Isaac Asimov, renowned American author who died in 1992 when world population was 5.4 billion stated; '“Which is the greater danger, nuclear warfare or the population explosion? The latter absolutely! To bring about nuclear war, someone has to do something; someone has to press a button. To bring about destruction by overcrowding, mass starvation, anarchy, the destruction of our most cherished values, there is no need to do anything! We need only do nothing except what comes naturally, and breed. And how easy it is to do nothing!”'
There are now, in 2014, more than 7.2 billion humans on this small planet of ours, and counting, add a minimum of 100 million extra people every year, 95 million of these from the Developing Countries.
Perhaps there is nothing we can do to stop or reduce the crazy population growth? If only we could depopulate! Is this just fiction or could someone or some group right now be planning to depopulate the world? Are the Georgia Guidestones a signal? What if the book 'DEPOPULATE' on Amazon Books was not fiction? — Unsigned, by: Futurist / talk / contribs 08:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Are those rhetorical questions, or?--ZooGuard (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Population growth slows as societies develop; we may actually stabilize relatively easily. I honestly think this is not a problem in and of itself so much as it will exacerbate existing environmental problems and that we should focus on those. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
What is the optimal human population for a planet like earth? Some folks get all worked up in a Malthusian lather about this overpopulation thing but they can never tell us how much is enuff. --MtDNotorious Sodomite 05:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- That is an extremely complicated question. It may not have a real answer, at least not in the form of a number with error bars. For instance, superior technology allows humans to get more resources out of a more limited environment, so "optimal human population" for a technologically advanced society would likely be higher than for a primitive one. And I'm sure there are plenty of other factors I don't know enough to consider. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 06:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Not So Rationalists
Pretending to be "rational," atheists lie through their teeth. The pretense of "rationalists" (sic) is that they are scientific, objective, intellectually superior, and morally superior to Christians in particular. Rationalists claim that Christianity and science are mutually exclusive. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Many of the Ivy League colleges, such as Harvard, were founded by Christians. Name for me one American college with an atheist charter. Just one. Name a single hospital with the word "atheist" in its name. Where is there an atheist orphanage, or soup kitchen, or home for unwed mothers? In fact, atheists are far less generous than Judeo-Christians. AS to intellectualism, the list of Jewish Nobel Laureates is a long and impressive one.
"Rationalists" (sic) claim the Fallacy of the Argument from Incredulity out of ignorance because "rationalists" (sic) are clearly unfamiliar with the definition of incredulity. It is extraordinarily dishonest of them in this very "Wiki". A synonym for incredulity is doubt. Christians have not the slightest doubt about the pervasive nature of creative genius surrounding and enriching mankind. To claim that our successes and our very civilization in a world full of wonderment were all the result of fluctuations in a quantum vacuum, whatever that means, is the height of disinformation and ignorance. In fact, "rationalists" (sic) claim enlightenment just as Isaac Asimov did. He was afraid to ride in commercial aviation. He abandoned his own family and son, for a typewriter and sycophantic followers who revered his fictional works. Asimov only became an atheist after flunking a college science test for which he had prayed to pass. He failed, and therefore abandoned God forever. How utterly irrational of Asimov to base his eternal future on one test he was too lazy to study for.— Unsigned, by: RationalistCrusher / talk / contribs 11:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with overpopulation?--ZooGuard (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Overpopulation is not problem
Overpopulation really isn't a problem. We have the resources to deal with many more people than the world will ever have. The problem of not enough food is being solved, undernourishment is going down drastically. People are hungry because they don't have the means to produce enough food, not because there isn't enough land to produce food on. If better seeds and other agricultural improvements are made in the developing world, much more food will be produced than is needed, and undernourishment will pretty much end... that is if environmentalists don't make all fuel come from biofuels...
- (Please sign your name by typing ~~~~.) It is worth pointing out that biofuels need not come from crops. It is possible, indeed, advisable, to produce them by biodegradable household or agricultural wastes. But I doubt many environmentalists advocate the sole use of biofuels. Never put all of your eggs in a single basket. There are many ways to harness energy renewably. Nerd271 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)