Population

[Epidemic]

I submitt that man is overpopulating the planet.

All nations should begin to control their populations.

This may infringe on peoples rights, but the world hangs in the ballance. With technological, medical advancements our elevation above nature and natural preditors our population is unchecked. This in conjunction with the last limiting factor being killed by socialization and welfare, there is absolutely no other way to slow the population growth of humanity.

The transition from fossil fuels and more economical cars will not reduce our carbondixide output or clearcutting the forests to make farm land to feed the ever growing population.

I propose that we reduce our populations 1% per year for the next 50 years, by instituting a 1 child per household policy. After that we will allow a status quo population of 2 children per household until such time as the population falls below 2 billion world wide.

This will reduce the strain of humanity on the globe and will insure future prosparity and less human suffering.

Comments and thoughts.

[shahani]

You already got 3 kids and now you talk.

[cracked]

why would you want to reduce the population? if we do that then we wont have anybody to go live on mars!

drew

[Mike]

Originally posted by shahani
You already got 3 kids and now you talk.

Shhh!!!! You weren't supposed to let anyone know of that!

[shahani]

He's posted their pics all over the Forum Gallery/threads last year.

No secret.

[osprey4]

Yes, now that I've already had my kids, the rest of the world should control overpopulation.

Now that I have my house in the suburbs, we should control suburban sprawl.

Now that I have my SUV, people need to start buying cars that get better mileage.

Now that I make a seven figure salary, we should reduce the tax burden on the rich.

Etc, etc.

[Epidemic]

osprey4,

If you wish to play the hipocracy card more power to you.

People can have a change of heart. After revewing the facts I think that population control might be an important thing in the near future.

My thinking on this is that if you wish to see the Earth and environment prosper something will have to give.

Whether it be strip mining copper to make your wonderful wind powered generators. Or lead for you battery powered cars. The long and short of it is that increased population taxes the environment more.

even if we were to reduce our consumption by 25% The population continues to grow and after about 20 years we will be consuming resources even at the efficeint level at equivelent or worse rates.

Now like with my kids I do not think that executing the extra kids in each family. I am talking about from this point forward. Including my future grandkids.

So lay off the tired hipocracy thing that is how people try to justify doing wrong themselves. "Oh you used drugs dad you can't tell me I should not" That kind of use of the hipocracy card is plain stupid.

Now evaluate the statement not based upon how many kids I have but on the merrits of. If population doubles and consumption is reduced by 25% You are still at 1.5 times the current level.

That just referres to fossil fuels, other things will not be consumed at lesser rates like copper, plastics, food (requiring land and former forests), sewerage, fresh water, land for housing...

So do you want to have your 3 kids even though I had mine or do you believe in saving the earth.

[DPA]

check out this interesting fact from the Population Research Institute: [correction to that]

if everyone in the world was given a 6000 square foot home and FIVE were put to a home, everyone in the world would fit in the state of texas...

i think we're doin' okay

*man this caching system is clipping some of my words out.. WTH?*

[Epidemic]

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldpop.gif

According to the US census department by 2050 we will be approaching 10 billion, I figure 12. By 2100 20 billion.

Now you are talking about 6000 square feet for each person the population just fitting into the southern states.

Not to mention that it takes several acres to supply enough food to feed each of those people you have huddled together in 6000 square feet.

But more to the point. If we are starting to see the effects of global warming with a population of 6 billion and we have only been between 3 and 6 billion for only 50 years. That means that the effect we are having on the environment is more pronounced now.

In other words even at current population we are still talking about a very quick impact on the environment. 50 years at current levels would yield more catastrophic change then the last 50 years. In fact we would need to produce less CO2 then environment can absorb in order to counter act the current levels of CO2. 3 billion people might even be too much for that.

But unchecked by 2050 we are likely to be from between 10 and 12 billion strong. Even with that 25% reduction in use of fossil fuels we still will be producing more CO2 than today. (1.5X more)

If we reduce co2 emissions by 50% we will still be having a cumulative effect on the environment.

[Barney]

I don't think we should be worrying about reducing population and CO2 pollution too much, we should be worrying about the rainforests. If Brazil and other countries keep chopping their trees down, soon there won't be any oxygen left to breath.