Global Overpopulation: How Serious is it?

[HVAC Instructor]

In a word: Extremely.

Forget Global Warming. How many humans can this planet sustain? Do you think the Earth can sustain unlimited population growth? Does China have the right idea with the one-child policy?

Before you answer, watch this video series and do the math:

[Bunty]

Oh, well, the skscapers fans would probably say we need to build up and up to put increasing numbers of people.

[mugofbeer]

Maybe before implementing a one child policy, they should start by reducing the numbers of illigitimate children, children born purely so the parents can stay in the US, unwanted children and pregnancies and teenage pregnancy.

[gmwise]

I think we should restrict the number of slow wits....lets get started....
Where's the Republican voters lists...lol

[nik4411]

I think this is and will continue to grow as a huge problem. i often wonder what the earth will be like when i have grandchildren.

[mugofbeer]

Face it, how to you slow down a centuries-old culture of machismo - more children, more masculine? Get ready, the 3rd world countries will probably want developed countries to fork over a few hundred billion to help.

[HVAC Instructor]

Face it, how to you slow down a centuries-old culture of machismo - more children, more masculine? Get ready, the 3rd world countries will probably want developed countries to fork over a few hundred billion to help.

So, what...we do nothing and just overpopulate until critical mass is reached and suffer the consequences?

[mugofbeer]

So, what...we do nothing and just overpopulate until critical mass is reached and suffer the consequences?

So what? You are already going to have to pay out of your own pocket to 100+ 3rd world countries because you are a citizen of an evil CO2 emitter. Are you also in favor of handing over your wallet so citizens of the non-industrialized world can stop having sex? Its more than that, it's a part of the culture of most of these countries that having more children gives you a better image among your peers. The Global Warming summit has proven that the non-industrialized nations simply want a wealth transfer. When this is over and the attention turns to overpopulation, they will simply want more of a wealth transfer.

[HVAC Instructor]

So what? You are already going to have to pay out of your own pocket to 100+ 3rd world countries because you are a citizen of an evil CO2 emitter. Are you also in favor of handing over your wallet so citizens of the non-industrialized world can stop having sex? Its more than that, it's a part of the culture of most of these countries that having more children gives you a better image among your peers. The Global Warming summit has proven that the non-industrialized nations simply want a wealth transfer. When this is over and the attention turns to overpopulation, they will simply want more of a wealth transfer.

So you say we do nothing then and suffer the consequences?

Screw yourself because you think some poor bastard might get some of your money?

OK. Lets just keep on breeding and doing nothing. You'll be dead and gone by then maybe, but your kids and grand kids will pay. But hey, at least some third world scum of a human being didn't get in your wallet...that's all that matters, right?

[CuatrodeMayo]

Let's just wait for Walmart to move us to big spaceships and let robots clean up our mess:

[gmwise]

So what? You are already going to have to pay out of your own pocket to 100+ 3rd world countries because you are a citizen of an evil CO2 emitter. Are you also in favor of handing over your wallet so citizens of the non-industrialized world can stop having sex? Its more than that, it's a part of the culture of most of these countries that having more children gives you a better image among your peers. The Global Warming summit has proven that the non-industrialized nations simply want a wealth transfer. When this is over and the attention turns to overpopulation, they will simply want more of a wealth transfer.

Ok...let me guess you dont have a clue do you?
You have never been to a 3rd World Country, or even seen a film clip...right?!
They have children so they can help with the labor of the farm, or having at least one child to survive, the mortality rate is high.
Are you really this clueless or are you parroting some blabber from Rush, or your local militia group...dumba**

[mugofbeer]

So you say we do nothing then and suffer the consequences?

Screw yourself because you think some poor bastard might get some of your money?

OK. Lets just keep on breeding and doing nothing. You'll be dead and gone by then maybe, but your kids and grand kids will pay. But hey, at least some third world scum of a human being didn't get in your wallet...that's all that matters, right?

HVAC, its getting where they are getting MOST of my money once the Dems finish what they are starting. The Obama admin. is bad enough but then the UN wants a world tax, and huge cash transfers to pay for the cost of a still-questionable CO2/Global Warming issue. Then they will want more to "educate" people to not have children? The money just isn't there anymore after worldwide capital losses of more than $5 trillion dollars in the last year. Just exactly what do you expect people to live off of when they retire?

And by the way, chill out a bit. Its a conversation, not a fistfight.

[HVAC Instructor]

And by the way, chill out a bit. Its a conversation, not a fistfight.

How in the world did you come up with that notion?

HVAC, its getting where they are getting MOST of my money once the Dems finish what they are starting. The Obama admin. is bad enough but then the UN wants a world tax, and huge cash transfers to pay for the cost of a still-questionable CO2/Global Warming issue. Then they will want more to "educate" people to not have children? The money just isn't there anymore after worldwide capital losses of more than $5 trillion dollars in the last year. Just exactly what do you expect people to live off of when they retire?

Go get your last tax return and do the math and see what percentage you actually paid after deductions. Bottom line to bottom line. Ever actually done that? I have. Do it and you'll find you are not actually paying as much as you think you are, and nowhere near what the Rushbots think they actually pay. We pay extremely low taxes in the United States, especially with 2 wars going and the economy in the tank. How much tax pain are you feeling as a result of the billions being expended in Iraq and Afghanistan? How long do you think we can keep it up?

Why is it when a problem that we all understand effects all of us like global population growth that folks worry about their money so much? You think you can take it with you when you are dead? Think it will do your grand kids any good when life on the planet becomes unsustainable?

We cannot just keep whining and repeating the conservobot media talking points about taxes and deferring taking action to keep life sustainable on Earth. The time for solutions is now, because there is less time remaining to fix it than you think. If we don't fix it, nature will with disease famine and wars over remaining resources. Would you pay a little more now to avoid that? Or is your money worth more than your children and grand childrens future?

[gmwise]

I think if a tax must be levy if there's a war of choice, in addition to a draft, I wager it would be less likely to happen..

[mugofbeer]

How in the world did you come up with that notion?



Go get your last tax return and do the math and see what percentage you actually paid after deductions. Bottom line to bottom line. Ever actually done that? I have. Do it and you'll find you are not actually paying as much as you think you are, and nowhere near what the Rushbots think they actually pay. We pay extremely low taxes in the United States, especially with 2 wars going and the economy in the tank. How much tax pain are you feeling as a result of the billions being expended in Iraq and Afghanistan? How long do you think we can keep it up?

Why is it when a problem that we all understand effects all of us like global population growth that folks worry about their money so much? You think you can take it with you when you are dead? Think it will do your grand kids any good when life on the planet becomes unsustainable?

We cannot just keep whining and repeating the conservobot media talking points about taxes and deferring taking action to keep life sustainable on Earth. The time for solutions is now, because there is less time remaining to fix it than you think. If we don't fix it, nature will with disease famine and wars over remaining resources. Would you pay a little more now to avoid that? Or is your money worth more than your children and grand childrens future?

I pay a low personal rate of tax because it is my business to reduce taxes for the wealthy and I apply what I do to my own situation. Most people in my income bracket pay significantly higher taxes because they don't seek proper help.

My statements were concern for the future and paying for the unpayable deficits this administration is building up. My criticism of them now is that the economy is showing a turn for recovery yet they are still talking of "spending our way out of the recession", new stimulus plans, using paid back TARP money to "stimulus" new jobs into existance, etc. If they really wanted to create jobs, it would be done with a tax deduction for new job creation aimed at business of all sizes.

My fear is income tax rate hikes that are certain to come will reach far beyond "the wealthy" making more than $200K/yr. It will reach down to anyone making much of anything. Heap on top of that additional taxes to pay for some sort of health plan. Heap on top of that more money out of our pockets to give to 3rd world countries under the guise of CO2 reductions that will just go into some corrupt politicians pockets. Heap on that more money the 3rd world will want to help them reduce their birth rates. Again, there simply isn't enough money to do all of this.

Simple economic theory shows that if people don't have money to spend, the economy will falter. "Reaganomics" worked because it put money in people's pockets and they spent it, taking us out of the early 80's recession. Right now, this recession has been so deep and so long lasting because people are simply tapped out. There is no more money to spend. There is no way in hell increasing taxes and taking money from us all to pay for all the programs this administration wants to undertake is going to be positive for this ecomony.

[bluedogok]

The problem with sending money to "underdeveloped" or "third world" countries is that is usually ends up doing nothing more than lining the pockets of whatever dictator is in charge and never makes it to the intended recipients. We already send way to much to them already that is not serving it's intended purposes, so forking over billions of dollars to these people does nothing to advance population control or reducing carbon output.

Count me as one who sees no value in the transfer of wealth from industrialized nations to the select few in developing countries in the name of those two agendas. We already do enough of that having moved most of the backbone of our nation there in manufacturing and now service industries...and for the most part, people have to choose on their own not to have children, the Chinese gov't is not as successful with their method as they like to claim.

[mugofbeer]

As I said earlier, in so many cultures, its a "macho" thing to have more and more children. Try seeing how "ugly" American's start being painted if we try to instill on them that we don't want them to have more.

[MikeOKC]

Oh, well, the skscapers fans would probably say we need to build up and up to put increasing numbers of people.

Building "up" needs a certain class of people. Look at S. Central LA/Compton at the high-rise projects. Crime traps. It's become so bad they've been torn down in many cities and replaced with more manageable low-income housing. But the projects and their gangs will always be the projects, tall, spread out, whatever. Can you imagine Zimbabwe with Mugabe's thugs running high-rise buildings for the poor? EGAD! In fact, most of Africa. Hate to say it, but it's true.

[Chance23]

As I said earlier, in so many cultures, its a "macho" thing to have more and more children. Try seeing how "ugly" American's start being painted if we try to instill on them that we don't want them to have more.

No, in so many cultures it's the "hey, we need labor to help our subsistence farms" thing to have more and more children. Machismo has little to do with it, agrarian societies have more kids because it leads to more hands to work.

[HVAC Instructor]

I pay a low personal rate of tax because it is my business to reduce taxes for the wealthy and I apply what I do to my own situation. Most people in my income bracket pay significantly higher taxes because they don't seek proper help.

Wrong. You pay a low rate of tax because of United States tax law, just like everybody else here.

So, your answer is that we should let global population grow until we eventually have to kill each other to survive because of personal greed and your fear of possibly having to pay higher taxes?

[HVAC Instructor]

The problem with sending money to "underdeveloped" or "third world" countries is that is usually ends up doing nothing more than lining the pockets of whatever dictator is in charge and never makes it to the intended recipients. We already send way to much to them already that is not serving it's intended purposes, so forking over billions of dollars to these people does nothing to advance population control or reducing carbon output.

Count me as one who sees no value in the transfer of wealth from industrialized nations to the select few in developing countries in the name of those two agendas. We already do enough of that having moved most of the backbone of our nation there in manufacturing and now service industries...and for the most part, people have to choose on their own not to have children, the Chinese gov't is not as successful with their method as they like to claim.

What does your post have to do with solving global overpopulation?

You don't want to pay anything to solve the problem. We see that. So, how do we resolve the ever increasing global population increase? How do we feed the global population with finite energy resources?

[bluedogok]

What does your post have to do with solving global overpopulation?

I thought we were talking about using the developed nations tax dollars to help pay other countries to have fewer children...all in the name of "overpopulation"

You don't want to pay anything to solve the problem. We see that. So, how do we resolve the ever increasing global population increase? How do we feed the global population with finite energy resources?

Pretty much, there is nothing we can do short of population eradication that will "solve" an overpopulation crisis. We don't have "World Wars" anymore which effectively reduces the population by millions. Most diseases have been dealt with to a certain point to where we do not have a black plague sweeping through countries killing off thousands. I think there can be successful efforts in the "civilized" world but there are so many parts of this world that are considered "uncivilized" and as others have stated, those are potential laborers for them and therefore there is no incentive for them to not have them. Throwing money at other countries to stop having children isn't going to work, all their leaders are going to do is pocket the money and ignore their population and the reasons why they received the money. So in other words, money is not the solution but that is what their leaders always want to discuss anything that impacts the world...and they will continue to ignore the problem.

The problem is trying to apply macro solutions to solve micro problems.

[HVAC Instructor]

I thought we were talking about using the developed nations tax dollars to help pay other countries to have fewer children...all in the name of "overpopulation"

No, that is NOT what we were talking about. That is what some people chose to interject because they have this irrational fear that it might actually cost them some money, time and percieved inconvience to solve the global over population problem. Here's the OP:

In a word: Extremely.

Forget Global Warming. How many humans can this planet sustain? Do you think the Earth can sustain unlimited population growth? Does China have the right idea with the one-child policy?

Before you answer, watch this video series and do the math:

Did you watch the video series and do the math? Apparently not given yours and others responses.

The video series is extremely educational and contains zero liberal or conservative fluff or rhetoric - Only simple mathematics that cannot be refuted.

Pretty much, there is nothing we can do short of population eradication that will "solve" an overpopulation crisis.

What a defeatist attitude! So, you have no sloution or reasonable suggestions? Surely we can come up with something.......

We don't have "World Wars" anymore which effectively reduces the population by millions. Most diseases have been dealt with to a certain point to where we do not have a black plague sweeping through countries killing off thousands. I think there can be successful efforts in the "civilized" world but there are so many parts of this world that are considered "uncivilized" and as others have stated, those are potential laborers for them and therefore there is no incentive for them to not have them. Throwing money at other countries to stop having children isn't going to work, all their leaders are going to do is pocket the money and ignore their population and the reasons why they received the money. So in other words, money is not the solution but that is what their leaders always want to discuss anything that impacts the world...and they will continue to ignore the problem.

Why is it that when faced with a global problem that is mathematically proven will cause human chaos beyond all imagination, the first thing many people think of is how much MONEY it will cost them? So what if it costs some money at some point? Would you rather die with a coffin full of money? Will you be any less dead? Will your grandchildren survive this generational conservative selfishness?

The problem is trying to apply macro solutions to solve micro problems.

Global over population and mass starvation is a micro problem?????

[mugofbeer]

Wrong. You pay a low rate of tax because of United States tax law, just like everybody else here.

So, your answer is that we should let global population grow until we eventually have to kill each other to survive because of personal greed and your fear of possibly having to pay higher taxes?

HVAC - exactly how are you planning to stop someone in Bolivia or Burkina Faso or Indonesia from having sex?

[RedDirt717]

I think we should restrict the number of slow wits....lets get started....
Where's the Republican voters lists...lol

Fascist.