Overpopulation, man up and accept its the problem Watch

Drunk Punx
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#61
Report 7 years ago
#61
(Original post by adamrules247)
Here's the maths for you

Texas area = 267339 X (5280)^2
= 7,452,732,672,000 sq.ft.
Population of world = 6,600,000,000.
Dividing area with population
1129.2 0192 s.ft./person.

Hope that helps
...well played :hat2:
Rep for your effort.
0
quote
reply
adamrules247
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#62
Report 7 years ago
#62
(Original post by Drunk Punx)
...well played :hat2:
Rep for your effort.
Why thank you, my good sir! I would rep back but used it all today.

Thanks again
0
quote
reply
cakefish
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#63
Report 7 years ago
#63
(Original post by Elipsis)
O no, I feel terrible now. That isn't exactly what every civilisation that has ever existed has done, we just happen to have done it in the most advanced way... How much time exactly has to pass before that's an excuse? The majority of colonial assets were given up 2 or 3 generations ago, and a fairly large number of ex-colonies are now extremely rich; which leads me to believe it is a problem that lies with the former colony itself, rather than anything to do with us.
1) Many of our former colonies were once thriving and advanced civilizations. Africa, for example, was very wealthy until we invaded and enslaved the population (take Timbuktu for example). We took their natural resources and sold them to private companies - companies which are based in the rich nations and hence all profit goes back to us.

2) When we left colonies we pretty much just abandoned them and allowed corrupt leaders to take power. Thus, these leaders keep the wealth the country has to themselves keeping the majority of the population poor.

(Original post by adamrules247)
That, my dear chap, is a problem of over consumption.

Besides, even of you did jam every person in Texas (which I'm not suggesting you do, btw) There's still an awful lot of space left.
But what about all the houses, schools, hospitals, shops, offices, roads, power stations, farmland, factories etc that we need for everyday living?

It's all good saying we could all fit into Texas but could we all live in Texas? I think not.
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report 7 years ago
#64
(Original post by cakefish)
1) Many of our former colonies were once thriving and advanced civilizations. Africa, for example, was very wealthy until we invaded and enslaved the population (take Timbuktu for example). We took their natural resources and sold them to private companies - companies which are based in the rich nations and hence all profit goes back to us.

2) When we left colonies we pretty much just abandoned them and allowed corrupt leaders to take power. Thus, these leaders keep the wealth the country has to themselves keeping the majority of the population poor.
I don't think Africa, much of which didn't even have a written language, could ever be described as 'thriving' to be honest. We ourselves were colonised once, and so was China, so was 99% of the earth - but you didn't hear us crying 'this is all the Romans fault' when we were sitting in our own filth in the medieval period. It is all just an excuse, and a poor excuse at that. Lets not forget we brought them things like 1) a written language 2) schools 3) railways 4) medicine 5) advanced growing techniques.
1
quote
reply
whyumadtho
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#65
Report 7 years ago
#65
I think Western society is having trouble with natural market forces making the lifestyle unsustainable. The world's resources cannot handle everyone aspiring to be as wealthy as places such as Japan/USA/UK etc.
1
quote
reply
Aristotle's' Disciple
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#66
Report 7 years ago
#66
(Original post by lukas1051)
This guy makes some good points, but he's talking about overpopulation in countries like America. The truth is, it's not a massive problem in these sorts of countries. It's undeveloped countries which face the biggest problems, countries in Africa and Asia, and it's because people are poor and uneducated. If we (Britons) all stopped having sex tomorrow it would do much more harm than good, in 20 years time there would be no-one of working age and the economy would go into decline. It's not like we don't have any space in the UK, if our country started to get seriously overpopulated we'd build houses on greenfield sites, the residents of a cozy village might not like it, but we do what is necessary. When you think of countries like Bangladesh, places that are so densely populated that there are quite literally houses everywhere, those are the countries with the real problems. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything about controlling birth rates, but there are more important issues, in our country anyway.
I am Bengali and can say you are spot on. I went the summer gone, and there are literally house EVERYWHERE! People sit on top of the freakin' buses! Thos are the kind of places where overpopulation is a problem.
0
quote
reply
adamrules247
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#67
Report 7 years ago
#67
(Original post by cakefish)
1).



But what about all the houses, schools, hospitals, shops, offices, roads, power stations, farmland, factories etc that we need for everyday living?

It's all good saying we could all fit into Texas but could we all live in Texas? I think not.
Yeah, that's exactly what I just said……
0
quote
reply
cakefish
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#68
Report 7 years ago
#68
(Original post by Elipsis)
I don't think Africa, much of which didn't even have a written language, could ever be described as 'thriving' to be honest. We ourselves were colonised once, and so was China, so was 99% of the earth - but you didn't hear us crying 'this is all the Romans fault' when we were sitting in our own filth in the medieval period. It is all just an excuse, and a poor excuse at that. Lets not forget we brought them things like 1) a written language 2) schools 3) railways 4) medicine 5) advanced growing techniques.
One thing is very clear - they were MUCH MUCH better off before we colonised them. Who are we to say that just because they have different cultures to us that they were 'primitive' and not thriving. They WERE thriving but in their own way.

The fact that we purposely keep them in poverty when we could do so much more to aid their development means we can still be blamed.

(Original post by adamrules247)
Yeah, that's exactly what I just said……
Increase in population means increase in consumption. That is why overpopulation is a problem. We're not overpopulated in terms of space but we are in terms of available resources.
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#69
Report 7 years ago
#69
(Original post by cakefish)
One thing is very clear - they were MUCH MUCH better off before we colonised them. Who are we to say that just because they have different cultures to us that they were 'primitive' and not thriving. They WERE thriving but in their own way.

The fact that we purposely keep them in poverty when we could do so much more to aid their development means we can still be blamed.
I would argue the place we colonised most was Ireland, and that is truly thriving. Next most colonised? Hong Kong - the best place to live in China. Hmmm. They may have had these resources, but they were just rocks to them. If someone came up with a brilliant use for our random chunks of rock, it's not like we'd be missing out if someone came and exploited them because we weren't using them. And it's not like if they created their own hand writing and highly technical weaponry they wouldn't have done the exact same thing to us. I don't know what is with this guilt complex for something our great great great grandparents did - and not even out great great great grandparents, the 1% of our country that was actively involved in it, because at the time we would have been equally exploited, working 16 hours a day 6 and a half days a week.
0
quote
reply
cakefish
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#70
Report 7 years ago
#70
(Original post by Elipsis)
I would argue the place we colonised most was Ireland, and that is truly thriving. Next most colonised? Hong Kong - the best place to live in China. Hmmm. They may have had these resources, but they were just rocks to them. If someone came up with a brilliant use for our random chunks of rock, it's not like we'd be missing out if someone came and exploited them because we weren't using them.
I'm mainly referring to Africa. That's where we screwed the native population the most (and still do).
0
quote
reply
Retrodiction
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#71
Report 7 years ago
#71
I don't think the reality of overpopulation really becomes evident until a beautiful natural area that holds much significance to you is destroyed by the construction of houses or flats.
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#72
Report 7 years ago
#72
(Original post by cakefish)
I'm mainly referring to Africa. That's where we screwed the native population the most (and still do).
Well, they are living almost identical lives to the ones they were living before, but due to overpopulation there are massive strains on their resources which aren't evenly dispersed throughout the population.
0
quote
reply
Acerbic
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#73
Report 7 years ago
#73
Right, you just try and stop people ****ing...

On a side note - I'm going to see Doug Stanhope in April!
0
quote
reply
cakefish
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#74
Report 7 years ago
#74
(Original post by Elipsis)
Well, they are living almost identical lives to the ones they were living before
That's where you're wrong.

(Original post by Elipsis)
but due to overpopulation there are massive strains on their resources which aren't evenly dispersed throughout the population.
And that's where you're right.
0
quote
reply
AnarchistNutter
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#75
Report 7 years ago
#75
(Original post by adamrules247)
Here's the maths for you

Texas area = 267339 X (5280)^2
= 7,452,732,672,000 sq.ft.
Population of world = 6,600,000,000.
Dividing area with population
1129.2 0192 s.ft./person.

Hope that helps
Clearly overpopulation is no issue thinking relatively to the Earth's total surface area or even its scarce resources however there do happen to be issues with housing an ever growing population even in countries like the UK (also there do also happen to be economic and ecological issues, I believe). I would not use the term 'overpopulation', though, admittedly - this sounds too much like a Malthusian conspiracy theory, ugh.
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#76
Report 7 years ago
#76
(Original post by cakefish)
That's where you're wrong.



And that's where you're right.
No you're wrong. See we can both play that game. Try putting forwards an argument?
0
quote
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#77
Report 7 years ago
#77
(Original post by Elipsis)
I would argue the place we colonised most was Ireland, and that is truly thriving. Next most colonised? Hong Kong - the best place to live in China. Hmmm. They may have had these resources, but they were just rocks to them. If someone came up with a brilliant use for our random chunks of rock, it's not like we'd be missing out if someone came and exploited them because we weren't using them. And it's not like if they created their own hand writing and highly technical weaponry they wouldn't have done the exact same thing to us. I don't know what is with this guilt complex for something our great great great grandparents did - and not even out great great great grandparents, the 1% of our country that was actively involved in it, because at the time we would have been equally exploited, working 16 hours a day 6 and a half days a week.
The colonies that have done well are the ones where we wanted to live, so we set up the kind of institutions we wanted to live with. In those where we didn't want to live (most African possessions for example) we just set up institutions designed to get the maximum resources from the country. When we left those institutions stayed in place and made it easy for today's dictators to pocket their nation's wealth. You seem to imply it's the fault of the colonised that they are in the state they're in, which is an ugly attitude to take.

Given that the "wind of change" blew in the 60s, I wouldn't say we were as absolved of responsibility as you claim.
1
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#78
Report 7 years ago
#78
(Original post by Apagg)
The colonies that have done well are the ones where we wanted to live, so we set up the kind of institutions we wanted to live with. In those where we didn't want to live (most African possessions for example) we just set up institutions designed to get the maximum resources from the country. When we left those institutions stayed in place and made it easy for today's dictators to pocket their nation's wealth. You seem to imply it's the fault of the colonised that they are in the state they're in, which is an ugly attitude to take.

Given that the "wind of change" blew in the 60s, I wouldn't say we were as absolved of responsibility as you claim.
The places with the greatest difficulty are the places with the greatest trouble before we got there. We can hardly be blamed for what is a centuries long problem. Every civilisation that advanced as quickly as ours quickly began to colonise, and that includes countries like Egypt who were happy to rule over whole swathes of land and enslave inhabitants from far and wide. I simply don't accept this guilt, especially when we are long gone from the area. The winds of change blew in the 60s as you say, I was born in the 80s. It's as stupid as the people that expect present day Germans to say sorry for their grandparents behaviour during WWII.
0
quote
reply
cakefish
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#79
Report 7 years ago
#79
(Original post by Elipsis)
No you're wrong. See we can both play that game. Try putting forwards an argument?
OK, I'm saying that African nations were better off before colonisation by us and are a lot worse off now because of all the debt and tariffs we impose on them etc (neo-colonialism). So saying 'they are living almost identical lives to the ones they were living before' is incorrect. They now live in poverty when they didn't before.
1
quote
reply
Internet Toughguy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#80
Report 7 years ago
#80
(Original post by cakefish)
I'm mainly referring to Africa. That's where we screwed the native population the most (and still do).
How did we scew them ? Do you mean we screwed them by introducing things such as, science, medicine, agricultural techniques (which feed the whole of sub saharan africa), industry, engineering, technology.

Are we screwing them with the hundreds of billions of aid pumped into the country every year ?
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (76)
27.14%
No (204)
72.86%

Watched Threads

View All