But for now... here's some stuff to look into topically...
Arguments supporting the growing need to be concerned about over population:
Projected growth in US, UK, India, China, Guatemala
Deforestation in the rain forests
Dredge fishing in the atlantic
World Wide Food Shortages ( Re: Korea, most of Africa )
Unequal distribution of resources
Growing divide between rich and poor
Unmanageable sums of people.
Arguments supporting the belief that overpopulation is not a concern:
Declining fertility rates
Mismanagement of food resources
Genetic Crops
Economic / Political factors using overpopulation as a scapegoat
There's great arguments on both sides.
But the one that I left out is obviously the stickiest of the problems... Ethics. Most of the world will not religiously or otherwise support any attempt to control population growth. And to be honest, an initiative to curb growth in a general population could be exploited to effectively ethnically cleanse a populace. Additionally any argument supporting eugenics is a slippery slope so tackling who gets to have kids and who doesn't becomes incredibly difficult to quantify.... assuming you even want to do that.
In the US the food shortage isn't quite apparent. However we do have 2 resource needs that we have exceeded and are now in some cases becoming increasingly aware of. Power, and water. In states such as california and arizona there is already widespread concern about the need to support a growing population with increased access to clean water sources. In arizona their primary water source is already far surpassing it's sustaining utilization.
Also some of the concerns with genetically modified foods are somewhat warranted. Especially concerning the catch 22 of either you are stuck buying seed from a corporate seed manufacturer... or you run the risk of letting a genetic hybrid loose on the environment...
So there's a lot of angles...
I personally think we are FAR beyond a manageable population number in the US. If we had less than 1% of our current population the quality of life in the nation as well as education and everything else would likely climb a great deal.
That's my opinion.
an initiative to curb growth in a general population could be exploited to effectively ethnically cleanse a populace.
*Any* law or measure can be extended and abused for evil purposes, however, this ``slippery slope'' argument never really make any sense, it is often employed by people who don't really have any real arguments (Usually because their opinion is based on an ideology, religion, or whatever.) to scare people into agreeing with them.
Also some of the concerns with genetically modified foods are somewhat warranted. Especially concerning the catch 22 of either you are stuck buying seed from a corporate seed manufacturer... or you run the risk of letting a genetic hybrid loose on the environment...
``Genetic hybrids'' are a risk to nature how exactly?
This is a doomsdale tale told my brainless organisations like GreenPeace etc., ``nature'' (Whatever that may be) has been making ``Genetic hybrids'' for as long as life exists, it's called natural selection.
Somehow ... It's bad when humans intervene with natural selection? The outcome is supposed to be worse or dangerous?
For some reason, many people tend to think that whatever comes from nature is good, and that man-made stuff is somehow worse?
If a drink has man-made additives (For taste, color, whatever) then these are ``dangerous'' chemicals that may be bad for your health.
But if all additives are natural, then it's OK, and good for your health ...
Seriously ... It makes no sense what-so-ever...
Anyway,
In the origins of the species Darwin explained how population management is done in nature, when there's lots of food and room, a specie's population will grow, when there's less food and room, a specie's population will shrink (Can't be bothered to find quotations on this).
This applies to humans as well.
I'm not sure about this, but I believe that the population for most Western countries isn't really growing that fast, and may in fact start to decline in 40-50 years.
Africa and Asia are quite a different story though...
But the one that I left out is obviously the stickiest of the problems... Ethics. Most of the world will not religiously or otherwise support any attempt to control population growth. And to be honest, an initiative to curb growth in a general population could be exploited to effectively ethnically cleanse a populace. Additionally any argument supporting eugenics is a slippery slope so tackling who gets to have kids and who doesn't becomes incredibly difficult to quantify.... assuming you even want to do that.
We've already gave eugenics a shot here in the states. I don't think we want to do that again. Maybe asemi has some words on this?
In the US the food shortage isn't quite apparent. However we do have 2 resource needs that we have exceeded and are now in some cases becoming increasingly aware of. Power, and water. In states such as california and arizona there is already widespread concern about the need to support a growing population with increased access to clean water sources. In arizona their primary water source is already far surpassing it's sustaining utilization.
I think our power use could be trimmed significantly. We are immensely wasteful with electricity. This could be done by raising perception about use and changing behavior.
I personally think we are FAR beyond a manageable population number in the US. If we had less than 1% of our current population the quality of life in the nation as well as education and everything else would likely climb a great deal.
What do you mean? What is there to manage? People aren't starving by any means in the states, and our quality of life is slipping because of the dollar going ass-up. If anything getting more people employed would be better than stopping the babies. Also Fsmart might cry.
Outside of the states I do see the shortages in foods, primarily high price staple commodities like rice this year. But really look at our numbers. China has over one billion more people than we do. We're sitting at like three hundred million, they have one billion plus three hundred million.
India is next to China at one billion, and this site says there are almost five hundred million women! The crazy part is per capita we make a shit load more than both of them put together. But they are learning to structurally support over a billion in population as they grow, while we are having issues with significantly less than half? I agree that there are issues with it in the long run the world over, but here in the states I think other problems prevail.
There is real quantifiable problems brought about by population booms.
But it's obviously arguable. Nothing is a certainty here.
However we do still support eugenics in the US. We don't let incest occur, and we advise parents predisposed to genetic ailments not to have children in a traditional fashion.
as for the genetic hybrid thing... yes it's generally blow out of proportion... but look at what pine trees did to hawaii.
genetically altered foods are designed to GROW and GROW REALLY WELL in adverse conditions. now it might be nice being overrun with food... but you may thrash more exotic ecosystems.
Just some of my comments.
``Food Production & Population Growth''
http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1578425/7289585/