English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-06-07 11:31:14 · 11 answers · asked by christine2550@sbcglobal.net 2 in Environment

11 answers

overheating, food shortages, a billion people in china...oh wait, we are already overpopulated

2006-06-07 11:35:19 · answer #1 · answered by nerdcglv 2 · 2 1

Traditionally, (as in third world countries today), larger family size is better. More people to help around the house, with farming, etc. Also, without good health care, some babies are expected to die.
In more established countries, like the US, growth rates are slow to nonexistent (due to women working, higher education, children cost more, etc.).
Some experts believe that after the third world countries go through their industrial revolutions, their populations should drop as well.
So hopefully we won't get there with the help of education programs and progress.

The world's population stands at 6.1 billion people.

Many ecologists would suggest that about 2 billion people would be a maximum human population that would not lead to extinctions and widespread habitat degradation.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations estimates the biological carrying capacity of the planet to be about 50 billion people.

After that, I guess we would starve.

2006-06-07 16:32:16 · answer #2 · answered by dinkykat2 1 · 0 0

There are 6 billion people on the planet. All of those 6 billion people would only fill up 1/2300 of Florida. The earth is not over populated, never will be. Why? Because of disease, harsh weather, epidemics, droughts, war, ect. People keep dying!

2006-06-07 13:59:04 · answer #3 · answered by suppy_sup 3 · 0 0

the overpopulation of the earth is NOT based on the number of people per se. It is based on the consciousness of those people. I planet with 10 billion peaceful-reverent truly HUMAN-HUMANE human beings who are respectful of and knowledgeable about the earth and her resources and can live SUSTAINABLY can last a long time, even MAKE THIS PLANET A BETTER PLACE THAN WHEN THEY GOT HERE.

A planet that has half that number, but they are ignorant greedy selfish violent destructive war mongers and materialists (who don't care or understand how all of this cosmos is interconnected or how to live sustainably) can destroy a small vulnerable delicate planet real fast! The Disney movie Lion King gave us some good examples of this. Countries with more respectful conscious people and protective legislation and government can maintain their neighboring ecosystems much better and longer than those countries and governments that just focus on "me-myself-I" and materialism, power, control, profit. "He who dies with the most toys wins. The old dualistic paradigm "dominator dominated" paradigm is VERY alive and well-NOT on this AILING planet. Planets come and planets go, eh?

A household with ten neat, tidy, organized people who share domestic responsibilities in a genuine loving partnership paradigm, maintain the upkeep of the home-garden can keep a house in great maintenance indefinitely. A house with JUST 1 or 2 uncivilized humans-NOT, aka "ANIMALS" who ride in a Homo sapiens vehicle, who are asleep and unconscious while they are here to sleep, eat, mate and defend their territory, who thrash and trash and disrespect everything, inc non-renewable resourses, and are operating with a throw away consumer WalMart mentality, can wreck a house in a matter of minutes if let loose!

What percent of humans are animals vs true humans? What % are living sustainably and what percent are behaving like destructive, uncivilized ignorant animals? The countdown is on! How low can Homo sapiens go? How high can Homo sapiens go? IMHO, it seems like we are going down the toilet! Too few are focused on restoration and maintenance of Mother Earth. Few even care about themselves. Most folks take better care of their cars than their bodies, but taking care of the human body is a start!

2006-06-07 12:05:12 · answer #4 · answered by gopigirl 4 · 0 0

It won't. At least not before society will.

Liberals may tell you that we will run out of natural recources... and soon. Thats simply not the case. To support life the planet only needs to provide food and water. Both of these are renewable recources. Non-renewable recources are for luxury not neccessity. The planet could care less if we deplete its natural gasses. But we will care... at least at this stage in our development. But thats a lot further down the road than people like to scare anyway. To be "over populated" there would have to be too many people for the earth to provide life for. We are not even close. However, for many peoples comfort (including my own), we are already there. Sure there are starving people all over the world, however they don't have to be. Thus starvation comes from location/ecinomic status and NOT the planet.

So to sum up... The planet can support way more life than we have now, just not in the way of life we now enjoy. Society will keep population in check with our way of life. In the past it was common for couples to pump out 10+ kids to help on the farm. It costs more to raise them now then they will provide in labor. Modern times, at least in the US, only the mormons and people loopholing welfare will pump out 10+ kids. In poor countries starvation and disease will keep population in check. But the planets population is expanding greatly. So do your part. Spade or neuter you spouse, vote pro choice, support war, and pull the plug on grandpa. (only half joking)

"gopigirl" In a sense I agree with you. The way we live will definetly determine how many people this planet can accomodate. But I disagree with the "human" vs "animal" take on it. Depleting non-renewable recources will only hurt our way of life not our planet. "Animals" do not live this way of life. "Humans" do. You labled them bass-akwards. And besides why do we need to save our non-renewable recources? So we will still have some for our great great grandchildren? If we manage to get by with out using them I think they could too. "IMHO" I think that they will get along a lot better with out than we will. After all thier technology should be better (unless we go back to caveman days trying to protect "mother earth"). Regardless it is not protecting "mother earth" it is protecting our way of life. When we are gone "mother earth" will be fine.

2006-06-07 13:14:50 · answer #5 · answered by 93.5% Right 3 · 0 0

Top Ten Signs You Know The World Is Overpopulated...inspired by david letterman's TOP 10

10.you send soldiers fight a imaginary war
9.the vice president has to shooting "close personal friends"
8.myspace's server is down
7.al gore makes a movie on the effects of global warming
6.gay people want to be married
5.democrats start making sense
4.your new neighbor is warren jeffs
3.there's as many walmarts as starbucks
2.12 million illegals cross american borders
1.When New Orleans becomes "CHOCOLATE CITY"

2006-06-07 11:50:25 · answer #6 · answered by TRU_TEXAN 3 · 0 0

when we run out of clean water and almost everyone has some kind of a disease

2006-06-07 11:34:39 · answer #7 · answered by Triniloveyxx 4 · 0 0

Mass death

2006-06-07 11:33:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It has been

2006-06-07 12:00:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

WHO KNOWS

2006-06-07 11:37:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers