Anonymous wrote:What bothers me is that when someone wants to keep having kids, they are told that they are the cause of over population. That just isn't true.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:look at this chart - hope this helps:

http://blog.dssresearch.com/?attachment_id=230

That chart just says that world population grew a lot in the last century. It says nothing about whether the world has the necessary resources to sustain that population. In the same timeframe we have developed the means to feed and clothe the larger population. Education has improved in most countries. The world is, as a whole, a smarter and wealthier place. Poverty still exists, as it always will

But to suggest that the answer to the world's ills is to decrease the number of people in it is backwards. There is no point to the world without humanity.

Yes, but the means we developed to feed and clothe a larger population are entirely dependent on fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels, our crop yields and food supply would not be enough. And guess what, fossil fuels are running out. And they are used in a variety of ways for food supply, and we have not found a suitable replacement that will yield the same amount of food. Traditional farming would simply not be enough.

In fact, it is the use of fossil fuels in farming and food production that has enabled the population growth. When they run out, it will be ugly.

Add to that the fact that because of our endless search for fossil fuels, we run the risk of ruining fresh water sources we have relied upon for centuries. Add to that the fact that climate change has significantly altered cycles that provide us with fresh drinking water. The result is that if things continue as they are, there won't be enough water to sustain the population we have now, certainly not the projected population.

People mistakenly think that fossil fuels running out only means we won't have gas for our cars. It seems so many people don't realize how dependent our food supply is on fossil fuels and petroleum products. And that and that alone is what has enabled the unprecedented population growth that has happened in the 70 years.

There are documentaries and other sources that break it down and explain it much better than I can here. But it is a problem.

That's not to say that one family having 6 kids is going to make or break us. But it is to say that you are a fool if you aren't concerned about overpopulation, especially in connection with depletion of fossil fuels. Factor in that with medicine and increased sanitation, people live longer. Whereas at other times, disease would keep population spikes in check. That isn't so much the case. It seems to me we are headed to a perfect storm -- burgeoning populations, decreased water supply, decreased food supply. What do you think that means? And don't think that the problem will be mainly a third world problem. Unrest and discord even "among the poors" has a way of affecting us eventually, especially if it happens in regions where they have natural resources that we want (you know, the kind that makes your gadgets and smart phones and laptops and iPads work).

Because we don't want more hostile takers like :50.

22:43 summed it up well. I would suspect it applies to :50, too.

What bothers me is that when someone wants to keep having kids, they are told that they are the cause of over population. That just isn't true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poors in the third world are the ones having too many kids, not Jack and Jill in Minnesota.

Nice try asshole. A family of 8 in a developing or undeveloped country Uses far fewer resources than a family of 4 in the America.

OP here. If I have 5 kids and I do not "drain" resources (for example large families living self sufficiently on a farm), what is the problem?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when someone mentions having a lot of kids? Like there was a thread where a woman was asking if she wanted more kids (mom of 4) and people started talking about how overpopulation was a big issue. I feel like if one couple has 2 kids, one has 6 and one 12, there are still lots of people with less kids to balance the pop. oh yeah and humans have a tendency to die so it isnt like we have endless reproduction and nothing keeping it in check.

If you are someone who cringes at larger families please tell why.

I cringe at large families because I grew up in one and don't recommend it.

+1

I think the smart urban DC moms should be having more to balance out the dummies in the rest of the country*

(* obviously dummies in the places where I think they are and not where I don't think they are. So don't get your panties twisted about your smart sister in San Francisco with six kids. She should keep going, obviously.)

well China instituted a two child policy, They saw the difficulties of feeding a billion + people and finding them all employment. (Now they are coming to America in droves, and also those from the other overpopulated county, India, but that is another topic).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you're not very smart are you?

I have a PhD. I think I'm pretty educated.

that doesn't mean smart. On the other hand, I think your question is a legitimate one and doesn't deserve the insults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:look at this chart - hope this helps:

http://blog.dssresearch.com/?attachment_id=230

That chart just says that world population grew a lot in the last century. It says nothing about whether the world has the necessary resources to sustain that population. In the same timeframe we have developed the means to feed and clothe the larger population. Education has improved in most countries. The world is, as a whole, a smarter and wealthier place. Poverty still exists, as it always will

But to suggest that the answer to the world's ills is to decrease the number of people in it is backwards. There is no point to the world without humanity.

The 4.54-billion-year-old world has only contained people for the last 100,000 years. 4.54 billion - 100,000 = 4.54 billion.

Anonymous wrote:The poors in the third world are the ones having too many kids, not Jack and Jill in Minnesota.

Nice try asshole. A family of 8 in a developing or undeveloped country Uses far fewer resources than a family of 4 in the America.

Anonymous wrote:look at this chart - hope this helps:

http://blog.dssresearch.com/?attachment_id=230

That chart just says that world population grew a lot in the last century. It says nothing about whether the world has the necessary resources to sustain that population. In the same timeframe we have developed the means to feed and clothe the larger population. Education has improved in most countries. The world is, as a whole, a smarter and wealthier place. Poverty still exists, as it always will

But to suggest that the answer to the world's ills is to decrease the number of people in it is backwards. There is no point to the world without humanity.

Anonymous wrote:Look around, OP. Open your eyes.

Are you drunk? Or are you always this vague and inarticulate?

The poors in the third world are the ones having too many kids, not Jack and Jill in Minnesota.

Anonymous wrote:My family was small so I have 3 kids and we our shooting for a 4th.

Please, please stop breeding now. You are only bringing down the average intelligence of the human gene pool.