This is pretty common knowledge. Actually I can't really see a discussion in this.

There are too many people, there always will be. End of story.


Keywords: Population explosion, baby boomers, mars

What are you talking about dude?

Common sense dictates that people have children. 2+1=3. 3>2. More people.

There is no solution. Communism could potentially bar people from having children, but that's pretty ridiculous.
As I said, there is NO solution. The earth will fill up and we will die of starvation.

edit: I apologize for being a dick. It seems like pretty basic knowledge though. If it bothers you try not to think about it.

Because there are a few thousand times more humans than gorillas, that means we breed a few thousand times faster.

What are you talking about dude?

Common sense dictates that people have children. 2+1=3. 3>2. More people.

There is no solution. Communism could potentially bar people from having children, but that's pretty ridiculous.
As I said, there is NO solution. The earth will fill up and we will die of starvation.

edit: I apologize for being a dick. It seems like pretty basic knowledge though. If it bothers you try not to think about it.

Your common sense is way off dude.
If 2 people have one child, after the child's parents die there's less people than there was before the baby was born. If everyone would have just one baby, the population would gradually decrease, not increase. Population rises over the time, when the average number of babies per family is more than 2 (this is of course a very simplified explanation, in reality there's a lot of variables that matter). I didn't read the articles linked, so not sure if the "stages" of population progression was discussed there. I remember studying some of population progression theory on school. I think the stages of the common theory goes something like this:
1. First both the birth rate and death rate of a colony are high, so the population stays somewhat balanced.
2. When health care and technology and all sorts of other things that make it easier for people to stay alive improves the death rate decreases significantly, meaning that the birth rate exceeds death rate significantly which means an exponential increase in population.
3. During time the birth rate will gradually drop to a level that will be more balanced with death rate when people realize that they don't need to have 4 babies if they want 2 to live. During this period the birth rate is still higher than death rate so the population is still increasing, but is gradually slowing down.
4. At this point the birth and death rate have been stabilized and the population stays somewhat balanced again.
5. The population starts to decrease gradually because the people who were born in the exponential birth stage will begin to die, and the current birth rate is much lower.

I think that most of the developed countries are in stage 4 or 5 (Finland is in stage 5, for example), while most developing countries are in stage 2 or 3. This is obviously pretty simplified version of the theory and probably not that accurate, but I think it does give a good idea to exactly why the population rises, and why in some places it doesn't.

You can read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

This obviously only explains the growth of population in small intervals, not in the grand scale.

Your common sense is way off dude.
If 2 people have one child, after the child's parents die there's less people than there was before the baby was born. If everyone would have just one baby, the population would gradually decrease, not increase.

This is true to a degree, but generally, most people have grandparents. Pair that with siblings, and you have population overload.

I dunno about Finland, but we know for a fact that as a whole the world's birthrate is not going to even out with the deathrate until it's too late. What will probably happen is we will get to a point where there are many people living in close quarters and a black plague-esque disease will break out and buy us time.


edit: also, in America we have to consider the large number of people who have children outside of marriage, or people who divorce and have children in a new marriage. There are people with 2-3 kids all with different combinations of parents!

But why are humans overpopulated?  Why aren't gorillas overpopulated?  Why aren't gazelles overpopulated?  I don't necessarily have a solution, but barring people from having children is a no.

this just in: doktormartini advocates feeding people to lions instead of contraception

Seriously dude what were you thinking when you wrote that?

that and humans are one of those animals that have sex for more than just reproduction purposes, while other ones have sex when they need to KEEP THEIR POPULATION ALIVE i guess

exactly because when a dog is humphing a table leg he wants to create a dog/table hybrid

Guys, population growth is people being born minus people dying off. If, unlike Doktormartini, you don't feel like killing people, there's birth control. And for all you tossers shouting BABBY KILLAR and COMMUNIST, shut up and listen: there's these newfangled rubber thingies called condoms I suggest you look into this new development (condoms are the future)

Also, it's been pretty much proven to hell and back that education = less children. Educate developing countries and voila more food for us.