I have faith we can figure *many* issues, but the one not yet mentioned is the mass-extinction currently underway. I worry we're going to hit a sudden foodchain collapse somewhere (the sea) or a sudden surprise pollenator disappears (e.g. bees), and we could be hit very very hard. That's where our population and our effect on the planet could come back to bite us, IMO.
Maybe instead of figuring out how to feed more people just enough garbage to sustain a life we should be figuring out ways to control overpopulation. Sounds cruel, but I think maintaining sustainable growth is just as important to helping people improve their quality of life and prevent starvation and suffering as anything else, if not more important.
In some cases yes, in some cases it definitely saves money. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661 So it looks like it actually is about even in the long run. Even though the director of the CBO said it will raise costs overall he admits that there are parts of it that will save money.
This overpopulation argument is so 1970s. Haven't we figured out by now that by the time nations become industrialized, we surround ourselves with too many do-dads to worry about needless f---ing and the resulting overpopulation? Isn't Western Europe's population stagnant? I mean, we've got the GPS and we've got the text chatting and we've got the HD and we've got the role-playing games and we've got the professional sports teams and we've got the anti-lock brakes and we've got the internets. "Here in my car, I feel safest of all / I can lock all my doors / It's the only way to live, in cars?" I mean, we've got the internets! (work-inappropriate): Spoiler Uh, nevermind. Forced, lottery-selected sterilization it is.
[sarcasm] See . . . we have to be able to live like we are. . .so your solution does not work nope. . the only acceptable solution is less people!!! [/sarcasm] Rocket River
Great point, and I don't have an answer for that. Having not kept up with the science, I don't know, have we figured out what has happened do the bees? I agree that we couldn't live without them without some major new development, and I would fear that it would take a major famine to come up with that development. I hope we can figure out why the bees are dying and stop it. On your point about the seas: I'm not sure what your getting at, but I don't think there is any major food source from the seas that we can't get by farming. It's amazing what developments relatively poor people in China, Vietnam, Korea, and even South Texas have made in farming shrimp, crawfish, oysters, and many, many species of fish. (All taste better wild-caught, but that's a preference.) My opinion is that the sea life is more important as a CO2 sink than a food source, and I say that as a fisherman who is angry about the corn farmers in the Midwest creating a dead zone in the Gulf.
Even if the assertion is true, there's no other rational way to go about it than to begin with those who use the most resources. That's probably us. The truth is that there are enough resources for everyone to live comfortably. I think you guys are finding what a free-market economy does is not so great in the long-run. The top 1% get richer and richer. This will begin by sucking resources away from those who are least capable of keeping them. Then it will move closer and closer till the top 1% are much further than the next 1%. Africa doesn't need much. America's income can feed all of impoverish Africa easily. EASILY. The problem is not overpopulation. The problem is overconcentration of resources. It is, in fact, a lack of responsible and deserved wealth distribution. That's not to say we have to become communists. That means there is a certain amount of money which, once you reach, you should be ashamed not to give away. I personally believe that number is somewhere arounf 2.5% of every adult's disposable income. Though I don't agree with all the rules of Zakat (such as it's only for "Muslims"), I think the system works. if every single person does this, we would be fine. Once central global charity fund where every person has to pay 2.5% of disposable income and then re-distributed to a a group of people. You need a global committee for this fund with equal voting rights and clear laws. The details can be worked out, but the key factor is everyone's got to chip in, no one can pay extra into this one, and it is governed in an equal/transparent/international way. So $60,000,000,000,000 * 2.5% = 1,500,000,000,000. Even half of that is 0.75 trillion US Dollars per year. That's the bare minimum. There are just over 1 billion starving people inthe world. This plan would give each one of them $750 per year, or $62.5 per month. Believe me, $62.5 will feed them for a month. As unrealistic as that sounds, it still indicates to me that a simple plan can get all this done. But it's not getting done. I don't expect the rich to shell out tons of money. I expect everyone to do their part. It gets tiring. When there's definitely a way for us to achieve this, we still don't do anything about it. It's not till you're looking a starving person in the face that you realize how big this problem is. FYI, assuming $3500 per month disposable income, 2.5% comes out to about $87. How we are not ashamed of this is beyond me. We are really horrible people.
Agreed. People have way too many kids that they can not afford... And the result of that is they get in massive debt/dont pay bills and government assistance kicks in... If you are in a commited relationship and you are living paycheck to paycheck do all of us a favor and use birth control.....common sense to me....
The danger of your plan is that it may bring about a continued and lasting dependence on foreign aid - which is not what is in Africa's best long-term interests. I don't know much about the region, but I assume that bad governance, poor infrastructure, inability to enforce laws, etc. are the main impediments to development.
No, it's laziness. We dont give cash to anyone. We give seeds, soil, training, farms, etc.. There's a way around all of this. Plus, if those countries are represented, then they will comply. This is not foreign aid. This money does not belong to a country or a government. It belongs to starving people. We waste a lot of money dealing with corrupt governments. We need to get past that. Stop giving money to corrupt people and stop giving money to people expecting something in return. It is our duty to help, there is no payback. The payback is that someone is not starving. The WTO is awesome at serving its own interests and representing a select group of people. Screw that. The starving people of the world should not bear the burden of a corrupt government. The average person in these countries has nothing to do with the government, why should they suffer for it?
Some scientists believe that the weight of all those people in Asia and Africa will cause the earth to be become unbalanced and spin off it's axis. If that's not scary enough, wait until they send 4.34 billion people to their coast and have them all jump up and down at the same time. That's right, they'll send a tidal wave right at us. Not only that, but in 2023, during the Southern Hemisphere summer, there are plans for all of Venezuela to start running in the opposite direction of the rotation of the earth. This will effectively stop the rotation of the earth leaving North America in perpetual winter. After all the attention to global warming, we will be completely unprepared. Damn you, Chavez! I'm pretty sure all of this is true.
(1) I'm not sure either, but I'm pretty sure they've isolated the problem to a virus that infects the bees. (2) Yeah, I don't know much about what different nations do for food, but I guess (just like with bees), the interconnectedness of things could really bite us in the ass. e.g. "who new plankton was needed to ultimately support X on the land," and so forth. The sea was probably a bad example though.
Using the ocean as a CO<sub>2</sub> sink is actually a bit of a problem in itself. It acidifies the water which screws up a whole bunch of little things like the ability of sea creatures to get calcium for their shells, when you factor in the run off of fertilizer as you mentioned and you potentially end up with diatom blooms (red tides). <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5cqCvcX7buo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5cqCvcX7buo&hl=en&fs=1&start=147" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
If you feel so strongly, you could knock yourself off. All 'Overpopulasts" should show their commitment for the cause.
Really the downside of overpopulation is two-fold in that it makes the average person's life worse (but of course, a few individuals benefit) while you also have a negative environmental impact (global warming, pollution, declining fish stocks, etc). I think sustainability is still a relatively new concept, and unfortunately, might never really be something that acted upon. One thing we've learned about our planet and human global cooperation - it doesn't exist. Things don't get done unless it's a crisis. And that really means until a mass amount of human life or masses amount of money are at stake. I think we're headed for 10 billion people and will go far beyond that.
Human race has been proven resourceful. Overpopulation is a relative term. In every critical stage of history when human faced overpopulation problem, the problem was always solved either by discovery of new land or new technology. I for one remain optimistic about the future of this planet.
