Even though many consider the Earth our “home,” a place that is supposed to protect us, we should in turn protect it as well. We should return the favor, but instead we thank the Earth for allowing it to house 7.7 billion people and bring it closer to its carrying capacity. Carrying capacity means that there is a maximum population size before the environment ultimately drives us to extinction. The Earth is unable to feed each of us as it once could. Overpopulation means that our resources such as: water, food, medicine, shelter, land, air, plants and animals will become scarce and humans will cease to exist. And what is the main factor? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essaySimple, our lack of recognition is due mainly to our ignorance on the matter and our inactivity to act. Overpopulation can easily be minimized and eventually eliminated over time, but we focus more on our materialistic consumption to fuel our insecurity and greed. Many of these concerns and their effects are discussed in the Everything Connects article, “Human Population Effects,” which provides descriptive examples of each negative effect. Hoping to make changes and adjust the distressing atmosphere after the effects mentioned in previous articles have developed, the Overpopulation is Solvable podcast hosted by Dave Gardner will discuss some solutions to counteract them. Similarly, Verrill Courtney's "Mesmerizing Photographs of China's Crushing Overpopulation" expands on these effects by providing the ultimate solution to controlling overpopulation. I will discuss, interpret and analyze all of the sources mentioned above while furthering my argument that overpopulation is a very real and serious problem that urgently needs to be addressed. Overpopulation contributes to a variety of other problems, reducing this main problem that we practically face. solve many more. What are the effects caused by overpopulation? This is discussed in “Effects of Human Population” by Everything Connects, which examines the negative effects of our 7.7 billion people on Earth. These effects include loss of fresh water, extinction of species, lower life expectancy, less freedom, depletion of natural resources, increased emergence of disease, loss of habitat, intensive agriculture, global warming/climate change and high crime rates. According to the World Population Balance, “two billion people live in poverty, more than the population of the entire planet less than 100 years ago. Today there are more people suffering from poverty and starvation in the world than ever before in history, which shows that there has been enormous population growth to the point where we are. Today. This is seen in the use of statistics about “two billion people” and “100 years ago”. Why does the world population use these two statistics? Simple, it’s about scaring your readers and sounding the alarm in their heads. These are extremely high numbers compared to what we hear on a daily basis and so we will be stunned when we first read them. It is an effective way to make your audience react and encourage them to take action against overpopulation. Not only does he use statistics, but he also uses historical context in which he compares thepopulation of the planet less than 100 years ago to the population of today. Likewise, this historical context also draws attention to intellectual history because it also focuses on or alludes to overpopulation as a problem of the past. It also demonstrates that overpopulation persists. This shows significant growth over time and highlights that the problem has not been solved nor population growth reduced. By highlighting these key concepts, World Population Balance has ensured credibility and proven that the problem is indeed real and serious. Everything Connects is shaped by both historical and intellectual contexts because without evaluating the circumstances of the (intellectual) past and comparing them to the (historical) present, we are unable to identify that overpopulation is a real problem. Overall, this is an effective statement that touches on historical and intellectual contexts and essentially leaves readers wanting to resolve this recurring and ongoing problem; they feel the need to make a difference that no other generation has been able to make. Due to overpopulation, the majority of the population does not meet their basic survival needs. Overall, the public is left in an unhealthy, unstable and perplexed situation because of this problem. I support this, overpopulation is the main factor causing various other problems that affect us and our planet. The funny thing is that we add fuel to the fire, we see the effects of the problem and we feel guilty, which is why we decide to pretend it's not a real problem. Ironic, right? Why not instead realize that this is a problem, acknowledge it, and find solutions like the one China demonstrated in: “China has the largest population in the world, with a shocking 1.3 billion inhabitants and growing by the minute. ...in 1980, it adopted the one-child policy, which allowed each family in China only one child. This year the policy ended and in just three months the population increased by 0.46% since 2015. » China understood that it was heading towards a danger zone and recognized it. The political context is illustrated in this quote due to Chinese policy which prohibited families from having more than one child. Verrill uses this political context to bring recognition that this is a problem that can be solved and, even worse, that it could be solved by our government. Realizing this, the public is left distraught and wondering if our government system is as fair as we want it to be. Unfortunately, China did not stick to this and since then, Business Insider informs us that the population has increased again. In this case, China focused on politics to solve its problem mentioned in the article. The political context therefore helped in the production of the article. Without this policy, what China did would not have become mainstream and, now that it is lifted, it needs to be observed closely to see what happens next – which is essentially the main theme of the article. Overall, if we continue with this bystander effect that someone else will solve the problem, we will never make progress. Because what happens when we assume that others will find a solution? Well, there are most likely others who assume the same thing and it's a continuing domino effect of no one doing anything. China has found a temporary solution, but the solution to overpopulation is to come together. I agree with the one-child limit policy and I think it would be more effective and would not necessarily be achild if the whole world agreed. This problem cannot be caused by one country alone, it was caused by the entire world and therefore must be solved this way. By finding a solution to overpopulation, we will solve a large number of other problems, essentially killing two birds with one stone. Why not do it? Fortunately, it's not too late to solve this overpopulation problem and there are many things we can do about it. fix it. Dave Gardner, host of the podcast Overpopulation is Solvable, discusses this issue with David Paxson who says: "Overpopulation can be solved, it can be solved humanely...to stop population growth, not to stop it, but to reduce the total number of humans. on the planet, we actually need to bring the average birth rate per family below the average of two,” presenting a solution to overpopulation that would easily solve the problem. Notice the word Paxson uses “humanly” which seems so out of place, but is so significant. This one word carries a lot of weight because it humanly symbolizes not only the ease with which this problem can be solved, but it also expresses disapproval. This quote also presents a technological context that suggests that this problem can be solved by us, not by advanced technology, which means that it is not as complex as many make it out to be: there is a quick and manageable solution. ADD PODCAST TECHNOLOGY Disapproval of the word “humanely” makes us feel incompetent for not recognizing the problem and trying to solve it, because it is a fairly simple solution. We are not only seen as incompetent, but also lazy and selfish because we do not care about the harm that comes with our actions. Additionally, the political context can be observed through the ideology that China also aspired to have an average of two or fewer children. China has implemented the one-child policy, which Paxson has made clear we do as well. This idea of ​​an average birth rate strongly suggests an application that would most likely become law. The solution Paxson offers us revolves heavily around politics, because that's the only way we can ensure the public respects it. This podcast addresses the main problems related to overpopulation and provides us with the ultimate solution. I agree with Paxson's solution even though there are many other solutions besides this one. This solution is simple and will show not only extensive, but instant results. Telling the public to limit the number of children is difficult and making it a law would actually provoke backlash, but many would view it as immoral. The right to liberty and life mentioned in the Declaration of Independence would be cited to exclude this suggestion and law. Furthermore, this solution is within everyone's reach, but it will bring a significant result in terms of overpopulation. Limiting each family is a lot to ask. However, it is better to reduce the number of children we have so that they are able to live on a self-sufficient planet; instead of having a horrible life because their planet is falling apart. By reducing the number of children we have, we will spare our children many of the negative effects of overpopulation in the future that we currently face. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized paper from our expert now. authors.Get a Custom EssayOverpopulation is the most vital problem to address today if we want our children and grandchildren to live good lives. It's not just about us and ?-2016-3.