if you could stop world disease, would you?

[Poseidon]

there are several factors to consider, if there are no disease then there would be more people, then we would face over population, wich comes with low standarts of living, then, not enough food, so whe would face world famine. so is it really that good to end diseases? I know if diseases disapear thing would not necesarely go the way i am decriving, but still, natural causes of ding are keeping the popullation GROWING in a "moderate" way since ppl are born more often than ppl die. so what do you think?

[Jack]

Disease spreads really well when people are in close proximity. So over-population, which would result from the elimination or reduction in disease, would eventually lead to some diseases spreading even faster.
Nature is all about balance. Upset the scale too far in any one direction, and nature will find a way to get balanced again.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Overpopulation is a myth.

[zynner]

I agree that overpopulation is a myth.

If you take the world's population, put them 4 to a home, and put each home on a quarter-acre lot, you could fit the entire world's population into an area about twice the size of Texas. And that's without any condos.

The rest of the world could easily sustain the population. The problem is distribution of resources and that is a problem of government. Places where people are starving also have corrupt politician thieves, as well as corrupt economic ideas that keep people poor.

~ zynner

[Clarence]

If you could lick your own balls, would you?

[kingmea]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Overpopulation is a myth.

Bullshit.

*in response to zynner* There is no way to feed an overpopulated earth. There can only be so many fishies, so many plants, and so many people fishing the fishies that eat plants and people eating those fishies. Not to mention gas prices for that many SUVs. Oh knoes! :O

[Clarence]

If you could save the fishies, would you?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: zynner I agree that overpopulation is a myth. If you take the world's population, put them 4 to a home, and put each home on a quarter-acre lot, you could fit the entire world's population into an area about twice the size of Texas. And that's without any condos. The rest of the world could easily sustain the population. The problem is distribution of resources and that is a problem of government. Places where people are starving also have corrupt politician thieves, as well as corrupt economic ideas that keep people poor. ~ zynner

Do you actually believe that if everyone was living by the current Western standards, it'd actually be sustainable?

[kubedawg]

Quote by: kingmea Bullshit. *in response to zynner* There is no way to feed an overpopulated earth. There can only be so many fishies, so many plants, and so many people fishing the fishies that eat plants and people eating those fishies. Not to mention gas prices for that many SUVs. Oh knoes! :O

How is that bullshit?

Do you know who Norman Borlaug is?
He's probably saved a billion people by now from hunger. There are ways to feed an overpopulated earth. The US has an overabundance of food. Why not just stop being greedy and send some of that to starving countries around the world? Why not use GM foods to feed millions of people? I'm really sick of people thinking we will have an overpopulation if we cure disease or feed the hungry with GM foods. You don't see these people volunteering to die.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: zynner I agree that overpopulation is a myth. If you take the world's population, put them 4 to a home, and put each home on a quarter-acre lot, you could fit the entire world's population into an area about twice the size of Texas. And that's without any condos. The rest of the world could easily sustain the population. The problem is distribution of resources and that is a problem of government. Places where people are starving also have corrupt politician thieves, as well as corrupt economic ideas that keep people poor. ~ zynner

Oh and what about the other variables, such as deaths caused by something else other than disease? Cigarettes, driving a car, murder, you name a way to die, and it's gonna happen, regardless of how many people live on this earth. Therefore, the overpopulation would not be very big at all.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: kingmea Bullshit. *in response to zynner* There is no way to feed an overpopulated earth.

Thanks for that taulology.

Quote by: kingmea There can only be so many fishies, so many plants, and so many people fishing the fishies that eat plants and people eating those fishies.

You may be right, but we are far, far, away from that limit. When we do get close to that limit, food prices will rise until it it becomes prohibitively expensive to have children. The problem is self-correcting.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Pooeypants Do you actually believe that if everyone was living by the current Western standards, it'd actually be sustainable?

Everyone can live at better than Western standards. Technology is continuously improving everyone's standards of living.

[Nathan Struth]

No way Freeman western standards are WAY too high. did you know that 1% of the worlds population hold 99% of the entire wealth! You've got to be joking. Americans consume so much. They consume probably about 10 times as much food as the average man in India or China. I agree we have the technology to fix such a problem but the question was if I could solve disease would I. The answer is YES if I could control the amount of births done like CHina does.

In response to Kubedog, overpopulation does exist, here's a logarithmic growth pattern of humans. It's found in nearly all species. It's harder to live when the conditions are in disagreement with your survival and take the Galapagos finches for example. here's the chart.



Yes take a look at this graph Earth: The Living Planet

Oh and this one: http://www.meer.org/popgrow.gif

And remember that in Natural selection disease is one of the primary components of keeping a population in it's density levels. I would do this if we would control births (get rid of world disease). But if the birth rate isn't controlled then NO.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Nathan Struth No way Freeman western standards are WAY too high. did you know that 1% of the worlds population hold 99% of the entire wealth!

What's your point? All that means is that most people are dirt poor. How do you figure our standards of living are "too high"? Should we all be as poor as your average person in Calcutta? If you really think that, you have a strong misanthropic streak.

Quote by: Nathan Struth You've got to be joking. Americans consume so much. They consume probably about 10 times as much food as the average man in India or China.

Thats because the average person in India or China is rail thin and starving. Is that your ideal?

Quote by: Nathan Struth The answer is YES if I could control the amount of births done like CHina does.

I've got news for you buddy -- China's policy of controlling briths is coming back to bite them in the ass. Their population is rapidly aging. Pretty soon they're going to have a ton of old people and no way to take care of them.

China is NOT an example for the rest of the world.

Quote by: Nathan Struth In response to Kubedog, overpopulation does exist, here's a logarithmic growth pattern of humans. It's found in nearly all species. It's harder to live when the conditions are in disagreement with your survival and take the Galapagos finches for example.

This growth pattern assumes that the species has no control over its environment. That is most certainly NOT the case with humans.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Everyone can live at better than Western standards. Technology is continuously improving everyone's standards of living.

Not according to this article. And we're not even close to having everyone live at Developed world standards...

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Pooeypants Not according to this article. And we're not even close to having everyone live at Developed world standards...

That article talks about "resources" but it never actually says what those "resources" are. Instead, it just talks about wildlife.

Which isn't surprising, since the report is from the World Wildlife Fund. I already knew what they were going to say. Let's see some unbiased research.

[JohnMK]

If you take "Western standards" to include resources that are probably limited, such as oil, or atmospheric compost pile, then sure. But this is not how it should be defined. We will not run out of oil in an absolute sense. When it starts getting more scarce we will find alternatives. This process is happening now: high price means relative scarcity. "Western standards" should be taken to mean all the goods that technology and labor afford us. All the bad stuff or potentially bad stuff? We'll work on that and we will find other ways.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman That article talks about "resources" but it never actually says what those "resources" are. Instead, it just talks about wildlife. Which isn't surprising, since the report is from the World Wildlife Fund. I already knew what they were going to say. Let's see some unbiased research.

Give me a completely unbiased source then, going by your logic, I won't accept research from economists.
Oh and do you not categorise wildlife as part of resources?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Pooeypants Give me a completely unbiased source then, going by your logic, I won't accept research from economists. Oh and do you not categorise wildlife as part of resources?

LoL... in what way do you think economists are "biased"?

And no, I don't consider wildlife to be "resources", unless you're a hunter/gatherer, which very few people are.

[joseph2622]

One thing we could do with no disease and take care of over-population, is go back to the old days and apply the Drakonian Laws...Bitch stole my cookie! (then you stone them or some other way of horrific execution)..But, thats just crual and unusual of these days. In my opinion over-population is a reality that none of us or many of our future generations will face. Being negative as I am, the earth I doubt will stilll be intact by then. If we do survive that long the continents of this world will no doubt have to resort to skyscrapers everywhere and produce foods in them also, which is possible and healthier, its just no one has tried and engineers have not yet tried and figured how to build them. With that said in a few hundred years a policy of one-child wold definitely need to be enforced, maybe even throw out the retards...Not trying to be an asshole, but seriously...But anyway, thats my take on the issue.