Overpopulation.

There are over six billion people in the world.  Why are people so adament on saving as many human lives as possible?

the real problem is not population (although that's a major problem).  It's consumption.  And that's all America's fault right now.  It's about to be China's fault, to a much greater extent.

The problem isn't even consumption. It's poverty.

>>2
Yes, overconsumption is the problem, but think deeper.

The major problem with overpopulation is that it neccesitates greater control in people's lives.  As people get more numerous, they want more rescources, and someone has to dish it out, free market or what have you.  Of course, when you give someone that power, it tends to go to their heads, and then everyone becomes wards of the state.

We really need to reevaluate our moral obligation to save every single human life that exists.  What's the point of saving some people's lives if you're going to destroy humanity in the process?

BTW, the only thing that america consumes that is in any kind of short supply is Oil, though it can be argued that oil is neccesary to grow all the food that people need. 

Really, if we try to save someone's life, we're causing a problem in that we have to feed all the children that they will have and all their children.

If we try to redistribute all the food in the world, cutting the rescources used to grow beef and hamburger and feeding everyone in the world rice and beans, what about the americans who are so used to eating meat with every meal?  They'll get pissed off and send their military to take it back. 

It's not fair, but the world isn't fair.  It can't be fair until we've conuqered the problem of scarcity.  Only when we can extract energy from, say, stars and manipulate matter any way we want to create hamburgers for everyone, so everyone can get fat as hell, and then Zambians can sue McDonald's as well as the scientist who invented the technology to do it for making them fat.

>>4
Zambians will be suing Mcdonalds long before that

I propose we kill the Jews and niggers to solve this problem.

>>1
You've hit it.
Six Billion is Five too many. Plot the human birth rate out.  Compare it to viral replacation.
That's why the NEOCONs are already "Culling The Herd" as they call it.
AIDS in Africa=Do Nothing.
Natural Disasters=Do Nothing.

It may be the best possible outcome to history if we do let nature take it's course.

That's bullshit!  We have the ability to make the world a better place for everyone!  We just won't because there's no profit in it.  I bet that an investor could stant to make millions if he say, started feeding McDonald's brand rice to the people of africa, improved their infrastructure and what not; he could win at capitalism.  But that's not what the greedy fatcats are about, is it?

>>9
I should clarify that I mean, he should improve their situation to a point where they become economically viable, then feed off of that.  They have the money, these people's personal savings accounts could feed all of africa several times over.

>>10
Doesn't work that way lardass.  Even if they could theorhetically feed Africa, (which they couldn't, it would take trillions of dollars to do that, and we don't even have a trillionare yet), do you expect people to stake their entire future, their livelyhood on a situation that it's not guaranteed that it will materialize (and I don't think there's a chance in hell that it would, people on that continent are trained from birth to be theives and murderers...  If they're going to change it's going to be through gradual cultural shift).

>>1
Because they asked to be saved, and someone has the capacity to save them. It's called COMPASSION and HUMANE PRINCIPLES. Alas, how to convince some people they exist.

>>8
It can be argued that nature IS taking it's course. Who can say Human actions aren't part of the process?

>>12
I'm all for compassion and humane priciples.  The deal is those that are in charge have neither.  What they do have for the moment is power.  Their vision is a world run by and for them, with 500,000,000 or so ignorant serfs to do the unpleasant shit.
Make no mistake, they have already embarked upon the ultimate genocide and guess which list you and your's are on?

>>13
WTF. Who on Earth are you talking about.

During the sciencetific revolution people started having a sense of being human and not having to rely on religion for proof. Religion is usually the base that gave people a sense of morality but humans expanded on it with new knowledge of the world. Slavery was ended in many countries because it is seems to be against human morality. America created the Declaration of Independence and it said "All men are created equal" even though it wasn't true for slaves or women at the time now in the future 1st world countires don't have slaves and women are now equal. With Freedom came the sense of the individual being important. Individuals created a country (U.S.A.) for other individuals and with out each other the idea of freedom is not existant. With people wanting to save other people is because now the individual is seen as important and deserve an "Equal" chance at life. The point I just made is seeing people as being good people.

The other point is that people are saving other people to gain something for themselves. It may not be pretty but some people will do anything to get a profit.

first principles in overpopulation:

We should operate under the assumption that there are too many people on Earth.  It may very well turn out that this problem is intractable.  Or, perhaps it is too late for us to avert a manmade natural disaster.  But we should not take the latter points as assumed, since they are not proven. 

There should be fewer people on Earth on general principle; we do not need to show that there is an immenent, or even long-term pending natural disaster in order to argue this point.  Humans, being able to manipulate their environment at unprecedented quantity and speed, do contribute to substantial ecological harm, even if global warming is not assumed.  Even from a religious viewpoint, it has come to pass that we were fruitful, and have quite successfully multiplied.  Mission accomplished.  Since we insist on placing human life above above other considerations, the explicit needs and wants of humanity in general, which never go unfulfilled wherever possiple, will be more managable when there are many fewer of us.  Any innate human indignation at the idea that population should be significantly lowered over the next age is therefore childish and unwarranted.  It would be more logical to point to consumption (which can be located precisely in the U.S. and Europe) or the possibility that more powerful nations would become even more powerful in any depopulation scheme; these are appropriate critiques.  Neither of them, however, dislodges the importance of the point that one way or another, there should be substantially fewer people on earth.

Although the earth's ecosystems are in many places discrete, they are all connected in general.  This ought to be a primary consideration for humans living on earth.  However, it is usually secondary, for precisely the following reason: there are currently many hostile, or naturally self-interested countries, which want to secure their supremacy or relevance in whatever comes 'tomorrow', above all else.  Furthermore, it is (and not without reason) suspected that any efforts to 'scale back' destructive technology or populace might not be met in kind by fellow nations, thus providing them an advantage in the game of Risk which stands wrongly as the primary consideration of our countries and our peoples.  Add to this the continued presence of religions which, at their core, have little regard for the temporal world, and the problem becomes even more difficult.

Although it might be more efficient to dream of One State which could manage these issues, such a thing will not be possible by the time that it could correctly accomplish its task.
Whatever plan to cope with overpopulation in the near future will have to acknowledge and work with the simple fact of Nations.  At this rate, it may very well TAKE a great natural disaster to alert all humans to what their principal task should be at this time: the sustenance of earth, and of themselves.

How can we depopulate?  Equally importantly, how can we consume less?  perhaps a strict limitation on reproduction, which would maintain the relative proportion of national populations over several years, could accomplish a nominal goal of ZPG, or much more desirably, a negative growth trend over decades.  Nobody wants to do this, though.  Everybody wants to grow; it is in our nature as well as in our economy.  A change in culture might be a necessary prerequisite for a transitional period of negative growth.  We could just as easily make war, but this is more dangerous for a few reasons: it goes against our ideas of human rights, it stands to harm our environment just as badly as we have been doing over the last two centuries, and such an emotionally wrenching experience would likely result in a repopulation a la Baby Boomers, defeating its purpose.  Whatever course is taken toward depopulation is in fact more likely to be successful and permanent if it is peaceable.

There is amibiguity over the word "overconsumption". At this point in time the countries with the lowest (and stable or declining) population densities are the ones doing the most consuming. Most would classify such countries as "overconsuming", and say that all other countries are either consuming at a safe level or underconsuming. 

Overpopulation is not terminology wisely used to make a global reference. We simply do not have enough knowledge about the biosphere to come to any conclusion that we are coming to or crossing a threshold where the Earth can longer sustain the same human activity that has been going on for the past 200 years. A LOT of assumptions have to made. To make these assumptions and suppose a plan of action based on them is conjecture. 

I would say overpopulation is defined as the inability of that population to support everyone at at least a certain living standard. This does not preclude a lack of resources (overpopulated countries tend to be poor, poor countries tend to be underconsuming). It can mean the lack of means to harvest and exploit said resources. I would say in practically all developing countries this is the case. The answer to overpopulation in these areas is then economic development.

>>17
Furthermore, I would add that upon reaching a certain stage of development, the birth rates in such countries will lower on their own accord due to much higher costs of raising children. This trend is evident in developed societies all over the world.

There have been cases where population growth has been far too high and had to be managed centrally; one such example was when China implemented its one child policy. However China being the most populous nation on Earth was and still is the exception not the rule (I doubt India will be forced to such measures).

Economic Development of societies will ensure a fair living standard for all, and remove the need for any centrally planned imperative to stop overpopulation. 

>>14
Twelve here.
What planet do you live on?  Back off the chronic, read--anything (learn if you have to) and stop nursing on Rush's pee-pee.

The problem is both overpopulation and presently over consumption. We can reduce consumption, but for how long? When the earth's population is 20 billion, reducing consumption isn't really going to do anything except force people into deeper poverty so more babies can be fed.

I say "Reduce populations so we can consume more and lead richer happier lives.". What's the point of having a world of 20 billion starving sweat shop workers, when you can have a world of 1 billion industrial technicians?

I haven't read any of the past 19 posts.
That said, overpopulation fixes itself. As populations grow and resources remain static things like disease and wars break out. Overpopulation which must lead to over consumption has an adverse effect on the environment. This can be seen in ozone layer depletion, melting ice caps, severe weather (e.g., hurricanes).

>>21

The idea is to theorize about the problem in a way which is more specific than resorting to tautologies, which is one of the most depressing things about this particular forum-everybody falls back on a 'que sera, sera' and thinks the problem is solved.

>>22
My belief is that nature will correct overpopulation. I site two ways how this comes about. I can't prove whether the two ways are true or false. It doesn't need to be more specific since I've seen that it works. >>18 also proposes a relatively natural way overpopulation fixes itself. Is this the 'que sera, sera' plague you are talking about? Is time spent concocting ways to get rid of lives necessary when there are forces already at work to correct the problem? How is the problem not solved?

Our technology has progressed to a point where we're going to stretch every bit of our rescources trying to keep the dumbest people in the world alive.

Overconsumption and overpopulation are not compatible circumstances. History shows that they do not occur simultaneously. The rich countries AREN'T overpopulated at all.

You assume that on a global level there is a set level of maximum consumption at any time, and that this threshold is currently exceeded and must be reduced. One way to do this is of course to reduce the world population. However not everybody consumes the same amount. If you are looking to solve the problem from the standpoint of reducing total consumption with the least amount of people disaffected, you would in fact look to reduce the population of DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. One person less in developed countries is worth many times the people of developing ones.

Alas, why aren't we looking to reduce the people in developed countries who are consuming so much? Maybe because it is misunderstanding the problem.     

The consumption of the US is criminal.  You should be ashamed.

I read a while ago about projections for the world's peak population based on current estimates; sometime in the 2030s-40s. Everywhere that's already developed has entered decline except for the U.S., which is an unusual case; the diversity of the U.S. along with continued immigration has helped discourage socialism(harder to collaborate outside your culture) and in doing so perpetually holds down wages and increases poverty, which skews population growth slightly. That gives it a few business advantages - nothing compared to what you can get in China, India or Eastern Europe now, since they are still catching up to the pace of the developed world - but in any case I think that the population itself isn't really an issue. Birthrate is closely linked to wealth, so if everyone is wealthy we won't have a problem.

Reducing environmental impact and continuing to improve sources and consumption of energy, though, are consequential issues.

overconsumption isnt the problem
Humanity is a predator that kills too prolifically, We are too dumb to keep our prproductive organs out of each other so we will eventually destroy everything and our populations will go down drastically, then the animalls and plants and resources will come back and we start over.

Translation: overconsumption is the problem.

Idiot.

"Overconsumption and overpopulation are not compatible circumstances."

Civilisation has been overpopulated for much of it's existence, France during the 17th century, which could be considerred the richest and most populous nation in europe at the time experienced no less than 6 major famines. Famines are caused when there isn't enough food, yet France with it's advanced agricultural economy couldn't avoid famine. Why is this?

It is because population had reached it's max, it wouldn't be until the industrial revolution that people could get more out of France's land. The peasants were eating the absolute minimum in order to stay alive and work the fields. When there was a drought there wasn't enough food to support everyone and a portion of the population would simply starve.

You are stupid for not recognizing this.

You can decrease consumption in order to allow populations to continue to increase and force everyone to eat less, but it doesn't take an IQ of 80 to realise you starve if you don't eat enough and eventually population will reach it's maximum.

Do you want a world of people who can eat all they want or a world of people on the brink of sttarvation who are forced to stamp on each other's faces in order to gain a decent standard of living.

Your call.

Immediatly kill anyone with HIV. That would be a start:)

>>30
This gives me a fun idea.....All politicians and royalists should be made to attempt each and every Civ victory using the Rise and Rule mod. From space race, to UN, to culture. It'll be good training. (and it'll also be a hoot seeing how many consider the ruler unit expendable using the multiple-elimination units as cheap scouts, lol.)

Human hunting season^.^ I mean, ppl act like humans are so indangered sometimes. would it really matter if there was -1,000 a week?

I think nature takes care of that nicely already, >>33.

>>33
Unfortunately that's evil, we just need to get people to stop having so many children.

Replace child benefit with tax cuts for the poor. What bad would it do for the budget if everyone on minimum wage wasn't taxed?

Also stop wasting 1% of the west's gdp on Africa. It just goes into the hands of despots, the aid does **** all. Cut interest on their loans and end the chains of debt and EU agricultural subsides, by all means. But the only way Africa's problems are going to be solved is by government change. Nigeria and South Africa can feed themselves, it's high time Zimbabwe and Ethiopia do the same.

We should also invade any government which fail to feed their population. In 10 years all of Africa's irreversible-fatal problems will be over and it will be like India.

>>30
What you described is hardly overconsumption, since people aren't getting enough to eat. Try again.

Nature has a tendency to achieve equilibrium on its own. Through avian flu, plaugue, famine, overconsumption and what not, nature will have its own ironic way of providing limiting factors for even the most sucsessful species.

amewrica needs to stop eating so much and waisting so much then everyonme else need to start eating more and ...yeh just eating more overconsumption solved by balence.

amewrica needs to stop eating so much and waisting so much then everyonme else need to start eating more and ...yeh just eating more overconsumption solved by balence.

>>39
>>38
dumb, plus fail for 2x post, and total fail for invalid, lame brained opinion

>>38
Extreme fail.

>>39
>>38

retard