Do you think the human population of earth needs to change?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60

ihatebrownbread

Highly doubt the earth would be able to support the weight of 1 billion Americans

Reply 61

2ndClass

It's the consumptions of Westerns and soon to be Chinese is what really needs to change

Reply 62

Chi019

Original post by TheFrozenLake.

The west is not the center of the world.

Steve jobs was biologically the son of a Syrian (third world country), did having Arabic genes present any problems for Steve Jobs ability to innovate?

There are intellectual differences in culture not race.

If your born into a family that has from the dawn of the 19th century lived off taxpayers money, With each new generation having 6+ kids, You aren't very likely to be a high flier in your academic life are you?

There appear to be significant average differences in cognitive ability across populations. Rindermann's research suggests that cognitive ability is important in terms of economic development and maintaining democratic institutions. If most of the global population growth is from populations with lower average levels of ability then that suggests you'll get more of the issues with poverty and social problems experienced by those countries ([URL=" https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/national-iqs-a-review-of-their-educational-cognitive-economic-political-demographic-sociological-epidemiological-geographic-and-climatic-correlates.pdf
"] see summary of correlates by Lynn & Vanhanen ).

Reply 63

Rakas21

Original post by The_Last_Melon

Personally I would like it if we became around 700,000,000, perhaps less, also it would be better for all earth-life if we didn't occupy so many continents, perhaps just one or two instead.

The only important thing for the human race right now is that we spread into space. The more we fill this planet up with human life the more likely we are to destroy ourselves and all life on it.

What do you think? If you agree, will you contribute to the decline by refraining from reproducing?

I think that you are being far too negative.

The more people there are in western nations especially, the more scientists there are tackling the problems we see.

Certainly not, i shall be having 2 or 3 children.

Reply 64

the bear

It will end in tears fairly soon...

Nature will press the reset button and after another billion years the planet will bloom again until a new dysfunctional species emerges and the next cycle begins

the wonderful thing is that humans are unable to spread their contagion to other parts of the universe due to the unimaginably vast separations involved

Reply 65

Nick100

Original post by the bear

People have been saying that it's all about to end for the past 5000 years. We shouldn't expect disaster; it is already pretty clear how we can lift our entire species out of poverty.

Labeling humans a dysfunctional species is a pointless exercise.

Why is it a good thing for life to be wiped out exactly? That is its fate if humans don't take to the stars (and we will; Project Orion demonstrated an efficient means of moving large masses through space way back in the 1960s).

Reply 66

the bear

Original post by Nick100

I did not say it is a good thing for h.sapiens to be wiped out... it is simply the inevitable consequence of our sad lack of coöperation ; the planet belongs to social species like ants and bees. I have huge admiration for viruses & bacteria which strive tirelessly to adapt to changing circumstances.

Reply 67

Chi019

Original post by The_Last_Melon

This is a terrible idea for European and Asian peoples as they are the ones biologically adapted to maintain modern economies. The population sub-saharan Africa is going to double to 2 billion by 2050 - that is what aid agencies need to address.

Reply 68

Chi019

Original post by Rakas21

I think that you are being far too negative.

The more people there are in western nations especially, the more scientists there are tackling the problems we see.

This is true, the main problem is that countries where the populations have not undergone similar selective pressures to adapt them for modern economies, are the ones growing above replacement level. There needs to be a balance to maintain the existing population as it is.

Reply 69

g_star_raw_1989

Yeah it does need to change. Too many morons on this planet, scratching their ass and all too busy whipping out their credit cards to buy shoes with lights on the soles.

Reply 70

onandon

i THINK WE NEED MORE MEN ON EARTH.

Reply 71

Nick100

Original post by the bear

What lack of co-operation? The global economy is based on the cooperation of billions of total strangers scattered across an entire planet. Ants and bees are not social like we are; most members of those species are drones and slaves to the queen of their colony without any individual identity. Bacteria and viruses don't "strive tirelessly"; they mutate randomly and those which have beneficial mutations survive while the rest die. We can adapt to new environments without any kind of mutation better than any other species.

Reply 72

The_Last_Melon

Imagine if we become to 700mil and abolished farming, using hunting (with a dagger or something) as both a sport and a method of surviving. Life would be so much fun :daydreaming:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 73

ash92:)

Original post by The_Last_Melon

Are you familiar with a suspicious building in Texas, stating that the objective is to reduce the world population to a certain, ridiculous number?

I can't remember it off the top of my head, but I'm sure you will be able to find it using Google...

Reply 74

The_Last_Melon

Original post by ash92:)

I've heard rumours. The big question is...who should survive?

Reply 75

danny111

I agree, but try convincing people that they can't have kids because they can't feed them and it's better for the world's resources.

Who decides who the people are with the right genes to keep having children?

Not to mention that pensions would get royally ****ed if we suddenly had a lot less kids. As well as paying off of debt.

Reply 76

ash92:)

Original post by 41281427 The_Last_Melon

I've heard rumours. The big question is...who should survive?

Of course, those who are concocting the plan and those who can afford to pay for their survival - methinks

Reply 77

The_Last_Melon

Original post by ash92:)

Of course, those who are concocting the plan and those who can afford to pay for their survival - methinks

Shouldn't it be the most peaceful people? What has money got to do with anything?

Reply 78

Callidus

Original post by The_Last_Melon

Just pick a race with less than 700,000,000..(there goes blacks, indians and the chinese!)

Joke.. but in all seriousness I agree.. Ideally there should be a worldwide 2 child policy until the population of earth reaches a point where it can sustain itself comfortably, with everyone having a decent standard of living.

*waits for someone to say a 2 child policy will lead to the same population*

Reply 79

ash92:)

Original post by The_Last_Melon

Shouldn't it be the most peaceful people? What has money got to do with anything?

Haha, I assure you that I'm not a follower of this group. Your suggestion is plausible, however unlikely. Upon googling, you may find that money will w involved somewhere down the line.

And I shall leave you to ponder...