places, but the starvation is caused by things like civil war and government corruption that interfere with the distribution of food.

With more people, we also have more smart ideas. Every year we learn how to grow more food on less land. Thanks to improved technology, the United Nations now says the world overproduces food.

About 15,000 babies are born every hour. But they are not a burden, they offer more brains that might cure cancer, more hands to build things, more voices to bring us beautiful music.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606

Um... what was your point again?

[8810385]

Wolverine wrote: MYTH #7 — The World Is Getting Too Crowded


We've heard protests about this for decades: News articles warn of "the population bomb," and "a tidal wave of humanity," and plead: No more babies.

The world population today is more than 6 billion. It seems like so many people. But who says it's "too many?"

There are lots of problems all over the world caused by too many people

But there's no space problem. Our planet is huge. In fact we could take the entire world population and move everyone to the state of Texas, and the population density there would still be less than that of New York City.

But, you might wonder, won't we run out of resources, like food?

Paul Ehrlich wrote the book "Population Bomb," and warned 65 million Americans would starve in a "Great Die Off" in the 1980s. The 1973 movie "Soylent Green" predicted food riots would erupt in the year 2022 but it doesn't look like that will happen.


According to media mogul and philanthropist Ted Turner, population growth is "a time bomb waiting to happen." If it continues, at the current rate, according to Turner, "Eventually you stand around in a desert with nothing to eat." But that too is a myth. We see the pictures of starving masses in populous places, but the starvation is caused by things like civil war and government corruption that interfere with the distribution of food.

With more people, we also have more smart ideas. Every year we learn how to grow more food on less land. Thanks to improved technology, the United Nations now says the world overproduces food.

About 15,000 babies are born every hour. But they are not a burden, they offer more brains that might cure cancer, more hands to build things, more voices to bring us beautiful music.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606

Um... what was your point again?

we don't need 15000 babies per hour to give us cure for cancer, or build things, or bring us beautiful music....lol. this author is totally clueless.

[Piotr]

8810385 wrote: this is a big problem that we need to deal with. i think right now there are way too many people around as is. they're ruining it for everyone. making each human life more and more worthless day by day.

but if from now on, everyone has only 1 kid, then the problem will be solved. and also the kid has a better life because more of the parents' resources will be available to them to thrive, like more money and attention.

if people want to have more than 1 kid, then they must pay a big tax.

Normally you'd think that, but then consider that that growing population is also key to providing a greater and greater pool of human resources: more scientists, more doctors, more musicians, more artists, more everything. It increases the chance of getting capable people, does it not? Which in turn increases the potential for discoveries that can benefit everyone, no?

I'd say two people per person would be enough. But I wouldn't force anyone to pay any related tax or punishment, and I'd probably be opposed to any such measure.

I'd also say it's too simplistic to think that bringing the population down that way will solve every problem at hand. There used to be less people in the past, but the same problems persisted, no? And, also, standard of living today has never been higher for the greatest amount of people (which doesn't mean there isn't work to be done to bring it up even more)- has it?

[islandhopper]

Wolverine wrote: The world population today is more than 6 billion. It seems like so many people. But who says it's "too many?"


Yes, and they are all moving to south Florida.

[8810385]

Piotr wrote: 8810385 wrote: this is a big problem that we need to deal with. i think right now there are way too many people around as is. they're ruining it for everyone. making each human life more and more worthless day by day.

but if from now on, everyone has only 1 kid, then the problem will be solved. and also the kid has a better life because more of the parents' resources will be available to them to thrive, like more money and attention.

if people want to have more than 1 kid, then they must pay a big tax.

Normally you'd think that, but then consider that that growing population is also key to providing a greater and greater pool of human resources: more scientists, more doctors, more musicians, more artists, more everything. It increases the chance of getting capable people, does it not? Which in turn increases the potential for discoveries that can benefit everyone, no?

I'd say two people per person would be enough. But I wouldn't force anyone to pay any related tax or punishment, and I'd probably be opposed to any such measure.

I'd also say it's too simplistic to think that bringing the population down that way will solve every problem at hand. There used to be less people in the past, but the same problems persisted, no? And, also, standard of living today has never been higher for the greatest amount of people (which doesn't mean there isn't work to be done to bring it up even more)- has it?

this is the classic case of quality vs. quantity. i believe having less kids who are better equipped is better than having lots of kids. we really don't need all these people. the standard of living will be higher if there are less people. there will be more land. there will be more resources and attention per individual. right now humans are a dime a dozen. and the quality of humans are low, because they don't get enough attention and resources. the more population grows, the more worthless human life becomes.

[perdidochas]

8810385 wrote: this is a big problem that we need to deal with. i think right now there are way too many people around as is. they're ruining it for everyone. making each human life more and more worthless day by day.

but if from now on, everyone has only 1 kid, then the problem will be solved. and also the kid has a better life because more of the parents' resources will be available to them to thrive, like more money and attention.

if people want to have more than 1 kid, then they must pay a big tax.

They are doing that in Europe, i.e. having less kids than needed to replace the population. It's on the verge of causing major social collapse, as the number of retirees will soon be almost as large as the number of workers.

Some religious faiths require that they be free to reproduce. Taxing for having more than one kid would be against their First Amendment rights.

[X-Shocker]

8810385 wrote: this is a big problem that we need to deal with. i think right now there are way too many people around as is. they're ruining it for everyone. making each human life more and more worthless day by day.

but if from now on, everyone has only 1 kid, then the problem will be solved. and also the kid has a better life because more of the parents' resources will be available to them to thrive, like more money and attention.

if people want to have more than 1 kid, then they must pay a big tax.

China???

[Wolverine]

8810385 wrote: Wolverine wrote: MYTH #7 — The World Is Getting Too Crowded


We've heard protests about this for decades: News articles warn of "the population bomb," and "a tidal wave of humanity," and plead: No more babies.

The world population today is more than 6 billion. It seems like so many people. But who says it's "too many?"

There are lots of problems all over the world caused by too many people

But there's no space problem. Our planet is huge. In fact we could take the entire world population and move everyone to the state of Texas, and the population density there would still be less than that of New York City.

But, you might wonder, won't we run out of resources, like food?

Paul Ehrlich wrote the book "Population Bomb," and warned 65 million Americans would starve in a "Great Die Off" in the 1980s. The 1973 movie "Soylent Green" predicted food riots would erupt in the year 2022 but it doesn't look like that will happen.


According to media mogul and philanthropist Ted Turner, population growth is "a time bomb waiting to happen." If it continues, at the current rate, according to Turner, "Eventually you stand around in a desert with nothing to eat." But that too is a myth. We see the pictures of starving masses in populous places, but the starvation is caused by things like civil war and government corruption that interfere with the distribution of food.

With more people, we also have more smart ideas. Every year we learn how to grow more food on less land. Thanks to improved technology, the United Nations now says the world overproduces food.

About 15,000 babies are born every hour. But they are not a burden, they offer more brains that might cure cancer, more hands to build things, more voices to bring us beautiful music.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606

Um... what was your point again?

we don't need 15000 babies per hour to give us cure for cancer, or build things, or bring us beautiful music....lol. this author is totally clueless.
:lol:
As if John Stossel doen't know what he is talking about. :roll:

[Æ]

perdidochas wrote: 8810385 wrote: this is a big problem that we need to deal with. i think right now there are way too many people around as is. they're ruining it for everyone. making each human life more and more worthless day by day.

but if from now on, everyone has only 1 kid, then the problem will be solved. and also the kid has a better life because more of the parents' resources will be available to them to thrive, like more money and attention.

if people want to have more than 1 kid, then they must pay a big tax.

They are doing that in Europe, i.e. having less kids than needed to replace the population. It's on the verge of causing major social collapse, as the number of retirees will soon be almost as large as the number of workers.

Some religious faiths require that they be free to reproduce. Taxing for having more than one kid would be against their First Amendment rights.
That doesn't make even a bit of sense.

[Blinky]

Piotr wrote:
Normally you'd think that, but then consider that that growing population is also key to providing a greater and greater pool of human resources: more scientists, more doctors, more musicians, more artists, more everything. It increases the chance of getting capable people, does it not? Which in turn increases the potential for discoveries that can benefit everyone, no?

Having an ever increasing population does not necessarily produce more "thinkers". Education is key to those people's potential for positive contribution to mankind. Currently, this is not being provided. So if a couple in Ethiopia have 12 kids (and assuming they don't all die from disease or malnutrition), if they remain uneducated (as they are most likely to) they will contribute how? By farming/labouring to provide for themselves long enough to produce their own 12 kids?
Have you ever been to India? Do you want the rest of the world looking that way?

[Demonic Spoon]

Go to the US. Or Europe. There is no food problem. It's not because we have less people, it's because we are simply making better use of the resources available to us.

Africa has NO SHORTAGE of food. It's just not being harvested as well as it could be. If the population decreases, then yes, you will have less people to feed, but there will be LESS PEOPLE TO HARVEST THE FOOD. Since the same amount will be wasted, it would make no difference.

[George W Bush]

this is gonna sound sick

but arent the corpses we put in the ground, be animal OR human, nutrients for the soil - acting somewhat as recycled carbon for things such as food and plant life?

If we ever got to famine crises, we could always eat the dead.
I hear it isnt that bad.

[Blinky]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Go to the US. Or Europe. There is no food problem. It's not because we have less people, it's because we are simply making better use of the resources available to us.

Africa has NO SHORTAGE of food. It's just not being harvested as well as it could be. If the population decreases, then yes, you will have less people to feed, but there will be LESS PEOPLE TO HARVEST THE FOOD. Since the same amount will be wasted, it would make no difference.

In America and Europe people are not harvesting food - machines are - hence, the surplus. In Africa, there are already more people than are needed to harvest the food they require.
Greater population = more people to feed = more people to consume resources. As standards of living increase, so do consumer wants. Are you saying there are enough resources in the world for every child to attend 12 years of school, own a plasma TV, a cellular phone, and a car? I doubt there are.

[bob.appleyard]

Oh my god, the one child policy is here.

As people have mentioned, population expansion is not the harbinger of doom people might think.

One of the reasons for Britain's takeoff into sustained growth in the late 18th Century was partly due to a population boom.

However, one must realise that enough food to feed these people is being generated now. How that food is allocated is the issue.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
In America and Europe people are not harvesting food - machines are - hence, the surplus. In Africa, there are already more people than are needed to harvest the food they require.
Greater population = more people to feed = more people to consume resources. As standards of living increase, so do consumer wants. Are you saying there are enough resources in the world for every child to attend 12 years of school, own a plasma TV, a cellular phone, and a car? I doubt there are.

Why not?

Africa is rich in resources, ubt are mostly untapped.

And yes, there are more than enough resources in the world so that everyone could have that.

Food? There is an insane amount of unused space that could be used for farming-especially if they use new, advanced farming techniques.

Electricity? There's plenty of coal beneath the surface. Solar power is limitless, and is starting to become viable. Nuclear power alone is amazingly efficient, and could power a good portion of the world if not all.
Oil is extremely common

I refer you to

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53510

We have 16,841.5 years worth of oil at our current consumption rate. While this would increase a lot if everyone on earth got a car, we'd still have MORE than enough oil for a loong, long time. Also note that this is just PROVED RESERVES. Think of how many oil reserves that we aren't tapping right now.

Quote:
In America and Europe people are not harvesting food - machines are - hence, the surplus.

So? Then less population = less people to build the machines. Same difference.

[DarkMerlin]

There is a simple solution to the issue of population: space migration.

Yup.

[Piotr]

8810385 wrote: Piotr wrote: 8810385 wrote: this is a big problem that we need to deal with. i think right now there are way too many people around as is. they're ruining it for everyone. making each human life more and more worthless day by day.

but if from now on, everyone has only 1 kid, then the problem will be solved. and also the kid has a better life because more of the parents' resources will be available to them to thrive, like more money and attention.

if people want to have more than 1 kid, then they must pay a big tax.

Normally you'd think that, but then consider that that growing population is also key to providing a greater and greater pool of human resources: more scientists, more doctors, more musicians, more artists, more everything. It increases the chance of getting capable people, does it not? Which in turn increases the potential for discoveries that can benefit everyone, no?

I'd say two people per person would be enough. But I wouldn't force anyone to pay any related tax or punishment, and I'd probably be opposed to any such measure.

I'd also say it's too simplistic to think that bringing the population down that way will solve every problem at hand. There used to be less people in the past, but the same problems persisted, no? And, also, standard of living today has never been higher for the greatest amount of people (which doesn't mean there isn't work to be done to bring it up even more)- has it?

this is the classic case of quality vs. quantity. i believe having less kids who are better equipped is better than having lots of kids. we really don't need all these people. the standard of living will be higher if there are less people. there will be more land. there will be more resources and attention per individual. right now humans are a dime a dozen. and the quality of humans are low, because they don't get enough attention and resources. the more population grows, the more worthless human life becomes.

Not necessarily;did you skim over what I wrote, or do I need further clarification? Because you're just repeating what you said before. as far as I can see.

[Piotr]

Blinky wrote: Piotr wrote:
Normally you'd think that, but then consider that that growing population is also key to providing a greater and greater pool of human resources: more scientists, more doctors, more musicians, more artists, more everything. It increases the chance of getting capable people, does it not? Which in turn increases the potential for discoveries that can benefit everyone, no?

Having an ever increasing population does not necessarily produce more "thinkers". Education is key to those people's potential for positive contribution to mankind. Currently, this is not being provided. So if a couple in Ethiopia have 12 kids (and assuming they don't all die from disease or malnutrition), if they remain uneducated (as they are most likely to) they will contribute how? By farming/labouring to provide for themselves long enough to produce their own 12 kids?
Have you ever been to India? Do you want the rest of the world looking that way?

I think that's implied in what I wrote. But no, I have never been to India.

[Demonic Spoon]

...

...

YOU REALLY THINK that Etheopia's problems stem from not having enough resources in that huge land that they occupy?