"Attenborough in population warning"

Marcos · 13 Apr 2009 at 18:54

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090413/tuk-attenborough-in-population-warning-6323e80.html

This stuff scares me, not because he is saying it, or anyone else is saying it. But simply from observation of how much my hometown has exploded in just the past 10 years. I cant see population growth as having anything less than a negative impact

Azagoth · 13 Apr 2009 at 18:57

Eugenics and nuclear war are the way forward.

bloodiedathame · 13 Apr 2009 at 18:58

Nuclear war is so unsubtle.

Global warming is the way forward.

xb8browney · 13 Apr 2009 at 19:00

Isn't he stating the obvious.

RandomTom · 13 Apr 2009 at 19:00

It scares me too. The UK population has grown 10 million in 50 years (about 20%), but the population of India has grown 700 million in 50 years (275%) - and that's an astonishing increase.

Population growth in this instance is not sustainable in the med-long term.

willhub · 13 Apr 2009 at 19:05

Blame charities for trying to give other parts of the worlds a better life.

Blame india too, do they do anything like China to try and combat population increase?

Puzzled · 13 Apr 2009 at 19:11

Why does the OPT want to stop the UK population from increasing, we have an ageing population anyway.

The only countries that could implement a population limit scheme would be the developed countries which generally don't have a huge population increase.

But if this groups warnings are to be taken seriously then getting religious groups to stop condemning use of contraception would be a good start.

monkentage · 13 Apr 2009 at 19:18

The OPT are nutters.

Also, just because one or two countries have serious population issues doesnt mean we are all screwed. Europes population is is on the decline and there's probably going to be some serious profit in Chinese zimmer frame company stocks in 20 years time.

Glaucus · 13 Apr 2009 at 19:19

RandomTom said:
long term.

Of course it is. There is practically no limit to what population we can sustain. If you would like that world is a different matter.

AJUK · 13 Apr 2009 at 19:21

I use to think there were too many people on the Earth but what this is really about is distribution of wealth and moving towards a resource rather than a capital based economy. That way number would naturally regulate.

All this talk lately of population control is very worrying. If you are a believer in the NWO then you know that they are planning to reduce the population by 95% - good if you are one of the ones left but the odds are stacked against it.

I used to have the utmost respect for David Attenborough but lately with all the global warming guff he spouts and now this, the silly old sod has clearly got Alzheimer's and needs to retire.

bottletop · 13 Apr 2009 at 19:38

Sharing the world's money and resources is fair enough, except for the fact that the western countries will have a hell of a long way to fall. We are 20% of the world's population yet consume 80% of the resources. If we wish to be fair and only consume our 20% share then the we must be prepared to live like east europeans - quite a jump in living standards for your average african, but a serious drop for us. It's never going to happen....and that's a good job too.

The overpopulation problem is easily solvable by cutting all foreign aid. If any country wishes to pull itself up by its bootstraps (like china did) for a better standard of living then fair enough. Do it. But shipping vast amounts of food to poor countries just results in malnourished people getting enough food to breed, and that makes the problem worse. We can either accept a certain level of starvation now to limit the numbers, or we can keep shipping the food over and have a much higher level of suffering and starvation in a generations time.

SpeedFreak · 13 Apr 2009 at 19:41

Has anybody seen the population figures for Etheopia recently? That is shocking tbh, I'll see if I can find them.

Glaucus · 13 Apr 2009 at 19:42

bottletop said:
Sharing the world's money and resources is fair enough, except for the fact that the western countries will have a hell of a long way to fall. We are 20% of the world's population yet consume 80% of the resources. If we wish to be fair and only consume our 20% share then the we must be prepared to live like east europeans - quite a jump in living standards for your average african, but a serious drop for us. It's never going to happen....and that's a good job too.

we can share the worlds resource and all have our lifestyles. It's a total myth that we have hit the peak of world resources.

bottletop · 13 Apr 2009 at 19:52

AcidHell2 said:
we can share the worlds resource and all have our lifestyles. It's a total myth that we have hit the peak of world resources.

But those are the kind of drops in living standards we can expect in order to share things fairly right now. Whether we can all subsequently improve our lifestyles as a result of further resource exploitation is something else. You are a glass-half-full person (which is fair enough), but I am not so sure we will be able to. Oil's the biggest problem of course, but supplies of water and food and some industrial metal may also become limited within the next 10-15 years.

Gackt · 13 Apr 2009 at 20:01

Do people honestly believe that we will "share the worlds resources"? :rolleyes:

Sankari · 13 Apr 2009 at 20:06

"Shoot them, and feed them to the others".

Glaucus · 13 Apr 2009 at 20:10

bottletop said:
But those are the kind of drops in living standards we can expect in order to share things fairly right now. Whether we can all subsequently improve our lifestyles as a result of further resource exploitation is something else. You are a glass-half-full person (which is fair enough), but I am not so sure we will be able to. Oil's the biggest problem of course, but supplies of water and food and some industrial metal may also become limited within the next 10-15 years.

we aren't going to suddeny drop our lifestyle, anything liek this would be over a couple of decades. So it's still silly.

gillywibble · 13 Apr 2009 at 20:11

RandomTom said:
It scares me too. The UK population has grown 10 million in 50 years (about 20%), but the population of India has grown 700 million in 50 years (275%) - and that's an astonishing increase.

Population growth in this instance is not sustainable in the med-long term.

That's a lot of sex :eek:

NiCkNaMe · 13 Apr 2009 at 20:59

It is weird, they seem to strive to have 10+ kids per relationship. It's like they're trying to take the world by overwhelming force.

Don't know why they can't just stick to a few hand jobs after the 2nd kid!

KNiVES · 13 Apr 2009 at 21:24

NiCkNaMe said:
It is weird, they seem to strive to have 10+ kids per relationship. It's like they're trying to take the world by overwhelming force.

Don't know why they can't just stick to a few hand jobs after the 2nd kid!

Many people in third world nations don't even actually know that sex = children.