• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's an acceptable world population? [W:48]

What's an acceptable world population?

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
We will cap somewhere in the future

I know from other animal populations, What goes up MOST come down somehow

Human Beings might find this out the hard way

Key word is MIGHT so please don't spam attack me
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
The world needs more people in it. Declining birth rates are going to lead to a demographic crisis.
Click to expand...

That's an issue in the developed and China not the developing world. Immigrants form developing countries where the birthrate is higher helps even it out. Especially here the birth rate is at 1 while some provinces have less than 1 like Quebec. They are in trouble because there is not enough people to pay taxes and immigrants don't like to move there due to the language laws. It's an immigration issue right now.
 
Brookings Institute paper of 30 plus years ago suggested that the great powers will eventually limit
third world population growth. Bioweapons least costly and not damaging to infrastructure.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Machetes are cheap.

Poll is fail. Highest population option is less than half of current world population while population is continuing to grow and is projected to plateau anyway at ten billion-- more than three times the highest poll option, and a number that our planet is more than capable of supporting comfortably. I'm more worried about the economic effects of stagnant population growth than any kind of serious worry about overpopulation.
Click to expand...

I'll admit, I am indebted here, I did not expect someone to hit on the exact perfect note a mere three posts in.

The issue isn't overpopulation. The issue is what to do about demographic decline in the (broadly) western world.
 
Longstreet said:
limit third world population growth.
Click to expand...

'Limit third world population growth'
It's Called Eugenics

And I Have A Lot Of Real Nasty Things To Say
But The 'Moderator' Has Given Me A Warning Not To Offend Anyone With Mere Text On Your Computer Screen

Because You Are Easily Offended By The Printed Word

BOOK BURNING ON NEW YEARS !!
BRING YOUR ANN COULTERS !!!

(Oh Lookie, ALL CAPS !!)
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
It would depend on the lifestyle of the population. If everyone consumed like we do in the West, not many. If we were all hunter-gatherers, with limited technology, maybe more.
It's always immensely personally satisfying to liberals to assauge their cherished self-loathing by expressing hatred and disrespect for their own, however they never seem to consider the converse of the above statement, which is that, if all tolerated the liberal non-producers who consume entirely based on the work of others, that end would come much sooner. Simply because liberalism, by definition, requires fewer and fewer people supporting more and more non-producers who simply enjoy consumption as a goal in itself.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It's above my pay grade.

The dynamics are way too complex to engineer a top-down solution to such a hypothetical problem, so why consider it instead of adapting to it as it comes? I recognize climate change but I'm perfectly content to ride it out rather than solve it, so it is with the population question.

(Poll options suck BTW, more than half of the options are far less than the current population. Is this just a call out on Malthusians to defend arbitrary choices, with their detractors given relatively easy options they don't have to justify?).
 
Either way, I dont agree with decreasing the world population through genocide. We are pushing the limits now, I think problems will emerge when the population goes above 10 billion. When that happens we'll die anyway, its nature's choice.
 
Nordenkalt444 said:
Either way, I dont agree with decreasing the world population through genocide. We are pushing the limits now, I think problems will emerge when the population goes above 10 billion. When that happens we'll die anyway, its nature's choice.
Click to expand...

Actual population does not matter as much as ubiquity of energy relative to population.
 
If ever I feel the world population is too large relative to the means to support it, I would advocate better means not less people.
 
My own opinion, which is the same as the opinion of genetic scientists, isn't on thee. I guess the experts would have to choose "that question is above my pay grade" as their response.,
 
tacomancer said:
I don't see how there is any way to ethically calculate this. Even worse, even if it can be calculated, if it requires a population decrease, it's going to take some intense evil to get rid of a few billion.
Click to expand...

Or just the lazy evil of doing nothing about our contribution to the heating of the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom