IAP Political Forum
July 05, 2008, 09:34:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Support IAP -- join "High Society" with less fuss. Click "paid subscriptions" from your profile.
 
   Home   Blog Forum   Help Search Chat Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Global over-population?  (Read 876 times)
Ahkenaten
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +97/-130
Posts: 1,156


See you real soon!


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2008, 12:03:11 PM »

At least zombies would lead to a real sense of communal brotherhood when you off 'em.
Logged

Poppa was a rolling stone...
Turd Ferguson
Newbie
*

Karma: +5/-2
Posts: 35


Have we degraded to the level of dumb beasts?


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2008, 12:19:07 PM »

At least zombies would lead to a real sense of communal brotherhood when you off 'em.


Screw brotherhood, pal. Piss on that. I'm on my own here.
Logged

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Fredledingue
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +28/-29
Posts: 751



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2008, 12:05:00 PM »

Gane
IMO, poeple don't have more babies because they are poor and vice versa.
western Europe population growth stopped well before europeqn became wealthy and full of social benefits.

Russia as well as the Baltics and north eastern europe has got a declining population because poeple were poorer than before after the fall of the Soviet Union. Today these countries see a slight reversal in this trend, yet still under replacement rate while the economic situation is improving, also slightly.

It has much more to do with culture: For West and East eruorpean, you first have to make sure you have enough money, have a degree and started a good job and have a car and an home before having your first child.

For Chinese, the most important is to have a son, otherwise your name will disapear in shame. This is much more important than money, confort and education. Chinese either will have as many kids as it take until they have at least one boy or, more recently, make use of echography to abort if the featus is female. Some chinese would even kill new born babies if it's a girl because the law forbid them to have a secnd chance.
This seems horrible to us, westerner, but it's absolutely obvious for Chinese.

In Africa, India and other 3d world countries, large families are a sign of wealth. They care less about boys but any kid is seen, traditionaly as one more arm to work at the family farm, thus a source of prosperity. While it was true in the past, the equation is now wrong because rich land and water is much more a problem than labor. In cities, where poeple don't live out of agriculture, large families is even more a source of poverty. Still, the tradition is so strong and contraception so much ignored by their culture, that they still do many children.

War, famine and epidemic will never solve the problem: They only worsen it.
In such situation there is no money and no safety for protecting the environement and the population plunder natural resources in the least rational manner. In Congo villagers have been eating mountain gorillas, an highly endangered species. In the Amazonia bassin, farmers are burning forests because it's the fastest and cheapest way to enrich the soil. In these two example, poeple couldn't afford to do otherwise.

There is overpopulation because there is an inadequation between the large traditional family and the economic reality.
Let's hope that these poeple will finaly realize that they are better off with one or two kids who will recieve decent health care and education and who will earn more than 8 kids with no school degree.
But let's not forget that they have a completely different view than our. For them lining up 8 kids is the sign of success, never mind the shack they are living in.

Logged

Dr. Zoidberg is jewish (and an important AIPAC donator!)

Gane
Jr. Member
**

Karma: +4/-0
Posts: 53



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2008, 09:18:51 PM »

I realize what you are saying but you are not looking at the big picture. The problem with what you are saying is that Europe has been wealthy compared to the rest of the world for nearly 300 hundred years. You're comparing a poor European or American to a a poor person in India and it is just not the same. When I said poor people I meant the subsistence farmer in Nigeria, not the guy who lives in a trailer and has a bad car. The population boom is in third world nations such as Nigeria and other extremely poor nations, and as their economies grow and the people gain some economic strength their populations will begin to shrink. Here is an example of the beginnings of population decline, using Iran as an example: http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come/asset_upload_file463_6092.gif

What this shows is a decline in births since 1980. Iran is not a wealthy nations, but standards have improved over those 15 years and as a result population decline.

The pre-transition equilibrium, historically experienced in impoverished rural communities, features birth and death rates that are high (40 to 55 per thousand) and, by definition, equal to each other.  Social customs favor high fertility to compensate for high death rates, which have to do with elevated infant mortality (200 per thousand live births or more) as well as short life spans (i.e., life expectancies of 30 years or so).

Post-transition equilibrium is characterized not just by birth and death rates that are in line with each other – though at a lower level (around 10 to 12 per thousand) – but by a stable age profile of the population as well.  No country has achieved this equilibrium yet, although natural increase has ceased in quite a few.


These definitions are taken from a class that I am taking now. What most of the world is in is the in between stage. This is when people are still having lots of babies to compensate for a high death rate. What happens though is the death rate has fallen so births remain high for a short period of time and within a few decades it begins to hit an equilibrium.

We really are on the same page I just think you misunderstood what I meant by "poor". Here's a site that does a much better job at explaining this than I can though: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html
Logged
bringbackwigs
Professional Post-Whore
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +136/-183
Posts: 2,884


Please refrain from taking my posts seriously


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2008, 12:41:09 PM »

Fuck floods. Give me a Class III zombie outbreak. I'm ready for it. I can get along for a couple years on my own in the compound.



 Grin



Add to the fact that your name is Turd Ferguson and you have a Fear & Loathing avatar, and this makes me chuckle.
Logged

Fredledingue
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +28/-29
Posts: 751



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2008, 03:10:08 PM »

Gane,
Another theory is explaining how when a population increases to a level of overpopulation it reach a point of sudden famine and massive death rate.
Today global solidarity and other mechnism made that even in case of overpopulation (when the land can't feed poeple on it anymore) famine and the number of deaths by hunger is reduced enough so that the population still increases.
Logged

Dr. Zoidberg is jewish (and an important AIPAC donator!)

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.963 seconds with 24 queries.