I think this a good topic, I've seen it debated before. I think a more logical way of controlling population than just abortion would be to choose several times in a person's life (ex: 1yr, 5yrs, 10yrs, 25, 50) and weed out the mentally or physically troubled and unproductive individuals. It might also be beneficial to have a cut off of around 75 to 80 as the maximum age for a person. Of course, the more undesirables we could eliminate at earlier stages, the more expedient it would be.

It all sounds awfully science fiction. Then again, it did happen in Nazi Germany to a somewhat lesser extent... the intellectual center of the world at the time.

Originally Posted by thebootfitter

Regardless of what anyone believes, biology and neonatology indicate that a blastocyst (fertilized egg) contains everything that it needs save nourishment and oxygen to be able to continue to grow into an adult member of the species. Therefore, biologically speaking, a blastocyst is as much human as you or I are. (Incidentally, I believe most educated people, regardless of their stance on the legality of abortion, understand this concept.) The distinction comes into play when laws enter the picture.

I don`t buy it, but take it in the abortion forum.

Originally Posted by Robbie

It all sounds awfully science fiction. Then again, it did happen in Nazi Germany to a somewhat lesser extent... the intellectual center of the world at the time.

Well, at the time that the Nazis had their KZs running and with euthanasia commited on a high scale, the intellectual center was already gone.
It started to cease when Hitler came to power. The only scientists that stayed did military research (great) or did work on human experiments (yeeha; although there are many results that benefitted modern medicine).

I'm saying we can solve the problem and that the world is not overpopulated... not that there aren't issues that complicate things. If we HAD to do something we could make it happen...

Originally Posted by Broker

Half the world's arable land isn't being used. Imagine what happens if you were to modernize how people farm outside of the first world... crop yields would be through the roof, even if you didn't use that available land.

And what are the effects of 'modernized' agriculture?

Modern methods that are being used today are not sustainable.

I'm primarily speaking about planting/ harvest technology and biotechnology.

Originally Posted by Broker

As for water... heh... we've got plenty of that. As it is we can only access a lot less than 1% of fresh water, let alone what we're using. And 96% of all water is salt water that we can desalinate.

Yes, but what do you suppose would happen if we started drying up the ocean? Do you know how much of our way of life, along with many many native ways of life, depend on the ocean? you would literally kill half the planet, even if you couldn't see it happening for a few years.

Originally Posted by Broker

Space for living... just look at Hong Kong. You can fit 50,000 people into a couple of blocks if you have to do it. But we still have a ton of open space left.

Sure. So long as you want to lead the average megatropolis existance and be miserable and cramped as hell. Think about QUALITY of life, not just quantity! You should improve the first thing before worrying about or endorsing the second. What would it hurt if we stopped breeding like rabbits?

Originally Posted by Broker

So I would say we're no where near being overpopulated... we could support comfortably at least 20 billion or so people... but the limit would be several times that.

I believe the definition is as followed.
"o·ver·pop·u·la·tion
Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration." (from Dictionary.com)

Now. Tell me, which of these things has NOT happened? Please, by all means. Unless of course your definition of overpopulation is different. By the way, just because we could support that many people does not mean that it would not make things any worse.

I guess according to you because we can do it, we by all means should. Cause hell, if we can rape the earth as badly as we do today and still get away with it for a couple hundred more years, we ought to. This is the right path to take... so long as you want the human species to become extinct billions of years sooner than would happen naturally. I think some of you need to read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

It seems that people like to do things that are inherently bad for themselves as a race, and as individuals. Tell me; how would we not benefit if we altered our science, so that by keeping our way of life did NOT poison the earth? That's what I thought. The only reason change does not happen is because of corporations that rely on our dependance to things like oil, natural gas, coal, ect. I can show you a whole crapload of science the can get you your modern conveniences without any pollution. You want a fridge but no freon? let me know, I'll get you it's specs. There are no excuses good enough, I feel, to not take the right path as human beings. But of course, my opnion is just one of many. Oh well..

Regardless of when the human race becomes extinct it will surely be "natural". It cannot be otherwise.

As far as learning to tread more lightly, I would agree that our technology should be employed to improve our quality of life without undue impact on the rest of the undeveloped world. Neat trick. Easier said than done.

Presently and for some centuries to come, space will not be the problem nor the feeding of the greater numbers assuming distribution networks improve. International imbalances in economics is more the cause of hunger than availability.

Rape is a colorful allusion to describe the results of many of our present activities which grantedly are having severe negative impact on the Earth's ecosystems. This is a relatively recent phenomenon on the grand scale of time and IMO it is far from too late to "change our ways".

Many if not all species prosper at the expense of some other species and to the detriment of their immediate environment. Only the scale of our impact has been enlarged of late. How we relate to the natural world as a species is relatively unchanged. Man lives or dies by his technology be that electricity or a sharp stick.

Answer: Don't have a clue. And no one really does. To know if the world is overpopulated you must first know the Earth's carrying capacity of humans. That is murky at best. Therefore, without knowledge of how many humans this planet can naturally support, no one can make a clear distinction if the world is or isn't overpopulated.

Originally Posted by manuel

From now on, everyone refer to the bootfitter as Adolf. Yea good idea, let's make concentration camps all over the world. And you had the nerve to say it with "sincerity"?

That would be a phantom bridge. Hilter supported eliminating Jews as a cohesive force to keep nationalistic support up, and with the false belief that they were inferior. The Jews were useful and productive people. Bootfitter's post supports nothing of Hitler's claim. Bootfitter's claim is supporting producitive to resource distribution, not extermnation of a single racial group for non-resource based reasons.

Originally Posted by Eddie

I don`t buy it, but take it in the abortion forum.

Whether or not you buy it is irrevelant. That is a scientific fact. The fertilized egg has all the genetic material needed to produce a fully functional and viable human except nutrients. Therefore, it is as genetically human as you are. But if we're going there, we have to also talk about Invitro fertilization. Thousands of embroys are killed to produce one viable child. Using the logic that zygotes are human because of their genetics, and killing them by abortion is killing a human, then invitro is just as bad as abortion because it kills thousands of "humans." Yet I don't see people aganist Invitro fertilization.

Originally Posted by Twisty

What do you think? If the population is growing exponentially it would seem we would eventually run out of resources...

And a question- If Africa is ravaged by disease and famine and civil wars, why is it's population growing so fast?

^ (Africa) school project If you can help me, please email me at twistyy123@yahoo.com
Thanks

Originally Posted by chatterbox

The planet is obviously over populated,Take for example many rats or pigeons living in our supercities they are classed as vermin because of the sheer numbers cramped into undersizeed living conditions and the squalor and disease thats genarated from this.We have no control on thier breeding.
Now relate this to our World population which is disease ridden with AID'S TB,Bird Flu, etc.etc, and tightly packed into city's,under represented African country's with again no breeding limits or soical infastructure to support them.
It is only a natural route for the earth to take care and support its self! Humans self creating disease famine natural disasters that will bring back everything back into Equilibrium through death.

well i talked with some friends and one seems to think that your idea will take too lond and he thinks that the only solution is another world war in his words "dear sweet f***ing god theres too many of us we need another world war to sort this out we shall need germany again" (he is a bit of a rascist b*****d if you did not notice