Yes.
In the long run we are using up vital resources that can't be replaced. even if we can manage to replace oil with renewable energy sources, we are also running low on water. The huge aquifer that has provided the water for the midwest farming industry is running out fast- for example. Even topsoil, which is also necessary for all agriculture is reaching its limits.
If we are intelligent beings we should be able to limit our population and its requirements to a level that is sustainable.
2006-07-18 07:09:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well, as standards of living rise, at a certain point societies stop having so many children. In many European countries and in Japan the birth rate is already below the replacement rate. So the problem in those countries is actually underpopulation (they need more workers to support their often lavish social programs). The real challenge is achieving that "decent standard of living." Once that is achieved, problems associated with overpopulation tend to diminish (and the opposite problem tends to assert itself).
Malthus believed that population increases geometrically while food supply increases only arithmetically. But it turns out that the countries with the largest food supplies and crop yields have the lowest fertility rates. The real problem in the third world is not too many people, but declining economies and poor social infrastructures.
2006-07-18 05:41:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by monkey 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I dont believe that the earth is being populated. Once i heard that if you place the entire human population in the state of Texas it would be as crowded as New York. In the state of New York there are over 20 million people, 12 million in New York city. That leaves about 8 million sprawled all over the state. Have you been upstate? Its quite up there, and its huge. It gets crowded in cities like NYC because everyone wants to be there. Lots of opportunities and stuff, but there's plenty room in the planet to live on. If anything is overpopulated its the cities, which need to expand its cityborders to make room for housing and buildings.
2006-07-18 05:25:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by HocusPocus 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
i'd be satisfied to do a touch more suitable artwork in looking some hyperlinks for you in case you imagine it really is a robust answer: significant is an expertise of what people advise by skill of over-populated. even as many people are homeless interior the international, or don't have get entry to to sparkling water, or nutrition, there isn't any lack of area interior the international, or water or nutrition. the project is often political: who has get entry to to what. there's a lot more suitable nutrition created interior the international each 3 hundred and sixty 5 days than people favor. interior the U. S. on my own the authorities spends billions each 3 hundred and sixty 5 days getting farmers to throw away over-produced meals, and so that they get huge cost reductions on water. everyone who needs to declare the international is overpopulated is largely preserving that the those who stay interior the international yet don't have get entry to to nutrition and water and housing do not need to stay. yet frequently those people are healthful westerners residing interior the relax of their own residence, with paved roads and they often throw away a large style of their own nutrition and water. even if all the folk who're ravenous ought to actual be fed if international places like the U. S. stopped throwing away somewhat a lot of nutrition. there are a range of alternative subject matters that reason starvation/malnutrition, yet those are as well the point. everyone who says that individuals reason too a lot pollution? properly, easily, those who stay in cities reason a lot less pollution per human being than those residing in rural aspects. Which makes a large style of expertise. this style of intake people in cities do is amazingly efficient. production unit procedures, little waste. In rural aspects procedures are a lot less efficient. Villagers tear down finished forests to strengthen nutrition to keep up themselves. the costs are very extreme. So lower back, is the international overpopulated? Or are the undesirable of the international continuously being blamed for complications wealthy people led to interior the first position? :D sturdy success
2016-12-10 11:23:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The earth will never be over populated. Based on the Indigenous Religious concept, the creation was perfect, complete, whole. There is no more or no less. The content is enough, the measurement, the weight, the space. Who invented that concept of over population? The people who want to take more space for themselves?
2006-07-18 17:36:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by victorino 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depends... in science there is something called Carrying Capacity.. Where a species can only survice as long as there is resources for them or else they become extict.. and so far? We are still here which means the Earth is not overpopluted...
Also if we were overpopulated... Try driving to Las Vegas.. there is still lots and lots of land..
2006-07-18 16:37:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anh-Nguyen.com 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Technology and more efficient use of natural resources can increase the maximum population of the planet almost infinitely. With our currently technology and wastefulness however the earth is overpopulated.
2006-07-18 05:21:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are already too many people to support with a decent Standard of living...
2006-07-18 05:18:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by sleepwalkin smith 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Most people tend to overpopulate at that coastlines or the riverbeds. The inlands,mountains, or flatlands are still scarely populated.
2006-07-18 05:21:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by gerlooser 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. If you took every one on earth all 6 billion and put them all in texas it would be the sam population density of New York city.
2006-07-18 19:52:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by fairy00006 2
·
0⤊
0⤋