Science – The subject is overpopulation. Is our planet over-stuffed with human beings? Are we breeding to excess? These questions are increasingly poking into public debate, and from odd directions.
Short answer: yes.
Solving the problem will take time, but it is not insurmountable. Most of the countries in the First World would not now be replacing their populations without immigration from the Second and Third world.
The keys are simple: reproductive rights for women and men, increased wealth, increased access to health care, access to education and the buy in from the religious community.
It's really very simple to say and incredibly difficult to implement.
reproductive rights for women and men. READ: murder through abortion, and make the sexual act the center of relationship. Great plan! Look at what it's doing for our poorest people! We have MORE single-parent homes, not less. Why? Because the man pressures the woman into having sex because if she doesn't put out, someone else will, and if the condom breaks, and you're not on the pill, then go have an abortion.
Roe V Wade is 35 years old. We still have ghettos in the U.S.
Go Forth and Multiply. Have some respect for Human Life and have some respect for the sexual act!
The resources were there 200 years ago, there'll continue to be there.
The people you think worthy of death just might come up with the solutions we need.
I'm sorry to have to point this out, but you are an idiot. Or, at least, you talk like one. This is NOT a simple, single issue problem. There ARE too many people. And the thing that is overlooked by many - the more there are, the FASTER there will be too many more. There IS a limit to the carrying capacity of the planet. There HAS to be; resources are NOT infinite. Everyone cries "foul" when there is talk about limiting reproductive "rights" and yet that IS the solution. If every country did as China did and limited every woman to ONE child, the world population would shrink - by attrition. The problem is EVERYONE has the built in imperative to reproduce at every opportunity. Just like an insect or a bacterium. Seriously - You need to take a series of tests and be licensed to drive a car, but you can have 15 kids without even going to 2nd grade? Now THAT'S stupid.
I'm sorry to have to point this out, but you are an idiot.
I'm sorry to have to point this out, but if you have to resort to Ad Hominem attacks, you already lost the argument.
Secondly, you sound just like that 18th century chicken little who said the same thing.
If every country did as China did, we'd all be living in very oppressive regimes.
You're comparing human life to an insect or bacterium?
Get some pride and self-esteem!
If we limited every woman to 3 children prior to sterilization, the population still would likely fall, all things being left the same. Educated women choose to have fewer children.
But cultural indoctrination is a powerful force, and once people reify a system of belief, it's very difficult to get people to question underlying assumptions or learn vicariously from others.
China did a brave thing, limiting the number of children and arranging for all people to learn English so they have a common language. The U.S. could learn a few things from them!
I didn't mention abortion or sexual activity. I said that we need to make sure that reproductive rights are upheld for men and women. That means things like sex education, equal access to birth control and family planning.
I'm sorry, but sex is the number one cause of more people. Just the way it is.
I'm not sure if it is safe for me to comment on this since we have five kids and it had nothing to do with religion of culture, it was just a personal thing.
Last night on CBC radio they had a guy Named Lester Brown and he was basically saying the same thing. In some of the countries there will be alot of resistance because of culture but the time has come that action is needed, we don't like to consider ourselves this but after a certain population we will move from being a parasite to being a cancer.
Murder through abortion is the answer??
An Anti-Vatican??
What elitist tripe!
35 million lives were lost in the United States alone since Roe V Wade, turning the woman's uterous into the biggest gulag in history.
Have some respect for human life and know that we were made for the earth not the other way around!
We proved that 18th Century no-nothing then, we'll prove him wrong again and again!
"Go Forth and Mulitiply"
Locky12, abortion was common and more dangerous before Roe v. Wade--which is the only reason they finally legalized it; now it's just safer. Criminalizing it again isn't the answer, because the black market will just take over, and already has in areas where abortion is now limited.
If we'd help poor women get birth control and morning-after medication, studies suggest fewer women would seek abortions. In fact, Planned Parenthood is credited with doing more to reduce abortions than any other group--even by some members of the religious right.
I think family planning may fit into this issue. Also, as a rule, immigrants that the U.S (and other countries) accept are usually the best and brightest ( I think money may be involved as well); but developing nations need their best and brightest. I think many issues can be solved, it is just a matter of earnestness and a willingness to sacrifice a little time getting organized. Perhaps sacrificing some TV viewing time? Also, corruption is a major factor.(skimming, supporting both sides of a conflict,double dipping, etc.)
However, I could be wrong.
Hari accepts the notion that, "It will be easier for 6 billion people to cope on a heaving, boiling planet than for nine or 10 billion." But eliminating three to four billion human beings may not be such a clever solution after all. In fact, it may actually doom the rest to suffer.
Human creativity is neither finite nor predictable. We cannot survey the population and say, for example, "The second-born son of THIS man and THIS woman will be a great artist (or physicist, or biologist, or writer)." When we eliminate human beings, we are eliminating their potential for creating the solutions which would allow people to not only survive in greater numbers, but to prosper.
Would you choose abortion or infanticide if you knew that the person being destroyed was the potential savior of his(her) species? That is what Johann Hari suggests.
the practical answer is yes, of course ,we have a finite planet with finite resources..but then the question is where is the line on the slippery slope..is 5 billion OK..probably..is 50 billion OK..no-way..so where is the cut-off..23 billion??9billion??for that reason much like abortion it's a specious question..population grows till starvation and/or war makes a cap..life begins at conception or the 91st day..you believe what you want to believe..its a question of faith
We DO NOT have finite resources.
Oil is finite.
Coal is finite.
Resources, however, are INFINITE.
Just because we don't know how to make cars run on seawater doesn't mean we'll never be able to do it!
Just because we live on land now, DOESN'T mean we won't find a way to live ON the water in the future!
Use your imaginations! Scientists are! Have some faith in Human Life! Have some optimism for human ingenuity!
ANYBODY who says there are too many people on this planet is most definately a FLAT EARTHER.
This article is nothing but pessimism and cynicism. Neophile may like articles like these because he refuses to believe in the existence of God.
We DO NOT have finite resources.
Oil is finite.
Coal is finite.
Resources, however, are INFINITE.
Just because we don't know how to make cars run on seawater doesn't mean we'll never be able to do it!
Just because we live on land now, DOESN'T mean we won't find a way to live ON the water in the future!
Use your imaginations! Scientists are! Have some faith in Human Life! Have some optimism for human ingenuity!
ANYBODY who says there are too many people on this planet is most definately a FLAT EARTHER.
This article is nothing but pessimism and cynicism. Neophile may like articles like these because he refuses to believe in the existence of God.
Too many people- yes!
People procreating like a bunch of rabbits is just selfish and I can't think of one good reason why any responsible person in this day and age would think it was a good idea to have a lot of kids. There are so many unwanted children that need a good home as it is, so if it's because you love children, and you have the means, please take a child who needs a home.
I know there would be many issues surrounding any kind of 'forced' birth control and or obtaining a license to have children, but hey you need a license to do all kinds of things, some not even that important, having and raising a child is one of the most important things in life....I say have a license and a limit. I have 1 child and that was by choice. No abortions by choice and always birth control also my choice. If people can't/won't take responsibility for their actions...well....
I know or at least I feel it sounds terrible to think this, but I don't have any problems with people to the age of 18 being made to have birth control-all over the world.
I also don't have any problems with allowing the elderly 'go peacefully' if they want to. If they wanted they could get all their affairs in order, have a party- whatever, but it would be their own choice. Same with a terminally ill person.
So what would be the penalty of having a child "without a license?"
Making people take birth control to the age of 18 would result in rapes galore, don't you think? After all, guys would be a little more forceful if they knew she wasn't getting pregnant-- by law no less!
Euthanasia. Did you ever wonder why some of the best songs ever written were about break-ups? heartache? suffering? It's because like the breaking of muscle during a workout, that makes a stronger muscle in its' place.
In pain we grow and mature in the same way spiritually-- in ways that are impossible any other way.
Don't believe me? Look at a Crucifix when you get a chance.
A terminally ill person or elderly person may be getting the strength they need for the next life.
locky12-NEVER once have I ever mentioned forced Euthanasia in any positive way and I also said IF an elderly or terminally ill person should want to 'go' they should have that CHOICE.
I know there are many questions, 'what ifs'if there was a way to have forced BC and a license, was just giving my opinion, it's how I feel. I don't have the answers to solve this problem, and neither do you or anyone else or there wouldn't be any problem. Of course some don't think there is any problem with over population in the first place...that's their opinion.
lvrofwolves, you are one of those rare people who is willing to do what it takes to get the job done with compassion.
Studies show the healthiest babies are born to women between the ages of 22 and 28, and this range is also the best for maternal health. We know so much today that we can use to improve individuals' lives as well as do what's best for the planet.
Elliot Jacques found that people operate at different strata based on things like cognitive ability, and those at the higher strata are able to make tough decisions that ultimately solve big problems. I suggest you operate at a much higher stratum than the average citizen.
Thank-you, I myself made a personal choice to have 1 child (I had a step child as well that I raised since he was 9mo) and I raised my Son to take total responsibility for birth control, told them they should choose when and if they want children and also they best make darn sure they can support a child.
I respectfully submit that a "license" will not work. People will always have sex... with or without birth control and birth control is not 100% effective (I was conceived while my mother was on the pill myself). Thus, people will always conceive without a license for such. Do you intend to force an abortion on this person? That, my friend, is immoral and rightfully so. I recognize no force, be it God or the needs of the many, to have the authority to tell you what to do with your own body. The answer is rather obvious if difficult to implement in ways. Firstly a powerful public campaign, phrased in suggestions, to limiting the number of children you have and use of birth control. Secondly, as the author suggested, make birth control available throughout the world. Reproduction rights of the woman. Lastly, and the most difficult of them would be to educate the people of third and second world countries. It would be more effective in the end.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
mekhifranks1975
popperous
pawfoots
americasbestcompanies
whatsnews9
adamhowe1980
RickyDawkins
darwinm701977
inplacenews.
puffin
deadlyhaiku
hyooo25
gabriel19671968
Grrr
HoneyBear911
bluetexasvalley
abhishekkumar
dandt1612
chayanat
memestryker
juvel
Goppy
jeremytoday
ecotourusa
aldmora
andepure
Cybnetic
bibicusiusisius
satansatan
jomarjarmo
SmithAnn
kibasilasa
archibaldd
rontravel
baddad59
dwemm
DevilAngel
PrettyWoman911
alamala
ind06
pongping
Mutainia
bizexpert
Chuck The Canuck
lvrofwolves
Ratskii
avpd85
Aidenag
Beau7890
hurr1
74)
Yes, there are to many people in the world! The strain on our resources is a clear indicator of that.
Will you be throwing yourself off a bridge to help relieve the strain???
This comes up periodically. In the 70's those who thought they knew said we were at the population limits. Now with triple the population, the issues won't be starving even though one person dies from hunger every 3 seconds, but epidemics and sufficient energy resources.
Shame on you Locky12!