Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by Jesse, Dec 20, 2013.
Don't be sorry, debates are healthy and fun. It's only when members retort to name calling and arrogance that they get out of hand. Observing the fact that overpopulation may be a slight in the needs for a age reversing compound is significantly relevant to this discussion.
Personally, when I read "over population" I don't take it to mean that the area is literally SOLELY over populated in area. I take it to mean that the dangers are too high resources are too low to accurately benefit the need of its residents and that the resources they use are too great.
I,e, not enough food/water and too much pollution That is how I'd describe over population, again, as the dangers of living are too high and the resources to live by are too low. There might be physically enough space but that's not relevant at all, especially considering it also depends on the natural resources available, what you can grow, how stable the land is, etc.
In conclusion over population is not a myth, it's just misconstrued most of the time to be something that it isn't.
lol That's all it was ever going to be
I have to agree with travz21 here. Overpopulation on a world scale isn't an issue yet. I've heard that if you took the whole US population and put them all into Texas, they'd have a population density similar to New York City. It looks overpopulated because everyone likes to move the the big cities, but those cities can expand. There's plenty of room in the world where people can live.
...and to continue on, there are more than enough resources in the world right now. The problem is, is that other countries don't have as many resources as we do, that's why their country is a hell-hole. Africa's the greatest example. Their agriculture sucks, unlike the US, where we have more than enough food. It's more about spreading the resources around so there is enough for everybody to benefit from, but that's a discussion for another thread.
The more technologically advanced a civilization is, the bigger the population it can support. As a whole, our technology allows us to obtain way, way more food and resources than we consume. But in places with basically no technology, their potential population is very limited. But just because a small part of the world is stuck in the past doesn't mean the rest of the world is limited to their potential. If the whole world was full of small tribes, then yeah, our max population would be like 10 million.
Using Africa as an example of our species' overpopulation is intellectually dishonest. It's like using them as an example of our wealth, technology, or education.
Oh, I'm sorry. I hopefully didn't hurt you when you read that, because I'm sure
you actually care about those people out in Africa, I'm sure of it. Not. Don't
take "offense" for other people, oh, and the point I made was perfect valid.
Also, technology doesn't necessarily allow my people to live in a single place.
Just because my neighbor and I have the best wi-fi in the world, doesn't mean
we can support an extra 5-6 people in our houses. Not all technology creates
large, dinner-sized meals when you place a block into a microwave. You're going
to have to be much, much, much more specific, friend.
Technology can only get a civilization so far. They have a population of 1.351
billion people. Feeding each and every one of them is going to be difficult even
with technology that can pump out more food.
Here is an article on the food supply in China.
It's clear you don't understand how technological advancement works. A civilization that has accomplished wi-fi has also accomplished everything less than or equal to that feat. Which includes growing, harvesting, and mass producing food. And our level of technology allows us to, again, produce way more food than we're capable of consuming.
And guess what, my home has no food supply. I produce zero food. I import all of my food because I deem that my job is more worthy of my time than hunting/farming. So I pay others to do that for me, i.e., grocery shopping. Blow this scenario up to a larger scale and you can get a very advanced, productive country like China who need to import food because their time is more profitably spent doing other jobs.
Importing food doesn't always mean there's an inability to produce enough. In an advanced society food will always be readily available. The economics of the situation will just determine how you're obtaining it, whether by your hand or someone else's.
Can't we all just get along. We all like the same band right?
Yeah. We cool b. I'm out.
I wonder when humans get this stuff.
I stopped the discussion with a Shane GIF success.
Separate names with a comma.