Principal Voices is intended to be a global debate everyone can participate in, and we are keen to hear your views on the subjects being discussed. These comments will form a central part of the Principal Voices Web site.

Is the world over-populated? What measures should be taken?

Name
E-mail address
Your location
Comment
	Comment Policy All fields are required

I think that to control population, first of all a well-balanced government should be in place. This government should try to distribute knowledge everywhere. This in turn would bring awareness and the problem of overpopulation can be solved.

The world population is the only threat to this planet and the future o four children. Global warming, pollution, these are all symptoms of over population. The leaders of the world must get together and spend billions of dollars on educating the masses on the importance of each of us having only 2 children, and the first not until age 30. This will peacefully reduce the world population by half in about 100 to 200 years.

In my opinion the world population has become out of control, and the main source of the problem comes from third world countries. America being one of the most powerful and richest nations in the world has the power to act on the situation. If we could bring better sexual education and birth control to these countries there might be a significant drop in population.

India is doing little to control the population, which is in fact the root cause of all its problems. The current government may be basking in the glory of economic growth, but do they realise we are only providing cheap labour? They also don't realise that this so called development cannot be sustained and it will only lead to serious health and environmental problems and also a rise in crime.

What is development if most of the population is below poverty line and a majority do not have access to basic health care, sanitation or water supply?

There should be greater allocation of resources for family planning projects and better incentives for smaller families. I think even the multi-national and private sector industries should give better perks for people who limit their families as I think even the educated in India are not in favor of family planning.

I think international organizations should also give greater emphasis to population control.

It is not only third world countries that are contributing to the crisis of over-population, in the UK there is an increasing number of teenage pregnancies. Wherever one lives, one should have a child because they are able to support it, not the other way around.

Education on Aids and how overpopulation affects everyone is key to solving the problem. In third world countries where the economic situation is bad, if one family has six children, only four might make it to adulthood.

L.K Vance suggests there should be a limit of six children. I struggle to take that in. Could they clarify that comment?

I firmly believe that this planet can only sustain a population of 3 to 4 billion. Any world population larger than that will eventually have dire consequences. People, no matter where they live or the nature of their economy, must consume natural resources.

With the population at almost twice what the Earth can sustain, we will eventually "use up" the gifts this planet offers and the quality of life for all will suffer.

The world is not overpopulated yet, but soon it will if birth control is not imposed. One kid per family is a must. Educating people in the Third World about the importance of birth control is a must. Perhaps we could provide incentives for those who have one kid per family. A minimum age to get married should be imposed to avoid very young people to get married.

Uneducated people should be taught about the Billings method of contraception. It is very simple and very effective. One just needs to get past the proud male syndrome.

In Third World countries where there is famine and uncertainty, birth control should be mandatory. People are having too many babies that they just can't care for. Maybe there should be a limit to six children per family in countries where parents can provide care for their children.

Just birth control -- one to two kids per family, or none to some cases! Or else we will spread like a virus and destroy what 's left on this Earth, and in the process ourselves.

Yes, the world is overpopulated. I believe we can prevent it if we help each other (the Third World and the First World countries).

It's obvious that the world is over-populated. Countries like Australia and Canada seem to function very well with small population densities, preserving their natural resources. My country could do very well with half its present population or less. I don't understand why some people think the Earth should be populated to saturation point, there seems to be no advantage in that, only disadvantages.

And if we don't control our population nature will, eventually, in a terrible way. I believe UN should establish, through our representatives, future population reduction goals for each country.

This should be done in a rational way, distributing population according to available space in countries and regions, preserving important natural resources, so as to reach the next century with a total stabilized population of 1 billion people in the whole Earth.

Mankind is a virus on this planet. A parasite that sucks the life out of all the world's resources and gives nothing in return. The population now is already far greater than this precious Earth can handle.

Human beings have become a fungus on the Earth, mindlessly spreading across the land, destroying everything they come in contact with, leaving nothing but unusable waste, poisoned waters and soil stripped of minerals and nutrients. It is only a matter of time before there is nothing left.

Each and every one of us should feel the shame of what we are continuing to do to this planet. Even if the population of the world were to somehow be halved, the children of our children will need land that is capable of providing crops, pasture and clean water. Do those children even have a chance? Can we give up our most basic luxuries? Cars, televisions, and all the other items of an industrial age that led us to this insane need for more and more oil resources?

I don't have all the answers, but I do know that for anyone to survive in the future, we must be willing to give up a great deal and begin living the simple lives of our ancestors. We need to become responsible for the small patch of earth that we inhabit. Yes, we should return to the horse and buggy, grow our own produce and raise our own goats, pigs and chickens.

But I don't have the slightest idea on how to bring this about. Most of us are unable to afford that acre of land that we would need to become self sufficient. Additionally, building codes prevent us from building our own shelter. In conclusion this world has to see some very great changes.

In Australia the government pays a child endowment to families as an incentive to have more children. Governments in all countries should be paying incentives to couples NOT to have children, or at least to limit the size of families to two children.

Quit worrying about it. We have a flu pandemic coming that will take care of any concerns about overpopulation.

The Earth is not at all overpopulated and it will never be. As said, it has the necessary resources to feed all; to meet the needs of all but not enough for the greed of a few.

Anyone who knows anything about environmental matters and the state of the world should realize how destructive our species is and how much our future is in jeopardy.

Every single person has a huge impact on the world. Everything is connected. Think of all the plastic diapers and *things* every baby goes through, all the plastic and paper we all consume, all the fuel that goes to transport our goods, all the heavy metals used in our electronics, all the fertilizer and water used to grow our food -- which we eat too much of...

Most children grow up to have their own car, their own house (and house size in the U.S. has been increasing), their own children... And the cycle continues.

We consume so much more than the Earth can sustain. QUALITY of life is so very, very important and we won't have it if we keep our heads in the sand and think that our reproductive choices don't affect EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING.

Yes, the *level* of consumption is very important, but even if per capita consumption goes down and population continues to go up, the problem won't change.

We need to increase education and the rights of women worldwide because that has the biggest link to family size. Women who have their own goals and dreams and value do not need to feel their role is only to take are of others. Women must know that their goals matter and are obtainable!

Government-funded vasectomies and more incentives to adopt should be widely available. Adoption is a great way to have a family without adding more people to the world.

My boyfriend will be getting a vasectomy and we will adopt if we choose to have a child. Every child deserves a loving family, and a child that shares a larger percentage of your genes is not inherently more valuable than one that has fewer of your genes! A child is a child is a child! Adopt!

Is the world over-populated? I think it is and always will be. Because I don't believe in abortion. It's a sin!!!!

Overpopulation, especially in industrialized countries like America, is at the root of both environmental and social problems. Overconsumption is a far greater detriment than people realize. The rate at which this country consumes is nothing short of gluttonous.

It is more than a question of space -- it is a question of resources, they are FINITE. People need to seriously question their lifestyles, their sense of entitlement. their reasoning for having large families and we need more education about birth control. Unfortunately these type of changes take generations to implement and I fear we do not have that amount of time.

I absolutely believe the world has gotten to be over-populated. Children are having children and people who can't afford to feed themselves are having children who they can't afford to feed.

They get on welfare, drive big cars, wear fancy jewelry, get their nails and hair done weekly but can't or won't work. Who pays for this? We do, the taxpayers. While I totally agree with welfare, I think it needs to be restructured to be available to those who need it and not for those who think they deserve it.

The problem is not with overpopulation, it is simply a case of unfair land distribution/resource distribution. Shackle that to the corrupt IMF/World Bank and therefore if you have nothing you will remain with nothing.

I think the best solution for overpopulation is to allow every family (woman-man, man-man, woman/woman) to have one child in total. This should reduce the world population by half over a period of time.

Don't blame me and my girlfriend for overpopulation. We have no kids and don't want any. I had a vasectomy 10 days ago. The procedure was quick, inexpensive and the post-operative discomfort was minimal.

To say that the world is overpopulated is an oversimplification. The trouble with population is that the problem is very complex and has no simple answer.

Technologies exist that could revolutionize subsistence farming and "green" commercial agriculture. The problem with those technologies is in their implementation.

The UN has done a great job of attempting to deploy large-scale agricultural programs that treat the Earth kindly while providing food and potable water to the donor community. The trouble lies in the vested interest of the people who live there. I have seen several great programs just "up and die" after the projects were left to the farmers. The community didn't understand the gravity of the program, nor how it worked, nor how to sustain or maintain it when the UN ran out of money and had to leave.

Fertility restrictions and similar government-mandated programs such as tax incentives would never work. We have seen the results in China and India, where male children are revered and girls are treated like so much trash to be taken out. Tax Incentives won't work in nations like Saudi Arabia, where there is no personal tax, and wont work in African Nations that have experienced 1,200% inflation in the last two years.

War and Famine will always be with us, but those are not "solutions" either. War and Famine are NOT "natural stopgaps". Neither is disease. More often than not, these events are triggered by human greed and carelessness. We need only look to the Horn of Africa to see that.

Here is the rub: Nations whose populations do not grow pay an economic price as their population ages. Many European nations are waking up to an aging population and realizing they don't have enough young people to do the necessary work to support the elderly.

Even the U.S. is "on the bubble" as we, too, realize that the immigrant population may be our best hope for a strong economy in the years to come. (Yes, that's true, ask any economist).

I am not surprised to see that so many of your readers are content to sit in front of their computer terminals and let the world sort out its own troubles. "Let them die" seems to be one half the consensus opinion. Still others think that suppressing peoples right to decide how large their family should be ought to take care of the problem.

What those two camps don't understand is this: 1) Those "quick fixes" have been tried and have failed miserably. 2) Government will not -- cannot -- work to affect a change in nations with weak or no enforcement or assistance.

So what do we do?

Invest. Invest our money, our time, and our effort into finding solutions. Each one of us who is willing to help should. We have to own the problem. Sitting back and watching African or South American or Asian or European kids starve to death on the TV news will not help a single soul on this earth. Volunteer. Look for ways to spend some time in the field. Looking face to face at a starving child is the best possible way to drive the point of ownership home. Live where they live for a while.

What should we not do?

Sit and stare. Criticize. Be Greedy and complacent if you must, it is your right. But sty out of the way of those are willing to help.

Population growth is going to be with us for a while, a long while. The problem is both economic and human. It is in the interest of every nation, indeed - everyone - on earth to help find a way out of the woods.

I see the population explosion contributing to global warming just from the fact that there are billions of people radiating 98 degree body temperatures into the atmosphere. I don't see this being addressed by anyone. That is a huge mass of people at a constant temp of 98 degrees. The energy we use to heat and cool this same populace is also a major contributor.

Yes, the world is overpopulated. The birth increases in poor countries and the migration of the poor to rich countries will exacerbate the use of materials and energies in rich countries. Overpopulation by the poor is a disaster for the Earth and its resources. Population control and worldwide birth control efforts must be put into effect immediately.

Great Web site.

I believe that if people cannot be responsible themselves in limiting the amount of children that they have, then the government needs to step in.

There is absolutely no reason why a family should have more than two children. How many people do they think this planet can sustain? What about sterilization after two kids? Is that so wrong?

Until people can start taking care of this planet properly, child limits should be enforced. Respect the Earth because it is all we've got. The human race seems to be like a virus, growing and destroying everything in its wake. We need to find the cure.

Each woman bearing only one natural child, then submitting to sterilization, should be granted freedom from taxation for the balance of her lifetime.

The key to overpopulation, and probably many of the world's ills, lies in the empowerment of women. Women who can control their fertility, and who have basic social and economic rights, will control population growth, as they already do in most of the developed world.

The alternative is to let war, famine and pestilence do the job for us. Unfortunately the U.S. has become a virtual theocracy and no longer supports fertility control programs in Third World countries. In that way, too, we are part of the problem.

This is the #1 problem, exceeding ALL other global problems. It's destroying the planet; and has a 93% probability of destroying human civilization by 2016.

The only natural deterrent is the upcoming global avian pandemic; which, itself, will only incur a nine-year stop gap.

Solution: only one -- global education in global population management. However, mankind has already obstinately defaulted on any willingness to do anything but give lip service, in a whisper, to the problem.

The overpopulation problem has surpassed the ability of ALL world governments to resolve; which they'll never admit. We'll never see 7 billion people on Earth; catastrophic consequences, which are already on the horizon, will always limit human over population; because we live within a limited planetary environment.

Mankind's last chance to positively resolve the problem was in 2001. Now, it's going to be ugly -- nightmare ugly!

Why can't you think for yourselves instead of thinking like some rich elitist scum?

There is no limit to human ingenuity. We just need to figure out how to harness the energy that is all around us. That may sound like an outlandish whacko statement, but it's really not.

Once we do that we can begin to live sustainably. We're so close now, if only people would start using their brains instead of parroting this ridiculous elitist nonsense -- "We need to kill off 90% of the population," "We need a new Pearl Harbor."

Stop accepting that garbage. Learn to think like an intelligent free human being, not some cancerous elite slime.

Yes, the world is over-populated! I'm not worried for those rich countries that experience high birth rates because they can afford to give decent life to their citizens; I'm worried for poor countries whose population is overwhelming.

The Philippines is a Third World country and has a high population. The government cannot afford to address the basic needs of the people because there is only small budget intended for the basic services. Leaders attempted to address this problem but never implement any measures to reduce the population.

Filipinos are religious in nature. The Church believes that population control, specifically the use of birth control, is against God's law.

I'm not pointing out this to present myself against them, I'm saying this because I'm talking of the future generations. What will happen if the population still grows and economic development never grows? What would be the future of the next generation? We should work on this right now! Yes to population control!

Who decides? Who among us is so wise as to decide who among us should live or die? Who among us is so wise as to decide who among us is useful or not?

The world can never be overpopulated. Mother Nature is quite capable of performing the necessary self corrections. They are called War, Pestilence, and Famine.

As the above article stated, population growth is taking place, by and large, in the most poor nations. Undoubtedly, a lack of education breeds this poverty and in my opinion, this explosive population growth.

If we look at Europe we see stable population growth or decline, the numbers appear to be level. They are also some of the best educated people in the world.

Therefore the solution in my sight would be a mass education of all Third World nations. If this in itself does not solve the problem then the education and subsequent appreciation of their economies would surely stunt population growth as it has in Europe and the United States. (This is native births, not immigrant population augments).

Yet sadly enough, not enough people care as they do not see immediate benefit in investing in the overpopulated and malnourished populaces.

Obviously, the world is overpopulated. When I say that, I do not mean that we are as a species unable to support ourselves, it is just that we as a species are unwilling to support each other and ourselves. Instead, we bicker and fight over trivial matters.

There is enough water on this small planet to ensure that crops are grown, people are fed and animals survive. There are more then enough resources to ensure that every human being on this planet is taken care of. However, differences over borders, language, culture, religion -- the list goes on -- prevent us from helping each other out.

Whether the world is overpopulated or not is not an easy question. For example, if our future lies in space it is good that there are too many people. That will force us to venture into the unknown.

What is clear, however, is that the world is unevenly populated. More and more children are born in the poorer areas. That is where the world gets overpopulated.

In Europe, Russia and Japan the birth rate is very low. That is where the world is getting underpopulated. What does this means? It means that there is a strong push for immigrants to move to those areas (the U.S. as well).

In the end, I do believe the world would be better of with fewer people. They would have more food, space and natural resources per capita. There would be fewer deprived and starving people around the world.

It would be irresponsible not to tackle the human population problem.The situation is different in different locales. In general, the solution is as follows:

1) Identify the environmental constraints in the region
2) Identify ways to ensure that the optimal population demographic will reached from current distributions in a reasonable timeframe.

Both parts of the solution require modelling. In general it may be best to use conservative estimates for numbers such as the carrying capacity of the region and resource usage of the average person.

Several models could then be presented to the regional, national and international governing bodies. These would in turn guide immigration, emigration, and resource distribution policies. Policies must take into account the following:

1) Human behavior (both individual and group). Established culture and political systems should also be taken into account.
2) Information contained in the policy will have limited success in reaching people (this is especially so for poor regions of the world)
3) The situation is dynamic (disease, war, weather can introduce errors in the models significantly -- hence mechanisms for monitoring and continual revision of such policies should be in place).

The trick here is to ensure that science improves to allow the creation of conservative scenarios, and the engineering of social behavior is successful.

One example on how to change population levels: alter the cost of children. For example, outlawing child labor, encouraging child education and increasing competition in the workplace will increase the cost of children, which will decrease the population growth rate.

Overpopulation is the number one problem because it stimulates so many other problems like environmental degradation and war.

It is unlikely there will be a significant population reduction, therefore we must learn to live on a small planet with too many people. Those of us in the developed world should be prepared to consume much less and accept a reduced lifestyle while the rest of the world must be encouraged to adopt only the latest "green" technologies.

Economic aid from developed to developing nations should be generous but linked to environmental and educational initiatives in the receiving countries. It is depressing to see that we cannot even get governments and leaders to agree on such rational policies.

We need education of both leaders and the various peoples and a I truly hope Principal Voices and other groups can do this. Spend your money and resources now on educating and building consensus. Perhaps one day soon we will see many democracies in the world, with informed electorates who choose better, more intelligent leaders than we see today.

Poverty cannot be cured by throwing money at it. Families need to take responsibility for their actions by limiting their numbers.

It is no good producing numerous children and then expecting others to care for them. Education is necessary, especially girls who will become the mothers with the many babies to feed.

Saving millions from starvation will not solve the problem if it means having to save billions in future. I can see an exodus from the poorer countries to Europe and the United States. Are the developed countries ready to welcome thousands of leaking boats with economic refugees? This is not a short-term problem but one that can really have far-reaching consequences. Until the poor start acting responsibly I cannot see an answer!

Maybe the world is overpopulated, but it's not the main problem. By my point of view, the main problem is that the population of people is useless for the Earth -- we just make use but we don't give anything back.

We are not the part of general ecological system as we should be. The problem is that most people don't see themselves as a part of the Earth.

Also, my worry is that a majority of our population is badly educated or not educated at all. The more a person is educated, the more responsible one feels.

That's also happening in my country: educated people with higher incomes and feelings of social responsibility are planning and seriously thinking about the children they should have, but low-educated or non-educated people just make the population grow.

As the result of that we have less and less of "good quality citizens" and more useless "users".

There are two problems, both of which have been touched upon. The world has at least twice as many people as it needs. When Western consumption patterns are considered, it probably has 10 times more people than feasible. The world needs both fewer humans and less consumption.

No, it is not a problem, because a large part of the Earth is not occupied and can be adapted. For example, in the Sahara desert, plans should be made to have a big water transformation system installed by the sea, remove the sand by train and transform the desert with soil, trees, gardens, small farms etc.

A lot of people would find work, food, and a better quality of life.

Is the world over-populated? Yes -- over-population is a huge reason that the Earth has a "fever".

Yes, the world is overpopulated and growing at a much faster rate then the Earth can handle.

A measure that could be taken is educating people, especially woman, on family planning and encouraging them in their careers. This in return will decrease the birth rate and raise the child bearing age, thus decreasing the population.

It is true that the world is overpopulated, but there are many places still on the Earth than have no people or buildings.So just make new cities in other countries, empty lands.

The fast increase in populations will start to kill people soon! The crime rate will increase year by year.

Yes, the world is overpopulated, and killing or letting large numbers die does not seem to cause much notice.

People in developing countries usually decrease their birth rate when their economic status improves and infant mortality decreases.

A population explosion is still taking place mainly in Africa, as well as some other countries in Latin America and Asia.

Population growth among the poor is far from being the cause of poverty, it is a result of it; there is a contradictory relationship between per capita income and the fertility rate -- as poverty decreases, so do the population rates.

When people are ground into the dirt by poverty, education falls, women's rights decrease, and contraception is less available. Having children then becomes in essence the only creative outlet, with people resting their hopes for a better future in their offspring.

Therefore social conditions have a major impact on population growth. In countries with higher economic and cultural levels, population growth soon starts to fall off. Today, for example, much of Europe has seen birthrates fall beyond the national replacement rate.

Women are the gateway for a population increase and over 100 million couples in Africa do not want to have anymore children (UN 2002.) The men and women (especially) in these areas need to be educated about and given access to birth control. They should also be educated on the problems that overpopulation can create.

We're in trouble. Over-industrialization and over-urbanization of the globe have taken their toll. There are cures for the ills caused, but the only sure remedy would be the reduction of the future population of the globe.

The number one problem is overpopulation. If the planet had just 1 or 2 billion people, our modern lifestyles would probably not seriously impact the planet.

Why do political leaders never mention overpopulation? Because it directly conflicts with the illogical mindset that endless growth is good.

It's amazing that no one considers overpopulation as a major cause for pollution and depletion of our natural resources. The activists who are against abortion only encourage the overpopulation problem by forcing women to have babies that they don't even want.

The bottom line of pollution, global warming, crime and most other social ills, is PEOPLE. At a world population of over SIX BILLION, the pool is getting far too full. I believe that population control is the top issue and it is at the root of most of the others. Population control is an immediate necessity.

Thirty years ago there was public awareness of the "population bomb," (I recall a book by that title).

Today, most people I talk to here in Florida think I'm a nut case when I say I think it's socially irresponsible to have more than two children!

As hard as the truth may be to swallow, without controlling population growth everything else will at best only postpone the inevitable, whatever that is.

This whole issue reminds me of the following ratio: 20% of the world's population consumes 80% of its resources and vice-versa.

It's not just about how many people there are but the ecological footprint of each individual that matters. Remember, if everyone lived the "American way of life", we would need 3 more Earths to sustain us.

If you want to reduce the ill effects of humans than you must stop producing human beings.

That is not an easy or perhaps possible policy. We are a creature whose nature is to transform our world. That is no sin or crime.

But we do destructive as well as constructive things. In my opinion, many of the unwise things we do are driven by how many of us there are.

Is the world overpopulated? It seems to me this is a question that largely depends on our ability to feed the ever-growing population.

Four hundred years ago, farming and husbandry allowed for a much smaller population on the planet. Even further back in time, hunters and gatherers could only support a very small population per square mile. Now with advances in both of those fields, we can support a much larger population.

However, I'm not sure if the current ability to support 6.5 billion people is completely sustainable.

In many parts of the world slash and burn farming is practiced rather than rotational farming. Slash and burn leaves one very productive growing season and then the soil becomes depleted to a point where ever dwindling amounts of produce can be reaped from the same amount of land.

Large areas of South America and South East Asia are subsisting on this method of farming.

Another side to the sustainability issue is not population growth but individual consumption.

The United States is a great example of a population that as it has increased in size, the per person consumption of energy and resources has dramatically increased.

I think this will be a bigger concern than overpopulation, when you consider China and India are consuming greater amounts of energy per individual every year that is outpacing even their population growth.

I do have a very straight forward solution to overpopulation, though: educate women.

Every country that has a large group of educated women has much smaller population growth than those counties where women have little or no education and spend their days completely consumed in their ever-growing family.

What is wrong with population control? Limit immigration and stop paying people to have babies that they are unable to adequately care for.