Current Events > Do you believe that overpopulation of the world is a problem?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Although both problems are tough to solve, slowing and stabilizing population growth seems easier and more realistic to achieve than distributing resources in a way that gives everyone a decent life.
Also, for everyone to be able to live a decent life, literally everyone would have to consume a lot less than the average not-too-poor person is doing now.

Aressar posted...

Although both problems are tough to solve, slowing and stabilizing population growth seems easier and more realistic to achieve than distributing resources in a way that gives everyone a decent life.

The thing with "stabilizing" the population is that it almost always results in racist methods of population control

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

The thing with "stabilizing" the population is that it almost always results in racist methods of population control

Dan Brown's novel Inferno actually addresses the matter of overpopulation in an interesting manner.
At the end of the story, it turns out a virus has been released which is spreading throughout the entire world. It does not kill people as was feared, but it effectively sterilizes a random third of the world population.
The creator of the virus specifically designed it for the purpose of stabilizing the world population in a fair manner, and killed himself to prevent governments or the military industrial complex from learning how the virus works and weaponizing it for their own ends (as that would indeed likely lead to racist methods and/or preferential targeting).

Aressar posted...

Dan Brown's novel Inferno actually addresses the matter of overpopulation in an interesting manner.
At the end of the story, it turns out a virus has been released which is spreading throughout the entire world. It does not kill people as was feared, but it effectively sterilizes a random third of the world population.
The creator of the virus specifically designed it for the purpose of stabilizing the world population in a fair manner, and killed himself to prevent governments or the military industrial complex from learning how the virus works and weaponizing it for their own ends (as that would indeed likely lead to racist methods and/or preferential targeting).

By "interesting" you mean eugenicist science fiction

Nerevar791 posted...

By "interesting" you mean eugenicist science fiction

Call it what you want. I was specifically addressing this:

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

The thing with "stabilizing" the population is that it almost always results in racist methods of population control

My point is that stabilizing population growth doesnt inevitably have to involve preferential treatment.
In a realistic scenario I imagine it could look like stimulating education, which could already go a long way as it helps make people aware of sex education (including use of birth control) and that they don't have to adhere to traditional family roles, and that they don't necessarily have to have children at all costs, that there are many, many other ways of living a meaningful life and making comtributions to the world.

Now that may sound like utopic thinking, but I believe it's a lot more within reach than redistributing global resources evenly.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Maybe I'm misreading this, but are you implying capitalism is the only system that rewards people for work?

I'm saying it's the only one that's been shown to do that to the extent that it results in 8 billion people being allowed to exist. If the profit motive somehow evaporated we'd see lots of starvation and the human population would recede

Octans posted...

I'm really curious what people's standards are when they say no. I'd personally say humans became overpopulated when we caused the first extinction of a species. It's regrettable that we ever moved out of Africa, basically. Obviously, IMO, and I get that my views are extreme.

They really shouldn't be considered extreme. Diversity of skin color is always a hot issue because it's a super convenient thing to show support for. But diversity of life isn't a thing they care about or have even thought about because there's really nothing in it for them -- it's not like animals are going to give them praise for being allies.
Blessed are those with a voice.

Octans posted...

I'm really curious what people's standards are when they say no. I'd personally say humans became overpopulated when we caused the first extinction of a species. It's regrettable that we ever moved out of Africa, basically. Obviously, IMO, and I get that my views are extreme.

And no, I don't support the culling of a now existing population, but I am secure enough to say that I personally, as well as none of my ancestors should have existed. The world would be much better.

This will come as a shock to you, but species die out for perfectly natural and non-anthropogenic reasons as well, and did so for hundreds of millions of years before humans existed.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You need help. Seek help please

Nah it's not, but our ways of living needs to change from boomerville to much more forward thinking.

The current suburb/car-first lifestyle is unsustainable and kind of unethical if you dive deeper. The idea of a white picket fence is so far engrained in us (Americans) that it's going to hold our quality of life back from other countries.

We should look into other alternatives like superblocks to reduce costs of living and improve quality of life. Basically, reduce the need of having a car as much as possible and build up, not sideways.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

This will come as a shock to you, but species die out for perfectly natural and non-anthropogenic reasons as well, and did so for hundreds of millions of years before humans existed.

"The climate has always changed", but with animals. Nice

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

I'm saying it's the only one that's been shown to do that to the extent that it results in 8 billion people being allowed to exist.

This isn't the flex that you think it is when the system cannot adequately take care of those people despite having the resources to do so.

If the profit motive somehow evaporated we'd see lots of starvation and the human population would recede

Again, I'll reiterate....do you think capitalism is the only system that can possibly exist that has a reward system?

And if anything, we've seen capitalism gradually erode any "profits" for the average worker. You are not profitting when almost all of your income goes towards things you need to not die. And many people don't even get that.

Aressar posted...

My point is that stabilizing population growth doesnt inevitably have to involve preferential treatment.

My guy...not only are you pulling solutions from sci-fi novels, but you're also straight-up suggesting forceful sterilization as a solution.

Dropped by to see who was indroctinated. Wasn't disappointed.

Earth had more than enough resources to feed everyone and people still starved, because things got in the way of supply chains. War, trade disputes, poverty, corporate greed, and now... a PURPLE DIPSHIT who buys into discredited economic theories!

Thanos was wrong

crayola555 posted...

The entire population of the world can fit inside Texas

Can we at least go somewhere with reliable electricity, and reproductive rights?

Its more a problem of population density and wealth distribution not really over population itself

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


@fbi

No, seriously though. If you honestly felt this way why not go live in the wilderness where no one can bother you?

ColdRainAndSnow posted...

@fbi

No, seriously though. If you honestly felt this way why not go live in the wilderness where no one can bother you?

probably can't start a fire or skin a buck.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

This isn't the flex that you think it is when the system cannot adequately take care of those people despite having the resources to do so.

This isn't the retort that you think it is when it's the one that comes closest and it still fails hard.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Again, I'll reiterate....do you think capitalism is the only system that can possibly exist that has a reward system?

Name another that has been shown to.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

You are not profitting when almost all of your income goes towards things you need to not die.

The average worker doesn't need to for productivity to reach this level (evidently), only the capitalist class. They're the ones who demand this level of productivity. No one's allowed to be rich? No one has the drive to create abundance. Whoops oh geeze lol, goodbye billions of people. Who could have predicted such an outcome???

Are you starting to understand why these population numbers will invariably lead to unsustainable environmental carnage or nah

we do not have the resources to build housing and infrastructure on every square inch of land while providing proper food and water and job. Sure you could make everyone live in a small room and have them eat nutrition paste and have them work at a warehouse and have them only spend money on necessities , but it's not really living.

Anyone who answers no doesnt have to deal with traffic very often.

Blessed bastards.

rexcrk posted...

Anyone who answers no doesnt have to deal with traffic very often.

Blessed bastards.

that's more of infrastructure problem than overpopulation, i think.
if everyone just stop using car to work and go with public transportation instead, there would be much less traffic.

Ricemills posted...

that's more of infrastructure problem than overpopulation, i think.
if everyone just stop using car to work and go with public transportation instead, there would be much less traffic.

Same problem there. Just step into any city's rapid transit system, especially those of cities everyone has heard of.

It's a complex issue but in terms of consumption of natural resources and ecological damage the US is number #1, and it's far from the largest population in the world.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/

It is well known that Americans consume far more natural resources and live much less sustainably than people from any other large country of the world. A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil, reports the Sierra Clubs Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.

And then you get the ecofascist discourse that "them poor countries are too overpopulated and pollute too much!!!!1"

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

My guy...not only are you pulling solutions from sci-fi novels, but you're also straight-up suggesting forceful sterilization as a solution.

Nice job ignoring literally everything else in my post you quoted.
Anyway, objectively speaking it's not inconceivable that everyone someone or some organization will try something to limit population growth, and one can only hope they don't discriminate.

Then there's nature itself, which we can sure of doesn't discriminate. In overcrowded areas with not enough resources to take care of everyone, one thing that will eventually run rampant is bad health, which leads to diseases. We got lucky with Covid being relatively tame. With human societies being as they are now, it is very likely some pandemic will eventually pop up again. Wonder if the next one will be just as relatively tame as well.

Even if that doesn't happen, all the food additives and microplastics that we love to expose ourselves to daily have a damaging effect on fertility rates. So even if humanity won't deliberately try and stabilize birth rates on a large scale, they effectively will anyway, especially those who can't get enough of prepackaged food and drinks with tons of additives.

So again, I say that improvement and increase of education is where the solution is at. At least the non-religious, non-chauvinistic kind. Helping people realize what works well in the long run and what doesnt can work wonders, in many fields (including the matters of health and population sustainability).

cousinvini posted...

It's a complex issue but in terms of consumption of natural resources and ecological damage the US is number #1, and it's far from the largest population in the world. Does it matter if there are so many people in the world when it takes like 35 indians to consume as much as the average american?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/

And then you get the ecofascist discourse that "them poor countries are too overpopulated and pollute too much!!!!1"

All of these claims can be true at the same time.

Most of the plastic garbage in the ocean is from India/China, that doesn't mean Americans are off the hook or anything like that.

Overpopulation = population density

Eh?

Xethuminra posted...

Overpopulation = population density

Eh?

Yeah a lot of people misunderstand that word to mean "literally no more bodies can be squeezed into this space", a lot of the denial stems from this