[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Overpopulation (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 9/13/2007 10:10:40 PM EDT
|
U.S. Census Population Clock Does anyone believe that the US is overpopulated? If not, at what point would you consider it to be? (in millions) Does anyone think that at some point in the near future our government will need to regulate population? How relevant/important is this issue to you? My personal beliefs are that overpopulation can be linked to almost every issue humans face on this Earth, yet it is seldom a topic of dicussion. |
The whole world is overpopulated. Yet the old model of we will run out of food by X was wrong because it failed to account for technology.
China yes, but it will never happen here.
I think it is beyond dispute that interpersonal violence, crime, stress etc. increase as more and more people occupy the same space, i.e. population density increases. |
I tend to agree that over population is a primary cause of many issues we face but I am inclined to believe that it is more population densities that cause our problems. |
With the exception of China, the problem is UNDERPOPULATION... Europe & Russia are DEPOPULATING We are BARELY BREAKING EVEN... The US is NOT overpopulated, we have space for at least another 200 million.... There is plenty of wide-open land and at least one state that until recently only had 1 area code... There's a huge amount of 'open country' that could easily support development... If only we could get the population growth to fill it.... |
|
Subtract the 15 + million illegal aliens that already live here and factor out the 10 kid or more kids each of them are going to have, the exponential growth in their numbers due to their reproductive rates and the numbers would would appear a lot better. Overpopulation, otherwise known as the "population bomb", is the crap they taught in college in the 60s and 70s, yet the same libtards are now telling us that we need to import mexicans by the millions because we're short of people.  |
Apparently you have never been in an airplane. Didja ever notice all that open space down there? Yep, that's space where people could live. Population density is a choice, no one forces another to live in a city. ETA: The whole idea of overpopulation is patently absurd. |
Yep, spot on. Many in the western world are worrying about over population when in many country's there's the beginnings of population crash. Many country's in the future need to worry about who's going to take over their lands than about over population. The hordes of the primitive with a fighting faith against the dwindling advanced. |
|
Ok, lets look at some numbers to see if 'overpopulation' is a huge concern for the planet: [Alternate title: LC's off-the-cuff breakdown of the world's population-to-space ratio] First off: World population: 6,671,226,000 (July 1, 2007, UN estimate) US Population: 302,763,469 1 square mile = 27 878 400 square feet 1 square mile = 640 acre 1 acre = 43 560 square feet Land Surface area of the world: 57,308,738 sq. miles (36677592320 acres; 1597675921459200 sq. feet) North America area: 9,400,000 sq. miles (6016000000 acres; 262056960000000 sq. feet) US area: 3,537,441 sq. miles (2263962240 acres; 98618195174400 sq. feet) Land Surface area of the world: 57308738 sq. miles (36677592320 acres; 1597675921459200 sq. feet) divided by 6671226000 people equals 0.00859 sq. miles 5.49 acres 239487.6 sq. feet for everyone to stand in North America area: 9400000 sq. miles (6016000000 acres; 262056960000000 sq. feet) divided by 6671226000 people equals 0.0014 sq. miles (approx.) 0.9 acres (approx.) 39281.68 sq. feet (approx.) for everyone to stand in US area: 3537441 sq. miles (2263962240 acres; 98618195174400 sq. feet) divided by 6671226000 people equals 0.0005 sq. miles (approx.) 0.34 acres (approx.) 14782.6 sq. feet (approx.) for everyone to stand in Let's put this into some understandable terms: 6671226000 people in the world Giving them 3 sq feet to stand in (2' wide x 1.5' deep space- arbitrary estimate, sure some people are fatter, many are much smaller [babies, children, women]): 20013678000 sq feet 459450.8 acres (approx.) 717.9 square mile (approx.) needed Rhode Island (our smallest State)=1,545 square miles That is over twice the space needed for everyone in the planet to stand at one time. Using 60% the planet's surface area as a guide (cutting out nearly half to well account for frozen/arid/barren areas), that gives everyone 3.3 acres to work/plant/live on. Assuming a nuclear family of 2 adults, 2.5 children, that gives each family 14.85 acres each to do what they want with. Considering that many people will choose to migrate to cities, leaving the land we were allotting to them to be used more efficiently by farmers/producers in outlying areas, that figure arguably is much higher for useful purposes. Further considering that the division of labor (trade & markets, each person specializing instead of each person having to produce their own needs themselves) multiplies our usefulness, and since many people are happy maintaining MUCH less land or even dwelling in apartments- we start to realize that the space NEEDED to sustain this many people is a small percentage of that acreage. Relatively few people, going by overall percentages- even in the US, where people are more likely to be able to afford it- have or need more than an acre or two of land, and many apartment dwellers fit many people onto a fraction of an acre. In short- even if everyone was to do away with the division of labor and try to be almost completely self sufficient, an efficient use of technology/resources/methods would arguably allow us the ability to do so with the world's current population. That never need happen, though, because it is more efficient to allow the bulk of the population to consolidate, and we DO have the division of labor. There is plenty of room, and-even if we are slowly growing in population- our continuing advances in methods/technology will continue to account for it, allowing us to garner more and more use out of our available space. |
|
People seem to never understand that the worlds, hell let's not talk about the world, let's talk about America. Fuck the world unless we're talking about letting their crotch puppies come here to relieve congestion at home. Many people seem to be under the spell of the logical phallic, lol, that every square inch of the country is equally habitable, properly supported with an appropriate amount of infrastructure, and equally desirable to live on. Obviously, to anyone paying even the slightest amount of attention this isn't the case. No one but the .gov has the power to force everyone to live equidistant from each other. Do the America isn't full and there is still room for plenty more crowd want the government to control where you can move? Do we want mass relocation, infrastructure building programs, and do you want to be a slave to the .go to tell you where to live, where to work, and where to play? How about building racial diversity while we're at it. Do you want to be told to go where there isn't enough of your kind in order to build a better world? Obviously not. It also isn't going to happen. Cities are started in areas because of the location. Places are built up because people desire to live there. You can't beat the whims and desires of millions of people. The cities will grow despite every one's assertions that there are room in there hills and everyone should move out to the boonies in order to reduce the effects of population congestion. Yes, we could theoretically fit much more people within our borders, but who the god damned hell wants to be the first muther fucker to move out to Death Valley.  You fist all the 'plenty of people pack in in tight and deep people'.Remove all the illegals and their spawn brood and it'd be a good start. |
You must have missed the overpopulation scares of the 1970's. It was OMG there are so many people, we can't possibly feed them all now, much less when we have more people. Why do you think they made the Soylent Green movie... Yea, the world population is now double what it was back then-still no problem. Get out of CA for a while, and you'll see the thousands of square miles in the US that have never seen a human live on them once in history. This is a BIG country. We could probably sustain a billion people or more. Half to two-thirds would live in and around the big cities. The rest scattered throughout the country side. |
While your numbers are slightly interesting, they really don't have anything to do with overpopulation. 1. Every square foot of the earth is not habitable, there are areas with no infrastructure and harsh climate. 2. Food. X amount can be grown to support X amount of people. Farmland is disappearing at an alarming rate to make way for McMansions on 1/4 acre lots. 3. Water. The next resource battles will be over water. There simply isn't enough to keep up the drastic population rise since the early 1900's. 4. Resources. You can alreasy see the problems with oil and power related to the population of the planet. That's just a couple of things. |
|
We have such an overpopulation problem we have to import illegals Typical leftist bullshit has all the classic markers of communist plant divide and conquer strategy The sky is falling-Check Junk Science-Check Requires Intrusive Government intervention into peoples lives-Check It has the leftist trifecta If there is any population problem at all it is a shrinking population and some areas have density problems.... why some people like to live like insects escapes me |
+1 IMHO, this is a pretty interesting presentation on population issues and resources: Dr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy The retired Professor of Physics from the University of Colorado in Boulder examines the arithmetic of steady growth, continued over modest periods of time, in a finite environment. These concepts are applied to populations and to fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. |
|
Tell you what. Why don't you practice what you preach and leave the rest of us alone....mmmmkay? Go ahead and apply your policy preferences for government intrusion in YOUR LITTLE TOWN or city where people like you are the majority and see what happens. If paradise on earth breaks out, then we'll all know how smart you are. If instead you start running out of everything and the local economy tanks, then we'll know zero population growth is a recipe for disaster. Given the stakes it's better to do the experiment in a small locale first for a 3 generations before applying it globally because we as a planet would only have one chance to get it right if the materialists are wrong (while we've been expanding population forever and there's been no catastrophe or famine ANYWHERE that wasn't caused by politics rather than simple natural depletion.) I for one look forward to the coming future where most liberals will be old retirees wearing tie-die and[edit] in their gated retirement 'communes' while the rest of us get on with humanity with our average family sizes of 5 children per couple. yeeeeeeeeeehawwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!  |
Sounds good to me. Go forth and multiple. |
I mean, How the hell do you do this shit in your head?
|
|
The US is not nearly the most densely populated country. I just ran some rough numbers. Taking into account all of the land area of the Earth, and decreasing that by 75% to account for unlivable areas, etc., each of the 8,000,000,000 or so people on Earth would still get over 50,000 square feet of space. That's not bad. Taking into account multiple-storied buildings and families, that's a lot more space. Using equivalent math (surface area reduced by 75%), each person in the US would get about 85,000 square feet. The US, and the world, could triple its population and survive just fine, barring action of governments, like in Africa. |
|
|
Since large cities are only supposed to exist in nice places, then Moscow and Las Vegas should be gone. The population explosion myth is talked about plenty. Its shoved down are throat constantly. It’s not based on anything real. People really concerned about too large a population resulting in food shortages don't pay farmers not to grow crops. People like to live close to other people for certain reasons, more job opportunities, companies have a bigger labor pool, better night life, better shopping. On the other hand there are disavantages, traffic jams, crime, lack of space. Its a trade off. Any messing with the number of people to get rid of the disavantages only results with less of the advantages. The smart answer is to solve the disavantages without thinking too many people. There is nothing new about these problems. Cities 2 thousand years ago had these problems. Rome dealt with its problem of traffic by having deliveries of goods into the city made after sunset. By the way, since the overpopulation crowd keeps trying to make it sound like the whole country is one giant city, well then Americas population must be 7 trillion. Thats if the whole country was skyscrapers as tall as the world trade center. That is 23000 times our current population. |
I think I got there in SimCity one time! 
|
|
Who says the goal of the world is to fill up every square yard with the maximum number of humans the land can support? Why is this a good idea? -Troy |
So everyone gets roughly 1 acre of ground? Is your one acre large enough to grow enough food on to feed you? Can you get enough water from it? Clothing? Shelter? Heat? Energy? |
So how much of your income do you pay for food? When was the last time America had a famine? How much was the population then? |
+1 and the 3rd world shitholes like Bengla Desh, mexico and Africa; places that already can't adequately support their existing population, the birth rates will continue to zoom. Because they don't give a shit. Our libtards do care hence their desire to see an ever decreasing standard of living for us so the world's resources can be redistributed. |
Actually the correct thing to do first is the math. Jacksonville Florida, area of 885 square miles times 640 acres to a mile equals 566400 acres. Then times 43560 square feet to a mile equals 24,672,384,000 square feet. Or (885*640)*43560= 24,672,384,000 square feet IndianJoe is correct, they fit. |
Sorry. Didn't realize Jacksonville was so big. I have been there, but only for a few days. I knew it was big, I had just never stopped to realize it was over half the size of Rhode Island. I know the math part, I just did a huge breakdown of it on page one. |
And we like it that way. When I retire I want to move so far out in the boonies that they won't deliver the mail and you have to dive into town to get it once a week. I like sitting outside and not hearing anything. I like driving back roads that are empty. I don't mind living away from the box stores, and the noise, and the people. Fact is I preferr it. So please leave the midwest the way it is. Keep the immigrants, illegals, and the 'must fill in all available space' people out. It's full of nothing, you won't like it, keep out, it's closed. 
|
Fuck That, stay away  I like this state BECAUSE of the lack of people. 500K state population spread out over 97,100 sq miles is a nice thing. And AFAIK we still only have one Area Code. |
+1 on that, bro. Overpopulation?  Ever been to Alaska? Or fly from anywhere in the midwest to LA or Seattle. We have more land than we know what to do with...literally. You can fly for several hours and barely see a damn thing. ETA: I heard once that you could take the entire worlds population and put the whole thing into Texas. One third of the State could be used to effectively grow enough food for everyone. One third could be used for zero construction, but rather for a big-ass natural wildlife presserve. And the remaining third would have the city density of London (not that I'd like to live in a city that dense, but it does make for an interesting proposition.) I think those figures came out of Eagle Forum (Phyliss Schlafley, sp?) LA Carry - work you magic on those figures and see what you come up with.
|
Remember, that's only 25% of the total land surface. And I'm sure that an acre of, for example, corn, would feed me for far longer than a year. I don't know how much corn would fit in an acre, but if each stalk was 2 feet apart, that's about 12,000 corn stalks, and probably more than double that many ears. I could easily live on the equivalent of about 100 ears a day. Split that in half for cotton, and I still have plenty of corn, and now plenty of cotton. Shelter? You only need one house. It's not like you constantly need more every day like food. Anyway, that much land obviously can support that many people, because it IS. There is no shortage of food, energy or clothing anywhere. There's only a shortage of freedom. And I own page 3. |