9 ms·
Overpopulation is an interesting problem, it exponentially affects every other problem we have -- some balance will have to be found between ultimately telling
by s_dev 11y ago
Overpopulation is an interesting problem, it exponentially affects every other problem we have -- some balance will have to be found between ultimately telling people they can't kids or maintaining that those people have autonomy over their own lives and can make such a decision. I don't know what the solution is - perhaps making the developing world developed as fast as possible.
- LoSboccacc 11y agothat only moves the problem further along the road - much further, but still: world won't be able to feed infinite humans so a restriction policy will eventually be needed (or systematic culling, depending on whichever comes first between enlightenment and desperation) an interesting resulting problem of which is that population will keep aging. solutions will need to take into account non productive member in their older age, either balancing with equal amount of younger or culling from the top instead of the bottom of the age bracket we won't likely see that in our lifespan, with some luck.
- bryanlarsen 11y agoWe can't feed infinite humans, but if we covered the earth with greenhouses, we could feed trillions of people. Overpopulation causes many problems, being able to feed them is not one of them.
- LoSboccacc 11y agoTrue it can feed and house many more people, but eventually we'll reach the cap.
- XorNot 11y agoExcept in no part of the world of the modern world has human population increase continued unchecked. Most western countries populations grow only because of immigration - fertility is below the replacement rate. Overpopulation is the "problem" people trot out so they don't have to talk about things they might actually have to do something about, like switching to renewable energy sources, or improving women's education in developing countries.
- LoSboccacc 11y agoYes and that's why I included culling in the options. Doesn't need to be voluntary. Diseases, war, famine all are under the same umbrella.
- XorNot 11y agoNo, you've still failed to comprehend the point: people, in general, do not have more then 2 children on average, as they increase their lifestyle. Which highlights the other reason people talking about overpopulation are unsettling: suddenly everyone's playing psychopath.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoSo we have to increase the lifestyle of 2/3 of the world. The West is free to have 2 or less children on average. Africa doesn't give a shit, they're too poor to afford it - so their population grows.
- lunchTime42 11y agoseems,that other forms of distractions and knowledge are the best presarvatives. But what about cultures that are resistant to education and therefore change? Exit programs for the kids of the local religious nuts starting from pre-school?
- MC7447a 11y agoOverpopulation is a non-problem. Fertility has fallow to near- or below-replacement rate everywhere in the world, except Afrika (which will likely follow in the next decades.) A nice talk from Hans Rosling on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoI love Rosling's talks.
- sooheon 11y agoThis specific talk I feel he panders too much. The British surveys, for example, seem to have been made to take advantage of the anchoring effect to elicit more wrong answers, to the delight of the giggling audience.
- s_dev 11y agoI think perhaps you're conflating world population with the Chinese population. Overpopulation can occur in small areas without the world being too overpopulated as a whole -- most of them in SE Asia. If theres lots of people and limited resources, the math simply won't hold up. It affects issues like the environment and human health.
- laichzeit0 11y agoYou mean like the problem of telling people they can't just drive cars or own firearms and need to meet some competence criteria first, i.e. licensing? If so, I totally support the idea of licensing human breeding.
- sugarcube 11y agoUnfortunately, that quickly leads into fashist territory (eugenics)...
- throwaway_789 11y agoThat wouldn't lead to eugenics, it would very much already be eugenics.
- ZenoArrow 11y agoEugenics is about altering genetics by controlling breeding. Licensing decisions could be based on a broader range of criteria than just genetics. Genetics might not even come into it.
- throwaway_789 11y agoUnlikely. The perceived benefits of eugenics would be too tantalizing for those social engineers in control of "licensing" the right to reproduce. Robust markets for DNA sequencing and clinical already exist. It'd be a vanishingly small step to pivot those platforms for eugenics. The licensing proposal is odious even if we were to (naively) discount conventional eugenics. Licenses would likely be tied to "merit", which is rather inextricably linked to socioeconomic class.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago> "Unlikely. The perceived benefits of eugenics would be too tantalizing for those social engineers in control of "licensing" the right to reproduce." What if the priorities of the eugenicists and other life licensers clash? For example, what if a known criminal was also the holder of some rare genes that would link up well with someone from the ruling class? > "Licenses would likely be tied to "merit", which is rather inextricably linked to socioeconomic class." So someone who is poor is of less "merit"?
- goodcanadian 11y agoDue to already declining birth rates, human population is expected to peak around 11 billion people in approximately 2100.[1] I will grant that the error bars are quite large, and that there is no certainty that the planet can handle even that number, but it bothers me that there are still people that seem to believe in Malthusian exponential growth. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
- catshirt 11y agoyour source doesn't support your claim at all... > "increase to 11.2 billion in the year 2100" > "may rise to 16 billion by 2100" > "forecasts between 9.3 and 12.6 billion in 2100, and continued growth thereafter" > "World population to hit 11bn in 2100 – with 70% chance of continuous rise"
- goodcanadian 11y agoI was using the middle model. The lower model shows a peak of 8-9 billion in about 2050. The upper model shows continued growth past 2011. Hence, "large error bars." Anyway, I agree it is not the best source, but I didn't want to leave my claim completely without citation. If you investigate a bit, I think you'll find that my claim is consistent with UN estimates.
- ocean3 11y agomaking the developing world developed as fast as possible - With the cost of living increasing in India more parents prefer having 2 kids mostly in cities.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoThe people saying it's not a problem or that it will sort itself out are missing one crucial point - all the solutions for maintaining and/or stabilizing a big population require technology, which requires a technological civilization to exist. A technological civilization is not a stable, natural state, and industrial plants do not grow on trees. If the growing population destabilizes - let's be frank, Western - civilization, the world is fucked. The population will bounce back, with billions dying from hunger and war.