The Student Room Group

Isn't Earth's real threat at the moment overpopulation?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by VeniViciVidi
x


Original post by michaelhaych
x


Original post by HeavyTeddy
x


Have you never bothered to look at the studies? No one has read them? The work done on Triclosan and BPA? Or the studies done by Zasloff? All the links to allergy prevalence?
Reply 21
Avatar for Tai Ga
Tai Ga
18
Lol overpopulation is a myth. There's enough food and resources able to support way over the current population of the earth. It's just that the distribution of such resources is seriously unequal. It's better to say that mankind's greatest threat is greed.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by Elmi
Don't worry about that, your probably dead by 2100.

Posted from TSR Mobile


What about my kids?
Reply 23
Avatar for Pete_91
Pete_91
11
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
What about my kids?


Seriously read the above posts, it is a myth.
Reply 24
Avatar for C_G
C_G
11
Climate change is probably a bigger threat.
Reply 25
Avatar for redferry
redferry
19
10 billion people could easily live on this earth if we lived more sustainable lives.

and actually newer predictions are the population will level off at under 10 billion.
sure, if you don't know anything about human geography and statistics.
I wouldn't say it's the Earth's real threat, more like humans'. One way or another, by a natural disaster or something, the population will naturally decrease in the future. But then again, so much of the Earth and its way of life is no longer natural, so how can we guarantee that?
It's more the fact that the Earth simply doesn't have the resources for humans to comfortably survive on, hence our quality of life is bound to decrease in the future.

Too many people have the mindset that "I won't be here, so I don't need to do anything" :redface:
Reply 28
Avatar for jckhrrsn
jckhrrsn
5
Original post by SteelScyther
There's some interesting literature about this subject actually that says by 2100 the human population will be in equilibrium at about 10 billion. This BBC article and video talks about it quite nicely: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822

Basically we're going to be having less children - the increase in the number of children has already slowed down and is nearing equilibrium.

So I wouldn't worry too much about it, I'm sure it'll be fine


but the carrying capacity of the planet is declining as we burn up all the fossil fuels, desertify the arable land via agriculture, alter the climate, poison the water and air... the list goes on

http://www.facebook.com/deepgreenresistance
Reply 29
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
Original post by Tai Ga
Lol overpopulation is a myth. There's enough food and resources able to support way over the current population of the earth. It's just that the distribution of such resources is seriously unequal. It's better to say that mankind's greatest threat is greed.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App


While true that's not a threat to mankind as a whole. We here in the west will be pretty much fine.
Original post by TheBigJosh
I'd say it's either Crocs, Paul's Boutique or slug eyebrows.


Crocs and Pauls Boutique aha, ohh god chavy year 8s.
Overpopulation is where there are too many people. By definition, this suggests some challenges/problems. So I want to say that overpopulation is inherently a bad/undesireable thing. Whether or not a place (or the world) is overpopulated, however, is another matter entirely.

I wanna say that overconsumption/excessive consumption is an issue (at the moment, that is) as it generates a load of waste, pollution, etc. The scale of this consumption is linked to the size of a population, less people = less resources being consumed.
Reply 32
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
Original post by jckhrrsn
but the carrying capacity of the planet is declining as we burn up all the fossil fuels, desertify the arable land via agriculture, alter the climate, poison the water and air... the list goes on

http://www.facebook.com/deepgreenresistance


Fossil fuels as a whole are so abundant that we could survive on coal for centuries. A significant amount of equatorial forest in Africa is on land that is ripe for agriculture.

Now whether these things are good given environmental damage is another question.
Reply 33
Avatar for Cornelius
Cornelius
4
Original post by michaelhaych
1. There has ALWAYS been enough food to feed the population, however it is unevenly distributed between the northern and southern hemisphere
2. Technological advances in agriculture have vastly increased, and will continue to increase, the global output of food; abandon your Malthusian ideologies
3. There are huge areas of land that is currently underutilised and could provide food for billions of people
4. Global birth rates are declining; slowing the rate of population growth
5. The entire population of the United States could fit into, and live in the state of New Hampshire (the 4th smallest state) at a population density of 30,000 people per km2 (the population density of Brooklyn); land availability is not an issue


Food as such isn't the issue. Food is cheap as hell. What people in the South lack is resources - i.e. money - not food.
Reply 34
Avatar for Clone93
Clone93
6
No, it's religion, it's nationalities, it's patriotism, it's greed and selfishness, but in truth the planet can sustain everyone.
Islam is the greatest threat.
Reply 36
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
Original post by Cornelius
Food as such isn't the issue. Food is cheap as hell. What people in the South lack is resources - i.e. money - not food.


Ironically they are some of the most resource rich countries on the planet.
Reply 37
Avatar for Cornelius
Cornelius
4
Original post by Rakas21
Ironically they are some of the most resource rich countries on the planet.


No they aren't. They have natural resources and I was talking about money (read the quote again).
Original post by Cornelius
Food as such isn't the issue. Food is cheap as hell. What people in the South lack is resources - i.e. money - not food.


almost 1 billion people are currently malnurished in the developing world, where have you been hiding?
Reply 39
Avatar for jckhrrsn
jckhrrsn
5
Original post by Rakas21
Fossil fuels as a whole are so abundant that we could survive on coal for centuries. A significant amount of equatorial forest in Africa is on land that is ripe for agriculture.

Now whether these things are good given environmental damage is another question.


of course the western world is going to decimate the planet's poorest continent for the sake of extending the lifetime of capitalism by a few years

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you