• 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!

Is it inevitable that due to rapid population growth millions of people will die?

Is it inevitable that millions of people will have to die due to population growth?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 35.9%
  • No

    Votes: 25 64.1%

  • Total voters
    39
The scarcity mindset you're displaying is the hallmark of the left. I don't know what you're a member of but I know that's what the entire left wing ideology is built upon.

Wealth is not a zero sum game. The pie grows and shrinks depending on how many people are available to work.

BTW I'm thinking money and I'm thinking resources, and both are very real. The more people there are, the more we can develop our planet's natural resources. The more people you have to work the farm, the more food we can grow. The more people we have to work in oil and gas, the more we can develop that resource.

Resources are very plentiful. It's just a matter of having the skilled labor to develop those resources.

As long as the environment is considered an externality when it comes to input costs, our economic way of life will indeed always be a zero sum game.

Can you explain exactly how people can develop the planet's natural resources, in terms of adding to them? AFAIK we can't make something from nothing.
 
Yeah, so could a very large meteorite. The point? And of course the developed international trade and cooperation create a 'safety net'. That's part of being "developed" in general. Absolutely not true. The density and diversity of the forests of Maine, New Hampshire and much of Massachusetts is on par with those of any old growth. Yes, of course - with disease and crop failure increasingly failing to cause either financial collapse or political instability. There were no revolutions or regime changes in 1816 in Europe, because even back then the developed infrastructures and trade had soften the blow of the Year without Summer enough to stabilize the situation. What sheer nonsense. There were some food riots, and prices went up. There was an epidemic of typhus in Ireland that killed a lot of people about the same time, and malnutrition caused by the food shortages certainly contributed to the death toll, but the early 19th century Ireland hardly boasted "good infrastructure and government". When Krakatoa erupted just 70 years later, climate changes were not as great, but severe enough. Crops failed in many places. But it barely registered as a blow to developed societies. And that's what we should worry about - not about running of out air, sunshine, or human ingenuity. And yet here we are: more numerous, healthier and better fed than ever. Not wishful thinking - just calm observation. Beats disasterbation any time.

Where to start- well you claim to be 'calm' about this but a meteorite? :roll:
No sir, I disagree that international trade will save us from a population die-off. Even now many Americans are saying to hell with the rest of the world and international aid/trade. We are trillions in debt and other nations have toppled due to huge debt.

Your pulling the 'density and diversity' stuff out of your 4th POC. The scrub reclamation of New England is NOTHING like the old growth forests that built a huge merchant fleet. ( I do note you walked away from New Mexico and the Rockies now extinct forests)

There was a regime change in France due to famine- or do you not know where "let them eat cake" comes from? You are being very selective about history, a MASSIVE European war had been fought for decades, the people were just not up for more killing in 1816, like they were at the Start of the French Revolution.

Now I see Wiki was your source, Ireland was a part of the disease wave, across Europe an estimated 200,000 additional deaths besides the Irish. What you attempt to do in your dodging is not acknowledge factors can add up, be it a volcano during a little ice age- or massive debt halting additional credit. many civilizations died off through the ages because of a combination of events, not just one hit.

Our agriculture hangs on a rather razor's edge. We need massive inputs to be able to produce enough food for a highly urbanized society. These highly urban areas are creating their own superbugs that for now are controllable, but if we have a year or two of very poor crop production, either by drought, lack of credit to buy inputs or even a halt of available 'resources' due to political strife our balancing act can tumble.

Right now millions of Americans want to end the social safety net you claim is a primary reason we won't have a massive die-off. Many want market controls to be lifted on commodities. The Year without a Summer had prices for basic food stuffs rise 13X the original price. Imagine a year like that again, after massive droughts, then floods from a series of hurricanes that wiped out a great deal of the Gulf Coast refinery cap we find the nation unable to borrow the money to repair the infrastructure we have let go for decades, have a political stand-off between the 'we can't raise taxes' and the 'we MUST' causes the international community to balk at lending us the billions it would take to feed, rebuild and re-establish our national well being.

I am not a fear monger, rather I have seen Empires collapse because they all thought it couldn't happen to them.
 
We are trillions in debt and other nations have toppled due to huge debt..

Yes, and this is a real problem (as I said). Relevance to the topic?

The scrub reclamation of New England is NOTHING like the old growth forests that built a huge merchant fleet. .

You know that because the early settlers made an exhaustive catalog of species and counted and measured all trees, before commencing the deforestation?

It's not "scrub reclamation" - you have thriving woodland ecosystems all over New England. There are few 300-year-old trees, obviously. Because it hasn't been 300 years yet.

There was a regime change in France due to famine- or do you not know where "let them eat cake" comes from? .

So...how is it supposed to go? Mt.Tambora goes kaboom, climate oscillates, crops fail, the wave of misery travels back in time, and causes the French Revolution? That's a truly novel theory. You should publish.

Now I see Wiki was your source .

Actually, that's what I remembered from writing a college paper on Rickettsia, ages ago. But what if it were Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia some kind of an international conspiracy of population growth optimists?

Our agriculture hangs on a rather razor's edge. .

It sure does. Overproduction and excessive diversity can kill us any moment now.

I have seen Empires collapse because they all thought it couldn't happen to them.

I have seen that too, and rejoiced tremendously. And the collapse of the USSR most demonstrably had nothing to do with running out of natural resources or with population pressures. Russia is still immensely rich in resources - and thinly populated. (The same is obviously true for the disintegration of the colonial empires in the 1950-1960s).

I am not saying there's nothing to fear in the world. There's plenty to fear. But overpopulation is a red herring.
 
In other words, since there's no weighting of probabilities for their "highs" and "lows", a graphic representation of "the UN has absolutely no clue", in 5 colors.

Look at current. The population explosion has not halted, but likely will in the next couple of generations.
 
The question isn't how many people can the planet support, it is how bad of a quality of life do we want to accept?

There is a limit to how many people the world can handle, especially if quality of life matters. (apparently it doesn't to many people) If we don't use contraceptives for population control we will probably resort to the traditional method-widespread war. Nature (diseases, storms etc) and our environmental damage may also help balance things out. If we are lucky we can find another planet to infect before its too late.
 
More like their insights are barbaric and ridiculous. Forced population control and advocacy of wars and diseases? You really have the balls to wear a libertarian lean under that title?

Why can't we have voluntary population control instead? Having fewer children is already the preference of people who can access birth control and don't depend on their children to survive.
 
Look at current. The population explosion has not halted, but likely will in the next couple of generations.

The remaining increase in population we are going to see in the next couple of decades will be largely because of: (a) lower mortality across the board, and (b) still significant, though decreasing rapidly, birth rates in the most underdeveloped countries. The former is a positive development by an measure, and the latter is not going to last.

Once again, models and projections should be always taken with a lump of salt; we are talking about enormously complex systems nobody really understands. But the trend toward lower fertility and population growth deceleration in the last 50 years or so - all over the world, across ethnic, religious and cultural boundaries - is clear.
 
The language of 'have' is troubling and bothersome. It is that way because, for all intents and purposes, large quantities of people will likely be purged to thin our ranks. Overpopulation of human beings is a problem. While I'd rather no one get killed over it, I'm not a decision maker, but decision makers have been talking about overpopulation and population control as far back as I know to President Nixon (Richard Nixon: Special Message to the Congress on Problems of Population Growth.). The U.N. talks about it. Hell, Bill Gates is even rumored to discuss it.

The thing is, is that the talking stage of population control will one day go into an operational phase of population control. The facts may be hard to face head-on, but the more of us around there is, the more strain it has on every vital natural service. We already know supply can't keep up with demand. People, billions of them, are going without. That's why the U.N. suggested eating bugs. And the ones that are living okay, well, our materialism is killing our environment. Something, sooner or later, is going to give, and in a big way too and a lot of us that are still young are going to endure truly horrific times because of the short-sightedness of those that came before us.

And they said the future would be bright colors and flying cars…

Overpopulation is now a taboo topic among prominent politicians because it has been reframed by some activists as being racist. Also, earlier predictions of problems at our current level of population (or lower) proved to be inaccurate. However, the fact that things aren't much worse yet doesn't guarantee that unlimited population growth is going to remain benign. A disaster will need to happen before the issue is taken seriously again. I hope it won't be late at that point. I suspect humans can survive almost anything, but we may go back to something resembling the dark ages.
 
Why can't we have voluntary population control instead? Having fewer children is already the preference of people who can access birth control and don't depend on their children to survive.

Because the folks who shouldn't have kids, the ones who can't afford to feed and house them, are the ones who would not stop having kids. They are the problems. The ones who have fewer kids are the ones who can afford them. It's freaken backwards.
 
When has that ever worked? (outside of a monastery or convent)

It's worked for me. I don't live in a monastery or a convent.
It works for my nephews. They don't live in a monastery or a convent.
It's called being responsible for your own actions.
 
This is the central fallacy of the left. Resources aren't a zero-sum game. No need for such a scarcity mindset. People CREATE wealth. The more people, the more the pie grows for everyone.

That must explain why India, with its high population density, is so affluent and pleasant.

image001.jpg
 
Why would anyone seriously advocate killing to deal with overpopulation?



Bizarre comments… yikes.

People who oppose the use of contraceptives by default choose war/violence and/or starvation to control population.
 
Cockroaches do not have science, engineering and international trade.

And I hate to break the news, but the population is not exploding - it is imploding over half of the world. The stuff you have read must be at least 30 years old.

Places as different as Russia and Japan are facing veritable population collapse. Fertility over the replacement level is retained only in Africa and parts of Asia, but the writing on the wall is there as well: Iran has 1.67 births per woman, despite religious and cultural pressures.

I do think and hope that this trend will be reversed at some point in future, but right now we have to worry more about things like not enough young people to support all the pensioner than about too many mouths to feed.

The world's population is still increasing. It is only the rate of growth that has slowed down in some places.

300px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png

World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on "high", "medium" and "low" United Nations projections in 2010 (colored red, orange and green) and US Census Bureau historical estimates (in black). Actual recorded population figures are colored in blue. According to the highest estimate, the world population may rise to 16 billion by 2100; according to the lowest estimate, it may decline to 6 billion.
 
That must explain why India, with its high population density, is so affluent and pleasant.

image001.jpg

Tell me this.... was India MORE OR LESS affluent 50 years ago when its population was less densely populated? 100 years ago? Etc....

I'll answer for you. India is far, far more affluent today than at any time in recent history. So your argument falls flat on its face. There is no demonstrable link between population GROWTH and the growth of poverty.

Just because you can point to a country with a high population and say "that country is poor" and show pictures of starving naked babies does not mean the high population is what got them there.

In point of fact, India has been poor throughout most of recorded history. It was EVEN MORE POOR when it was less densely populated.
 
Because the folks who shouldn't have kids, the ones who can't afford to feed and house them, are the ones who would not stop having kids. They are the problems. The ones who have fewer kids are the ones who can afford them. It's freaken backwards.

I don't have kids either, but that doesn't mean a large number of other people can control themselves. Look at some of the poorest places in the world-people still have plenty of children. In fact, they tend to have more kids. Unless Chinese style forced population control is enforced, people will have more children, sex is too popular and as living beings our entire existence is largely devoted to reproduction. People only have fewer children when they have access to contraceptives and they are affluent enough to do something else with their time. That is not likely to be the case throughout the world as the population increases. Possibly a major overpopulation-caused disaster will slow people down, but I doubt it. More likely we will choose war.
 
Tell me this.... was India MORE OR LESS affluent 50 years ago when its population was less densely populated? 100 years ago? Etc....

I'll answer for you. India is far, far more affluent today than at any time in recent history. So your argument falls flat on its face. There is no demonstrable link between population GROWTH and the growth of poverty.

Just because you can point to a country with a high population and say "that country is poor" and show pictures of starving naked babies does not mean the high population is what got them there.

In point of fact, India has been poor throughout most of recorded history. It was EVEN MORE POOR when it was less densely populated.

I understand that humans are too complex to find a direct correlation between population and poverty. Factors include new technology, emigration and increased trade with outside areas. But just as I can't prove that their high population growth causes many of their problems, you can't prove that it lead to an increase in prosperity. India may be better off with a higher population, but I suspect, yet can't prove, that it would even more prosperous with a lower population.
 
I understand that humans are too complex to find a direct correlation between population and poverty. Factors include new technology, emigration and increased trade with outside areas. But just as I can't prove that their high population growth causes many of their problems, you can't prove that it lead to an increase in prosperity. India may be better off with a higher population, but I suspect, yet can't prove, that it would even more prosperous with a lower population.

I can agree with that. Isn't the technology boom a direct result of having more people around, though? Fewer people means fewer engineers to design all the cool stuff we have, fewer workers to build it, etc.

I would argue that India's BIGGEST ASSET is its population. Get those people educated and.... look out world.
 
Is it inevitable that due to rapid population growth millions of people will ...

I can agree with that. Isn't the technology boom a direct result of having more people around, though? Fewer people means fewer engineers to design all the cool stuff we have, fewer workers to build it, etc.

I would argue that India's BIGGEST ASSET is its population. Get those people educated and.... look out world.

Well I would look to world war 2 and the battle of nations when it comes to technological booms. The space race basically invented portable technology...small computers that can get into space because they are light. Satellites too. Faster cars? Jets? Transportation?

But now there is a market to sell the same repurposed technology...for entertainment (games and movies). A larger population does give a higher profit to people selling technology, but that population must also be relatively affluent. A largerer population would be more difficult to educate, but it depends on the values placed on education by the culture.
 
Re: Is it inevitable that due to rapid population growth millions of people will ...

Well I would look to world war 2 and the battle of nations when it comes to technological booms. The space race basically invented portable technology...small computers that can get into space because they are light. Satellites too. Faster cars? Jets? Transportation?

But now there is a market to sell the same repurposed technology...for entertainment (games and movies). A larger population does give a higher profit to people selling technology, but that population must also be relatively affluent. A largerer population would be more difficult to educate, but it depends on the values placed on education by the culture.

With respect to India, we're talking about a culture here who has a caste system. A friggin legalized underclass. Of course that significant subset of people are going to have a hard time getting educated. And the lower castes were large too, most of the population. In societies like that, education is limited to the elites: the few ruled the many, and had access to all the guns, all the gold, and, most importantly, all the books.

A system like that is not something you break out of on a Wednesday and everything's fine by Saturday morning. Not at all like that. It takes years, maybe even centuries, to heal from that kind of systemic segregation.

For an example, we need look no further than our own backyard. As much as I hate to say it, our own African American population is exhibit A. We actually had institutional slavery, and of course slaves were not allowed to read and write, and slavery was not abolished until the 1870's or so. Now, 150 years later, African Americans STILL have not caught up to the level of education and prosperity of their former masters.

What does that say, then, for India's future? Or China's? It could take centuries for the kind of equality and dedication to everyone's well-being to permeate in to a society enough to have an effect.
 
Re: Is it inevitable that due to rapid population growth millions of people will ...

Technology will most likely make immortality for humans possible. HOWEVER, the haves will be the only people to afford the technology. The have nots will, over time, simply become a dying class. They'll probably be studied in sociology classes, history classes...etc in future times.
 
Overpopulation is now a taboo topic among prominent politicians because it has been reframed by some activists as being racist. Also, earlier predictions of problems at our current level of population (or lower) proved to be inaccurate. However, the fact that things aren't much worse yet doesn't guarantee that unlimited population growth is going to remain benign. A disaster will need to happen before the issue is taken seriously again. I hope it won't be late at that point. I suspect humans can survive almost anything, but we may go back to something resembling the dark ages.

Overpopulation may be a taboo subject, but it is the root of many problems. Like over-fishing for example. There is an excessive demand on a finite supply of devourable aquatic life. Or on fresh water. There are many more examples, but the point is painfully clear: the more of us there are the more of a strain there will be on the resources and materials we collectively rely on. Eventually, a breaking point will occur. I say that because science and philanthropy have not kept pace with population. And once resources become even scarcer, the forces of equilibrium will be too great to overcome.
 
Last edited:
Why can't we have voluntary population control instead? Having fewer children is already the preference of people who can access birth control and don't depend on their children to survive.

We do. Lots of people are deciding they don't need little screaming brats to have a nice life.

Which is precisely why we don't need to go around killing people like neo-malthusians want.
 
It has probably been said, but I think it is inevitable that everyone will die.
 
It has probably been said, but I think it is inevitable that everyone will die.

Everyone dies, but the quantity of people alive at the same time impacts our quality of life.
 
Back
Top Bottom