Over population

When I was in grade school, the world's population was reported to be 3 billion.
Now it's 6.8 billion. I always scoffed at nut jobs warning about overpopulation. Now I wonder at the effect of the unbridled growth.


Recently I spent a couple hours with a high muckety muck from the CDC.
I brought up the fact that people with the mutated gene Delta 32 are immune to aids and the bubonic plague. Scientists are now starting to use gene splicing to combat aids and other immune deficiency's this way.


To my surprise he wasn't for it. He said it was nature's way. He added, “How many kids do you see today that are alive with severe allergies? Lung problems that in times past would have been fatal early on. We are cultivating masses of people with no ability to pass on strong immune systems.”


“Epidemics are brutal but necessary for the long term health and survival of our species.”

We are cultivating masses of people with no ability to pass on strong immune systems.”


“Epidemics are brutal but necessary for the long term health and survival of our species.” Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

All that is probably true...but what are the options? As the saying goes, every man will die of prostate cancer if something else doesn't kill him first.

Science and technology does solve problems...but that doesn't mean that a whole list of other problems don't take their place. If most eveyone died by the time they were 50...then there wouldn't be a lot of "older population" problems to address.

So far, Death is pretty much un-cureable. All we are doing is changing when it happens.

In my opinion, this is one of those questions which, from a global perspective, leads you to one answer, but on closer examination quickly inclines you in the opposite direction.

Does the earth have too many people, by far, for its long term health? I strongly suspect it does. So those things which hold down or reverse population growth are, from that perspective, desirable.

OK, but let's get specific. On what basis do "we" decide what measures, both passively and pro-actively, should be taken to adress population issues. And just who is the 'we' who gets to decide? Human history on this sort of subject (think eugenics in all its forms) inspires no confidence at all.

let the old people take a pain pill and lay down quietly.....well except me

let the old people take a pain pill and lay down quietly.....well except me Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I am reminded of Soylent Green and Logan's Run.

I am reminded of Soylent Green and Logan's Run. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

obama

I don't think we'll see global lethal pandemics. I do think we will see ever increasing localized collapses of food supplies and accompanying epidemics. There are too many people and nothing is being done about it.

I don't think we'll see global lethal pandemics. I do think we will see ever increasing localized collapses of food supplies and accompanying epidemics. There are too many people and nothing is being done about it. Originally Posted by Happy Diver

you were named happy for a reason

you were named happy for a reason Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

LOL. The Diver part of me is always happy. Don't get me started on environmental issues and overpopulation.

People are breeding themselves to death.

Is it harsh to say it? "survival of the fittest" also includes the Human, not just relegated to the animal kingdom.

We have pills to wake us up in the morning, pills to put us down at night, pills to keep the kids focused in class. We are a pharmecutical society. Is that what Nature intended?

Is it the Humans time to move on?

We have weakened the human body and are passing on a weakened future society, where does advanced science and population density meet?

We fight to preserve extinction of animals; maybe some species are hardwired to reach a certain point in evolution and then Nature says "time to move on."

One assumes facts that might not be correct.

I once saw a History Channel show that was discussing Polio. It was postulated that the Polio virus had always been around. But, it was only with the coming of human cleanliness that was spread after the turn of the century that it flourished. It flourished though, because there were more children staying alive, because they didn’t die by other reasons related to lack of cleanliness. Cleanliness, cleaner water and food, etc. allowed more children to live, but those children were more susceptible to Polio…so it spread and flourished.

But just because a virus might develop that could kill off a large percentage of the population today, does not mean that such virus will kill off the folks who would have survived anyway, if we didn’t have all the “pills” that keep us feeling more fit today. It just might feel that way because a lot of folks would die.

In other words, if you have 100 “A” quality people…and science develops a pill B that allows another 100 “B” quality people to live…and then science develops another pill C that allows another 100 “C” quality people to live. Just because a virus that comes along that attacks “B” and “C” quality people…and the world has some 200 people that die…so everyone thinks it is really bad. Such a fact does not mean that any of the “A” quality people will die as a result.

So, which is better? Do nothing and only allow the “A” quality to have their long and happy life? Or develop the pills and allow some “B” and “C” quality people to live…at least for a while.? I’m not sure that the fact that, on average, society may be more susceptible to a pandemic, means that those folks who already had high immunities has diminished to any degree. You can’t apply averages to individuals…and least not using logic.

One assumes facts that might not be correct.

I once saw a History Channel show that was discussing Polio. It was postulated that the Polio virus had always been around. But, it was only with the coming of human cleanliness that was spread after the turn of the century that it flourished. It flourished though, because there were more children staying alive, because they didn’t die by other reasons related to lack of cleanliness. Cleanliness, cleaner water and food, etc. allowed more children to live, but those children were more susceptible to Polio…so it spread and flourished.

But just because a virus might develop that could kill off a large percentage of the population today, does not mean that such virus will kill off the folks who would have survived anyway, if we didn’t have all the “pills” that keep us feeling more fit today. It just might feel that way because a lot of folks would die.

In other words, if you have 100 “A” quality people…and science develops a pill B that allows another 100 “B” quality people to live…and then science develops another pill C that allows another 100 “C” quality people to live. Just because a virus that comes along that attacks “B” and “C” quality people…and the world has some 200 people that die…so everyone thinks it is really bad. Such a fact does not mean that any of the “A” quality people will die as a result.

So, which is better? Do nothing and only allow the “A” quality to have their long and happy life? Or develop the pills and allow some “B” and “C” quality people to live…at least for a while.? I’m not sure that the fact that, on average, society may be more susceptible to a pandemic, means that those folks who already had high immunities has diminished to any degree. You can’t apply averages to individuals…and least not using logic. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Huh??????????????????

You getting ready to run for some kinda of political office RK? If so keep talking like that!

It is a biosphere question.

The reality is no matter what we do, this little terrarium of ours called earth will always correct itself and strive toward balance.

The herd will get thinned one way or another.

Disease, pestilence, or natural disaster?

Either way there is a finite amount that will be supported by the ecosystem, no matter how much blatting we do about the fairness of it all.

To answer the question..who knows but.there are a finite number of resources, so if we have not reached the population tipping point we will at some point with continued present birth rates.


btw...jARED DIAMOND thinks the earth can sustain 9 billion people but not much more than that. google him is you do not care to trust my recollection. I sure don't.

btw...jARED DIAMOND thinks the earth can sustain 9 billion people but not much more than that. google him is you do not care to trust my recollection. I sure don't. Originally Posted by WTF

And Foghorn Leghorn says..."Clunk enough people and we'll have a nation of lumpheads"

Not sure what any of all that has to do with the subject. But as long as were just posting what someone else says.