Overpopulation - Is the US Government Secretly Controlling Us?

[Azuremen]

The West uses a greater proportion of resources per-head than countries like India and particularly Africa, you're right.

However, re-distribution of wealth and resources is a very difficult argument because the reason it's all like it is in the first place is down to how civilisation has progressed in those different parts of the world down to a mixture of geographical location, politics and industrialisation.

For example: It isn't the West's fault that there are millions of people dying of starvation in Africa because they're consuming resources, it's the result of people living in an area with very little in the way of resources, a climate that's poor for agriculture and often, a dictatorial government that looks after number one and not its people.

Likewise the success of the U.S. as a world superpower in only a relatively short space of time human civilisation-wise is down to a largely temperate climate for productive agriculture, good access to natural resources, a diverse population formed from several already well-industrialised countries and a largely democratic constitution that by-and-large puts the people and the nation first. Obviously there have been a few wars and a bit of a genocide on the way which could be considered a bit dubious, but to a certain degree the consumption-per-head of someone in America is dictated by too many factors to say it's "wrong".

In other words, no one human deserves a better life than any other human, but when someone is making their contribution to an industrialised society they're essentially entitled to use they money they earn however they see fit. If that means stuffing their face with greasy burgers or owning a 5mpg Hummer, then those are just the spoils of a free country, however "wrong" it seems.

It's also worth noting that population increase in developed countries is generally much lower than that of developing countries (even considering the high death rates in developing countries), so you could argue that developing countries might have a better chance of being prosperous if they weren't breeding at such a rate.

Probably the best response to that. Covers virtually all points perfectly. A lot of people really don't how many of the problems in Africa are the result of corrupt governments poorly managing a very limited amount of resources.

 

[Downhill Dino]

For those of you that think 7 billion people on this planet is too many - please give reasons and explain what the correct number of people is.

Do you not see the economy? Largely due to overpopulation. I'm no expert, but as far as I know, higher demand, more cost. More cost can be bad for businesses, less pay for employees, poor people. Everyone wants a good life, but that can't be changed due to the large population and demand. Please, correct if I may be wrong.

I'd say a good amount of people would be roughly 500,000,000.

 

[Azuremen]

Do you not see the economy? Largely due to overpopulation. I'm no expert, but as far as I know, higher demand, more cost. More cost can be bad for businesses, less pay for employees, poor people. Everyone wants a good life, but that can't be changed due to the large population and demand. Please, correct if I may be wrong.

I'd say a good amount of people would be roughly 500,000,000.

The economy is the result of poor government policies and bureaucratic idiocy, not excessive demand. At least in the first world.

And 500 million people? Good heavens, the population was likely higher than that globally in ancient times, long before we developed modern agriculture, which is hilariously more efficient then ancient times.

 

[Downhill Dino]

The economy is the result of poor government policies and bureaucratic idiocy, not excessive demand. At least in the first world.

Then what the heck was that teacher saying all those years ago?

And 500 million people? Good heavens, the population was likely higher than that globally in ancient times, long before we developed modern agriculture, which is hilariously more efficient then ancient times.

1 Billion then? 💡

 

[Azuremen]

Then what the heck was that teacher saying all those years ago?

1 Billion then? 💡

Supply and demand does apply, but there is quite a bit of manipulation via government regulation and policy. Such as prices on alcohol and tobacco, among other things. Nothing could be quite so simple with so many levels and groups involved with the various policies in place.

Population can easily exceed what we have now. Starvation issues in Africa are mainly due to corruption and incredibly poor resource management, rather than too many people. Homeforsummer did a great job going over the many related issues on that, which is why I quoted his post.

 

[Sam48]

I'm quite certain our earth can support, on average, about ten billion, so we need not worry now. (I'm not 100% sure on the numbers so don't quote me on this)

 

[Villain]

Is the US Government taking steps to reduce the population? We are overpopulated, no doubt.

No.

H1N1 (aka Swine Flu), was it released by the Government to secretly kill off some of us? Would they really have conjured up some crazy story to tell us?

No it wasn't, and it didn't even kill very many people.

What about HIV/AIDS, some beleive the same thing.

Others believe that God created it to rid the planet of sinfulness and homosexuality.

9/11, was it a legit attack, or was it something carefully planned and carried out to fool us?

To what end? In terms of scale, the 9/11 attacks and even the ensuing warfare has not been even close to affecting the world-wide growth of populations.

What about abortion, is it a form of population control?

Nope.

Does the US REALLY decided who lives and who dies?

Is the gorvernment only keeping smoking legal so that at the end of the century, one billion people will die?

100% percent of non-smokers die.

That artical raises some good points, and there are many others out there that do as well.

I haven't read your articles, but if the points you made are a highlight reel of what is to be expected then I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that no, those are not good points. In fact, they are terrible examples.

I personally say no to all of this, but some of it makes me raise an eyebrow...You've got to wonder...

I dont think there is anything to wonder by anyone with a rational brain.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I think the conspiracy theorists should take a few days vacation.

 

[Villain]

I think the conspiracy theorists should take a few days vacation.

I think their brains took vacations a long time ago.

 

[Danoff]

Do you not see the economy? Largely due to overpopulation. I'm no expert, but as far as I know, higher demand, more cost.

...higher demand perhaps, but also higher production due to higher population. So supply and demand both rise with population (in general, obviously some goods do not).

 

[NLxAROSA]

Who needs the government to steadily harm the population? So many are offing themselves thanks to obesity, heart disease, smoking, drugs, alcohol, dumb driving, inept gunplay, depression, et al, without any government or taxpayer assistance whatsoever.

It's really hard to get dead people to pay taxes.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the definitive answer. You can't make money off dead people so actually, the government has more to gain by prolonging your life and increasing the population. 👍

 

[CodeRedR51]

In theory we could fit all 7 billion of the worlds population in one city the size of France. Space isn't the issue here, resources are.

Never looked at it that way, interesting.

Although if you live and/or have traveled through much of the western United States, there's plenty of room to spare.

 

[Azuremen]

Never looked at it that way, interesting.

Although if you live and/or have traveled through much of the western United States, there's plenty of room to spare.

Not that anyone would want to live there. Just send convicts to North Dakota and build a fence around it or something as well.

 

[TankAss95]

Never looked at it that way, interesting.

Although if you live and/or have traveled through much of the western United States, there's plenty of room to spare.

Well, so say the BBC anyway.

 

[Encyclopedia]

The West uses a greater proportion of resources per-head than countries like India and particularly Africa, you're right.

However, re-distribution of wealth and resources is a very difficult argument because the reason it's all like it is in the first place is down to how civilisation has progressed in those different parts of the world down to a mixture of geographical location, politics and industrialisation.

For example: It isn't the West's fault that there are millions of people dying of starvation in Africa because they're consuming resources, it's the result of people living in an area with very little in the way of resources, a climate that's poor for agriculture and often, a dictatorial government that looks after number one and not its people.

Likewise the success of the U.S. as a world superpower in only a relatively short space of time human civilisation-wise is down to a largely temperate climate for productive agriculture, good access to natural resources, a diverse population formed from several already well-industrialised countries and a largely democratic constitution that by-and-large puts the people and the nation first. Obviously there have been a few wars and a bit of a genocide on the way which could be considered a bit dubious, but to a certain degree the consumption-per-head of someone in America is dictated by too many factors to say it's "wrong".

In other words, no one human deserves a better life than any other human, but when someone is making their contribution to an industrialised society they're essentially entitled to use they money they earn however they see fit. If that means stuffing their face with greasy burgers or owning a 5mpg Hummer, then those are just the spoils of a free country, however "wrong" it seems.

It's also worth noting that population increase in developed countries is generally much lower than that of developing countries (even considering the high death rates in developing countries), so you could argue that developing countries might have a better chance of being prosperous if they weren't breeding at such a rate.

Good response. 👍

I just find it a bit aggrivating when some people argue that just because they can't maintain their high living standards (which are rediculously high in devloped countries if you think about it), the world is overpopulated. It's seems a tad inconsiderate.

That said I didn't mean to imply that the bad situation in some places like Africa can be blamed on the rich west. Corruption etc. is the problem and unless that gets dealt with, nothing will get better.

 

[TheBook]

Not that anyone would want to live there. Just send convicts to North Dakota and build a fence around it or something as well.

Kinda like this?

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?deskto...e.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw&v=OmJ2snsLxWw&gl=US

 

[CodeRedR51]

Not that anyone would want to live there. Just send convicts to North Dakota and build a fence around it or something as well.

Well yeah, just saying it's there if we need it.