PDA

View Full Version : Discussion on how to solve "overpopulation"




John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 12:25 PM
I've seen overpopulation mentioned in a few threads lately and thought it would be interesting to dicuss solutions related to supporting more life rather than the eugenicist population control arguments.

To start the discussion I will post in whole a post I made on another forum in May of last year. Back then I didn't know nearly as much as I do now, but I feel it is still a good way to start.

My post:

I merely said if managed properly. And i was under the impression we were talking about humans living on Earth for thousands of more years, I assume that our technology would be better by then.

Unless we do colonize other planets then I don't see why we should limit how many children someone can have. That's communism. I know it sounds contradictory but at least if we were already populating other worlds then we can say "If you don't like only being allowed to have only 1 kid then go to Mars". You can't just take away a person's right to have children due to overpopulation. That's equivalent to telling someone they can only drive a certain amount of miles because we have terrible cars. Fix the problem instead of putting band aids on it.

50 billion was just a number I threw out there. And "if properly managed" is a very broad statement. Just making something up on the fly (that is assuming technological advancement in the future) :

To support that many people on Earth we could be more efficient with land use. Make massively tall apartment buildings that can house 250,000 people per building. Make massively tall business buildings. This would cut down on the need for half of a city's land to be used for business and roads. That in itself shrinks the land use of a typical 250,000 citizen city to what? 2-3% of current? Condense all the crop farms into several much larger farms. Grow all food animals factory style. We've just reduced land use to about 20% of normal.

We could also find ways to live underwater in the oceans. Get rid of cars that pollute the air. Mine other planets/moons/asteroids for materials we need. Invent technology that cleans the air.

Assuming we had the technology to do all this it would work. If we are still here in the next few thousand years there is no excuse for us not having that kind of technology. And even if we are speaking on today's terms I still say no we should not limit or reduce the Earth's population. We should find ways to do what I listed or similar things. It can be done, we just have to figure out how.

and:

Finding another planet is the best idea though :)

Which was in direct reply to:

There has to be a limit to the number of people Earth can support, regardless of how well the resources are managed. As has been stated already in this thread, (and is somewhat obvious) the materials on our planet are finite. At some point there will be no more resources, however well we eke out and recycle the consumables. Besides, who would want to live in a society whose resorces are so thinly spread everyone is in need and nobody is comfortable?

Surely the argument for managing this planet is not so much how well it's done but by limiting the number of humans?

Or finding another planet, lol!

I am highly interested in hearing your ideas :)

donnay
04-02-2012, 12:45 PM
The thing is, there really is no over population. That is the globalist propaganda. It has been said, just in this country alone, we can fit all of the American people in the state of Texas. One acre of land (for individuals and families) and there would still be room to add more.

kill the banks
04-02-2012, 12:49 PM
mythology

Sam I am
04-02-2012, 12:51 PM
I've seen overpopulation mentioned in a few threads lately and thought it would be interesting to dicuss solutions related to supporting more life rather than the eugenicist population control arguments.

To start the discussion I will post in whole a post I made on another forum in May of last year. Back then I didn't know nearly as much as I do now, but I feel it is still a good way to start.

My post:


and:


Which was in direct reply to:


I am highly interested in hearing your ideas :)

Stopping Overpopulation is easy.

Wear Condoms

John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 12:56 PM
I understand overpopulation is a myth. Just thought it would be interesting to hear others ideas on how we would fit more and more people on Earth as our population continues to grow. Especially a way to do that wouldn't result in a tyrannical police state. We could be talking hundreds or thousands of years, but eventually we need to face this problem in a real way.

Sam I am
04-02-2012, 12:56 PM
The thing is, there really is no over population. That is the globalist propaganda. It has been said, just in this country alone, we can fit all of the American people in the state of Texas, on one acre of land and there would still be room to add more.

Holy Run-on Sentence Batman!!! I don't even know what you're trying to claim.

First off, I'd accept that we can fit all of the American people into the State of Texas. Now whether we'd be able to fit all the farmland, facilities, factories, and all the other things needed to support us all is another story.

Also, you CANNOT fit the entire population of Texas in one acre. I don't know how big you think an acre is, but It's smaller than a football field.

John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 12:57 PM
The thing is, there really is no over population. That is the globalist propaganda. It has been said, just in this country alone, we can fit all of the American people in the state of Texas, on one acre of land and there would still be room to add more.

I'd be highly interested in hearing how that would be done.

John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 12:57 PM
Holy Run-on Sentence Batman!!! I don't even know what you're trying to claim.

First off, I'd accept that we can fit all of the American people into the State of Texas. Now whether we'd be able to fit all the farmland, facilities, factories, and all the other things needed to support us all is another story.

Also, you CANNOT fit the entire population of Texas in one acre. I don't know how big you think an acre is, but It's smaller than a football field.

I used to live on 1 1/2 acres, it's not very big.

Edit: 43,560 square feet.

rockerrockstar
04-02-2012, 01:05 PM
I do think over population is a huge problem. It will become even a larger issue in the future. Just look at traffic in the cities to see that it is an issue. We do have undeveloped land in the USA but people don't want to move there they would rather live in the cities so it seems. People go where the jobs are. So unless more jobs and cities pop up in undeveloped areas we probably will not move there.

The more people there are the less each person can have because there is a finite amount of resources. If there is less people then you have more resources to divide up. Wars are fought over resources.

I am concerned that in nature if a population gets out of control then nature takes care of it. If we let the population continue to get larger and larger I am worried that nature may do something horrible. Maybe a new plague will come to lower the population it is hard to say. We also will destroy more of the environment with the larger populations.

Anyways, the real question is how do we control the population morally? I disagree with anyone that says over population is not an issue.

Sam I am
04-02-2012, 01:09 PM
I do think over population is a huge problem. It will become even a larger issue in the future. Just look at traffic in the cities to see that it is an issue. We do have undeveloped land in the USA but people don't want to move there they would rather live in the cities so it seems. People go where the jobs are. So unless more jobs and cities pop up in undeveloped areas we probably will not move there.

The more people there are the less each person can have because there is a finite amount of resources. If there is less people then you have more resources to divide up. Wars are fought over resources.

I am concerned that in nature if a population gets out of control then nature takes care of it. If we let the population continue to get larger and larger I am worried that nature may do something horrible. Maybe a new plague will come to lower the population it is hard to say. We also will destroy more of the environment with the larger populations.

Anyways, the real question is how do we control the population morally?

You misunderstand Nature. Nature isn't going to "make a plague" to reduce the population. The population is going to stop going up when we stop producing enough resources to support it.

John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 01:15 PM
I do think over population is a huge problem. It will become even a larger issue in the future. Just look at traffic in the cities to see that it is an issue. We do have undeveloped land in the USA but people don't want to move there they would rather live in the cities so it seems. People go where the jobs are. So unless more jobs and cities pop up in undeveloped areas we probably will not move there.

The more people there are the less each person can have because there is a finite amount of resources. If there is less people then you have more resources to divide up. Wars are fought over resources.

I am concerned that in nature if a population gets out of control then nature takes care of it. If we let the population continue to get larger and larger I am worried that nature may do something horrible. Maybe a new plague will come to lower the population it is hard to say. We also will destroy more of the environment with the larger populations.

Anyways, the real question is how do we control the population morally? I disagree with anyone that says over population is not an issue.

You can't and shouldn't. Period.

donnay
04-02-2012, 01:15 PM
Holy Run-on Sentence Batman!!! I don't even know what you're trying to claim.

First off, I'd accept that we can fit all of the American people into the State of Texas. Now whether we'd be able to fit all the farmland, facilities, factories, and all the other things needed to support us all is another story.

Also, you CANNOT fit the entire population of Texas in one acre. I don't know how big you think an acre is, but It's smaller than a football field.

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Sam I am
04-02-2012, 01:23 PM
According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Let's run with that model. How big is your actual townhouse and Where do you get the wood to build said townhouse? and how big would it actually be?

mczerone
04-02-2012, 01:24 PM
I do think over population is a huge problem. It will become even a larger issue in the future. Just look at traffic in the cities to see that it is an issue. We do have undeveloped land in the USA but people don't want to move there they would rather live in the cities so it seems. People go where the jobs are. So unless more jobs and cities pop up in undeveloped areas we probably will not move there.

The more people there are the less each person can have because there is a finite amount of resources. If there is less people then you have more resources to divide up. Wars are fought over resources.

I am concerned that in nature if a population gets out of control then nature takes care of it. If we let the population continue to get larger and larger I am worried that nature may do something horrible. Maybe a new plague will come to lower the population it is hard to say. We also will destroy more of the environment with the larger populations.

Anyways, the real question is how do we control the population morally? I disagree with anyone that says over population is not an issue.

You control your own population. You have a family whose size you have the resources to support, and you don't expand before you know you have the resources.

It's kinda harsh, but you don't get to control how many kids other people have. Even if they can't support the ones they already have, they might still have more.

Welfare programs are the ultimate in population boosts. They give an incentive to have more kids, often by directly increasing payments to the families. Now those resources have to come from somewhere - and today they come from the state. The state isn't about to say "stop having kids, we're out of welfare resources." They want more dependents, they want a larger voting base, they want a higher population.


The problem isn't with the population, the problem is with resource management. Take the state out of it, and you could have as big a family as you wanted, you could subsidize your neighbors to have larger families, you could even pay them not to have kids if you wanted. But you can't control their reproduction anymore than you can control how they feed or care for themselves.

John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 01:28 PM
You control your own population. You have a family whose size you have the resources to support, and you don't expand before you know you have the resources.

It's kinda harsh, but you don't get to control how many kids other people have. Even if they can't support the ones they already have, they might still have more.

Welfare programs are the ultimate in population boosts. They give an incentive to have more kids, often by directly increasing payments to the families. Now those resources have to come from somewhere - and today they come from the state. The state isn't about to say "stop having kids, we're out of welfare resources." They want more dependents, they want a larger voting base, they want a higher population.


The problem isn't with the population, the problem is with resource management. Take the state out of it, and you could have as big a family as you wanted, you could subsidize your neighbors to have larger families, you could even pay them not to have kids if you wanted. But you can't control their reproduction anymore than you can control how they feed or care for themselves.

Let's start mining asteroids.

mczerone
04-02-2012, 01:31 PM
Let's start mining asteroids.

"Let's" = Let us.

Who's "us"?

If you want to mine asteroids, go right ahead! Don't force me into your cockamamie scheme.

donnay
04-02-2012, 01:33 PM
Let's run with that model. How big is your actual townhouse and Where do you get the wood to build said townhouse? and how big would it actually be?

SIGH...You assume that there would be no trees, eh?

C'mon, are you serious?

InTradePro
04-02-2012, 01:41 PM
overpopulation is a myth based on fear of not having enough.

donnay
04-02-2012, 01:45 PM
overpopulation is a myth based on fear of not having enough.

Yep, it is the governments who impede the people from pursuit of happiness. People starve due to governments, not because they cannot or will not feed themselves.

The next step for governments to come in and regulate will be water...we'll hear all the hype about how there is not enough fresh water for us to drink.

The Gold Standard
04-02-2012, 01:50 PM
There is no such problem. Eventually there will be a problem though if we insist on government control of the world's resources. If we had a free society it wouldn't be long before we were colonizing other planets and making the most of the resources we have.

Sam I am
04-02-2012, 01:56 PM
SIGH...You assume that there would be no trees, eh?

C'mon, are you serious?

okay, Your 33/33 square just happens to be in a forest. Do you have enough wood on your property to build your house?

John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 02:00 PM
"Let's" = Let us.

Who's "us"?

If you want to mine asteroids, go right ahead! Don't force me into your cockamamie scheme.

I didn't imply the use of force. Lol.

PatriotOne
04-02-2012, 02:16 PM
okay, Your 33/33 square just happens to be in a forest. Do you have enough wood on your property to build your house?

Donnay can correct me if wrong, but I am pretty sure she is not suggesting everyone in the world move to Texas and claim their 33x33 square and build a townhouse. It's just a visual representation of the worlds population vs. land mass. Not a working model of her idea of utopia.

donnay
04-02-2012, 02:31 PM
Donnay can correct me if wrong, but I am pretty sure she is not suggesting everyone in the world move to Texas and claim their 33x33 square and build a townhouse. It's just a visual representation of the worlds population vs. land mass. Not a working model of her idea of utopia.


Thank you!! I does become tiresome to have to spoon feed people common sense. :rolleyes:

Sam I am
04-02-2012, 02:31 PM
Donnay can correct me if wrong, but I am pretty sure she is not suggesting everyone in the world move to Texas and claim their 33x33 square and build a townhouse. It's just a visual representation of the worlds population vs. land mass. Not a working model of her idea of utopia.

Well, if you want to skip the escalation, than let's do so. Let's say you had Football field's worth of land, and the world population lived in the space of 50 Texases(a little bit larger than the US)

do you have enough room for farmland to support just you, the wood to build your house, your proportional portion of the factories that make your goods, terrain to drill your oil, roads, storage for your car, and other possessions, landfills, and store front, and living space.

Would you have enough if you had 2 football fields? 3? 5?

Would you be able to make all your desert, mountains, and tundra airable?

Phil
04-02-2012, 02:31 PM
I'd say China's method is pretty effective.

John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 02:32 PM
I'd say China's method is pretty effective.

:p

Not in a positive way though.

bolil
04-02-2012, 02:40 PM
To deny the science of overpopulation is a fools errand, we may however be far from that point. If we unleash science and technology we may well be a million years from that point... or more. The question is do we value life, even though they say it all is going to end. Do we place enough value in our lives to want to leave good ones for the future? We don't necessarily need to make huge leaps forward in technology over-night we just need to get on the right track. Many of the investments we should make will not reap monetary returns in our lifetimes, is the psychic reward enough? It would be enough for some. Currently, i believe, the states of science and technology have been retarded so severely, that when we relieve their handicaps they would spring forward with he locomotive of suddenly revealed tension, and in our lives we would see a better world. Free Markets and Sound Money are the democracy of economics - The value of our dollar is as important as the value of our vote.

seraphson
04-02-2012, 03:03 PM
I think there is a fault in the proposition of fixing the overpopulation problem by finding ways to stuff more people per square mile of land.
I'm curious if humans are the only species that is inherently unable (or perhaps unwilling) to establish an equilibrium within its ecosystem.
I'm quickly reminded of the speech in The Matrix between Agent Smith and Morpheus found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOi6v5DD_1M).

I believe the problem isn't overpopulation; it's reaching sustainability and equilibrium.
My answer then on how to solve overpopulation would be to establish a world where we enable truly free markets and complete individual responsibility. If my guess is correct I think the natural course of action would lead to an eventual population "cap"; a point where society inherently maintains its population unless a new breakthrough occurs that enables a higher level of population and sustainability.
Solve the problem by taking completely different approach/path.
I don't see any particular advantages to having our population increase perpetually; I do however see many downsides.

bolil
04-02-2012, 03:07 PM
The only way we will even know if the world is overpopulated is to unleash science and technology. When the water runs out we will have a problem... and perhaps we are overpopulated. Eventually we WILL see diminished returns from the earth, at the expense of the future. If we are actually overpopulated, I wouldn't worry, nature will intervene.

donnay
04-02-2012, 03:12 PM
To deny the science of overpopulation is a fools errand, we may however be far from that point. If we unleash science and technology we may well be a million years from that point... or more. The question is do we value life, even though they say it all is going to end. Do we place enough value in our lives to want to leave good ones for the future? We don't necessarily need to make huge leaps forward in technology over-night we just need to get on the right track. Many of the investments we should make will not reap monetary returns in our lifetimes, is the psychic reward enough? It would be enough for some. Currently, i believe, the states of science and technology have been retarded so severely, that when we relieve their handicaps they would spring forward with he locomotive of suddenly revealed tension, and in our lives we would see a better world. Free Markets and Sound Money are the democracy of economics - The value of our dollar is as important as the value of our vote.


We are being dictated to by technocrats! Over population is nothing more than psychopaths wanting it all for themselves and they want a smaller population to control and work for what they need--nothing more.

bolil
04-02-2012, 03:16 PM
I agree, we need to stop their ability to manipulate.

John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 03:19 PM
We are being dictated to by technocrats! Over population is nothing more than psychopaths wanting it all for themselves and they want a smaller population to control and work for what they need--nothing more.

This.

bolil
04-02-2012, 03:28 PM
Well, government is the tool of the psychopaths amost always is.... time to change i guess.

eduardo89
04-02-2012, 03:36 PM
There is no overpopulation, just inefficient use of land and resources.

John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 03:42 PM
I never should've said overpopulation. Remarkable how people can't focus on the actual idea of the post.

GrahamUK
04-02-2012, 03:49 PM
Let's start mining asteroids.

one word...

MOONBASE

awake
04-02-2012, 03:51 PM
Overpopulation: the idea there is always too many of the wrong kinds of people. Who gets to decide this?

Overpopulation is not a problem to a free society with property rights. It is always a problem to statists and totalitarians who want the human race penned and locked up.

The loaded premise 'that it be solved' is falling for a trick: confirming it even exists as a problem that needs to be solved, and by the state no less.

John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 03:58 PM
Overpopulation: the idea there is always too many of the wrong kinds of people.

Overpopulation is not a problem to a free society with property rights. It is always a problem to statists and totalitarians who want the human race penned and locked up.

The loaded premise 'that it be solved' is falling for a trick: confirming it even exists as a problem that needs to be solved, and by the state no less.

It's completely impossible for there to eventually be too many people on the planet for us to sustain ourselves? The planet won't get crowded?

You can only pour so much water into a one gallon jar....eventually you have to figure out what to do with the rest of the water.

John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 03:59 PM
one word...

MOONBASE

YES!

awake
04-02-2012, 04:03 PM
It's completely impossible for there to eventually be too many people on the planet for us to sustain ourselves? The planet won't get crowded?

You can only pour so much water into a one gallon jar....eventually you have to figure out what to do with the rest of the water.

The potential does exist, granted. But worrying about something that will possibly take place many thousands of years from now, if ever, is futile. Let me solve for x on this; complete and non-bridgeable property rights solve it.

The entire population of the US could fit very snugly in Texas. Where is the problem?

KingNothing
04-02-2012, 04:10 PM
Stopping overpopulation is like stopping a your neighbor from painting the sun purple, then reaching up and eating the moon.

The entire premise is flawed. There's nothing to stop. Overpopulation is a myth.

KingNothing
04-02-2012, 04:12 PM
The potential does exist, granted. But worrying about something that will possibly take place many thousands of years from now, if ever, is futile. Let me solve for x on this; complete and non-bridgeable property rights solve it.

The entire population of the US could fit very snugly in Texas. Where is the problem?


If the state of Texas were as densely populated as Tokyo, nearly 4 billion people could live there.

For what it's worth, long before overpopulation ever became an issue, we'll have met our energy demands with solar, hydro, tidal, nuclear, wind, and geothermal energy.

There's a far greater likelihood that we destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, get mashed by an asteroid, or became fat, lazy, slugs so large that reproduction becomes impossible thanks to too-easy lifestyles and too-great calorie access than there is overpopulation becoming an issue.

John F Kennedy III
04-02-2012, 04:13 PM
The potential does exist, granted. But worrying about something that will possibly take place many thousands of years from now, if ever, is futile. Let me solve for x on this; complete and non-bridgeable property rights solve it.

The entire population of the US could fit very snugly in Texas. Where is the problem?

Nevermind. I'll just start a new thread at some point. Maybe if I try harder I can stimulate some sort of thought. Nobody has any imagination.

No that's impossible, let's avoid ever having a hypothetical discussion about it......

awake
04-02-2012, 04:13 PM
If the state of Texas were as densely populated as Tokyo, nearly 4 billion people could live there. I stand corrected in a good way.

rockerrockstar
04-02-2012, 04:18 PM
I think if the population keeps building like it is that it will lower our standards of living. There is only so many resources. There is higher competition for those resources with larger populations. More wars will happen do to fighting over the resources.

Taxes unfairly support people having kids by giving them more deductions. It makes it so single people pay higher taxes on their incomes.

If the population continues to grow like it has then we need to focus on less pollution and renewable resources. Alternative energy will be important. We should focus on solar energy and hydrogen since they would minimize pollution.

I do think over population could drive our science to create space colonies in the future. Right now we have places that have low populations like Wyoming and some other states in America. They need development. Part of the problem is the climate in those areas. But also there just is not the jobs there that there is in some of the big cities or other more populated states.

KingNothing
04-02-2012, 04:26 PM
I think if the population keeps building like it is that it will lower our standards of living. There is only so many resources. There is higher competition for those resources with larger populations. More wars will happen do to fighting over the resources.

Taxes unfairly support people having kids by giving them more deductions. It makes it so single people pay higher taxes on their incomes.


You ignore the exponential growth in technology, and how energy will become MORE abundant as we advance, not less.

InTradePro
04-02-2012, 04:30 PM
I never should've said overpopulation. Remarkable how people can't focus on the actual idea of the post.

So what issue do you percieve regarding "supporting more life"? I'm assuming you consider the limitation of food? Given that is the one traditionally put forward. There basically is no outside limitations on anything humans require. The limits are self constrained with government structures. So I'd say the solution to supporting more life (on earth) is to have unrestricted markets.

unklejman
04-02-2012, 04:30 PM
Well. Me and my wife plan to have two kids (enough to replace us). I think that's about as much as you can do. That, and provide education for people willing to listen.

iGGz
04-02-2012, 04:44 PM
\\

awake
04-02-2012, 06:12 PM
Wait untill we can live in the air. Starwars baby.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
04-02-2012, 08:16 PM
Nature already came up with this awesome solution.

It called death.