Thread: Overpopulation....a threat or a myth?

Even if it is not, there are always control mechanisms that keep it at bay.
The question is rather whats more pleasant.
Controlling it by ourselves like the Chinese do with their "one child policy"
or facing things like wars, lethal infections, starvation etc.

Originally Posted by 0livia

Even if it is not, there are always control mechanisms that keep it at bay.
The question is rather whats more pleasant.
Controlling it by ourselves like the Chinese do with their "one child policy"
or facing things like wars, lethal infections, starvation etc.

China's problem is the men greatly outnumber women now.

So...i guess it kind of is working itself out...

Originally Posted by gregs656

I am a great believer in the idea that people should be left to it, and events will occur that wipe people out. That's how it's meant to be.

More than 200 years later and there's still a place for Malthus' theory. War, famine, disease -- it's nature's way of the cull. War: we have the potential to wipe out billions. Famine: more than ever we debate the state of our resources on earth. Disease: epidemics are common place, pandemics less so, but they happen and, according to Malthus, they will always happen as part of a system to keep numbers in check.

Funny how an economist played a major part in biological sciences as we know it today.

Originally Posted by JMS

I liked what you said before you edited it.

it was the same as the post above it, for some reason I got a double post.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Overpopuplation is a myth. And that's coming from someone in per square km the most populated country in the world.

Overpopulation isn't a myth. And that's coming from someone in the per square km most populated country in the world.

(Actually, this isn't true anymore, we've been overtaken a few years ago)

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Overpopuplation is a myth. And that's coming from someone in per square km the most populated country in the world.

You're listed in the Netherlands, not Bangladesh.

as someone who lives in a city of 6 million people and change, I can identify with people who feel crowded. but if i drive a few hundred miles in any direction, i'll see nothing but empty space.

i agree with previous poster. population is self regulating. europe was getting awfully crowded in the mid 1300s, but that was self regulated away. china is now the biggest sausagefest in the history of mankind, so i expect to see those numbers slip down, too.

You can't look at population based on density. You need to look on a larger scale than that, at the very least you have to look at the level of resources vs population.

Canada and Australia for example are underpopulated. Looking at population hubs is simply not a realistic way of juding this balance.

Resources. Energy requirements. I've heard it said that the planet itself has an unlimited supply of geothermal energy let alone wind and solar. I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me that our planet can easily provide the right kind of resources needed to support its population.

Although the ultimate problem in "saving our planet" is eons away, unless the inhabitants of earth can prevent the seemingly inevitable progression of our sun turning into a gas giant and literally burning up our solar system including frying earth to a crisp, the existence of the earth itself is finite.



Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

...the seemingly inevitable progression of our sun turning into a gas giant and literally burning up our solar system including frying earth to a crisp, the existence of the earth itself is finite...

Is that what those fearmongers told you would happen?

Flat Earth Society