World too Overpopulated - Armor Games Community

162	39900

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted January 18, '12 11:58pm UTC

hows about every one kills his naibour?

War used to be a big factor in population, but the percentage of people dying in wars now is far lower than wars in the past, compared to the total population. We'd need to launch some nukes to keep up.

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted January 19, '12 12:02am UTC

i have a solution,
hows about every one kills his naibour?

While this would presumably halve the existing population...I don't think that's a very good plan.

War used to be a big factor in population,

Yes, it was a large factor. The largest factor however is as mentioned in Partydevil's link. Life expectancy vs fertility rates. When life expectancy goes up and fertility rates remain the same, you've got a recipe for massive growth.

offline

thepunisher93

1,826 posts

Nomad

Posted January 19, '12 12:07am UTC

that's a bummer!
Plan B
let's kill every second new born baby

offline

Bladerunner679

2,487 posts

Blacksmith

Posted January 19, '12 3:13am UTC

let's kill every second new born baby

sure, but you're gonna have to be the guy to do it. I can't do it because I have a conciense.

we could do the next best thing though, give the world free cable. they did that in india to slow down birth rates, and it worked.

-Blade

offline

HahiHa

8,257 posts

Regent

Posted January 19, '12 9:02am UTC

Guys, before thinking about war or killing people, be it meant as a joke or not, did you actually read the posts made in this thread in '08, especially the fourth one? See below then.

thelistman wrote:

No. People who study population trends say that the population will cap at around 12 billion, then take a sharp decline to the point where under-population may be a problem.

In third world nations, having children is actually profitable as the kids will start working young and bring in money. When nations industrialize, the cost of raising kids shoots through the roof. As more and more nations industrialize, people are going to have less children. In fact, in every Western country, the death rate is higher than the birth rate. In Germany, Russia, Bulgaria, and Hungary, the governments had offered thousands of dollars to women who had babies because of population decline. South America is close to hitting this point, and parts of Asia already have. Once these areas and Africa industrializes, the population will drop rapidly and underpopulation will be a problem.

I also recommend reading the rest of the discussion of this thread, very interesting.

Guys, before thinking about war or killing people, be it meant as a joke or not, did you actually read the posts made in this thread in '08, especially the fourth one? See below then.\r\n\r\nthelistman wrote:\r\n[quote]No.  People who study population trends say that the population will cap at around 12 billion, then take a sharp decline to the point where under-population may be a problem. \r\n\r\nIn third world nations, having children is actually profitable as the kids will start working young and bring in money.  When nations industrialize, the cost of raising kids shoots through the roof.  As more and more nations industrialize, people are going to have less children.  In fact, in every Western country, the death rate is higher than the birth rate.  In Germany, Russia, Bulgaria, and Hungary, the governments had offered thousands of dollars to women who had babies because of population decline.  South America is close to hitting this point, and parts of Asia already have.  Once these areas and Africa industrializes, the population will drop rapidly and underpopulation will be a problem.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI also recommend reading the rest of the discussion of this thread, very interesting.

offline

partydevil

5,129 posts

Jester

Posted January 19, '12 5:02pm UTC

No. People who study population trends say that the population will cap at around 12 billion

this 12 million cap is discribed in my link aswell. only is the actual predicted cap 13.? million.

i realy suggest every1 reading the 2 pages of the article that i posted.

Once these areas and Africa industrializes

africa wont industrialise the next 100 year or atleast the next 50 year it wont.
except for north africa and the country south africa.
now you probably ask WHY they don't industrialise. that is because of the racism and hate against not black people in africa.
it is very hard for white, asian or latin people to start a business in africa. and the corruption is so massive that you can't even inmagion it.

and beside. we (the western world kinda countrys) need africa as it is now. whitout it we don't get our luxery stuff so cheap as it is now.

underpopulation will be a problem

how can underpopulation be a problem?
and what is underpopulation.
whit only 1 billion people we would do just fine as mankind.
even 1 million people would be no problem. and tbh if there or no humans at all isn't realy a problem.
i'm realy wondering what amount will be consideret underpopulation and how would we feel that mankind is underpopulated?

[quote]No.  People who study population trends say that the population will cap at around 12 billion[/quote]\r\n\r\nthis 12 million cap is discribed in my link aswell. only is the actual predicted cap 13.? million.\r\n\r\ni realy suggest every1 reading the 2 pages of the article that i posted.\r\n\r\n[quote]Once these areas and Africa industrializes[/quote]\r\n\r\nafrica wont industrialise the next 100 year or atleast the next 50 year it wont.\r\nexcept for north africa and the country south africa.\r\nnow you probably ask WHY they don't industrialise. that is because of the racism and hate against not black people in africa.\r\nit is very hard for white, asian or latin people to start a business in africa. and the corruption is so massive that you can't even inmagion it.\r\n\r\nand beside. we (the western world kinda countrys) need africa as it is now. whitout it we don't get our luxery stuff so cheap as it is now.\r\n\r\n[quote]underpopulation will be a problem[/quote]\r\nhow can underpopulation be a problem?\r\nand what is underpopulation.\r\nwhit only 1 billion people we would do just fine as mankind.\r\neven 1 million people would be no problem. and tbh if there or no humans at all isn't realy a problem.\r\ni'm realy wondering what amount will be consideret underpopulation and how would we feel that mankind is underpopulated?

offline

HahiHa

8,257 posts

Regent

Posted January 19, '12 5:55pm UTC

how can underpopulation be a problem?
and what is underpopulation.

These points are adressed on the very first page just after the post I quoted. That's why I recommended you go on reading the discussion there.

and beside. we (the western world kinda countrys) need africa as it is now. whitout it we don't get our luxery stuff so cheap as it is now.

So as 'we', I would rather put the rich elite than the whole country. Of course, prizes of certain things the middle-class also buy might raise, but we'd survive that. Not everyone buys their clothes at H&M ^^

offline

partydevil

5,129 posts

Jester

Posted January 19, '12 6:18pm UTC

These points are adressed on the very first page just after the post I quoted. That's why I recommended you go on reading the discussion there.

thats why people shouldn't necro. or atleast don't reply on a necro post.

I would rather put the rich elite than the whole country.

for the rich it probably is less of a problem. they got the money.
it's the middle and lower class that already have less that will get in problems. when africa industrialise the african people also want to have the products they make and not only export them. so they want to get more money for their work and so other countrys will need to spend more on the imported goods from africa.

thats why china wants to keep it's own coin so low.
if they didn't this same thing would happen already.
it's beter for themself and indirectly also beter for us.

but all this doesn't mater because africa wont industrialise any time soon. there probably is a permanent moon base and helium-3 energy befor africa industrializes.

they 1st have to go the way india and some more countrys around there are doing now. india is on it's way to be fully industrialzed
but it will take prety long.

but we'd survive that.

i didn't mean to say that all hell would break lose. it just get more expensive. it's not a mater of death. money/prices doesn't kill people.

[quote]These points are adressed on the very first page just after the post I quoted. That's why I recommended you go on reading the discussion there. [/quote]\r\n\r\nthats why people shouldn't necro. or atleast don't reply on a necro post.\r\n\r\n[quote]I would rather put the rich elite than the whole country. [/quote]\r\n\r\nfor the rich it probably is less of a problem. they got the money.\r\nit's the middle and lower class that already have less that will get in problems. when africa industrialise the african people also want to have the products they make and not only export them. so they want to get more money for their work and so other countrys will need to spend more on the imported goods from africa.\r\n\r\nthats why china wants to keep it's own coin so low.\r\nif they didn't this same thing would happen already.\r\nit's beter for themself and indirectly also beter for us.\r\n\r\nbut all this doesn't mater because africa wont industrialise any time soon. there probably is a permanent moon base and helium-3 energy befor africa industrializes.\r\n\r\nthey 1st have to go the way india and some more countrys around there are doing now. india is on it's way to be fully industrialzed\r\nbut it will take prety long.\r\n\r\n[quote]but we'd survive that.[/quote]\r\ni didn't mean to say that all hell would break lose. it just get more expensive. it's not a mater of death. money/prices doesn't kill people.

offline

partydevil

5,129 posts

Jester

Posted January 19, '12 6:22pm UTC

ive readed the posts you directed me to.
however i do not share the idea that those will be problems.
we just return to the middle ages if we look at how we thread elders. it sucks and isn't nice and all that but i don't share the idea that it will become a problem.

offline

numino

214 posts

Peasant

Posted January 20, '12 6:03am UTC

the world isn't necessarily overpopulated. It only seems so or will in the near future purely because of high density populations in industralised areas. If the populace were to disperse and distribute into other places in the world, then population control wouldn't be necessary for a long time.

reading past comments referring to the industralisation of Africa and parts of Asia. First of all that will never happen, humanity has been here for a few millenia's now and the distribution of wealth has pretty much stayed consistent, the northern hemisphere has more and will always have more.

Referring to the genetic bottleneck and the statement

whit only 1 billion people we would do just fine as mankind.
even 1 million people would be no problem

the lack of a certain DNA, gene, antibody, etc. could result in such a small population to be eradicated swiftly and the chances of people being in the medical profession will be greatly reduced, hence people will die faster than ever.

the world isn't necessarily overpopulated. It only seems so or will in the near future purely because of high density populations in industralised areas. If the populace were to disperse and distribute into other places in the world, then population control wouldn't be necessary for a long time. \r\n\r\nreading past comments referring to the industralisation of Africa and parts of Asia. First of all that will never happen, humanity has been here for a few millenia's now and the distribution of wealth has pretty much stayed consistent, the northern hemisphere has more and will always have more. \r\n\r\nReferring to the genetic bottleneck and the statement [quote]whit only 1 billion people we would do just fine as mankind.\r\neven 1 million people would be no problem[/quote]\r\n\r\nthe lack of a certain DNA, gene, antibody, etc. could result in such a small population to be eradicated swiftly and the chances of people being in the medical profession will be greatly reduced, hence people will die faster than ever.

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted January 20, '12 7:00am UTC

the lack of a certain DNA, gene, antibody, etc. could result in such a small population to be eradicated swiftly

Highly, highly doubtful. Especially if this population is spread all over the world, and with our knowledge of bacteria/viruses, this isn't likely.

and the chances of people being in the medical profession will be greatly reduced, hence people will die faster than ever.

Uhh..no. You'd have the same proportion of doctorsthers. You would have less doctors, but there'd also be less patients.

offline

numino

214 posts

Peasant

Posted January 20, '12 1:49pm UTC

Highly, highly doubtful. Especially if this population is spread all over the world, and with our knowledge of bacteria/viruses, this isn't likely.

But people won't move all over the world, it is human nature to be around things that are similar to you, more people will want to stay close, most of all people will be urged to stay close so as to have greater control over the general population. Also knowledge is something that is distorted and changed through time, especially of there is few that respect it, the knowledge of raising a child from 1990 is very different from present day. These things change very quickly.

Uhh..no. You'd have the same proportion of doctorsthers. You would have less doctors, but there'd also be less patient

No you really wouldn't, people would want to be in a position where they have power over others and becoming a doctor does not grant such power. With a small population it would be very difficult to find the correct antibody for a disease, with a greater populace there is more data available.

[quote]Highly, highly doubtful. Especially if this population is spread all over the world, and with our knowledge of bacteria/viruses, this isn't likely.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBut people won't move all over the world, it is human nature to be around things that are similar to you, more people will want to stay close, most of all people will be urged to stay close so as to have greater control over the general population. Also knowledge is something that is distorted and changed through time, especially of there is few that respect it, the knowledge of raising a child from 1990 is very different from present day. These things change very quickly.\r\n\r\n[quote]Uhh..no. You'd have the same proportion of doctors:others. You would have less doctors, but there'd also be less patient[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo you really wouldn't, people would want to be in a position where they have power over others and becoming a doctor does not grant such power. With a small population it would be very difficult to find the correct antibody for a disease, with a greater populace there is more data available.

offline

HahiHa

8,257 posts

Regent

Posted January 20, '12 2:27pm UTC

But people won't move all over the world, it is human nature to be around things that are similar to you, more people will want to stay close, most of all people will be urged to stay close so as to have greater control over the general population.

Which would be an effective way to not have bottleneck situations. As long as the population is big/diverse enough, there's few risks. If however a small part of the population goes somewhere else, that part will have increased risks since they'll represent only a part of the population's gene pool.
Though humanity already went through several bottlenecks and survived so far; also the world, as mentioned in earlier posts, would have to be extremely underpopulated in order for it to really become a problem.

No you really wouldn't, people would want to be in a position where they have power over others and becoming a doctor does not grant such power.

Well, doctors get a lot of money, and isn't money a certain way of power? Though the positions that get a lot of money aren't those who do the most research, which might be more of a problem.

But, so what? Then people will die younger than today, this isn't necessarily affecting the population growth since elder people don't really raise own children.

[quote]But people won't move all over the world, it is human nature to be around things that are similar to you, more people will want to stay close, most of all people will be urged to stay close so as to have greater control over the general population. [/quote]\r\nWhich would be an effective way to not have bottleneck situations. As long as the population is big/diverse enough, there's few risks. If however a small part of the population goes somewhere else, that part will have increased risks since they'll represent only a part of the population's gene pool. \r\nThough humanity already went through several bottlenecks and survived so far; also the world, as mentioned in earlier posts, would have to be [i]extremely[/i] underpopulated in order for it to really become a problem. \r\n\r\n[quote]No you really wouldn't, people would want to be in a position where they have power over others and becoming a doctor does not grant such power. [/quote]\r\nWell, doctors get a lot of money, and isn't money a certain way of power? Though the positions that get a lot of money aren't those who do the most research, which might be more of a problem. \r\n\r\nBut, so what? Then people will die younger than today, this isn't necessarily affecting the population growth since elder people don't really raise own children.

offline

partydevil

5,129 posts

Jester

Posted January 20, '12 5:20pm UTC

reading past comments referring to the industralisation of Africa and parts of Asia. First of all that will never happen, humanity has been here for a few millenia's now and the distribution of wealth has pretty much stayed consistent, the northern hemisphere has more and will always have more.

you are so wrong.
africa will industrializes some time. just not any time time.
the most wealth started in north africa and south america.
and it only looks like the northern hemisphere has more because the southern hemisphare is 80+% water

wealth does not stick in 1 place. europe and and north america started to get wealthy around 1600. befor that time the wealth came from the mid-east and asia. and befor that it came from africa and south america.
it it looks like it is returning back to asia again now.

[quote]the lack of a certain DNA, gene, antibody, etc. could result in such a small population to be eradicated swiftly

then why didn't that happen in the 1000's of years befor 1800? (1800 world population was 1 billion )

the chances of people being in the medical profession will be greatly reduced, hence people will die faster than ever.

thats good. then it wont grow so fast that it will be overpopulated in no-time again.
the soul reason why we have so many people today is because we became to good in health care.

But people won't move all over the world, it is human nature to be around things that are similar to you,

i would like to remind you that all humans of today once started of in africa. the people moved AWAY from where they were because they wanted to know what was over the hill... and the next hill and he 1 after that 1. hey!!! no more hills only a massive amount of water.
let's build a boat and seek what is on the other side of the water.

whitout exploration all humans would still live in that 1 place in africa.
so it's in the human nature to explore the world. and not to sit home duck.

Also knowledge is something that is distorted and changed through time, especially of there is few that respect it, the knowledge of raising a child from 1990 is very different from present day. These things change very quickly.

what is it you wanna say whit this?
i don't get it.

No you really wouldn't,

oke 6 out of 7 people die. this means that also 6 out of 7 docters die.
less docters + less people = no difference.

people would want to be in a position where they have power over others and becoming a doctor does not grant such power.

it doesn't?
are you able to get those medicine whitout a docters order?
are you operating your broken leg yourself?
are you fixing your own theet at the dentist?
are you?

the docter definitely has power over other people.
especialy is such a time as you look at.
if there are almost no docters then being a docter gives you great power.

[quote]reading past comments referring to the industralisation of Africa and parts of Asia. First of all that will never happen, humanity has been here for a few millenia's now and the distribution of wealth has pretty much stayed consistent, the northern hemisphere has more and will always have more. [/quote]\r\n\r\nyou are so wrong.\r\nafrica will industrializes some time. just not any time time.\r\nthe most wealth started in north africa and south america.\r\nand it only looks like the northern hemisphere has more because the southern hemisphare is 80+% water ;)\r\n\r\nwealth does not stick in 1 place. europe and and north america started to get wealthy around 1600. befor that time the wealth came from the mid-east and asia. and befor that it came from africa and south america.\r\nit it looks like it is returning back to asia again now.\r\n[quote]\r\n\r\n[quote]the lack of a certain DNA, gene, antibody, etc. could result in such a small population to be eradicated swiftly[/quote]\r\n\r\nthen why didn't that happen in the 1000's of years befor 1800? (1800 world population was 1 billion ;) )\r\n[quote]\r\nthe chances of people being in the medical profession will be greatly reduced, hence people will die faster than ever.[/quote]\r\n\r\nthats good. then it wont grow so fast that it will be overpopulated in no-time again.\r\nthe soul reason why we have so many people today is because we became to good in health care.\r\n[quote]\r\nBut people won't move all over the world, it is human nature to be around things that are similar to you,[/quote]\r\n\r\ni would like to remind you that all humans of today once started of in africa. the people moved AWAY from where they were because they wanted to know what was over the hill... and the next hill and he 1 after that 1.  hey!!! no more hills only a massive amount of water.\r\nlet's build a boat and seek what is on the other side of the water.\r\n\r\nwhitout exploration all humans would still live in that 1 place in africa.\r\nso it's in the human nature to explore the world. and not to sit home duck.\r\n\r\n[quote]Also knowledge is something that is distorted and changed through time, especially of there is few that respect it, the knowledge of raising a child from 1990 is very different from present day. These things change very quickly.[/quote]\r\n\r\nwhat is it you wanna say whit this?\r\ni don't get it.\r\n\r\n[quote]No you really wouldn't,[/quote]\r\n\r\noke 6 out of 7 people die. this means that also 6 out of 7 docters die.\r\nless docters + less people = no difference.\r\n\r\n[quote]people would want to be in a position where they have power over others and becoming a doctor does not grant such power. [/quote]\r\n\r\nit doesn't?\r\nare you able to get those medicine whitout a docters order?\r\nare you operating your broken leg yourself?\r\nare you fixing your own theet at the dentist?\r\nare you?\r\n\r\nthe docter definitely has power over other people.\r\nespecialy is such a time as you look at.\r\nif there are almost no docters then being a docter gives you great power.

offline

Roccess

240 posts

Peasant

Posted January 21, '12 11:36pm UTC

Guys: The problem wont be about food, land, or exhaust from more people's cars. The problem will be water. Did you know only 3% of the world's water is fresh? Though we can turn saltwater into freshwater, you need to burn oil. And, if you count Global Warming as a problem, (a little problem that I think it is) then that's no good. In Africa, India, and formally even Bolivia, water has been privatised. There are too many people their having to drink poluted water because they cannot find or afford clean water. A bottle of water on average is $1.50, but you could get it from the tap for only $0.0005. In the future there wont be any water left, partly because we're drinking it all, partly because water wont be able to get back into the ground because of all the pavement. Instead of the water running into the soil, and then the ocean, the roads force it all just back into the ocean. It is predicted in the future, if we do not work together, (like many of Earth's problems, we need to work together) then forget the wars on Oil. Wars on water instead. Sound pleasant, eh?

Guys: The problem wont be about food, land, or exhaust from more people's cars. The problem will be water. Did you know only 3% of the world's water is fresh? Though we can turn saltwater into freshwater, you need to burn oil. And, if you count Global Warming as a problem, (a little problem that I think it is) then that's no good. In Africa, India, and formally even Bolivia, water has been privatised. There are too many people their having to drink poluted water because they cannot find or afford clean water. A bottle of water on average is $1.50, but you could get it from the tap for only [b]$0.0005[/b]. In the future there wont be any water left, partly because we're drinking it all, partly because water wont be able to get back into the ground because of all the pavement. Instead of the water running into the soil, and then the ocean, the roads force it all just back into the ocean. It is predicted in the future, if we do not work together, (like many of Earth's problems, we need to work together) then forget the wars on Oil. Wars on water instead. Sound pleasant, eh?

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → World too Overpopulated