Lets Have More Overpopulation!

[Chessie]

Wait...backup?!...that's a terrible idea, right? I mean, isn't the whole world horrifyingly over-populated already? Aren't there hundreds of thousands of people starving across the globe? Aren't nearly a billion people without access to potable water?

That's all because of over-population, isn't it?

Actually, and this will trip you right out since Americans and plenty of groups planet wide think the problem is simply too many people...it's not.

Wow, okay, I fully expect to get pounced on about now. Please, be gentle and use lubricant.

What if our population is actually too low?

What if our lack of infrastructure is the actual problem?

This thread is pretty weird because I am not asking for people to defend the idea of over-population. I want people to defend the notion that population is in fact too low. Give it a try. See what you can come up with. I want to hear your thoughts.

 

[Poetic Justice]

If we had more infrastructure we could have more people no problem.

They are inversely proportional to each other.

Population is not too low because infrastructure IS too low.

Infrastructure is not too high because population IS too high

 

[testing]

Um... er... lubricant?

Well, I will venture to say that although population is probably by no means too low, we (as a species) are not doing as good a job as we could of efficiently managing the resources we have. So yes, I agree, the problem is not simply "too many people."

It seems to me that we could come up with better forms of energy, and as you said, better infrastructure, to take care of the people that are here. Also, it would help if corrupt governments would stop stealing from and abusing their people.

Even now I have a tremendous respect for the human ability to come up with amazing ideas, people are doing it every single day. Just based on numbers, one or two of those ideas is bound to help.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The population of developed countries is too low to provide infrastructure large enough to develop/fund serious space exploration or other large technological projects.

I don't worry about overpopulation, because like any other organism, when humans are too densely packed disease always flares up and takes our numbers down significantly.

 

[beetpoet]

just on a hopeful note. i heard greg mortensen speak last night. it was inspiring. he heads an organization that builds schools, primarily for girls, in afghanistan and pakistan. anyway, he showed some long range studies that girls' increased literacy has a dramatic effect on lowered birth rates. seems a win/win proposition. it also has an effect on countries choosing less fanatical leaders.

 

[Shai Gar]

A better solution is massacre.

 

[Wyote]

More people = more expendability. More expendability = more risks and more risks = more hurdles jumped over. We need to span out beyond our galaxy in order to survive as a species. This would happen more quickly if there were a dire need and an excess number of people willing to do so.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

More people = more expendability. More expendability = more risks and more risks = more hurdles jumped over. We need to span out beyond our galaxy in order to survive as a species. This would happen more quickly if there were a dire need and an excess number of people willing to do so.

Good point. If our ideal is one in which humans live in a harmonious co-existance with the rest of the ecosystem, we would have to abandon medicine, technology, agriculture and wipe out most of the earth's population.

We would basically have to return to a pre-bronze age scenario. Bullshit.

As a species on this planet we are winning, but that doesn't mean we have to defeat the other ones. But necessity is certainly the mother of invention. We need to be pushed beyond our narrow borders and into space. That is a step forward - reversion to a prior stage of development would be a step backwards.

 

[Poetic Justice]

More people = more expendability. More expendability = more risks and more risks = more hurdles jumped over. We need to span out beyond our galaxy in order to survive as a species. This would happen more quickly if there were a dire need and an excess number of people willing to do so.

This would happen more quickly if there were short term (our lifetime) profits to be made.

Whilst I'm sure there is lots of minerals etc out there waiting to be found, ther won't be a profit to be made from it for a long long time.

The people making the decisions only really care about their profits.

Why do you think our governments let so many foreigners in. More tax.

Simples

 

[Shai Gar]

Religion doesn't allow for scientific growth.

 

[enfp can be shy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeralization

Overpopulation is a myth, tossed around upon the masses, whenever there's too much concentration of power, and more efficient/fair organization is required. From the earliest times in history they used to make human sacrifices to the gods. The owners would reduce the food rations for their slaves to the very limit, so that the slaves are strong enough to work, but too weak to fight the guards. Then the feudals used to increase taxation and punishments, to pressure the population enough to not be able to revolt.

Around WW2 people also were indoctrinated to believe in overpopulation. What happened? 97% of humanity survived! And turned out they COULD live, and by now even triple. Miracle? No. It's just that overpopulation is polit-economic propaganda.

Why would we need more people? Not necessarily, but we need more education, that's certain. The more educated people, the more ideas, the better development.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Religion doesn't allow for scientific growth.

That's pretty random.

Doesn't your coat of arms bear a religious symbol?

 

[Wyote]

Whilst I'm sure there is lots of minerals etc out there waiting to be found, ther won't be a profit to be made from it for a long long time.

The people making the decisions only really care about their profits.

Which is why I said there must be a dire need. Overpopulation, real genuine overpopulation would force those in power to find new ways of profiting that involve expansion.

 

[Chessie]

I have a shot for you over the bow.

Back to the idea of 'too few people'.

If people connect with one another based on their interaction with a diverse group and more persons connecting with on another allows for greater distribution of resources and the construction of greater infra-structure then might an emphasis on infrastructure and growth lead us to being able to stabilize our development?

Large parts of Europe are facing population decreases that can't be explained away solely by immigration.

Live birth rates are up, early violent death rates are down, abortion and teen birth are down. By all the measures of persons who pro-claim overpopulation to be the issue, we should have an utter glut of people in the extremely liberal European Union. Instead we see the opposite.

Sweden offers immigration incentives to live there and will even support immigrants. Japan offers the same for young persons because their majority population will all be over the age of 65.

These places offer HUGE public welfare benefits. It's difficult to starve to death in Japan. It requires real effort. Oh, you can be malnourished anywhere (I have plenty of friends with good money who're malnourished), but to starve to death? It requires very specific circumstances.

Their populations have stabilized and even decreased. So is it over-population? Or is over-population, as was said above, a ploy by the mega-rich to convince us that something impossible to politically or feasibly publicly control without causing a eugenics nightmare is at fault?

 

[Eric86]

Religion doesn't allow for scientific growth.

Maybe in your little world, but in reality, that's a myth. You'd do well to read some books like Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction and Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion.

 

[Faye]

I don't think it is either really. The problem is that we are poorly managing our resources. We we were more efficient and sustainable, we'd be better off in the long run.

Also, people are typically starving due to wars and droughts that prevent them from accessing food. The current international disagreement on farming isn't helping either. Farming is the one issue that nobody is willing to compromise on. You think nuclear warheads are an issue? They are not much of an issue compared to farming. People can sign treaties on reducing arms fairly easily; you don't even have to get that many people involved, but if you want to sign a farming agreement, it is a different story. People can generally agree that we don't need so many nuclear warheads and that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, but they can't agree on what crops who should be allowed to export and subsidize.

Places in the world do need more infrastructure, but what that means is more money, which means more investing, which means more opportunities to invest, which also requires good infrastructure (mainly a strong government to ensure contracts are fulfilled and corruption is minimized). Furthermore, governments themselves need money and sources of revenue to sustain themselves. Do you see the problem? There are no easy solutions.

I also have much better stuff to say on this issue after I've studied it in about 6 months.

 

[TinyBubbles]

Wait...backup?!...that's a terrible idea, right? I mean, isn't the whole world horrifyingly over-populated already? Aren't there hundreds of thousands of people starving across the globe? Aren't nearly a billion people without access to potable water?

That's all because of over-population, isn't it?

Actually, and this will trip you right out since Americans and plenty of groups planet wide think the problem is simply too many people...it's not.

Wow, okay, I fully expect to get pounced on about now. Please, be gentle and use lubricant.

What if our population is actually too low?

What if our lack of infrastructure is the actual problem?

This thread is pretty weird because I am not asking for people to defend the idea of over-population. I want people to defend the notion that population is in fact too low. Give it a try. See what you can come up with. I want to hear your thoughts.

more people won't necessarily mean more or better infrastructure! that's a purely political problem; more people might even compound it. look at china and india, the two most populated countries in the world - their infrastructure in some places is still that of 1000 years ago. cities and roads aren't available in all areas. i think if there were more people, the pressure to supply infrastructure would be greater but so too would the chances of conflicts between different groups and government corruption. it's easier to look out for 100 people rather than a billion, right? more people won't necessarily improve the lifestyles of anyone. also, the environmental impacts are significant - people consume a very large amount of resources on earth, and we're not the only beings here. jmo

 

[bamf]

The human population will eventually reach carrying capacity. There simply will not be enough resources to support more life if we don't expand to other places.

At this point in time, we aren't at carrying capacity, and aren't really "overpopulated." We have more than enough food and water (and means) to support all of the people on the planet, but we don't do it for a number of reasons. To keep power structures, to "save" tax payers money, so on and so forth. To support better infrastructure around the world, the people with money would need to give it out. The Western world treats "developing" nations as cash-crops, and to help them wouldn't be economically smart (in the seeable future, that is)

Also, most famines aren't real famines per say. There usually is enough food, but it doesn't get circulated right. Ireland had plenty of food during the potato famine, just a large majority of it was being exported by the people who "owned" the land. Same with many famines in South America and Asia. The people in the government have access to vast amounts of food and refuse to believe there is a shortage. Their denial of a shortage is what leads to a famine for the general population. There is still food, but people don't have access to it.

In Africa, agricultural boards cause a lot of harm. They regulate who grows what and where. Often times they force farmers to grow cash crops for export. Food for the people is neglected. They have the means to grow enough food for large portions of the population, but money (which is often desperately needed to pay back the World Bank and the IMF) is more important in the eyes of the government.

It's all messed up, and more infrastructure would be nice, but what is even more imperative is allocation of resources by population needs. We have the ability to do it, but decide against it. Also, if we supported the world population better, I'd wager that the environment would be improved. No need to slash and burn to build housing/farmland when people are already provided for.