human population- overpopulation - Page 2

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

So basically if people keep them self busy with entertainment they won't have sex 😆 

Originally posted by: --arti--

Check this out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15449959

I think this article sort of provides a general overview and some of the complexity of this debate.

[quote]Meanwhile, Paul Ehrlich has also amended his view of the issue.

If he were to write his book today, "I wouldn't focus on the poverty-stricken masses", he told the BBC.

"I would focus on there being too many rich people. It's crystal clear that we can't support seven billion people in the style of the wealthier Americans."[/quote]

Also: it sounds like your co-workers are pretty ignorant. Sorry, but if their question to you is "what is wrong with you guys," it's pretty clear they are not really asking for your opinion, but are more interested in advancing their narrow, racist ideas.

ofcourse everyone at work is ignorant 😆.. that makes me smartest

Originally posted by: .Baazigar.

((I just mention one of the root cause of population, thats poverty...,now we can say india is one of the fast developing nations n the world...nw situation changing...but if we check 30/40 years before, how many TV channels shows serials in india,how many have their own TV,Radio,Cars n other music system at their homes...!?! there is no 3g,FB or twitter,no other fun things there to kill their time...all poking games happen at home only...population not happend in one day thats why I mention poor countries increase population))

As per socrates We should question everything :)

For a moment we agree with both poor countries, sex, lack of entertainment logic  than

1. India added 20 crores population on 100 crore in last decade since 2000 in its kitty , when ample amount of entertainment option is there.

2. No i am not in this loop of fast developing nation or 3rd largest gdp etc. I consider what is human development index growth. Regarding poverty yes it is one of the factor but i feel contrary in the decision making in the number of children of a poor parents plays combination of culture,environment, awareness and economy so also the same impact is there among the rich and middle class family only without the economy factor. 

3. IDEA did ad. campaign with Abhishek Bachan that  population explode because people engage in sex so lets engage them in 3g entertainment :) 

Now the basic question is :

Do child birth happen by repeated and frequent sex only? 

Sex leads to population or unsafe sex - unplanned leads to population?

we will get the answer from the above 2 question.

Edited by lonely0planet - 11 years ago

I think the explanation that people have too many kids because they are ignorant is simplistic. Obviously sex education and general access to resources is helpful, but what about factors like high child mortality rates? Even in today's world, there are babies and kids who die from treatable illnesses. It's not uncommon for families in rural areas to try to have many kids because it's not a sure thing that all will survive. Children are also extra labour around the house/farm, etc. So there is a case to be made by some, especially in trying circumstances, that there is good economic sense to having plenty of children.

Again - I think rather than ask "how can we reduce population," maybe the question should be, "why are so many people in the world living with so little, while the wealthiest (who have the most messed up consumption habits anyway - using up multiple times the resources of the "have-nots") live completely unchecked, greedy lives. Isn't it pretty sad that the most powerful have produced and sustained ideologies so powerful that actually makes us talk about human lives (especially poor people) the way we talk about pest control or something..

Originally posted by: --arti--

I think the explanation that people have too many kids because they are ignorant is simplistic. Obviously sex education and general access to resources is helpful, but what about factors like high child mortality rates? Even in today's world, there are babies and kids who die from treatable illnesses. It's not uncommon for families in rural areas to try to have many kids because it's not a sure thing that all will survive. Children are also extra labour around the house/farm, etc. So there is a case to be made by some, especially in trying circumstances, that there is good economic sense to having plenty of children.

Again - I think rather than ask "how can we reduce population," maybe the question should be, "why are so many people in the world living with so little, while the wealthiest (who have the most messed up consumption habits anyway - using up multiple times the resources of the "have-nots") live completely unchecked, greedy lives. Isn't it pretty sad that the most powerful have produced and sustained ideologies so powerful that actually makes us talk about human lives (especially poor people) the way we talk about pest control or something..

@moomin - I agree that when we tackle issues like this, we have to look at all aspects, including patriarchy and have more social-based solutions.

Originally posted by: .Baazigar.

All these issues are interlinked , instead of excuse these issues should be cater simultaneously. Population of India now 4 times what it was in 60 years back. Population growth definitely put pressure on the natural resources , food, housing, water, transportation, distribution of wealth and resources, employment. 

I agree, baazigar. The only thing I would say is that I actually don't think it puts that much pressure on natural resources. I think those who hoard (and violate or prevent environmental regulations through powerful lobbying (giant companies like Walmart, multinationals that control Special Economic Zones) etc. put the most pressure on natural resources. Also - global north overconsumption habits - fuel, hydro, generating garbage you name it - put pressure on natural resources.

I think poor people in the global south actually manage with so little resources, and become the basis for most industries (as cheap labour, of course). So they are in fact, in cold terms, living in the most efficient way, taking up the least amount of space. They are also the ones dealing with the problems caused by the rest of us. And yet we talk about them as if they are the problem.
Edited by --arti-- - 11 years ago

would resistribution of wealth solve the problems of over population? How does redistribution of wealth get implemented?

I can give one social reason for population explosion, without backing up with any research articles.

IMO, parents are also responsible for population explosion for sure.

Step 1. For girl: You are already 18, you HAVE to get married ASAP. For a guy: You got a job, you HAVE to get married soon and settle in life.

It doesn't matter at what age they marry, but the pressure starts from right there. Depending on the localities, girls do tend to get married even before they reach eighteen years. If there is a grandparent, they want to see their great grandson before their last breath. Girl as young as sixteen has to start preparing for her wedding to heed the last wishes of her grandparent, throwing away her own future (from personal experience, after watching a friend)

Step 2: Now that you got married, we WANT to see our grandson (not grandchild) soon.

It is not surprising to see many couple celebrate their first wedding anniversary with their infant baby.

Step 3: Now that your child is one year old, you HAVE to make a second baby soon. If, in case, the first baby is a girl, we WANT a grandson ASAP to carry on our lineage.

If step 3 is not a success, then there is a step 4 and step 5, until a baby with weenie comes out of the womb.

So, we desis, are adding four to five generations in a century, where western countries are adding three to four generations.

I am not saying parents are THE reason for population explosion, but they are part of the reason.
Edited by desiRED - 11 years ago