HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 17, 2008, 4:10 AM
sprtsluvr8 sprtsluvr8 is offline
Respect My Authorit-I!
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by murdoc9 View Post
hmmm, brilliant solution! I know why don't we make a law to limit each family to one child Malthusian simplemindedness aside I find the problems of density rather fascinating subject matter - this is a skyscraper site, and last I checked skyscrapers are a solution to density. Incidentally, building and construction engineering is an evolving science requiring new breakthroughs in TECHNOLOGY but I guess it sucks that we as a society are forced to pay people to find new technology to sustain our needs...
Yes, why don't we do that? So your brilliant solution is to keep producing masses of people and not change our course at all? That way, we can challenge the great minds to come up with solutions to the problem of overpopulation...and every family in the world can have as many starving children as they want! That sounds like an excellent plan...talk about simplemindedness.

Scientific research and advances in technology are excellent and often improve our quality of life. I'm all for advances in science, but I'm also for keeping the world's population at a sustainable number. It's insane to advocate continuing reproduction at the current pace and attempting to support the huge population with new technology.

Last edited by sprtsluvr8; May 17, 2008 at 11:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 17, 2008, 1:52 PM
Nutterbug Nutterbug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by murdoc9 View Post
hmmm, brilliant solution! I know why don't we make a law to limit each family to one child Malthusian simplemindedness aside I find the problems of density rather fascinating subject matter - this is a skyscraper site, and last I checked skyscrapers are a solution to density.
And density itself is a solution to the problem of overpopulation. If that can be controlled, even better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 17, 2008, 1:54 PM
Nutterbug Nutterbug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprtsluvr8 View Post
Yes, why don't we do that? So your brilliant solution is to keep producing masses of people and not change our course at all? That way, we can challenge the great minds to come up with solutions to the problem of overpopulation...and every family in the world can have as many starving children as they want!
That's where war comes in, to control the numbers and distribution of scarce resources.

That is the way God intended it, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 17, 2008, 11:12 PM
murdoc9's Avatar
murdoc9 murdoc9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: west lafayette
Posts: 62
overpopulation isn't the problem - think about it. Ok go...

Alright now, what are problems and what are symptoms, seriously? So, what are the negative aspects of people having too many babies, that is causing some of us to act as if their loins could use some lube? Lets see, the problems are disease, starvation, crime, not contributing to society either in the form of not paying taxes, requiring welfare, being imprisoned, etc., etc.

So, how many of these problems are due to there being too many people? Well, disease is influenced by many factors such as availability of healthcare, sanitation, education about the actual causes of illness and proximity to the disease carrying entities. You could have a billion people or 10, and nothing changes about the influencing factors.

Starvation is a factor of not enough food in a particular place. Why does this happen? If we have plenty of seeds, the earth is 70% water and the rest is dirt that we can use to plant in, why is there a shortage? The answer is sure as hell not that there is too many people, it relates to cost, government interference, lack of education, etc.

Crime seems like it could be directly related to overpopulation, but gasp, it has nothing to do with it. In big cities the biggest drivers of crime are drug and gang related activities, in more rural areas the biggest drivers of crime is violence between close relatives and acquantances. People killing each other in drug and gang related activities aren't doing so because there are too many people to sell drugs and "services" to, its because they chose that line of work (why they chose that line of work is related to many factors such as level of education, risk/reward perceptions, lack of knowledge about readily available alternatives - again, in no way related to so called overpopulation).

I could go on about my last point about people not contributing to society, but it would sound a great deal like the other points I've made.

I think this discussion is a byproduct of our quick fix mentality, but problems that appear to have quick fixes are usually far more complex.
__________________
Its all about the rail
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 18, 2008, 1:35 AM
weatherguru18 weatherguru18 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by murdoc9 View Post
overpopulation isn't the problem - think about it. Ok go...

Alright now, what are problems and what are symptoms, seriously? So, what are the negative aspects of people having too many babies, that is causing some of us to act as if their loins could use some lube? Lets see, the problems are disease, starvation, crime, not contributing to society either in the form of not paying taxes, requiring welfare, being imprisoned, etc., etc.

So, how many of these problems are due to there being too many people? Well, disease is influenced by many factors such as availability of healthcare, sanitation, education about the actual causes of illness and proximity to the disease carrying entities. You could have a billion people or 10, and nothing changes about the influencing factors.

Starvation is a factor of not enough food in a particular place. Why does this happen? If we have plenty of seeds, the earth is 70% water and the rest is dirt that we can use to plant in, why is there a shortage? The answer is sure as hell not that there is too many people, it relates to cost, government interference, lack of education, etc.

Crime seems like it could be directly related to overpopulation, but gasp, it has nothing to do with it. In big cities the biggest drivers of crime are drug and gang related activities, in more rural areas the biggest drivers of crime is violence between close relatives and acquantances. People killing each other in drug and gang related activities aren't doing so because there are too many people to sell drugs and "services" to, its because they chose that line of work (why they chose that line of work is related to many factors such as level of education, risk/reward perceptions, lack of knowledge about readily available alternatives - again, in no way related to so called overpopulation).

I could go on about my last point about people not contributing to society, but it would sound a great deal like the other points I've made.

I think this discussion is a byproduct of our quick fix mentality, but problems that appear to have quick fixes are usually far more complex.
Also to add that most of what is being said here about crime relates to American cities. While crime happens everywhere, it is considered safer in the middle of European cities than it is in the burbs. My friends from Europe don't understand why most of us live in the suburbs here.

As far as over population and disease, it's our own fault. TAKING THE MORALITY AND HUMAN ASPECT OUT OF IT...why do we continue to persue medicine and cures for diseases? Population in the olden days was controlled by disease, warfare, and natural disasters. While devastating, especially if it were MY closest ken, it is a fact of life. While I agree with finding ways to ease the pain of disease so we don't suffer, it was never meant for us to survive everything. If everybody lived to be over 100 (or god forbid 150), you would strain every resource the planet has...this would truely be a tragedy of the commons...social security would most certainly be done for! Think about it, we'd be paying for people born in 1858...three years before the Civil War!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 18, 2008, 11:06 PM
Nutterbug Nutterbug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by murdoc9 View Post
overpopulation isn't the problem - think about it. Ok go...

Alright now, what are problems and what are symptoms, seriously? So, what are the negative aspects of people having too many babies, that is causing some of us to act as if their loins could use some lube? Lets see, the problems are disease, starvation, crime, not contributing to society either in the form of not paying taxes, requiring welfare, being imprisoned, etc., etc.

So, how many of these problems are due to there being too many people? Well, disease is influenced by many factors such as availability of healthcare, sanitation, education about the actual causes of illness and proximity to the disease carrying entities. You could have a billion people or 10, and nothing changes about the influencing factors.

Starvation is a factor of not enough food in a particular place. Why does this happen? If we have plenty of seeds, the earth is 70% water and the rest is dirt that we can use to plant in, why is there a shortage? The answer is sure as hell not that there is too many people, it relates to cost, government interference, lack of education, etc.
How about leaving some room for the wildlife and the oxygen producing and soil retaining trees?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 19, 2008, 12:36 AM
murdoc9's Avatar
murdoc9 murdoc9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: west lafayette
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by weatherguru18 View Post
Also to add that most of what is being said here about crime relates to American cities. While crime happens everywhere, it is considered safer in the middle of European cities than it is in the burbs. My friends from Europe don't understand why most of us live in the suburbs here.

As far as over population and disease, it's our own fault. TAKING THE MORALITY AND HUMAN ASPECT OUT OF IT...why do we continue to persue medicine and cures for diseases? Population in the olden days was controlled by disease, warfare, and natural disasters. While devastating, especially if it were MY closest ken, it is a fact of life. While I agree with finding ways to ease the pain of disease so we don't suffer, it was never meant for us to survive everything. If everybody lived to be over 100 (or god forbid 150), you would strain every resource the planet has...this would truely be a tragedy of the commons...social security would most certainly be done for! Think about it, we'd be paying for people born in 1858...three years before the Civil War!!!
If people could live to 150 years of age, then it makes sense that accompanying quality of life improvements would be made as well, enabling productivity for most of that time. Also, who is "we" that you are referring to? The people receiving social security now are the ones who paid for it.
__________________
Its all about the rail
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2008, 6:15 PM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
Is no one even considering space travel here?

Anyway, I think the world doesn't really need that many more Americans. Perhaps 700 million more environmentally conscience people would be okay, but I can't really see the planet being able to support something like a billion Americans.
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2008, 4:30 AM
murdoc9's Avatar
murdoc9 murdoc9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: west lafayette
Posts: 62
Here's an interesting article if anyone is so inclined. Basically, it talks about Europe and some Asian countries and how they are dealing with lower birth rates and falling populations. As we have had population control proposals on this page I think that this is an interesting read on how some countries are handling their lack of population growth. It certainly won't have everyone agreeing with me that growth is good, but an interesting read for sure.
http://http://www.nytimes.com/2008/0...l?pagewanted=1
__________________
Its all about the rail
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2008, 4:34 AM
IFtowner IFtowner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 618


I agree!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2008, 5:54 AM
dempsey hillman dempsey hillman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 19
If I am right and I think I am the world population will climb and things we take granted will become harder to aford . Cities will change shape,size,and color over night. Imagine LA county due to an increase in forest fires and droughts with a population of 7,000,000 and a city like Las vegas and the other desert cities with a population of 38,000,000 . American payrolls may not keep up with the euro and people will try an avoid the weak dollar .chicago and its suronding area population might expand 70 miles out side the loop. Saint Louis and Detroit will ballon in size because of the low median home price and the large imagrant groups that will call them home.The south will rise to meet a massive call and food production will rise to meet the great plains . CharlestonNC, AtlantaGA ,and Jackson mississippi could see a large growth in population that could collectively reach the 30,000,000 mark but this is all speculation and my dad tells me I will be dead by then so why should I care!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2008, 4:27 AM
murdoc9's Avatar
murdoc9 murdoc9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: west lafayette
Posts: 62

Not entirely understanding that last post, but luckily with increased energy costs, the American public is getting the kick in the pants it needed to start to develop communities that are more responsibly planned. Here's for a gas tax to put toward mass transportation solutions!
__________________
Its all about the rail
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 5:27 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by dempsey hillman View Post
If I am right and I think I am the world population will climb and things we take granted will become harder to aford . Cities will change shape,size,and color over night. Imagine LA county due to an increase in forest fires and droughts with a population of 7,000,000
7 Million in L.A. County? Are you trying to start trouble?(btw, i'm not trying to attack you)

In less than 2 decades (if not much earlier), the city of L.A. ITSELF will be that number. As for the county, i'd say 20 Million is a better estimate. Why? I'd say that because such a huge leap in growth will likely come from simultaneous Gargantuan high-rise booms that should occur throughout the county due to a mass influx of people(both American and foreign) who realize that Inner City life is much more sustainable than the already failed life of Suburbia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
but I can't really see the planet being able to support something like a billion Americans.
Which is why I think the world won't survive having over 1.5 Billion Chinese living the same quality of lifestyle by midcentury as Americans do.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2008, 1:11 AM
Dream'n's Avatar
Dream'n Dream'n is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 626
The USSR at the end of it's existance had more people then the US so the answer would be obvious and just desolve the US and then it won't have a problem. See how simple that is! You'd almost think I had a college degree.

BTW I saw Babylon A.D. yesterday and my guess is that most places in the world by 2100 will look a lot like the first 30 minutes of the movie. Just a prediction and besides God told me it's going to happen if that "Maverick" McBush gets elected with his plain/palin jane running mate.
__________________
I ain't got time to BREED
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2008, 4:06 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,915
The Soviet Union broke up because of its government, not because of its population.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2008, 4:44 PM
kcexpress69's Avatar
kcexpress69 kcexpress69 is online now
Out of Myself
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Metro KCMO
Posts: 1,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream'n View Post
The USSR at the end of it's existance had more people then the US so the answer would be obvious and just desolve the US and then it won't have a problem. See how simple that is! You'd almost think I had a college degree.

BTW I saw Babylon A.D. yesterday and my guess is that most places in the world by 2100 will look a lot like the first 30 minutes of the movie. Just a prediction and besides God told me it's going to happen if that "Maverick" McBush gets elected with his plain/palin jane running mate.
OK.......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2008, 2:33 AM
crazyjoeda's Avatar
crazyjoeda crazyjoeda is offline
Mac User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 861
I hope not. The USA can not support that kind of growth and still maintain what is call the "American way of life". Especially since "the America way of life" is not sustainable. China and India have populations that large but the people there consume far less resources. If the USA grows to be 1,000,000,000 people and nothing changes expect to run out of food and water and expect a very sick population with a high mortality rate due to uncontrollable pollution.

Fortunately it is unlikely that the USA population will ever get close to 1,000,000,000, because birth rates are falling and fewer people are moving to the USA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2008, 11:38 PM
kenc kenc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 99
That statement simply is not true. Everything I have read about population growth in this country is that it is on the rise...more than any other nation in the "developed" world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2008, 5:17 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Skyscraper Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 7,915
Thats right; in fact, there was a report that we may be experiencing the largest baby boom since the 50's.
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2008, 1:13 AM
buildup buildup is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,914
If the predictions are still correct the world's population is supposed to level off by 2050 even in the developing world. Who came up with this idea that the population in the US will more than triple in 90 years?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:18 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.