• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Overpopulation?


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#31 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,386 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 27 November 2003 - 02:20 PM

Lazarus:Are you really so certain that we are so qualitatively different?


You are right that different societies have risen and fallen, but humanity as a whole has been fantastically successful. This thread is the result of humankind's fantastic success. Through wars, pestilence, disease, natural disasters, we have survived and flourished.

"Balance" - Just a red herring with regard to human evolution. I hear it mostly used by people who want to stop progress.

The only reason animals and plants achieve balance in nature is because of their limited intelligence. Bacteria would overrun the world if they could - their only purpose is to replicate and eat, replicate and eat, replicate and eat. Other organisms evolved to live with and battle bacteria for space, otherwise this would be a bacteria planet - no balance.

Human intelligence and ability increases every second of every day and thus we are not threatened by nature. The only way we would die off is if we kill ourselves (and this is certainly a possibility).

Since our intelligence is ever increasing/expanding we will always be out of balance with "dumb matter" since it never changes. Information processing takes energy - there is no way around this. If we are to get smarter we will have to use energy.

Also, until I reach the edge of the universe or see full circle around a closed universe, it is pratically and pragmatically infinite. The closed universe theory is only one out of hundreds of theories of the universe. There is little certainty.

Edited by Mind, 28 November 2003 - 03:35 PM.


#32 outlawpoet

  • Guest
  • 140 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 November 2003 - 03:36 PM

The largest problem with this report is that it's a simple extrapolation of trends based on other animals, generally predators and large herbivores. It makes no allowance for agriculture, nor social control. It certainly does not take into account ultratechnology like Drextech or Moravec transfers. It is, at best, just a valuation of just how much more successful intelligence is as an adaptation. Increasing returns for smaller and smaller increases in general intelligence.

It is unfortunate, in some sense, that we killed off all the other members of the hominid line. Without other species to compare ourselves to, measurements become more and more the purview of theory. I would have been more interested had this study compared us to Neadrathals via paleontology, or closed environment human societies, such as aborigonal populations or island kingdoms. Our population trends are not comparable to other predators. There are too many complicating factors, even disregarding technology(which would be a foolish thing to do.)

At this point, the closed or infinite nature of the universe is academic. We are trapped at the bottom of the gravity well, and will be until a new transportation technology is developed.

One thing the article does not address is how exactly we managed to get one thousand times the sustainable amount of human beings born in the first place. If the current population is 6 billion, that would mean the "sustainable amount" is supposedly 6 million people, given our current range. Population figures are hard to come by that early in human history, but The Population Bomb puts the world population at 150 million on the eve of 1 CE. So we've been unsustainably high for almost all of human history? What exactly is meant by 'sustainable' here? Sustainable on an evolutionary timeline perhaps?

Regardless of the flaws of this particular presentation, there is a sticking point for world population. However, this sticking point is obviously in flux. It will change based on space given to food and energy production, change based on economic factors, and change as the underlying generative technologies change. Thus far, the sticking point has never been caught up to. And some future technologies threaten to accellerate the theoretical sticking point beyond our reach forever. If we get off planet, for example, and continue to expand at our present rate, we will never fill the universe. Partially because our local galaxy will die before we get out of it, and partially because the universe will begin to end before we get close to it(given current cosmological theory). Also, it's unclear how often cosmic disasters such as Gamma-Ray Bursts and supernovas occur, and if they can be predicted.

It's optimistic to assume that we'll escape or develop new technology before we reach our current sticking point. But it's unwarrented. Insofar as I am aware there is no good data on this problem to support any conclusion. I would like there to be, and have high hopes for upcoming research on the limits of food production. The better informed we are, the better decisions we can make. Until that point, I don't think any conclusion is justified by what we have. Certainly not by this study.

#33 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 31 December 2003 - 03:20 PM

In reviewing a separate issue I recently came across this article linking the UN report we've already mentioned with the specific concern of our forum and this thread. I think the concerns of the article are generally valid. However I think that the outcome suggested by the conclusion is vague and unreliable. It will be subject to a rapidly changing set of imperatives for our social and individual will but to do so requires focus not denial of the all too valid elements of the problem.

Many values that are now held "sacred and dear" may be seen as contributing to the outcome we least desire. Interestingly the conclusion of 9 bln by 2300 seems to imply flat growth in relation to the same report's conclusion that we will reach that number by the mid to late period of the present century and 36 billion would imply all together new basis for sustainable economy and a very different world from any recognizable to those alive today.

Another thing I suggest needs to be carefully examined is the treatment of statistics. Remember the old adage; "statistics don't lie, people lie with statistics"?

Well in the last three paragraphs of the conclusion a close examination will reveal a misleading set of relationships as the variables being discussed are switched by shifting pronoun use and the conclusions are then actually wrong as implied but correct if one looks back to the actual "quantifier" being referenced by the vague use of pronouns.

This is a very common technique that is often seen in political debate. I question if it is always intentional or more commonly a product of over zealous weak minded people that end up talking too fast for their own good. It is however most common the conclusions are questionable that we must also examine the methods by which those conclusions are achieved. You see the last paragraph is wrong if you think it means that the population SIZE. It is a reference to percent of world population and has been presented as a nonsequitor.

Though on the low end of growth it shows a decline in population in Latin America, in fact the world to 2.3 billion by 2300. Any guesses how this process will occur if we are successful at providing longevity tech to people ahead of the suggested rate of advancement implied by the article?

The graphic supplied in the same article illustrates my point. You see population in Latin America/Caribbean will increase four fold on the high end (only slightly in respect to flat growth) but remain stable as a percent of global population (and this is after migration north and elsewhere is accounted for.) Also if the graph implying a peak of around 8 billion (the low end projection in green) is correct then the precipitous depopulation curve cannot be accounted for by natural attrition, but only massive migrations or death, especially if by then we have already extended many people's life expectancy.

I have the same disdain for all parties that attempt manipulations of media and information regardless of whether I agree with their conclusions. There is no longer any value to the patronizing attitude of leaders that will not speak plain truths to their people. These ends no matter how "noble in mind" never fully justify the means. And the danger of the rejection of a good idea for discovery of deceit is too powerful a standard to be ignored and directly parallels the problem in science of investigators and researchers that falsify values to support their theoretical claims. Again a remarkable parallel between the importance of science and the psychology of society, and another element of the physics of politics.

Regardless, any projection this far into the future is inherently suspect but to those that intend to live so long it begs inclusion in our database and careful analysis. Particularly since it is quite obvious that there will be an effort made to blame groups like us for the "one quarter" extra child per family that skews the growth trend to the dangerously large side.

LL/kxs

http://story.news.ya...n_population_dc
Posted Image
The human race could have 9 billion people by 2300, Japanese will live to 108, and Africa's population will explode while Europeans could dwindle, the United Nations (news - web sites) predicted on Tuesday. In its first projection of the world's population in the next three centuries, the U.N. Population Division forecast the rise to about 9 billion from the current 6.3 billion people, providing the trend toward smaller families continues. (Reuters Graphic)


UN Predicts 9 Bln People by 2300, Many of Them Old

Tue Dec 9, 6:44 PM ET Science - Reuters
By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The human race could have 9 billion people by 2300, Japanese will live to 108, and Africa's population will explode while Europeans could dwindle, the United Nations (news - web sites) predicted on Tuesday.

In its first projection of the world's population in the next three centuries, the U.N. Population Division forecast the rise to about 9 billion from the current 6.3 billion people, providing the trend toward smaller families continues. If fertility levels in the developing world remain at web sitestoday's levels, the global population would reach 244 billion in 2150 and 134 trillion in 2300, according to the report, "World Population in 2300."

"It's like the Titanic with an iceberg ahead," said Joseph Chamie, director of the population division. "You sink because the rates are so low or you simply grow too rapidly because the rates are too high. Either way you have to change course."

Even small changes could make a huge difference, he said. The 9 billion estimate is based on a two-child family, but one-quarter of a child more per family could boost the population in 2300 to 36.4 billion.

"It's like if you are too obese you could die," Chamie said. "But if you are too light and you start wasting away, you could die because you are underweight. It's the same with population, being too large, too small, growing too rapidly or too slowly," he said.

The projections for three centuries in advance are the most distant forecast ever given by the United Nations. Chamie maintained policy-makers struggling with climate change, agriculture production and immigration needed long-term projections to take corrective action.


LIVING LONGER WITH SMALLER FAMILIES

People in rich countries will live much longer by 2300. Americans, Swedes and Japanese can expect life expectancies of more than 100 years on average, with Japanese expected to live to 108. In China, people are expected to live until 85.

Worldwide, the median age will rise to nearly 59 years in 2300 from 26 years today. That means the number of people aged 60 or over would increase to 38 percent in 2300 from 10 percent of the world's population today.

The good news, according to Chamie, was a trend toward smaller families in a variety of nations. He noted two children were the norm in such countries as Iran, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and Thailand.

"Men and women are attaining some control over the number and spacing of children," he said in an interview.

But in Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada, families are too small. The report warns that at current levels of 1.4 children per family and no increase in immigration, there would only be 232 Europeans in 100 years for every 1,000 today.

Russia, Italy and Spain would only have about 1 percent of their current size if they did not increase the number of children by 2300. The population in all of Germany would be down to the current size of Berlin, Chamie said.

Some nations, like Italy, are taking remedial steps and offering more than $1,200 for the birth of a child.

The United States is nearly alone among industrial nations in seeing an upward trend, in part due to immigrants, who have more children in the first generation and what Chamie calls native optimism with "people thinking the future is brighter."

The United States has 295 million people today and projections are for a doubling to 523 million by 2300.

In Africa, the population will double to 2.3 billion people, from 13 percent of the world's people today to 24 percent in 2300, assuming treatment for AIDS (news - web sites) is widespread.

Latin America and the Caribbean will remain about the same or decline slightly. Asia is expected to decrease to 55 percent of the world's population by 2300, from 61 percent, the report said.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#34 acrid

  • Guest
  • 8 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 March 2004 - 06:05 PM

We will never make it out of our galaxy? I would imagine that if mankind continues for another thousand years or so we will become so advanced we will be able to go anywhere anytime instantly. I think about how impressed a person would be from a mear hundred years ago to see the world today, some are old enuff to see that change, even fifty years makes a huge diffrance in technology. It seems to me the more we advance the faster we advance. As long as there is no new dark age or massive world war we should become self made gods in time. Even in war we addapt to create new technologies. I can't say if we will ever get off the planet but if a microscopic single cell orginism can do it on a rock we shure as hell can find a way. I doubt we will ever live long enuff to see a massive colonization of another planet though, but our childrens, childrens, childrens............

#35 the bricoleur

  • Guest
  • 15 posts
  • 0

Posted 18 June 2004 - 10:44 AM

What about underpopulation?

Birth rates are falling, and the big problem complex is more about humans lacking wealth to build their lives than there being too many of them. According to many demographers, if current fertility and mortality trends continue the human population is set to decline after having peaked by 2050 at around 8 or 9 billion – refer e.g. Population set to decline. The UN foresees peaking at less than 8 billion around 2040, and then a decline – refer e.g. Population Estimates and Projections (PDF)

"For the first time, we project that the future fertility levels in the majority of the developing world will fall below 2.1 children per woman, which is generally replacement-level fertility."
-- Joseph Chamie, director of the UN's Population Division.

The report Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?*** issued by the UN’s ‘Population Division,’ suggests a danger of underpopulation, not overpopulation, and projects that fertility rates will drop to about 1.85 children per woman. With these declining fertility rates will also come an increasingly aged world population. The number of people over 80 will increase five times and the median age will be 37 in 2050 compared to 26 today.

***
United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

For the full report see – Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?.


take care and control
the bricoleur

#36 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 30 March 2005 - 02:30 PM

A significant new report on the impact of human population on the environment has just been released and I think it certainly deserves inclusion in both this thread and the one on the end of biodiversity because it is becoming ever more apparent the two concerns are related.

Also by way of an addendum the report by the UN mentioned above has been revised on the basis of subsequent data and the results are not good. It seems that the population increases are skewing to the high side of predictions and now the 2050 estimate is placed at closer to 11 billion.

(link to follow here)

Anyway this new report on biodiversity is one very good reason that the issue of overpopulation is not going away. Many of us disagree about the importance of the environment but it s time to stop arguing that the impact on the environment (and climate) isn't occurring. The data is becoming irrefutable and monumental in scope.

http://biodiv.wri.or....cfm?PubID=3927

RESEARCH REPORT: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A framework for assessment
http://biodiv.wri.or....cfm?PubID=3927
2003, ISBN: 1-55963-403-0 (245 pages)
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
 
News releases:
"Millennium Ecosystem Assessment releases first report"
Ecosystems and Human Well-Being is the first product of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a four-year international work program designed to meet the needs of decision-makers for scientific information on the links between ecosystem change and human well-being. The book offers an overview of the project, describing the conceptual framework that is being used, defining its scope, and providing a baseline of understanding that all participants need to move forward.

The Millennium Assessment focuses on how humans have altered ecosystems, and how changes in ecosystem services have affected human well-being, how ecosystem changes may affect people in future decades, and what types of responses can be adopted at local, national, or global scales to improve ecosystem management and thereby contribute to human well-being and poverty alleviation. The program was launched by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in June 2001, and the primary assessment reports will be released by Island Press in 2005.

Leading scientists from more than 100 nations are conducting the assessment, which can aid countries, regions, or companies by:

* providing a clear, scientific picture of the current state of Earth’s ecosystems at multiple scales
* deepening our understanding of the relationship and linkages between ecosystems and human well-being, including economic, social and cultural aspirations
* demonstrating the potential of ecosystems to contribute to poverty reduction and enhanced well-being
* offering scenarios of our future human and ecological well-being
* identifying and evaluating policy and management options for sustaining ecosystem services and harmonizing them with human needs
{excerpt}



#37 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 04 June 2005 - 09:30 PM

So these posts could go in the Dying Planet thread but as they reflect the impact of human population pressure that is destroying global biodiversity I figure they belong here first.

BTW, maybe the idea of stabilized populations that are the result of longer life spans greater general wealth and stabilized technocratic expansion wouldn't mean the end of the world. I think the fears of underpopulation are not just overblown but driven more by ethnic rivalry than reason.

Overpopulation can also be considered a weapon of expansion and mass destruction that cheapens individual life and diminishes rather than enhances human dignity. There is no real protection in the numbers apparently for defending our rights.

New UN satellite atlas details a comparative study over thirty years.

Posted Image
These satellite images in the new U.N. atlas "One Planet Many People" show how Las Vegas, Nev., has mushroomed from 1973, left, to 2000, right.
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 8:00 p.m. ET June 3, 2005
A photo atlas released by the United Nations Environment Program shows mankind's impact on the planet, from major deforestation to urban sprawl.


ABC News: Major UN Report on global change

Eye on Earth: Satellite atlas shows changes

http://news.webindia...85754&cat=World

UN Oceans Report

Melting mountains Data shows five areas of concern

#38 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 04 June 2005 - 11:13 PM

Try to explain to a fanatic Jew believer why not making kids, they'll beat you with the whole bunch of 20 offsprings...


Yours truthfully
~Infernity

#39 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,865 posts
  • 152
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 05 June 2005 - 12:21 AM

Wow. big change..

#40 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 05 June 2005 - 01:26 AM

BTW let me make this abundantly clear, longevity doesn't lead to overpopulation, ignorance and poverty do.

Over producing children is the strategy of short and destitute lives to fight back against their frailty and futility with numbers. Longevity isn't the problem. It is the scapegoat for all those that really are making the problem and exploiting the cheapening of human life through the economics of excess. Supply and demand and human life gets even less valuable the more we overpopulate this world.

If we lived longer, healthier, and fulfilling lives we would also be able to sustain the levels of productivity that have resulted in the standard that we now enjoy but it might mean a loss, or shift of power along with hopefully less ability to exploit for some.

#41 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 05 June 2005 - 10:32 PM

I would be surprised if these problems were recitified before a hypermalthusian catastrophe.

As you brought up the problem is poverty, not longevity. As long as vast areas of the world are in it's grips ever increasing overpopulation will be the result.

It's a grand political, religious and environmental mess.

Our plan can't be just just sit back an assume some grand increase in technology will bail us out again.

In places like china with population control measures males are extremely favored, either through abortion of female fetus's or outright infanticide. This is happening in india too. The result is going to be large portions of the world with angry male populations because they have no girlfriends.

I don't think WWIII will be some clash of powers for opposing ideals, or anything so concrete, but the world simply spinning down into chaos brought on by the strain of too damn many people.

This is one of the biggest obsticles to our cause.

#42 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 06 June 2005 - 06:30 PM

Since thinking about WWIII is enough to stress someone out, how about some comic relief.

In talking about the trend towards an imbalance in the male/female ratio, Elrond got me thinking about men and aggression (his angry males without girlfriends statement). Then he misspelled obstacles, using instead the proper ending for the nether parts producing the hormones that make males so easy to anger.

This is one of the biggest **sticles to our cause.

Hmm, don't worry, I'm married, so I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Freudian slip on my end...

#43 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 06 June 2005 - 06:56 PM

don't read into my spelling mistakes too much. I'm posting now at terminials around the university without access to spell check, and I'm a terrible speller.

I didn't say one thing but mean a mother :))

#44 liorrh

  • Guest, F@H
  • 388 posts
  • -1

Posted 22 August 2005 - 09:01 PM

As one coming from the troubled middle east the rate of decline projected in fertility is not valid, IMO. the populace that has the highest fertility rate will continue to do so in its next generation, so averages do not count here as those will overflood all other declines (Gaza strip has 7.3 per family if I recall correctly, and so will the next generation) poverty will stay here long after 2050 because of dictatorship and religion. I do forsee some major wars here though, including a possible nuclear one. this is one of most troubling and dangerous places to the future of the world, no doubt.

#45 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,386 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 22 August 2005 - 10:02 PM

Thanks for the input liorrh. 7.3 children per family is startling and sad at the same time. How can anyone hope to move out of poverty with that type of growth rate, especially in an arid region of the world.

#46 liorrh

  • Guest, F@H
  • 388 posts
  • -1

Posted 22 August 2005 - 10:56 PM

you are talking about a region where people(jewish settlers) started to build a house a week before being pulled out of the gazza strip because their rabbis told them god will not let it pass. and that was after half of the settlers were allready cleared... so the the soldiers come to take everyone from the village and demolish their house and they are building a new one when they realise the rabbis were wrong... what a bunch of wackos, they scare me shitless on both sides.
this place is surreal, no doubt.

they end poverty in gazza strip by imigrating to eroupe and america, ofcourse :-)
do you know that every plaestinian gets a free visa to sweden? I offered to send them all and get the swedish women ;-)

seriuosly though, there is a palestinian saying
"the best weapon is the palestinian's woman womb".
true that.

#47 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 25 August 2005 - 08:42 PM

[glasses] Reminds me, you can always see these poor people families who complain they are so poor with no proper house and no money to feed the kids nor to pay for education etcetera, that can't go work because they have kids to take care of... and I think- so why the freaking hell you made so many darn kids?!

I mean people who don't have much money should not be doing many kids, and then complain about a lack of money like this...

This type of weirdos are only in Israel I'm telling you.

"Sad but True"

-Infernity

#48 joe1

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0

Posted 21 November 2005 - 01:21 AM

THE STORY OF OVERPOPULATION IS ONE OF RACISM, BIGOTRY, POLITICS, AND MANIPULATION--LET ME EXPLAIN.

THIS WORLD CAN SUPPPORT 6 TRILLION HUMANS, NOT 6 BILLION, BUT 6 TRILLION. LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT HUMANS INHABIT, HOMES CITIES ETC., AND THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT IS WILDERNESS. THEN YOU WILL SEE THAT MORE THAT 3/4 OF OUR WORLD IS VACANT.

IF ONLY 1/2 OF THAT VACANY IS USED TO PRODUCE FOOD, IT WILL SUPPORT MORE THAN 6 TRILLION HUMANS. MORE TO THE POINT, FAMINE, STARVATION ETC ARE REALLY THE RESULTS OF HUMAN ACTIONS RATHER THAN NATURE.

LOOK AT SOMALI, BECAUSE OF THE WARS PEOPLE STARVE, THE COUNTRY IS LOUSCIOUS AND THE SOIL RICH. LOOK AT INDIA DURING THE DAYS OF THE BRITISH, AND RIGHT AFTER INDEPENDANCE, THE INDIANS STARVED. BUT NOW THEIR POPULATION HAS INCREASED BY OVER 500 MILLION, AND THEY ARE FEEDING THEMSELVES VERY WELL, WITH SURPLUS FOOD TO EXPORT.
LOOK AT CHINA WITH OVER ONE BILLION, THEY ARE FEEDING THEMSELVES, VERY WELL.


NOW OF COURSE, THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE WONDERING, THAT THE WHITE PEOPLE ARE ONLY A SMALL MINORITY OF THE WORLD,S POPULATION. SO THEY HAVE COME UP WITH THIS OVER POPULTATION THING TO TRY AND CURTAIL THE NON-WHITE POPULTAION. AND BY MEANS OF WARS AND GERMS ARE TRYING LIKE HELL TO LOWER THE NON-WHITE POPULATIONS..

Navigation: No CAPS please. Friendly warning.

Edited by DonSpanton, 04 April 2006 - 10:33 AM.


#49 rahein

  • Guest
  • 226 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 November 2005 - 05:36 PM

I agree joe1. All the famine problems in the world are political. Look how dense they live in Singapore or Japan. We have not even started considering using the oceans to live and grow food.

#50 boundlesslife

  • Life Member in cryostasis
  • 206 posts
  • 11

Posted 04 April 2006 - 09:34 AM

Per liorrh:

As one coming from the troubled middle east the rate of decline projected in fertility is not valid, IMO. the populace that has the highest fertility rate will continue to do so in its next generation, so averages do not count here as those will overflood all other declines (Gaza strip has 7.3 per family if I recall correctly, and so will the next generation) poverty will stay here long after 2050 because of dictatorship and religion. I do forsee some major wars here though, including a possible nuclear one. this is one of most troubling and dangerous places to the future of the world, no doubt.

Read Collapse by Jared Diamond, about what population has done to and is still doing to people in Rwanda, and what this did to the people of Easter Island (before they all died) and to the people on Pitcairn (before they all died), extended to the outlook for the world today, and then contrast this with the wild assertions of "how many people the world can support" above, as an illustration of the reasons humanity may indeed "paint itself into a corner" from it cannot escape without a double-decimation of population at some point.

France is orienting itself toward becoming the 'nuclear powerhouse' of Europe, and China has cut a deal to import uranium from Australia (which has the world's largest reserves of it), and if the U.S. manages to get its head out of the sand and 'convert its swords to plowshares' (do the same, with all of the fissionable material it currently has tied up in weapons), we have a fighting chance of continuing to survive without a kill-off, by generating energy not dependent on fossile fuels, but it is questionable whether this will help India, or many parts of Africa, or places such as are described above where population growth is still propelled by religious dogma instead of reason.

boundlesslife

#51 streety

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • 1

Posted 04 April 2006 - 11:44 PM

rahein, I don't know about Japan (the last I heard their farms were very productive) but I suspect Singapore will be net importers of basic foodstuffs. Just because people are able to crowd together into a very small area in certain countries/cities it doesn't mean they only consume the resources from that area.

joe1, although on the whole I agree with the first line of your post I feel your explanation is deeply flawed.

Firstly the numbers, you say that one-quarter of the world can support 6 billion people which would suggest that the maximum is 24 billion, 250 times less than the 6 trillion you claim.

Secondly, are you suggesting that 'whites' are using biological warfare of some description to control the 'non-white' population?

#52 stormheller

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 1

Posted 24 April 2006 - 09:30 PM

Joe1, I feel your anger against the white man, but you need to stop listening to Louis Farrakhan because there are some good white people out there. White people are not dying out, there are a ton of them around. Sure, there are few of them where we live but if you go out to the suburbs, there are no people of color around at all.

"In places like china with population control measures males are extremely favored, either through abortion of female fetus's or outright infanticide. This is happening in india too. The result is going to be large portions of the world with angry male populations because they have no girlfriends."

Yo that is messed up, I used to live in China and they didn't have any shit like that going down. A lot of my friends are from India and there ain't anything like that there either. Why the **** would people be pissed off because they have no girlfriends? No girlfriends equals more scientific and intellectual productivity and progress. The only reason the western media emphasizes the male-female imbalance is because they are afraid that nations of color will surpass them technologically. The west knows that there is way too much premarital sex and dating impeding progress, and that the East will catch up technologically if North America doesn't shape up with regards to morality and its youth start working hard in school rather than playing beer pong and fornicating.

BTW, I totally agree that overpopulation is a damn big problem. This is directly related to people's obsession with sex. If people had less sex and stopped focusing on relationships, not only would the world population go down, but we would have more progress because people would be working on science and technology and the arts and advancing humanity instead.
In the Middle Ages, there were way fewer people than there are now. Do you think it's NORMAL for a planet to have 6 billion members of a species and a few THOUSAND of some others (endangered animal species)? Hell no. Look, I grew up in inner city Beijing so I know all about overpopulation. There are even more people in NYC and LA. These cities are structurally designed to hold way fewer people.

#53 daren

  • Guest
  • 13 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 June 2006 - 10:22 PM

I think stupid people will always out breed smart people. They just don't know any better.

#54 emerson

  • Guest
  • 332 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Lansing, MI, USA

Posted 24 June 2006 - 08:50 AM

Do you think it's NORMAL for a planet to have 6 billion members of a species and a few THOUSAND of some others (endangered animal species)?


Sure. Specieswide extinctions are how life got where it is now. And while it might be novel for a large animal to achieve the population we have, humanity still has nothing on the cockroach.

Yo that is messed up, I used to live in China and they didn't have any shit like that going down. A lot of my friends are from India and there ain't anything like that there either. Why the **** would people be pissed off because they have no girlfriends? No girlfriends equals more scientific and intellectual productivity and progress.


I'd assume it's because traditionally a lack of a girlfriend/wife/whatever also meant lack of sex. And it's pretty rare for a man to be so separated from his instincts that going without wouldn't be annoying. However, as you point out, being single offers huge benefits for any kind of activity which requires extended periods of undivided attention. And there's always Kanazawa's study, with the results showing that marriage tended to be a death toll for any hopes a researcher might have of making a major discovery.

#55 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,386 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 24 June 2006 - 02:46 PM

Thanks for reviving this thread. It is fun to read "history". This thread is 2.5 years old. Have things gotten worse or better over that time? In my life, in my region of the world, things are about the same. Overpopulation still doesn't seem like a "grave" threat.

#56 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 24 June 2006 - 04:24 PM

Well in my part of the world Mind and many that I have visited, population impact is serious and recognizably damaging to the environment. I think in part it also comes down to the standards we measure by.

Socially I think the impact is far more complex. In fact there have been advantages imparted by illegal immigration that have kept the costs of labor and food artificially low as well as improving cultural vitality through the infusion of new ideas and people.

#57 rjws

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • 0

Posted 25 June 2006 - 02:47 PM

Let me just make one little note. Agriculture is not declining it is just not a money maker. being from the south I know tons of farmers who put up shop because theres such a fine line between what the bank owns and they own. We used to farm the 20 acres here and sell to the local market and we raised cows and Hogs when I was a teenager the declinning profit wasnt worth the effort so now its all empty pastureland. As is alot of Mississippi these days. We are not producing near the food possible anymore . dont let the numbers fool you .

#58 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 25 June 2006 - 07:58 PM

U.S. population to hit 300 million in 2006

WASHINGTON - The U.S. population is on target to hit 300 million this fall and it's a good bet the milestone baby — or immigrant — will be Hispanic.

No one will know for sure because the date and time will be just an estimate.

But Latinos — immigrants and those born in this country — are driving the population growth. They accounted for almost half the increase last year, more than any other ethnic or racial group. White non-Hispanics, who make up about two-thirds of the population, accounted for less than one-fifth of the increase. (excerpt)



#59 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 08 November 2006 - 10:26 PM

We can not sustain our present population and here is why. For one thing, the top 25% of the world's population consume around 80% of the world's resources. What would happen if all those third world economies start booming and taking off? Then everyone will try to live like westerners consuming massive amounts of food, energy and so on. The energy shortages we see today will be like nothing as time goes on. Coal will help us for a while but then we get into another reason why we can't sustain our present numbers: pollution.

Global warming is a direct result of human activities and of energy consumption as it's practiced today. C02 and methane being the main culprits. Pollutants from third world countries are a major problem right now and are growing at a rapid pace. Unlike the first world, they are making no efforts to cut back. Then we have water and land pollution from chemical spills, discharges and normal human activity. Garbage dumps are filling up in the USA and land for new ones is getting hard to find. In developing countries they typically just dump it anywhere and worry about cleaning it up later.

There is going to be hell to pay and it will come much sooner than 2050. When people have to pay money for clean air to breath, they will start to awaken to how bad the problem is. They already have kiosks in Japan where you can buy a few minutes of pure oxygen. Clean water is becoming scarcer and scarcer. Food likewise and the price keeps going up.

I hear how immoral rich countries are in not sending more free vaccines, medicines, food and other aid to the poor countries. What are the poor countries doing to help themselves? They are cranking out babies like there is no tomorrow. I understand the thinking behind that but while it might be understandable, it is leading them and us to the brink of disaster. If they want to crank out babies and pollution as fast as they can, then let them rot in their own waste. Keep the food and medicine for our own people. It may sound cruel to say that but you can not help those who refuse to help themselves whether it's a crackhead or a whole nation or continent. By giving them aid we encourage them to crank out more babies in the expectation that we will take care of the new mouths to feed as well. It's time for some tough love, really tough.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#60 halcyondays

  • Guest
  • 93 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 November 2006 - 07:21 AM

We cannot sustain future population growth with our current use of natural resources. Future technologies like nanotech would solve most problems including pollution.




24 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 24 guests, 0 anonymous users