S/O Did you believe the world is over populated?

[Murphy101]

Dh is an only and went on to have 10 kids so far.

However both of our parents had less children than they were born to.

Several of our aunts and uncles didn't have any kids at all.

 

How many kids I have has no impact on how many grandchildren I will have. Even if I had only adopted one child, s/he might go on to have many children.

 

I don't think this is about how many children we have.

 

It's about how we live.

 

And the bottom line is living economicly is frowned upon in our society and discouraged by our government. It is difficult to find cheaper or greener quality resources. And some of the so called greener stuff flat out is not greener. Take appliances. In theory my new refrigerator is better for the environment and uses less energy than the 30 year old refrigerator we had previously. But that doesn't take into account that this new appliance is made to be disposable in 5-7 years. Tops. Then it is tossed in a landfill. There are fewer and fewer used referbished appliance stores these days. This also applies to electronics of any kind. And yet this new frig cost us more than the previous 2 combined! How nuts is that?

 

Our govt gives subsidies to huge argri corps like Monsanto, but homeowners often don't have the funds to put in a private garden or actually have to deal with it not being allowed by their HOA.

 

Just a few examples that apply to everyone, regardless of family size, that has nothing to do with the size of our population, but social regulations within the population.

[Spy Car]

Overpopulation is a myth. The rate of population growth has actually been slowing down.

 

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

 

Scroll down to the bottom after you watch the video and you will find links to a few more that explain it further.

 

Overpopulation is not a "myth." Myths are sacred stories that explain the origin of mankind, the universe, customs and celebrations and other questions of where we came from and where we are going and (often) describe our relationships with supernatural beings, gods, and creators.

 

Myth should not be used as a synonym for "falsehood."

 

End rant :D

 

Bill (who thought he was on a "Classical" forum :tongue_smilie:)

[Kathleen in VA]

Overpopulation is not a "myth." Myths are sacred stories that explain the origin of mankind, the universe, customs and celebrations and other questions of where we came from and where we are going and (often) describe our relationships with supernatural beings, gods, and creators.

 

Myth should not be used as a synonym for "falsehood."

 

End rant :D

 

Bill (who thought he was on a "Classical" forum :tongue_smilie:)

 

According to the OED it is a myth:

 

2 a widely held but false belief or idea :

[mommymilkies]

I can reach my hand out my window and shake my neighbour's hand, almost. I still don't believe we are over populated. I believe any population issues will be taken care of by nature, death, disease, fall of empires, etc. I don't like those things, but that is how history goes.

 

:lol::iagree:

It's not overpopulation but overconsumption. I would say that the typical larger family I know actually tends to live a MORE "green" lifestyle because of the need to economize. Larger families are not the ones solo commuting an hour per day each in his/her own gas-guzzling luxury vehicle, filling their McMansions with unnecessary stuff all purchased brand-new, cranking up the heat or AC in said McMansion, frequently jetting to far-off locales, relying heavily on highly processed "convenience" foods and/or restaurant meals, and so on.

 

True, a 1 or 2 child family who truly makes an effort to reduce consumption will have a smaller "footprint" than a larger family who does the same things. But it's been my observation that few smaller families actually bother to reduce their consumption in this manner. Most of the time, having fewer children only seems to free up financial resources to support a wasteful lifestyle :thumbdown:

:iagree: We have a tiny house, hardly ever drive our fuel efficient car (we prefer bikes and walking), use green products, reduce/reuse/recycle, breastfeed, cosleep, cloth diaper, grow food, and take care of the earth mindfully. I know many people with no/one kid who use far more than we do, with bigger homes (by far) and make more trash than we do. That might be because we know few families with more than one child around here, though. But my family and the families I know all live simpler lifestyles in older homes and are very concerned about helping the environment. That's just IME, though. Obviously there are wasteful big families.

 

I am more concerned with overconsumption and a lack of rights of women and children than I am concerned about overpopulation. I'm sure some places are overpopulated, but not here, and there are things that can be done to help those people-giving them the education, human rights, and resources for better lives. The biggest problem as far as overpopulation seems to be longer lifespans, not more births. I used to work hospice and many people are living far longer (and often in much worse pain/health with lower quality of life) than they used to. I'm not complaining much, though, I hope to live to be old and see all of my grandchildren grow.

[Spy Car]

According to the OED it is a myth:

 

2 a widely held but false belief or idea :

 

That is an example of "descriptivism" as opposed to "prescriptivism." The fact that many abuse the classical meaning of the word (which we ought to defend as it is an exceedingly useful term) does not mean it is "correct", it only means it is "common place."

 

Many vulgarizations of language are "in the dictionary." But having lots of people being "wrong" doesn't make something "right."

 

Bill

[Kathleen in VA]

That is an example of "descriptivism" as opposed to "prescriptivism." The fact that many abuse the classical meaning of the word (which we ought to defend as it is an exceedingly useful term) does not mean it is "correct", it only means it is "common place."

 

Many vulgarizations of language are "in the dictionary." But having lots of people being "wrong" doesn't make something "right."

 

Bill

 

Take it up with them.

[mommymilkies]

But you can't predict that they will all follow suit.

 

Example:

 

My father is one of three children. He's fathered four children (two different women). His sister and brother are both "child free by choice".

 

I am one of ten (if you count all halves, halves of halves, and step). I have eight, one sister has three, two sisters have two, two brothers each have one, and four siblings have no children (one will not due to mental disability and one might be either child free by choice or just severely delaying any children). So, out of ten kids, there are only seventeen grandkids...and then we don't even fall all under the same parents.

 

One the other hand, you have the case of my husband who is one of three (two brothers and a stepsister). Stepsister was childless (she passed away a couple of years ago, but was unable to carry any children). His brother has eight and we have eight. Two boys; sixteen grandchildren.

 

One of my children wants a large family; one has said she would rather adopt or become a nun :lol: So you can't predict numbers based on one couple's family size.

 

Exactly. I also used to work in infertility. Fertility rates are sharply declining both from choice and not by choice. And many, many, many people are choosing not to parent at all. My dh's family all have 0-3 kids except for dh and one of his sisters (3 kids). 1 is normal, 2 is bizarre, and 5 is worthy of a reality show to them. :lol: You just can't predict based on family size.

[Spy Car]

Take it up with them.

 

You don't think I haven't :D

 

Bill

[mommaduck]

You don't think I haven't :D

 

Bill

:lol:

[EKS]

Remove the petroleum inputs into agriculture and you will find out very quickly whether overpopulation is a problem or not.

[ahousefullofjs]

I believe in a God that is bigger than overpopulation.

 

:iagree:

[elfgivas]

it worries me that we ask and offer opinions on something/anything where there is a possibility that there is a factual (ie. not viewpoint) answer.

 

i think this is one of those questions. and it may end up having a deeply moral answer.

 

questions that come to mind are:

a) is everyone well fed? ie are all 7 billion eating well enough to thrive?

(the answer is no).

follow up question: how many people can be "not fed well enough to thrive" for us to decide that the current population of the planet is not a problem?

 

b) does everyone have housing? ie. are all 7 billion living in a place that offers safety and protection from the elements?

(the answer is no)

follow up question: how many people can be "not housed well enough to thrive" for us to decide that the current population of the planet is not a problem?

 

c) does everyone have access to medical care? ie. do all 7 billion have access to health care that will allow them to live as fully as possible/not die or suffer needlessly from a treatable illness?

(the answer is no)

follow up question: how many people can be "not treated by a medical professional" for us to decide that the current population of the planet is not a problem?

(fwiw, the current answer to this question in california is apparently 1 in 6)

 

and so it goes.....

 

 

sometimes i think the questions are at least as important as the answers...

ann

[Daisy]

it worries me that we ask and offer opinions on something/anything where there is a possibility that there is a factual (ie. not viewpoint) answer.

 

i think this is one of those questions. and it may end up having a deeply moral answer.

 

questions that come to mind are:

a) is everyone well fed? ie are all 7 billion eating well enough to thrive?

(the answer is no).

follow up question: how many people can be "not fed well enough to thrive" for us to decide that the current population of the planet is not a problem?

 

b) does everyone have housing? ie. are all 7 billion living in a place that offers safety and protection from the elements?

(the answer is no)

follow up question: how many people can be "not housed well enough to thrive" for us to decide that the current population of the planet is not a problem?

 

c) does everyone have access to medical care? ie. do all 7 billion have access to health care that will allow them to live as fully as possible/not die or suffer needlessly from a treatable illness?

(the answer is no)

follow up question: how many people can be "not treated by a medical professional" for us to decide that the current population of the planet is not a problem?

(fwiw, the current answer to this question in california is apparently 1 in 6)

 

and so it goes.....

 

 

sometimes i think the questions are at least as important as the answers...

ann

 

What? So when the population of the planet was half what it currently is now, everyone had food, shelter, and health care? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.

 

Those things have nothing to do with overpopulation, imo.

[KungFuPanda]

:iagree:Also, I think some of us would be willing to live with even less if we were ALLOWED to be a bit old fashioned and had a bit of property. There are small families that do a good job with this also.

 

What do you mean by "allowed?" How can a general opinion stop you from living how you want to live? (I'll own up to skimming, so I think I missed something.)

[ereks mom]

I'm looking out my window and I don't see anyone.

 

I don't either. :lol:

[HappyCrazyMama]

What? So when the population of the planet was half what it currently is now, everyone had food, shelter, and health care? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.

 

Those things have nothing to do with overpopulation, imo.

 

:iagree:

[justamouse]

What? So when the population of the planet was half what it currently is now, everyone had food, shelter, and health care? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.

 

Those things have nothing to do with overpopulation, imo.

 

Exactly.

 

It's not that we don't have enough, it's that we misuse what we have. There is too much corporate greed out there, the lobbyist/corporations like Monsanto/pharmaceuticals/Big Ag is not out there being all ethical and putting people first.

[justamouse]

Dh is an only and went on to have 10 kids so far.

However both of our parents had less children than they were born to.

Several of our aunts and uncles didn't have any kids at all.

 

How many kids I have has no impact on how many grandchildren I will have. Even if I had only adopted one child, s/he might go on to have many children.

 

I don't think this is about how many children we have.

 

It's about how we live.

 

And the bottom line is living economicly is frowned upon in our society and discouraged by our government. It is difficult to find cheaper or greener quality resources. And some of the so called greener stuff flat out is not greener. Take appliances. In theory my new refrigerator is better for the environment and uses less energy than the 30 year old refrigerator we had previously. But that doesn't take into account that this new appliance is made to be disposable in 5-7 years. Tops. Then it is tossed in a landfill. There are fewer and fewer used referbished appliance stores these days. This also applies to electronics of any kind. And yet this new frig cost us more than the previous 2 combined! How nuts is that?

 

Our govt gives subsidies to huge argri corps like Monsanto, but homeowners often don't have the funds to put in a private garden or actually have to deal with it not being allowed by their HOA.

 

Just a few examples that apply to everyone, regardless of family size, that has nothing to do with the size of our population, but social regulations within the population.

 

 

Amen. that's exactly what I mean by corporations being unethical.

[KungFuPanda]

Overpopulation is not a "myth." Myths are sacred stories that explain the origin of mankind, the universe, customs and celebrations and other questions of where we came from and where we are going and (often) describe our relationships with supernatural beings, gods, and creators.

 

Myth should not be used as a synonym for "falsehood."

 

End rant :D

 

Bill (who thought he was on a "Classical" forum :tongue_smilie:)

 

 

I think Bill is a myth. :D

[justamouse]

In Western Europe, there is a population dearth.

 

"By 2025, the United States will be the only major developed nation with more people under 20 than over 65 — and the only one with a working-age population that will continue to grow. Even in China, growth in the working-age population is expected to peak five years from now and start declining by 2030.The reasons are clear. Women are marrying later and having fewer children — if they have any. Half of the world's women are now having two children or fewer, even in some developing countries such as Iran, Burma and Vietnam.

 

Nations including Hungary and South Korea are seeing unprecedented numbers of women staying single into their 30s — up from a handful a generation ago to 30 and 40 percent, respectively.

 

In places like Germany and Japan, Eberstadt says, the number of women who end up having no children at all is already approaching 30 percent."

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/02/141901809/asian-european-nations-fret-over-birthrate-swoon

 

Thank you! I was looking for info for just that. I think I was reading about it in the book BLISS-I know I was reading it somewhere.

[Jennifer3141]

I think Bill is a myth. :D

 

Nope. Bill is a LEGEND. :D

[justamouse]

Nope. Bill is a LEGEND. :D

:lol:

[KungFuPanda]

Nope. Bill is a LEGEND. :D

 

Or a rumor :tongue_smilie:

[justasque]

How many kids I have has no impact on how many grandchildren I will have.

 

<addressing this point only, not the overall discussion>

<bolding mine>

I don't think this is quite true. I think that, on average, people with more children are likely to have more grandchildren, great-grand-children, etc. than people with fewer children. Someone with one child is unlikely to have 15 grandchildren, though it could happen; someone with 5 kids is much more likely to have 15 grandchildren. Individual data points of course can vary; what's key is the overall "big-picture" trend.

 

What do you mean by "allowed?" How can a general opinion stop you from living how you want to live? (I'll own up to skimming, so I think I missed something.)

 

I didn't understand this either. Two different posters mentioned it. Zoning laws? Limits on number of occupants in rental housing?

[DarlaS]

But you can't predict that they will all follow suit.

Example:

 

My father is one of three children. He's fathered four children (two different women). His sister and brother are both "child free by choice".

 

I am one of ten (if you count all halves, halves of halves, and step). I have eight, one sister has three, two sisters have two, two brothers each have one, and four siblings have no children (one will not due to mental disability and one might be either child free by choice or just severely delaying any children). So, out of ten kids, there are only seventeen grandkids...and then we don't even fall all under the same parents.

 

One the other hand, you have the case of my husband who is one of three (two brothers and a stepsister). Stepsister was childless (she passed away a couple of years ago, but was unable to carry any children). His brother has eight and we have eight. Two boys; sixteen grandchildren.

 

One of my children wants a large family; one has said she would rather adopt or become a nun :lol: So you can't predict numbers based on one couple's family size.

 

Right on.

 

Even the couple that has two kids that grow up to have two kids EACH does not mean that the next generation doubles. Let's not count them all twice and freak out about overpopulation. :tongue_smilie:

 

Those two kids need to marry two kids from another family to have their own families. If each couple has two kids, that means you went from four people to four people. That's hardly a population explosion!

 

There were five in my family. My oldest brother had two, my sisters one and three respectively, my other brother has no children, and dh and I have four. Out of five kids, we each married (five other people) and produced ten kids. Five couples (ten people) and ten kids. It equals out.

[JumpyTheFrog]

What I want to know about is the 25% of people that took the poll that "don't believe in overpopulation." Does that mean they think it could never, ever become a problem? That even if we had 100 billion people, there would be enough food and resources for people to live better than just a subsistence level? We would never run out of fresh water (already becoming a problem is parts of the US)?

[Rosie_0801]

What do you mean by "allowed?" How can a general opinion stop you from living how you want to live? (I'll own up to skimming, so I think I missed something.)

 

There are laws about how many people are allowed to share a bedroom, laws against people hanging their washing out to dry. If you don't have a cell phone so your boss can contact you at any minute of the day, you won't get shifts at work, etc.

 

I'm not sure if worrying about the planet as a whole is the right question to focus on. I think certain places are overpopulated, but I don't know about the planet as a whole. I know I wouldn't be living in this city if there were suitable jobs for dh in country Victoria. I expect there are oodles of people feeling the same way. I figured telecommuting would allow people to get out of cities, but it seems not to be utilised the way it could be.

 

Rosie

[mommaduck]

What do you mean by "allowed?" How can a general opinion stop you from living how you want to live? (I'll own up to skimming, so I think I missed something.)

Several reasons. Zoning is one. Some areas we've lived in had laws that kept our above average family from renting a smaller home...not ridiculously small (in fact, living area was fine), but the law said "50sq ft of bedroom space per person" (that included an infant). Did not matter that bunkbeds make more space and bedrooms are for SLEEPING. These laws were partly to make multi-generational living difficult. Other issues might be a bit more "living off the land", but extended family might have an issue with kids raised that way. Here, we have families in the county that do this a bit more, but those people have had the funds to up the land prices around here to keep out people that are not part of their groups and, more specifically, not of their ethnicity out.

[leeannpal]

:iagree:

 

ETA: Isn't that one of the reasons given in cultural geography books about having less children? People have less children so that they can have a higher standard of living. Maybe higher standard of living doesn't *necessarily* mean wasteful but in general, those who have more waste more. I know I throw more left overs away when times aren't so lean just as one example. Not *all* left-overs, but the ones that don't reheat as well and don't taste as good the next day. But when times are tight you eat it anyway, kwim? When I have more money I tend to replace batteries in old toys more often. Shoot, I tend to buy more toys period. We are mostly thrift store shoppers but if I can afford new and can't find what I'm looking for used I'll consume a new product, *if* I can afford it. If I can't, we do without.

 

What a generalization! We only have one child because that is all that we could have. We certainly didn't stop at one for "life's conveniences."

[Parker Martin]

What I want to know about is the 25% of people that took the poll that "don't believe in overpopulation." Does that mean they think it could never, ever become a problem? That even if we had 100 billion people, there would be enough food and resources for people to live better than just a subsistence level? We would never run out of fresh water (already becoming a problem is parts of the US)?

 

I'm guessing it means that it would self-regulate itself at some point. Perhaps that with access to modern technology, as resources and therefore raising children became more expensive, populations would naturally have fewer children. Also that as population increased and demand for new technologies to improve water cleaning and food production efficiencies increased, such technologies would be developed, and the planet would be capable of supporting an increasing number of people.

[Kathleen in VA]

What I want to know about is the 25% of people that took the poll that "don't believe in overpopulation." Does that mean they think it could never, ever become a problem? That even if we had 100 billion people, there would be enough food and resources for people to live better than just a subsistence level? We would never run out of fresh water (already becoming a problem is parts of the US)?

 

 

Not to sound like a broken record, but please watch the video at this link:

 

www.overpopulationisamyth.com

 

It explains it much better than I can and in only about 2 minutes. There are several others that are helpful too. They're short, sweet, to the point and mathematically correct.

[Murphy101]

What? So when the population of the planet was half what it currently is now, everyone had food, shelter, and health care? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.

 

Those things have nothing to do with overpopulation, imo.

 

:iagree:

 

What do you mean by "allowed?" How can a general opinion stop you from living how you want to live? (I'll own up to skimming, so I think I missed something.)

 

Okay. Housing laws, vehicle laws, education laws, clothing laws, manufacturing laws, social expectations that have nothing to do with moral right or personal good.

 

<addressing this point only, not the overall discussion>

<bolding mine>

I don't think this is quite true. I think that, on average, people with more children are likely to have more grandchildren, great-grand-children, etc. than people with fewer children. Someone with one child is unlikely to have 15 grandchildren, though it could happen; someone with 5 kids is much more likely to have 15 grandchildren. Individual data points of course can vary; what's key is the overall "big-picture"

 

Actually, I have an entire generation to give as an example and a warning.

The vast majority of baby boomers came from larger families but only had 1-4 themselves. Resulting in a horrible upside down health and tax system for our current generation. There simply isn't enough younger people to support the larger older generation as they reach retirement.

 

What I want to know about is the 25% of people that took the poll that "don't believe in overpopulation." Does that mean they think it could never, ever become a problem? That even if we had 100 billion people, there would be enough food and resources for people to live better than just a subsistence level? We would never run out of fresh water (already becoming a problem is parts of the US)?

 

Picky

Picky

 

You don't want to just live. You want to live like a middle class American.:tongue_smilie:

 

I think it could become a temporary problem that nature will effectively correct.

[Crimson Wife]

We would never run out of fresh water (already becoming a problem is parts of the US)?

 

Water shortages are a problem in the Western part of the U.S. not because there are too many people, but because we as a society are incredibly wasteful in our usage. Our family spent 4 years living out in the Mojave Desert and there were *RICE PADDIES* in the area :svengo:

[kathymuggle]

I suppose the earth could reach a point where its resources no longer support humans - but we are not there yet. I do not know what the number is.

 

The more careful we are with consumption and food growing methods the more we can support or longer we can last without going into overpopulation.

 

It is hard for me to wrap my head around overpopulation. India may be one of the most densely populated places on earth - yet where I live (Canada) is not. Does me having many children adversely affect India? Do Indians having many children adversely affect me? No to both. Even if I wanted to share Canada's abundant resources with India, can I?

 

This is a list of the worlds most densely populated countries (yes, wikipedia) and it is interesting that many of the densest countries are reasonably wealthy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

 

I don't think overpopulation is at the root of most of the earths problem.

[Cricket]

People ARE a resource. People aren't just consumers. I guess that is what bothers me with the overpopulation discussion. There seems to be an assumption that people = destruction. Yes, we could definitely be more thrifty with how we use natural resources but today we can grow more food in less land than previous generations, we can make previously unproductive land productive, we have the ability to curb some natural disasters like forest fires. A larger population brings its own set of problems but it also brings more minds to figure out solutions.

 

The world will never be perfect. As others pointed out, when the population was way less than it is now, daily life was actually quite miserable for most people (compared to our lives!). Reducing or controlling the world's population isn't going to make anything better. You just trade one set of problems for another.

[TravelingChris]

I put other. Some areas have too many people. Many areas have too little.

[creekland]

That is an example of "descriptivism" as opposed to "prescriptivism." The fact that many abuse the classical meaning of the word (which we ought to defend as it is an exceedingly useful term) does not mean it is "correct", it only means it is "common place."

 

Many vulgarizations of language are "in the dictionary." But having lots of people being "wrong" doesn't make something "right."

 

Bill

 

I take it you aren't a fan of the show, Mythbusters. :lol:

 

Personally, I'm perfectly ok with more than one meaning to a word. It happens all the time in/with languages. ;)

[sewingmama]

We in America are a bit sheltered from the effects of overpopulation

 

:iagree:

 

I lived in Asia for a while - shopping was an experience - so many people packed into a mall that you could barely move from tripping over people -you could barely see 2 feet in front of you. It's unnerving and irratating to be bumped into a hundred times a day. Travelling on the subway was a nightmare -standing room only with people literally breathing down your neck.

 

I believe God created the earth and God created the people -I'm pretty sure he worked out the perfect ratio to what the earth could support. ;)

 

Human beings are pretty resourceful -despite all the movies to the contrary - I'm pretty sure we can figure out solutions to problems that arise. Here in Adelaide they just opened up a desalinisationplant to start making useable sea water.

 

Most of the people who are starving in other countries is not just due to overpopulation -a lot of it has to do with the country suffering from famine. Some countries haven't had rain in 12 years :001_huh: If that happened in the US would we blame overpopulation for starvation or simply the fact that even if there were only 2 people living in the US there is NO food for them because it won't grow?

[HappyCrazyMama]

I'm guessing it means that it would self-regulate itself at some point. Perhaps that with access to modern technology, as resources and therefore raising children became more expensive, populations would naturally have fewer children. Also that as population increased and demand for new technologies to improve water cleaning and food production efficiencies increased, such technologies would be developed, and the planet would be capable of supporting an increasing number of people.

 

Yep, that is why I picked that option; the bolded especially.:)

[JessieC]

I responded that yes, I believe the world is overpopulated. I think it's a huge concern, second maybe (but connected to) global warming. I also think that we should remember that we are not the only species of importance on Earth. The more humans there are, the less habitat there is for other species, who also deserve to live their lives. Overpopulation is certainly not a myth, and at seven billion people and counting, we need to take this seriously.

[JessieC]

Not to sound like a broken record, but please watch the video at this link:

 

www.overpopulationisamyth.com

 

It explains it much better than I can and in only about 2 minutes. There are several others that are helpful too. They're short, sweet, to the point and mathematically correct.

 

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with the premise of this video. An increasing population does not mean that the population is actually decreasing.

[Kathleen in VA]

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with the premise of this video. An increasing population does not mean that the population is actually decreasing.

 

Umm, that's not what it says. It says the RATE of population growth is decreasing. And it is.

 

ETA: I highly recommend watching all the videos - they are all short and help to explain it.

[JessieC]

But any way you look at it, we are adding more and more people every year. We are asking for trouble by doing this. I don't know the answer, but I am fearful for the world's future.

 

(The link I watched said that the population will grow to a certain point and then begin to decline based on this rate (the old man walking by a sign that says 7 billion again decades in the future), and the population will soon begin to decrease. I haven't watched the others yet, but this does not seem like a sound mathematical prediction to me.)

Edited November 10, 2011 by JessyC

[Kathleen in VA]

But any way you look at it, we are adding more and more people every year. We are asking for trouble by doing this. I don't know the answer, but I am fearful for the world's future.

 

That's true right now. But according to the UN statistics cited in these videos the population will peak at about 9 billion in about 25 years and then begin to drop dramatically. In 75 years we'll be back to 7 billion and then it will keep dropping.

 

It's already happening in Europe and Asia. Russia is paying parents to have children.

 

Check out the video Demographic Winter - you can watch the whole thing on youtube. It goes in to a lot more detail on the subject.

[Kathleen in VA]

But any way you look at it, we are adding more and more people every year. We are asking for trouble by doing this. I don't know the answer, but I am fearful for the world's future.

 

(The link I watched said that the population will grow to a certain point and then begin to decline based on this rate (the old man walking by a sign that says 7 billion again decades in the future), and the population will soon begin to decrease. I haven't watched the others yet, but this does not seem like a sound mathematical prediction to me.)

 

Just saw your edit. Did you read the comments after the video that explain where they get their numbers? It is mathematically sound.

[leeannpal]

That's true right now. But according to the UN statistics cited in these videos the population will peak at about 9 billion in about 25 years and then begin to drop dramatically. In 75 years we'll be back to 7 billion and then it will keep dropping.

 

It's already happening in Europe and Asia. Russia is paying parents to have children.Quote]

 

The video is too simplistic. The premise assumes that the rate of population growth/decline will remain the same. What if population growth marginally declines,but, because of better medical care, the death rate drops dramatically in most of the countries in Africa,India and Latin America where the number of births is skyrocketing each year?

 

BTW, the decline in Europe is not due to some arbitrary population decline;it is mostly cultural. Western Europe,Canada, the U.S., Australia/N.Z. and the highly industrialized nations of East Asia no longer depend on agriculture to survive. Families in many countries in Latin America, Africa and Southern Asia do depend on having large families to support farming.

While the population is declining in East Asia,it is actually increasing in most of Asia.

[Cammie]

What I want to know about is the 25% of people that took the poll that "don't believe in overpopulation." Does that mean they think it could never, ever become a problem? That even if we had 100 billion people, there would be enough food and resources for people to live better than just a subsistence level? We would never run out of fresh water (already becoming a problem is parts of the US)?

 

 

I have to admit, this is something that has me totally puzzled. The belief that there is no such thing as overpopulation is a new one to me! Before this board I never knew that there were people who didn't believe that dinosaures walked the planet, either.

 

Is there some sort of political/religious belief that is behind this world view that overpopulation doesn't matter? Or doesn't exist? Do people believe that the 7 billion number is not accurate? Or just that it is not a problem. As I mentioned in the now locked thread, I worked for ZPG out of college so I am really at a loss to even understand the other point of view on this issue.

 

And to those who say they don't see anyone out their window...here in India we can definately see the effects of overpopulation.

[Kathleen in VA]

That's true right now. But according to the UN statistics cited in these videos the population will peak at about 9 billion in about 25 years and then begin to drop dramatically. In 75 years we'll be back to 7 billion and then it will keep dropping.

 

It's already happening in Europe and Asia. Russia is paying parents to have children.Quote]

 

The video is too simplistic. The premise assumes that the rate of population growth/decline will remain the same. What if population growth marginally declines,but, because of better medical care, the death rate drops dramatically in most of the countries in Africa,India and Latin America where the number of births is skyrocketing each year?

 

BTW, the decline in Europe is not due to some arbitrary population decline;it is mostly cultural. Western Europe,Canada, the U.S., Australia/N.Z. and the highly industrialized nations of East Asia no longer depend on agriculture to survive. Families in many countries in Latin America, Africa and Southern Asia do depend on having large families to support farming.

While the population is declining in East Asia,it is actually increasing in most of Asia.

 

Actually, the population rate has been steadily decreasing all over the world - even in India and Asia. Watch Demographic Winter at youtube - like I said, it goes in to much more detail. It's not just industrialized countries that are experiencing this decline - it's the whole world.

[Plucky]

Honestly, anyone who is so concerned about overpopulation shouldn't give birth to even one child, but only adopt. I respect people who get up in arms about this topic so much more if they themselves haven't added to the population.

[mama2cntrykids]

I'm looking out my window and I don't see anyone.

Where's that darn LIKE button already!?