Will Over-Population become a threat to Civilization?

[Empirica]

Overpopulation will be a continuing problem in underdeveloped countries.

I don't think so...

Underdeveloped countries have poor healthcare, higher infant mortality rate and shorter life expectancy.

 

[Virgil Jones]

I don't think so...

Underdeveloped countries have poor healthcare, higher infant mortality rate and shorter life expectancy.

They also have 10 times as many babies

 

[Virgil Jones]

It is possible, but by the time that it becomes an actual issue rather than a theory we will likely have expanded into space or some catastrophic event will solve the issue before it becomes a problem.

Perhaps an EMP event will starve over half the world and calm things down?

 

[Unkotare]

It is possible, but by the time that it becomes an actual issue rather than a theory we will likely have expanded into space or some catastrophic event will solve the issue before it becomes a problem.

It won’t become a problem. The opposite will.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I don't think so...

Underdeveloped countries have poor healthcare, higher infant mortality rate and shorter life expectancy.

And the fact that they have too many children because of poor education, healthcare is escalating the problems of being poor.. Overpopulation tends to be growing faster in underdeveloped nations.

 

[Northern Light]

Not quite, Northern Light...The "world's wealthiest" make up less than 1% of the human population.

As a group they consume fewer resources than all other groups, simply because they're such an extreme minority.

And for the same reason, this group has a smaller carbon footprint, that is unless you include their industries which produce products and services and create jobs; all of which benefit civilization.

Might I add, your post sounds very much like the rantings of a "socialist"...Please, say it isn't so!

Wealthier people produce more carbon pollution — even the “green” ones - Vox
CNN - World's wealthiest 16 percent uses 80 percent of natural resources - October 12, 1999
World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, says Oxfam | Environment | The Guardian

Here are some examples.

Don't call me a socialist, please. I'm not. If you want to name call, then this conversation is over.

 

[Lafayette]

Underdeveloped countries have poor healthcare, higher infant mortality rate and shorter life expectancy.

But, though they have a higher death-rate, they manage to proliferate more than us in the "developed world".

And those who do survive have every bit of a right to a decent living-standard as we do, don't they?

Your comment was a favorite amongst the upper-class UK gentry that were sent to the "colonies" to manage its businesses in Asia and Africa. For which they were ultimately "kicked-out".

Like the colonial Americans did in 1781 ...

 

[Empirica]

And the fact that they have too many children because of poor education, healthcare is escalating the problems of being poor.. Overpopulation tends to be growing faster in underdeveloped nations.

But, though they have a higher death-rate, they manage to proliferate more than us in the "developed world".

And those who do survive have every bit of a right to a decent living-standard as we do, don't they?

Your comment was a favorite amongst the upper-class UK gentry that were sent to the "colonies" to manage its businesses in Asia and Africa. For which they were ultimately "kicked-out".

Like the colonial Americans did in 1781 ...

And the fact that they have too many children because of poor education, healthcare is escalating the problems of being poor.. Overpopulation tends to be growing faster in underdeveloped nations.

High childbirth rates are indeed a major contributing factor of third world poverty for which there are multiple methods of simple inexpensive birth control.

Instead, ever increasing numbers of uneducated, poverty stricken people choose to migrate to western nations that reward their extreme childbirth rates with taxpayer funding.

ie; It is Western Civilization that will ultimately bare the burden of overpopulation by the mass influx of third world migrants that continue to arrive and proliferate at alarming rates.

Too many are now arriving uninvited and feeling entitled to the wealth, education, and healthcare of their benefactor's to ensure a low infant mortality rate and extended life expectancy for all with which to unwittingly, further exacerbate the 'overpopulation' problem.

 

[Empirica]

Wealthier people produce more carbon pollution — even the “green” ones - Vox
CNN - World's wealthiest 16 percent uses 80 percent of natural resources - October 12, 1999
World's richest 10% produce half of global carbon emissions, says Oxfam | Environment | The Guardian

Here are some examples.

Please re-read my post again; albeit more carefully...I thought we were talking about the 'uber-rich' group only.

The group you labeled "the world's wealthiest" to which I responded "make up less than 1% of the human population". should have made that quite clear.

From your CNN link:
"NEW YORK (CNN) -- As scientists note the arrival of the six billionth human being on the planet, they also are warning that 16 percent of the world's population is consuming some 80 percent of its natural resources.
That's the estimated toll the wealthiest populations on the globe -- the United States, Europe and Japan -- are taking from the earth's natural bounty to sustain their way of life."

I had no idea you were referring to the entire populations of the world's richest nations...We've been on two entirely different pages.

Don't call me a socialist, please. I'm not. If you want to name call, then this conversation is over.

I didn't...what I said was; "your post sounds very much like the rantings of a "socialist"."

 

[Northern Light]

Please re-read my post again; albeit more carefully...I thought we were talking about the 'uber-rich' group only.

The group you labeled "the world's wealthiest" to which I responded "make up less than 1% of the human population". should have made that quite clear.

From your CNN link:
"NEW YORK (CNN) -- As scientists note the arrival of the six billionth human being on the planet, they also are warning that 16 percent of the world's population is consuming some 80 percent of its natural resources.
That's the estimated toll the wealthiest populations on the globe -- the United States, Europe and Japan -- are taking from the earth's natural bounty to sustain their way of life."

I had no idea you were referring to the entire populations of the world's richest nations...We've been on two entirely different pages.

I didn't...what I said was; "your post sounds very much like the rantings of a "socialist"."

You are totally dishonest and you're trying to save face by splitting hairs.

I hate it when people on this site blatantly insult you but they couch it in a third party reference in order to avoid accountability.

Oh sorry, right... you said my post reminds you of the rantings of a socialist, rather than just coming out and calling me a socialist. My bad! :roll:

 

[Empirica]

You are totally dishonest and you're trying to save face by splitting hairs.

I hate it when people on this site blatantly insult you but they couch it in a third party reference in order to avoid accountability.

Oh sorry, right... you said my post reminds you of the rantings of a socialist, rather than just coming out and calling me a socialist. My bad! :roll:

One more time; re-read my post NorthLight...It's so very easy to grasp my point exactly how I explained it.

I mistakenly thought you were talking about wasteful rich people to which I responded accordingly by defining them as being less than 1% of the world population therefore they consume fewer resources than any other group for the simple reason that there numbers are so few.

While your actual point was the 16% of world population that make up the world's richest nations which you said consume and waste more resources than all the rest of the world.

No dishonesty! No saving face! No splitting hairs! You and I were simply on different pages!

I assure you; I'm honest to a fault and I don't lie. (unless of course the truth is hurtful or blabbing)

 

[Northern Light]

I assure you; I'm honest to a fault and I don't lie. (unless of course the truth is hurtful or blabbing)

You inferred that I'm a socialist. Keep denying it all you want, it doesn't really matter.

I have more respect for trolls who at least come out and name-call directly.

Anyway, I'm out.

 

[Mustachio]

I have a theory that Greenland will become inhabitable and its untapped resources will make it the next world power by the year 2500. Otherwise, over-population will probably be a huge threat, but not to the rich. There will be no middle class in the future. Except in Greenland.

 

[Empirica]

You inferred that I'm a socialist. Keep denying it all you want, it doesn't really matter.

I have more respect for trolls who at least come out and name-call directly.

Anyway, I'm out.

You're obviously more upset over this than I had realized and I suppose for good reason.

I see now it's possible that my words could have stemmed from a subconscious judgement.

And suggesting that someone is a "socialist" is a terrible insult, so please accept my apologize.

I have a theory that Greenland will become inhabitable and its untapped resources will make it the next world power by the year 2500. Otherwise, over-population will probably be a huge threat, but not to the rich. There will be no middle class in the future. Except in Greenland.

I have a solution...

I believe North America should prepare itself for what most people and scientists clearly predict will be a future overpopulation catastrophe.

"Overpopulation" is an inevitable threat that can only be avoided proactively; beginning with drastically restricting the flow of immigrants and refugees into North America immediately.

And I would suggest that all of Western Civilization do the exact same thing!

 

[Mustachio]

I have a solution...

I believe North America should prepare itself for what most people and scientists clearly predict will be a future overpopulation catastrophe.

"Overpopulation" is an inevitable threat that can only be avoided proactively; beginning with drastically restricting the flow of immigrants and refugees into North America immediately.

And I would suggest that all of Western Civilization do the exact same thing!

lol wut

Oh, you're not joking. Then you have a really cool signature, did you make it yourself? If you did, you should be proud because I think it's really well done.

 

[Lafayette]

It is Western Civilization that will ultimately bare the burden of overpopulation by the mass influx of third world migrants that continue to arrive and proliferate at alarming rates.

May I suggest that you are exaggerating the problem?

Third-world migrants are coming into Europe by the boatloads, not the US! And why?

Because of two reasons:
*The war in the middle-east with ISIS, and
*Middle Africa has a serious problem in food supply

In the US, the problem derives from Central American refugees from hunger and some South Americans. The former is the majority influx.

So, fix that problem with the means you have - they are more than enough. No effing wall is necessary along the Mexican Border. Just establish more electronic surveillance devices.

Moreover, if the US had an Identity Card given at birth, there would be no problem whatsoever distinguishing who deserved to live and work in the US and who does not. For the moment, because the US has no formal identity-card - aside from Drivers' Licenses - it is easy to falsify an identity.

When American companies need Accomplished Talent*, it typically hires those who have at least a BS/BA-degree. So, what is happening is this:
*Those from Europe and Asia who have advanced degrees funded by the state get into the US and start working on a Green Card,
*Whilst American kids have to pay through the nose to get that same degree in America! Which is why most do not have advanced degrees. That is, only 46.5% of our high-school graduates go on to obtain a post-secondary degree - see that from here (Table 1).

So, don't blame the rest of the world for an Identity Problem that is of Uncle Sam's own making ... !

*Which is the major challenge facing America today. We are exiting the Industrial Age and entering the Information Age - meaning that only about 14% of the labor-force is employed in manufacturing today!

 

[Lafayette]

A good global conflict will nip this in the bud, imo!

And from where is that "global conflict" to come?

You've watched too many Hollywood movies ...

 

[Lafayette]

THE MIGRATION CHALLENGE (PART 1)

You're obviously more upset over this than I had realized and I suppose for good reason.

Nope, can't imagine why. Your question is valid.

I (for one) happen to disagree with you. But, that's no "big deal".

I see now it's possible that my words could have stemmed from a subconscious judgement.

And suggesting that someone is a "socialist" is a terrible insult, so please accept my apologize.

No, it isn't! You are just classifying someone incorrectly. The definition of solution is that the state owns all the means of production.

Americans misunderstand "socialism" and what it means. After WW2 the word migrated from "total ownership of all means of production" to the phrase "Social Democracy". This latter means that there are key services that a market-economy cannot offer without employing very high costs. (Namely Healthcare and Post-secondary Education.)

All EU countries are Social Democracies, which means government assistance to individual persons/families are extend beyond just those two services listed above. They include nowadays suitable housing and even (in some countries) individual services - like for the elderly free transportation to supermarkets. Or, local child-care centers for single working-mothers.

What is key nonetheless is to understand that Social Democracies are based upon a capitalist market-economy.

Apologies are never necessary when one expresses their opinion or belief.

However, in a debate-forum, one must expect responses that may challenge your opinion. That is the what "debate" is all about.

I have a solution...

I believe North America should prepare itself for what most people and scientists clearly predict will be a future overpopulation catastrophe.

"Overpopulation" is an inevitable threat that can only be avoided proactively; beginning with drastically restricting the flow of immigrants and refugees into North America immediately.

Define "overpopulation". Too many people speaking spanish at the supermarket where you shop?

Why do these people want to come to the US? Yes, for a job that will sustain them.

Why can't their own countries provide them the necessary jobs? THAT IS THE KEY QUESTION.

These countries exist all over the world. The US has its Central and South American "refugees" to contend with. Europe has its refugees from the middle-east and darkest Africa to absorb.

So, what is actually happening in both instances? The manner in which these refugees are treated is very different between the US & Europe because of differing outlooks regarding the matter.

In the US, there are some who are working illegally. Many more are being deferred at the borders, with the sole exception of those with university degrees and talents in great demand in the US. Others are asked to leave politely. But most simply stay illegally and work illegally.

Let's look at the roots of the problem, which I summarize here:
*The poor will always try to better their lot, which is why the US should help Central/South American countries to train these people with useful job talents. Were they to do so, whatever products that they could produce could be sold not only in the US but also Canada and the world.
*The poor coming from India, for instance, is an altogether different matter. They have top-level degrees and their talents are particularly sought in our economy's transition from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. The problem and challenge is therefore obvious. India trains the people with post-graduate subsidized education, whilst in the US that same education costs at least $10K a year at a state school or more than twice that amount at a private institution of higher-learning!

 

[Lafayette]

THE MIGRATION PROBLEM (PART 2)

And I would suggest that all of Western Civilization do the exact same thing!

Aint gonna happin, milady.

Western Civilization has found another solution. Those migrants that are able to "fit in" because they have the right talents to find work are made citizens of the country. They would as well in the US. (Like my father did when he migrated from Europe!)

And if they cannot find work, they will leave of their own accord as many do in Europe. (Europe only needs so many Street Sweepers or for Rubbish Removal and those who cannot find legal work inevitably leave!) But, their leaving is not happening soon enough in the US. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO CENTRAL AGENCY THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS.

The difference between Europe and the US is the method of "identification". In Europe, one is born with an identity-card. In the US, that equivalent document is called a Social Security Number - but you are not born with it! So, it cannot serve as an identity-card! In fact, for some silly reason, the US DOES NOT HAVE AN IDENTITY-CARD PROVIDED BY AUTHORITIES. (We have only "passports" for foreign-travel.)

Make that Identity Card a birth-right in the US, and half the problem of who is a migrant and who is an immigrant and who is a natural-born citizen is answered promptly. Until it is ILLEGAL in the US (with substantial fines as a punishment) to hire aliens, the US can do nothing about the problem!

Those Legal Aliens who observe the procedure and enter the US with a proper permit should be able to advance, in time, to the status of citizen. But they must do it legally - and not wait for "Congress" to absolve them of the crime of "illegal entry" and offer them citizenship ... !!!

 

[Lafayette]

Pew Research Center: "Today’s scientists are more likely than the general American public to be concerned about population growth"

Scientists are paid to be interested in "subjects" within which they have a certain knowledge.

So, it is no wonder that they pronounce when they feel they have a cogent point-of-view to share with the general public. Typically, their POV is interesting even even if one disagrees with it.

That is called "debate" and it usually works to stimulate an exchange (except when some are reduced to one-liner sarcasm as a rebuttal) ...

 

[Journeyman]

As our population has grown, I have watch farmland disappear beneath concrete, asphalt, shopping malls and centers come, suburbs and sub divisions take over once good, rich farmland. Our loss of farmland continues at an amazing rate. If not for hybrid seed and other innovations, we'd probably have a ton of hungry, starving people with just the population we have now.

Probably only a person born and raised on a farm would worry about the disappearing farmland. But to grow food and raise animals to eat, land is required. Unless we can somehow come up with chemicals in a pill to replace food, then yes, population is a problem.

With due respect, I would ask you to consider two things.

One, It is a big world and while your corner of it (mine too) has seen a lot of farmland turned into housing and strip malls, it is really had to use that as a holistic view of the world food situation. As one example, think of the famous shrinking rain forest. Millions of acres of wilderness being converted to farmland and you and I likely never have and never will see any of it. I assume by your quote that you were born and raised on a farm. I don't mean this to be snarky, but when was the last time you drove across Iowa? Here in Ohio, we've lost a lot of farmland to development. Heading west once you pass Indy, it is nothing but agriculture till you hit the mountains.

The other you mention, but don't seem to give much credit to. Given improved yields (Yields and Land Use in Agriculture - Our World in Data) we simply need less farmland at this time. We already have a cultural joke of paying people not to grow crops that is decades old (see Catch-22 and Major Major's father for an alfalfa example). I'm not citing that as hard evidence because I don't feel like researching our current price support structures, but I think we all know it is a thing.

I suspect this is more of an issue of our own local focus and the change away from family farms. You really can't recognize the town I grew up in as the farming community it once was, but by acreage it is just a drop out of a pretty big bucket still pretty full of amber waves of grain.

 

[PirateMk1]

High childbirth rates are indeed a major contributing factor of third world poverty for which there are multiple methods of simple inexpensive birth control.

Instead, ever increasing numbers of uneducated, poverty stricken people choose to migrate to western nations that reward their extreme childbirth rates with taxpayer funding.

ie; It is Western Civilization that will ultimately bare the burden of overpopulation by the mass influx of third world migrants that continue to arrive and proliferate at alarming rates.

Too many are now arriving uninvited and feeling entitled to the wealth, education, and healthcare of their benefactor's to ensure a low infant mortality rate and extended life expectancy for all with which to unwittingly, further exacerbate the 'overpopulation' problem.

There isn't an over population problem. The problem will be shortly as people in the third world catch up to the first world they will procreate far less than they do now, to a point were they will be as we are in the first world, we dont procreate enough. Most 1st world countries right now are loosing population aside from what population they import. Russia, Germany, and Japan being prime examples.

 

[Lafayette]

WHAT'S SO WRONG?

I mistakenly thought you were talking about wasteful rich people to which I responded accordingly by defining them as being less than 1% of the world population therefore they consume fewer resources than any other group for the simple reason that there numbers are so few.

Who cares what percentage of the population they are. The point is that they DO exist and NOT what do we do about it on the international level. Since there is nothing that can be done there.

The issue thus devoles to what can we do about rampant Income Disparity in the US given that upper-income taxation never ever should have been touched by Ronald Reagan who started its decline during his administration. See that fact substantiated here:

In fact, what was necessary then (but did not happen) was to close even further the loopholes that permitted the explosion of upper-incomes. And this happened despite the upper-limit of 90% taxation that was not be truly applicable. Real income taxation, that is, the applied taxation looked differently (and Reckless Ronnie knew it!)

In fact, the Average Effective Tax Rate (that is, the one applied) was never that high as shown above:

What we have above thusly is the Rich-man's Plow, that is, the mechanism that makes some families Filthy Rich. Why "filthy", because it aggregates the rich into a select group of families who benefit selectively from lower applied-tax-rates.

What's so wrong about that? Nothing if the US had death-taxation with which the government applied confiscation above a certain level of total Wealth. The remainder - after Federal death taxation - of an individual's Wealth would befall whomever they pleased. But, the US DOES NOT HAVE SUCH DEATH TAXATION.

So What does that "mean" effectively? First and foremost that more Wealth would return to where it was first generated by the market-economy. That is you-and-me. Howzat?

Namely our entire population that would benefit from the extra-funding to provide, for instance, National Healthcare Services (and nearly free Tertiary Education). Some upper-income families that inherited their riches would "play around" with less than 20% of the "family wealth" generated by their parents.

No big-deal that - aside from the fact that it is a key element of Societal Fairness!

MY POINT

Income Fairness is a national objective that deserves Real Consideration given the manner in which far too low Income Taxation since WW2 allow the unfair accumulation of income-that-becomes-wealth at the top. That passes on languidly from generation to generation. Only the family names change. (Who hears/reads about the Rockefeller, Vanderbilt families anymore? They are lost in history having been replaced by another set of names.)

Amassing Wealth is NOT THE PRIME ECONOMIC GOAL OF A NATION. Assuring a decent standard-of-living for as many as possible assumes that key-role ...

(NB: If you look at the second graphic above, from 1980 onward note how the effective tax-rate varies according to the party of the sitting PotUS ... ;^)

 

[Journeyman]

So you're saying we shouldn't be building up an American Aristocracy? But think of the Walton great-grand kids! How are they going to exercise out-sized power in our society if you put an end to this massive accumulation of inter-generational wealth? Sam Walton built an empire and his great grand kids deserve to be billionaires influencing our politics generations from now. Why do you hate Freedom TM?

 

[Lafayette]

And suggesting that someone is a "socialist" is a terrible insult

Only in the US of A, which still hasn't understood political undercurrents and their evolution.

Socialism once existed and was proven inoperable. Why did it fail?

Because it assumed that the government would replace private-enterprise and produce all goods/services. Which was silly nonsense, but one has to understand the original issues from which Socialism was born. And those issues can be reduced to one factor: In most European countries in the 18th and the turn of the 19th centuries, it was royalty that possessed all the levers of power. As the Industrial Age came to replace the Agricultural Age in the 19th century, a major shift of wealth was occurring and the existing powers (royalty) wanted to control the mechanism.

Little did they realize that during and after WW1, which was excessively bloody, minds would change and royalty lost most of its real political power in all of Europe. In Russia the royal family was seized and killed. Which is a key factor for communism having first installed itself there.

But not only there. Though democracy would prevail inevitably - particularly after WW2 - in Europe, communism still exists as a minor political party in a good many states that now belong to the European Union.

We "live and learn" ...