If the population grows we should eventually run out of resources. The question is how long that might take. As it is, I don't think we are over populated at all, there is literally more than enough food produced to feed everyone. The amount of farmable land is very large and not anywhere near its limit.

This is definately a controversial issue - for a long time, some people have beleived that population growth causes problems while others beleive that lack of growth causes problems. Interestingly enough, it seems to partly be a conservative vs. liberal issue.

There are many resources that we have plenty of, and there are many resources that we do not. Our population is sky-rocketing, and our answer is building more vinyl-villiages... we close golf courses and recreational areas as well as eliminating farmland and other such resources to build more crappy houses that all look identical. That's just the tip of the iceburg.

I also look at this. If people were not allowed to have abortions, imagine how even worse our population would be. It would be rediculous.

Its not true that our population is skyrocketing. By 2050 (I think) the population will be either 9 billion or less that it is today - according to a UN study.

Its true that abortion has had a large effect on the population. It is estimated that 2 billion unborn babies have been killed in the past 50 years. I wonder if you think its worth it.

If you're interested, go to www.pop.org and browse around. They are a respected organization that argues against the beleif that the world population is dangerously growing or large. They also have research on the methods and activities of "family planners" around the world.

Originally Posted by Fortimir

I also look at this. If people were not allowed to have abortions, imagine how even worse our population would be. It would be rediculous.

Though this may be perceived to be absurd, I am asking this question with complete sincerity...

Would it not also help reduce the perceived problem of overpopulation if we were to exterminate non-productive humans from the earth? Anyone who is using resources without contributing anything valuable to society could be exterminated without causing any real harm, and there would be more resources left for productive members of society.

Would it not also help reduce the perceived problem of overpopulation if we were to exterminate non-productive humans from the earth? Anyone who is using resources without contributing anything valuable to society could be exterminated without causing any real harm, and there would be more resources left for productive members of society

And by whose definition do we use to determine who is "productive" and who is "unproductive"? I couldn't resist (referencing your view in the abortion forum) LOL

Originally Posted by thebootfitter

Would it not also help reduce the perceived problem of overpopulation if we were to exterminate non-productive humans from the earth?

Reminds me of a certain Douglas Adams series where an entire segment of society were sent off in a spaceship- insurance ppl, hairdressers, salespeople of all kinds, etc... lol...

Instead, why not exterminate the ppl who are sucking up the resources? Someone like Paris Hilton, jetting around the world and changing her clothes every two seconds probably consumes more yearly than some countries. Kill off socialites, heirs/heiresses and CEOs. They're useless anyway.

I think the bootfitter brings up a good point. Isn`t this how it works allready? I mean, if you`re not productive in the first world, you`ll be able to survive with the help of the others through resource distribution. But if we widen our perspective a little bit, we`ll see that this is not the case everywhere. And not only your own life is "on the line", but also the lives of your children. If a childs parent isn`t productive enough, that child will probably die. Is this justice? Is there any way to prevent this? How can we talk about freedoms when a large part of the worlds population lacks the freedom to even live?

And of course, this leads us to ask "what makes an individual productive"? Which IMO is a very important and interesting question, but better reserved for another thread.

Originally Posted by Sandycane

Eddie,
Your "signiture" is interesting, but, what about the freedom, or right, to live?

Its the most important freedom or right in my oppinion.

Originally Posted by Sandycane

Eddie,
The right to choose How one lives their life is their own personal choice. Who can judge what is right for another person (besides God)?

Well, in some ways. We can obviously not accept someone who kills for fun just because it is his lifestyle. Nor can we accept less obvious, but equally problematic situations, just for the respect of someones lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Sandycane

Eddie,
Granted, there are some lived in "better" ways than others (more productive), but, I think all are necessary and all have a purpose. Don't you agree?

I don`t really think we have a purpose or that anyone is necessary. But I understand your point and it is a good one. I would probably phrase it along the lines of "All lifes should be valued equally" or something like that (but it is essentially the same thing as your point).

Originally Posted by Sandycane

Eddie,
There are people who "need" and because of them, others can "give".
Sandy

Definatly, but I would go even further: Not only can give, but also should give. Or to make it even more pointed; should be forced to give

Originally Posted by mizmaxx

...Instead, why not exterminate the ppl who are sucking up the resources? Someone like Paris Hilton...

I think Paris Hilton did give us one resource in return.

Originally Posted by syklopps61

And by whose definition do we use to determine who is "productive" and who is "unproductive"? I couldn't resist (referencing your view in the abortion forum) LOL

Good question. I guess it would be the definition of our elected legislators or our appointed judges.

My question is sincere. My point is primarily in response to Fortimir's post that justifies abortion (even partially) due to perceived overpopulation problems. If the problem is overpopulation, and the extermination of pre-birth human entities helps to solve that problem, then it logically follows that exterminating other segments of our population in a different biological stage of their life could also be justified. But for some reason, our society does not condone the extermination of segments of our population other than pre-birth human entities.

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 we could always consume a lot fewer calories if we had too... food isn't an issue for a couple of hundred years more.

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.

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.

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.

(We're running out of oil, true, but imagine how much you could harness if you stuck windmills on top of each of those high-rises we'd need... and there's always nuclear power. I think what we're going to end up doing is launching up huge loads of radioactive material into space. where we'll never run out of places to put it...)

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 we could always consume a lot fewer calories if we had too... food isn't an issue for a couple of hundred years more.

But it is an economic question. As arable land can be more or less arable, the usage of less arable land (as the land we have in sweden) is much more costly. When the costs for producing food rices, so does the prices. And as it seems like there are some people not being able to afford too buy food, lack of good arable land kills. (as well as raising the prices for us others who can afford, but will be forced to spend a larger portion of our productivity to be able to eat)

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.

Extracting the water is an economic issue, just as arable land.

[QUOTE=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.
QUOTE]

This is true. I doubt we`ll ever run out of space to live

Originally Posted by Broker

(We're running out of oil, true, but imagine how much you could harness if you stuck windmills on top of each of those high-rises we'd need... and there's always nuclear power. I think what we're going to end up doing is launching up huge loads of radioactive material into space. where we'll never run out of places to put it...)

But as oil is currently the only viable fuel for combustion, and combustion is extreamly important to retain our productivity, less oil on the world market is a large problem. Not the mention the importance of combustion in food production (which will make food stuff even more costly, see above )....

But, luckily, the "usable oil supply" is in not diminishing, its in fact growing due to new ways of extracting oil that has been imposible to reach before. But sooner or later, even the usable oil supply will diminish.

Originally Posted by Sandycane

thebootfitter, Your not serious, are you?

Depends on what you mean by serious... Most people think I'm a pretty laid back, humorous kind of person.

Let's put it this way... IF we allow exterminating a portio of any segment of the population to control overpopulation, then why should it be contained to just one segment of the population? It is evident that at least some individuals (Fortimer, for one) believe that exterminating some members of a segment of our population is justified for the greater perceived good of controlling the population.

Originally Posted by thebootfitter

Let's put it this way... IF we allow exterminating a portio of any segment of the population to control overpopulation, then why should it be contained to just one segment of the population? It is evident that at least some individuals (Fortimer, for one) believe that exterminating some members of a segment of our population is justified for the greater perceived good of controlling the population.

Yeah, if you believe that a fetus is a human person, but that overpopulation somehow made it acceptable to kill fetuses, it would be kind of hard to argument against killing of other human persons to lessen the overpopulation.

But I`m guessing that Fortimer do not view fetuses like human persons, or does he?