Everyone is jumping on the "Oh we are overpopulating" bandwagon and no one is actually analyzing the data here.. So I guess I will do that. Here we go, here are many logical mistakes people have recently made in this thread...
huajiro said:
The Church, the politicians, businessmen, all gain from the masses, more people is more money. That is the problem. No one really cares.
Here we have someone stating that population has some role in how much money one makes. While this is true in some respects, it is not true to the extent of "overpopulation." As far as countries go, there is only a finite number of jobs and money out there for the country. To go over the ideal population for a country means they will see an increase in poverty, which is a bad thing for any country. So the businessmen and the church people and all these people, while they do want to have alot of people on their side, they more want a % of the population on their side, because if they try to keep the population increased, it is bad for them.
huajiro said:
The wealthier countries affect the poorer countries in that we destroy their cultures....the US especially wants this, as our main religion is the dollar and our churches are McDonald's.
Here it is stated that the US wants to destroy others cultures. While this isn't true, it is true that the US wants to make money and that currently the best way to do that is to destroy someones culture. Trust me, if we could make 10 times the amount of money in another country by not destroying their culture we would do it in a heartbeat.
huajiro said:
If you have any arguments against the above, please keep in mind that I have lived all over the US and México, so I do know what i am talking about.
I see, so your experience in Mexico and America makes you an expert when it comes to the US and their overseas agendas? Also you say that because you lived in Mexico you know that the United states wants to go overseas and ruin other peoples cultures? So even if we lose money and know we will lose money to ruin another culture we will do that just for the sake of ruining the culture? I am sorry, but that seems pretty bogus to me.
Heidi said:
Also, as a species we are overpopulated, even if some areas seem less populated than others.
I am sorry, this is a down right lie. All of the population of the world can fit in texas and have a pretty sizeable chunk of land. (not huge, like umm... the size of a normal room I'd say.) We have the resources to feed the world, we just don't do it. To look at the United States and say that we are overpopulated is bogus, becasue we are not. The correct statement here is "We are overpopulated in some areas, but not as a species."
Heidi said:
Did you know that dinosaurs had very tiny lungs proportionately to their body size? Because thay has more trees and plants to produce the oxygen. A higher level of oxygen meant smaller lungs could do the work.
Here you seem to want us to draw the conclusion that we have bigger lungs due to overpopulation and us cutting down trees. It takes thousands of years for a change to take place in the whole of a species and I would be willing to bet that it was over 10 thousand years ago that the lung change was made (probably way more than 10 thousand years ago...) This has nothing to do with overpopulation or the current state of the forests and shouldn't have even been included here.
Heidi said:
We've made mistakes as humans, just like a child and we're now trying to correct them. ie: dumping waste into the oceans, swelling landfills , pollution and so on.
Just making one quick point here... No landfills are swelling and we are not running out of space to throw away our trash. One landfill 35 miles x 35 miles and 200 feet high can house all our trash for 1000 years into the future. So I would like to stop hearing that argument of us running out of landfill space, it is just an outright lie.
Heidi said:
If we evolved to our current state, there are no boundaries to which we could continue to evolve with the exception that we don't kill ourselves off by overpopulating.
I would be willing to argue that we have stopped evoloving due to technology (at least we aren't evoloving as drasticaly as we were when we were in caves.) The weak are now cared for and not killed off as they would be in natural selection and survival of the fittest so it is harder for evolution to work its way through humans.
Majikthise said:
Humans have always found new territories when population growth threatened our living conditions.
Please name me 3 explorers who moved from where they were due to population growth. I am just asking because most explorers go in search of new lands for greed or to start a new country or what not. I must say I have never heard of people finding new territories when they are faced with population growth.
So many people complaining about population growth and that other people don't have alot and that our country should do something. Well what have you done for these people recently? See that nice computer that you own thats sitting right in front of you. If you sold that computer and sent that money to some charity that was feeding starving children, you would at least prolong a childs life. So many people say that our government should do something about overpopulation and the starving yet when they are given opportunities to do something they just turn to greed and get something for themselves. This is the way it has been, and I am pretty positive this is the way it will always be.
