↑ ↓
 

Overpopulation

Started by 11mc22, October 15, 2009, 02:35:46 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions
October 15, 2009, 02:35:46 AM
I'm surprised there was no topic on this. Or was there and I forgot about it????

Anyhow overpopulation is a myth. Even if we are running out of resources the market would reflect this through increases in price and gradually people will have less and less children because maintaining a family is too costly.

I've been debating some fearmongers but their best argument is only valid if there was a sudden mass decrease in supply of oil or any other crucial resource.
October 15, 2009, 06:41:03 AM #1
You wouldn't find a mass decrease anyway, not without the kind of politically-induced supply shock like what occurred in the '70s. As easily-available oil drops in availability, price will rise, making it more profitable to go for the rest of the oil, such as the oil locked into the sands in Canada. This is more expensive because you have to extract the oil, but there's enough oil in places like this around the world to do us for the next thousand years.

And, of course, as oil prices rise, other forms of energy become more affordable.
October 15, 2009, 10:58:55 PM #2
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 15, 2009, 06:41:03 AM
You wouldn't find a mass decrease anyway, not without the kind of politically-induced supply shock like what occurred in the '70s. As easily-available oil drops in availability, price will rise, making it more profitable to go for the rest of the oil, such as the oil locked into the sands in Canada. This is more expensive because you have to extract the oil, but there's enough oil in places like this around the world to do us for the next thousand years.

And, of course, as oil prices rise, other forms of energy become more affordable.

But then the oil sand plans get derailed when the greenies whine about it.

Seriously, they tried to impose a carbon tax on my home province of BC even though almost all our energy is from hydro which is pretty clean.  Just no pleasing some people.
I recently heard that the word heretic is derived from the greek work heriticos which means "able to choose"
The more you know...
October 16, 2009, 06:05:04 PM #3 Last Edit: October 16, 2009, 06:31:39 PM by 11mc22
October 16, 2009, 08:30:33 PM #4
That's been a trend throughout history.
October 17, 2009, 11:07:21 PM #5
Japan's birth rate is crazy low right now and that's got them worried.  Many blame their insane work ethic has had the adverse effect of leaving everyone with no time to have kids.

Though Azreal has personally seen that the "work work work" really amounts to little more than killing time and trying to look busy much of the time.  Doesn't surprise me.  The Japanese are an odd bunch but they're still human.
I recently heard that the word heretic is derived from the greek work heriticos which means "able to choose"
The more you know...
October 29, 2009, 02:32:41 AM #6
Quote from: 11mc22 on October 15, 2009, 02:35:46 AM
Anyhow overpopulation is a myth. Even if we are running out of resources the market would reflect this through increases in price and gradually people will have less and less children because maintaining a family is too costly.

Yay, something on the Bogosity forums I actually disagree with for once! Overpopulation can be a problem. Are you saying that even if we do become overpopulated, that the market would make up for it for the adjusted high price in resources due to such resources being rare?

It's true that it can happen, yes. But that alone isn't going to "solve" overpopulation issues.

In your example about maintaining a family and children, you're assuming people PLAN on having children, and don't already have families. You also are picturing this in a singular sense, thinking that one person or family will be able to adjust to the market.

So, when our resources are depleted... And a family of 7 needs to buy their daily resources, (food, whatever it may be) ... they just somehow stop existing, or some of them die because it's too costly to buy what they need? Because that's what you're implying. You're also under the impression that people "control" reproducing and having families. Naturally, the more mature and well-mannered people do, yes. But starting a family, or having a current family, makes no difference as to if you're going to have another child or not. Also, you're thinking about just once instance of "a family" -- But you're not thinking about the en masse of people already in existence. Everyone is not going to magically just conform and reproduce less, or use less resources, just because the market for such resources gets more expensive and scarce. Also, the resources are depleting, or in this scenario, will be depleting, rapidly, due to the current "overpopulated" world... not only in this hypothetical "now," but previous to whenever the sign of "overpopulation" is recognized or established. Such resources can be conserved with less people on the planet, but not all resources can be recovered by eventually less people being on the planet and dying off. In this "overpopulated world" the resources are already rapidly depleted DUE TO the large amount of people outweighing the resources. Such an issue wouldn't occur if the population was cut 1/4, or 1/2, or any such smaller number. The resources would exist for a greater number of time due to less people.
October 31, 2009, 06:55:52 PM #7
Quote from: IceSage on October 29, 2009, 02:32:41 AM
Yay, something on the Bogosity forums I actually disagree with for once! Overpopulation can be a problem. Are you saying that even if we do become overpopulated, that the market would make up for it for the adjusted high price in resources due to such resources being rare?

It's true that it can happen, yes. But that alone isn't going to "solve" overpopulation issues.

In your example about maintaining a family and children, you're assuming people PLAN on having children, and don't already have families. You also are picturing this in a singular sense, thinking that one person or family will be able to adjust to the market.

I don't believe we are overpopulated now. I never said that overpopulation is not a problem, my scenario is just about whether or not the earth will really get to the point of overpopulation. So as price of living increase or like what Lord T hawke said people become more business/work oriented, population of the Earth will slowly come down before some catastrophe happens. The links I gave does show overall decrease in child per woman for nearly all countries.
November 02, 2009, 12:19:29 AM #8
A lot of people in the west got all panicky when populations here dipped but really, most say that's just the  population stabalizing to it's pre-baby boomer state.
I recently heard that the word heretic is derived from the greek work heriticos which means "able to choose"
The more you know...
December 10, 2009, 12:22:08 PM #9
Well, it's true that we do have a lot of free spaces left. Vast parts of the USA and Canada are void of human settlements, mainly do to hard cases of Bigfoot infestation and the resident psycho killer and Creole population, I understand there's a overlappin between the three groups.
Then there's the south american rainforest, although it's dottet with thousands of small tribes of indios who've never even heard of whitey and his industrial complex and would gladly hang up a shrunken head of ethnological scientist in their shaman's hut as a example of a pale faced demon.
The Jungles of Africa are also still vastly unexplored but being ventured deeper into in the search for deliceous gorilla meat and new exhiting deseases like AIDS which man either got from eating or fucking the monkeys they found there.
Not to mention Asia and Australia, of which the first has a rich tradition of man eating tigers, man eating elephants and man eating men and the latter has kangaroos and imported camels who terrorize the few braves who live in the outback.
December 12, 2009, 11:03:52 PM #10
I put Neo-Malthusians and Kent Hovind on the same level.  Both insist that their models reflect reality now, and always.  N-M's will tell you that population increase MUST continue geometrically, and usually at the same rate, ignoring proven factors that affect population growth like education and industrialization.  You want to know where Malthusian policy gets you, ask the Chinese in 20 years, when they end up facing a massive dearth in the female population.
December 13, 2009, 12:18:48 AM #11
Hmmm, that sounds like someone's communist country will see massive growth in their sex toy industries. Knowing their safety standarts the death toll will go into the hundred thousands.
User actions
Print
Go Up Pages1