World population grows by 211,546 per DAY! (GASP) How do you feel about overpopulation & what can we do?

Question

I consider overpopulation THE major issue because it contributes to every other problem we have: gas shortages, high prices, air and water pollution, global warming, water shortages, loss of open space, endangered species, etc. We can't make progress with these problems unless we do something about overpopulation. There are many incentives we could use to encourage people to have smaller families (e.g., do away with the per child tax credit, deductions for the first two children only). Each person on this planet needs to pay his/her way! Do we want to be REACTIVE like China where having more than one child is illegal or PROACTIVE, providing incentives to having fewer children? I just can't celebrate the U.S. reaching 300 million this year (source: www.populationconnection.org)

Answer 1

You are right that population growth is a major concern and that it contributes to other environmental problems. Of greater concern is that a relatively small percentage of that population has access to the great majority of the resources. What will become of billions of the world's poorest people when it takes most of the world's resources to feed, clothe, and house the wealthier ones? The overpopulation problem will correct itself in time, but only due to mass deaths because of global tragedies like war, famines, and natural disasters due to global warming and fighting over the remaining resources. It is up to us to act now to prevent such tragedies from occurring.

Answer 2

The world is heading into more than just a population explosion.

Just think. Wars in the Middle East; North Korea with nuclear weapons; Communist China's economy growth; U.N. future looking grim; the crime rate is steadily increasing. I think for as much as the population goes up, the possibility of a world catastrophe is also increasing. That sounds terrible, I know, but it might be a good way to relieve tension.

China has implemented the one-child-per-family policy. If we were in a position to have an international consensus (which we're not), we could do the same.

And, of course, there's always colonizing other planets; Mars, the moon. Or even underwater. Two-thirds of the surface of this planet is covered with water; that's always a possibility.

But, truthfully, I think the world will need to be at peace before we'll be able to do anything on an international scale about the population. It would have to be a unilateral undertaking and, honestly, world politics just isn't ready for that.

Answer 3

Hi Gypsy -

Since the dawn of time, Mankind has faced issue after issue AND THRIVES.

BE careful about where you get your information. Issues may not be as big as they are portrayed. In the interests of ratings, media hypes issue after issue. Homeless this, Ozone that, super volcano, national debt! All these issues come and go every 10 years or so. Prediction: Ozone layer's about to make a big comeback as a top news story. Fact is, bad news sells and far too many guys like Curly spew before they get their facts straight. (Earth to Curly, a car costs far more $250 to make.)

My Uncle was a cop in Brooklyn. He spent the first 3 years trying to save the world, then he realized the world doesn't want to be saved! He spent the next 17 working hard helping those that appreciated it. He made the world a better place.

Take his advice, Just try and make your corner of the world better. You'll have a greater impact then just wringing your hands and listening to Curly.

Answer 4

Well, I agree indirectly with your statement, but not with your idea. Overpopulation is a problem, yes I agree, but it is not the main issue. Poverty is the root of most evils, in this case as well. Have you done research to indicate which family types are prone to more than 3 children? I am sure you will find it surprising that it is not middle or upper class families, but more likely the lower class. It is a sort of chain reaction, these people measure their wealth to the size of their family ( the more children, the higher the support system) The tax credit means nothing to these people seeing as in America as with many other countries the poor grow more poor, while the rich grow wealthier.

Answer 5

I also feel that it is a major problem.
If every (heterosexual) couple on the planet only had 1.5 kids starting right now, the population would be under control within a few generations with none of the killing etc...

If we refuse to control our own population, nature can do it for us in the form of disease etc....

Which do you think is better? It seems to me that the human choice of education, birth control and the such are more humane.

Answer 6

Make people require a license for breeding based on IQ, economic means and disinclination to live in trailer parks or support Bush policies.
I think reactivity and pro-activity are best
People with two many kids- compulsory sterilisation and a damn good dose of Catholic guilt.
And the incentive is that we (the US people) will sell of their ugliest child to the circus if they don't keep their legs together and read a book instead.

Seriously- education and standard of living are proportional to numbers of offspring- for example the lower the education and living standard, commonly- the higher the children such as in Africa, Latin America and most of Asia.
An education campaign along with govt assistance for male sterilisation seems to be effective in other countries at lowing the birth rate along with abortion for unwanted accidental pregnancies rpior to 6 week pregnancies (as there is less controversy about the existence of 'little heartbeats and God's gift of finger-nails).
Ease of access to birth control measures especially RU 486, the morning-after pill and condoms.
Sorry- religious people- but all of us humans have been aborting babies since the dawn of time people- get used to it.

Answer 7

learn technology so people can proceed to exist different moons and at last different extrasolar planets. If there is extra area then “overpopulation” would be much less of a subject. we want each and every of the existence we are in a position to get considering which you by no skill know if somebody is conscious the answer to the final question.

Answer 8

why worry about something that you have no control over although yes its is a concern but are you ready to decide who is able to have kids.are you ready for the goverment too?do you want all kids with mental diffeciancy to die so that healthy kids are alive and there is a lower population?this is the can you open lets hope it never comes to pass.

Answer 9

I think that you are treating human beings like cattle.

A major problem that capitalism is faced with is the emerging loss of scarcity. The current reaction is to artificially increase demand through marketing. Seriously, 20 years ago it cost less than $1000 to make a car. Do you really think that with 20 years of improvements in efficiency and reductions in cost it really takes $24,000 to make a car? $250 is more likely. Do you really think energy producers who make billions want to stop burning coal to make electricity? Look at the ROI of PNM last quarter. Its a 30% ROI per quarter. Energy is free, its just owned by a monopoly, and sqandered for billions in profit. Look at how wasteful american civilization is. We could mine our landfills.

Humanity poorly manages itself. There are vast tracts of potential space to live in, and vast tracts of potential regions to grow food. Most of the world is wilderness, not city. 75% of the area of the planet is underwater. The pacific Ocean covers more area than all of the continents of the world combined.

I think the stupid approach is to treat humanity like livestock and knee-jerk react by sterilization or destruction of human life. I think a much more excellent reaction is to say that every human life is valuable, and that by putting aside a few of our high intertia man-made institutions like some parts of economy we can work together to extend the living space of humanity by at least a factor of 4 on this planet without compromising current levels of wilderness. At that point a population of 28 billion becomes sustainable, and 7 billion is small.

Answer 10

Make stupid people stop breeding.