Are we really overpopulated?

Discuss anything here

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Are we really overpopulated?

Post by zaseo »

Are we really overpopulated? From a resource look at things we are in some ways. If you look at space on the Earth we actually have room for a lot more people but some places simply have too many people in one place. On a side note wouldn't we have at least another half billion people if things like contraception and abortion didn't exist?(Not trying to debate that but am wondering hypothetical size of population.)

Some places have a low youth to high elder ratio. Places with lower to middle income have high birth ratios such as the "hood". Large population can bring problems if there isn't enough resources. Do we simply need to produce more for economy so that everyone has access to welfare and stuff? Then again that wouldn't require more couples, marriages, etc? Technically people with kids generally produce more for the economy due to the fact they have to for sake of yourself, spouse, child/ren.

A single person on the other hand only has to produce to sustain self(less money made, less taxes paid). After all why work more than you have to? Generally they produce a lot less for economy and wouldn't they ultimately be counterproductive towards places that uses or depend on government services, healthcare, charities, etc.

For things like food I honestly think we that shouldn't be a problem. If things were only regulate so that the food is safe to eat think of how much food could be produce for people to eat. Also you only need to consume 1500 to 2000 calories a day. You would be surprise at the amount of calories in many things.

For things like oil yeah that is so going to be a problem. Honestly though I think we could have been move over to better far more efficient ways of getting around. Of course not using a lot of oil would be a huge lost to big companies.
Sadivinedevil
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:11 pm

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by Sadivinedevil »

What determines overpopulation is food supply. If you don't have enough food for everyone people are going to starve and people are going to die. when a species reaches overpopulation it usually leads to wide spread famine. Though to be honest overpopulation is more of a local problem than it is a global problem. Because we trade our food supply with the world the effects of overpopulation are less likely to affect us in the United states, or in the more developed countries of the world, but in countries and communities without a good trade infrastructure overpopulation is a case of life and death.

Now if your talk about humanities impact on the ecosystems in the world then that is a completely different issue and is a much important subject. Our affect on our environment drastically changes the calculation for our future food supply, due to climate change and poor farming techniques. Thus our actions affect the calculations of overpopulation in local areas around the world, and may, or possibly will, eventually affect countries with a good trade infrastructure.
User avatar
Erranty
The Widower
The Widower
Posts: 2541
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:25 pm
Location: Somewhere outside Detroit.

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by Erranty »

I got into an argument about this some time ago.

A friend of mine quoted the speech from "The Great Dictator" starring Charlie Chaplin. "In this world there's room for everyone and the good Earth is rich, and can provide for everyone."

The problem is the difference in the times. The Great Dictator was released in 1941. The world population, the entire WORLD, was only filled with 2.1 Billion people.

We're currently at 7 Billion. It took us 900 years to go from 500 Million to 2.1 Billion, and then it jumped by 5 Billion in only 70 years? Its not possible for something like that to not have drastic effects on our environment.

I pointed this out to him. I told him that this movie was made right after The Great Depression that ruined the world economy. People had nothing to do but have sex, work for what little food they could get (if they were lucky enough to find work), and pray.

In our current economy and with our current business practices there isn't much hope for anyone who can't afford college. Chances are they'll never own their own home, barely be able to have food thanks to a govt. food allowance, and they can't even begin to think about insurance. But despite this the United States government passed a law requiring everyone to purchase insurance! It even makes companies provide insurance for their employees, which will cause them to hire fewer people to keep costs down, and crush small businesses all together!


Simply put, we ARE overpopulated, but that's not the big issue. Our issue is our unhealthy obsession with consumerism and capitalism that's been sending our lives into a perpetual decline.

When you feel the need to buy a $300 cell phone, and lock yourself into a $100 per month plan, while only making $10 an hour 40 hours a week, and paying $600 a month for a place to live, you end up completely broke after living expenses, if not in the red!
User avatar
nobodyknows
Resident cynic
Resident cynic
Posts: 3197
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:45 am
Location: You can't really make this look funny anymore.
Contact:

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by nobodyknows »

What Erranty said.

Even if Capitalism has good points, it also has a glaringly huge number of bad points and it's also one of the most easily exploitable systems I've ever seen.
If Capital wasn't so important then I'm pretty sure that Lobbyists would have a much harder time trying to buy out every single political deal they could get their filthy hands on.

However, on the other side of the argument, not much good has come from any other differentiating ideals across the globe aside from Socialism -not Communism, there's a distinct difference between the two- and even then that's only worked in Northern Europe, and has an absolute fuckton to do with their own turbulent political history.

Long story short it's all ****, really.
User avatar
Kaori
Bellator In Machina
Bellator In Machina
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:42 am
Location: -Wherever I go, there I am.-

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by Kaori »

I'm kinda wondering why such a topic exists in this site of all places.....
User avatar
Kuukai
The Prophet
The Prophet
Posts: 5278
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:02 am

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by Kuukai »

Even if we're not close to whatever Earth's theoretical limit is yet, we kind of need to start addressing overpopulation now. Otherwise it's like being on a train heading towards a brick wall at 200mph and waiting until you see the brick wall to address the problem. The result is one messed-up train.
Kaori wrote:I'm kinda wondering why such a topic exists in this site of all places.....
Image
User avatar
Kaori
Bellator In Machina
Bellator In Machina
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:42 am
Location: -Wherever I go, there I am.-

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by Kaori »

Kuukai wrote:
Kaori wrote:I'm kinda wondering why such a topic exists in this site of all places.....
Image
Huh, I almost forgot about Mama.
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by zaseo »

nobodyknows wrote:What Erranty said.

Even if Capitalism has good points, it also has a glaringly huge number of bad points and it's also one of the most easily exploitable systems I've ever seen.
If Capital wasn't so important then I'm pretty sure that Lobbyists would have a much harder time trying to buy out every single political deal they could get their filthy hands on.

However, on the other side of the argument, not much good has come from any other differentiating ideals across the globe aside from Socialism -not Communism, there's a distinct difference between the two- and even then that's only worked in Northern Europe, and has an absolute fuckton to do with their own turbulent political history.

Long story short it's all ****, really.
We have a lot of people but I think how much people produce and consume is the problem. By the way who and or what does most consumer spending anyway? I think like this. You only need the basic things to live + stuff for your hobby(gaming and manga in my case). I would have no reason to produce more for the economy than I have to. Of course there should be money or resources put away just in case of an emergency. Still there is no reason to raise social economic status. This is basically were I'm heading to. I wouldn't be surprise if many of my generation decide to do this as well. Why get in debt? Why work more than needed? Don't have to be poor but why produce and consume more than needed?

People who think why produce more than I have to for the economy and why consume more than I need for the economy are threats to both socialist and capitalism. How can things like free healthcare be possible if a large amount of people only produce what they need? If a large number of people decides why produce more than I have to there is no way government things can sustain itself for long. The government would simply be getting a heck of a lot less taxes.

Capitalism isn't better off either. The producers are producing little and are also consuming little.
User avatar
Erranty
The Widower
The Widower
Posts: 2541
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:25 pm
Location: Somewhere outside Detroit.

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by Erranty »

That issue of producing just the minimum is why Communism failed.

We wouldn't need free healthcare if the prices at hospitals were government regulated and met an affordable standard accepted by insurance companies.

The doctors wouldn't charge so much if medical school didn't cost so much and malpractice suits weren't rampant.

Medical school would be cheaper if supplies for teaching were cheaper.

But at that point we hit a dead end, because you can't make the materials for creating the supplies cheaper.


If you set a high minimum and have a reward system for producing above that minimum, then people will try harder so they can life better lives.

Of course you can't penalize farmers because some seasons are dryer than others, but you can adjust the minimum accordingly. And the supply from the farmers affects other jobs down the line.
However, there are jobs where people should be penalized. Doctors for malpractice, Lawyers and Judges for failing the Justice system, Police for abusing their power, Landlords for failing to keep up the maintenance on their properties and then blaming their tenants so they can sponge money off them. These are things I've seen first hand that're major failings from our current systems.
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by zaseo »

Erranty wrote:That issue of producing just the minimum is why Communism failed.

We wouldn't need free healthcare if the prices at hospitals were government regulated and met an affordable standard accepted by insurance companies.

The doctors wouldn't charge so much if medical school didn't cost so much and malpractice suits weren't rampant.

Medical school would be cheaper if supplies for teaching were cheaper.

But at that point we hit a dead end, because you can't make the materials for creating the supplies cheaper.


If you set a high minimum and have a reward system for producing above that minimum, then people will try harder so they can life better lives.

Of course you can't penalize farmers because some seasons are dryer than others, but you can adjust the minimum accordingly. And the supply from the farmers affects other jobs down the line.
However, there are jobs where people should be penalized. Doctors for malpractice, Lawyers and Judges for failing the Justice system, Police for abusing their power, Landlords for failing to keep up the maintenance on their properties and then blaming their tenants so they can sponge money off them. These are things I've seen first hand that're major failings from our current systems.
It would be in society's best interest to hire workers that don't do malpractice, take lots of time off, lack skills, etc. Basically hire the workers that is going to work the most hours for good pay, has the skills and is most qualities.

I'm going to have to look in to things but wouldn't farmers be able to produce way more food without being regulated in most cases?
User avatar
BrinODea
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:03 pm
Location: Am I suppose to know?

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by BrinODea »

I do believe we are over populated. I also believe (which has been stated by many different people in the past) that humans are more so a disease on this earth then they are part of the natural order. At one point I believe humans fit perfectly fine into the natural, but now we just take what we can. We are over populated because of the abundance of food. World hungry should be honestly be something of the past, but because rich nations that over produce food would just rather throw it away then donate it, there are still many countries starving.
This obviously because of greed. There are too many humans that only want money. For those who have played Soul Sacrifice, here is a quote/spoiler "If everyone was rich, then there would be no monsters" Monsters meaning being corporation that try to lower production cost while raising sales prices.
The worse part is, is the biggest "corporation" are the governments and agencies that support this.
For example, not only should world hunger be gone, but show should the need for oil. Oil is NOT nearly depleted  I came from an oil family, and after my grandfather "died" *cough*killed*cough* in a "freak" tanker explosion (Explosions DONT go up a hill unless trigger by another explosion), the older generation was cut from the oil company and left in a massive debt, but it is EXTREMELY inefficient, but the EPA won't allow other sources of fuel except for electric, which is by far, WORSE! There is an alternative source of fuel, that is somewhat renewable, far more efficient and does not require any major changes (if any at all) to a combustion engine. It is wood gasification, more specifically, taking rapidly growing sources, such as rice paddies and corn husky, burning them, then melting the ashes, which release a fuel source that can be twice as effective, and has far less emissions. However, do to people be ignorant to these, and the EPA saying that they are not "efficient", we will not see a wide spread of these sources.
Getting back to overpopulation. Overpopulation happens do to, not a lack of birth control methods, but do to a sense of shame (this is mostly relative to the US). Teen pregnancies happen because a family makes it seem shameful to have sex before marriage, and thus they do not get on birth control (which is useful for more than just preventing), or use condoms as they are afraid to get them. I was forced at the age of 14 to go with my cousin to buy condoms just so I would see that it was not an embarrassing experience. Please do not get offended for me saying this but, sex is natural, MARRIAGE is not. I do believe in soul mates and staying with one partner, as that is obvious a lot through out nature, but they do not get "married" first.
Is countries and people could past the old ways of thinking, and accept a "new age" way of thinking, the overpopulation can controlled. I'm not saying that we need to restrict how many kids people have, but people have kids a lot of the time because they do not have proper knowledge or understandings at times.
Oh and also, another reason for over population, is the control of disease. There has been a massive decline in fertility rates, and yet doctors keep pushing this hindrance away being creating a new vaccine to the disease. Life expentancies have gone way up from just 60 years ago, as the number of disease have gone down. But this has lead to much more dangerous diseases. Cancer has been rapidly increasing, and disease like MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) have very little chance of being cured, especially if in my case, it is under the skin as the body shows no signs of fighting it (no increase in white blood cells).
Of course I'm not saying we need to let those who are suffering die, but we also need to aware that as each time we "kill" a disease, something worse can and will appear.
Lastly, people working less goes back to a mixture of greed and laziness. Some people don't work because society pays for them, other because they lost their job for a number of reason (And the taxes thing is very dependent on the case, I worked 2, 38 weeks, say less money on those checks than when I worked 28 hour weeks, I was beyond f**king pissed). Technology is also a major factor. I read once a long time ago that if technology was actually used properly, then for everyone 1 job a computer took, at least 3 more should arise, such as someone to program the computer, someone to repair it and someone to use. But, rarely does this happen, as a company would rather just replace than repair, and combines positions, thus causing a "misuse" of technology.
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by zaseo »

BrinODea wrote:I do believe we are over populated. I also believe (which has been stated by many different people in the past) that humans are more so a disease on this earth then they are part of the natural order. At one point I believe humans fit perfectly fine into the natural, but now we just take what we can. We are over populated because of the abundance of food. World hungry should be honestly be something of the past, but because rich nations that over produce food would just rather throw it away then donate it, there are still many countries starving.
This obviously because of greed. There are too many humans that only want money. For those who have played Soul Sacrifice, here is a quote/spoiler "If everyone was rich, then there would be no monsters" Monsters meaning being corporation that try to lower production cost while raising sales prices.
The worse part is, is the biggest "corporation" are the governments and agencies that support this.
For example, not only should world hunger be gone, but show should the need for oil. Oil is NOT nearly depleted  I came from an oil family, and after my grandfather "died" *cough*killed*cough* in a "freak" tanker explosion (Explosions DONT go up a hill unless trigger by another explosion), the older generation was cut from the oil company and left in a massive debt, but it is EXTREMELY inefficient, but the EPA won't allow other sources of fuel except for electric, which is by far, WORSE! There is an alternative source of fuel, that is somewhat renewable, far more efficient and does not require any major changes (if any at all) to a combustion engine. It is wood gasification, more specifically, taking rapidly growing sources, such as rice paddies and corn husky, burning them, then melting the ashes, which release a fuel source that can be twice as effective, and has far less emissions. However, do to people be ignorant to these, and the EPA saying that they are not "efficient", we will not see a wide spread of these sources.
Getting back to overpopulation. Overpopulation happens do to, not a lack of birth control methods, but do to a sense of shame (this is mostly relative to the US). Teen pregnancies happen because a family makes it seem shameful to have sex before marriage, and thus they do not get on birth control (which is useful for more than just preventing), or use condoms as they are afraid to get them. I was forced at the age of 14 to go with my cousin to buy condoms just so I would see that it was not an embarrassing experience. Please do not get offended for me saying this but, sex is natural, MARRIAGE is not. I do believe in soul mates and staying with one partner, as that is obvious a lot through out nature, but they do not get "married" first.
Is countries and people could past the old ways of thinking, and accept a "new age" way of thinking, the overpopulation can controlled. I'm not saying that we need to restrict how many kids people have, but people have kids a lot of the time because they do not have proper knowledge or understandings at times.
Oh and also, another reason for over population, is the control of disease. There has been a massive decline in fertility rates, and yet doctors keep pushing this hindrance away being creating a new vaccine to the disease. Life expentancies have gone way up from just 60 years ago, as the number of disease have gone down. But this has lead to much more dangerous diseases. Cancer has been rapidly increasing, and disease like MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) have very little chance of being cured, especially if in my case, it is under the skin as the body shows no signs of fighting it (no increase in white blood cells).
Of course I'm not saying we need to let those who are suffering die, but we also need to aware that as each time we "kill" a disease, something worse can and will appear.
Lastly, people working less goes back to a mixture of greed and laziness. Some people don't work because society pays for them, other because they lost their job for a number of reason (And the taxes thing is very dependent on the case, I worked 2, 38 weeks, say less money on those checks than when I worked 28 hour weeks, I was beyond f**king pissed). Technology is also a major factor. I read once a long time ago that if technology was actually used properly, then for everyone 1 job a computer took, at least 3 more should arise, such as someone to program the computer, someone to repair it and someone to use. But, rarely does this happen, as a company would rather just replace than repair, and combines positions, thus causing a "misuse" of technology.
Wouldn't a more open sex before marriage thing lead to more problems. Well there is birth control and stuff. I think if anything people would just be more polygamous which I don't really care if they are. I just think that if anything we would have a society were basically for the most part males with more money or the physically stronger ones would do most of the breeding. Well it can work.
User avatar
BrinODea
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:03 pm
Location: Am I suppose to know?

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by BrinODea »

zaseo wrote: Wouldn't a more open sex before marriage thing lead to more problems. Well there is birth control and stuff. I think if anything people would just be more polygamous which I don't really care if they are. I just think that if anything we would have a society were basically for the most part males with more money or the physically stronger ones would do most of the breeding. Well it can work.
It would still be a yes and no, as if people are more aware, then they can be more prepared. Money and physical characteristics are only part of the equation. I don't believe in gender roles, other than ones that are only anatomically possible. Women can and should make as much money as men, as well as be treated equally, however almost no society that I know of is like this. The idea of "Darwinism" being "survival of the strongest" is often mistaken for the literally term of the strongest being the only ones that survive. However, it is actually about genetic traits that allow dominancy over others traits, thus a greater chance of survival to constantly reproduce.
Humans of course are at a point that we do not need to "evolve" physically, instead it is intellectually, intelligence, etc... But we are still held back very heavily by society placing various labels, such as gender, race, etc...
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by zaseo »

BrinODea wrote:
zaseo wrote: Wouldn't a more open sex before marriage thing lead to more problems. Well there is birth control and stuff. I think if anything people would just be more polygamous which I don't really care if they are. I just think that if anything we would have a society were basically for the most part males with more money or the physically stronger ones would do most of the breeding. Well it can work.
It would still be a yes and no, as if people are more aware, then they can be more prepared. Money and physical characteristics are only part of the equation. I don't believe in gender roles, other than ones that are only anatomically possible. Women can and should make as much money as men, as well as be treated equally, however almost no society that I know of is like this. The idea of "Darwinism" being "survival of the strongest" is often mistaken for the literally term of the strongest being the only ones that survive. However, it is actually about genetic traits that allow dominancy over others traits, thus a greater chance of survival to constantly reproduce.
Humans of course are at a point that we do not need to "evolve" physically, instead it is intellectually, intelligence, etc... But we are still held back very heavily by society placing various labels, such as gender, race, etc...
Well as far people go people shall still stick close to their race. That shall never changed. In this era since females are doing better at all levels of education, more in college, and more graduate with degrees it so makes sense that they actually out earn men on average( early 20s 30s). Well job pay is based on job(things like dangerous jobs pay more as an example), and how long you work. BTW you can't legally pay people less based on sex and or race right? If that was the case wouldn't everyone just hire the person that they can pay less?

Anyway some parts of the world don't have population replacement amount like Japan.
User avatar
BrinODea
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:03 pm
Location: Am I suppose to know?

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by BrinODea »

zaseo wrote: Well as far people go people shall still stick close to their race. That shall never changed. In this era since females are doing better at all levels of education, more in college, and more graduate with degrees it so makes sense that they actually out earn men on average( early 20s 30s). Well job pay is based on job(things like dangerous jobs pay more as an example), and how long you work. BTW you can't legally pay people less based on sex and or race right? If that was the case wouldn't everyone just hire the person that they can pay less?

Anyway some parts of the world don't have population replacement amount like Japan.
I do fully agree about people sticking to their race, even though their background doesn't reflect, IE, one of my friends is "black" despite the fact that his 2 or 3 (can't remember) of grandparents are white.

Sadly, there are still many places do under pay, based on gender, age, race, etc... For example my dad works as a veterinarian technician, but has far more experience, training, permits, etc than the vets that he works for, but they have not increased his pay for YEARS. Instead they have been forcing to go to continuing education, and getting certified in the latest methods, while making him pay for part it, and cutting his hours.

From what I understand, Japan will be lose a major part of its population in the next couple of decades, as their "population triangle" is somewhat "upside-down" in that the younger generation account for much less of the population. This is also prominent in many European countries, such as France for example, where they actually give incentives for having more than 2 children (this may have change so please correct me if I am wrong). Even parts of the USA are decreasing, and the only reason our population is sustaining/increasing is due to immigration.
User avatar
shugo_lover
The Oath Keeper
The Oath Keeper
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:43 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by shugo_lover »

BrinODea wrote:Please do not get offended for me saying this but, sex is natural, MARRIAGE is not
Humans defy everything that is considered 'natural'.
User avatar
Kuukai
The Prophet
The Prophet
Posts: 5278
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:02 am

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by Kuukai »

zaseo wrote:Well as far people go people shall still stick close to their race. That shall never changed.
This will totally change. Race is an outdated concept. Like caste, or nobility, circumstances of birth, or other things that used to be so important to people.
shugo_lover wrote:Humans defy everything that is considered 'natural'.
Really? What is life? A cell is just dirt that's been rearranged and ordered with help from another cell. Anything "artificial" that humans do is just an extension of this rule of life to assimilate chaos and create structure. What's sad is actually how inescapable this is. Even when we're blowing stuff up, we're trying to do that.

Global warming, for example, isn't a case of "artificial=bad" per se, just a case of us being too stupid to realize what we're doing is counterproductive to our goals. We're an imperfect system, like al llife. One could imagine a scenario when unintelligent, monocellular life on some other planet ends up facing the same problem and burning itself out due to its own carbon exhaust. So these aren't human problems, they're #lifeproblems

That said, we possess the power to screw up more rapidly than other life on this planet.
User avatar
(Phantom) Thief
Posts: 588
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:27 am
Location: The World
Contact:

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by (Phantom) Thief »

My default answer is no. I think If our actions were more effective then more of us would live. However since most of us are pro life, we might as well state yes to deal with a change or ten.. Heck someone's already planning a colonization project for Mars in 2022
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by zaseo »

(Phantom) Thief wrote:My default answer is no. I think If our actions were more effective then more of us would live. However since most of us are pro life, we might as well state yes to deal with a change or ten.. Heck someone's already planning a colonization project for Mars in 2022
I'm not the one to care for the other planet thing. I doubt we could actually get humans there to begin with.
User avatar
shugo_lover
The Oath Keeper
The Oath Keeper
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:43 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by shugo_lover »

Kuukai wrote:
zaseo wrote:Well as far people go people shall still stick close to their race. That shall never changed.
This will totally change. Race is an outdated concept. Like caste, or nobility, circumstances of birth, or other things that used to be so important to people.
shugo_lover wrote:Humans defy everything that is considered 'natural'.
Really? What is life? A cell is just dirt that's been rearranged and ordered with help from another cell. Anything "artificial" that humans do is just an extension of this rule of life to assimilate chaos and create structure. What's sad is actually how inescapable this is. Even when we're blowing stuff up, we're trying to do that.

Global warming, for example, isn't a case of "artificial=bad" per se, just a case of us being too stupid to realize what we're doing is counterproductive to our goals. We're an imperfect system, like al llife. One could imagine a scenario when unintelligent, monocellular life on some other planet ends up facing the same problem and burning itself out due to its own carbon exhaust. So these aren't human problems, they're #lifeproblems

That said, we possess the power to screw up more rapidly than other life on this planet.
I meant it as a natural instinct kind of thing. It just seems like humans don't really think along the lines of things like we would if we were living in the wild and that's what sets us apart from other animals because we don't do things based on instinct. However, maybe it's because of our higher thinking that has made us evolve and not need to think that way. Alright, I'm just getting off topic now.
(Phantom) Thief wrote:My default answer is no. I think If our actions were more effective then more of us would live. However since most of us are pro life, we might as well state yes to deal with a change or ten.. Heck someone's already planning a colonization project for Mars in 2022
I think the number of pro life and pro choice is pretty split down the middle. That's just my opinion though, I'm not about to try and look up any statistics for it. Also, the whole mars thing was supposed to be in 2023. We have no business to be in space when we can't even fix things on our own planet. I don't think we're over populated but from a money and economical stand point, I think we are. I was reading an article the other day about how by 2020 I think it was, that all the welfare money will run out along with another system that's government related. However, I don't think this issue really has a lot to do with population and more of the government just giving it out to everyone even druggies and people who don't need it..
Post Reply