Jump to content

A world of 7 billion people


PHCharls

Recommended Posts

 

(Reuters) - Instead of worrying about sheer numbers when the world's population hits 7 billion next week, we should think about how to make the planet a better place for people to live in, the United Nations said in a report.

 

"It is both about consumption and population," the U.N.'s Population Fund Executive Director Babatunde Osotimehin said at a media conference to launch the report, referring to people's impact on the environment and economic growth.

 

While growing populations could be a drain on the world's resources, the U.N.'s Population Fund's "The State of World Population 2011" released Wednesday said a contributing factor was overconsumption by the existing population.

 

"With planning and the right investments in people now, to empower them to make choices that are not only good for themselves ... our world of 7 billion can have thriving sustainable cities, productive labor forces that fuel economies, and youth populations that contribute to the well-being of their societies," Osotimehin said in the report.

 

It was vital to engage with the world's youth and to harness their entrepreneurial skills to boost economies and prevent potential alienation, the report said.

 

Those under the age of 25 make up 43 percent of the population, and as much as 60 percent in some countries, and this group must be educated and trained if countries are to have a dynamic work force, it said. Failure to do so would see a loss of ideas, innovation as well as tax income.

 

A major contributor to the recent Arab uprisings was a youth unemployment rate of nearly 25 percent, the report quoted the International Labor Organization as saying.

 

FERTILITY AND MIGRATION

 

The U.N. also said migration will become more significant in the coming century, with people moving across borders as well as within their own countries.

 

The report looked at nine countries to see how they were responding to different rates of fertility and migration.

 

In some of the poorest countries, high fertility rates have stunted development and perpetuated poverty, the report said.

 

Getting girls to school and providing women with jobs and equal opportunities as well as sexual and reproductive healthcare including family planning was essential, it said.

 

In some of the richest countries, low fertility rates and too few people entering the job market have raised fears about the prospects for sustained economic growth and the viability of social security systems.

 

Every country has a population that is aging to some degree. The global proportion of people over the age of 60 is expected to grow from 11 percent in 2009 to 22 percent in 2050.

 

In Finland, which enjoys a high standard of living but where low fertility rates have led to a quarter of the population being over 60 years old, the emphasis is on excellent social services to make parenthood easier.

 

Academics have said that in countries such as China, which is getting older before it gets richer, there is need for old-age security, medical care and social services.

 

More funding, including from governments and foundations, was needed, Osotimehin told reporters at the media conference.

 

"Family planning, for instance, has not been funded as much as it should have been," he said.

 

A U.N. Secretary General report showed that $68 billion would be needed in 2011 if its program on sexual and reproductive health initiatives set out in Cairo in 1994 was to be met, Wednesday's report said.

 

Countries were expected to contribute $34 billion, with a further $10.8 billion coming from international and bilateral donors, leaving a shortfall of around $25 billion.

 

Growing global interdependence meant governments had to work out how to deal with record populations if they were to avoid future competition for limited resources such as food and water.

 

Link

 

What will happen in India and China? whatsthat.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we really should start worrying about the numbers.

We need firm policies designed to limit of children people can have. With resources such as oil already running low, it stands to reason that depopulation would be a positive thing for the world, right? There are simply too many mouths to feed, we have to step back and make sure that valuable resources aren't gobbled up by an out-of-control populace.

It's unpleasant and I don't like it, but I have always believed that government edicts on human breeding are the way forward.

To me it seems like common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we really should start worrying about the numbers.

We need firm policies designed to limit of children people can have. With resources such as oil already running low, it stands to reason that depopulation would be a positive thing for the world, right? There are simply too many mouths to feed, we have to step back and make sure that valuable resources aren't gobbled up by an out-of-control populace.

It's unpleasant and I don't like it, but I have always believed that government edicts on human breeding are the way forward.

To me it seems like common sense.

Don't they already limit the population in China?

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we really should start worrying about the numbers.

We need firm policies designed to limit of children people can have. With resources such as oil already running low, it stands to reason that depopulation would be a positive thing for the world, right? There are simply too many mouths to feed, we have to step back and make sure that valuable resources aren't gobbled up by an out-of-control populace.

It's unpleasant and I don't like it, but I have always believed that government edicts on human breeding are the way forward.

To me it seems like common sense.

Don't they already limit the population in China?

Yep. And I think they've got the right idea too. The right idea but poor execution. From what I hear, they're still going hungry and enjoying a poor standard of living. Population control should have the opposite effect.

 

After the Black Death, the surviving Europeans enjoyed a period of prosperity. Why? Because the continent-wide pandemic had leveled the playing field. Don't quote me on this, but I believe that the plague ushered in the transformation of society from a feudal system into the slightly better Renaissance period. Like I said, I'm not sure if that specific example is true, but I've heard things to that effect.

 

Whilst I do not long for widespread death and disease, I believe it is obvious that our current behaviour cannot be sustained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to start worrying otherwise the "Perfect Storm" theory will come true, and Malthus's theory will come true, along with all the neo-malthusians saying "We told you so!". Why get to that point? Why take the risk of not worrying and then seeing a population crash due to lack of resources and an over-populated planet?

 

Unless technology can save us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world population has almost doubled in my life time. Considering that I am not that old...that is kind of a scary thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like the Dark Ages all over again. It's scary.

 

Would it be possible for the government to spread a disease to reduce the population? That way, only the strong survive? hurr hurrr

 

 

It's a joke.

Edited by blitz



tumblr_mk683ddOTs1rkv9cvo1_250.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be possible for the government to spread a disease to reduce the population? That way, only the strong survive?

mercie_blink.gif

 

I sincerely hope you are joking there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracksuit Hitman
Would it be possible for the government to spread a disease to reduce the population? That way, only the strong survive?

If they did, it would be scary to see how much the government want only the "strong" in the world. I mean, Jesus. cry.gif

aka geobst

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be possible for the government to spread a disease to reduce the population? That way, only the strong survive?

mercie_blink.gif

 

I sincerely hope you are joking there.

I think they should just nuke India. Partial problem solved. tounge.gif jk Girish.

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be possible for the government to spread a disease to reduce the population? That way, only the strong survive?

Don't you want to survive? confused.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Would it be possible for the government to spread a disease to reduce the population? That way, only the strong survive?

mercie_blink.gif

 

I sincerely hope you are joking there.

I'm not being serious, that's for sure. biggrin.gif

 

 




tumblr_mk683ddOTs1rkv9cvo1_250.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] Would it be possible for the government to spread a disease to reduce the population? That way, only the strong survive?

They already did it's called AIDS.

I'm sure that Nature will eliminate the excess population through 'natural' means.

Really bad weather for an example.

One problem with 'curing' the sick is that it makes breeding of more defects easier, which will in the future come back to bite the population in the ass.

I remember someone having said that People were created by Mother Nature to make plastic and when there is enough plastic Mother Nature will erase the humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracksuit Hitman
We should consider moving into space.

Yeah, maybe we can meet some Martians or something along the way, too? Build up a shelter and have the Galactic Space Rangers (from GTA IV) come and land on our homes to defeat the friendly aliens?

aka geobst

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jokes aside I really do think that we should start worrying, maybe putting a limit as Typhus suggested could help. Humans have taken control over so much of the world, it's not right. Side by side, 7 billion people take up enough space to fill the city of Los Angeles, so we don't take as much space as you'd think.

 

I suggest you guys watch these videos, they're really interesting and have some great facts. It's by National Geographic, by the way.

 

 

 

 




tumblr_mk683ddOTs1rkv9cvo1_250.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to start worrying otherwise the "Perfect Storm" theory will come true, and Malthus's theory will come true, along with all the neo-malthusians saying "We told you so!". Why get to that point? Why take the risk of not worrying and then seeing a population crash due to lack of resources and an over-populated planet?

 

Unless technology can save us...

Population growth is currently decelerating. That's a good thing- a very good thing, in fact. Current population growth year on year is about 1.28%. By 2025, were forecast to drop below 0.9% population growth. It may well be too late- certainly, from the terms of the dwindling supply finite resources many nations have, there may be fundamental changes to the order of the world in my lifetime- but at least things are slowing. To be honest, one only needs arrest the growth of population in India to essentially neutralise population growth- most of the developed world has a population that is in a gradual state of decline.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would seem logical to stop hospitals and medical care, so everybody who gets sick dies off, and that way the sicknesses stop and don't spread down generations, and the outcome is healthy people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would seem logical to stop hospitals and medical care, so everybody who gets sick dies off, and that way the sicknesses stop and don't spread down generations, and the outcome is healthy people.

It may be a clever Idea but ethics get in the way. People might think that Stalin killing millions of Kulaks would have helped today's situation (if they even would think that) but it just isn't an ethical solution much like yours, people just won't stand for it.

 

Really though, I don't do anything to help this problem so I'm not going to complain since I'm not helping by sitting in front of this comp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AndrefromEstonia

Just fine people who f*ck too much and have more then 3 kids. I think This would be one of the only solutions. Lets just try to hold everything on 7 billion, whoever wants to have a child can have one only, 2 will be the maximum(twins for example or maybe even three babys at once) and over that you have to pay a fine. I know it would be hard on poorer people, but then again thats their fault. China is one f*cked up country anyway, also India. They are all poor anyway, why the hell do they f*ck so much?

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No thats not a way. I see that in India and rural areas of mostly asian and african countries they give birth to 10 - 20 children. They should be educated about condoms and bla bla bla's. Population number is the thing that I am always worrying about. I just wished I would be born when my grandpa's were born and enjoy a peaceful life.

 

This days because of population you are out of job, food, security, resources, even freedom and what not else. It should be the primary concern of every country that are over populated. When will humans stop fighting each other and then think of the betterment of tomorrow??

 

EDIT: I meant no to the post above andre's one

Edited by Swoorup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for another copy and paste + zero effort news topic PHCharls. I really appreciate them! It's not like I got to dedicated news sites for news.

 

As for you people advocating a limit, who decides who can reproduce? What are the limits, and why? The right to reproduce, which some would say is the sole reason for being, is something people don't take lightly to being denied. Just look at the treatment of first born daughters that has happened in China in the past.

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for another copy and paste + zero effort news topic PHCharls. I really appreciate them! It's not like I got to dedicated news sites for news.

 

As for you people advocating a limit, who decides who can reproduce? What are the limits, and why? The right to reproduce, which some would say is the sole reason for being, is something people don't take lightly to being denied. Just look at the treatment of first born daughters that has happened in China in the past.

Then again, I know this isn't common in the western world , but otherwise in lots of countries people are policed heavilly and to an extreme extent, but I'm sure countries like China and other countries in the globe would happily enforce fines like these, maybe even intimidation.

 

It's probably because in most countries there isn't a limit to how many children you can have, that's why it's really an ethical question to ask if there should be a fixed number of offspring you can give birth to. but over time as these "new" laws are put into practise if they are, people will overtime probably get used to it like they have gotten used to the fact that drugs like heroin are "illegal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I just remembered from a lecture back in the mid 60s when Zero population was a big thing.

 

 

In nature when a population begins to get to the point of lack of resources (animal/insect worlds) the number of homosexuals raise to naturally stem the increase of population.

I don't remember who it was that said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for you people advocating a limit, who decides who can reproduce? What are the limits, and why? The right to reproduce, which some would say is the sole reason for being, is something people don't take lightly to being denied.

True, but who is anyone to make moral judgements on right and wrong without being a part of the culture for which they are making the judgement? From a Western perspective, the one-child policy seems like the brutal and disgusting principal, but it's worked, no? Yes, the treatment for first-born female children is abhorrent to an outsider, but then again that's a product of the culture (which prizes male children over female children), not of the one-child policy itself.

 

I've always believed that the safety and security of a society is paramount over the rights of the individuals in that society. If such a point was reached that the safety and security of citizens was threatened by uncontrolled population growth, I would introduce population control measures. Universal rights are all well and good as long as they only affect one individual- they start becoming problematic when their application produces a negative effect for more individuals that they are applied to. If the overall negatives for the society as a whole outweigh the positive aspects of continuing to permit the population to grow exponentially, then sod the rights of the individual, wider society must come first.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There are too many mouths to feed" - this cannot be true. 7bn people alive must mean there's enough food to keep 7bn alive. There's too much fear and scaremongering when it comes to global population.

 

The key to reducing the birth rate is the education of women. Countries with the most highly educated women have the smallest birth rates. There's no need to impose limits or create laws to limit population, just educate women.

 

Another factor is migration. The population of the UK is kept artificially high by shipping migrants in. Just let the population decline in the educated, advanced world and encorage the rest of the world to become educated and advanced.

9322068076_d79a001db2_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.