Life is much better.
But not because there are 7 billion more than when there were 1 billion only.
But because of science.
So you can have a comfortable life and still have 2 billion or so.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Convince me that the world isn't overpopulated
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Life is much better.
But not because there are 7 billion more than when there were 1 billion only.
But because of science.
So you can have a comfortable life and still have 2 billion or so.
Our technology is increasing at a much greater pace than our population growth, so the problems associated with population growth are being addressed by technology. Today due to increased technology, we have greater resources, more employment, more fuel, and a far greater economy than we ever did before when we had less people; so by those standards, the world is not over populated. Care to try again?By the standards of resources, employment, fuels, economy.
Nobody has brought valid argument yet.
With all due respect, neither will you.
Yes we can have a comfortable life with only 2 billion; but we can also have a comfortable life with 7 billion, because as you pointed out already science allows this. So going by your own standards, due to science, the world is NOT over populated
If the world isn't overpopulated, and there is limitless wealth, limitless resources, why doesn't the US Government find these people a home?
Homelessness in the San Francisco Bay Area - Wikipedia
First world power, mesdames et messieurs.
Imagine if it had been the last world power.
Have you ever heard of what happens in Africa?
Incredibly high birth rates and absolute poverty.
If that's the case, there should be no problems in tackling the problems of war and poverty. By your statement here, you're implying that there are enough resources in the world to provide every family with a single-family home with fixed plumbing, electricity, and internet connections (along the devices to use them). Since the world has more than enough, every family should have at least two vehicles, and every country should have modern transportation infrastructure - both urban and rural. There should also be more than enough arable land and livestock so that people can enjoy steak or lobster every night. And of course, there would be more than enough for everyone to be able to take cruises, ski vacations in Switzerland, summers on the Riviera (since everyone can fit).
Tell me that the world contains enough resources so that 7 billion people can have a standard of living comparable to an upper class urban dweller in America. If that's the case, why haven't we done so already? What's the hold up? What's the problem in getting all these vast amounts of resources and technologies (that you imply we have) distributed?
For the sake of discussion, I could grant you the idea that we have totally clean, unlimited fusion power. All the clean electricity we could ever want.
But we're still:
- deforesting the planet - our oxygen supply
- eliminating our fisheries
- destroying our topsoil
- draining our freshwater aquifers
- polluting our lakes and rivers
- causing the extinction of thousands of species
In short, we are not living sustainably.
Yes, if you use all your resources at once life will be good for a while -- for those able to access said resources, often at the expense of other populations.
The Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs - Wikipedia
We don't have greater natural resources. We're just using them more profligately. They're becoming more scarce, and more difficult, dangerous and environmentally hazardous to access.
Perpetually increasing technology is not our savior, nor is it even feasible.
Sure, we can make the deserts bloom and all own three vehicles, but at the expense of aquifers and salubrious climate. Our current lifestyles + population isn't sustainable.
Science has its limits. It depends on limited and diminishing resources. It has unintended, untoward effects.
In addition to your neglect of long-term sustainability and blowback, you seem to be ignoring the welfare of the biosphere itself.
How are we to permanently maintain 7B humans and retain the planet's biodiversity? Other organisms don't have our ability to alter their lifestyles or engineer new environments to live in. They depend on the natural environments they evolved to fit -- which our prosperity is rapidly depleting.
And don't forget the end product of this unlimited electricity. In the end, all forms of energy degrade into their most basic form: heat. Unlimited energy = unlimited waste heat? What could go wrong?
The world is not over populated, there is not limitless wealth, and there isn't limitless resources. If the US Government were in the business of giving everybody a home who doesn't have one, I would be the first one to sell my home so I could get a free one from the Government.If the world isn't overpopulated, and there is limitless wealth, limitless resources, why doesn't the US Government find these people a home?
Homelessness in the San Francisco Bay Area - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There are some areas that are over crowded, but not everywhere.
Are you suggesting everybody on Earth would have the lifestyle you mentioned if there were only 2 billion instead of 7 billion people?
We were doing all of that when there were only 2 billion people also.
Where do you draw the line where it becomes impossible to retain the planets biodiversity? 2 billion? 7 billion?
No, I'm suggesting that the world is overpopulated. If your claim (that 7 billion people are living a comfortable life and that the world is not overpopulated) has merit, then we would see tangible, visible evidence of this. There would be enough resources for everyone in the world to enjoy a first-world standard of living.
Yes, I am.
At least 1 billion would have had the exact same lifestyle.
The ever increasing specialization required for most scientific progress is only possible with increased population; more population, more scientists specialized in narrower fields, more advancement. Less and less. The other option would be eugenics, which is fraught to say the least.
If science and medicine are so advanced, why don't they solve the problems Africa has?
I mean...there's poverty and high birth rates in Africa.