• 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 the population bomb real

Is the world overpopulated


  • Total voters
    47

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
IMO we have too many people on the planet already and the quality of life is decreasing as population increases. The guy that wrote the book The Population Bomb is now saying there should be mandatory population control which I am against but as far as his contention that we have to stop or even reverse population growth I tend to agree.

"A Stanford professor and author of The Population Bomb recently published a paper in a scientific journal re-emphasizing climate change and population growth pose existential threats to humanity and in an interview with Raw Story said that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is “a bad idea.”

The only criticism we’ve had on the paper is that it’s too optimistic,” said Paul Ehrlich, Bing professor of population studies at Stanford University and president of the Center for Conservation Biology. “You can’t negotiate with nature.”The study, published the Proceedings of the Royal Society B journal earlier this month says that climate change is “driven by overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens‘ aggregate consumption.”

‘Population Bomb’ scientist: ‘Nobody’ has the right to ‘as many children as they want’ | The Raw Story
 
The entire world's fertility rate is going down, from Americans, to Latinos, to Muslims, to Chinese; everyone.

Overpopulation is not a serious problem.
 
The population dispersion is a bigger problem than the growth rate.
 
And? Our fertility rate is still decreasing. The rate at which that clock records births will decline.

Yep, and its only going to get worse. When the world gets top heavy with "elderly", everything will be worse off.
 
Meh, I wish my country would get a population bomb or two
 
What the hell does that have to do with this?

Did you even read the OP?


"A Stanford professor and author of The Population Bomb recently published a paper in a scientific journal re-emphasizing climate change and population growth pose existential threats to humanity and in an interview with Raw Story said that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is “a bad idea.”
 
Yep, and its only going to get worse. When the world gets top heavy with "elderly", everything will be worse off.

So we should make more high consumption people for the jobs that no longer exist because we keep sending them either to other countries or giving them to machines?

Sacrificing the livability of the planet for the imaginary and temporary relief of the elderly bulge. Genius.
 
So we should make more high consumption people for the jobs that no longer exist because we keep sending them either to other countries or giving them to machines?

Sacrificing the livability of the planet for the imaginary and temporary relief of the elderly bulge. Genius.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
 
and in an interview with Raw Story said that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is “a bad idea.”

What a horrible phrase.

"Giving people the right." We don't need to be given what we already have innately.
 
Theres no problem with world population at all

the problem is how we treat eachother, how we treat the planet and our outdated and illogical monetary system and resource usage.
 
IMO we have too many people on the planet already and the quality of life is decreasing as population increases.

I think you are wrong on both counts.

The more, the merrier.

Gabon is overpopulated at 13 people per sq.mi., Holland is still underpopulated - in terms of resources available and human potentials idling - at 1,020 per sq.mi. This is not about how many people are there. This is about the level of development of human society. In a society that is functioning reasonably well, most members are engaged in productive activity that creates new "resources" and enhances everyone's well-being (improved environment included). The more people, the more "good stuff" will be made, other things given equall.

You always can imagine some natural "hard ceiling" for growth determined by exhaustible natural resources (how about: the Sun will exhaust itself eventually), but nobody even has adequate methodical tools to try and predict the break point...

"The guy who wrote The Population Bomb (Paul Ehrlich) was wrong about approximately everything back then, in 1968, and now he is getting ridiculously wrong, in the face of demographic implosion threatening many countries. The only excuse he has is that in his professional capacity he studies insects. And insects, indeed, tend to suffer from swings of overpopulation and decimation. Insects, however, do not have civilization and human creativity - a fact that somehow escapes the good professor.

The curret fascistic turn of his "advocacy" should give pause to some naive supporters of iron-fist environmentalism. There was always an ugly undercurrent to these benign-sounding ideas. When Democratic Governor of Colorado and prominent environmentalist Richard Lamm had opined in 1984 that old, ill people have the ecological duty to die and get out of the way, that created quite a stir, although he did not suggest that government should prod them along, in any way or form. But when the same kind of thinking leads to demands of global control and disruption of activities that improve our quality of life - often starting from a very low level - oh, that's the new normal.

Paul Ehrlich was not obviously wrong on his own terms in 1968. He followed a speculative model that sounded reasonable, if you choose to ignore some parameters. The catastrophic climate change models sound reasonable in the same way. The problems begin when you assume it gives you the right to tell other people how much energy to use, or how many children to have.
 
I agree. Tell the people in Africa and parts of Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan) to have less children.

Who are the countries that have the highest population problem?
African countries.

List of sovereign states and dependent territories by fertility rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Top 50 countries, almost all are exclusively african countries and they can't even be self-sufficient.

What are the countries that are the lowest? European countries (and western nations in general) and developed Asian countries.

So lets have all the nations that are in the top 50 half their birth rates and we'll have a steady, sustainable growth and more prosperity all over the place.
 
I think you are wrong on both counts.

The more, the merrier.

Gabon is overpopulated at 13 people per sq.mi., Holland is still underpopulated - in terms of resources available and human potentials idling - at 1,020 per sq.mi. This is not about how many people are there. This is about the level of development of human society. In a society that is functioning reasonably well, most members are engaged in productive activity that creates new "resources" and enhances everyone's well-being (improved environment included). The more people, the more "good stuff" will be made, other things given equall.

You always can imagine some natural "hard ceiling" for growth determined by exhaustible natural resources (how about: the Sun will exhaust itself eventually), but nobody even has adequate methodical tools to try and predict the break point...

"The guy who wrote The Population Bomb (Paul Ehrlich) was wrong about approximately everything back then, in 1968, and now he is getting ridiculously wrong, in the face of demographic implosion threatening many countries. The only excuse he has is that in his professional capacity he studies insects. And insects, indeed, tend to suffer from swings of overpopulation and decimation. Insects, however, do not have civilization and human creativity - a fact that somehow escapes the good professor.

The curret fascistic turn of his "advocacy" should give pause to some naive supporters of iron-fist environmentalism. There was always an ugly undercurrent to these benign-sounding ideas. When Democratic Governor of Colorado and prominent environmentalist Richard Lamm had opined in 1984 that old, ill people have the ecological duty to die and get out of the way, that created quite a stir, although he did not suggest that government should prod them along, in any way or form. But when the same kind of thinking leads to demands of global control and disruption of activities that improve our quality of life - often starting from a very low level - oh, that's the new normal.

Paul Ehrlich was not obviously wrong on his own terms in 1968. He followed a speculative model that sounded reasonable, if you choose to ignore some parameters. The catastrophic climate change models sound reasonable in the same way. The problems begin when you assume it gives you the right to tell other people how much energy to use, or how many children to have.

I disagree but compliment you on a very well thought out rebuttal.
 
"To the moon, Alice"--Jakie Gleason, the Honeymooners.

We don't have a population problem, we have a resource and real estate problem. Solution, "We gotta get outta this place".
 
Did you even read the OP?


"A Stanford professor and author of The Population Bomb recently published a paper in a scientific journal re-emphasizing climate change and population growth pose existential threats to humanity and in an interview with Raw Story said that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is “a bad idea.”


Yes I did, but I don't see what my ownviews on AGW have to do with an ouverpopulation crisis.

But yes, I acknowledge the scientific evidience that indicates that Human activity is having a negative effect on our enviorment.
 
I disagree but compliment you on a very well thought out rebuttal.

I guess our disagreement is mostly about: "So, are we, the humanity as a whole, likely to find ourselves in future closer to Gabon or closer to Holland, in terms of our societal condition?" I am cauiously optimistic.
 
In my view, the statement in the OP that the poor are poor because of the rich (or something to that effect) disqualifies his conclusions. I think Paul should stick to bugs.
 
In my view, the statement in the OP that the poor are poor because of the rich (or something to that effect) disqualifies his conclusions. I think Paul should stick to bugs.

Poor people are poor and rich people are rich because that is the result of constrained resources.
 
And? Our fertility rate is still decreasing. The rate at which that clock records births will decline.

Regardless, that doesn't mean we have the resources to adequately support 7B people.
 
Yes I did, but I don't see what my ownviews on AGW have to do with an ouverpopulation crisis.

But yes, I acknowledge the scientific evidience that indicates that Human activity is having a negative effect on our enviorment.

Just curious because I would think if you buy the AGW theory you would agree with this guy that the worlds overpopulated.
 
Back
Top Bottom