Overpopulation, National Security, and Taxes.

  • Thread starter Thread starter convolutedmind
  • Start date Start date
C

convolutedmind

Guest
I find myself becoming more concerned about overpopulation on Earth and even more worried that it is hardly ever discussed by politicians.

Bringing nations out of poverty seems to be the only solution to combating rapid population growth and sustaining a long term future. If the problem is nrabroad
assessed, we'll eventually wind up with massive wars for fresh water and agriculturally rich land.

Nearly all folks agree that national security spending is a needed part of government, but at what point will overpopulation become a national security problem?

For national security reasons, is it justifiable to send tax money out of the country to help end population growth due to poverty and disease?
 
Impoverished countries will inevitably be forced to curb population growth when their resources run out.

It'll happen naturally. For first world countries, I think we should stop and perhaps even decrease our populations. We have no real reason for excessive numbers of citizens, and we are limited on resources anyway.

We should only spend tax money on curbing our own growth.
 
Theoretically, the population will level out as it progresses through the 4 (or now arguably 5) stages (see: Demographic transition models).

Unfortunately, we will all be caught up in a catch-22 conundrum. As countries 'develop', typically, their populations decrease and level out at lower numbers (due to a number of socioeconomic reasons).

But, in order for countries to develop in the current mode of production, there must be infinite resources. Hyprabroad
hetically, if every country developed to the standard of Canada or the USA, it would be necessary to have 4 'earths' to support the needs and resources of consumption.

Thus, it is seemingly impossible that some countries will ever reach this level, thereby continuing to grow until some sort of Malthusian calamity ensues, in which the population will level out at a number that the world would barely be able to support.

Food and water are nrabroad
necessarily an issue. It is the consumption of material goods, the ability to create and develop industry, which will be the concern (IMO).

Population worries were huge in the 1970s, but as the natural (non-immigrant) populations of developed (service industry) countries, such as Canada, decreased, it has demonstrated that some of the theoretical demographic models and theories are playing out.


Soylent Green, it's people!
 
I have no problem with allowing Darwinism to run it's course.

The biggest problem in my opinion about overpopulation is religion. There are too many people who subscribe to faiths that demand that we essentially breed like rats. Because of that, this debate is purely academic because things like family planning, birth control and abortion are nrabroad
going to be an option for a significant portion of the world's population.

What will happen at some point in the distant future is that the population will outstrip the world's resources to sustain it in the grand scheme of things. After that, the world will dictate what the sustainable population will be. But when that happens, I suspect that I will be safely dead.
 
I'm nrabroad
talking about utopia, but sustainable reality.
You really are dense.
 
Back
Top