Overpopulation will eventually lead to our demise. The carrying capacity in this world is only so much, and having more people to crowd a certain will, most definitely, have an affect. Schools will be more crowded, and there will be less space to enjoy public places. Baby booms also mean that there are a lot of dependents for a certain time, and that they will not mature until many years later. Too many resources, time, and technology will be pooled into keeping the population alive instead of being used for other (one could say more useful) things.
With so many more people being born these days than before there isn't going to be enough resources for everybody. More trees would be cute down for houses. Which would effect the air quality. Yes there needs to be more people born in the world, but not so many that there isn't enough resources for everyone to live. With less resources the price would go up, so then the people that don't have money wouldn't get them any way. Each year the world population goes up, and it affects the world, but people think that it is so small that they don't have to worry about it. If everyone thinks that way then there that's what will happen The little change will become a big change. There's an outcome to every act.
We should be educating people from an early age about their bodies and their options. Contraception should not be a scary thing. The fact is, we have way too many people to sustain the globalized consumer culture. I actually find the boom in things, like IVF, troubling. Women are still valued for their reproductive capacity above all else. If we change how our culture treats women and encourage bodily autonomy in all people, we can begin to chip away at the overpopulation problem. Overpopulation contributes to disease outbreaks, resource scarcity, and is a strain on our planet's resources.
Our planet earth is a finite system, with limited resources to support the life on earth. In the recent years, due to human interventions, this cycle has been disturbed and human population is rising exponentially. This has a direct impact on the quality of life.
The continuing growth in population means there will be more people on the roads, more pollution from automobiles, more accidents, more tempers flaring between nations. Also, public places will be more crowded. This creates a negative environment and quality of life will go downhill in the process. Additionally, the population growth in third world countries takes away from the quality of life they can have there, since that makes it even harder to feed families.
Yes it has an impact on the standard of living. Increases in population indicates that there will more threat to biodiversity as plants will be cut down to accommodate people. There will less jobs and opportunities will not be available to all. Environmental pollution will increase as a result of which the quality of life will be affected.
As population grows, we put much more demand on our resources to grow food and provide energy. Currently energy production requires fossil fuels and contributes to pollution and global warming. This in turn makes it harder to grow enough food to feed the growing population which creates a feedback loop leading to a reduced quality of life for everyone.
It's true that growing population would have negative impact on the quality of life since resources are limited. It's same like feeding a family of more than four when one doesn't have enough money to take care of more than four members. Since most of the countries are populated enough relative to their resources, any surplus population would cause imbalance and eventually affect the quality of life.
While the negative effects of a growing population aren't felt as strongly in the U.S. and other developed countries, a growing scarcity of resources, caused, in part, by a growing population, has a great effect on the quality of life in the Third World. Shortages of food, water, housing and jobs make life shorter and more difficult, and can contribute to conflict. Even in the United States, growing populations drive up prices for housing and goods, increase overcrowding in urban areas, and add to the strain on the job market.
The world can only support so many people. If this number grows beyond a certain point, the world's resources per person will diminish significantly. This is simply due to the fact that resources are limited, and every person on the Earth demands a certain portion. This is not sustainable and consequentially leads to smaller portions per person. This undoubtedly leads to a lesser quality of life for everybody.
In 1798, Malthus predicted famines and wide-spread food shortages due to exponential population growth, at a time, when total world population was only about one billion.
His theory, that the level of population growth we had during the last 200 years would lead to global food deficiency and a decrease in the standard of life did not only prove wrong, exactly the opposite happened. Because food production increased at a faster rate than world population, we now enjoy higher per capita food consumption than ever before.
The reason why the original Malthusian theory and all current and future "Neo-Malthusian Theories" proved, and will prove wrong, is because every additional human produces more than he consumes. This can be explained by the following analogy. When the population of wolves increases, the number of chickens decreases, but when the population of humans increases, the population of chickens increases as well.
Future technological improvements will lead to further increases in the standard of living. Before the 1980s, India relied on subsistence farming and local crops for its food supply. At the time, India was a net importer of rice. Today, following India's adoption of high yielding varieties, India is the biggest exporter of rice (http://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/india-is-world-s-biggest-rice-exporter-in-2012-fao-112122000154_1.html). 1970/80 Neo-Mathusians and environmentalists predicted that India would face catastrophic food shortages in the years to come (they argued that the doubling of India's population from about 600 million to 1.2 billion could not be supported by India's land area).
Real world evidence has shown that even a 100% increase in population over a period of forty years does not lead to food deficiency but rather improves the standard of living for basically everyone.
How can we continue to follow the belief that more people equals lower standard of living, when all real world evidence shows that exactly the opposite is true (more people equal higher standard of living)?
Only in an extreme case, where the birth rate was, say, double that of the death rate, should we be concerned with an ecological collapse. However, being the intelligent beings that we are, we could be able to create inventions and breakthroughs in science that could accommodate the so-called growing population, and perhaps even encourage the thought of extraterrestrial colonization (Mars, baby!) and therefore spaceflight will become common place. Wouldn't that be cool?
This planet is a marvelous machine/organism, it has amazing powers of life and restoration, it is quite capable of sustaining life for many billions of people and has for centuries. If the quality of life is suffering due to an increase in population it has nothing to do with the population growth itself, but rather with the way that people choose to live, which is often in selfishness and disdain for others. If this were not the case the quality of life would never suffer because of population increasing.
No, because it's a huge benefit, both to the growing number of individuals, and to the growing collective groups of people, for the numbers of people alive to go on expanding naturally. Discourage use of "birth control?" And encourage large families worldwide, for the altruistic reason that parents reasons for having so many children are surely plenty good enough, to show better respect for people, and for the progress of the human race in welcoming it to expand. People are not parasites, but have more of a "symbiotic?" Relationship with nature. They say the grips greenest over the septic tank? What might this mean? That nature has no objection, even wants human populations to grow, so long as we have good and limited governance, and proper development. A naturally-growing human population, is such a huge benefit to people, for it expands the numbers of people around, to benefit from whatever. Juggle, what did you do with my comment? I can't seem to find any confirmation of its previous posting being confirmed by appearing here.
We must examine the idea of a growing population in itself; we must separate the facts from the fiction; for what drives population growth? Is this growth an inevitability? Is there anything that leads to a natural cessation of such growth? The Demographic Transition Model of Development, as coined by sociologist F.W. Notestien, claims that population growth is not an isolated occurrence. It is resultant of "development", the correct utilization of those three constants, something the people of the world most certainly can control. It states that population growth slows and reaches a plateau once development reaches a certain level.
For example, Africa has the most high-ranking countries on the list of population growth rate per country compiled by the World Bank in 2009. Although this, at present, may seemingly indicate a certain continual growth of population, the countries of Africa are, in fact, starting out on a demographic transition, with countries, like Ethiopia and Mozambique being consistently in the top ten growing world economies over the last ten years, according to "The Economist". As countries experience economic growth, and therefore demographic transition, they experience a decline in the fertility rate. In other words, as countries get richer, women have fewer children. In 1990, the fertility rate of sub-Saharan Africa was 6. According to United Nations projections, by 2030, this is to fall to 3. By 2050, below 2.5. It is no coincidence that the past 15 years have also seen Africa’s fastest period of economic growth, as outlined by The Economist. With Africa as a primary example, this “growing population” to which the motion refers may not be as rapid as the proposition may outline.
Taking UN projections into account, population growth is likely to continually slow down. The development of a country, according to the demographic transition model, can lead to the decline and the deceleration of population growth, therefore alleviating the world of that which it supposedly cannot sustain!
If there are more people using the non-renewable resources that give us electricity, heat and transport then we will run out faster. Also if we simply ration out the energy, heat and transport than eventually we will have to make the portions smaller to make sure every body gets some. Then we will run out, when, not if but when, we run out the planet is tanked. TANKED!!
When population increases competition too increases which indeed would lead to good quality of living .
Also population has lead to greater improvements in technologies , and if people become educated eventually population rate would go down.ACTUAL CAUSE OF CONCERN MUST BE EDUCATION IF PEOPLE HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CONSEQUENCES OF OVER POPULATION THEY WOULD CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND AND IMPLEMENT IN THEIR LIFE FOR SURE.
Life is pretty much about choices not how many kids you have but too much of anything isn't good but that's the choice of the people.We have to rembember people are born and die every day.Yes we will probably will lead to less resources but people are greedy and can live on much less than they actually do.Somepeople don't choose to have kids and some do it's there lifestyle choice and still is quality of life.You and your situation choose how great your life is and you might think your life sucks but it's your choices that lead your life and what you choose to do about it.Overpopulation may slow down the population but I find that people are rushing life and don't enjoy it.Life is short and quality is much better than quantity.If you don't enjoy life what is the point of life at all.
Life and its quality are based on different things and I don't believe Population is one of those things.
Slowdown and smell the roses is a popular expression in my country.People rushing around doesn't help and you might find something special for the day instead of the same old thing because the world is forever changing and that's what I find great in life.If u slowdown it might help you think and figure out what's best for you and only you.Dont let your life be run by what's right for others because everyone is different.
Quality of life is all about choices.We all make choices even though they might seem small.Choices is what drives our life in the direction in goes in.Your choices are what make you different from someone else.Our choices are what makes are life great and what makes them stink but remember one thing Nobody's life is perfect.
I don't think it will be negative unless you make the wrong choice for you.We all like different things and kids are one of them.Over populating might harm our resources like food and trees but that's because we aren't replenishing them the right way and the vews of somepeople like racists that most other people are ignorant.People can be mean and make others lives difficult and bullying doesn't help a thing.If we share and help each other and try to atleast make one persons life better karma will make are lives better even in the smallest bit but you have to have good unselfish reasons to do some.There are some negative issues with the human race like we can be canablistic we are selfish and we will kill the innocent for silly reasons or that we want something of there's but everyone makes mistakes and some are bigger than others and can't be forgiven.I believe we should give someone another chance because sometimes people really do change but sadly most of the time they don't.I think it's both yes and no but I really don't think one correlates with the other.
People centuries ago thought that a larger population than they were used to would lead to bad consequences, but new technology allowed more growth. The same is the case today.
If today's technology did not change, the population would reach a stable level, but we do not know where it is, it could be close, but it could also be far.
However, todays technology IS changing. And, on the most part, it changes to meet the constrains on society. A key example here being climate change is incentivising attempts to reduce emissions.
Another thing to note is that most resources (the availability of which greatly influences the quality of life) on this planet are practically indestructible and/or infinite.
Elements on the earth only 'leave the system' by nuclear processes (which are very difficult to undo) or if they are ejected out of the earths orbit where it is difficult to reclaim them. Convenient forms of resources eg ores may become inconvenient ie metal rubbish, but the elements are still there, and it becomes a matter of relative economics.
This is not indestructable, and can easily leave the system, as heat through the atmosphere. But it is supplied to the earth in enormous quantities by the sun, and this isn't going to run out anytime soon. We are only still on oil because it is cheaper.
This is indestructible. It can be made unusable or inhabitable but this is a reversible process. Land however IS finite, but most of our land is taken up for making food. The food we eat is still natural, but technology could (providing enough available energy) make artificial or pseudo-natural food in power plant type setups, freeing up a lot of land. In addition to this, we can build vertically and underground. The seas can be tamed, and we can live on the water.
In summary: resources are infinite, and our quality of life is constrained by energy
If we didn't have more people, humanity would die out. Also,the demand for certain products would decrease if everybody had it. Things would lose their value because with less people, the less rare something is. What would happen if the population didn't grow? Think of the negative impacts! People wouldn't get married! People wouldn't have jobs! C'mon people