TED Conversations

Sebastian Pérez

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

¿The earth needs more people?

I think that the overpopulation in our world is a dangerous topic, if the people have 1,2,3 and more kids that means that those kind will need more food, more energy, new houses and more rescourses in general. I am not saying that we must not have children. (although if humans beings desapears all the life on the will flourish) but if a big part of the people take conscience about that , and make something for the world maybe we can solve , with cotidian activities, save the world (and dismiss the capitalist people that have a untenable form of life) (sorry for my english and my redaction)

progress indicator
  • Jul 7 2013: Wait how about
    people need more earth.
    • thumb
      Jul 8 2013: .

      It is "people need more earth" in present situation.

      However, if people quit invalid (harmful) happiness, people will need no more earth.

      • Jul 8 2013: Of course you are right Our Earth.s problem is because not everyone has raised livestock and fails to understand carrying capacity.
  • Jul 7 2013: Thus spake TED FRIEND below:

    "Much of this growth is Asia and Africa and it is population density that can cause shortages in resources."

    I firmly believe this is not true.
    The real problem is the mismanagement of the earth's resources by those who first, have no right to ownership or control of them, and second, mismanage them for profit.

    The management of them must be taken from the hands of those in power over them and managed by the world's people as they are needed everywhere, with intelligence, without profit and with renewable factors that only help and not hurt our planet.

    We must make decisions on what will work, not on a financial cost, how much, what's the profit, etc..
    That is why a resource-based economy makes more sense than anything else.
    Economy means 'not wasting', not spending and having prudent reserves for replenishment of resources.

    We humans can do this, but money blocks every avenue we have for solving our problems.
    We need to rid ourselves of the monetary system of the planet.

    Nothing costs money. Everything costs people.
    Things don't.........."get done"............because of money.
    Things..............."don't get done........because of money.

    Without money we have our same needs, desires and so on and we can then solve them because money will not be blocking us.
    • thumb
      Jul 8 2013: Without money we have our same needs, desires and so on and we can then solve them because money will not be blocking us.

      Please continue! Explain "solve them". Yes, tell me we are on the same page. What about ...what is mine, is mine and what is yours is yours? Continue. What is the meaning of work as in unity? Do we all need to be some validated specialist everyday in life? Should we be able to help wherever help is needed on a day to day basis? You don't work here, fill out an application! How do you solve liability in safety issues? Does this idea not breed a bunch of lazy people? Continue. Should countries border us in or out of other countries?
  • Jul 6 2013: I truly believe that the human species had become too succesful, and that nature will find a way to restore balance (lack of food, pollution, desease, mental illness etc).
  • Jul 11 2013: Discounting colonization of distant planets (purely science fiction in the foreseeable future), there is one proper solution I can think of without resorting to eugenics.

    Populations of most developed countries tend to remain more or less stable.
    High an middle class people in the first world have on average significantly fewer kids, to a point where the population more or less stabilizes. Even if it doesn't stop the growth, slowing it would be a tremendous help.

    Also, without getting into the choice/life debate, one is undoubtedly better suited for population control, perhaps even in a statistically significant manner.

    Basically, our objective to combat overpopulation should be to modernize third world countries, and battle poverty across the globe.
    Because if that won't happen soon enough on its own, we'll either be forced to manually control the population with all sorts of unpleasant means (which, don't get me wrong, I am by no means for as anything other than a last resort), or eventually be faced with a situation where the population crashes, either via famine, epidemic or if we're really unlucky, a nuclear war driven by competition over resources.
  • Jul 6 2013: Ok, so i'll start off by saying that land takes up 29% of our planet and of that land humans control less than 1%.
    Then also with the overpopulation idea that theory has come up all the time for the past 100 years every single time saying we will run out of space and die and every single time those people are terribly wrong. Our species has just started our population is still unbelievably small if the entire world was pack as dense as they are in NY city then we could all fit within new jersey. We don't need to worry about overpopulation as true over population handles itself like in nature (it stops growing) The only challenge we truly have is we don't have enough engineers in our world to invent the ways to support our future population. Which i hope gets into the 100's of billions before we leave earth. But our engineers always find away and the world truly rests upon their shoulders to do it again as they always have.
    • Jul 7 2013: I completely disagree. If you argue the population debate you consider the resources needed to support that population not the space they take up. People come from the biomass of other living creatures not shadows or sand so every time we clear a new piece of land to growour crops we are turning other creatures into the biomass of humans. This has been going on for millenia but recently kicked up its pace since the "discovery" of the new world and the industrial revolution. The effects of clearing all this land for human purposes is that species have been going extinct. Scientists currently predict that the loss of species is 1000 times above the natural extinction rate.

      As long as our collective culture believes that humans are outside the community of life our population will recklessly increase, given we discover new sources of energy.
      • Jul 7 2013: yes but with GE food we grow bigger and faster all the time i highly doubt first wprld countries will starve to death as for 3rd worl i argree with you. And what species jhave been going exctinct?? And humans are outside the normal natural laws because we have no need for survival of the fittest.
  • Jul 6 2013: Life is life and order will return to the undisciplined. Sad but why does the Earth need us?