• 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!

Overpopulation and Economy

Is the world becoming overpopulated? Should we do something about it?

  • The world is becoming overpopulated; we should take action, by imposing birth limits

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • The world is becoming overpopulated; we should impose birth limits and not allow immigrants

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • The world is becoming overpopulated, but we should not take action; let things work themselves out

    Votes: 7 33.3%
  • I do not think the world is becoming overpopulated; this is just a myth

    Votes: 12 57.1%

  • Total voters
    21
Yes, the unequal distribution of resources.
Not so much - more like the inability to effectively get things for A to B.

Or.... not affluenza, but poor/difficult/impossible logistics.
 
Not so much - more like the inability to effectively get things for A to B.

Or.... not affluenza, but poor/difficult/impossible logistics.

No, not the inability. For example, there are literally thousands of tonnes of food sitting in warehouses in Africa that never get distributed to the poor and starving people there. Why? Politics, greed..the usual. In the 21st century, logistics shouldn't be a big issue.
 
No, not the inability. For example, there are literally thousands of tonnes of food sitting in warehouses in Africa that never get distributed to the poor and starving people there. Why? Politics, greed
Yes... that create impossible logitstical problems. It's hard to transport food past a warlord that doesn't want it to get where it needs to be.
What you describe here has nothing to do with the fact that the relatively small number of people in the US have so much wealth and consume so much energy.
 
No, not the inability. For example, there are literally thousands of tonnes of food sitting in warehouses in Africa that never get distributed to the poor and starving people there. Why? Politics, greed..the usual. In the 21st century, logistics shouldn't be a big issue.

it's not. usually it's bureacracy and corruption. also lack of a market.

Amarta Sen likes to point out that no working democracy has ever suffered famine, and the Black Book of Socialism points out that only in nations that imposed socialized control over food have we seen famines since 1918.
 
I believe in capitalism but it does have a flaw, it depends on growth. More people buying more goods and services from more people, this can't go on forever.So far the conversation is based on man, on how many of us earth can feed and fuel but theres other players here. We have so successfully filled in every nook and cranny that wildlife is hanging by a thread. In USA the wolves, and grizzly bears have few if any places left in lower 48 to live, not to mention Buffalo that once roamed the country in huge herds. We damn rivers for power and flood control that used to have millions of salmon in them.In Africa they kill elephants for stomping crops planted on ancient elephant trails. In India they shoot Bengal Tigers for killing people who insist on living where tigers live. Forest are being cut down to plant crops where gorillas once lived. I could go on forever but I think my points made. Yes we have overpopulated planet earth.
 
Most of humanity lives in poverty. Those who disagree are in denial. Have things improved? Sure, for some people. Others still have a pathetic existence, and the rest of the world simply ignores that fact.
So...?
7890
 
Yes... that create impossible logitstical problems. It's hard to transport food past a warlord that doesn't want it to get where it needs to be.
What you describe here has nothing to do with the fact that the relatively small number of people in the US have so much wealth and consume so much energy.

I recommend the documentary, Flow: ‪flow the love of water‬‏ - YouTube

I doubt you'll watch it, but it does a brilliant job in showing how the super rich and how corporations exploit people worldwide. Everything is connected.
 
I recommend the documentary, Flow: ‪flow the love of water‬‏ - YouTube
I doubt you'll watch it, but it does a brilliant job in showing how the super rich and how corporations exploit people worldwide. Everything is connected.
As I said:
What you describe here has nothing to do with the fact that the relatively small number of people in the US have so much wealth and consume so much energy.
 
As I said:
What you describe here has nothing to do with the fact that the relatively small number of people in the US have so much wealth and consume so much energy.

Yes. It does. How can anyone actually believe that a small portion of the population can use more resources than billions of people combined, and not have an effect on the rest of the planet?
 
Malthus is STILL wrong.

How does immigration contribute to world population?
 
Malthus is STILL wrong.

How does immigration contribute to world population?
It moves the population to a different place so that the world spins better.
This makes happy people, and happy people breed like rabbits.

Solution: Make eveyone unhappy!

:mrgreen:
 
As nations become more developed birth rate decreases.

The world is not over-populated, but certain parts of it are. The solution? Do nothing. Overpopulation will naturally sort itself out.

We, however, encourage over-population in those areas by, for example, donating money for food to Africa, the most over-populated continent in the world (it is large, but most of the continent is not arable land). Now, there is easily enough food to go around but we'd have to jump through hoops to get it from the farms producing excess in the Americas to Africa, but we'd be getting nothing in return. Why support someone when they are a burden? It's not natural.

Naturally, famine kills some of them, disease kills some more, war over limited supplies kills even more, and some immigrate to the under-populated countries. Now here comes the problem. Mr. Bigshot overseas rich country has some special interest groups that, for whatever reason (be it religion, humanitarianism, etc), decide they need to save all these people. They show everyone in the country graphic pictures of starving children, create sad commercials, etc. The people of that country decide to pay for the overpopulated country's food, medicine, and the rich country's military might force 'peace' upon the country. That country will then keep accepting immigrants from that country as refugees, eventually naturalizing them. 3 out of 4 natural solutions to overpopulation are no longer functional. But one is, and that is immigration. You have a country reproducing faster than they can immigrate out. The immigrants will keep coming, eventually outnumbering the original inhabitants of Mr. Bigshot country. Culture will be destroyed, racism will become rampant, socially it will be a disaster, the immigrants will be uneducated and may not even speak the language, first-generation immigrants will still maintain a third-world birthrate, etc. Eventually the under-populated country becomes over-populated. They will struggle to support themselves, and will be unable to support the poor overseas country. Then the nonfunctioning natural systems of managing overpopulation will re-activate, but they will do so both in the poor country AND in the rich country, and then the cycle will repeat itself, as another rich bigshot underpopulated country will step up to the plate and begin accepting immigrants while keeping the inhabitants of the original country alive (this whole process can occur in multiple countries simultaneously).

And that is how a few over-populated countries can destroy over-populated countries. The solution to breaking this cycle is to either develop the country to the point where it can support it's population (right now we do little developing, more maintaining), or to just let nature run it's course in the first place.

wut
 
The people of that country decide to pay for the overpopulated country's food, medicine, and the rich country's military might force 'peace' upon the country.

Now hold on a second here. I agree that foreign aid is often misused and/or inefficient, but let's not lump all of those things together, as they are not the same. Giving the least-developed countries money for their militaries is clearly a bad idea, I would agree. Paying for their food is generally a bad idea as well...although I think I'd make an exception for temporary crises, like the current famine in East Africa. But if it's a chronic shortage, I agree that donating food is counterproductive, because growing food is the only way for those countries to develop their economies and they can't do it if our donations flood the market and make their food worthless.

But in terms of medicine, I strongly disagree with you. Africa and South Asia need MORE assistance from developed countries when it comes to dealing with health crises, especially infectious diseases. These conditions DESTROY their economies and make it extremely difficult for them to grow. For example, one economic study showed that countries where malaria was widespread had an economic growth rate that was 1.3% lower than it would have otherwise been without malaria. Any assistance that we can provide countries on dealing with these kind of problems is well worth the expense.

I don't think you can say that foreign aid is good or bad...it depends on what kind of aid is provided and to whom it's being provided.
 
Back
Top Bottom