Do you think mankind has already lost the struggle of overpopulation and pollution?

Answer 1

Yes...completely. Overpopulation causes pollution. Economies of growth cause overpopulation and pollution. We would (all of us) need to radically change the way we think and the way we do things to make a difference.
We are incredibly overpopulated!!!!!

Answer 2

I've heard somewhere that the world is not overpopulated and that you could fit the entire world's population into the state of Texas and still have less people per square mile than New York City. I don't believe it. I think the world is overpopulated or not necessarily overpopulated, but growing at a very fast rate that the Earth is becoming exhausted in trying to keep up. That ties in to pollution, the more people the more pollution.

It is ignorant to think that the world is not overpopulated and too polluted. It seems that people want to turn a blind eye to it and deal with their own petty problems.

When people in power (who can do something about this) can get over their constant need and greed for money, then they can deal with this problem, but until they can get over that seemingly very difficult obstacle then I am sad to admit that we will have to sit back and hope that this will come before it is too late.

Answer 3

Yes, for sure. It is inevitable that at some point there will be a major correction in the population though, possibly due to famine and global warming but also equally likely is a new flu pandemic which could decimate the population. Pollution is inevitable, as is increasing chaos and less available energy in the long run. We have a long way to go though, and the Third Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that we are all doomed in the very long run anyway.

So enjoy life, it is precious, and as Voltaire famously said "Il faut cultiver notre jardin", roughly translated as "may as well get on with the gardening then".

I suggest you read Nevil Shute's wonderful novel "On the Beach" for an understanding of how people just do what they can in difficult circumstances.

joe xx

Answer 4

It seems clear that the great majority of the human race is on the losing end. We could conceivably repair things quickly enough for most of our progeny to survive, but we are not likely to do so.

The reason is that to survive in a straightforward sense, we would have to reduce the population of the earth radically over the next half-dozen generations, stop using fossil fuels and synthetic materials completely, and abolish theistic religions and other forms of deliberate ignorance as well as tribalism and nationalism. It all depends on education, and we are too busy watching TV and trying to get laid to become educated.

In 1899, HG Wells said, "The Twentieth Century will be a race between education and disaster." In the 1950s, we thought education was going to win. That was before Ralph Reed, Billy Graham, Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich. Through the work of those destructive fools, it turned out that Disaster was the Winner.

So it appears the bad guys are winning, and the human race will continue to overload the population-bearing capacity of the planet until it can no longer recover from chemical and thermal shock.

The result will be an enhancement of already dangerous natural changes for the worse (from our perspective) that only a remnant of us will survive. The good news is that the survivors will tend to be the smartest and the most fit. They will rebuild what they can, and the whole thing will start over. This will be repeated on an ever-diminishing scale until the remnant finally gets too few to be viable. Or an asteroid wipes them out.

Sorry. Not a "happy" picture. But suck it up. It has the virtue of at least being realistic.

And the clown who thinks overpopulation is a "liberal myth," I fear, will learn all too late that his whole life is a "conservative" myth.

Answer 5

My opinion is that overpopulation, polution and global warming are all big problems that will lead to disaster much sooner than most people think unless we can all work together to do something about it.

You know what people say when something terrible happens to them "I never thought it would happen to me" well thats what we as a race are doing now, not accepting that a global catastophe is just around the corner because the idea of it just too unpleasant to think about. Well guess what, it will happen, whether we believe it or not, so we better start doing something about it or we will all be the ones saying "I never thought it would happen to me".

Answer 6

No. Population demobraphics worldwide indicate that the population will stabilize by the end of the century--at around 11 billion. Given responsible environmental policies, that's well within the level we can sustain.

The battle to control pollution is another matter. Dealing with this, including global warming, is well within our capability both technologically and economically--in fact the economic impact would be positive overall. But special interests continue to block effective action--and will continue to do so as long as they are allowed to do so. So far, they've been given a free hand--and its very clear that their ability to suborn or bribe officials at even the highest levels is not being challenged. the problem is worst in the US--but its a world-wide problem.

Answer 7

youv'e got till 2010 according to the update on the 'club of rome' book 'limits to growth' It uses an obsolete computer program system called 'dynamo' to model changes to the eco-system caused by population growth, usage/depletion of natural resources and pollution using interacting differential equations. (bit like the lox-volterra equations for predator prey relations).Ran it through my 'puter in '80s, kept collapsing about 2050 even with infinite resources and population stability. It predicts a total collapse of the system by 2050 unless we introduce recycling and sustainable development in agriculture etc by 2010.

Answer 8

This sounds like a touch confusing task. i imagine you should argue it from the concept that it's not those who reason pollution, yet use of the incorrect kinds of components. In different words, one thousand million human beings operating their machines off fossil fuels will reason better pollutioin than one thousand million human beings operating their machines off nuclear or geothermal skill. i might want to point you initiate from there and construct your case round that idea.

Answer 9

Where's the struggle?? I think you've been listening to that chick who kept saying "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!" Be careful who you listen to, and then enjoy life. If you don't want to "over-populate" the world, don't have any kids. And if you don't want to pollute, minimize how much you use a car, use a gas-mizer car, minimize how much you use ac or heating or tv or computers or electricity or gas, and everything will be okay, but I'd not let the paranoia get to you too much. There's a whole lot of world to enjoy, and where I live, out in the woods with no one nearby, is living proof . . . and my two kids are the biggest blessing I've ever had. God Bless you.

Answer 10

Yes. Check out dieoff.org. I found it matched my own projections quite well. I'd give us maybe 15 years before our dependency on fossil fuel crashes our civilization. You don't think we have our highly (daily) trained troops parked in the middle of our major sources of oil because we're worried about terrorists or WMD, do you? There was a nice PBS documentary a few years back called "The Population Bomb." Might still be on their website.