PDA

View Full Version : Planet reaches 7 Billion People, is this too many people ?


ozzman
31-10-11, 13:30
Article (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/philippines-welcomes-symbolic-7-billionth-baby-020700698.html)

The world welcomed its symbolic "seven billionth" baby on Monday but celebrations were tempered by worries over the strain that humanity's population explosion is putting on a fragile planet.

The United Nations said that by its best estimates the seven billionth baby would be born on October 31, and countries around the world have been marking the demographic milestone in a variety of ways.

Russian authorities showered gifts on newborns, while Papua New Guinea handed out special "goody bags" for new mothers.

The Philippines was the first country to declare a seven billionth baby, a little girl named Danica May Camacho.

Weighing 2.5 kilos (five pounds, six ounces), Danica was delivered just before midnight Sunday under a blitz of media camera flashes at Manila's Jose Fabella Memorial Hospital.

"She looks so lovely," her mother, Camille Dalura, whispered as she cradled her baby girl. "I can't believe she is the world's seven billionth."

UN rights chief Navi Pillay said in a statement marking the seven billion milestone: "From the moment the child was born, he or she -- like every other child born today or any other day -- should be guaranteed freedom from fear and want, protection from discrimination and abuse, and equal access to security, justice and respect as a member of the human family."

The birth comes at a time of great hope, Pillay said.

"The global awakening of 2011, which began in a town in Tunisia and spread to other towns and cities around the world, promises to restore the vision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of a life of freedom from fear and want for all, without discrimination."

The United Nations named a Bosnian child, Adnan Mevic, as the Earth's six billionth inhabitant on October 12, 1999, when then-secretary general Kofi Annan was pictured in a Sarajevo hospital with the child in his arms.

The Mevic family is now living in poverty -- which is one reason why no one baby was being singled out for the global spotlight this time. Instead a number of births were being marked throughout the day.

In Bangladesh, authorities named another baby girl the world's seven billionth child. Weighing 2.75 kilos and named Oishee, she arrived a minute after midnight at a hospital in the capital Dhaka.

"I'm so happy. I've become the father of a baby girl at a historic moment," her father Mohsin Hossain said.

In Cambodia the honor fell to a baby girl who has yet to be named. Weighing three kilos, she was born in the southern province of Preah Sihanouk, her parents' fifth child.

"I am very glad for her. She is the last child for us. I hope she will have good future. I had a dream that she would be the luckiest among my children," proud mother Pring Phal, 42, told AFP.

However Indian Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said the birth of the seven billionth child was "not a matter of joy but a great worry."

"We shouldn't be celebrating," he said Sunday in an interview with The Times of India. "For us a matter of joy will be when the population stabilises."

India's population, the world's second biggest at 1.2 billion, is set to surpass China's by 2025, according to the US census bureau.

The world has added a billion babies -- or almost another China -- since Adnan Mevic was born. Having taken millennia to pass the one-billion mark, the world's population has now doubled in 50 years.

Mounting concern over humanity's environmental impact and fears that we may not be able to feed ourselves 100 years from now cast a cautionary tone over the buildup to Monday's milestone.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon told students at a New York school last week: "Seven billion people who need enough food. Enough energy. Good opportunities in life for jobs and education. Rights and freedoms. The freedom to speak. The freedom to raise their own children in peace and security.

"Everything you want for yourself -- seven billion times over."

With about two babies being born every second, the figure can only go up and up in the decades to come -- to more than 10 billion by 2100, according to UN estimates.

A new UN Population Fund (UNFPA) report highlights how the world will face growing problems finding jobs for the new army of young people, especially in poor countries.

It also sounds alarms over how climate change and population growth are adding to drought and famine crises; the management of megacities like Tokyo; and ageing populations such as Europe's.

Children's rights group Plan International meanwhile noted that many births go unregistered, notably in parts of Africa, where as many as two-thirds are not recorded.

In Liberia, only 16 percent of children are registered, it said.

Cochrane
31-10-11, 14:40
I don't like the term "Too many". I think our world can sustain even ten billion people, possibly more. But that will require a lot of changes.

The main problems I see are food supply, water, space, materials, energy and (closely related) pollution. I think all of those can be solved; it will just cost a lot.

Take food, for example: Many western countries, including the EU, are actually throwing food away to keep world market prices up. Using modern technology in third-world countries can probably increase food production by a lot. It just costs money.

Water isn't a problem in first-world countries and will likely never become one, but in many third-world countries, supply is extremely limited. Desalting and pipelines should be able to solve some of that, but it's going to be one of the bigger issues.

Space does not seem like much of a problem, but as more and more people move into cities, away from the land, this might become interesting as more and more uses compete for the remaining land. Consider the huge land use of airports, or how roads and railway lines are not desired near residential areas due to noise pollution. I think these problems can be solved with modern technology, and of course on the whole, the planet is big enough.

With materials I mean stuff like metal ores, but also scrap metal or crude oil as the basic for plastics. The prices of metals such as copper have increased by a factor of four since the early 2000s, and will probably remain there for the foreseeable future, mostly because of demand from China. With increasing demand from India, that will become more of a problem in the future. Better recycling may solve some, but not all of that.

Energy and pollution may be the most interesting. Ideas like everyone (or every household) has their own car will not be sustainable in the long term. We need new energy sources, such as solar power with transmission and storage technology, and new concepts for mobility. And we can't afford to just apply those to developing nations; for one, prices for oil will raise for us, too, and second, countries like China will not accept that they should have a worse standard of living than we in the west do.

Until these problems are solved (and I don't think they will ever be fully solved), the rising world population is a problem. But I think it is also a chance to rethink what we do with the planet.

I'd also like to point out that rising world population is not necessarily a global problem. Most of Europe is actually fighting with a declining overall population, which causes its own set of social problems. More people in India does not hurt us that much as long as their standard of living (and hence their demand for resources and their output of pollution) remains enough below ours. It's the long-term view that is problematic.

Amiyo
31-10-11, 14:44
I read an article today that said that the Earth can bear 10 billion people if we start to downgrade our standard of living. By this the person interviewed in the article (if I remember correctly, he was from WWF or something) mostly meant these things:

consuming less (buying lasting household appliances, repairing things instead of immediately buying new ones etc.)
using public transport, saving energy etc.
thinking about what we eat (increasing the amount of vegetables, not wasting edible food and so on)

So, it's hard to say an exact number that's too much for our precious planet, at least I can't say one.

scoopy_loopy
01-11-11, 10:11
Nope. Develop Africa and it could feed itself, the other continents have slowing population growths and can support themselves just fine as well.

EscondeR
01-11-11, 10:28
The main problems I see are food supply, water, space, materials, energy and (closely related) pollution. I think all of those can be solved; it will just cost a lot.

The main problem is mentality (the typical one of a human is "consumer mentality") other just grow from that one.

patriots88888
01-11-11, 11:25
No, but we appear to be steadily getting there...

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=184679

for the reasons I mentioned in the above thread. Despite Cochrane's never waning optimism, I still believe there will be insurmountable problems if we don't do something to better control the ever increasing global population growth. Simply saying, 'it's not us (our country) that's contributing to it' and 'tough break for them' doesn't qualify.

Trinity34
01-11-11, 23:28
The main problem is mentality (the typical one of a human is "consumer mentality") other just grow from that one.

Sorry to disagree but the main problem is birth control and the society you live in and how you view family planning. :)

But I also do think "nature" evens things out eventually. Look at India.... they killed off a lot of female babies so now there is a shortage of women. I read there are 800 women/1000 men. Hmm wonder how that will work out.

TombRaiderFan.
02-11-11, 03:32
I actually did a speech about world's population, and I found something extremely unexpected when I was working on my research. If you look at the birth-rate around the world, it has been lowering--much due to education and better birth control.

We currently have 7 billion people in this planet, it'd be great if we could maintain that number there...steady. In order to do this each couple would need to have only two children. Although this isn't always the case, if you take into account the entire world, as humans we are pretty close to that ideal number of two children. It's basically because people in underdeveloped countries have essentially kept having a larger number of children when compared with the industrialized world, such as we're seeing in Europe or Japan. People in developed countries are tending to have few or no children because they're much more career oriented.

Just to put myself as an example, I don't believe in marriage--I see so many people get divorced anyways :rolleyes:--or ruining my young life with children. I rather focus on making money and traveling around the world. :)

Oh, and I think I should also point out the interesting fact that we have a growing population of seniors. Thanks to science we have been able to cheat death a few years, therefore people are living longer now than we used to. This basically means my generations will have to support a bunch of old people >< haha but it's ok, I'll be more than happy to support my parents! :)

EscondeR
02-11-11, 04:35
Sorry to disagree but the main problem is birth control and the society you live in and how you view family planning. :)

LMAO and those are given us by "god" instead of being results of our mentality.

E.g. birth control will never actually work, unless common sense prevails over religion.

Apathetic
02-11-11, 04:37
LMAO and those are given us by "god" instead of being results of our mentality.

E.g. birth control will never actually work, unless common sense prevails over religion.

Yes.

Trinity34
03-11-11, 00:15
LMAO and those are given us by "god" instead of being results of our mentality.

E.g. birth control will never actually work, unless common sense prevails over religion.

I don't think religion can be blamed for people wanting to have large families, not all the time at least.

Draco
03-11-11, 06:08
The desire and/or need to have a large family, with special emphasis on offspring count, is directly attributed to the increasing or decreasing need for more chances for your offspring to survive. Poorer countries tend to have a great many more children while richer countries tend not to.

This ultimately leads to a catch 22 in the modern age. Rich countries cease to have population growth outside of immigration, and poor countries can't handle their explosive population. Which leads to my country's current problem.

MattTR
05-11-11, 03:05
6,999,999,999 others.. THIS IS SPARTA!

colourful
18-11-11, 17:48
I think its too many people. It wouldn't be too many people if everyone looked after the planet and each other. But we don't! I kind of thing people shouldn't have more than 3 children each as some people are having like 8! Which i think is far too many.

moodydog
20-11-11, 18:31
Well what's the ratio of people living in poverty or third world countries to people living in developed country's. (I am not talking about specific poverty like the poverty in Britain ect) Is it correct to assume the majority of the worlds population live in 3rd world.

Zebra
20-11-11, 18:33
There are too many humans living on this planet and there have been for a long time and unless we introduce global birth rate controls or something like that (which is not gonna happen) I don't think we'll be able slow down human population growth, let alone stop it.

Mad Tony
20-11-11, 18:34
There are too many humans living on this planet and there have been for a long time and unless we introduce global birth rate controls or something like that (which is not gonna happen) I don't think we'll be able slow down human population growth, let alone stop it.How long is a long time? At present I don't think there are too many, perhaps in the future though.

Alpharaider47
20-11-11, 19:48
I believe that there are too many people living on this planet for the means in which we live. That said, if we changed how we lived to accommodate more people, I'm certain that we could sustain more.

Perhaps the answer lies in helping poorer nations deal with their population explosions as they become more industrialized. But how to go about that... I'm not really sure. I was under the impression that a lot of those large families came out of necessity(since many children die, as Draco pointed out) but also tradition, and even religion? If that is indeed the case, how do we change their way of life in a delicate manner, and is it even our place to do so?

tomekkobialka
21-11-11, 17:24
I don't think that the planet has too much people - it all depends on the way we live. Westerners right now are eating much more food than they need to, and some third worlders are eating less food than they require. we only get an illusion that perhaps there are too many people in the world, but IMO we are more than able to sustain 7 billion people, we ALL just need to change our lifestyle.

Btw, labelling a baby as the 7 billionth person is complete pots - there's no way the UN could prove such a fact.

QiX
21-11-11, 18:08
I'm pretty sure that we could even double the current population on the planet, but at what cost? The world shouldn't be reduces to humans, cows, pigs, chicken and an assortment of grains, fruit and vegetables. Wild species are disappearing, natural forests and prairies are being squeezed into smaller and smaller reservations. We continue to spread like viruses and the world will become a huge farmville.

Greenapple968
28-11-11, 00:07
I think we'd do better with a maximum of five billion humans. But we can't just magically decrease the population by two billion now can we?

Draco
28-11-11, 16:54
I think we'd do better with a maximum of five billion humans. But we can't just magically decrease the population by two billion now can we?

No, but we can use science to do it.

Andes
25-12-11, 14:26
Yep, too many consumers by far. But fear not, they're manning the FEMA camps as we speak, and those Georgia Guidestones tell their own tale.

Mad Tony
25-12-11, 16:54
Are you a troll?

Draco
25-12-11, 16:57
No more one than you are I reckon.

Romantics Inc.
25-12-11, 17:14
Too many people.

Ready the Death Star.

I smell Troll Fat.

Mad Tony
25-12-11, 17:58
No more one than you are I reckon.How do I troll?

You keep on accusing me of being a troll but never actually provide any examples.

Draco
25-12-11, 19:16
How do I troll?

You keep on accusing me of being a troll but never actually provide any examples.

It wouldn't matter if I did, you wouldn't see it as trolling.

Mad Tony
25-12-11, 19:17
It wouldn't matter if I did, you wouldn't see it as trolling.Can we put this to bed once and for all? Give some examples. I'm getting pretty tired of stating my opinion in threads and having you accuse me of trolling just because you don't agree with them.

Apathetic
25-12-11, 19:17
Can we put this to bed once and for all? Give some examples. I'm getting pretty tired of stating my opinion in threads and having you accuse me of trolling just because you don't agree with them.

You are a troll, though.

Draco
25-12-11, 20:05
Can we put this to bed once and for all? Give some examples. I'm getting pretty tired of stating my opinion in threads and having you accuse me of trolling just because you don't agree with them.

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=5713879&postcount=171

One example.

Mad Tony
25-12-11, 20:25
How is that trolling? :confused: Ron Paul won't be elected whether you like or not. If he is then I'll happily put my hands up and say I was wrong.

Draco
25-12-11, 20:50
It was trolling because you only posted because you wanted to slam Ron Paul and ridicule myself in the process. I never even mentioned RP until you did.

Chocola teapot
25-12-11, 20:52
It won't be long before the world fails to provide sufficient produce for too many people and it all collapses. :C

matrix54
25-12-11, 20:54
Funny - they just killed a bunch of bears in our area because there were too many. 7 Billion is well above the required amount of humans on earth - especially since out original life expectancy was about 30-40 years. With the way we've shaped the planet, we can barely sustain the the amount we have now.

Sir Croft
25-12-11, 20:55
Nuke China. BAM, there goes 1 bi.

Mad Tony
25-12-11, 21:15
It was trolling because you only posted because you wanted to slam Ron Paul and ridicule myself in the process. I never even mentioned RP until you did.Not really. I was just giving my interpretation of your posts, because it was fairly obvious you were talking about Ron Paul. You never miss an opportunity to go on about him.

Draco
25-12-11, 21:35
Not really. I was just giving my interpretation of your posts, because it was fairly obvious you were talking about Ron Paul. You never miss an opportunity to go on about him.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it isn't a swan.

Andes
25-12-11, 21:39
Are you a troll?

No, it was a bad hair day.

Mad Tony
25-12-11, 21:43
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it isn't a swan.That's nice for you.

Cochrane
26-12-11, 00:00
To be honest, I'd say this discussion about who is trolling and who not is, in itself, troll-like behavior. And no matter who "wins", I don't think the rest of the forum will respect them significantly more for it. But that is just my opinion, of course. Don't let it discourage any of you.

On topic: I don't know any details about FEMA camps or Georgia Guidestones, but this already sounds like a conspiracy theory. Even though US government agencies have done questionable things and are likely doing questionable things right now, I think most if not all conspiracy theories have no credibility at all because they are totally insane.

Greenapple968
26-12-11, 01:44
On topic: The human population is a good two billion too high and we should aim to reduce it somehow. Economically we were much better off when our population was six billion.

Off Topic: I do not consider Mad Tony to be a troll; speaking your opinion is not trolling.

Draco
26-12-11, 03:15
What is your basis for deciding the population was better at a lower number?

voltz
26-12-11, 05:43
More resources, material management, etc, etc.

Mad Tony
26-12-11, 09:50
On topic: The human population is a good two billion too high and we should aim to reduce it somehow. Economically we were much better off when our population was six billion.Actually we weren't. I'm not sure if we would be better of with say, 10 billion people, but as things stand at the moment things aren't that bad.

Admles
26-12-11, 11:16
Lets wipe out all the Justin Bieber fans, and emos. That should free up a few billion spaces :D

Greenapple968
26-12-11, 12:40
Actually we weren't. I'm not sure if we would be better of with say, 10 billion people, but as things stand at the moment things aren't that bad.

When there was six billion people there were more jobs, more resources plus the pound and euro were strong at the time.

Draco
26-12-11, 12:57
You make it sound like Britain's population has risen significantly with the world population.

Mad Tony
26-12-11, 13:05
When there was six billion people there were more jobs, more resources plus the pound and euro were strong at the time.The only thing you got right there was that there were more resources, but even then resources are always depleting.

Don't know what less jobs and a weaker pound and Euro have to do with this. There are less jobs because of the financial crisis and the Euro is weaker because of the Eurozone crisis. I thought everyone knew that. :confused:

strawberry22
26-12-11, 13:51
The world definetly changes when more people are in it. We barely have enough resorces to survive with 7 billion people. What about 9 billion? What about 12 billion? It's extremly interesting. It all links around geography. How fast are we really using are resorces? When will they run out? I was watching a Geography Matters video and statistics show that in:

9 Years - Silver will run out, used for Jewellery and Catalyic Converters

13 Years - Antimony will run out, used for drugs and medicine (what if we get sick?)

19 Years - Uranium will run out, used for power stations (how will we get electricity?)

20 Years - Tantalum will run out, used for mobile phones and camera lenses

38 Years - Copper will run out, used for wire cables and coins (another electricity problem)

What will we do when all of these resorces are gone?
And so, It is extremly important about how the world is growing and changing with the population growing as well. We need to learn alot more about Sustainable living. Does anyone care? I know I do. Geography Matters!

Cochrane
26-12-11, 15:04
The world definetly changes when more people are in it. We barely have enough resorces to survive with 7 billion people. What about 9 billion? What about 12 billion? It's extremly interesting. It all links around geography. How fast are we really using are resorces? When will they run out? I was watching a Geography Matters video and statistics show that in:

9 Years - Silver will run out, used for Jewellery and Catalyic Converters

13 Years - Antimony will run out, used for drugs and medicine (what if we get sick?)

19 Years - Uranium will run out, used for power stations (how will we get electricity?)

20 Years - Tantalum will run out, used for mobile phones and camera lenses

38 Years - Copper will run out, used for wire cables and coins (another electricity problem)

What will we do when all of these resorces are gone?
And so, It is extremly important about how the world is growing and changing with the population growing as well. We need to learn alot more about Sustainable living. Does anyone care? I know I do. Geography Matters!

Quite a few of these resources can be recycled effectively. Recycling copper takes a lot of power, but is otherwise a very simple process. Silver is even easier. When it comes to fissile materials, nobody truly knows what reserves the nuclear powers have, but they are generally assumed to be considerable. And even if not, dismantling nuclear bombs can yield more.

I'm not saying that these problems are not real; they are. But those are things mankind has to solve anyway, no matter how many people there are in the world. The real question isn't how many people we can have, but what standard of living we can afford to give everyone. Rising standards of living will require changes even if we were able to cut it back to five billion people. On the other hand, new technology and better resource usage could allow us to deal with significantly more people.

aktrekker
28-12-11, 03:18
Using more natural farming practices, without increasing farmland, we could easily feed double the current population. Check out Permaculture and Food Forests. Nature does the hard work. No fertilizer, no irrigation, much higher per-acre food yield. We just have to start doing it.

Power will not be an issue. At some point the cost will no longer be an issue. We have barely begun to investigate things like ocean and wind power generation. Solar power is still in it's infancy. Alternative fuels could be developed.

The real issue will be non-renewable resources. And that can also be fixed. Do we really need 50 different types of cell phones or pad computers or mp3 players? How about 200 different brands and models of televisions? And does everyone need one? Can't they be made more reliable so you don't have to buy a new one every couple of years? Why do we need a new model every year if the old one keeps working?
If it wasn't for greed, our need for these resources could easily be cut to a small percentage of our current use.
We will definitely need to recycle, but even this may soon be impossible. As more communities deplete their landfill capabilities, they are turning to different methods of disposal, such as incinerators. These burn so hot they even reduce metals to ash. Once that is done, we can no longer recycle those resources, and we will run out.

spikejones
28-12-11, 20:11
I dont know if 7 billion people is too many for this planet, mostly because it has a lot to do with how much inhabitable terra firma exists on this planet, peoples abilities to co-exist with one another and to support life aka "survive". Granted many people would live in poverty, perhaps a large percentage of the global population. However if for the purposes of this argument of sustaining life on planet earth the quality of life is irrelevant, then I would have to say that its entirely possible to host 7 billion people.

Something that may put things into a bit more perspective as to what some people may think is acceptable population is the show "The Event". In this show, we are introduced to an alien race whose DNA structure is 1% away from being identical to Homo Sapiens. This "alien race" who unbeknownst to us was here before us.. made their home on another planet which was about to die due to its sun going super nova. In order to ensure the survival of their race of 2 billion inhabitants they created a portal array to (like Transformers) bring their planet into Earths atmosphere to begin a pilgrimage of their race to our planet. In order to address the issue of "making space" for their race to survive on our planet, they dug up a corpse infected with the spanish flu (to which they were immune). No known cure to the humans and it kills rapidly - too rapidly for their needs - but they addressed this issue by infecting a hybrid to create a new strain that killed slower. Their plan was to infect food, money, and international travel - effectively killing off the human population.

So we have here earths 7 billion people and the other planets 2 billion people, and apparently 9 billion people is just too many. Is more than 2 billion too many?

Andes
29-12-11, 07:49
It may be a hopelessly out of reach utopia (aren't they all?), but I really don't see why anyone should have to live in poverty, and I always naively hoped we could sort ourselves out and just get along as we continue to evolve. Ah well, nice thought. Nowadays I'm far more inclined to fear the worst, the planet really is horribly overpopulated, and cannot continue growing without something going seriously amiss. In the meantime big business just makes use of the disgustingly cheap vast labourforce wherever its financially viable for them to do so.

The Event sounds v interesting, thanks for the tip off, will seek it out on DVD. I'll be gutted though if aliens don't turn out to be like Paul.

Mad Tony
29-12-11, 09:40
In the meantime big business just makes use of the disgustingly cheap vast labourforce wherever its financially viable for them to do so.Heaven forbid people can get jobs.

Andes
29-12-11, 10:06
Heaven forbid people can get jobs.

And are paid less, and less, and less to do so. Although I was referring mainly to third world exploitation where people have always been paid the equivalent of zip, not to mention Mexico and many other allegedly non-third world countries.

Mad Tony
29-12-11, 10:24
And are paid less, and less, and less to do so. Although I was referring mainly to third world exploitation where people have always been paid the equivalent of zip, not to mention Mexico and many other allegedly non-third world countries.Better than no job is it not?

Draco
29-12-11, 10:40
Better than no job is it not?

Not really, no.

Andes
29-12-11, 11:05
Better than no job is it not?

I think that's pretty debatable, in terms of the poor sods having anything like a decent standard of living as reward for their productivity. Terms and conditions aren't so humane either. I question what human being could do this to another, solely for personal gain? What gives anybody the right?

Mad Tony
29-12-11, 19:38
Not really, no.If that's the case then how come people still work these jobs? You'd think that if having no job at all really was just as good as having a job (albeit a very low paying one) then nobody would be working these jobs.

MiCkiZ88
29-12-11, 19:53
If that's the case then how come people still work these jobs? You'd think that if having no job at all really was just as good as having a job (albeit a very low paying one) then nobody would be working these jobs.
Because of the poor education system they cannot get any good jobs, and all the money they make, goes to rent, food and they cannot even afford to pay schools or medicines. Simple as that. They have no other choice than to work for big companies that pay them a fraction of first world minimum wage. Which is ****ed up in my opinion, but hey.. whatever gives you more goods, eh?

Mad Tony
29-12-11, 20:11
Because of the poor education system they cannot get any good jobs, and all the money they make, goes to rent, food and they cannot even afford to pay schools or medicines. Simple as that. They have no other choice than to work for big companies that pay them a fraction of first world minimum wage. Which is ****ed up in my opinion, but hey.. whatever gives you more goods, eh?You seem to have missed the point of my post. Nowhere did I say people working for ridiculously low wages is all fine and dandy. All I'm saying is that a job, however low-paying, is better than no job. As always the big multinational corporations are being deionized and blamed for the failings of the governments of poverty stricken nations.

MiCkiZ88
29-12-11, 20:31
You seem to have missed the point of my post. Nowhere did I say people working for ridiculously low wages is all fine and dandy. All I'm saying is that a job, however low-paying, is better than no job. As always the big multinational corporations are being deionized and blamed for the failings of the governments of poverty stricken nations.
No, it's not the failings of the governments that I'm blaming big corporations for. It's for making use of it, failing your own country and selling out.

But I do understand the argument. Just why I think this world is ****ed up is because first world countries give money to charities that give the money to to the third world governments.. which use the money on something idiotic rather than improving the system. It is pure corruption what keeps the third world countries from evolving, and companies seem fine with it as long as they make a killing.

For the same reason third world countries and some first world countries use the tactic: the more children you get, the bigger chance of one of them becoming successful and saving their family from debt. Our planet can't handle that kind of thinking too long.

The above is purely my opinion, not based on any facts or anything. Just me view on this world and why it sucks.

Mad Tony
29-12-11, 21:01
I don't really see how the big companies seem "fine" with it?

MiCkiZ88
29-12-11, 21:04
I don't really see how the big companies seem "fine" with it?
Then you must blindly believe they are only helping the developing countries.

And what is this thing that you only reply with one liners after couple of posts and ignore the key points? It's like you're a big troll. :confused:

patriots88888
29-12-11, 21:10
Not really, no.

Exactly! As an example... I worked delivery where I wasn't even getting minimum wage, all because I made 'tips'. :rolleyes: My gasoline expenditures were costing me more than I was making and the only reason I kept it was because I was promised better/more hours if I stuck it out. After waiting for a few months for that to finally happen (which it never did) I was forced to say see ya to that job... it was costing me more to keep it than to have it. Thank God I had a second job at the time.

Mad Tony
29-12-11, 21:15
Then you must blindly believe they are only helping the developing countries.

And what is this thing that you only reply with one liners after couple of posts and ignore the key points? It's like you're a big troll. :confused:Nope, never said that at all. :confused:

Umm, because I didn't disagree with most of your post? You're correct for the large part. Charity does go to waste and it is indeed corruption which is holding these countries back. Honestly, what do you expect me to say? I didn't realize disagreeing with only a section of your post was trolling.

Think you need to go and look up the definition of trolling.

MiCkiZ88
29-12-11, 21:17
Nope, never said that at all. :confused:

Umm, because I didn't disagree with most of your post? You're correct for the large part. Charity does go to waste and it is indeed corruption which is holding these countries back. Honestly, what do you expect me to say?

Think you need to go and look up the definition of trolling.
Then please make your posts clearer to read, because what you just said in your previous posts was a 50/50. I wasn't sure if you were actually agreeing with me or disagreeing O.o And it would add to the conversation if you actually said that you agreed on the matter xD

And I'm sorry to say it, but you do come of trollish on these forums.

Mad Tony
29-12-11, 21:28
Then please make your posts clearer to read, because what you just said in your previous posts was a 50/50. I wasn't sure if you were actually agreeing with me or disagreeing O.o And it would add to the conversation if you actually said that you agreed on the matter xD

And I'm sorry to say it, but you do come of trollish on these forums.I thought I made myself quite clear? I disagree with some of what you've said (and I made that clear) and agreed with others. Since I agreed with them I felt no need to contest them so I just didn't say anything.

How so? You've accused me of being argumentative in the past, yet when I don't argue with you on every little detail you call me a troll. I can't win it seems.

TombRaiderFan.
30-12-11, 00:22
I don't really see how the big companies seem "fine" with it?

There it is again! Hahaha. This is your answer Mad Tony, from back to the last thread you quoted me in.


Anyways, regarding this topic. I gave--what I think is--a pretty good answer based on my past research a few pages back. No one here cares to pay attention to it, I'm insulted people...insulted!

Draco
30-12-11, 01:44
If that's the case then how come people still work these jobs? You'd think that if having no job at all really was just as good as having a job (albeit a very low paying one) then nobody would be working these jobs.

You need some perspective on what it is like to be among the dredges of society.

trXD
30-12-11, 03:43
So are we just letting this grow until it causes serious problems? There needs to be a one baby law until the population drops.

(yes, I do mean all around the world)

CuteLilDragon
30-12-11, 04:27
I think it could start to become a bit of a problem. But I don't think I'm going to be on this planet when it does. :D

trXD
30-12-11, 04:56
I think it could start to become a bit of a problem. But I don't think I'm going to be on this planet when it does. :D

Assuming you'll reproduce your kids will be :/

robm_2007
30-12-11, 06:49
Help control the human population. Have your Asians spayed or neutered.

Mad Tony
30-12-11, 11:14
There it is again! Hahaha. This is your answer Mad Tony, from back to the last thread you quoted me in.What? :confused:

So are we just letting this grow until it causes serious problems? There needs to be a one baby law until the population drops.

(yes, I do mean all around the world)I'm not really sure that's practical. Who's going to oversee such a law?

Not only that but it's not exactly fair is it?

You need some perspective on what it is like to be among the dredges of society.Just because I have a different opinion to you doesn't mean I don't have a perspective. I know these people are living in poverty and that there are no opportunities, I'm just of the opinion that a job is better than no job.

Funny how TRF can be so open minded about some things but other things, you're not even allowed to have a different opinion.

Draco
30-12-11, 11:18
It has nothing to do with what your opinion is, it has everything to do with how little you actually know about things you form opinions around.

Being where they are and working like that is akin to slavery. Sure yeah, they get 'paid'. But what they get paid is a pittance even in their country.

If one American company paid at least minimum wages (American that is) in those nations... it would throw the third world into turmoil. It would mean actually having a good job to them.

Mad Tony
30-12-11, 11:22
It has nothing to do with what your opinion is, it has everything to do with how little you actually know about things you form opinions around.

Being where they are and working like that is akin to slavery. Sure yeah, they get 'paid'. But what they get paid is a pittance even in their country.

If one American company paid at least minimum wages (American that is) in those nations... it would throw the third world into turmoil. It would mean actually having a good job to them.I never denied any of this. :confused:

All I'm doing is essentially supporting the lesser of two evils. Just because I'd rather see people have a job (albeit a very low paying one) doesn't mean I don't think it'd be nice if they paid them higher wages.

But of course, what do I know? I know nothing about this. After all, my opinion is different to yours, so how can I know anything?

Draco
30-12-11, 11:25
That's the attitude of a petulant child, you know. You go to work for a pound a week. At least you have a job.

Mad Tony
30-12-11, 11:29
That's the attitude of a petulant child, you know. You go to work for a pound a week. At least you have a job.How is it? It's quite rich for you to talk about being a petulant child when you're constantly accusing people of trolling just because they don't agree with you. :vlol:

I wouldn't need to work for a pound a week here because I live in a first world country. Unfortunately for people in poorer countries that's often all they have. It's not really the same situation.

Cochrane
30-12-11, 11:37
Mad Tony: As long as people continue to say "any job is better than no job at all", wages won't increase. In fact, they might decrease. How do you propose to solve this?

I see three options:

1. Appeal to the goodness in the hearts of the multi-national corporations that operate factories in third world countries to lower personnel cost.
2. Stricter government legislation.
3. People refusing to take "any" job, best in collective.

Number one is less likely to be successful than just praying. Option number two is at least difficult - as long as there is one country that doesn't care about workers, companies will go there, and passing legislation in the consumer countries like the US and europe will be difficult, especially with regards to loopholes.

Really, the only realistic option is to reject the notion that "any job is better than no job". This idea simply gives employers too much power.

Mad Tony
30-12-11, 11:45
I don't really think it matters what I believe as I'm not in a position to change anything anyway.

I think what needs to happen is none of the above. What I'd like to see happen is the governments of these poorer countries take steps towards improving the economic situation in their own country so that people don't have to take such low paying jobs. In short, I'd like to see less corruption and better education, therefore more opportunities.

Cochrane
30-12-11, 12:16
I don't really think it matters what I believe as I'm not in a position to change anything anyway.
By that logic, this entire forum ought to be empty.

I think what needs to happen is none of the above. What I'd like to see happen is the governments of these poorer countries take steps towards improving the economic situation in their own country so that people don't have to take such low paying jobs. In short, I'd like to see less corruption and better education, therefore more opportunities.
That sounds good but is too vague. How will economic conditions improve if most of the country is in poverty? Does education automatically increase the price foreign companies are willing to pay for labor? (hint: No)

TombRaiderFan.
30-12-11, 12:24
I can't believe a day like this would ever come, but...I do partly agree with what Mad Tony is getting at. I mean, if it weren't for at least those crappy jobs, then maybe these people wouldn't even be able to eat.
It makes me sick regardless. I've heard of human capital as a resource, but this is out of control. Companies just treat third world employees like freaking cattle. I wish these jobs would stay in the US and Europe where employees aren't abused as much. I honestly wouldn't mind paying that extra for a manufactured good just as long as the rest of the country is.
At least the more industrialized China and the rest become then maybe their people will start demanding better working conditions and pay. As of now that's the only way I can see this issue balancing out.

Mad Tony
30-12-11, 12:25
That sounds good but is too vague. How will economic conditions improve if most of the country is in poverty? Does education automatically increase the price foreign companies are willing to pay for labor? (hint: No)I don't know how to turn poverty stricken countries into successful ones.

However, I do know that if there are more jobs and better standards of education in these countries then people probably wouldn't have to take these jobs.

Nausinous
30-12-11, 18:40
It is too many people but who is honestly going to say no? More babies means more money but what the corporations and governments are blatantly ignoring is that the planet has finite resources. We're screwed once they run out and we have no system in place to measure how much is left and what projects we should prioritise. Not to mention that more people means more rubbish and landfills are overflowing as it is. The end of my life is going to be tough but the current generation does not seem to care of the repercussions.

Mad Tony
30-12-11, 19:20
It is too many people but who is honestly going to say no? More babies means more money but what the corporations and governments are blatantly ignoring is that the planet has finite resources. We're screwed once they run out and we have no system in place to measure how much is left and what projects we should prioritise. Not to mention that more people means more rubbish and landfills are overflowing as it is. The end of my life is going to be tough but the current generation does not seem to care of the repercussions.It's not the corporations or governments who have these children.

Nausinous
30-12-11, 20:04
It's not the corporations or governments who have these children.

The governments aren't putting any restraints on breeding are they?

Mad Tony
30-12-11, 20:11
The governments aren't putting any restraints on breeding are they?No, and nor is it in their place to do so.

Don't see what corporations have to do with it though.

Nausinous
30-12-11, 21:06
No, and nor is it in their place to do so.

Don't see what corporations have to do with it though.

It is a governments responsibility to encourage its people to be responsible, the planet can't handle this many people, at least not this many people treating the planet this way. I was just saying companies would be happy with more people because it means profits for them.

Mad Tony
30-12-11, 21:32
It is a governments responsibility to encourage its people to be responsible, the planet can't handle this many people, at least not this many people treating the planet this way. I was just saying companies would be happy with more people because it means profits for them.It's also a government's responsibility not to encroach on the freedoms of its citizens. I don't think it's responsible for a couple to have say, 10 children, but at the same time I don't think it's right for a government to legislate how many children you can have either.

Don't really see how it benefits them? I don't really see how this is relevant either.

trXD
30-12-11, 21:38
I'm not really sure that's practical. Who's going to oversee such a law?

Not only that but it's not exactly fair is it?


Oh it definitely isn't practical or fair, that's for sure. But it would make a huge difference for the good.

Nausinous
30-12-11, 21:38
Don't really see how it benefits them? I don't really see how this is relevant either.

The question is 'Planet reaches 7 billion, too many people?' I'm saying yes it is too many people because its a strain on the planets resources but there are those who benefit from this, like the corporations and those who should be doing more to stop the planet from going into crisis like the governments.

Billy959
30-12-11, 21:41
way too many people,wear a condom everybody!

Mad Tony
30-12-11, 21:57
The question is 'Planet reaches 7 billion, too many people?' I'm saying yes it is too many people because its a strain on the planets resources but there are those who benefit from this, like the corporations and those who should be doing more to stop the planet from going into crisis like the governments.Yeah, I heard you first time, but you didn't answer my question.

Oh it definitely isn't practical or fair, that's for sure. But it would make a huge difference for the good.I can't see much good coming from it. First of all it's not practical. For one country it might be, but the whole world?

Secondly, the world isn't even overpopulated. It's a myth. Denying people one of their basic human rights isn't going to do much good.

TombRaiderFan.
31-12-11, 08:49
The world isn't overpopulated based on what?

There's already ton of animal species that have gone extinct thanks to our exploitation of natural resources. The balance is too weak to support us all. Wake up already people, resources are not infinite. WE ARE TOO MANY as it is. 7 billion is more than enough, some of these people don't even have clean water to drink. If we can't handle 7 billion, what makes anyone think it'd be better with more people?

trXD
31-12-11, 09:54
I respect your opinion that we shouldn't stop people having more than one child Mad Tony, but like I said the impracticality should be disregarded because of the necessity, lots of things are impractical but we still have to try and enforce them.

But I'm genuinely not going to sit here and try to convince you that the population of the world isn't 'Fine'.

Mad Tony
31-12-11, 10:35
I respect your opinion that we shouldn't stop people having more than one child Mad Tony, but like I said the impracticality should be disregarded because of the necessity, lots of things are impractical but we still have to try and enforce them.

But I'm genuinely not going to sit here and try to convince you that the population of the world isn't 'Fine'.As I said, it's not really necessary at the moment. Not only that, but what's the point of doing something that isn't practical, therefore not going to work?

The world isn't overpopulated based on what?

There's already ton of animal species that have gone extinct thanks to our exploitation of natural resources. The balance is too weak to support us all. Wake up already people, resources are not infinite. WE ARE TOO MANY as it is. 7 billion is more than enough, some of these people don't even have clean water to drink. If we can't handle 7 billion, what makes anyone think it'd be better with more people?All the poverty in the world at the moment isn't because of overpopulation. There was still plenty of poverty in the world 100 years ago when the world population was less than 2 billion. I never said more people would be better, just that 7 billion isn't too many.

TombRaiderFan.
31-12-11, 11:41
All the poverty in the world at the moment isn't because of overpopulation. There was still plenty of poverty in the world 100 years ago when the world population was less than 2 billion. I never said more people would be better, just that 7 billion isn't too many.

That's great, so what's too many then? Once everything else goes extinct and we start to eat each other?

Technology can make poverty less 'bad'--if you will. It's not the same being poor back in the 1600's compared to being poor to today's standards. We are certainly far from being technologically advanced enough to make our current 7 billion have a decent "poverty".

...I always wonder where society would be today if the Library of Alexandria had never been burnt to the ground (but that's a different topic, whoops haha)

Mad Tony
31-12-11, 11:43
That's great, so what's too many then? Once everything else goes extinct and we start to eat each other?

Technology can make poverty less 'bad'--if you will. It's not the same being poor back in the 1600's compared to being poor to today's standards. We are certainly far from being technologically advanced enough to make our current 7 billion have a decent "poverty".

...I always wonder where society would be today if the Library of Alexandria had never been burnt to the ground (but that's a different topic, whoops haha)I don't know what number is too many, but 7 billion certainly isn't overpopulated.

TombRaiderFan.
31-12-11, 11:45
I don't know what number is too many, but 7 billion certainly isn't overpopulated.

Based on what?! (this is the last time I ask, I'm seriously starting to consider you are trolling at this stage). :/

Mad Tony
31-12-11, 11:50
Based on what?! (this is the last time I ask, I'm seriously starting to consider you are trolling at this stage). :/I've already explained how things like poverty aren't an indication of overpopulation. The burden of proof is on you to prove the world is overpopulated, not on me to prove it isn't.

People on here really need to learn what trolling means.

Cochrane
31-12-11, 14:57
The world isn't overpopulated based on what?

There's already ton of animal species that have gone extinct thanks to our exploitation of natural resources. The balance is too weak to support us all. Wake up already people, resources are not infinite. WE ARE TOO MANY as it is. 7 billion is more than enough, some of these people don't even have clean water to drink. If we can't handle 7 billion, what makes anyone think it'd be better with more people?

Which of the worlds problems do you think can be blamed directly on the number of people? People aren't poor in third-world countries because they have the same metaphoric size of pie as we do and share it among more people, they are poor because the entire economy is extremely weak, regardless of how many people it is supposed to feed.

Nobody is saying that population growth is not a problem; if China gets the same standard as living as we enjoy today, then this will put a major strain on the world's resources. But the real problem isn't how many we are, it's what we do with the limited resources we have. That's what we need to solve.

Draco
01-01-12, 03:43
Population Administration is a Catch 22. The people that need to stop reproducing are the same ones you really can't stop from reproducing.

Andes
02-01-12, 18:02
they are poor because the entire economy is extremely weak, regardless of how many people it is supposed to feed.

They're poor for a multitude of reasons, not least the crippling debt they're in to your and my governments who stiffed them in ways that'd make proper (ie criminal) loan-sharks blush..

But the real problem isn't how many we are, it's what we do with the limited resources we have. That's what we need to solve.

Absolutely. How to get there from here? Dunno. There'll never be political agreement on anything, as the Kyoto Treaty illustrates, so do individual countries tackle the problem? Will it even matter whilst China is still merrirly whacking CFCs in its fridges?