Serious topic: Overpopulation

[Anonymous No.6177325]

Hello /sci/,

1) Do you think that overpopulation is a problem?

2) Do you think it will become worse in the coming decades or is there a chance that population will start falling?

3) How do we curb population growth?

4) Would you agree with 1-child policy for the overcrowded places?

[Anonymous No.6177329]

1) Yes
2) Yes it will become worse, look at the underdeveloped countries

3) fourth reich
4) No, ethnic cleansing is the only way.

[Anonymous No.6177328]

We just need a new plague

[Anonymous No.6177333]

There is no overpopulation problem. Birth rates are plummeting all over the world, and the population will start declining by 2050.

[Anonymous No.6177335]

No, overpopulation is not a problem. No, it will not become worse. And questions 3 and 4 are blatant logical fallacies, this is worse than push-polling.

Know how the world is totally awesome right now because we have people who specialize in every obscure thing and know it backwards and forwards? Kind of hard to do when there aren't enough people.

Sure, mud countries continue to grow in population, where people have nothing to do besides make babies and beat each other up with cactii. Who cares? Developed countries that actually matter, are actually suffering from *underpopulation*, and a very worrying aging of the population

[Anonymous No.6177340]

1.no
2.fall in some places but rise overall
3.abstinence oh wait no that's useless. Education and condoms
4.no

[Anonymous No.6177344]

>>6177325

1) Yes, yes it is
2) Well population INCREASE is actually falling in Europe and some other countries, but the population is still increasing
Humanity has always found a way to survive, I think we will again
3) Just look at China. Well, at least partially. Unfortunately for humans, money and economics/profit comes before their lives, so the absence of a young population and thus labour will cause the corporate assholes to demand more kids

4) Absolutely, but not everyone will.

[Anonymous No.6177349]

>1) Do you think that overpopulation is a problem?

From a standard of living point of view, yes. Diseases spread faster, more people means more resources used while not necessary adding more to the overall wellbeing, overpupolation doesn't happen uniformly so some parts of the world suffer greater than others creating worldwide inequality.

>2) Do you think it will become worse in the coming decades or is there a chance that population will start falling?

The only signs of population fall are within industrialized states that for whatever reason have youth population numbers falling (emigration, disinterest in family life).
In places where overpopulation is clearly an issue the numbers are projected to only grow if nothing else is taken.

>3) How do we curb population growth?

This explains it quite simply http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llAG5V7x17A

>4) Would you agree with 1-child policy for the overcrowded places?

Only if the receiving end of such measures would calmly abide. But that hasn't happened in China with reported forced abortions that have taken place with women who tried to have more children. Population control through force is not progressive.

[Anonymous No.6177363]

You know who I hate.

Couples who say "I am not going to have a baby, because who wants to raise a child in a world of war and overpopulation"

[Anonymous No.6177478]

>1) Do you think that overpopulation is a problem?

yes. we can't even feed all of the people. that's why billions are malnourished.

>2) Do you think it will become worse in the coming decades or is there a chance that population will start falling?

yes. as we break 8 & 9Billion total population, you can expect more resource wars. Oil is already in short supply.

>3) How do we curb population growth?

forced sterilization of people on welfare. want to go on welfare? get sterilized first.

>4) Would you agree with 1-child policy for the overcrowded places?

absolutely!

[Anonymous No.6177489]

>>6177478
>yes. we can't even feed all of the people. that's why billions are malnourished.
we easily could if we fixed political problems and ate less meat

a bigger problem is supporting an improved standard of living for developing countries, and supplying the required energy and resources for that

[Anonymous No.6177507]

>>6177329
>ethnic cleansing
>not women's liberation

[Anonymous No.6177515]

>>6177489
>we easily could if we fixed political problems and ate less meat

that's a polyanna approach. yeah, if all of the people ate insects and other gross shit, maybe we could.

and you know what that would create? EVEN MORE FUCKING PROBLEMS!

these people would just have more kids then and the problems would MULTIPLY. from having few billion malnourished, we'd have 10 billion of malnourished in 10-20 years.

sterilization is the the only solution. with every package of food aid that USAid gives out, a package of condoms or anti-pregnancy pills should be included in there.

[Anonymous No.6177516]

>>6177325
>1) Do you think that overpopulation is a problem?

Yes

>2) Do you think it will become worse in the coming decades or is there a chance that population will start falling?

Does falling from war, famine, disease, complete depletion of all resources, strife from the collapse of the economy, and random violence count?

>3) How do we curb population growth?

Bring back Eugenics to prevent poor and low intelligence individuals from mating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

>4) Would you agree with 1-child policy for the overcrowded places?

Will only stop desirable people from having kids and won't affect trash's mating habits since they don't care about the law anyway.

[Anonymous No.6177528]

>>6177340
>condoms

kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6177533]

>>6177515
Birth rate naturally drops as standard of living and life expectancy improve. You're making ridiculous assumptions.

[Anonymous No.6177535]

>>6177489
>ate less meat

fuck off hippie

[Anonymous No.6177539]

If you're just tuning in to this thread, know that everyone that answered "yes" to questions 1 and 2 are only repeating things that they have heard, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

World population growth is in decline; the fastest the world population has ever grown has come and gone, but there are still those who claim that the few remaining decades of slow growth are going to doom us all. You shouldn't take these people any more seriously than any other doomsayers.

The challenge of the future will not be "Holy shit, how are we going to feed all these people!" as Thomas Malthus would have you believe. Reality will actually be the opposite - as world population growth turns over, more and more countries will be faced with the difficult task of continuing to grow their economies while their population shrinks or stagnates. Germany has already addressed this problem, and they have successfully responded with automation in the work force.

[Anonymous No.6177543]

1) Yes. The population is already unsustainably large.

2) It will become worse until the inevitable crash.

3) Put a cap on children per family, and prevent people from overcrowded countries from immigrating.

4) Yes.

[Anonymous No.6177545]

>>6177363

Why does their unselfish decision anger you?

[Anonymous No.6177548]

>>6177543
Are you serious?
putting a cap per family will make the white race go extinct.

My suggestion is till ethinc cleansing.

[Anonymous No.6177552]

1) Overpopulation is not a problem. The population explosion and the industrial revolution was not a one way street. Let's say a million people are born, most of them poor and suffering, however, a few dozen will change the world for all 7 billion people. Say one of them makes farming half a percent more efficient. That one in a million person has made enough food to feed 35 million people.

2) Population will level off at about 9 billion around 2050. Immortality and AI will make it slowly begin to rise again, however, technology will make feeding, housing, and entertaining all those people very easy.

3) Developed nations have less children, so developing the undeveloped world would be the ideal way.

4) I lean libertarian, so I have a very strong disagreement with that, even if it was a good idea in theory, which I don't think it is.

[Anonymous No.6177561]

>>6177539
>World population growth is in decline;


the RATE has fallen slightly but the population is still GROWING. I don't think you understand basic calculus concepts. I haven't read the rest of your post because it's probably as wrong as your opening sentence.

[Anonymous No.6177564]

>>6177325
>1) Do you think that overpopulation is a problem?

Yes. The non-white population is out of control and ruining the world. Look at the spread of disease in Africa, its out of containment. Apparently a new black plague is starting in India.

Resources are scarce because breeding rates are too high for certain groups of humans.

>3) How do we curb population growth?

Contraception in 3rd world countries.
Forced sterilization.
False-flag operations to start infighting and wars between certain groups of people.

>4) Would you agree with 1-child policy for the overcrowded places?

It's not working. They have it in China but people just pay the tax anyway.

[Anonymous No.6177570]

1. No.
2. Stay about the same. Only a very small portion of earth is currently populated, and improvements in technology mean that we'll be needing less and less space and be able to make use of previously uninhabitable locations in the future.
3. We don't.
4. HELL NO, that's all kinds of fucked up both ethically and economically.

[Anonymous No.6177573]

>>6177564
>Look at the spread of disease in Africa, its out of containment. Apparently a new black plague is starting in India.
So they'll die. Problem solved.

>Resources are scarce because breeding rates are too high for certain groups of humans.
So they'll die. Problem solved.

[Anonymous No.6177588]

>>6177561
World population growth is indeed declining.

I didn't say the population is declining.... clearly; I said "population growth". There is no need to point out that the population is still growing.

Growth implies a rate, the rate is declining. I don't understand why you find that statement objectionable.

You don't need to know calculus to understand the concept of a rate. I indicated that growth is in decline. Growth is a rate, ergo the rate is declining, which is true.

>the RATE has fallen slightly

That's an understatement. The growth rate has been falling since the 60's, from 2.19% in '63 to 1.07% in 2012.

[Anonymous No.6177593]

>>6177552
>Immortality and AI

Retarded CS majors aren't welcome here

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.6177600]

>>6177325
>1) Do you think that overpopulation is a problem?
No, overconsumption and waste is a problem
>2) Do you think it will become worse in the coming decades or is there a chance that population will start falling?
If developing countries keep developing the population growth rate should slow, stall, and eventually become negative.
>3) How do we curb population growth?
Encourage long-term/sustainable development and education in countries that are lacking in them.
>4) Would you agree with 1-child policy for the overcrowded places?
Only as a last resort.

[Anonymous No.6177612]

>Do you think

Science doesn't care what you think. Take this retarded shit to /soc/.

[Anonymous No.6177614]

>>6177588
there's gonna be 11 billion people by the end of this century you dumbass.

[Anonymous No.6177656]

>>6177612
>Science doesn't care what you think

Psychology does.

[Anonymous No.6177657]

>>6177325
1) Do you think that overpopulation is a problem?
Yes, but most modern societies that pollute the most are also seeing the slowest population growth.

2) Do you think it will become worse in the coming decades or is there a chance that population will start falling
Africa, or rather Nigeria is expected to over take India in population by 2080. Yes, that's rather concerning.

3) How do we curb population growth?
-> Empowering women to work instead of staying at home
-> Easy access contraception
-> Better male condom
-> Family planning
-> State mandated 2 or less children per home

4) Would you agree with 1-child policy for the overcrowded places?
For China, a 2 child policy over 100 years would make more sense.
For other countries like India, Bangladesh, Philippines, I don't know.

[Anonymous No.6177772]

>1) Do you think that overpopulation is a problem?
Yes. If unrestricted, populations will grow until there are literally as many people as could possibly exist. This is not necessarily the number at which everyone is happiest.

Imagine you are on a 1 km2 island and adequate food is regularly supplied by helicopter. What would you prefer, to live with maybe 10 other people, or to live with 999.999 other people so that each of you has only 1 square meter of space, even though you all get just enough food to live (even if not particularly comfortably or healthily)?


>2) Do you think it will become worse in the coming decades or is there a chance that population will start falling
Yes because medicine and technology are constantly increasing both how many people can be kept alive in a unit area. Meanwhile, practically no advances are being made in social areas such as politics and law to handle this much larger populace, and human psychology (eg. what population density we are happiest at) is not changing at all.

Also, it is always the shittiest places that grow the most, while the most developed countries grow the slowest, so the population growth by itself is a regressive force.

>3) How do we curb population growth?
No realistic way. The only hope is that technology and automation increase to the point that the poor literally cannot afford to feed themselves or pay for vital medical services, so that they will die to starvation and disease. But for this, world governments must become drastically capitalist - the opposite direction to the one we're headed in.

>4) Would you agree with 1-child policy for the overcrowded places?
Yes, but it would never happen. The only way to do it is have 1st world militaries come in and forcibly sterilize people, but then everyone will complain that it's racist.

[Anonymous No.6177797]

Since we know that Bispehnol-A reduces male fertility, whey don't we just export Bisphenol A garbage to 3rd world countries and just let it seep into their water?

[Anonymous No.6177803]

>>6177656
No.

[Anonymous No.6177811]

>>6177797
because then the people who want the 3rd world nations to expand will complain

[Anonymous No.6177823]

>>6177333
>over the world
*over the developed world

[Anonymous No.6177851]

>>6177325
1) No if we manage to live smarter (i.e. consume less water, change living habits to get ambiental advantages for example going vegetarian etc.)
2) It will reach its peak and then the population will slowly start falling
3) It's nearly impossible in the current situation: rich countries, except for China, are the only ones that can efficiently reduce the population, but their population is already stable or going down: the problem is the growth in Africa and in Brasil
4) Yes if the situation is extremely dangerous and all the ways i listed in poin 1 have not been apllicated yet
5) Sorry for shitty english