4 replies to this topic

[TWPC920]

I found a series of videos on youtube, detailing what happens when population continues to grow exponentially and what happens to natural resources afterwards. I would like to see your opinions on this series of videos.

[Cryptkeeper]

he is right on many points and the facts are right based on what hes given so yes overpopulation is a problem growth is not good thing for the long term for the short term it is good but long term no

we are going to run out of resources there are going to be many wars plagues famine all these will sweep the world depending on if humanity survives this cycle may happen again and again and again

[Dr. Strangelove]

Before the green(petroleum fertilizer products) revolution computer models predicted we would all starve. The same will happen again(I'm rather partial to skyscraper hydroponic farms).

[CommanderJB]

This is indeed an extremely important and truthful video. The one thing he has got wrong is his comments on education; it is demonstrable that education, particularly education of women, is the absolute core of a country's birth rates. While the United States needs to deal with its population problem in other ways, as its birth rates are not exceptional, rather the majority of its growth is I believe stemming from immigration, the underlying world population growth is happening in un- or under-developed countries with extremely high birth rates. In order to prevent countries from continuing to grow exponentially, we need to remove their need to create new people. Most high birth rates stem from a simple economic need; the more people a family has, the more people there are to do work to support the family, and the less vulnerable the family is to stopping being able to carry out its work thanks to mortality, particularly due to disease. If we remove the conditions - poverty, lack of education, inequality of employment opportunity, poor health and all the associated primary issues that the Millennium Development Goals and other such campaigns set out to address, then the world's population will shoot up for a short period, then its growth will slow drastically.
If we teach people and empower people, they don't need to create more people; it's almost as simple as that. As such, in addition to whatever methods we have to reduce our civilisations resource use (which must happen, whether we like it or not - if we don't change it wilfully it will be forced upon us by rising prices caused by increasing scarcity, and the most obvious example is of course oil), education and the elimination of poverty will determine the extent to which our current level of civilisation survives this next century intact.

[markintellect]

CommanderJB, on 14 Sep 2008, 15:36, said:

This is indeed an extremely important and truthful video. The one thing he has got wrong is his comments on education; it is demonstrable that education, particularly education of women, is the absolute core of a country's birth rates. While the United States needs to deal with its population problem in other ways, as its birth rates are not exceptional, rather the majority of its growth is I believe stemming from immigration, the underlying world population growth is happening in un- or under-developed countries with extremely high birth rates. In order to prevent countries from continuing to grow exponentially, we need to remove their need to create new people. Most high birth rates stem from a simple economic need; the more people a family has, the more people there are to do work to support the family, and the less vulnerable the family is to stopping being able to carry out its work thanks to mortality, particularly due to disease. If we remove the conditions - poverty, lack of education, inequality of employment opportunity, poor health and all the associated primary issues that the Millennium Development Goals and other such campaigns set out to address, then the world's population will shoot up for a short period, then its growth will slow drastically.
If we teach people and empower people, they don't need to create more people; it's almost as simple as that. As such, in addition to whatever methods we have to reduce our civilisations resource use (which must happen, whether we like it or not - if we don't change it wilfully it will be forced upon us by rising prices caused by increasing scarcity, and the most obvious example is of course oil), education and the elimination of poverty will determine the extent to which our current level of civilisation survives this next century intact.

Couldn't agree more. Why can't we all have this mentality, that the only way for the human race to survive is to help those in the 3rd world, those at the mercy of tyranny, disease, hunger and extremes of weather. Right now the pharmaceutical companies could on their own immunise all people, regardless of location or social status, and give them a optimistic future, but don't, due to the fact that they make more profits from giving medicines to rich countries than poor, even though some rich countries have far too many of the necessary drugs needed in Africa, Asia and South America. Countries like China and Russia support 3rd world dictatorships who may even be the cause of all this anguish. For example, China supports both the Sudanese and Zimbabwean governments, and will veto anything the UNSC tries to do about these countries.

Edited by markintellect, 14 September 2008 - 20:10.