Overpopulation

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I did look it up.

http://www.deland.org/Pages/DeLandFL_Finance/Budgets/Citizensbrochureforwebsite.pdf

Well that is what they mostly use it for, according to wiki. It is the first thing listed.
It really is a moot point though. Property tax is illegal.

"The power to tax real and personal property and the income from both, there being an apportionment, is conceded: that such tax is a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution has not been, and, in our judgment, cannot be successfully denied:"
Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 and 158 U.S. 601 (1895)

 

[Gunguy45]

Well.....around here the only income from the people to the County is the property tax. It does indeed pay for schools...it also pays for flood control, the Sheriff, the County roads Dept, Fire protection, libraries, the Health Dept, television service, and quite a few other things if I really wanted to research it. I can't find the info right now...but IIRC...over 25% was for the legal system...courts, LE, probation dept, jail, etc. I think that number may be low because I remember being outraged about it...more than 25% worth.

I see Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust cited constantly.....but it was rendered moot with the passing of the 16th Amendment. Until that time...yes...based on the Constitution (you know...the document from which ALL our laws derive?)....a property tax was illegal UNLESS it was apportioned to the States....which it wasn't.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

All the things you describe were paid through other means before property tax was enacted. Property tax is not needed.
16th is moot, because it has been invalidated, and also does not apply.

1) 16th was never ratified properly, making it null and void.

2) After the 16th was passed, the supreme court ruled that the 16th gave NO NEW POWERS OF TAXATION.
If they did not have it before, then they still do not have it now.

 

[Gunguy45]

All the things you describe were paid through other means before property tax was enacted. Property tax is not needed.
16th is moot, because it has been invalidated, and also does not apply.

1) 16th was never ratified properly, making it null and void.

2) After the 16th was passed, the supreme court ruled that the 16th gave NO NEW POWERS OF TAXATION.
If they did not have it before, then they still do not have it now.

Well...I guess every court that this has come up in and most reputable legal sources seem to disagree with your statements/opinions. But you are welcome to them....please, just don't state them as facts.

In some ways you may be correct about those things being paid for in the past. I guess we can have private fire and police departments where if you don't pay...you get no service. Kids can be educated based on the ability of their parents or the community to pay for salaries and infrastructure. Roads can just be dirt trails unless the community antes up the funds to pave them. Libraries can be completely funded by donations and bequests. Of course....we would be living in the days of Gunsmoke and Little House on the Prairie....but wth...lets go for it. The haves will get more...and the have nots will be even worse off. No problem.....

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Well that is what they mostly use it for, according to wiki. It is the first thing listed.
It really is a moot point though. Property tax is illegal.

"The power to tax real and personal property and the income from both, there being an apportionment, is conceded: that such tax is a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution has not been, and, in our judgment, cannot be successfully denied:"
Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 and 158 U.S. 601 (1895)

Well, SD, just goes to show you have got some studying to do. You are correct in saying the Federal government doesn't have the power to tax property, and they don't.
That power was reserved for the STATES.

You can check your own, but my Arkansas State Constitution of 1874 included it right there in Article 16 on page 51.

Now, if you were here, you could try to change the constitution, but that might be a problem if you fall under Article 3, Section 5, which is very handy but politically incorrect thing to have in your constitution!

 

[Leifer]

The cost I am referring to is the amount of human time and labor required to gather the resources necessary for a human to exist. Advances in technology and commerce have driven those way down. Fair market innovations have always tended to do that, and always will.

Hard to argue that, but still, there is a "per person" impact on the planet, environmentally.
After all...you can fit all the people into Texas, but where's the water to sustain them ?

 

[scombrid]

Well that is what they mostly use it for,

Only was not accurate nor it mostly, even if property tax is the first thing listed on wiki.

What it is used for varies dramatically from town to town, county to county, state to state etc...What is taxed varies (land, buildings, cars, etc...) There is no monolithic "they" with regard to property tax collection.

But taxes should be voluntary anyway right? Because people would never freeload on the system if the services are actually universally valuable.

 

[Charlie Primero]

Hard to argue that, but still, there is a "per person" impact on the planet, environmentally.
After all...you can fit all the people into Texas, but where's the water to sustain them ?

Per person environmental impact is highly variable. "Overpopulation" today is merely a political meme predators use to predate you.

Currently the drinking water to sustain six billion Texans is, when I look out my window this very moment, being sprayed on my neighbor's lawn to keep it green and lush so the Mexicans can make it pretty and carpet-like twice a week.

This is the evil of collectivism. It unjustly shifts costs onto others. The cost of making drinking water so cheap my neighbor can pour it on the ground all day is not borne by him, the person enjoying it.

 

[Mick West]

But we are dealing with practical reality here on this planet. Overpopulation IS a problem. Sure you could theoretically support way more people, but that's all just simplistic theory. How exactly would it work with 20 or 100 billion people? How do we get there without gigadeaths along the way?

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

In some ways you may be correct about those things being paid for in the past. I guess we can have private fire and police departments where if you don't pay...you get no service. Kids can be educated based on the ability of their parents or the community to pay for salaries and infrastructure. Roads can just be dirt trails unless the community antes up the funds to pave them. Libraries can be completely funded by donations and bequests. Of course....we would be living in the days of Gunsmoke and Little House on the Prairie....but wth...lets go for it. The haves will get more...and the have nots will be even worse off. No problem.....

It's not like that. The have nots... have not... BECAUSE of the state.. not the other way around.
1) Gas taxes, tabs, license fees... all pay for roads.
2) Education is not based only on income. Teaching your children yourself, is still free.
3) I personally do not want a police or fire department. I can build my home out of non combustible materials, and set my own alarms and my neighbors and I can protect our own property.
4) The internet is one big free library.

The big issue here is the use of force. Even if you are FOR the property tax, are you for the penalties of not paying it? Are you for kicking some little old lady out of her house because she is disabled and can't work, and can't afford the tax? If it was me, I would much rather be banned from the library, the school, and from being helped by "emergency" personnel. I think my neighbors could do a better job of helping me, and they could get there a hell of a lot quicker too... But to be banned from your own home? That you paid for? and have it stolen by the state? And be Homeless? For something that is not even a crime? Do you really agree with that?

 

[Charlie Primero]

But we are dealing with practical reality here on this planet. Overpopulation IS a problem.

Where, specifically?

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Well...I guess every court that this has come up in and most reputable legal sources seem to disagree with your statements/opinions. But you are welcome to them....please, just don't state them as facts.

These are the facts.

​

 

[Gunguy45]

It's not like that. The have nots... have not... BECAUSE of the state.. not the other way around.
1) Gas taxes, tabs, license fees... all pay for roads.
2) Education is not based only on income. Teaching your children yourself, is still free.
3) I personally do not want a police or fire department. I can build my home out of non combustible materials, and set my own alarms and my neighbors and I can protect our own property.
4) The internet is one big free library.

The big issue here is the use of force. Even if you are FOR the property tax, are you for the penalties of not paying it? Are you for kicking some little old lady out of her house because she is disabled and can't work, and can't afford the tax? If it was me, I would much rather be banned from the library, the school, and from being helped by "emergency" personnel. I think my neighbors could do a better job of helping me, and they could get there a hell of a lot quicker too... But to be banned from your own home? That you paid for? and have it stolen by the state? And be Homeless? For something that is not even a crime? Do you really agree with that?

Of course I don't agree with kicking people out of their houses if they cannot pay. There should be rules of some sort to protect people from that. I believe there may be in some areas....I'll have to do some research. Ok...thats done with....

Now...
1) They pay for State and Federal roads....not local/County roads. For the last 3 yrs I believe...the State of AZ has "swept" the funds generated by these taxes and fees (that were supposed to be used for rural road maintenance) from the counties. That left the County to use the funds they have (generated from the only real County income...property tax) to try to provide the best service they can to their citizens.

2) Please explain how a single parent (by whatever circumstance) is supposed to home school and have a job to support their family? Who says that parent is even qualified to teach their child? Have you seen some of the people having kids these days (but that's an entire other topic)? Will we leave the 8 y/o in charge of the 6 y/o while Mommy or Daddy is working?

3) Fine....move somewhere where there is no fire or LE protection. Of course your "neighbor" will probably be 10 miles away or more. And are they always on call for when you need help? Build your house out of concrete and don't use electricity or have any flammable materials or appliances inside (ever heard of electrical fires?) Of course these would never happen when you or a member of you family happened to be incapacitated or sleeping...or when the 8 y/o was home alone watching the 6 y/o.

4) Well...like the commercial says..."Everything on the Internet is true", right? And how do you get Internet living out where there is no electricity? Ohhhhh I guess if you are a "have" you can have massively expensive solar panels and wind generators delivered by helo for your non-combustible house. Oh wait....no electrical....hmmm...

All your statements could be true...if you want to live like the guys on the TV show "Mountain Men". They live a subsistence existence basically. There are so many other issues which we haven't even brought up......but just read my 1st statement and we'll let it go from there.....

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Of course I don't agree with kicking people out of their houses if they cannot pay. There should be rules of some sort to protect people from that. I believe there may be in some areas....I'll have to do some research. Ok...thats done with....

Please let me know asap if you find somewhere like that. As far as I know there is nowhere like that. For that reason alone, property tax is bad.

1) They pay for State and Federal roads....not local/County roads. For the last 3 yrs I believe...the State of AZ has "swept" the funds generated by these taxes and fees (that were supposed to be used for rural road maintenance) from the counties. That left the County to use the funds they have (generated from the only real County income...property tax) to try to provide the best service they can to their citizens.

Sounds like CAFR corruption to me. They use the taxes that are supposed to be for services on... even you don't know. When taxes are collected for a reason, and they are not used for that reason, then there is a conspiracy to tax. Simple.

2) Please explain how a single parent (by whatever circumstance) is supposed to home school and have a job to support their family? Who says that parent is even qualified to teach their child? Have you seen some of the people having kids these days (but that's an entire other topic)? Will we leave the 8 y/o in charge of the 6 y/o while Mommy or Daddy is working?

If you don't have to pay taxes, you will be able to afford a tutor.

3) Fine....move somewhere where there is no fire or LE protection. Of course your "neighbor" will probably be 10 miles away or more. And are they always on call for when you need help? Build your house out of concrete and don't use electricity or have any flammable materials or appliances inside (ever heard of electrical fires?) Of course these would never happen when you or a member of you family happened to be incapacitated or sleeping...or when the 8 y/o was home alone watching the 6 y/o.

All of the things you describe can happen with emergency personnel, and generally take longer with emergency personnel. You have not made any point.

4) Well...like the commercial says..."Everything on the Internet is true", right?

You can't believe everything you read. That goes for book format or electric format. Nothing changes. You fail to make a point.

And how do you get Internet living out where there is no electricity? Ohhhhh I guess if you are a "have" you can have massively expensive solar panels and wind generators delivered by helo for your non-combustible house. Oh wait....no electrical....hmmm...

Settle down. You can get satellite internet on a smartphone.

All your statements could be true...if you want to live like the guys on the TV show "Mountain Men". They live a subsistence existence basically.

No. You can live in luxury in the wilderness. Not the point however. The point is .. that it is MY choice to live however I want to. I am not forcing the rest of the population to live like me, but you want to force me to be part of your societal cult and pay to live like everyone else eh?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

it is MY choice to live however I want to.

Tell me about that. Where, how, why when, that sort of thing. How do you live? Are you happy, if so, why, if not, why?

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Well, SD, just goes to show you have got some studying to do. You are correct in saying the Federal government doesn't have the power to tax property, and they don't.
That power was reserved for the STATES.

You can check your own, but my Arkansas State Constitution of 1874 included it right there in Article 16 on page 51.

Now, if you were here, you could try to change the constitution, but that might be a problem if you fall under Article 3, Section 5, which is very handy but politically incorrect thing to have in your constitution!

*YAWN* Shell game.
Taxes on land and the buildings on it are the biggest source of revenue for local governments. They are not imposed by states but by the tens of thousands of cities, townships, counties, school districts and other assessing jurisdictions.

Tell me about that. Where, how, why when, that sort of thing. How do you live? Are you happy, if so, why, if not, why?

That is the beautiful thing about a personal choice Jay. I don't need approval, and I am not accountable to answering to anyone.
You want to know why? Because I said so.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Where, specifically?

Any country where they try to kill you and your family if you attempt to escape is probably overpopulated.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

if the services are actually universally valuable.

Forced services cannot be universally valuable. A person who does not want or need a service will find no value in said service.
If a person needed something, then you would not need to force it on them.

 

[Gunguy45]

Sounds like CAFR corruption to me. They use the taxes that are supposed to be for services on... even you don't know. When taxes are collected for a reason, and they are not used for that reason, then there is a conspiracy to tax. Simple.

No...it wasn't. It was perfectly legal and aboveboard. It was either that or make even deeper cuts to other essential human services in a effort to balance the state budget...which they were able to do, partly by "sweeping" those funds. Not corruption or conspiracy. It's in the State laws that they were able to do it. It was proposed, voted on and implemented. Did it go over well with people who's roads were affected..no. And where did you get the idea I didn't know what the taxes were for? Didn't I just state that...uhhhh road maintenance?

If you don't have to pay taxes, you will be able to afford a tutor.

I thought we were talking about property taxes? I don't know of any tutor who would teach my child (if I had one) for the amount I pay in property tax.

All of the things you describe can happen with emergency personnel, and generally take longer with emergency personnel. You have not made any point.

Not a point that you get, you mean. Ever heard of someone driving by a house and reporting a fire or rendering assistance? Ever heard of a car accident 70 miles from anywhere and someone has to be airlifted or someone is lost in a deserted area? It's a weekly occurrence here. What chopper is used most of the time? The Sheriffs Dept bird...payed for how? Say it with me now....property taxes. Yes....I'm sure that someone calling a few neighbors and reporting a fire or a medical emergency is much better than calling a central location so that a team of qualified professionals will be able to assist. Will those neighbors include trained paramedics with at least basic drugs and technology to keep you alive. Or people with equipment and expertise to lift that tractor off you?

You can't believe everything you read. That goes for book format or electric format. Nothing changes. You fail to make a point.

Again...not a point you get...when read with the prior statement I think most people would understand my intent.

Settle down. You can get satellite internet on a smartphone.

Really? My wife has a smart phone....but it's not satellite capable, neither have I ever heard of one that's affordable to the average person. How much do they and the service cost?

No. You can live in luxury in the wilderness. Not the point however. The point is .. that it is MY choice to live however I want to. I am not forcing the rest of the population to live like me, but you want to force me to be part of your societal cult and pay to live like everyone else eh?

Of course...you can live in luxury anywhere.... as long as you have the mucho dinero required. So if I understand your statement you want to live in a part of society that has agreed to property taxes (either though a popular vote or via their elected representatives). You want to drive on the roads and make use of the other infrastructure that those taxes have helped make available....but you don't feel you should have to contribute to it in any way? Got it...

btw...sorry about the quoting...still haven't figured out the best way to make it as readable as possible.

 

[Gunguy45]

Oh....and I can't vouch for the accuracy until I can research it some more....but check out the second reply here....http://askville.amazon.com/place-US...-home-lives/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=2594644

Currently, of the 31 states and the District of Columbia with circuit breakers for homeowners, only six and the District of Columbia permit all households to participate in the program without regard to age.

Content from External Source

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

No...it wasn't. It was perfectly legal and aboveboard. It was either that or make even deeper cuts to other essential human services in a effort to balance the state budget...which they were able to do, partly by "sweeping" those funds. Not corruption or conspiracy. It's in the State laws that they were able to do it. It was proposed, voted on and implemented. Did it go over well with people who's roads were affected..no. And where did you get the idea I didn't know what the taxes were for? Didn't I just state that...uhhhh road maintenance?


I thought we were talking about property taxes? I don't know of any tutor who would teach my child (if I had one) for the amount I pay in property tax.






Not a point that you get, you mean. Ever heard of someone driving by a house and reporting a fire or rendering assistance? Ever heard of a car accident 70 miles from anywhere and someone has to be airlifted or someone is lost in a deserted area? It's a weekly occurrence here. What chopper is used most of the time? The Sheriffs Dept bird...payed for how? Say it with me now....property taxes. Yes....I'm sure that someone calling a few neighbors and reporting a fire or a medical emergency is much better than calling a central location so that a team of qualified professionals will be able to assist. Will those neighbors include trained paramedics with at least basic drugs and technology to keep you alive. Or people with equipment and expertise to lift that tractor off you?


Again...not a point you get...when read with the prior statement I think most people would understand my intent.


Really? My wife has a smart phone....but it's not satellite capable, neither have I ever heard of one that's affordable to the average person. How much do they and the service cost?



Of course...you can live in luxury anywhere.... as long as you have the mucho dinero required. So if I understand your statement you want to live in a part of society that has agreed to property taxes (either though a popular vote or via their elected representatives). You want to drive on the roads and make use of the other infrastructure that those taxes have helped make available....but you don't feel you should have to contribute to it in any way? Got it...

btw...sorry about the quoting...still haven't figured out the best way to make it as readable as possible.

I disagree with all of that. The issue is still force. I pay a toll every time I drive through Illinois. I contribute. Am I forced to drive through it? No. Am I forced to pay property taxes? Yes. Big difference.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Only was not accurate nor it mostly, even if property tax is the first thing listed on wiki.

about half of property taxes go to fund education

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Oh....and I can't vouch for the accuracy until I can research it some more....

Check this out.

Welcome to Stafford, the City with no property taxes!




Nationally acclaimed for its unique achievements, visionary leadership and prudent fiscal management, the City of Stafford is a dynamic, friendly community ideally located and encompassing what is described as an “Island of Business Opportunity” and as a family-oriented place to live.
When the City eliminated its property tax in 1995, for residents and businesses alike, The Wall Street Journal described Stafford as “a Shangri-La for property owners”. Since that time, the City has seen its cash fund balances increase more than tenfold.



Edit: Texas has no state income tax either!

Edit2: Doh! I knew it was too good to be true!

Stafford stopped levying property taxes in 1995, making it the largest of the less than a dozen cities in Texas to do so. It’s the only Houston-area city to have eliminated property taxes, said Frank Sturzl, executive director of the Texas Municipal League.

Residents still pay county and school taxes.

 

[Gunguy45]

I disagree with all of that. The issue is still force. I pay a toll every time I drive through Illinois. I contribute. Am I forced to drive through it? No. Am I forced to pay property taxes? Yes. Big difference.

But you answered none of the questions? The "sweep" was done completely legally per the State constitution and State law...why would you disagree? Tell me a tutor who will school my non-existent child for about $650 a year. Tell me about the sat phone that's affordable. Do you drive on city or county streets? How were they payed for? Is your household waste evacuated via piping under the streets? How do you think that happened?

Of course you can avoid a toll...just change your route. Of course you can avoid property taxes...move to a remote area in Alaska. Oh? You don't want to change your route or live in Alaska? Well...uhhh...guess what...pay the price for what you get.

Useless discussion.......done with it.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

You are not done with it though. You expect me to participate. If you were done with it you would leave my money alone. I am done with it. People like you keep dragging me in.

What about the little old lady... You said we should not throw her out on the street right? Well what is your answer to that? What do you do to property owners who do not pay their taxes?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Well, SD, just goes to show you have got some studying to do. You are correct in saying the Federal government doesn't have the power to tax property, and they don't.
That power was reserved for the STATES.

You can check your own, but my Arkansas State Constitution of 1874 included it right there in Article 16 on page 51.

Now, if you were here, you could try to change the constitution, but that might be a problem if you fall under Article 3, Section 5, which is very handy but politically incorrect thing to have in your constitution!

*YAWN* Shell game.
Taxes on land and the buildings on it are the biggest source of revenue for local governments. They are not imposed by states but by the tens of thousands of cities, townships, counties, school districts and other assessing jurisdictions.

Here is another example of SD getting debunked with indisputable facts and him not owning up to it. Your sophistry doesn't go unnoticed, and serves to show it is useless debating someone [like that] goodbye.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

But you answered none of the questions? The "sweep" was done completely legally per the State constitution and State law...why would you disagree? Tell me a tutor who will school my non-existent child for about $650 a year. Tell me about the sat phone that's affordable. Do you drive on city or county streets? How were they payed for? Is your household waste evacuated via piping under the streets? How do you think that happened?

Of course you can avoid a toll...just change your route. Of course you can avoid property taxes...move to a remote area in Alaska. Oh? You don't want to change your route or live in Alaska? Well...uhhh...guess what...pay the price for what you get.

Useless discussion.......done with it.

I get your drift and agree. Done with it.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Here let me explain this... blah blah blah.... more blah blah blah. Ok, this is useless but blah blah blah.
Hey everyone! I'm Done!

Cool story bro.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I think it is safe to say that overpopulation is a matter of perspective, logistics of resources, and geographical location. The population we have now is sustainable with the technology and resources that we already possess.., but there are obstacles that are put in place to restrict some of the population from acquiring those resources, or that technology.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Unless you are suggesting that there is some non renewable resource that is required to sustain human life and it will run out.... then we are already sustaining a population. It takes only a few weeks to die from starvation... as far as I know in the last few weeks the starvation rate has remained roughly the same.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Unless you are suggesting....

No!

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

No!

Mick is quite tolerant to continue to put up with you, I however feel that you have nothing to offer me. "No!" was more than a worthless reply to me. It was a burden to read. I cannot continue to take on such burdens from you. I would IMHO rather deal with a 5 year old. Don't bother replying to me anymore because you have earned yourself a position on my ignore list. It will be pointless to reply to me from now on. I won't ever see it. Now you REALLY ARE done with it.

Bon Appétit!

 

[Unregistered]

We do actually share this planet with a couple of insects and an animal or two you know.
If it wasn't for every other species on the planet that has ever existed, we wouldn't be here.
If we were to increase our population and totally disregard the right of every other living thing to exist that wasn't us, we wouldn't survive very long at all.

Also there's this thing called 'quality of life' that tends to go down when you increase the amount of people you cram together. Raping and killing and stealing is a lot easier when you have a huge anonymous pool of faceless people to choose from, it tends to be harder and your desire to actually do it in the first place tends to go down when your potential victims are all people you know and see at church picnics every sunday.
We were meant to have fairly small social groups to keep track of and paly politcal games with, overwhelm the brain with a huge population and you just create alienation and sociopathy.
And a big part of 'quality of life' is having some wild, potentially life-threatening and awesomely beautiful wilderness to contrast the warmth and safety and technology of human society with.
If you think it's okay to increase the population to the limits of the earth just because it's theoretically possible you're really missing the point of life, and creating hell on earth.
It seems more like you just want to take a ideological stance opposed to whatever boogie-man evil you've projected onto the ideology that thinks it wise to have a limit to human expansion.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I don't suggest that we push the population as far as we can... but its not really my choice. I don't see why we talk about this anyway. There is nothing ethical we can do about it.

There are only 2 ways to intervene if you don't want someone else to have children, and both are unethical.

Kill people.
Sterilize people.

You want better quality of life? Move away from the general population (out of the city).

 

[Charlie Primero]

I'm switching off my thread subscription. I will never see if Mick answered my question because you guys hijacked this thread and wadded it up with your Tax Policy debate.

Please be more considerate in the future. Start a new thread. I've run several forums since 1993. Your kind of rudeness destroys a forum. People get sick of it and leave.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I don't think he has an answer mate. I am still waiting for answers in a few threads that I posted last on, and are a couple weeks old. The topic went right back to population so I don't understand why you are complaining now that is is back on population, instead of earlier when it moved away from it.

There are a lot more things that others are doing that are rude, other than commenting slightly off topic. If you want an answer from Mick try sending him a PM. He did ignore my last pm though where I asked him a direct question so good luck on a reply that way too.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I already answered your question charlie.

Any country where they try to kill you and your family if you attempt to escape is probably overpopulated.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Does "donation feeding" the poor in a country that cannot sustain it's population already, help raise more poor peoples, thereby exacerbating the problem ?

My understanding is that it's a tragic game of statistics. Families in the poorest countries know that not all of their children will survive. Therefor, they have many so at least a few will live on. It's unbelievable and sad, but that notion seems to be repeated in many documents and reports. So "donation feeding" may not help immediately, it could make things worse before the situation gets better.

The goal is to stabilize a country so that the majority will believe their children have a good prospect of survival. Donation feeding may be the first step in that process. Besides, what kind of a society are we if don't try to help the most unfortunate among us regardless of the circumstances?

 

[Pete Tar]

Moving away is not going to be an option soon - there literally will be no escape. It's not just the people, it's also the mountains of waste that need to be disposed of that are produced by cities, effectively creating wasteland out of healthy land. A dense population requires large amounts of space outside of that population to sustain it. At the moment it's out of sight out of mind, but that boundary has a logical limit, and will have to be addressed.
It seems a shame to let it get to that limit in the first place, but human nature will probably not let us deal with it until it is a crisis, at which point life would have become pretty grim.

Perhaps a reversable sterilisation will have to be implemented, one that blocks all reproduction from 14 to 30. People who breed later aren't really looking to produce large families, and aren't relying on the offspring as some kind of resource either.

We haven't really reached any physical limit to our growth, although it is definitely impacting and limiting the growth and quality of life of most every other species on the planet. We may have reached the psychological limit though, as mental health is definitely not what it should be. We should be well-adjusted emotionally healthy people, when such a large percentage are not, something's wrong.

 

[Mick West]

Where, specifically?

When I say overpopulation IS a problem I mean in part that it's by definition a problem. Any time there's a problem from there being too many people, then that's overpopulation. Now of course you could aregue that it's NOT overpopulation, it's simply inefficient use of resources. But the efficiency of resource usage in any given country is not something you can adjust with a dial. It's generally fairly fixed, and wen the population goes beyond the current capacity of land to support it (and without leading to war over resources), then that's overpopulation.

Sure, if we got rid of wars, and organized resources at a global level in a perfect manner, then the point at which overpopulation is reached would change - but it would still eventually be a problem. As it is now, it's a problem in many countries where the resources and the social and political systems cannon cope with a large population.

Example - Niger:

http://www.africanews.com/site/Niger_UN_concerned_over_population_growth/list_messages/35439

It's great imagining what the theoretical maximum population could be - but it's not very realistic.