• 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!

How much will world population continue to grow?

World Population growth


  • Total voters
    15
Yeah and even in the middle of the amazon, you can only travel 100 miles without running into modern human cities

Pretty undeniable that nature is dwindling into nothing as a direct result of human activity

Most of our large remaining wilderness areas are in the boreal north where population densities are very low due to the inhospitable climate.
 
The population growth is a real problem and will result in a lot of resource stress for us if we don't address it.

However everything seems to point a solution where our number one priority should be to improve the quality of life for the world's poor. In almost all developed countries, the populations tend towards negative growth rather than positive growth if you exclude first-generation immigrants. And if you look at birthrates of developing nations, their birthrates are dropping in sync with the improvement of their population's quality of life.

Or said another way, once parents have confidence in their countries health care systems (low infant mortality), their education system (know their kids will be educated), and are confidentthat they will be able support themselves in old age (i.e. retirement nest eggs & social security nets exist); the motivation to have a third, fourth, fifth, etc. child is no longer there.

We have to pull out in order to achieve that.

Half the reason so many third world countries are in the kind of shape they're in is because of the West: the austerity programs we've forced on them, their farmers that we've run out of business with subsidized grain, our constant tinkering or outright take-over of their governments for our own interests, etc.

The best thing that could happen to Africa and the Middle East is the West ending all involvement. That includes forgiving all debt and relinquishing all territory.

We cannot force them to develop, and the more we try to do it on our terms, the worse things are going to get.

At any rate, mother nature will have her say sooner or later, and most likely sooner. We can't sustain at this level of growth and resource use/waste. There are already signs of distress in most ecosystems, and some have collapsed entirely. People seem to forget that there have actually been quite a number of human societies that have gone extinct due to destroying their own land. Hell, that was half the Great Depression. How do people get so foolish as to think that can't happen again?
 
i'm interested in this topic. i have generally argued that the three inevitable populations controls are war, famine, and disease. as population increases, the probability of some combination of these population controls becoming a significant factor approaches one. this past week, i heard about a study that makes overpopulation even more nuanced :

Behavioral sink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How Mice Turned Their Private Paradise Into A Terrifying Dystopia

pretty interesting stuff.

Researchers in Brazil have discovered drug-resistant bacteria in the sea waters where sailing and windsurfing events will be held during the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.

The "super-bacteria" are usually found in hospital waste and produce an enzyme, KPC, resistant to antibiotics.

Brazil Olympics: Super-bacteria found in Rio sea waters - BBC News

Some vids on this topic.

David Suzuki on exponential growth.



 
I agree that everyone can certainly have climate control, hot water, sewers, refrigeration and so on. However, I don't see a lot of uninhabited land as a bad thing. I think having functioning ecosystems and wilderness is a very good thing. Particularly considering its such a finite resource. Even in a country that is not overly dense like the United States, the furthest you can be from a road in the lower 48 is just a little more than 20 miles (as the crow flies) in the southern end of the Yellowstone ecosystem. In all my backpacking / backcountry fishing trips the furthest I have ever been from a road as the crow flies was just 18 miles in any direction. The furthest you can get from a road in the east is just 12 miles in any direction in the Everglades or 10.5 miles in any directions in the Boundary Waters. In the whole state of Texas you can't ever get more than 2 to 3 miles from a road in any direction. In Northeast the furthest from a road you can get is about 5 miles in the middle of the Adirondacks. This is all in the United States where we have done a lot to preserve our wildlands. The situation is much worse in the majority of countries. In fact, I would say the only countries were its better would be Canada, Australia, and Russia and those only because of much lower population densities and the shear size of them.
I don't think we are much in disagreement, I just prefer to keep optimistic about the future.
There is a path forward where everyone's lifestyles can improve.
 
Back
Top Bottom