The biggest problem in the world...

[Ouranos Ouroboros]

So, as far as I can tell, the biggest problem in the world - the one from which all the other major problems stem - is human overpopulation. As far as I've seen and studied, quality of life for humans (and most other species on the planet) is inversely proportional to the number of humans living on the planet above perhaps one or two billion.

But, at the same time, the parent-child bond and peoples' strong feelings that they have a right to their own biological offspring are extremely strong. In light of this, how do you think we could actually achieve a reduction in the number of humans without simply waiting for the inevitable major disaster that our numbers predict is in the immediate offing?

[anunitu]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

China limited the number of offspring and it caused an issue,but then they have more absolute control of their people. I do agree that over population is a concern now,and will become more of an issue when we can not keep up with the resources to feed and more so when we hit the point of energy being harder to produce. I think if we do nothing then we may hit a point of "purging" the flock and I hope we never come to that point.

[Aeran]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

It's been shown again and again that birth rates decline as the standard of living increases, so it seems to me that we need to do everything we can to improve the standard of living in countries which currently lag behind the western world in that area.

[DanieMarie]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

I think overconsumption and waste are pretty bad as well. Birth rates do decline as standard of living increases, but unfortunately consumption skyrockets at that point. I'm not saying that standard of living shouldn't rise everywhere (it should), but I think we need to rethink how we live, use things, reuse things, and throw things out, and remodel our economic system based on continuous growth. It's not sustainable. It's sustainable until everyone in the world reaches where we are, but what then? Better sort that out now rather than then.

[Sean R. R.]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

A couple of nukes in China and India would do some good to overpopulation... Lmao just kidding.

>.>

Well, I believe overpopulation is a bigger issue than people thought. Sure, we can fit the whole world population into texas, but that's not the issue. The real issue is the space required to produce food for all these people.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

I think the problem isn't really the number of people, but the fact that some people have so big a share of the earth's resources while others just manage a place to be born and a place to die.
Maybe if we could all sort that out, then things could settle down a bit...

[ChainLightning]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

Not to debate the merits of managing human population growth, or anything, but... I don't really feel it's a problem, let alone the biggest problem. The parasite, known as homo sapiens, has a limited existence. Whether or not they, or we, outgrow the limited supply lines of resources - from fresh water to food to housing to squelching communicable diseases - it becomes a moot point, a fissure in an otherwise crumbled rock.

We have this misconception that our home is permanent; it isn't. That our environment is stable and immutable; it isn't. That what we have always had, we will always have; we won't. There's not thing one we can do to change that. We're simply at the mercy of nature. Locally, globally, universally - our days are numbered. Humankind - 0. Nature - 1.

[Shahaku]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

Education. especially for females. Even more than standard of living, this has been shown to reduce births immensely. When/where women are educated they tend to start having children later and have fewer children over the course of their lifetime. Educated women tend to ensure the education of their children, both male and female, whether by putting them in school or by teaching them themselves. More available education leads to a higher standard of living, fewer children, etc.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

We have this misconception that our home is permanent; it isn't. That our environment is stable and immutable; it isn't. That what we have always had, we will always have; we won't. There's not thing one we can do to change that. We're simply at the mercy of nature. Locally, globally, universally - our days are numbered. Humankind - 0. Nature - 1.

^^^ This. The sun will eventually enter a red giant phase. If some comet, etc., doesn't take us out first! Nature ALWAYS wins.

As far as the biggest problem in our current civilization: Greed. It's what's behind all the other social problems.

[DanieMarie]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

Education. especially for females. Even more than standard of living, this has been shown to reduce births immensely. When/where women are educated they tend to start having children later and have fewer children over the course of their lifetime. Educated women tend to ensure the education of their children, both male and female, whether by putting them in school or by teaching them themselves. More available education leads to a higher standard of living, fewer children, etc.

Yep, very true. But, if we don't address overconsumption, we're still screwed. I think the cracks of our system are already showing in the developed world.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW I'm not completely non-materialistic and I'm not suggesting that we can't buy things or have possessions or anything. I just think a lot of people need to temper that a lot more. I suspect that most people on this forum already do, but I see so much consumption around me. Like, I know that computers and phones get obsolete pretty quickly, but a) I think it's kind of wrong how that is pushed, and b) most go obsolete slower than a lot of people replace them. I use an iPhone 4...a whole 4 releases ago. It's nearly 3 years old and it works perfectly fine. With a higher usage contract (which I no longer have, as I no longer have high usage thanks to the internet) you can replace your iPhone for about 40 Euros, and my phone company used to call me all the time to try to get me to upgrade. A lot of people around me do upgrade their perfectly good phones for the "latest thing" and it kind of bothers me. As another example, I love fashion, but I am totally against following seasonal fashion trends and buying new clothes every few months based on them. I support cultivating more of a long-time personal style that withstands time (I also think this is more realistic for most people). For me, that mostly tends to be "fashion of the late '50s to early '70s," and it hasn't really changed since I was about 17. I even still have clothes from then (luckily they still fit). I know other people who have found great looks that work for them and wear them for years, and manage not to look dated or frumpy.
And food....yikes, food. We throw out so much food in our part of the world. We could try harder not to do that.

[Lilium of the Valley]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

the biggest problem in the world...
IGNORANCE
*rests her case*

[Ouranos Ouroboros]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

China limited the number of offspring and it caused an issue,but then they have more absolute control of their people. I do agree that over population is a concern now,and will become more of an issue when we can not keep up with the resources to feed and more so when we hit the point of energy being harder to produce. I think if we do nothing then we may hit a point of "purging" the flock and I hope we never come to that point.

China's example is one that I had in mind when I originally posted. They definitely need some form of population control, but andocentric infanticide isn't what I consider a good one.

It's been shown again and again that birth rates decline as the standard of living increases, so it seems to me that we need to do everything we can to improve the standard of living in countries which currently lag behind the western world in that area.

It depends on how you define standard of living. If a wealthy family has two kids, but those two consume more than twelve kids in a poor family, I think there's still a problem.


Nevertheless, I'll agree with you that this could help a lot - especially in places where it's the basics that are lacking.

I think overconsumption and waste are pretty bad as well. Birth rates do decline as standard of living increases, but unfortunately consumption skyrockets at that point. I'm not saying that standard of living shouldn't rise everywhere (it should), but I think we need to rethink how we live, use things, reuse things, and throw things out, and remodel our economic system based on continuous growth. It's not sustainable. It's sustainable until everyone in the world reaches where we are, but what then? Better sort that out now rather than then.

Yep, I think that's a great response to the last post. But I don't think standard of living should rise in a few areas - like, for instance, rich Hollywood neighborhoods. In fact, the wealthiest families in the world might well demonstrate that quality of life is inversely proportional to happiness starting at the level where one has excess luxuries.

A couple of nukes in China and India would do some good to overpopulation... Lmao just kidding.


>.>


Well, I believe overpopulation is a bigger issue than people thought. Sure, we can fit the whole world population into texas, but that's not the issue. The real issue is the space required to produce food for all these people.

The sad thing is that, cruel though it would be, said missiles would do just that. And that's just the sort of solution I want to avoid.


I think you make a good point but that the type of food we eat makes a difference too. For instance, Americans could eliminate their country's greatest greenhouse gas contributor by refusing to eat beef any longer. And, given that it's not terribly good for us, that would actually increase national health as well. Of course, that means you have people living longer, but I still think it's not a bad place to begin removing the crazy agriculture-business models we've got here in America.

I think the problem isn't really the number of people, but the fact that some people have so big a share of the earth's resources while others just manage a place to be born and a place to die.
Maybe if we could all sort that out, then things could settle down a bit...

I think you have a good point, but I still think sheer number is a problem based on many of the population graphs and stats I've seen. When a species reaches the kind of exponential increase the human race is seeing, it almost always collapses afterwards. And the collapses can be very catastrophic.

Not to debate the merits of managing human population growth, or anything, but... I don't really feel it's a problem, let alone the biggest problem. The parasite, known as homo sapiens, has a limited existence. Whether or not they, or we, outgrow the limited supply lines of resources - from fresh water to food to housing to squelching communicable diseases - it becomes a moot point, a fissure in an otherwise crumbled rock.


We have this misconception that our home is permanent; it isn't. That our environment is stable and immutable; it isn't. That what we have always had, we will always have; we won't. There's not thing one we can do to change that. We're simply at the mercy of nature. Locally, globally, universally - our days are numbered. Humankind - 0. Nature - 1.

You have every right to your opinion, just as I've ever right to say that I think it's dead wrong. I don't believe my home is permanent; my home is the otherworld, and it's even more mutable than the planet where I currently reside in physical form.


I feel that you are making an argument based on "all-or-nothing" argumentation - a type of argumentation in which a false dichotomy strategy is employed. By virtue of this sort of argument, people often feel that it's easier to agree that it's hopeless and wait for destruction. This is just the type of argument that's likely to lead to the false dichotomy of humans versus nature instead of the harmony of humans as a part of nature. In my opinion, you can debate why we should give up all you want… over on Planet B.


You do, possibly inadvertently, bring up an interesting point about our place in the cosmos. You seem to be assuming that all humans will die while still Earthbound. Do you think we should try to terraform other planets (or moons, etc.)? Or do you think we should keep from spreading into the larger universe?

Education. especially for females. Even more than standard of living, this has been shown to reduce births immensely. When/where women are educated they tend to start having children later and have fewer children over the course of their lifetime. Educated women tend to ensure the education of their children, both male and female, whether by putting them in school or by teaching them themselves. More available education leads to a higher standard of living, fewer children, etc.

To my mind, this is one of the best answers so far. We can't change the problem of human overpopulation until humans know they have a problem.

^^^ This. The sun will eventually enter a red giant phase. If some comet, etc., doesn't take us out first! Nature ALWAYS wins.


As far as the biggest problem in our current civilization: Greed. It's what's behind all the other social problems.

Again, I believe this is a false "all-or-nothing" argument that pits humans against nature.


I do think you make an excellent point about greed, though. Oh, I'm thinking in terms of greed for money and material goods, but I'm also thinking of the greedy assumption that many parents make - that they can have as many of their own children as they want, even if they know nothing about parenting and there are tons of kids who need homes, because they have some sort of biological right to own small humans with similar DNA to theirs.

Yep, very true. But, if we don't address overconsumption, we're still screwed. I think the cracks of our system are already showing in the developed world.


- - - Updated - - -


BTW I'm not completely non-materialistic and I'm not suggesting that we can't buy things or have possessions or anything. I just think a lot of people need to temper that a lot more. I suspect that most people on this forum already do, but I see so much consumption around me. Like, I know that computers and phones get obsolete pretty quickly, but a) I think it's kind of wrong how that is pushed, and b) most go obsolete slower than a lot of people replace them. I use an iPhone 4...a whole 4 releases ago. It's nearly 3 years old and it works perfectly fine. With a higher usage contract (which I no longer have, as I no longer have high usage thanks to the internet) you can replace your iPhone for about 40 Euros, and my phone company used to call me all the time to try to get me to upgrade. A lot of people around me do upgrade their perfectly good phones for the "latest thing" and it kind of bothers me. As another example, I love fashion, but I am totally against following seasonal fashion trends and buying new clothes every few months based on them. I support cultivating more of a long-time personal style that withstands time (I also think this is more realistic for most people). For me, that mostly tends to be "fashion of the late '50s to early '70s," and it hasn't really changed since I was about 17. I even still have clothes from then (luckily they still fit). I know other people who have found great looks that work for them and wear them for years, and manage not to look dated or frumpy.
And food....yikes, food. We throw out so much food in our part of the world. We could try harder not to do that.

I think I can see where you're coming from. I believe that we all need food, water, a voice, love… all the necessities. And I believe that a few luxuries are necessary too. I don't see a problem with us having books to read, a computer, a piano - because we use all of those things. But, when I see people who have more than they'll ever use - or even find time to use - I get upset about their greed.


Ugh - I'm so sick of manufactured obsolescence! Our last computer lasted for eight years, but this one will last maybe four or five. Our last tv lasted about 25 years, but the one we have now might last 10 or 12 if we're lucky. It's sickening how short-term the profit goals of so many companies are.


This upsets me the most when it comes to energy. Every second, the sun sends more energy our way than our species has ever used. It's not difficult to harness or use, but we aren't using it because of a few greedy individuals who don't want to "earn" slightly less than a killing (quite literally).

the biggest problem in the world...
IGNORANCE
*rests her case*

I think that human overpopulation is the biggest physical problem we face. Even at the rate we consume, we'd be ok if there were only a billion of us.


However, I believe ignorance (fixed by education - see response above) is the fuel of human overpopulation and perhaps the biggest mental and emotional problem we face. I think we'd stop thinking we have the right to extra luxuries and too many kids if we could see how the displacement of our resources affects those who need them.


In general, I think education is the best solution. Unfortunately, we're often too busy making war or hoarding resources or consuming conspicuously to fund it.


I don't think anything would help as much as education (although it's still going to be very challenging to define that education). But many of you have hit upon other viable solutions (basically, everything but the "wait for death" and "kill 'em all" arguments, in my opinion). I would also like to add that I think it would help (at least, here in America and probably the Western World in general) to move away from mandatory monogamy as a model for relationships. I think allowing (not enforcing, just allowing) more polyamorous relationships would lead to people having fewer children, eschewing some outdated biological parent models, and providing generally better quality in terms of the care and education of their children.

[DanieMarie]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

Yep, I think that's a great response to the last post. But I don't think standard of living should rise in a few areas - like, for instance, rich Hollywood neighborhoods. In fact, the wealthiest families in the world might well demonstrate that quality of life is inversely proportional to happiness starting at the level where one has excess luxuries.

Hahah that's not what I meant. I didn't mean everyone's standard of living should increase....there are people who have everything they need and more. I meant that overconsumption is a problem in places with high standards of living and that our economy is more or less modelled on continual growth. If more of the world starts abiding by our model, then population decline won't make much of a difference. We need to do both. We need to stop growing as a population and halt and slow our consumption.

In the developed world, we still use a LOT of the world's resources. A lot a lot. We need to use less. Some of us could actually do with a decline in living standards. I'm not a communist and I don't think everyone can realistically be the same. However, I do think that the extremes can be brought down a bit. And hell, even many of the poor in our part of the world consume a lot. They just consume different things.

I think that human overpopulation is the biggest physical problem we face. Even at the rate we consume, we'd be ok if there were only a billion of us.

A few things are wrong with this. For starters, I don't know about that, especially if we're talking about the US. If a billion people consumed like the Americans, we'd be screwed. The statistics are seriously mind boggling. Europe and Canada are pretty bad too, but if you look at the US, the wastage and overconsumption are just mind boggling. When you look at who uses the world's resources, it tends to be us in the developed world. The developing world may be more populated, but they actually use a small portion of global resources. If you want proof, just look at a map of energy usage. China and India are fairly resource intensive, but if you look at who has and uses what, it doesn't tend to be the very poor, who make up a good chunk of that population. China also uses a lot (and I mean a LOT) of resources to produce the goods that we consume in North America, Europe, and Australia. The rich world, basically. Environmental protection in China is also really sad, and the western companies that deal there don't really care about it. They're not forced to care about it and they're rather save money. If we didn't demand a constant stream of cheap products on our side of the world, that wouldn't be a problem.

Second of all, it's NOT realistic to expect only a billion people on this planet. At best we can slow population growth and eventually start to decline it slightly. We are at seven billion people at this point. A good chunk of the world would have to stop having kids immediately in order to bring the population down to even a couple billion in time for our rate of consumption to be ok. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do everything possible to slow and eventually stop population growth (which is realistic...an immediate decline is NOT realistic). I'm just saying that that's only part of the problem. We have billions of people on this planet and that's not going to change very soon. We CAN change how much we use and waste though. We can start making big changes now. People could make a big difference by doing relatively small things in their lives like not driving to the store, not buying new clothes constantly, or keeping their old phone after the new model comes out. There is also a lot of technology available that helps us use our energy resources more efficiently. We see it a lot in Europe because at this point, we HAVE to (population density and all) but it would be really helpful if the rest of the developed world would also adopt it. Those are just small steps and wouldn't fix everything, but they'd do a lot. If we change the culture of our consumption, we can lay the brickwork to make larger changes.

EDIT

Reading this now I think you do get it though I also am ok with a few luxuries. I just think people need to think about how many luxuries they need and how they get them. I even look at my own past and feel a bit disgusted with myself. I started my adult life as a bit of a hippie and I didn't need, want, or expect much at all. I got older and threw my old values away and started buying a lot of stuff. A few years ago I started to think, "wait a second" and stopped. I've been using the same computer for 6 years now and it's still running (though it probably needs more memory) and I'll only replace it when it dies. I buy a lot of clothes and books second hand, because those are things that don't really need to be purchased new. I like to travel, but I try to think about -how- I travel. My family lives across the world, so I can't avoid flying all together, but I can go more places that involve taking the train or ride share. etc. I know a lot of people who live very comfortable, well-off lifestyles, but don't feel the need to buy lots of things. I think it's possible to be comfortable and happy without ruining the world lol.

[ChainLightning]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

You have every right to your opinion, just as I've ever right to say that I think it's dead wrong. I don't believe my home is permanent; my home is the otherworld, and it's even more mutable than the planet where I currently reside in physical form.

Well, if this otherworld is your home, and the place you currently reside isn't, your argument about this one being overpopulated is moot. As in, it's full of transients. Meaning, it isn't the home of humankind it's just some sort of way-side rest.

I feel that you are making an argument based on "all-or-nothing" argumentation - a type of argumentation in which a false dichotomy strategy is employed. By virtue of this sort of argument, people often feel that it's easier to agree that it's hopeless and wait for destruction. This is just the type of argument that's likely to lead to the false dichotomy of humans versus nature instead of the harmony of humans as a part of nature. In my opinion, you can debate why we should give up all you want… over on Planet B.

I'm not going to say you can't feel that way but I am going to say you're wrong. Hopleless, false dichotomy? You haven't read a single thought of mine anywhere on this site, have you? My argument is based on the history of Terra firma, compared to the history of homo sapiens, with due credence given to the circumstances with which this solar system, and indeed galaxy, actually exist in.

The false dichotomy you mention is in thinking that there is any [even potential] harmony between mankind and nature. The ability is not within human nature, by any stretch. Humans try to control and manipulate their environment to suit their needs. That's simply the kind of species that humans are. We create shelters, we provide for convenience, we develop plans, we use a higher primate brain to solve the riddles of luxury and comfort. Against the natural order.

As part of nature, humans have incessantly tried to make themselves aloof from it's laws. They've always sought to overpower the natural order. To rise above the food chain and the niche, the classification of primate. That's not false. And that's not part of any dichotomy. It's an accurate observation of the arrogance of a single species, that thinks it is somehow above reproach and immune to the realities present in the universe.

You do, possibly inadvertently, bring up an interesting point about our place in the cosmos. You seem to be assuming that all humans will die while still Earthbound. Do you think we should try to terraform other planets (or moons, etc.)? Or do you think we should keep from spreading into the larger universe?

Earthbound or not, the species is not permanent. We can run from natural law, all we want, finding new hosts to deplete, wherever we may go. The ultimate fact is that humans are only a temporary affliction. Like all other species, world-wide, universe-wide, whatever, extinction IS inevitable. We are not immune.




In an aside, you seem to assume that you know how I think, feel and believe. I guess I don't have to post anymore... you can do it for me.

[thalassa]

Re: The biggest problem in the world...

The false dichotomy you mention is in thinking that there is any [even potential] harmony between mankind and nature. The ability is not within human nature, by any stretch. Humans try to control and manipulate their environment to suit their needs. That's simply the kind of species that humans are. We create shelters, we provide for convenience, we develop plans, we use a higher primate brain to solve the riddles of luxury and comfort. Against the natural order.

As part of nature, humans have incessantly tried to make themselves aloof from it's laws. They've always sought to overpower the natural order. To rise above the food chain and the niche, the classification of primate. That's not false. And that's not part of any dichotomy. It's an accurate observation of the arrogance of a single species, that thinks it is somehow above reproach and immune to the realities present in the universe.

I disagree with this statement--that what we are doing is against the natural order. Actually, I would say that what we are doing as humans is COMPLETELY because of the natural order of things. But only for one reason. We aren't really all that different from other species, we just think we are. Every species seeks to overcome the natural order, we are just the only species that we know of that seems to do so both consciously and unconsciously. Every species changes their environment, and most of them do so intentionally (not that they intellectually mean to do so, but that they have evolved to do so). For example, the black walnut (Juglans nigra), produces a substance called juglone from its bark, roots, leaves, and nuts. Juglone is an herbacide and many species won't grow at all, and others that can, are often stunted in growth--a number of plants actually do this, the black walnut is just the best at it. Or, for example, the beaver--they can completely altar an entire ecosystem in just a few years. Heck, so can ants. And for many, many other animals, the only thing that keeps them from overwhelming their environment to the point of destruction is that they run out of food or get eaten.

That can happen to us. It used to happen all the time...and even with technology, it will likely happen again, sooner than later. But, IMO...if we stop being like every other species, concerned with only our own immediate survival and comfort, and we start thinking about the big picture (something no other species has the capacity to do and act upon that we know of), we could potentially actually exist within the naural order of things on purpose, instead of being like every other species, and struggling against it, because that is the only thing they can do.

ETA: In the interest of few disclosure, there are also a small number of species that have developed the ability to take advantage of the black walnut, and actually thrive in the presence of juglone. I forgot to add that in there, lol