Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 5 of 6<<123456>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Overpopulation< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 41
Hellraiser Search for posts by this member.
PH34R M3
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 977
Joined: May 2000
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 23 2000,22:02  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

What the fuck was that about? I fail to see the connection between your post and the topic. Sorry, I guess I need to get some sleep.

------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 42
Client Search for posts by this member.
FNG
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: Jun. 2000
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 24 2000,19:51 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Sithiee...You fail to realize that there is no way you could have ANY experience with overpopulation in the sense that this board is dedicated to...We are talking about WORLD overpopulation, and if you claim that that Never happens through your "leveling out" theory, there is no way you, or anyone else will get that experience. If you are saying that you have overpopulation experience, how could you be arguing the other way? (Essentially, if you HAVE seen it, then it IS a problem. If you’re talking about a safe "leveling out" then you obviously haven't had overpopulation experience!

I can say i only see it through the trends of other animals and the WORLD birthrate. Animals generally do level out but its more like a HUGE exponential decline when the resources in a region (earth in our case) are exhausted. Since resources don’t build up as fast as even a "leveled" population would use them, It IS a serious problem.

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 43
Sithiee Search for posts by this member.
FNG
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1941
Joined: May 2000
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 24 2000,23:51 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

i know i dont have any experience. but the point is that its not a problem, because it will level out, i think its a much better idea to assume that than to start exploring death camp or mass sterilization ideas.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 44
AnimalPrime Search for posts by this member.
FNG
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 85
Joined: May 2000
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 25 2000,01:39 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

quote:
Originally posted by Hellraiser:
That wouldn't work because even l33t people need doctors and farmers to survive. Any method of population control that includes killing or removing people who are alive and productive citizens is not a good idea. Better birth control is the ideal answer.



I think we have to expect that there are some 1337 farmers and doctors and ect!

------------------
Where is that tubby bitch??

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 45
aventari Search for posts by this member.
Jedi Knight
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: Dec. 2000
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 25 2000,04:44 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Actually animals have 2 ways of controlling the population. I dont know if it's a 50/50 split, but either the animal population will have a 'boom & bust' cycle where they use up ALL the resources and a LOT of the population dies, then it builds up from there until they use all of the resouces again and a lot of the population dies again. (a la locusts(loci?))

Or they perform a leveling off of the population when they meet the capacity of the environment. and the population stays steady. (think elephants)

humans are a huge anomaly in this, so we cant really apply the animal kingdom to the discussion in my opinion.


quote:
Originally posted by Client:

I can say i only see it through the trends of other animals and the WORLD birthrate. Animals generally do level out but its more like a HUGE exponential decline when the resources in a region (earth in our case) are exhausted. Since resources don’t build up as fast as even a "leveled" population would use them, It IS a serious problem.


------------------
aventari
"my PC 0wnz m3!"

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 46
Hohokam Search for posts by this member.
FNG
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: Jun. 2000
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 25 2000,04:59 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I found an interesting article on the internet about this subject. I thought that
you all might find it interesting.

By Dr. Alan Thornhill of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice University, Houston, Texas. ]

The Question (ID Number 440)...
Human population demography indicates that the global human population growth rate is decreasing. So what's the problem? Human population size is going to stabilize all by itself without us doing anything more than we are doing now.

...and the response:
It is true that between the years 1967 and 1997 the annual global population growth rage declined from 2.07\% to 1.33\%. That's nearly a 40\% reduction in only 30 years! Good for us! However, note that nearly the SAME NUMBER of people were added last year as were added in 1968, a year when the growth rate was nearly 40\% faster than it is now...huh?
With a population of 4 billion (it was a little less than that in 1967), a 2.07\% growth rate gives you a net addition of about 82 million people per year. At this rate, it would only take 24 years to add another 2 billion people to the human population. Race forward 24 years (or 30 years if we want to compare 1967 and 1997) and note that sure enough, you are have a human population of 6 billion (in 1999), but it is ONLY growing at a rate of 1.33\% per annum (there's that 40\% reduction in growth rate)! Don't get too excited, however... Do the math and you will note that we are still adding about 80 million people per year, suggesting it will only take another 24 years to add another 2 billion people to the population. This is an example of what we call lag time--like a fully-loaded ocean liner, these very large population sizes have momentum of their own that resist change in speed or direction, even when you have taken your foot off the accelerator (which we have not done yet).

How long does it take to slow this ship? Even at our current *decreasing* growth rates (that is, even if we continue to slow the growth rate to less that 1.33\% per year), our population will increase by 2 billion people in under 25 years. With a population of 8 billion we would have to drop our growth rate to 1\% per year just to maintain the current rate of number of individuals being added each year (about 80 million) in above scenario. In other words, with 8 billion people (in say, the year 2024) we would need to lower our net growth rate to 1\% per year to add ONLY an additional 80 million people per year to our population. That's only a 33\% reduction of growth rate from 25 years earlier, so that should be easy, yes?

Let's say we are can continue to do the amazing and reduce our populations growth rate by 40\% each 25 years, when do we reach a population size where we are adding a minimal number of individuals each year, or, even reach zero population growth (ZPG, where there is no net increase in numbers of humans per year)? In other words, when does the ship come to a stop and just float? The current slowing rate (40\% per 25 years) puts us at about 12-13 billion people in 150 years -- at that point we will only be adding about 8 million added per year (an order of magnitude fewer than this year, or next year). Note that this is NOT ZPG, however, but it is a lot closer than we are now!

There is no reason to believe that we cannot decrease the population growth rate even faster than 40\% per 25 years or 1.6\% per year (that would be slowing the acceleration faster than we are slowing the acceleration now) and if so, we can hope that the population growth rate will slow to zero (no net growth) within the next 100 years. Even so, the global human population will be 10-12 billion people, twice what it is today.


Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 47
Bozeman Search for posts by this member.
Guardian
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 26 2000,21:18 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Somehow I always manage to piss off Sithiee. First, sory to all those who are mad at me. (I do not like the prospect of being "hax0red") Second, when I was talking about government incentives, I did NOT mean punish those w/3 or more kids, just reward those married couples w/1 or 2 kids with a normal, or even increased tax writeoff. The tax writeoff would simply not apply to the third child and beyond. I am NOT proposing that we go to the system of government in The Giver. (good book!) People should be free to choose their reproductive future, but those who choose to use it more should be financially responsible for their extra addition to the world. I do not condone sterilization programs, or controlled reproduction caste systems, a la The Giver. Thank you for allowing me to clarify my position, and kudos to all of the informed, insightful people posting in this forum.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 48
Wolfguard Search for posts by this member.
Flyswatter of the Apocalypse
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1696
Joined: May 2000
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 27 2000,09:29 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

what about tax breaks for those that do not reproduce?

------------------
Nuke em' till they glow and shoot em’ in the dark and let the computer sort em' out.
Then wait for a mutation…

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 49
Bozeman Search for posts by this member.
Guardian
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 27 2000,13:05 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Even though not having kids is your right, people should not get a reward for doing nothing. Plus if no one had kids because of the incentive, populations would drop lower than we want them. But a bonus, no little kids screaming at the movies.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 50
Firefox Search for posts by this member.
FNG
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: Jun. 2000
PostIcon Posted on: Jun. 27 2000,18:42 Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

I wouldn't mind the idea of giving certain tax incentives to households with 2 or fewer children. I would NEVER want an intrusive law, however, that would require in any way, a certain quota on children. It's the choice of the individual person to how many children they have. To be honest, though, I get kinda peeved when I see those families with like 10 kids, all on welfare. Not to sound cruel or anything, but I really think that having a child shouldn't be a spur of the moment thing. There are so many factors involved in that decision, and I think a primary one should be a financial consideration- if you aren't making a lot of money, maybe it would be wise to hold off on that 5th child until you are a little more secure in the money department. I think this is just common sense, although it's surprising how often I see it.

-FFox

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
50 replies since Jun. 21 2000,07:58 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 5 of 6<<123456>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Overpopulation
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code