What will the world do when it becomes over populated?

You must remeber mankinds biggest fault, Greed.

The wealthy and rich will buy farm land and turn them into large homes or propertys.... slowly lowering the worlds (or local) food supply....

Just a theory... but how would that equal out? Will governments finally step up to doing thier jobs.... not likey.... they are in it for the money too

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Look at Bush for example

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And it only costs you 25 cents!!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And you get free virgins when in heaven!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Food supply isn't a big problem, but energy is.

 

As I quote my Math teacher
"Two things will happen. 1. A war will start to cut down population. 2. People will venture outside of Earth"

 

I shall add to your teachers quote:
"Two things will happen. 1. American wars will start to cut down population. 2. Americans will venture outside of earth"

:/

 

biologically, when a population encounters pressure which threaten its survival, there are three options:
1)adapt
2)move
3)die

When we are talking about the whole earth, there are a few areas of limitation to consider. Space, food, freedom are the first three I think of.
Overpopulation in terms of sq foot per person for living space? In terms of sq foot per person for food production? sq foot per person for *sustainable* food production? sq foot per person to allow for personal freedoms?

If the world is overpopulated for basic survival resources like food and water, then the human choices given the above options are:
1)adapting is one way that has no really be discussed. As omnivors, there is little food which we don't already consume. Physical speciation of humans might allow for a much denser population of the world, if reasource use splits between the species.
2)moving requires spreading to areas where we are not yet living in as dense a population as elsewhere. Seas, arctic, off world.
3)die. this is the common expected solution to this question, because its the one that happens most often; in history and in nature.

 

Doubtful. American wars don't have very many casualties. I mean, how many people have died in Iraq, tops? 100,000? Probably more like 30,000. Anyhow, 4x as many people are born every day than have killed in the Iraq war. More people are born in a single year (abou 133,000,000 people) than every person the United States has killed in a war. I'm gonna bet that more people will be born by 2007 than all the people who got killed by bombs, gas and bullets in the 20th century.

African genocide has killed more people than all the people killed in American wars in the past decade.

War has a tiny effect on populations. Starvation and plague will be far greater killers.

Your math teacher doesn't know his maths.

 

I know a few people who could aid in reducing population: the upper echelons of the Catholic Church & these big cheese Ayatollahs/Clerics (I have no idea how many there are).

If they refuse, we can kill them.

That'd be a few less...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A large, freely moving population is extremely volnerable to a pandemic. Over population may be self-limiting.

 

"Over population may be self-limiting."
IMO:
Over population is self-limiting.

 

One innocent child is slauterd.... that is 1 too many for me.

African genocide... that is a self cotainded conflict... let them deal with it how they wish....

But the USA INVADING Iraq.... that is a whole differnt story.

 

An appropriate world population is around half a billion. At this level the entire population could live in comfort and security with minimal impact on the environment that would thus be preserved for future generations. Thus, we are overpopulated by an order of magnitude.
For this reason I made a conscious decision to have my family late and to restrict it to two. (I could hardly hold it at zero and deprive the planet of my genes, now could I.)

 

Way to slaughter my language, buddy. You're mixing the normative and positive. I'm positively saying that American wars, and wars in general, have an exeedingly small impact on population. You're normatively saying that war is bad. Whether or not you can stomach your humanity is not the discussion at hand.

We do allow them to deal with it as they wish. And what they do is far more ugly than most American offenses, and on a far greater scale. But again, the discussion here isn't how much of a queef you are, but whether war will limit population growth.

Yes, it is. We're pretty nice to the civilians. We don't go out of our way to cut their arms off, throw their children on the pyre and rape their women. We also have killed very few people.

As I've said, American wars hardly kill anyone.

 

Eventuly, your child would have a child with someone who was once your grand grand grand father.....

You cannot hide the the so called "inbreeding"

 

Let us be thankfull for small mercenaries.

 

Have you not heard of the great collapse? When animals rum and anarchy rules, when humans parish because of the Great War?

 

That is correct. Indeed, the only meaningful definition of overpopulation is the situation in which the environment forces reduction in population. If the population isn't big enough that the environment corrects it, it's not overpopulation. It's just crowding.

 

Simplest way it can be


Overpopulated --- > Evolutionism --- > War + $%#^&W#^ ( which also causes or be caused by tons of killers for humans )--- > Survival of the fittest ---> Population balanced


/ Theoretically Only /

 

Lets do the most logcal thing, and eat people.... Why put them in the ground when they could be feeding billions.... and the fact we may taste like chicken, we'll that only sweetens the deal.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!