If you look at my first post in this thread, you'll see the list of birth rates by population.

As for killing the planet; the way to solve that is to change our industrial processes to be less polluting. Having fewer human beings on the planet will not solve that problem; if anything, it will prompt people to pollute even more (per person) until we reach about the same point.

You know, I think it's funny when people call it a "war" between man and nature. Because in my opinion, it's all nature. Species adapt to their environments just like humans. And if we cut down the trees and dry up the oceans, this planet still has 14.7 billion years left before the sun explodes if I remember correctly. Barely anything leaves and barely anything comes down here. Think about the number of civilizations that will rise and fall from the ashes of each previous society. Just like the dinosaur skeletons we find in the ground, maybe they'll find our cars and sky-scrapers. To quote that guy from Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way." My Earth science is rusty, so I don't know how badly humans could mar the possibility for future life on this planet. That seems like a better question for BM or Max.

Now, I'm not saying we should keep going down this path of destruction because what we do now just couldn't possibly ruin it for the rest of the planet's time exisiting. Since we have the knowledge of how badly we're affecting the current environment, we should be able to improve things too. I don't really associate myself with the "green" movement yet because I still use gas-powered transportation, I don't recycle religiously, and I waste electricity. But I try to walk to my destinations whenever I can, not waste much, and certainly not litter. I think if people just kept a balance we can at least give ourselves some time to prepare for a massive and drawn-out overhaul of society in a more environment friendly direction.

As for over-population, I say we go out and colonize the solar system like in Cowboy Bebop.

Earth is obviously bigger than you think it is.

Roughly every human on Earth could live in Texas.

It pisses me off that such an interesting topic got farted out like this.

Well put it into perspective. Which other mammal is currently present on the planet in numbers above 1 billion? I wasn't talking about actual space in square feet. I meant resources and stuff like that.

"Humans are not a mammal. All mammals have developed the ability to find a natural equilibrium with their environment, to coexist with it without depleting it's resources. Humans, however, arrive at an area, then they multiply and multiply, and when they have consumed everything, they move to another area. There is another organism that acts like this. A virus. Humans are a disease, a cancer eating away at this planet. A... plague, and we are the cure." ~ Agent Smith, The Matrix

Do I get concubines? Please can I have concubines.

i considered mentioning that immigration may have a factor but in my experience if you make any slightly negative comment about immigration you're called a racist xenophobe.

i think the united states should be limited to two children per household, most people seem to be able to afford two children, but there are those who have five and six...if someone has two kids and wants to have dirty protectionless sex, we can just ship them their very own gay space nigga

from what i can tell pilot shits rainbows

I've always loved that quote.

The only reason they find this "eqiuilibrium" is because they don't possess the intelligence to prosper better. Leonardo Da Vinci once said that every invention is an extension of man's arm. And who says humans are the only ones that ravage the ecosystem? Look at locusts and red tides. All life is heading towards the same goal. Humans just do it more efficiently.

You mean that all life is heading towards its own demise at one point or another? If so, I have to disagree.

Nature on its own is a slow moving process. Problems slowly arise within an area but such a problem would take so insanely long to do serious damage that nature has plenty of time to counter-balance it and fix it.

We on the other hand are doing things to the planet which nature can't counter-balance because its happening too fast. Hell I think it would take natural circumstances a good 2 million years, if not longer, to produce the amount of CO2 we're pumping into the air on a daily basis.

Who is this fast, and why doesn't he just get the fuck out of the way?

Ztop mocking zeh grammah!! >_<

No, what I mean is that the driving force for all life is to survive, procreate, and prosper. We just happen to have bigger brains leading to more efficient methods of attaining those goals.

It's ALL Nature. Humans are just ahead of the game. I'm not trying to glorify our destructive behavior, I'm just trying to point out that Nature isn't always some mystical harmony among all forms of life, it's a competition for one species to thrive over another. Kill or be killed; survival of the fittest. Fittest to master one's surroundings, that is.

Leto, I have been looking for that clip FOREVER! Thank you for finding it.

Also, if you really wanna limit two kids per household, I have a wonderful idea: dismantle Catholicism. Better yet, we need a philanthropist with a big farm to just adopt up all the orphans in the world and just let em run wild in the open space.

Also, viruses aren't organisms. They're seemingly maliciously designed particles that have no "goal" but to procreate.

Depends on tone of voice; simply saying "The population has increased, mainly due to immigration" does not imply any judgement.

Leto and Sekto: That's totally random. In case you didn't know, Snato Guaro is a famous Australian tv comedian/writer/creator of successful shows. I didn't even know he'd done that Zlad stuff.

I don't agree with that Matrix quote, I just thought it was something to think about. As I was posting it I was thinking about how rabbits eat all plant life, multiply ridiculously fast, and would end up starving to death if there wern't other things eating them and people shooting them in the face.

They are organisms, being organic. They just aren't alive. Also, Smith actually says 'animal', (or 'creature'. Or maybe 'living thing'. I'm not quite sure...) but I changed it in a vain attempt to stop this argument.

They're not technically considered organisms because they aren't alive except when they attach to their hosts and the machinery inside them starts working.

The Matrix is a load of pretty fauxophical garbage and anyone who quotes off it and means it is a dire dire victim of the postmodern condition.

Forced breeding isn't necessary in first world countries because birth rates are dropping towards a sustainable population anyway, and while greater knowledge about birthing and its consequences could help the third world move towards a more stable and sustainable population it's not necessary either, more children being born in Africa just means that more children die in Africa. Dead babies and starving infants don't use non-renewable resources.

Overpopulation and immigration are just excuses that governments and big businesses use to cloud the true threats on our planet, ironically being exactly what Havoc knocked down in his first post.

http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu...tion_graph.jpg

I found this image and found it quite interesting.

That's pretty amazing how the world population just sky-rocketed in almost two centuries. I'd like to know what the it was back in Biblical times.

Actually that second graph is quite interesting... During world war 2(or was it after? I don't remember), danish people started breeding alot which the politicians turned into an issue not too long ago... We have so many retired people now, and the politicians have started favoring them above students becuse the majority of the votes now lie in old people. Well.. at least it was like that a few years ago. I don't know the situation now.

Just thought I'd say this this. Anyway, I do hope that people relax around the chld issue.. Like don't overbreed if you don't need to. Many people have alot of kids dispite being rather poor, which I think is a bad choice. But then again. My parents were rather poor when we came to denmark :p They lived on student loans. But they managed to create a good life for themselves and high standard jobs.

Edit: Oh yea and because of the many retired people, there weren't enough tax payers to support things in general. They tried bringing old people back into the work force but I don't think that idea worked very well. Anyway I do think they get more money from the state now.

The whole world is getting like that, T-Nex. Damn Baby Boomers wrecking it for the rest of us.

Maybe we should just not allow people to get older than 50 years. That way we wont have to support as many people through taxes anymore!
I think it's a great suggestion.. Right up there with the breeding-restriction =D

Meh.. well obviously the rest of the world is like that if population really has doubled during 50 years :P I only know Denmark's situation though. Barely, as I'm not that interested anymore. All these world issues give me a headache.

Good Idea T-nex! We should start culling pensioners.

That must be based on estimation and guesses, a lot of the third world has been discovered and catalogued since 1850.

The two are so painfully different I'd avoid mentioning it in the same sentence. Taking the lives of a LOT of people VS not creating more life to begin with is a fundamental difference.

I was painfully clearly joking, and of course the two aren't the same. Relax. Take a cup of a stranger's coffee =)

I'm surprised that you guys have yet to bring up the issue of certain countries encouraging increased procreation in an attempt to "take over the world" so to speak.