Overpopulation?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
2) Overpopulation also seems like a problem of resources falling short to service the people - and it looks more like the opposite. We have a plague of too much rather than not enough these days.[/quote]

Agreed. On top of that, Survival of the Fittest has changed to Survival of the Illest. Finally, since nobody`s willing to cut back on their standards of living for their fellow man, this overpopulation trend will go on for quite a while. Technological advances and the historical trend will see to it.
Next frontier, space.

22

You still are not using that cell bro.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco,

The key issue in your statement is about dying YOUNG.

If someone dies AFTER they have had all their children, then their death will not have much of an impact on the overpopulation issue.

Maybe you should consider the concept in this way… since everyone dies, the real factor in long-term population GROWTH is how many births there are per person before they die.

If on average every person alive has 1 child (each couple has 2 children), before dying, then the population will remain reasonably static, regardless of age of death.

However, if on average every person alive has 1.2 children, before dying, then the population will grow tremendously over time, regardless of age of death.

It is quite related to the concept of compound interest. Killing off the old people who are not going to have any more children, while indeed a large number, is not as significant as the long term effect of continuing growth.
[/quote]

Your argument is flawed because every person doesn’t and can’t have children.

Think about it this way; GUYS CAN’T HAVE CHILDREN! Dork!

You are implying a one person to one child ratio, which doesn’t exist because ONLY women can have babies. (Maybe your father hasn’t had that talk with you yet?)

So sport, you have two parents and they have 1.2 kids. They both then die. They have made room for 2 people, but only produced 1.2 people. That, my friend is a negative population growth.

This is why, one-cell man, that When they calculate future population growth they calculate it using an assumed lifespan (avg./mean current lifespan), BECAUSE IT DOES MATTER!

So one last time. Here it is as simple as I can make it without using crayons; the extent that generations overlap (being alive at the same time) is the extent that the population will grow or decrease. The less overlap, the lower the population growth. More overlap, the greater the growth.

Can you hear me now!

23

Lorisco,

Learn to read man. I said ON AVERAGE so that I could talk in simple numbers (hoping you could understand) instead of having to say 2 people have 2.4 children.

I even mentioned the couples issue just to preempt such stupidity on your part. Please, get real.

24

It might turn out to be a problem in my lifetime. The world is already eating more food than it produces. Look at a population graph of the world for the last 50 years and it describes an asymptote. The graph has to stop at some number or other- it can’t reach infinity, by definition. At that point, it will either level out or drop. Very fucking quickly. Find somewhere to hide now. And I hope I’m wrong.

25

Ummm… you guys think that Earth is anywhere near to overpopulated with human beings? LOL

Here is a hippie website that has taken the numbers and done some fun things with them. According to this, we will reach zero population growth around 2020. This, of course, means to them that we will become extinct. I prefer to think of it as reaching equilibrium with our current environment – just like every other friggin’ organism in the universe.

Our planet can only produce so much food, air, and water. Right now, geography/politics prevents us from really taking advantage of what Mother Nature has provided for us.

You take some couple million acres of rainforest, turn it into farmland. Rotate crops, use modern technology and agriculture techniques, continue to refine through science and experimentation = feed the entire planet. For example, look at any map of Brazil.

Y’all see that area between the Equator and the Tropic of Capricorn? Largest wetlands area (ten times the size of the florida everglades), perfect seasonal weather, good humidity… what more can you want? You can grow ANYTHING in there. Rice, soybeans (soy! The HORROR!), all kinds of stuff.

It’s so fashionable to say that we are our own worst enemy, and that we are fucking everything up with our planet. The truth is, if we really wanted to, and planned it properly, we could sustain a shitload more humans comfortably than we have hanging around right now.

Soylent Green my ass.

26

Thank you, that’s a really positive attitude. But;
The technology certainly exists. The political will however is sorely graphing lacking. For the moment, it is much more cost efficient to burn oil than to make fuel from alchohol or any of the other perfectly doable solutions. A situation like this has never happened before- how can we say what’s actually going to happen?

27

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

I recently read a Mark Steyn article that had quoted that 65% of Muslims polled in the U.K. wished to integrate Sharia law into the British system. If people with this mentality are the only ones having kids then it won’t be but a few generations off that our liberal republic governments are voted out.

Mike[/quote]

The benefit system and ease of defrauding the tax man by questionable business activites makes the UK the idea place for these people to take advantage of too.

28

The day you wave your magic wand and make everybody get along, that is the day we can actually do any of those lovely projects you describe.

Fat fuckin’ chance.

29

[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco,

Learn to read man. I said ON AVERAGE so that I could talk in simple numbers (hoping you could understand) instead of having to say 2 people have 2.4 children.

I even mentioned the couples issue just to preempt such stupidity on your part. Please, get real.[/quote]

Whatever vroom. The fact remains that lifespan is part of the calculation when determining population growth.

In any case, my main point, before you derailed it with your nonsense, was that peoples lifespan can be predicted by the number of risk behaviors they engage in. So the more risk behaviors the shorter the lifespan and the slower the population growth (assuming other factors remain constant).

30

Lorisco,

When you figure out the magic of compound interest, you’ll understand where I’m coming from.

The effect you are talking about is simply an overlap condition. It’s effect is that of a temporary simple multiplier. For example, perhaps there are 2.3 generations of people alive at some given point in time.

Sure, it’s part of the measure, but we didn’t grow to a population of billions because of our freakin lifespans. Our population has grown because ON AVERAGE, for a very long period of time, each person has had more than one child (or a couple has had more than two if you want to be silly about it).

Seriously, delve into compound interest and you’ll see what the long term factor really was and will continue to be.

31

[quote]vroom wrote:
The day you wave your magic wand and make everybody get along, that is the day we can actually do any of those lovely projects you describe.

Fat fuckin’ chance.[/quote]

Who pissed in your cheerios, vroom? I don’t even see how this is complicated to imagine.

All we need is the Death Star to keep everybody in line, and then we have peace throughout the galaxy.

Don’t we have the beginnings of a space station in orbit somewhere? What do you think they are doing up there?

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go beat up some Jedi. :slight_smile:

32

Horny robots!

Instead of inflatable or rubber ‘playmates’, put more scientists to work on artificial intelligence, and have the results look like Pam Anderson or Jessica Alba! Who’d want to dick plain Jane when a very-willing Pamela is yours for just $19.95 + shipping?

Hell, buy 3 and live like Hef!!
:slight_smile:
HH

33

Sigh, dude, don’t these things just lead to rebellions in the long run?

34

[quote]vroom wrote:
All we need is the Death Star to keep everybody in line, and then we have peace throughout the galaxy.

Sigh, dude, don’t these things just lead to rebellions in the long run?[/quote]

and that means war. Best population control method ever. (ok, so I am joking, but that is one of the listed benefits of war)

35

I move for the mass consumption of illegal drugs.

That would mean no more war- everybody would be far too hooked on drugs to bother with fighting each other.
Also no more overpopulation- those who could not handle cocaine would not be able to attract women, and therefore be unable to reproduce.
Also no more pollution- People on weed would not be able to hold down a steady job long enough to pollute.
Also no more weakness- Those who weren’t aggressive enough could take ketamine before they worked out.
And finally, no more stupidity- The stupid people would take far too many drugs when they were too young, thus ridding the world of their idiocy.

36

[quote]vroom wrote:
Sigh, dude, don’t these things just lead to rebellions in the long run?[/quote]

LOL Well played, vroom. The Force is strong in you.

37

[quote]David_Wise wrote:
I move for the mass consumption of illegal drugs.
[/quote]

I’m sorry, but with my weed-addled brain I keep hearing “BRING US A… SHRUBBERY!!!” every time I look at your avatar.

38

Awesome :smiley:
I dearly love monty python.

39

Of course eventually we will outgrow the planet but, eventually I also think they will start regulating the amound of children someone can have because they regulate everything else we can do. Also there is still plenty of land left around the world but I think the world will blow up themselves before its ever a problem.

40

[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco,

When you figure out the magic of compound interest, you’ll understand where I’m coming from.

The effect you are talking about is simply an overlap condition. It’s effect is that of a temporary simple multiplier. For example, perhaps there are 2.3 generations of people alive at some given point in time.

Sure, it’s part of the measure, but we didn’t grow to a population of billions because of our freakin lifespans. Our population has grown because ON AVERAGE, for a very long period of time, each person has had more than one child (or a couple has had more than two if you want to be silly about it).

Seriously, delve into compound interest and you’ll see what the long term factor really was and will continue to be.[/quote]

Vroom, compound interest doesn’t apply as it is a constant. Lifespan is not. If everyone started dyeing at age 20, assuming the same birth rate. We would have a population estimate in the future that would decrease until the birth rate increase to adjust for it.