Nicko wrote:That thread is crazy...
How can you resume such subject to something as simple as "there are too much people"? At first it's not true everywhere on Earth. I would agree about Japan or some big cities but it's not everywhere.
You live in France. Even here we could easily have some exemple of what I mean. Limousin could have much more people. It would save some old houses that will fall in ruins because there are no more young couples to live there. There are not enought people there! In the other hand, there is Paris that have the same problem than every big cities (overcrowed). What's your solution? Give different limits to birth rates? Move people?
About polution, well... Are you serious?! How much people on Earth would be the best to avoid polution? Would 5 billion people make less polution? They would just need more time to do it but they would burn all the petrol in the end (same amount of CO² in the air). 2 billion then? It depends of where they live and how. Not of how many there are! I - as one man - can polute more than 1000 chinese men if I want to. Just give me a truck insead of a bike. Let me take a bath every day instead of a shower. Let me dump my trash in the nature instead of puting it in the good box. Let me... well you get it, isn't it?
I'm not here to debate or anything : I'm too bad in english to do it. It's just my two cents.
For the Limousin issue, it would be in theory simple, convince people move people there (now in practice...). Again, I was perhaps too short in my entry post. What is true is that out of developing countries and middle east, in Europe, the ones most likely to be concerned by this are people being most of times immigrants who make children like they would do in their country (with death rates it used to have..), while being in Europe. This way they gather more state help and complain they don't have enough space for them (simple answer, don't make THAT much children silly people!). If there was to be limitation, it's those people who should be concerned first. People doing like 4-5 or 6 if not more children..quite irrealistic nowadays given low death rates in EU.
If we go that way, of course amount of people doesn't change facts. Well, pollution aside, I refered to food issues, wood issues, fishes issues...now people being in less amounts would still have to try to limit their consuming and poluting, because we can do always more.. Still that those people in developing countries will sooner or later have access to consumers society, and then, we will understand the problem. Petroleum shortage is meant to happen. Ethanol as an alternative, if there are "too much people", there wouldn't be enough space to grow cereals needed to produce it, and anyway prices would grow up. With population increasing, there will be a need for more food supply, even if we can do it...one thing we can't really do, add more space. Yes, some areas are lacking people, but it's definitely NOT going to fill the excess people there. Not to mention low pop places are sometimes natural places where there's a big variety of species (vegetals and animals). Canadian north, Siberia, Amazonia...what nature will we have left when those areas will be colonized completly? Yellowstones and the such? Quite minimal if you ask me.
Also, let's not forget, we are 6bil today, and in some decades, we would be approximately 9 billion. In other words, equivalence of whole China, India, United States, Pakistan and Indonesia populations to add to the actual population. 50% increase in less than a century. Affording 6bil is a thing, 9 bil, is another!
moses of romania wrote:When was the last real war or battle
throughought man kinds history it is filled with wars' and battles that helps thin out the world population, the strong and smart survive
we havent had one for a while now
think its about time for another one
We will let you be in the first line of fightings, being motivated and all!
I was thinking if same thing would happen, but felt it was quite silly and that it wouldn't solve anything.
Universe wrote:Not like a few million deaths contribute anything substantial to the population 'issue'.
If 6 billion is too crowded, then 5.9 isn't going to be much better.
Preferably, the next war eliminates 5.9 billion. 100 million people is still a pretty viable society.. and so much quieter.
All the damned noise these days..
Hmmm I suppose you don't really realize what 5.9bil death means. It would probably mean only survivors would be those living in isolated from everything areas, and all people from cities and such would be gone, you, and me, included.
Also, do not forget population keeps growing, that was to attempt to slow down the growth.
Now I don't call that a better solution at all. Same as moses, not good at all.
moses of romania wrote:i would be happy with 5.9 bill peeps gone , so nice and peace full and quite omg that would be amazing
You volunter to be first loss?
Thriller wrote:agapooka is right, this all comes down to capital.
China has room for all its people but not the infrastructure in place to care for all of them. When population growth exceeds infrastructure growth, You get things like mass poverty, social unrest and rebellion. Possibly leading to another revolution and thats what their dictatorship fears most; since they arose from a similar sort of scenario.
The earth can support more than 6 billion people comfortably, but we lack the will to put infrastructure in place that could sustain our global population. We horde and give little to those who we think do not belong at our table.
The real problem we have is over consumption. Europe and the West have become fat. Partly due to a corporate mentality of self interest. The self first approach may work well in gaining capital, but its goes against the very nature of any society which is common interest (or social justice).
Common interest in the underlying contract people share who wish to leave and succeed with one another. If we continue to put self interest first, we'll erode our society into despotism; If we will no longer want to get along and compromise, those in power will force us to.
Again, do not forget population keeps increasing...and as I said, 6 billion people is a thing, 9 billion will be another. And I don't agree with some of posts here blaming it all on western countries. Yes, we overconsume...Are we the ones with high population increase? Nope. Developping countries have overreproduction! Thus, I consider we aren't the only ones to blame. Seriously, it's quite silly if you ask me to have a lot of children when you cannot afford feeding them all...
Sorry to not have replied to everyone (and sufficiently to those I replied to), but I have short time now before going to uni, will edit probably when I get back!
D'oh at everyone in this thread but myself! 
