Overpopulated?

Question

Do you think our world is over populated? And what is the solution?

Answer 1

The world is overpopulated, and creating a problem in more then
one way. It can obviously hold more people. But how comfortably?
Currently, the entire human population could stand in Texas. Does that
mean anything? Things to consider; people need space (have a home), and
people need food (have a garden), and one we seem to forget completely, we
need space for the rest of the life on earth (have a forest or dessert).
So why is our population continuing to inconsideringly rise?

I don't think there is one reason why it should be. We are
capable of occupying any part of the world (like the deserts and arctic
and antarctic poles). Thus we are not populating new areas. We are just
filling up what land we are on right now. Why is this necessary? Why
reduce the quality of life for humans and wildlife? Why can't we become
more responsible?

One of the unique aspects of overpopulation when compared to other
issues, is that we can't blame it on third world countries. America and
other Industrial Nations are just as guilty. They have such superior
medical industries the population has no trouble increasing. Why is this
necessary I ask again? Birth control has been available for at least a
half century I would think, and the idea of zero population growth (ZPG)
by having families of two is easily over twenty-five years old? But I
think I know why we humans continue this habit, religion and even the
government supply us with excuses. They promote reproductive freedom, and
to populate the world in the name of God. What we forget is that the
people that wrote the Holy Bible wrote it a long time ago, and these
people never even conceived the notion of overpopulation (who would with
how hard it was to even survive then, the issue was making sure the human
race did not suffer extinction rather than overpopulation).

What we also forget as that along with the freedom we receive each
and everyday of our lives (which we take for granted), we have
responsibilities. In other countries there are no freedoms, thus the
government takes on much of the responsibility. So our lives as Americans
does not mean we can do what ever the hell we want, what it allows us to
do, is think how we want things, and make the world how we the people see
fit and initiate our views as an optimized society.

Why does our government favor those who over reproduce? Why do we
want to deal with this many people? I think a high population places a
larger burden on society. So why do we continue? Our world currently is
carried out on such a large scale, with mass production and mass
consumption. Imagine a world where things can be dealt on a much more
personal level? Where life is not concerned with bulk amounts, but pays
attention to detail. Where the phrase 'quality not quantity' can be said
with confidence, honesty and pride. Where the word 'overcrowded' is never
mentioned at school or hospitals. Where there is never unemployment, or
even starvation. Where the air is cleaner, and nature divides us more.
Housing and land is cheap, and wildlife has more space to be .. wild.
Are these not desirable attributes of Our World?

One argument to a decrease in population growth is that a small
working population could not support a large retired elderly population,
such as the baby-boomer generation. This is essentially the Social
Security Reformation debate of 1998. Whereby, old politicians like Newt
Gingrich were interested in only for the sake of the greed-driven fear of
his and the political extortionists that support him. The greed-driven
fear of retiring without too much money, and dying without enough wealth.
While others live on the streets. All I can remark is, that just because
the projected employment population will be smaller in comparison with
today's economical and population grid, does not mean that those funds
couldn't be raised to support our parents and grandparents. With the
advancements of computers, the increase of tasks not requiring human
intelligence and increase in efficiency, efficient, I think we will be
able to produce goods and services to support the elderly. Also, since
there is a smaller population accomplishing more labor, financially
supporting the retired will be accomplished by raising funds from the
larger incomes of the future employed. Plus there are billions of dollars
being wastefully spended on military, international intelligence and
national security agencies. Perhaps, a smaller populations will be more
peaceful, and create less of a financial burden on its government?

One of the biggest arguments against population control, is: "How
do you control a people's reproductive behaviors." It is indeed a very
personal issue, and infinges on people's freedoms. However, people fail
to recognize that free actions effect other living things (humans we don't
know, animals, trees, etc.). Most people think of free actions as actions
free of responsibility. Therefore, we either make informal commitments to
change our society (which is slowly progressing, thankfully), or the
government should be allowed to intervene. At the minimal, our government
should not give economic advantages to large family and not to small
responsible families, that are population is considerate. Whether tax
breaks or financial credit, the government can do something to promote
responsible family planning. The government should at least begin to take
a stand that population growth is a problem and a small population as an
ideal goal.
I feel that it is important to recognize that education is
probably the best prevention to population explosion. Looking at
education through human history, you probably would say, "that's not
true." Because as we've learned more about our world, and we've educated
more of our people, the number of people on our world has only become a
larger number. However, in the United States of A, those who are less
educated are more likely to have more children. So I don't think it is
quite so wise to deny support to those who are perhaps less fortunate,
perhaps less educated, and perhaps more likely to continue the pattern of
having unreasonably large families. Therefore it is eachother and our
government that must take care to help those who are going to contribute
to the problem of population, and to take care of those who actually need
our help. This notion appears to be a liberal and caring concept yet
serves ones own self-interests, too.

Answer 2

sturdy aspect. bypass live on your 5 acres in the Sahara without taking any elements from some thing else of the international and note the way you fare. Do you even know the position foodstuff comes from, except the save? It should be GROWN on a number of that empty land in the Midwest climate that's cows or vegetables. the point that there is vacant land no longer getting used ability no longer some thing. there is no longer one individual on the moon, so thats an finished waste of land! what number of human beings do you imagine you would possibly want to stay there?

Answer 3

You dont want to know the solution, but thats really the only way. I dont think its crowded though.

Answer 4

Birth control tablets!