|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:22 pm
Well... If you think about it... It makes sense in the long run. One percent doesn't sound like much, but out of 3 billion people? One percent is 30 million people. And in a hundred years the population will have more than doubled. If the world actually is overpopulated now, than that means in only a century the world would be just about unlivable.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:49 pm
6 billion, actually, and that makes sense only IF the world is actually overpopulated. Which it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:55 pm
Rhia Kolareny 6 billion, actually, and that makes sense only IF the world is actually overpopulated. Which it isn't. Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that saying "The world population would only increase by 1%!" Isn't a good argument against overpopulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:57 pm
But 1% wouldn't lead to overpopulation. Maybe an overpopulated area, but growth is still entirely too small to make an argument for overpopulation to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:53 pm
You're not listening; Their argument isn't that the population will be unlivably large tomorrow, or next year. Their argument is that the population will be unlivably large in a hundred years, or two hundred years. It's a long term concern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:59 pm
I.Am You're not listening; Their argument isn't that the population will be unlivably large tomorrow, or next year. Their argument is that the population will be unlivably large in a hundred years, or two hundred years. It's a long term concern. I don't think that's why "they" use it. That's just as much of a slippery slope argument as it would be to say, if we allow abortions for everyone, then eventually we will be under-populated. Overpopulation is a legitimate concern, but typically when people cite it in terms of abortion, it's just used as a fallacious means of winning the argument rather than making a cogent point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:55 pm
I agree that it isn't a valid argument when it comes to abortion. But it's not a slippery slope fallacy to say that the world's population will double in a hundred years, and quadruple in two hundred years. It's simple fact, if the population continues to grow at this rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:59 am
I didn't say it was a fallacy. It's used fallaciously in terms of abortion. Considering it has little to do with the abortion argument in specific terms, it's a negligible argument to make, but the reason it's used is for rhetorical effect.
It's taken out of context, so it's like gleaning credit from making some arbitrary point in an argument that's unrelated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:09 pm
I may be wrong but if I remember correctly the percentage was two pecent. I could be wrong but for some reason that number sticks out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:30 pm
Kasumi Ocada Abortion is not the end of overpopulation. Man, nothing annoys me more than when people decide to have abortions out of convenience - no matter what that convenience is. Worthy of a quote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:05 pm
I think the ppl argueing about the next century being unlivable due to overpopulation are missing one very, very vital fact;
People die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:43 pm
While I don't think that overpopulation, if you're using it in an argument about abortion should really count as any kind of argument, I do think it is a valid concern, but I don't think that abortion is a solution to that.
The population cycles, that is a fact.
Does abortion prevent overpopulation? No, as we've seen with China (as everyone else mentioned), it hastens the process of underpopulation.
Honestly, everyone else made all the points I wanted to make, so that's all I have to say.
And I agree with Zin the conservative people don't necessarily have conservative children.
3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:44 am
Rhia Kolareny I'm so sick and tired of this card being pulled in an abortion debate. "Oh, the world is overpopulated anyway, so abortion is controlling the population." Gag. Here's a great illustration that I've fallen in love with. My father passed it on to me recently. There are 6.6 billion people in the world. If all of those people were brought together in one place, and each were given one square foot to stand on, they wouldn't even fill the state of Rhode Island. With plenty of room to spare. There are 27,878,400 square feet in a square mile, and 1,213 square miles in Rhode Island. The amount of square miles that the whole world population would take up is a miniscule 236 square miles. That wouldn't even fill the county I live in. The world is overpopulated? Nah. Society just likes to live in certain hotspots. Humans need a fair bit more than a foot each. there is also a limited amount of habitable land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:41 pm
King Seth Rhia Kolareny There are 6.6 billion people in the world. If all of those people were brought together in one place, and each were given one square foot to stand on, they wouldn't even fill the state of Rhode Island. With plenty of room to spare. Humans need a fair bit more than a foot each. there is also a limited amount of habitable land. I think we should build high-rise apartments in the desert, or just on crappy soil (like my backyard... gonk ) and reserve arable land for food. And forests, wetlands, etc. for other species that don't take well to linoleum and formica.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:56 pm
La Veuve Zin King Seth Rhia Kolareny There are 6.6 billion people in the world. If all of those people were brought together in one place, and each were given one square foot to stand on, they wouldn't even fill the state of Rhode Island. With plenty of room to spare. Humans need a fair bit more than a foot each. there is also a limited amount of habitable land. I think we should build high-rise apartments in the desert, or just on crappy soil (like my backyard... gonk ) and reserve arable land for food. And forests, wetlands, etc. for other species that don't take well to linoleum and formica. I'm pretty sure that as far as human cities go, they -are- frequently built on wetlands and other unarable lands. In other cases, well, it's not very convenient for farmers in the very arable parts of the country to have to drive out of state to get to civilization. And while I agree with having reservations, as many of them as possible, it's really just not feasible to have all of our cities built in the desert. For one thing, if we built all our cities in the desert, it would be very uncomfortable living for anyone who isn't a farmer. Hot and or windy almost all the time, with infrequent downpours which wash away the landscape. o.O Not too fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
