Do you think the world is over populated?

No.

Yes.

Not really. Not America at least….traveling around you realize that, yes, there are big cities, but most of it is open space. I hope it stays this way.

I’ve heard the world population is growing at an ever-increasing rate.

I’ve heard the world population will peak in a few years and then start to decline.

I’ve heard the remaining space of un-human-developed land is scarily small and shrinking.

I’ve heard everyone in the world could live comfortably in a place the size of Texas.

There’s too many conflicting arugments with conflicting information, and I can’t figure out what’s what…
So, I don’t know what to believe about overpopulation.
I believe we’re in danger of overpollution, and overdevelopment, but I don’t know about overpopulation.

Yes eventually we will totally destroy the earth.

I would have to say yes its overpopulated in the fact that with that there is more and more demand on natural resources, water and oil would be the two big ones

I think people are irresponsible. The world is overpopulated in some regions and not so much in others. Why do people in some countries continue to have children when the rest of their families are starving? I don’t think this is a cut and dry question. There are many variables in the answer. As far as I’m concerned, every person knows the joy and / or consequence of having a child and that is what makes the question so double sided. I say Yes there are many parts of the world where the poverty stricken should just stop having sex (this country included). It is no longer a necessity to build a “tribe” of people to survive. We now need to learn to control our “primal wants”. The Planned parenthood question is a totally different issue in and of itself.

Way way way too many humans!

Yes.

I do! I just read an article in National Geographic projecting that the worldwide population will reach 7 billion this year. I think that we will just need to adjust to the growing population via keeping an eye on food production, waste management, water conservation, poverty housing , etc. These issues will increase greatly as the population continues to grow.

Great Question. The world is able to support 7 billion people, but there is obviously some upper limit and we have to be approaching it. And the world is not anywhere near capable of supporting even the existing 7 billion if they all want to live like Americans do today. It would take 5 Earths to supply enough energy and raw materials to allow that.

We are living in an unsustainable way. We are ignoring limits and horrible economic inequities so that a very few can live in a style monarchs couldn’t have attained a few generations ago. If we keep traveling the path we are on, we are going to hit limits soon that will provoke the masses to rise up and deal with the outrageous inequity. That Charter for Compassion that Karen Armstrong introduced at the TED Talks.may be more than a way toward more peaceful international and political relations, it may be our best option for survival.

There is plenty here for all of us to live a decent life. There isn’t enough for some to have more than enough mansions for each day of the week and traipse back and forth between them on private jets and huge yachts.

Yes. By about 7 billion.

In my opinion, overcrowding in the US has already destroyed a lot of open space. And Asian and Africa cannot easily sustain their current populations. Things were a lot less stressful about 3 billion people ago.

Planned Parenthood is irrelevant to the discussion. They kill off a lot of the would-be population, sure, but they’re not making people have sex.

@Nullo omg

@deni It’s true, though.

@Nullo i mean if you’re a fan of unwanted children that don’t get the care they deserve because they were an accident but the mother had no choice then….yeah. sounds like fun.

@deni Didn’t you get the memo? Once born, people don’t count. Por life means pro life right up to the time yuou escape the birth canal.

@deni If you ask me, it’s better than being killed for being an inconvenience. A friend of mine was one of those “unwanted” kids. We got to talking about it once, and he said that never did he regret his birth.
Perhaps it would be better for the unprepared to avoid sex until they are prepared to handle the consequences. That way, nobody has to get killed.

@ETpro That’s a very pretty straw man (and gross oversimplification, besides), but detestable all the same. Tell me your logic, good sir, that I might stop up your lungs with it.
I mean, it’s not exactly news that sex leads to children, which the parents have a responsibility to look after.
Or are you trying to conflate “life” with “personal freedom?” You waive your personal freedom when the pants come off. You can’t go around killing people that you’ve as much as asked to inconvenience you.
And in case you really didn’t know this already (which would be odd, given how educated you seem to be), the “life” part of “pro-life” is talking about the thing where you aren’t dead, not the one where you aren’t a recluse.

@Nullo I am sorry if my comment stung. But making written threats is inappropriate. Perhaps we should discontinue this conversation

@ETpro You flung a very obviously barbed statement into the middle of a controversial topic and are now “sorry” that someone took offense? You are a strange turkey, and (I expect) an insincere one. Or else are criminally ignorant of how people work, for one of such venerable years.

My apologies, though. The slaughter of the innocent has always been one of my shorter fuses, as is no doubt evident in the language. I ought not to have let that get the better of me.

Discontinue if you like, but I am still curious (morbidly curious, but curious all the same) as to the reasoning behind your post. Or were you just trolling?

I don’t mind debating as earnestly as you wish, but when you start making physical threats, I would rather just let it drop.

That was, in fact, a somewhat violent hyperextension of the idiom, “make you eat your words.” I am not so foolish as to make physical threats (widely regarded, online, as ineffectual and the hallmark of intellectual disadvantage) in a virtual medium, angry or no.

In our perspective we are the world; the earth doesnt even know were here if it thinks, after were gone none of this will even matter, the roaches will be using our bones for roach dens

@Nullo Thanks for the clarification. But observation is not logic, and can’t necessarily be supported by logic. It is what I see.

Let me clarify (as I should have done in my original statement) that this observation does not apply to all pro-lifers. There are those who fight abortion and also dedicate themselves to making the way of the living easier, fighting death and providing dignity of life. I also should state that I am not pro abortion any more than I am pro heart bypass surgery. It is just that in both cases, the procedures are sometimes necessary. I’d like to make both unnecessary in as many cases as possible.

Now, as to the observations that led to my statement. I have seen too many pro-lifers campaign to deny even basic support to children living in poverty. I see Republicans trying to shut down Planned Parenthood and all funding for contraception. Then there is the drive to gut public education so that only the wealthy can afford to get an education. All funding for teen mothers who do carry rape babies to term must be slashed. There are so many examples of right-wing ideology that suggests there is truth in the quip, “Life begins at conception and ends at birth.”

Perhaps it’s my confirmation bias that makes me think that stance is the norm. But if you deny any of that exists, you are operating in some pretty heavy confirmation bias of your own.