Global population poll

I would like to see a poll on whether people would like to see the global human population rise, stay at its current level or be lowered.

Vote
40%
60%
Votes
5
Views
2002

8 Comments

  • "or be lowered".. are you serious?, how can a race thrive when people like you want to thin the herd, don't talk rubbish, there is no such thing as over population, only restriction of the population, this planet is huge and we have been crammed into boxes, we have the means and intelligence to make the housing situation of the world better, we can build oil rigs why not entire cities above the sea, not possible, imagine if you will what the worlds nations would be capable of if they took there thumbs out of there asses and actually tried, it would create jobs and solve a lot of the worlds problems.

  • Well, Shiro seems to think same or more...
    I think less would be better. The reason I think that is because there are too many people in the world, given our way of life. We have scarred the face of the planet like a disease on a healthy cell already, and we are threatening biodiversity and thus our own species into the future, simply because there are too many of us. Governments like China who had the foresight to try and limit their children to one per family for several decades should be applauded for their leadership. They have, by doing so, spared the planet an earlier climatic tipping point - and thus saved humanity to a degree. They have had zero recognition for this.

    We are not changing our behaviours like Shiro hopes. So, the only option is that there should be less of us, or at least not the extra 2 billion predicted by 2050 (remember the earth only averaged a couple of hundred million at most for thousands of years, then jumped to a billion then 7 billion in the last 200 years. There were 4 cities of a million people in 1900, about 14 in 1950, and there are now over 1,500.). I think we should target the remaining global hotspots of high population growth with fertility education and contraception availability.

  • I do see the flaw with the question but I believe ogd was referring to either population density or rate of population growth. Now I would never condone the murder of people simply because we are low on resources but over-population does exist. Morally there are never too many people, but rationally and economically there easily can be. Furthermore there is an assumption that we simply use a head-count to determine population size. In reality there are other ways at looking at population. For example, one earth we may have a total hospitable surface area of 1m square Km. But we may only be occupying 50% of that land. If we say the problem isn't with the amount of people but simply with how densely they are populated then we can come to the conclusion that earth (the occupied land on the planet that we utilize) is over populated and that population could be decreased by investment into the additional 500k square Km of occupied land.

    If we look at population growth rates we may decided that FOR EXAMPLE right now we are meeting our current required levels of food and energy production for our population of 6.5Billion people and that science and agriculture will allow use to grow at a rate of around 2% per year to continue meeting a growing demand. Now if population growth exceeds 2%, then a better phrased version of ogds' question is raised "Should we have a global vote to decide if we should take action to reduce the rate of population growth?" Of course this raises the whole pro-life vs. pro-choice and one child policy debates, but whatever.
    Others will sugar-coat the problem and say the larger population will force innovation and create a larger work force who will then create that extra food. Furthermore many people wouldn't like the proposals that most RATIONAL beings would put forward.
    IF WE DECIDED TO REDUCE THE POPULATION
    Some economists would say there is no need to intervene because the starving children who can't get the food that's missing die or that women won't have children they can't feed. The price of abortions would fall as greater rates of government subsidies would come into place. But worry not for the children that aren't born yet, worry for those who are already alive. If you think like an economist then you realist that making abortions cheaper and allowing children to starve is a solution, but it may not be the best. If someone aborts a baby 50-odd years of potential labor lost. Now if you consider a person aged 65 dying from malnutrition you get a different picture. This person may have decades of experience but will probably only continue using it for another five years or so. They are the blunt pencil that cannot be sharpened. Now we are voting on this issue because we want to increase general life expectancy right. Now we don't calculate dead-babies (as blunt as the term may sound) in life expectancy figures. The solution to the problem appears to be kill some un-born babies to increase life expectancy. But killing those babies means that the generation gap widens. The babies (now in their 20's) that do survive are now burdened with the social security of a bunch of 80 year olds. The babies now have a poor quality of life. If we look at quality of life the sensible suggestion would be to allow the elderly to die because they may have 20 good years ahead of them whilst the youngsters will have 60 or 70's years ahead of themselves. Furthermore without the burden of having to financially care for the old, the young can save ensuring that the next generation are not forced to support them.

  • I object because this is too close to eugenics for comfort.

  • Hey, This is just a suggestion and there was no reference to murdering people or lowering the population. so chill out Shiro, The idea of global democracy is that the people of the world form a plan for the future so a Global Population plan would be a part of us (the people) being in control. It is possible to raise the population without putting more pressure on the earth and our environment however our current way of economic thinking would require some serious modification.

  • I bet you would but it ain't gunna happen by posting on this idiotic site. What a joke.

Similar Ideas: