I Believe Global Population Is Reaching An Unsustainable Level

Murrmurr said:
Maybe sterilization should be mandatory. In certain cases, like, for women, after the second abortion, or, for both partners, after you've had your "replacement" child.
Click to expand...
Don't you think that is a tad draconian?
 

The U.S. population grew at the record low rate of .1% in 2021, due in part to all the people dying from covid-19. The pandemic is natures way of saying, "Hold on there, world population — you're growing a bit too fast. I'm going to have to step in and do something about that."
 
In the last two hundred years the population, globally has gone from one billion to just shy of eight billion. Does that worry me? Not when I see the global spend annually on armaments stand at two thousand billion US dollars.

Strange old world, my wife and I thought about children and decided they were not for us. So, at twenty two, following a simple surgical procedure, I fired blanks. A word of advice to any younger lurkers here. Never admit you don't want children. Since becoming unleaded, I have read some serious vitriol about choosing that lifestyle. Not aimed at us, simply because we tell nobody, but choosing a life without children is, in the opinion of some, below contempt.
 
Irwin said:
The U.S. population grew at the record low rate of .1% in 2021, due in part to all the people dying from covid-19. The pandemic is natures way of saying, "Hold on there, world population — you're growing a bit too fast. I'm going to have to step in and do something about that."
Click to expand...

Covid-19 deaths won't be a drop in the bucket as soon as the pandemic is over since it's mainly killing people beyond reproductive age. The Earth needs a much!!! more deadly human virus for it to heal.
 
Alligatorob said:
Perhaps, but I don't think people will starve in mass peacefully.
Click to expand...
One of those nasty facts people in general don't want to think about. Who has recently looked up the crop yield per acre, or the loss of topsoil ? One of the results will be a reduction in grains used to feed animals that make up the protein supply. Known is less supply means higher pricing.

Who knows maybe Soylent Green will become a reality.
 
If we want to reduce the population for the overriding good of humanity, makes sense to start getting rid of the old people first. They tend not to produce too much and have fairly high maintenance overhead.

Any volunteers?
 
HarryHawk said:
If we want to reduce the population for the overriding good of humanity, makes sense to start getting rid of the old people first. They tend not to produce too much and have fairly high maintenance overhead.

Any volunteers?
Click to expand...
If I was to be taken early then I would not complain. Just don't tell me when I am to go.
I want to go unexpectedly:D
 
Uptosnuff said:
What is the point of your question? Sounds like a no-win to me.
Click to expand...
The point is that I find it ironic that some people on this forum want to see disease overtake the planet where their children reside yet complain about over population. I have no children, so it really does not matter to me in the long run.

"As a researcher in quantum chaos and neuroscience, I struggled to reassemble the scattered shards of my physical worldview. Over weeks, this metamorphosed into “The Symbiotic Cosmology of Perennial Conscious Existence”, a creative commons monograph on Research Gate – augmenting physical cosmology with its universal complement in conscious existence, in three interlocking components, biogenic, panpsychic and symbiotic. This cosmology is consistent with quantum physics and neuroscience . . .

B: Reflowering Paradise on the Cosmic Equator in Space-time 13 billion years out from the big bang: (1) Give half the Earth back to re-wilding the wilderness, so there is enough species diversity for the biosphere to evolve. (2) Transition to renewable energy immediately. (3) Decentralise food supply chains to protect humanity. (4) Ensure the genetic diversity of our food and medicinal species. (5) Eliminate nukes and consider how best to avoid a massive asteroid Earth strike and protect from nearby supernovae. (6) Teach people how to live in symbiotic urban culture. (7) Use technology for the benefit of life as a whole not for personal gain, humanity alone, or an artificial intelligence takeover. (8) Celebrate the perennial wonder of existence throughout our generations forever Amen." Chris King Professor of Maths, Auckland University Retired file:///C:/Users/PC/Downloads/The_Symbiotic_Cosmology_of_Perennial_Con.pdf
 
Last edited:
The more I see of what is happening, the more concerned I become about the world our grandkids, and beyond, will inherit. I won't live long enough to see the decline, but I am Not optimistic about what the latter half of this century will look like.
 
HarryHawk said:
If we want to reduce the population for the overriding good of humanity, makes sense to start getting rid of the old people first. They tend not to produce too much and have fairly high maintenance overhead.

Any volunteers?
Click to expand...
For those that believe there is a God with a plan for everyone.
Maybe God would plan to eliminate all the bad people.
Then those that have used drugs to the detriment of society.
Moving on to those that have caused their own poor health to the point of needing special care just to survive.
Next would be the gluttons that use more than their share of food that would be available.

At some point looking at the way mankind has increased & has developed negatively in so many ways. IMO worse than when God supposedly wiped out everyone but Noah & his family wouldn't he or she be really pi$$ed about the deterioration of how his "children" turned out & try again?
 
Knight said:
For those that believe there is a God with a plan for everyone.
Maybe God would plan to eliminate all the bad people.
Then those that have used drugs to the detriment of society.
Moving on to those that have caused their own poor health to the point of needing special care just to survive.
Next would be the gluttons that use more than their share of food that would be available.

At some point looking at the way mankind has increased & has developed negatively in so many ways. IMO worse than when God supposedly wiped out everyone but Noah & his family wouldn't he or she be really pi$$ed about the deterioration of how his "children" turned out & try again?
Click to expand...
 
Bretrick said:
Consider these figures.
1970 Population 3.68 Billion
1980 Population 4.44 Billion
2000 Population 6.12 Billion
2020 Population 7.61 Billion
2050 Population 9.60 billion est.
Surely serious birth control should be implemented at some stage soon?
Of course people will say it is a violation of my Human Rights to stop me having children.
Well how are Human Rights for every person going to be maintained when the population reaches 10 Billion?
We are not feeding the 7 1/2 Billion people now.
The inevitable outcome of unfettered Population growth?
Click to expand...
I heard people in the 1970s were emphasizing that.. supposedly why one relative and spouse thereof decided to only have one child.
 
JaniceM said:
I heard people in the 1970s were emphasizing that.. supposedly why one relative and spouse thereof decided to only have one child.
Click to expand...
People decided to have one child because technology gives them a choice. Children can be expensive, require a bigger house, disrupt employment, cost of college, healthcare, etc. etc. Back in the day, before Social Security and 401K's, when a large percentage of the population lived on farms children were needed to help with the farm and care for their parents in their old age. Yikes -- my step-mother came from a farm family of 16, but had not one child herself. For a population to sustain itself, let alone grow, each woman needs to have a bit more than 2 children -- at least 2.1. Not happening in the US, or any modern developed First World country. It's getting so bad in Italy that whole villages have become deserted and in some cases women are paid to have a child. Japan is desperate. The Congo averages 5.7 per woman while Taiwan is barely more than 1 and the US is at 1.87 and declining.
 
I'm a supporter of lowering the human population to a more sustainable level. I think that organized religion contributes to the problem. Some religions prohibit birth control and some sanction plural marriage. When that is combined with child tax credits and social programs that allow people to have children and escape the responsibility of providing for them, I see no likelihood of population decrease.
 
Larry67 said:
I'm a supporter of lowering the human population to a more sustainable level. I think that organized religion contributes to the problem. Some religions prohibit birth control and some sanction plural marriage. When that is combined with child tax credits and social programs that allow people to have children and escape the responsibility of providing for them, I see no likelihood of population decrease.
Click to expand...
With or without religion, countries with birth control, child tax credits, and social programs are of the 1st world, and are universally below the 2.1 fertility rate that sustains a population, let alone allowing it to grow. At 1.84 the US is one of those 1st world countries. Once again ...
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/total-fertility-rate/country-comparison
So what's the answer for the US and the rest of the 1st world? Open their borders and let excess populations pour in?
 
Don M. said:
The more I see of what is happening, the more concerned I become about the world our grandkids, and beyond, will inherit. I won't live long enough to see the decline, but I am Not optimistic about what the latter half of this century will look like.
Click to expand...
It is coming, no idea when or how but what we are doing is not sustainable. And I am skeptical that we can or will do anything to change it.

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top