How do we solve the problem? Does anyone else find this scary? Should having a child require a permit? I think that this is something the world should start trying to deal with now. We have passed our sustainability. I think by birth control, more condom usage, keeping abortion legal, and stop having so many births we can fix this problem. We need to make sure our births equal the death rate. If we dont then we will be the ones to suffer. The universe doesnt need us rather we need the universe for food, water, air. If we dont stop the problem now i think we better stop getting used to our comfortable lives and start preparing for caveman days.


The world population, if it continues to grow at the same rate (it currently grows 6% every 5 years), will grow at the following rate:
2005: 6.47 billion
2010: 6.83 billion
2015: 7.24 billion
2020: 7.68 billion
2025: 8.14 billion
2030: 8.62 billion
2035: 9.14 billion
2040: 9.69 billion
2045: 10.27 billion
2050: 10.89 billion
2060: 12.24 billion
2070: 13.75 billion
2080: 15.45 billion
2090: 17.36 billion
2100: 19.50 billion

The population is expected to almost triple in the next hundred years. That is scary.

In the United States i ABORTION is banned versus kept legal. Look what is expected to happen.

Abortion kept legal

The US population, at its current rate, is expected to grow like this:
2010: 309,604,064
2020: 339,325,934
2030: 371,901,091
2040: 407,603,451
2050: 446,733,224
2060: 489,619,439
2070: 536,622,714
2080: 588,138,286
2090: 615,721,971
2100: 644,599,331

Abortion banned


The birth rate in the United States is currently 14.14 births per 1000 people/year (or 4,181,678 births per year). The abortion rate in the United States is over 6 million per year. If abortions were to suddenly become illegal in the United States the birth rate would more than double, and the population growth rate would increase to approximately 2.52% (or 13.25% over 5 years).
Unless people protest to keep abortion legal, and unless they take mass trips to Canada or Mexico to get abortions out of the country, or go to illegal abortion clinics within the US, the population might grow like this:
2010: 334,918,906
2020: 429,552,337
2030: 550,925,034
2040: 706,592,346
2050: 906,244,430
2060: 1,162,309,457
2070: 1,490,727,259
2080: 1,911,941,564
2090: 2,452,172,602
2100: 3,145,049,297

Banned 3,145,049,297 people versus 644,599,331 !!!!!

Post your opinions here.

Well I think we should deal with it, but we're an animal, and I think that in the future nearly every human will die for some reason, but a few of us will survive, and then we start from zero again.

The strongest will survive, and the strongest humans will survive, the giraffes with short necks didn't survive but the one with long necks did.

I agree with ur idea of survival of the fittest. But in the future we and the others will suffer. Gas prices will continue to sky rocket, people will have trouble finding jobs because of too much competition, starvation, etc. People will SURVIVE but we will be unable to live comfortable lives. It would be like going back to caveman days. I guess my real question is should having a child require a permit? yes or no. And i mean due to overpopulation

Biology sort of solves this problem.

We've had an increase in the percentage of homosexual-births.

China has had a 1-child policy since 1979. Now the policy is if both the father and mother are single-childs, they can have a 2nd 1.

Sooner or later, I predict, homosexuality will be completely normal (in terms of legality). Not all countries in the world recognize gay marriage yet (the religious folks will be the burden).

Yeah, we also need to think about the gasprice and all, and I think that's when we need something else to use, but I don't know what.

I'm waiting for the day that a biological control develops in nature (or via human intervention) and just wipes out like 3/4 of the worlds population. Leaving the strongest, most genetically rigid people to repopulate the planet. Sure, it'll be devastating, but something has to occur for all of this to happen. There is not enough ground space on Earth to support 20 billion people (in 2100) and supply enough food to all of those people.

But assuming that by 2100 we have advanced technology that allows food to be instantaneously created, then we won't have that problem, will we!?

Now, somebody should get to work on that instantaneous food idea of mine.

Beyod our control, but I'm sure it'll balance out, I mean, contraception is only getting better.

__________________
My Music Taste: Death Metal/Metal Core AND Basshunter <3 Yes, it's an odd mix.

should the governement have the power to require a permit for anyone who wants to have a child? After all we need one to drive, own a gun, etc.

I shall do my best to increase it as much as possible

lol. even if you had 50 kids it wouldnt make that much of a difference out of a billion. This is more of a GLOBAL problem. Everyone making the same mistake, unplanned pregnancies, etc. Draining the economy and decreasing the value of the individual. Even our value as humans is decreasing to nil.

I'd be ashamed if I only got 50

China is already over populated with more than 1 billion people.. did you know its against the law to have more than 1 child, and if u do they can force u to do abortion.. and 63 crimes carry the death penalty in China.. police are allowed to kill on the streets, so u can see how china is tackling this problem.. not the best though, and i wouldnt want it happening any where else..

__________________

That's the chinese for you though

The majority of uncontrolled population growth is occurring in the underdeveloped regions of the globe, and those with substantial populations but low birthrates. China is the example of the latter. India one of the many examples of the former. The poverty of these nations coupled with the social-development stagnation creates an environment where children are seen as an asset, to keep the elderly, to provide labor for the family, to barter, to sell to provide a means of survival. Even preference for one sex means more pregnancies, in order to attain that one boy the family has always wanted. In the majority of developed countries, as those in Europe, populations are almost at a standstill in terms of growth. Italy and Spain, two examples, have almost zero population growth. This is the result of the affluence and the social development of those nations. Children are no longer a nessesity to ensure a family's future, they are not needed to procure food or to act as an financial boon. On the contrary, to raise a child would be a burden, and thus sizes are more limited than in the underdeveloped world, one or two compared to 5 or 10. People also have children at a later period in their life and increase pervasiveness of contraception, family planning resources and abortion is further stabilizing these rates, if not reversing them in some places. Countries that are exceptions, such as the US, are ones where certain social forces demand the ignorance of methods which prevent potentially damaging growth trends. Opposition to abortion, to sex education, to contraception means higher crude birthrates and a greater population growth in a world already dangerously populated. The stemming and reversal of such trends means an education of the populace, in countries such as the US and those which are underdeveloped, and an alleviation of the poverty, in underdeveloped countries prone to such population booms. The nessesity for such measures, or some semblance of global cooperation, is evident. More people means less resources for the average person, and despite the often cited economic growth of certain nations and the worship of money, a single world of limited resources cannot provide for a limitlessly increasing population. Continuing such a trend would not only be counterproductive, less resources for every man, it would also be suicidal. The nonrenewable resources, such as coal and oil and fissionable materials, once depleted cannot be recovered.. ever. Soil erosion as well, which will only be exacerbated by larger populations, is another problem since topsoil, the soil needed to grow crops, is a result of long periods of erosion and deposition. If it is washed into the oceans, agricultural lands will be damaged or even reduced to barren fields. Additionally, the environmental degradation resulting from more people inhabiting the earth will damage biospheres, threaten natural wildlife and destabilize the natural cycles which support the current global environment. Global warming is already the most well known of these destabilizations.
The current state of human civilization is not entirely conducive to pure evolutionary competition. Often, it is the wealthy, despite any innate biological advantages or disadvantages, that live long, healthy lives, and it is the poor, regardless of their advantages in physical prowess or immunity, which die quickly and in greater numbers. It is too late to simply say survival of the fittest, because currently that will always be those born in wealth. The competition for survival stated by Darwin no longer applies to the overall state of humanity. It can be said on a local scale, in a village, but not on a global scale, where the disparity of wealth distribution shields the wealthier countries from the natural forces which ravage the poor.
It is likely that, barring any real initiative by humanity itself, not nesseserily its governing bodies, wars will erupt over increasingly scares resources. These wars, and the following devastation, will undoubtedly claim a great many lives, and the casualties will certainly overshadow any previous conflicts. As is over 40 million die of starvation every year.

__________________
The Capitalist maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. Bertrand Russell
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them! ~Albert Einstein