Turn on thread page Beta

Over population and your personal responsibility. watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    We can actually produce much more food without destroying wild land, by using GM crops and through hydroponics. Dealing with obesity will greatly decrease food demand. Perhaps one day we will successfully control the weather to a certain extent, to avoid drought and famine.

    I think you mean fertility rate; the number of children per man or woman of childbearing age (usually the latter). Considering the replacement rate is (obviously) just over 2, then the populations of China, Japan, Germany etc. are going to almost halve each generation. How unsustainable is that?!
    Yeah, that's the word.

    For countries with a fertility rate above replacement the important thing is that output of food, energy ect.. increases faster than population growth.
    For countries with a fertility rate below replacement the important thing is productivity increases faster than their population declines to prevent decreased output.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    There is more than enough food for everyone in the world to eat 2,500 calories a day.

    As long as you don't eat (or waste) more than that, you have no reason to feel morally responsible.
    We could produce enough food for 20 billion people. But we will never afford universal healthcare, computers, cars, air conditioner/heater, electricity, clean water, etc. for all of them.

    We'd be better if we were less.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM713)
    So you take no responsibility for your actions, only tending you your desire? That's a very sheltered little bubble you live in then.
    no ones perfect. go help poor people instead of acting snobby yeh hag !p
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    We could produce enough food for 20 billion people. But we will never afford universal healthcare, computers, cars, air conditioner/heater, electricity, clean water, etc. for all of them.

    We'd be better if we were less.
    Would we be better off though? As each generation decreases in size compared to the last, each generation has the huge burden of providing for the previous generations who have retired. With fewer people, we would have fewer innovations and slower scientific progress. Is that better?!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    I have a question about the "there's no overpopulation, we could easily produce enough food" sort of arguments. Globally. Surely someone here should be able to help.

    Could it be possible to provide enough food with the farmland we have now (if, for example, we used it more efficiently or whatever), or would we need to destroy even more "wild" land for agriculture? Because if the latter, that's quite a big problem.
    The amount of food available is not constrained by the amount of farmland but the amount of money needed by consumers to buy food. If consumers had plenty of money, farmers will grow all the food that can be afforded.

    The earth can produce far more food than the whole population needs, people go hungry because they can't afford food, not because there is a food shortage.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    No, it was mostly coincidental.
    Sometimes I think about going out and impregnating someone though. Consensually, of course.
    Lol!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizmoo0721)
    No, The earth is overpopulated! THERE ARE TOO MANY HUMANS.
    Some people want to walk blindly into Apocalypse, than do something about while they have the chance.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    We could produce enough food for 20 billion people. But we will never afford universal healthcare, computers, cars, air conditioner/heater, electricity, clean water, etc. for all of them.

    We'd be better if we were less.
    I don't agree, people's living conditions have got materialistically better for virtually everyone.

    Increases in living standards and material wealth in Asia, South America and Africa have not negatively impacted Europe or North America. In fact, more people with more money in the aforementioned continents have benefited Europe and North America because they can now afford Western goods and services.

    The fastest growing market for luxury goods like designer clothes and premium cars is China which benefits the West the most.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Stop arts graduates reproducing.
    How dare you, I'm an Arts graduate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM713)
    How dare you, I'm an Arts graduate.
    Don't feel bad, its not your fault.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LenaSim)
    Asia and Africa should take responsability but they don't give a ****

    Europe's population is declining; well, the european one, since Europe is basically on its way of becoming a mini asian/african continent.
    You may blame others, but, you're still in this mess with everybody else. So what are you going to do about it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Blame Canada.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM713)
    How dare you, I'm an Arts graduate.
    Which sort?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    What is the bigger picture? Your suggesting that the western world effectively open their borders and redistribute capital to Africa. That's not in our self interest.

    Not so much the past decade or two and their birth rate is still falling even with minimal prosecution (fertility rate is 1.2). There's a big cultural issue in that female babies are aborted.
    That it's basically the hunger games out here, everybody's fighting for a chance to fulfil themselves, it's embarrassing.

    No, not really, get rid of capital for all I care. I sure people that are looking for somewhere else to live, firstly, probably wouldn't want to do it and secondly, are not doing it to irritate you either.

    That's not good.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I don't agree, people's living conditions have got materialistically better for virtually everyone.

    Increases in living standards and material wealth in Asia, South America and Africa have not negatively impacted Europe or North America. In fact, more people with more money in the aforementioned continents have benefited Europe and North America because they can now afford Western goods and services.

    The fastest growing market for luxury goods like designer clothes and premium cars is China which benefits the West the most.
    And do you think there are enough raw materials to produce so many goods?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM713)
    Considering it's a little crowded in here (Earth) why does no one seem to take personal accountability for this? How else do you think is responsible??

    When it comes to your decision to have children or not, what is your reasoning? and is there an element of fear?
    In theory, I think a two-child policy would be beneficial, but I'm not sure about the idea that Earth is, or is becoming, overpopulated in terms of the amount of land or resources available. Increasing the number of people in the world may be bad for other reasons, which I'll explain below.

    At the moment, I have no plans to have children. I don't believe that there's an ethical obligation to have children (unlike some moral philosophers, who believe that increasing the number of happy people in the world is obligatory), and doing so would increase my impact on the environment, which would negatively affect both human and nonhuman animals, and there's also a chance that my child may wish to eat animal products at some point, which, again, would increase the amount of suffering in the world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by trustmeimlying1)
    no ones perfect. go help poor people instead of acting snobby yeh hag !p
    It's not about being perfect, it's about taking responsibility. Give life as much importance as you do your ego.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Don't feel bad, its not your fault.
    I would choose being an Art graduate everytime, actually.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NHM713)
    It's not about being perfect, it's about taking responsibility. Give life as much importance as you do your ego.
    hahahaha this wan.love her.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    Which sort?
    The Surface Design sort, basically I make patterns (decorative art).
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.