Is the world overpopulated, or are we just underdeveloped?

editted

 

i agree, we don't need this many people. the size of the population on this planet is already beyond ridiculous, in my opinion. but people don't care about that. all they care about is getting married, white picket fences, diamond engagement rings and then off to make babies, which when they grow up will have a few of their own. we're exponentially headed for disaster if this situation goes on like this. it will be a disaster. 50 years ago, the population of this planet was under half of what it is now. i don't even want to think about what this planet will look like in a 100 years. the Earth is not an unlimited resource to sustain all of us. not like this. we either need to stop reproducing exponentially, or start dying off faster.

and people in the countries that are worse off in regard of life-sustaining resources are not going to stop having babies, or control their consumption. before they even start thinking about doing that they will turn to the countries that have those resources, migrate there in bulk. it will lead to wars, shutdown of global economy, a return to Middle Ages. if this doesn't get under control. and i think we have reached the point where there should be global population control measures enacted. but it's not gonna happen, it'll happen when the situation is already way out of control. cause everybody wants to have their 2-3 kids, and family. but soon enough we will not have room for all these people.

as an example, i'm in Europe right now, and in this city I'm in there's this woman who has 8 kids and no job. she's gotten some exposure about her situation on some papers, how hard her situation is and everything. about how the state doesn't offer enough support for her and her family to do OK. but i mean--what the fuck? it's not like she started out as a manager of some big firm on a real good salary and then, living the good life she decided she can afford 8 kids. all her life she has lived under financially stressed conditions. and still, she up and had 8 kids. to have them live in poverty and hunger. right now she goes to play a guitar on the street every week, to get some extra money. what the hell is going through the minds of such people?

 

I said overpopulated, but that's kinda something that would happen at any level of development. let's say a certain area can sustain x people comfortably. if the population>x, people would be living, though less comfortably. the point is that life is not meant to be comfortable; it's meant to continue. comfort is merely a possible side effect for some.

 

Well I heard some scholar say, that the world has been looking after itself for billions of years, and it will take care of itself, and that people should get ready and pack their bags.

 

This is true! We often refer to "saving the planet", but what we really mean is "saving the human".

 

dude, fuck antartica. we needa get to the moon bruh!

 

Be careful about the "overpopulated" thing.

Methinks we are underdeveloped or in other words, not yet in tune with how to adequately provide for everyone here.

When we have people living like Greek gods in the lap of luxury and also millions of people starving with no future then that is a seriously fucked up situation.

The only solutions to "overpopulation" are eugenics and genocide. Be careful what you wish for.

 

Is it not possible to educate people? Should we just continue our ways of killing people as a means of correction?

 

Humanity is still very primitive. And its not just going to up and change all of a sudden without stimuli. I say the world is overpopulated and nothing is going to stop the crucible thats coming. And that is a good thing.

It might just be the only thing that can wake us up as a species.

 

Overpopulated.

 

Eugenics is not exactly a terrible idea. Let's forget about it's association with Hitler. This doesn't involve killing anyone. It should not be used to wipe out races of people who are healthy. But there are a lot of people out there who shouldn't reproduce because they are genetically unsound. There are people who are very, very stupid, and raise stupid children, and although you might say "educate them".. in some cases this isn't possible anymore.

Evolution has not stopped happening. But now we have the power and understanding to help shape it. Prevent ourselves reaching an evolutionarily dead end. These people who shouldn't re-produce should maybe be looking after the hundreds of babies that have no parents. How is it inhumane to stop them having biological children? It's inhumane that as a collective, we don't care for all the babies who ARE here already.

I know the idea that we rate people, and that "not everyone is equal" is a really unpopular view. But I when I look at the world, and how differently people behave (people who have had the same backgrounds, more or less), I think it's absurd to think they are all equally valid (if the aim is an enlightened human race)

 

A very dangerous road, and not just because of the utilitarian philosophy that is implied in your post. It is dangerous because it threatens to restrict a very basic freedom (to procreate) from a select group of people who are deemed 'inferior'.

What, exactly, is 'stupid'? A person who is not intellectually, academically brilliant may be great with their hands, or great musicians, or great ____. I'm interested to know, also, who exactly would be deciding which people were 'allowed' to procreate, and which were not.

 

Stupid is not seeing any problem with the actions that are destroying this world, and society. I am not academically the most intelligent person, but yes, I have other greatnesses. There ARE people (although I know many won't admit this) who have NO greatnesses. Anyone who is stupid in an area, but can make up for it in another, is an asset in my book. But there are people who have nothing great to them. They don't think in great ways, they don't do great things, and they won't raise their children to be great. Some people will blame poverty, or other such factors, for this.. and that may have been the cause of some of it, but it no longer is.

All those people who are happy to go to work each day, and talk about trivial things while there, and then come home and watch television, eat, sleep, repeat.. then go out on the weekends and get drunk, talk about trivial things in the pub, etc... and NEVER indulge in ANY thought or passtime that rises above this triviality, is no asset to the human race, and is often a detriment.

Of course I understand how dangerous this idea is, and how easily it can turn into something ugly, fueled by personal hatred.. but in THEORY, it would work very well when it comes to improving the world, both for nature and for man.

 

I must just answer this separately. The burning desire to have your OWN children is PURELY there to ensure that the species survives at all. Logically we can see that right now, there is no shortage of humans, and human babies. There ARE hundreds and hundreds of babies, all over the world, who will NEVER feel the adaquate love of a parent. Many people live their first 18 years in the foster care system, and then are set loose in the world having never had the love of their own family. Isn't the RIGHT thing to do, to look after them? To overcome the evolutionary instinct that drives us to have our own instead?

I know very few people are going to agree with any of what I say, and it repulses people to think that we aren't all equal. Maybe it's that most people just want a working society with no poverty and no sickness, and everyone is "good"(Although I think the evidence for problems with anger etc. being genetic are another reason to select what genetics continue the species) where as I want a society that advances for long enough to have full control over their minds and instincts, to discover the meaning of life and where the Universe came from.

 

Problem there might be ,is who would do all the work the rich need done. Can't expect them to do it themselves.

 

By the way, the problem with this poll is that it doesn't make sense anyway. Over-population is DEFINED by being under-developed. Of course if we were more developed, we wouldn't be over-populated.. but we ARE under-developed, so therefore we ARE over-populated. It's not one or the other.

 

So essentially your view of what the world should be leaves no room or tolerance for the ordinary gentleman. There are many implications that are in your argument, the biggest of which is utilitarianism. Judging a person's worth via how society at that time decides is by its very nature, in my view, unethical.

I'm not sure who thinks everyone is 'equal' when it comes to physical or mental attributes (I'm pretty good at stuff, as I'm sure you are - but all our skills combined likely wouldn't add up to a truly great/talented individuals such as Isaac Newton or Muhammed Ali - perhaps we too might not be allowed to have children?), but what repulses people is the idea that not every person is equal in human dignity.

I agree inasmuch that the need to procreate required evolution/nature to guide us in a way as to greatly desire to procreate, but to me that is an oversimplification of the issue. For millions of individuals that burning desire is their very purpose for living - for the government or anyone to deny them that (on the basis that "sorry bud, you just ain't good enough) would surely have repercussions to their mental and emotional well being, which may likely have an impact on society at large.

Given all the possible solutions, given all the technology we currently have and we are on the cusp of discovering - this solution would sort of be like masturbating without lube - sure you'll climax, but you've chaffed your johnson beyond what is comfortable.

 

It leaves room for the tolerance of ALL PEOPLE ALIVE TODAY. It just means some of them perhaps should not reproduce. I am certainly not refering to "the ordinary gentleman". It is impossible for me to explain this to you, because you don't see what I see when you look at Lady Gaga commanding the adoration of millions of people, or when i'm cleaning vomit from the doorway of my shop after the weekend, or listen to people engrossed in Eastenders storylines, or smashed glass in the streets..

And the thing that separates people in my eyes is whether they DESIRE to learn. I have met some extremely stupid people, who intensely want to learn things.. even if they will never understand anything beyond a basic level, they have a mind worth teaching. There ARE hundreds of people who just don't give a fuck, about anything, and they never will.

I personally would ban ALL childbirth, and then it would begin again as people gained licenses to do so. Give them some incentive to be better, perhaps? So no one group would be told "you're not good enough".

So again, yes, you and I probably could have children, because we want to debate and discuss this very idea, for instance. The Issac Newtons and Einsteins of the world would certainly do okay. But those people who have NO interest in learning, or advancing THEMSELVES, are also displaying that they don't care about the advancement of the whole species. We walk at the pace of the slowest. And in this case, the slowest are happy to stand still.

The technology we are on the cusp of is all a waste if we throw it into computer games and fast food and beauty products and cars. We need to learn how to exist, in balance with everything else. Everything is fine until it is tipped out of balance. Even cars and pollution etc. wouldn't be a problem if there were only 10,000 people in the world, because nature would heal, and cope. People who don't care about balance, if it interupts their own happiness, in my opinion, are stupid.

As I said, I know how unpopular my views are, and I thank you for discussing your reasons for disageeing in a polite manner.

 

Overpopulated! Maybe China has a pretty good idea!

 

Killing female infants is a good idea?