The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > There are too many people in the world > Comments

There are too many people in the world : Comments

By Everald Compton, published 14/6/2011

Politicians are afraid to discuss the most pressing environmental issue - over-population.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 36
  11. 37
  12. 38
  13. All
Nicco said...."Resources are finite, and demand is growing exponentially."

The issue nobody seems to equate to the problem of diminishing resources is that of exponential growth. When I was born in the mid 60's, the world population was 2.728 billion. There was plenty to go around for everybody, even though some, through military might or financial manipulation, sought to take more from some to keep for themselves.

In the 57 years since I was born, over 4 billion people have added to the burden of ever shrinking resources and no matter how much the "growth brigade" would like to see that process continuing, peak resources such as oil and phosphorous will very soon make that an impossible reality.

So as judge and awarder of prises for observation and knowledge, I give this post's prize for most astute to Nicco. Well done Nicco! 9 out of 10.

I never award top prize. I wouldn't want to be the cause of anyone getting a swollen head :-)
Posted by Aime, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 2:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aime

Nicco's posts are always of a high standard. Population is but one of a raft of issues humans face in the future. No amount of population control will create more non-renewable resources.

PS

You cannot have been born in the MID-60's and be born 57 years ago.
Posted by Ammonite, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 2:37:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*When I was born in the mid 60's, the world population was 2.728 billion.In the 57 years since I was born*

Aime, charming person that you may be, your head for figures is
clearly not the best. If you were born in the mid 60s, you are
not 57.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 2:42:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A bunch of people are in a lifeboat and one guy notices that the lifeboat is taking on water.

He says "We need to start bailing out this lifeboat."

Some of the other people on the boat say "No, you should kill yourself," "You are a fascist" and "Lets just let the boat sink and then fight it out when people start drowning."

We are living less sustainably each year. One of the things we can do in Australia is have net zero immigration. That is only one of the things. We also need to start recycling more, using more renewable energy and polluting less. That won't be easy. It will probably cost money in the short term. If we don't, life will be worse for our children and grandchildren.

I don't want life to be worse for our children and grandchildren.
Posted by ericc, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 3:16:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taking this topic of population reduction seriously, if hypothetically, a decline in the numbers of producers/workers of 10 % per generation would be bearable - any more and the tax burden would become too oppressive for the younger working generations.

If the current growth in the birthrate is around 20 % per generation, this reduction of 10 % per generation (or 0.4-0.5 % p.a.) would require a decline in the annual birthrate of at least 30 % - two children being born each year instead of three.

Even so, this rate of 10 % would still suggest a drop of 20-22 % in the working population over a person's working lifetime of, say, fifty years: 20 % fewer people to carry the welfare and fiscal burdens of a shrinking society.

With a decline of 10 % per generation, the population would halve in 200-250 years, and still cause quite a bit of social and economic upheaval across the younger population. I wonder if Gen Y has thought of that.

So all the Utopian fascists, to defer to Clownfish's apt description [and one may add - from both Left and Right], may have to gnash their teeth and curse their parents for a good few centuries yet.

Meanwhile the world will keep producing with ever greater efficiency and ingenuity, whether for a slowly growing, or a shrinking, population, while the neo-Malthusians endlessly foretell our common doom.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 3:22:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I cannot understand all this talk about population control only being possible with a fascist coercion. Where is the evidence that this is necessary? I would cite United Nations sponsored research which suggests that all that is needed is to provide contraception to those women who want it:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ig9eC9rGJMCBlymLZsPQ5-RNY6_g

<around 200 million women still do not have access to contraception, leading to 76 million unwanted births a year.>

Were these women given access to contraception, the World's population would be stable: No coercion is needed. In light of this, statements like this are patently false:

<Asking humans to stop breeding is like persuading cockatoos to quite demolishing my verandah. Just ain't natural behaviour.>

The fact is that the World's population is growing because some leaders would rather have a supply of slaves and cannon fodder than see the lot of their citizens improve.

Advocating population growth does not necessarily infer high moral standards.
Posted by Fester, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 4:45:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 36
  11. 37
  12. 38
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy