Does the ever growing population have a negative impact on quality of live?
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.
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.
The more people there are, the more competition we face in everything from getting a job, to finding our future spouse. The stress brought on by all this fierce competition to achieve less than the previous generation lowers the quality of life for all of those involved. Both those who win and lose at life spend more effort to do so than ever before.
If more people live in an environment than the environment can sustain, then the quality of life per person living in that environment goes down. Things like the quality of food and consumer goods go down to make up for this negative effect. While the United States doesn't have much of a population problem, it is suffering from a lack of infrastructure to support more immigration and population growth. You can observe this by looking at the ghetto neighborhoods.
The world population growth rate is about 1.10% per year. In 1900 the population is 1.6 billion. And in 2011 the population is 7 billion. The top 3 countries with the most population is China, India, and the United States. In China they have a one-child policy where one family can only have one child. In India you are only allowed 1-2 children. In the United States the public service act made the prevention of unintended pregnancies possible. The population J is the exponential growth of the world population. The factors that effects population growth are birth rate, death rate, immigration, emigration, population growth rate, fecundity, biotic or intrinsic factors, exponential population growth, logistic population growth, density dependent environmental resistance factors, and density independent environmental resistance factors.
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.
It is important to realize that as the population grows, living space, food, clothing and things like that decrease. As more homes need to be built, we end up needing to cut down necessary trees and other areas designated for nature. There is also limited space where food could be grown or made.
because there will not be too much place for every body to be comfortable.Resources of the country will rapidly reduce. Children could even start to still because there is not much food. Forests will reduce due rapid cutting of trees and they may lack oxygen. That is why some people would migrate to another country. People specially babies could die because of hospitals filled with babies who will be born.
Population has a negative effect on quality of life. If some one is illiterate and has a big family thus causing an increase in population, if the person is working as a laborer, he earns 350 rupees. How can 350 fulfill the fees of his children's school or buying clothes, food, and other things? So what can he do? In case of low economy his children will not get a good education so his quality of life is also ruined because he became illiterate and no any one gives him opportunity for work. That's why population is a negative effect on quality of life.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Earth only has a certain amount of resources and space. The more people there are, the fewer resources and less space there is for each individual person, and also society as a whole. Therefore, life quality decreases significantly. The more people, the fewer jobs there are, because they're being filled. That leads to more homeless people. The more people there are, the greater the crime rate as well. Life quality, all around, is affected negatively.
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.
We rely on technology now, so much that we're too lazy to do anything manual, and our creativity is going down considering we're having toys made to say things for us and such. It's like we don't have our own idea's anymore, we are redoing movies over and over again, and we're killing our culture in n attempt to catch up with china. It's absurd, were disrespecting nature and ourselves, we're becoming over protective.
I absolutely believe that having so many people in this world has led to a lesser quality of life. There are so many people having children that can not even support themselves. If you really think about it, it's a no-brainer. For example, take a young homeless woman. She can probably find a shelter, get a job, and eventually get back on her feet. Now, let's say she has a child. How can she take her child with her to work? She can't. If people would simply start acting responsibly by not having children they can not provide for, the quality of their lives would be greatly increased. Which would, in turn, improve all lives as well.
There are only so many resources we can bring in and give out effectively. This means as there becomes more and more people the output will stay the same, but the amount each person gets becomes less until the average person gets none and only the rich get the resources.
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.
With more and more people competing for limited resources and less room to hold them all, with more waste being produced in huge quantities every day I don't know how it cant negatively affect the quality of life.
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.
World leaders must pull together and think in terms of a global population. They must work to feed and educate the population, as it increases. Only in this way, will the hungry and poor find stability, and not threaten the rich or the people that have enough. It is up to the leaders and the people voting to determine the answer to this question.
Because the people of the world share a finite amount of resources, more people means fewer resources for each. Unless there are significant advances in renewable energy, or innovations in sustainable food production, a growing population will mean diminishing resources.
There is a carrying capacity and with the industrial revolution we have sky rocketed and, no , we have never noticed our growth hurting our civilizations before because the world never have anything like the human species so when we went into the next phase of our evolution we didn't take in account for our stamp on the earth itself. Over time we grew and gave less and less time for the world to rebuild and reconstruct the systems that we depend on. Say a couple of species die off because of us. Survival of the fittest you might say, but when one species, such as humans, makes it impossible for alot of those species to even find a community for them to even try to adapt to, then they all die off and not one day exactly but over time the whole system will collapse. We are in a very delicate fluctuation and when you mess with it just a little expect things to get out of hand even more and more as time goes by without doing anything.
The more people that are on the Earth, means the more pollution be put into the atmosphere and also using more natural resources. More people will be in poverty and starving because there will be a lack of work and space for everyone on Earth. When this happens, crime will also increase.
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)?
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.
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?
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!