Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Easy Bakes

Population 7 Billion

129 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

In my opinion, there should be a "one-child policy" worldwide, as well as better health education and heathcare. The earth can't support an unlimited number of people. It's time countries around the world take action to reverse this. This world is already too crowded and unless governemnents do something, it is going to get worse. I read the overpopulation is one cause of poverty and shortages of water and food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: nathanthemayor

In my opinion, there should be a "one-child policy" worldwide...quote>

47.gif

Well that's your opinion, but I think that's a horrible idea...it reminds me of a book series I actually read(34.gif) called "The Shadow Children Series" and each title started out with "Among the..." where it was illegal in some country to have a third child and that there was a "Population Police" that would find and execute 3rd-children and use propaganda on people saying that famines were "Their fault!" and stuff like that. Of course in the book the characters were trying to fight this and had a resistance.

Any way, I just don't like the idea of that and I really doubt the amount of children a person has would affect povertry and food shortages. To me a one-child policy sounds immoral.

Aside from that, cool how the earth is now around 7 Billion. I thought the population would be larger than that but eh "Small World" huh? 3.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a one-child-only policy would be the best option. I would rather see an effective campaign to educate the masses on the implications of having litters of children, and couple that with a birth control distribution program. People don't like being told they can only have one child legally, so instead, cause them to make the decision to have 1 or 2, as opposed to 5 or 6, themselves.

Also, the world population growth rate is supposed to level off by 2100. http://www.overpopulation.net/slowing.htm

That many people will still be a strain on the planet, but in that respect, I'm most in favor of developing new methods to live sustainably. Of course, all of this has go very far to have any effect. We can't just do a little here and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you educate the masses in the UK on the prospects of having a litter of children you can't afford, the outcome would be disastrous.... (people would realise the government would give them more than enough to provide for thier children and even pay for an annual holiday.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one child policy is just a bad idea. Nobody should be told how many children they should have. It's a human's biological purpose to reproduce so we don't die out... China is going to have a problem when their population is mostly men because families are choosing not to have daughters.

Most of the population in developed nations is stable/stabilizing. Some nations have been having negative population growth (like Russia). Last year was the first time in 15 years where their population actually grew. It's in the undeveloped nations where population growth is high because people are uneducated about birth control or women have no control over their lives and are forced to have many children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot regulate reproduction by laws and rules, but only by education and upgrading the living conditions in some countries.  There are still places in this world where if you want children to carry on the family you need to have as many as you can because most of them will never live to see sexual maturity.

If you haven't really looked at some of the pooer countries, disease takes out many, many children before the age of six. 

Starvation get a fairly large number as well.  The earth can produce enough food for everyone alive today, but western countries often subsidize farmers to not grow crops because it would mess up the prices.  Until world food distribution and production is controlled so that it is distributed at cost to everyone, people will simply be in want.  Foodstuffs should be removed from the commodity exchanges, and bidding up the price of food should be some kind of major offense.

The other thing that needs fixing very badly is the tendencies of some countries to allow dictators to get into power and rape the resources of the country for their private gain.  Foreign aid needs to have full audit and transparency, and if a country's government won't go along with this, it is time for sanctions, including cutting off all aid.  The revolution that follows will remove the idiots.  Most dictators get into power through the complacency of the people being governed.  This is another good argument for a world-wide campaign for literacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the overpopulation is not a direct cause of many of the world's problems it is the most encompassing issue to compound our problems. Most of the problems would be closer to manageable if we had less people.

I shall continue cheering for diseases and ingnoring the exploitation and violence that the human population inflicts on itself until the population is corrected; this is unless of course an issue becomes something that inconvieniences me rather than terminates my existence outright in which case I shall be cross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not like the policy, whats the USA population, I know it can handle a lot more but for the other countries that have a billon in population like India and China and Island countries they may need that policy beacause it'e going to get hard to feed and house all those people but thats if they can't handel all those people.

When it comes to rising population the world we need to save on wooded lands and farm land to house and feed the people. We need to slow down on spreading out and stop with the big houses and hogging all the land space that could of been used for farming, creating jobs, or th put more houses on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every ecosystem has what biologist call a "carrying capacity", resource wise no one knows how long our species can continue its exponential grow. The only thing that is known is when we overextend ourselves past that capacity the population will plummet when resources become scarce. If its one thing we humans don't know it is moderation. So reproduce like rabbits everyone, and slingshot this population back into manageable numbers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States of America has the land and prosperity to support a population increase. Women churning out babies in third world countries as fast as the factories churn out junk is bad thing that is very different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had this debate so many times :/

The way it generally works is that in pre-industrialized, agrarian societies large families are common because children are useful for labor, child mortality is high, and a large family is necessary as a support network when you are poor. This balances out with the fact that death rates are so high and in developing countries sometimes a large labor force fuels economic expansion.

Then, in our modern society, people have fewer kids out of choice as well. Raising children is expensive while children do not work, and a better standard of living is to be had with a smaller family. This is fine because things also balance out. Sometimes there is negative population growth, like in Japan, but I personally think this will also  fix itself somehow since nature tends to some kind of equilibrium.

Where the largely TEMPORARY problem of "overpopulation" emerges is when a society is between the two stages, generally during some kind of industrial revolution. This was the kind of time that Malthus observed when he came up with his theories. Charles Dickens wrote about this as well. In Victorian era Britain the problem of orphans living on the streets and people coming in from the countryside to look for work in the city and bringing their families with them creating overcrowded cities was really the same phenomenon happening today in Asia and Africa. I would dare say even that London and New York were once the Shanghai and Sao Paulo of their time.

Sometimes crises could happen with real immediecy-when child labor laws took effect all of a sudden many people could not support their family or themselves when their children couldn't bring home income from work and you'd have great uphevel. At the same time, when the problem really became acute was the time when women started to stand up for themselves to gain rights and family and morals changed. The invention of modern contraception was born out of necessity.

Luckily the awkward phase doesn't last forever. and fertility rates follow a statistical curve that goes up and down, and the point on

The way I understand it the general consensus among people who study demographics and sustainability issues is that depending on how quickly the world can develop and how fast new technologies that conserve resources and reduce pollution can be deployed, things will hopefully work out fine.

I want to be optimistic.

Really the only intolerable thing is are the ultra-conservative people in any culture who believe that "god" wants them to have tons of kids or my favorite "take back the land the white colonists stole, abortion and homosexuality is a western conspiracy"... Even when its not economically or socially responsible or even rational they are brainwashed. There's an obvious sinister alterior motive to this, something that always came into play in the Old Testament, where people have lots of kids who they raise to take over the other "tribe" and steal their land, then have large families of their own, etc.  Adapt this to a modern context and you can still see fragments of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is nothing new under the sun."  Ecclesiastes.

This was written more than 2000 years ago, and it remains true.  The current population "crisis" is of  our making, but we are not the final arbiters of the solution.  Anyone who has ever made yeast bread knows why the yeast dies.  This is even more emphasized in the brewing business.  Natural processes dictate that no organism can exist in an environment of its own waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with that quote. While history repeats itself and many things have similarities to things in the past. New ideas and objects are created all the time. Improvement and change done to preexisting things can be considered new things if the newest version is nothing like the original version. Is a laptop an abacus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: nathanthemayor

In my opinion, there should be a "one-child policy" worldwide...quote>

A few problems with that policy:

  • "One child" policies lead to infanticide and girls tend to bear the brunt of this problem.  Not only does this do major damage to efforts to promote gender equality, it also causes major problems for the survival of our species by destroying the appropriate gender ratio.
  • Research has suggested that shrinking populations lead to unstable economies, which tends to have a chilling effect on human progress.
I read the overpopulation is one cause of poverty and shortages of water and food.quote>

The world has ample supplies of food and water.  The problem is we do not have the infrastructure in place to get it everywhere it is needed.

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

I disagree with that quote. While history repeats itself and many things have similarities to things in the past. New ideas and objects are created all the time. Improvement and change done to preexisting things can be considered new things if the newest version is nothing like the original version. Is a laptop an abacus?quote>

You're taking the quote too literally. 2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not for a one-child policy, nor against it. 7 billion people is not too many people, but it's too many people, if we all want a western living standard. Therefore, it isn't a bad idea to start discussing how many children it is necessary to get. 1-2 children pr. familly is the ideal, because it doesn't make the population rise, but keeps it at a steady level.

The biggest problem is in the countries where the living standard is very low, and people are starving, and the child death rate is high. The rich countries should therefore help those countries with education, so that each woman doesn't get 7 children or more. Aid only helps if the population falls or stays at the same level, not if the population is getting larger.

In the specific issue with China's one-child policy, I do understand why China made one. The population was out of control, and it was hard for the country to get food and water to everyone. They couldn't educate everyone either, and with a population that large, they knew that they wouldn't become a big economy. The government could see, that the best solution would be to get a smaller population, so they made a one-child policy.  There are still problems in China, but the worst population problems are gone, and today, China is the world's biggest economy (or at least about to be it), and they wouldn't have been where they are now, without the one-child policy.

At least ten spelling and grammar mistakes were made in what i just wrote, but please don't be too hard on me, since I'm pretty tired.2.gif

/ImVhOzzi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: hym

Research has suggested that shrinking populations lead to unstable economies, which tends to have a chilling effect on human progress.

quote>

Ah, was wondering if someone would bring this up.

No matter what happens, at one stage, we're going to run out of space, and the population is going to stop growing/suffer a massive die out anyway.

Why not start now, while we still have untouched wilderness left, still have space to do things with, still have resources to have a good standard of living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few problems with that policy:
 
  • "One child" policies lead to infanticide and girls tend to bear the brunt of this problem.  Not only does this do major damage to efforts to promote gender equality, it also causes major problems for the survival of our species by destroying the appropriate gender ratio.
  • Research has suggested that shrinking populations lead to unstable economies, which tends to have a chilling effect on human progress
quote>

Well the decision of world leaders is that or overcrowding(Nobody likes that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Original Poster
  • Originally posted by: sneakeypete

    Originally posted by: hym

    Research has suggested that shrinking populations lead to unstable economies, which tends to have a chilling effect on human progress.

    quote>

    Ah, was wondering if someone would bring this up.

    No matter what happens, at one stage, we're going to run out of space, and the population is going to stop growing/suffer a massive die out anyway.

    Why not start now, while we still have untouched wilderness left, still have space to do things with, still have resources to have a good standard of living.quote>

    but thiers not going to be another mass die out. At least not one due to diease or famine.

    these last couple flu  "epidemics" they  warn us about never come to pass anymore because they are very quickly

    discovered and their spread is arrested before it can spread far. 100 years ago the H1N1 would have probabaly killed 1/2 of central mexico. No so today.

    Barbarossa

     

    I'd be interested in knowing more about this research (sources), because I think that it is biased in a certain direction.  A shrinking populace certainly causes problems, especially in a social-style government (I'm thinking # of taxpayers and lack of funding).  At the same time, a booming population is only good for so long before it, too, becomes a problem (I'm thinking strain on everything from food to traffic congestion).  Both extremes are bad, so singling out one side of it is, well, one-sided.

    The real challenge we face is achieving a balance, being more responsible with our resources, and planning for the future (not immediate gratification).quote>

    You just need to look at  Detroit to see that in effect. And to some extent New Orleans after Katrina ( i dont think thier population has returned to pre Katrina levels yet.

    droping population= less tax revenue= cuting of city services like fire and police which only makes the problem spiral even faster as people leave the depressed areas, who wants to live in a neighborhood were 4of 5 houses are boarded up?

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    A few points I have to address here:

    Originally posted by: nathanthemayor

    In my opinion, there should be a "one-child policy" worldwide, as well as better health education and heathcare. The earth can't support an unlimited number of people. It's time countries around the world take action to reverse this. This world is already too crowded and unless governemnents do something, it is going to get worse. I read the overpopulation is one cause of poverty and shortages of water and food.quote>

    There is not and cannot be such a thing as a worldwide policy, regardless of what it is about. We are a world of many different varied nations, and the instant one doesn't go along with the idea (which inevitably at least one will), the worldwide policy is not.

    Thus, a reproductive restriction policy (besides being a human rights violation), would only serve to hand the future of the world to the hands of the nations that do not adopt it. That's how the game works, folks: keep up with the rate at which others are reproducing or be crowded out.

    Ultimately, we don't need to take action to reverse anything. Things will eventually balance out through perfectly natural mechanisms.

    Besides, how much control do you really think we have over the situation? It is downright hubristic to think that we can control nature.

    Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

    The earth can produce enough food for everyone alive today, but western countries often subsidize farmers to not grow crops because it would mess up the prices.  Until world food distribution and production is controlled so that it is distributed at cost to everyone, people will simply be in want.  Foodstuffs should be removed from the commodity exchanges, and bidding up the price of food should be some kind of major offense.quote>

    Ah yes, totalitarian food production and distribution. Worked wonders for the Soviets, didn't it?

    And I'm sure we all want nothing more than to live on rations rather than being free to pick out our own sources of nourishment, really. 30.gif

    Originally posted by: JayStimson

    The real problem is that it's the stupid people that are breeding the fastest.quote>

    Indeed. Intelligence becomes a maladaptive trait that way.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an Account  

    Sign up to join our friendly community. It's easy!  

    Register a New Account

    Sign In  

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

    Sign in to follow this  

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×

    Help Keep Simtropolis Online, Open & Free!

    stexcollection-header.png

    Would you be able to help us catch up after a bit of a shortfall?

    We had a small shortfall last month. Your donation today would help us catch up for this month.

    Make a Donation, Get a Gift!

    We need to continue to raise enough money each month to pay for expenses which includes hardware, bandwidth, software licenses, support licenses and other necessary 3rd party costs.

    By way of a "Thank You" gift, we'd like to send you our STEX Collector's DVD. It's some of the best buildings, lots, maps and mods collected for you over the years. Check out the STEX Collections for more info.

    Each donation helps keep Simtropolis online, open and free!

    Thank you for reading and enjoy the site!

    More About STEX Collections