It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Overpopulation - Is it a problem? What is the solution?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by marbles87

That is a good point. I guess people got used to getting everything instantly, and live in a well established city.

We need population to move to desert slowly and start building structures and water pipelines and electricity etc.

I know Saudi Arabia and bunch of others city is in middle of desert.

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
Solution: 2 words

Colonize Mars

If only the world would spend money on space exploration, research and development, real health remedies, etc, instead of trying to find better ways of blowing up people, countries, etc., or poisoning all of our air, water, food.

What a self destructive, petty species we are.

We probably could have found a way to colonize space by now......

Then we wouldn't be asking about population control.

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:57 PM
If there are a few too many swines over here in my country, they get shot and dealt with and considered as a bad problem (which isn't really the case, but they get more near people's home!).

My country (holland), needs many hollands to support themself. Poland has become our new food maker, cheaper labor and so on. If you become a farmer in my country, you hardly make any money. Only really big farmers, or like pig meat fabrics (1 huge building with countless of pigs are profitible).

It's only a problem when people themself get a problem with it at their own place.

It's like, in your house 20 people can live! enough space! but you don't want that, do you?

But you can't talk about it, it's weird. It's kinda like taking away freedom, and how happy the west attacked China on their 1 child policy which made it even harder just to talk about it + of course less people = bad for the economy!
edit on 7-1-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:55 PM
Some US Statistics on Population:

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by nOraKat

If it is we should get rid of the elite.
Those who run the country !

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 05:31 PM
I don't think it is a problem, case in point here is the country of Japan.
It is just an Island yet has a population of 128,056,026 people as of today.
And here is the landmass size ....It has an area of 377,835 square kilometers (145,882 square miles)
They seem to be doing very well and I think about Canada's situation and then realize that things are good.

Canada has a population of 34,818,867 people as I type this.
Our land mass is The total area of Canada is 9,976,140 sq. kilometers (6,198,886 sq. miles)

I see no problem at all except for those people who watch too much tv....

Interesting thread for sure, S&F because I may be wrong and I am willing to admit that.

Regards, Iwinder

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by graphuto
Having just recently driven around the continental US, I can safely say that overpopulation/overcrowding is not an issue.

Hundreds of thousands of square miles of undeveloped land.

Allowing this undeveloped land to remain undeveloped would be a wonderful thing.


posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:52 PM

Originally posted by snowspirit

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
Solution: 2 words

Colonize Mars

If only the world would spend money on space exploration, research and development, real health remedies, etc, instead of trying to find better ways of blowing up people..


posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 02:44 AM
Wow, many good points..

What is *not* an illusion is the depletion of natural resources (both on land and ocean), forests and natural landscapes in places like Africa, South America (incl. Brazil), and India, etc. What remains of once vast natural landscapes are becoming (or already are) landscapes only spotted with a few small island reserves. I definitely witnessed this in India. This is not everywhere, and is not necessarily due to population growth alone. It is probably amplified by poverty and poor legislation, or a lack of concern, by poor corrupt local governments.

Deforestation and overfishing is certainly evident in certain locations, and these resources are used to supply a growing international community. This is not an illusion.

Here in the U.S., we are lucky to have had a strong conservation movement by people like John Muir, and the like, which inspired the National Park system, resulting in the many national parks and reserves.

According to this article: ( "These protected areas cover 2,607,131 km2 (1,006,619 sq mi), or 27.08 percent of the land area of the United States. This is also one-tenth of the protected land area of the world."(!)

Who knows what America would have looked like without the conservationists, so kudos to them!


(Like somebody mentioned,) Japan is a good example of how densely populated people can live together and still be functional. However it should be stated that they are not necessarily self-sufficient; they probably rely on food and resources from other countries. I am sure this large population contributes greatly to the depletion of Blue Fin Tuna, (some say almost to extinction) as does China and other countries.

I have been to Japan and surprisingly, if you go into the country, it is not very populated at all. Everybody is concentrated in the cities, trying to make that paper. Only many elderly folks remain in the country and they even have programs to try and get young folks to move out into the farms.

During rush hour, they have people employed on the train platforms to smush everyone into the train car as the doors are closing..

Like this:

The suicide rates are also high. I don't know if that is attributed to overpopulation.


I agree with others here that the Earth is not yet close to maximum capacity. I am sure the Earth can support some massive number of people ..but what would be the quality or health of life as a whole?
edit on 8-1-2013 by nOraKat because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:59 AM
I was doing my morning news surf and came across this article and thought I would share it with everyone on this thread.

Some interesting ideas are presented.

Regards, Iwinder

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:08 AM

Overpopulation - Is it a problem? What is the solution?


The solution is massive ethnic genocide, basically to get around all the problems with over population we would need to carpet bomb China and India with nuclear bombs and most of Africa.

Job done.

Its not nice, but its true, self preservation dictates that we can’t destroy ourselves, the west and we are probably the only group of countries that has the ability to actually pull it off. Essentially you get North America, all of Europe and the Auzi’s to agree to it carpet bomb China, India and most of Africa with nukes.

It would probably set economics back to the default setting and make much of the planet uninhabitable for quite some time.

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:22 AM
The world population is SHRINKING. It has been doing so for a long time now.

look at any statistics you want to. The UN´s are the most accurate. Birth rates are way down everywhere.

Fact it is, overpopulation is a myth. We are having about 1 kid per couple now a days. 2.2 at most as a whole.

What that means is that in 50 years as much as a quarter of our population will not exist. Half of the world will be retired and society will place the burden on the remaining youth of supporting the retired and maintaining infrastructure with a far reduced work force and taxable citizens base. That is not even mentioning the HUGE debt burden we are placing on their shoulders now by borrowing on tomorrow. They will rise up and tear it all down for all the BS they will inherit from our time. Can you say nervous much.....

So we expect trouble unless those that will be the old and retired of the future dont die off all at once before they start to need more than they produce.

IMO that is where the over population hype was born. In order to stay economically viable and compete with emerging economies of third world countries who still have growing populations and consequently will control far more of the worlds wealth than our countries will. To counterbalance this and preserve the concentration of wealth in our hands like it is now, a world population control was seen as necessary and so sold as "logical" under word play like "sustainable" or "viable". It is profit loss fear from a shrinking population of producers.

edit on 10-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:27 AM
Technically speaking, the planet can support a much larger population than the one we have. The problems in the here and now are basically out of greed and profiteering...false scarcities to control prices.

That being said...I don't care if the planet can sustain more people. I really don't want to live on a planet that is packed up like a can of sardines. Anyone that thinks we can just happily breed like mice till there is no natural spaces an idiot. Population will have to be addressed in the future...or else.

It's true, nature has a way of "thinning" the herds when they grow too big....that doesn't sound pleasant either. Perhaps the intelligent way to handle this is to begin considering it now. After a raging pandemic or a World War over resources, it will be too late. I'm not talking about "selective breeding", eugenics or even "soylent green" methods...but the dialogue should be started before one of the "herd thinning" scenarios comes into play.

No one likes to think someone can tell another person if they can pro-create or how many kids they can have, it's sounds harsh and cold. However, the alternative of just popping out hungry mouths is totally irresponsible.

For it or against it, it is something that should be looked at and conversation started. If we keep killing off our air cleaners (the forests) and continue to poison our food and water might not matter anyway.

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:42 AM
New study is out, and one one that was predicted many years ago
Research suggests we may actually face a declining world population in the coming years.
more than half the world’s population is reproducing at below the replacement rate.

This is a counterintuitive notion in the United States, where we’ve heard often and loudly that world population growth is a perilous and perhaps unavoidable threat to our future as a species. But population decline is a very familiar concept in the rest of the developed world, where fertility has long since fallen far below the 2.1 live births per woman required to maintain population equilibrium. In Germany, the birthrate has sunk to just 1.36, worse even than its low-fertility neighbors Spain (1.48) and Italy (1.4). The way things are going, Western Europe as a whole will most likely shrink from 460 million to just 350 million by the end of the century. That’s not so bad compared with Russia and China, each of whose populations could fall by half. As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gessellschaft, or “shrinking society.”

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:44 AM
reply to post by Jeremiah65

I know what I know,

But I still think we need to lose some of this extra baggage. we don't know HOW to live adequately with our current population. We jumped the gun and reproduced faster than we developed a purpose for them.

We have armies of lawyers, fast food employees, gardeners, actors, writers, ect ect ect ect.

They may be able to eat and have an acre of land or what ever the math says, but they have no purpose.

We aren't like colonizing another planet. We haven't just gone through a major war or natural catastrophe in which we suffered massive loss of life.

We are just acting out our instinct to reproduce. We need to address deeper issues now that we have grown in capabilities. We still have not come to terms with our current capabilities. Until we do and we address improving the human condition, we should not bring more people into the world to continue "as is" .

We need to organize and redirect ourselves into a purposeful course not a haphazard direction that WILL find its way to oblivion.

When we are in the need of billions of people, we should have them, but for a purpose not just because we see an open spot here or there where a couple thousand can squat. I see advocating to not control our numbers like hunting for a spot on the beach and cramming together in between nasty oily people complaining about how much sand you got on their towel.

I dont really care if our leaders control over 65% of world wealth since we wont see a dime of it. I do care if the quality of life for us will be good and if we will need to work like slaves to produce enough crap so the upper echelons of our society can make their "comfort zone" possible. The more of us there are the more that "comfort zone" needs to grow, and so the more they step on our necks.

Also I like the idea of being able to go somewhere should I get tired of everything and just mind my business without being bothered. The prospect of having every inch of earth covered by people and so their authority over me is just crappy.

edit on 10-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:50 AM
reply to post by zedVSzardoz

Although I see what you are saying, and people for years have said that the shrinking work force wont be able to sustain us,

regarding third world countries, they are also falling below replacement level.

Moreover, the poor, highly fertile countries that once churned out immigrants by the boatload are now experiencing birthrate declines of their own. From 1960 to 2009, Mexico’s fertility rate tumbled from 7.3 live births per woman to 2.4, India’s dropped from six to 2.5, and Brazil’s fell from 6.15 to 1.9. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the average birthrate remains a relatively blistering 4.66, fertility is projected to fall below replacement level by the 2070s. This change in developing countries will affect not only the U.S. population, of course, but eventually the world’s.

Why is this happening? Scientists who study population dynamics point to a phenomenon called “demographic transition.”

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:04 AM
reply to post by zedVSzardoz

Also I like the idea of being able to go somewhere should I get tired of everything and just mind my business without being bothered. The prospect of having every inch of earth covered by people and so their authority over me is just crappy.

Most of the worlds populations is crowded into urban areas

If you leave Chicago the drive down south all you see between towns are miles and miles of empty farm land, the problem is you cannot access most of it.

I don't think I will live to see mid-century, not with people so happy to get rid of the elderly, who have lost their use-fullness and are no longer paying taxes.

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:04 AM
Population is not shrinking besides a few developed nations. Global population is destined to reach 9-12 billion, and maybe more. It is a vicious circle, population growth leads to poverty, poverty leads to population growth.

The problem is when population changes quickly, whether growing or shrinking. Economies dont have time to adjust, and some dont even have the know-how to adjust.
edit on 10/1/13 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:10 AM

I am pleased to announce that it won't be much longer now," Census Bureau deputy director Arthur Clausewitz said at a press conference. "According to our statistics, by 2009, we should see the Baby Boomers start to die off in large numbers. Heart attacks, strokes, cancer, kidney failure—you name it, the Boomers are going to be dropping from it."

Clausewitz said the Great Boomer Die-Off should hit full stride in approximately 2015, when the oldest members of the Baby Boom generation—born during the last days of World War II—turn 70.

"Before long, tens of millions of members of this irritating generation will achieve what such Boomer icons as Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Timothy Leary and John Kennedy already have: death. Before long, we will live in a glorious new world in which no one will ever again have to endure tales of Joan Baez's performance at Woodstock."

Despite his enthusiasm, Clausewitz cautioned that the Great Boomer Die-Off will not be without its downside.

Yea it's a spoof, but not to far from the way many people feel, not to far from the truth,

Long-Awaited Baby Boomer Die-Off

Yes I am a boomer, I have to go to work now, have a nice day

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:17 AM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

I know, but I dont even like the concept of cities anymore. I grew up in NY and worked in NYC most of my life. I have grown tired of cities in general. I see them as being unnatural and destructive.

Why the hell would you huddle together with people and be stacked up on top of each other.

It is not like there a herds of roaming predators we need to have strength in numbers to survive.

I dont know. I am a little bias. I have walked waist deep in the human sewer that is a metropolitan city for too long. I love it/ hate it.

I am more concerned with the state of mind our future generations will have and the social tension they will live with.

I dont know. Some people do have to go.

and the world population is shrinking. I agree. That is very provable and has been done so by official sources in every country and international organization. I will not even do the "here let me Google that for you" thing. People cant be that lazy to not type a few words into a search engine and see the plethora of available sources.
edit on 10-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in