Overpopulation

[8730]

Is the human race too big for it's own good?

If you think about it, in nature, when a species becomes too numerous it tends to die down again to more normal levels so as to keep the balance. There isn't enough food, a change in climate, a species-specific disease etc. But with humans, our extreme adaptability has meant that we are no longer seriously affected by these.

Could this be the reason why things like Avian Flu and Cancer are so wide-spread, because the population has grown so big we have reached and passed some sort of critical point?

Also, at the social level, have we grown so large in number the concept of society is struggling to keep up? Most people are seen by organisations and governments to be statistics and figures, as there are far too many people to deal with each individual case. This causes major problems in many areas. Does humanity need to spit into smaller and more manageable groups? Or do we need to seriously curb the growth rate of the human species?

I have more but it's late and I'm tired -_____-

[Repliku]

Right now, actually part of the overpopulation problem in areas is caused by older people living a lot longer. I don't think we are really expanding as much as we used to with generations after the Baby Boomer time. It's why we are running into problems with all sorts of matters now, because younger generations aren't having as many children as the Baby Boomer generation did and the generations before that. Most people aren't out having 5 to 9 children anymore, so people are changing these things and there are actually worries that we may be spreading ourselves thinner rather than overpopulating.

There have always been diseases that struck, even when humans were not as populated. Cancer is so widespread but it has existed for a very long time. It is nothing new. However, because we live longer now, more things go wrong with us as we age. People did not even know about cancer but it had been a part in the past, though many people died out when they were in their 40s and 50s. This is why people also were married at young ages. We have a lot of ways to prolong life now but unfortunately, not our organs and such. As for the Bird Flu, this inappropriately, or ironically, named flu is a new thing, but -many- flus have come from birds, so why it was named that is beyond me. The Bird Flu could become an epidemic but the Spanish Flu was one that did more damage and in a lot quicker of a time. The same can be said of being wary of the West Nile scenario with mosquitoes. We continue to evolve but so do viruses and bacteria. It's the way life worked. The only reason population is a problem with these things is because cities are very compact with people living all on top of each other and so catching these diseases can be easier than if people are spread out. However, we do have better water management than in older times and septic situations, food preparations are safer etc. Even with these diseases or conditions, we still have more of a chance of surviving than people did with the Bubonic Plague etc because we can find out easier what is causing the situation and work on things.

Most nations, to include places even like China, which are huge, have reduced how many children they will have. In China you can only have one child unless you pay a hefty fee for more, and that may entitle you to but one more child. In the U.S. and Europe, we have less children mostly because now more parents both work and pretty much often have to unless one parent makes sufficient money to support the family effort. So really, by what I can see, because the economy is how it is and the fact that it is very inconvenient to have 4 or more kids anymore, we've kind of been cutting back on kids, rather than people having a ton of them. It just doesn't meet our lifeway of today. I think we'll notice this more in the next 10 to 15 years really, as the Baby Boomer generation retires and we see who's all left in the workforce.

http://ff-rpg.net/images/Replikufake.jpg