I agree with Ruth!
WE must figure out some way of birth control - educating others.
I mean birth control as in free birth control and educating others about over-population, etc
Overpopulation is both a cause and result of extreme poverty. In some countries centuries of huge families have subdivided farms until a family of ten or twelve is trying to live on a few square feet of arable land. As this is impossible, the child death rate is horrendous. These countries have no safety net, so in order to have support in their old age -- say, above 45 or 50 -- parents choose to have many children so one or two will survive to take care of them. (Although where birth control has been made available, family sizes often drop sharply, so maybe that's a big missing factor.) (As to global warming, I guess that's largely a combination of overpopulation and increasing industrialization, as more third-world people start using automobiles and tractors.)
I agree that overpopulation is both a cause and result of extreme poverty. That's why I think innovations are required to reduce population to sustainable levels. Suppose, for example, people joined into voluntary groups of 300 or less to collectively decide on reproduction. All of their children would be obligated to take care of all of the parent cohort, and the parent cohort would be collectively responsible for raising the children as well as choosing who should be biological parents. No single parents, no orphans, no childless couples facing old age. Under these circumstances, groups which choose to favor biological parents who are healthier, smarter, and less criminal would pay off for everyone. Screening for genetic disease would pay off in fewer ill offspring who would burden rather than support the parent cohort. If the population must contract, which it must, no couple should be forced to bear all of the sacrifices alone. Of course it's radical.
lack of education, liberal arts and condoms.. seems IUD's are huge now though.. and fail on the Vatican splendor from hell~ pfffft
Right Strong Atheist!
Have you heard about the Cane toad problem in Northern Australia ? Well, the story is that South American toads were introduced to Northern Australia to combat insects which eat the sugar cane harvest. Unfortunately, the toads found the environment favourable, found natural food sources and proliferated because there was no natural defence to them. They are literally everywhere to the detriment of the native wildlife. Another example is the European Lantana bush which was introduced to gardens in Australia and found the bushland an easy environment in which to multiply. Lantana covers and strangles native vegetation. The fauna and flora described is like vermin and efforts are made to destroy it before it causes extinction and destroys the ecosystem.
The human population can be viewed as verminous like Cane toads and Lantana in my opinion. Since we left Africa and populated the world many species have suffered but human population numbers are now unprecedented and consequently a large part of the natural world is extinct or facing extinction. There is a direct link between human population and the erosion of the worlds last resources.
I see beauty in ourselves living our lives in comfortable civilisation. It's only when I stand back and look at the planet that I see the ugliness caused by massive human overpopulation.
True, but I think we can change. We have the capacity to rise above our animal instinct to overproduce. At least I hope so. Otherwise we're headed for extinction PDQ.
Bearing in mind the statistics, will human civilisation last another 1,000 years ? Perhaps natural factors including famine, disease, warfare and poverty will correct the human population level and slow reproduction but it seems already to late.
Of course we are headed for extinction. All species always have been. As a sensationalist statement/scare tactic, it just muddies the waters of those trying to actually use science and policy to affect societal change. Usually it is the uneducated ravening lunatic proponents of conservation that hurt the efforts/image of conservationists, not the direct action of their opponents.
Think about it. Sensationalism never helps real science. If you have the real data on your side, stick to that, and not black and white statements. In this case, the data is on your side. Don't throw that away. Learn the data, and how to present it. Reality, well argued and supported in an urbane manner is FAR scarier than sensationalist statements.
I don't believe we are headed for a total planetary burn-off here. Life (and species less capable of adapting) have survived worse. It will just suck seriously.
Breeding beyond capacity and not even knowing/caring the capacity limits is stupid, but so are humans.
We are no different than a virus.