|
|
|
|
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 10/23/2008 3:25:18 PM | You won't catch any flack from me.
The trouble with stating that immigration means no population growth is that it does not account for the fact that if you go from nothing to something you consume more of the earth's resources. So for an immigrant to come to a developed country means he will be increasing the rate of deletion of world reasources. Granted, the immigrant may have fewer children when arriving in a more developed country, but, each child is consuming more as the standard of living is higher. So it is not the absolute population that is important, it is the absolute amount of consumption that leads to depletion of resources.
Imagine Mike is born in Underdeveloped State 1. He will, if he stays, have 5 kids. Each of which will burn say 20 barrels of oil a year. But Mike moves to Developed State 1. He will have 2 kids, but each will burn 80 barrels of oil a year...
Furthermore, assume you raise the standard of living in Underdeveloped State 1 to that of Developed State 1, and Mike stays home and has 2 kids and everybody does the 80 barrels a year thing. This means that raising the standard of living everywhere so that people have fewer kids also contributes to the absolute amount of consumption and hence a faster depletion of resources.
Simply making processes more efficient is not going to make it in the long run. Populations need to be slowed down, IMO. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 10/23/2008 5:18:57 PM | Isn't it odd that after 10,000 years of modern human existence on earth, the birth control pill and other effective contraceptive methods are invented in these last 50 when we are in need of them?
It's Providence I'd say. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 10/24/2008 7:59:14 AM | RE msg 26 by WhiteWaterRogue:
The trouble with stating that immigration means no population growth is that it does not account for the fact that if you go from nothing to something you consume more of the earth's resources. So for an immigrant to come to a developed country means he will be increasing the rate of deletion of world reasources. Granted, the immigrant may have fewer children when arriving in a more developed country, but, each child is consuming more as the standard of living is higher. So it is not the absolute population that is important, it is the absolute amount of consumption that leads to depletion of resources. I agree. That is why I said we have to look at the figures, work out the maths, and not make generalisations.
Imagine Mike is born in Underdeveloped State 1. He will, if he stays, have 5 kids. Each of which will burn say 20 barrels of oil a year. But Mike moves to Developed State 1. He will have 2 kids, but each will burn 80 barrels of oil a year...
Furthermore, assume you raise the standard of living in Underdeveloped State 1 to that of Developed State 1, and Mike stays home and has 2 kids and everybody does the 80 barrels a year thing. This means that raising the standard of living everywhere so that people have fewer kids also contributes to the absolute amount of consumption and hence a faster depletion of resources. I agree. But let's change the scenario to something more realistic. Back in the 1980s, we had a school poster that said that the average Swiss will use 400 times the resources of the average Somali. However, if we look at developing countries, we find that poor people can have as many as 10-20 children, because those children will also work, and so will contribute more to the family overall. Then you have to consider that as time goes by, the developing countries like India and China are playing "catch up", and so they are raising their standards of living, which raises their levels of consumption per person.
If the average Western family only has 2 kids, then they will use the same consumption they always did, say 400 time the consumption of the developing country, with the same population.
But the developing country has many families that are having 10-20 children, and these children are having their own children while the mother is still having children, so they may be doubling or quadrupling in size, every 20 years. Then you have to consider that these countries are raising their consumption levels. They may only be consuming 1 barrel of oil a year per person to start off. But as they raise their standards of living, that might rise by an additional barrel a year, every 20 years, almost nothing by Western standards, but it represents a doubling of the consumption of the whole country. However, they would still be having lots of kids, until they reach a comparable level of consumption, say 40 barrels, which would not happen for centuries.
That could represent as much as a multiplication of their overall consumption by a factor of 8, every 20 years, but with the Western families only staying the same. Over a period of 100 years, the rise in consumption from developing countries could be as much as 8^5 = 32,768 times, which would then be almost 82 times the consumption of a Western country.
Simply making processes more efficient is not going to make it in the long run. Populations need to be slowed down, IMO. The problem is that this is only true in your scenario, and your scenario was custom-made to show that, but doesn't represent what actually happens. We need to get the figures, and actually work out the maths. That is where efficiency comes into it, because it means that we can accurately calculate what will happen, and what we need to do about it. Blanket solutions like population control don't guarantee anything at all.
The proof is oil. If oil was unlimited, as everyone treated it for the last 100 years, there would be no problem with consumption in the West. But it isn't. It is limited, and our levels of consumption would deplete it until it was all gone, even with population control.
That is why we need to study the figures, and work out the maths. When we do that, we find solutions, and we see that things are not nearly as bleak as we assume, provided we keep our heads and act rationally. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 10/25/2008 2:01:47 PM | My two cents:
I think that in all "how the world's people will 'go out'" scenarios, and in all of life's conundrums, we have to remember that action is louder than words. We can sit here and hypothesize over it, assuming that nothing can be done. Knowing that something Needs to be done to prevent any of the scenarios, however, doing nothing. OR all those who "wish for world peace", and otherwise, could get active and involved in the activities and work required to accomplish what we wish for. What is it that would make the world better, or more peaceful? I think that with our definitions combined, we are Captain Planet! Sorry, I digress. But seriously, if we all lived our lives in line with our beliefs of what is true and right, we would have balance and personal peace. If we treat others the way we truly would want to be treated, ie, no one (in their Right mind) would want to be hurt or disrespected therefore we don't hurt and disrespect others, there wouldn't be violent conflict, and resolution would be much smoother than it currently is in many cases.
It is the belief that we can't achieve world peace that makes us distrust and act in ways that our out of line with our true inner values . We are then defensive and offensive. Boom - each of us, little time-bombs...
Either way you look at it, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. In this case, of an even greater magnitude because of the amount of individuals involved - the world.
I think there's some research on the power of group-think and intention regarding random number generators. I don't know the study's validity, but it's interesting to consider nonetheless.
I saw another interesting item on "laughing classes" where you get together and laugh. If we want world peace, we have to do something about it...Whatever that may be for each of us.
BTW, It's 12 degrees and a beautiful sunshower has arrived. If we are entering a time that will be "nasty, brutish and short", let's appreciate every moment before it. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 10/25/2008 2:30:52 PM | I don't think there is anything we can do to stop the population of humans on the planet. Eventually the planet will cleanse itself in one form or another. Volcanoes, tsunamis, floods, another ice age possibly, and there is always the possibility of a new plague like disease. These situations may not destroy all of mankind but it will set us back from all the progress we have made therefore crippling our ability to advance as a species. Of course we want to work together and do all we can to prevent such things from happening but we're just passing through on an amazingly coincidental chain of events. Mankind's desire to control the planet and mankind itself will be our end. Even as resourceful as the human being is collectively, the planet is inevitably going to die and all life on it will as well. I'm just glad I got the opportunity to exist even just for a universal nanosecond. I just hope that we can figure a way to save the human race and possibly move on to another place. I'm beyond skeptical of that theory though.
 | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 10/25/2008 4:58:12 PM | Interesting post..cept :(..yes that bit
i see cannibalism is based on the flavoured imagination
there will be no new order your hypothesis is based on madness....or a post to incite..merely for the sake
i refuse to contribute to scaremongering
totters of for a bowl of grass | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 10/26/2008 10:35:38 PM | hmmmmm i think this is such a touchy subject because it so obviously is a race issue . If you think there should be a halt to immigration you are surely a white supremest thats hates the last one off the boat and if only they would just go home your problems would all be solved!!! but everytime a person turns on the news some environmentalest is cryin about the north pole disappearin and to much carbon in the air , well i may not agree with most things the tree huggers spew but i can see with my own eyes how the rivers are getting used by growing cities and industrial farms here in Canada , here in alberta the balance is slowly being found we have boomed because of oil and the entire country has profitted and so has America with getting oil they don't have to kill for!! but now our cities and small towns that are busting at the seams with all the cheap labor that flooded in from across canada and around the world is crushing our social help network ,foodbanks,police,firemen ambulance ,etc...all are stretched out and then what happens with one really bad harvest in the western world?????? | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 10/27/2008 10:03:24 PM | | Mr. Goodman2: To respond to your post... Having the world have no value of money is a horrible idea! With your idea, I could be president of a huge corporation and make the same amount as someone working at burger king. Everyone would flock to the easy jobs. Higher payment is made for more difficult jobs. Our society would dip into deprevation. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 11/1/2008 2:31:40 PM |
Mr. Goodman2: To respond to your post... Having the world have no value of money is a horrible idea! With your idea, I could be president of a huge corporation and make the same amount as someone working at burger king. Everyone would flock to the easy jobs. Higher payment is made for more difficult jobs. Our society would dip into deprevation.
It hasn't been my life experience that what you suppose is true. Some people, certainly, would drift towards what you may see as an 'easy job', what ever that might be being debatable, but most of the people I've known have been driven to perform in certain areas where the remuneration was at least second, if not third or fourth in helping define their choice. Having said that, to them what they were doing was 'an easy job' though not for the masses as you imply.
Others, like myself, have a staggering low boredom threshold so need to be entertained by what we do. Personally, I think being a waitress would be endlessly entertaining but also too difficult for me to learn at this late point in my life even without having do 'do math' like they did in the days before computers.
That being said, a world without financial rewards would probably limit enough of the population to make it unworkable...no pun intended. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 11/1/2008 3:43:18 PM |
Most first world or even second countries have zero or less population growth. Immigration is way causes there populations numbers to expand.Most first world or even second countries have zero or less population growth. Immigration is way causes there populations numbers to expand. No post modern industrial country has ever reproduced it's population---ever. When you look at the major issues concerning mankind-ie-global warming, hunger and disease, it's ridiculous to even begin to get a handle on them without first considering overpopulation. The world population is closing in on 7 billion people. Earth, a healthy Earth, cannot support this.
Check out the size of the families of recent immigrants too. It must take a generation or two for the micro nuclear family concept to take root. Without immigration, capitalism collapses. Industrial countries do not reproduce enough consumer base to sustain it. Capitalism is based on growth. It needs growth. When growth slows, we call it a recession. When growth stops, we call it a depression. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 11/9/2008 7:49:52 PM | I read that some brands of scotch will no longer be carried in Canada. There is a high demand for that liquor in China, and the World supply can't keep up with that demand, so the prices have risen to the point that stores won't carry certain brands anymore. The ones they will carry are increasing in price. It is, of course, not an essential commodity, but perhaps the situation is a foreshadowing of what we can expect as the have-not countries rightfully increase their style of living to what we in the West have .
Aside from being able to feed and produce energy for everyone to maintain an acceptable lifestyle, personally, I don't like living in a world where there is less nature to enjoy. The rich buy up lakefront properties and the public areas set aside for everyone are crawling with people. We're losing the ability to be alone with nature and the reprieve it provides from the stress and noise of city life.
So, I disagree with the economic concept that population growth is essential for the health of a population. I believe that quite the opposite is true; that increasing a population of our size will only harm us as a species. We have to update our mantra to align with current circumstances. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 11/10/2008 8:47:26 AM | To a point, population growth is beneficial to a nation's economy, and to the global economy, but the rate of population growth is rapidly catching up to the rate of increasing food production; it surpassed the capacity for equitable food distribution long ago.
Fortunately for those of us who live in more affluent societies, in those nations that have food distribution problems the difficulties are mostly caused by internal politics, thus we won't be soon overrun with hordes of starving Central Africans.
Unfortunately, starvation and disease tend to spread, so we need to come up with a containment plan before it gets here. Pity there aren't any petroleum reserves in the middle of all that starving humanity. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 11/10/2008 9:40:16 AM | Well I think the Earth can sustain a much much larger population. The stumbling block is money. We have the room and the tech to house and feed Billions upon Billions of people. It just is not profitable to do.
First and foremost we would have to develop new energies. The Sun alone gives off hundreds of years worth of power every second. We have to learn to harness it better.
Desalination plants. Expensive but needed. Plenty of water to go around if we dump some resourses into the problem. No one should have to go without clean water for drinking or growing crops. Food handouts to poor countries does not fix the problem. We have to help them grow their own.
Sex Ed. Sorry to the God fearing folk but things like Birth Control, sex education and morning after pills should be available to all that need it. Teaching Abstinence alone does not work.
Greenhouses. Can grow food faster and healthier. But again it is a massive cost to set up.
Space travel. Finding ways to Terraform Alien Planets will have to happen for the ultimate survival of the human race.
So in closing I am not afraid of over population. I am more afraid of Humans not caring enough to solve the problems before they arise. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 11/10/2008 3:49:50 PM |
So in closing I am not afraid of over population. I am more afraid of Humans not caring enough to solve the problems before they arise.
If people don't even care enough to curb our population, there is absolutely no hope for us | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 11/10/2008 5:38:03 PM | Great point!!!
I think quality of life should be promoted over quantity, I am forever an atheist who will always believe thanks to my lack of never knowing religion! Just another perspective! | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 8/11/2009 9:15:01 AM | Old thread revived.
I've seena few posters stating their concern about "overpopulation". Where? I fail to see it.
Our shortcomng is in the distributio network we have in place. We can, and do, raise more than enough food for all. Just getting there is the problem.
We lose many a crop and many a farm animal every year. With better farming techniques and "year round agriculture" in cooler climates, we could easily raise even more food.
China has the land area to expand, and the type of gov't that could enforce it by "dumping" people into the interior with enough to settle the area designated. They chose not to becasue of the expense.
They had a hard time using what land area they do have for food production. Better methods and different techniques are being developed. They made a huge announcement when they finally made it to the "one egg a day worth of protein for each citizen!" level of production. Doesn't mean everyone got an egg a day...nor does it mean they got the equivalent protein...same as here...there are the "haves", and the "have nots".
Food distribution is a future venture that will take a lot of factors to make work properly. It can't be done via one gov't...and certainly can't be based on "those who can pay, get to eat."
Also, I see some posters always seeming to put down farmers. The "greedy" farmers....I don't think so. Most big farms are corporate owned entities that MUST produce a profit or they will simply shut down.
I figure if they go back to "family" operations and pay a half decent price for the goods supplied, the farm could well become the backbone of working society, as it once did.
Also...it seems funny to me that anyone NOT raising their own food looks down on farmers...cause without them...you are dead! Most people couldn't grow enough food for themselves or even have the knowlwdge as to how to do it! Without the farmers, all cities would be wiped out from their own fighting for food!
Inductrial society may pay more...but this isn't right...the ones who actually feed us need a larger piece of the pie...and I don't mean corporations!
Bring back the family farm, and we'd have a healthier economy! | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 8/11/2009 9:28:30 AM | Maybe within our DNA is programming to overpopulate at the present times, because we sense an impending situation were masses of us are gonna be wiped out. So to us as individuals consciously we think OMG wev'e overpopulated ourselves , panic !!!
Whereas our unconscious mind understands more of the potentials for extinction of the specie's so is giving itself a better long term chance because it also senses an impending crisis , which strangly now our conscious minds are started to become aware off..
Everything could be in its right place ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0s38lHIwRc | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 8/11/2009 11:44:11 AM |
I suspect that a lot of the discussion of overpopulation is simply hyped up.
Totally agreed. There are VAST unpopulated areas on the face of this planet. That's not including underground and the sea. The only problem is that humans congregate in a specific area. If you live in London and you move to the outskirts one becomes amazed at the scarcity in population compared to the inner city where it's shoulder to shoulder. If anything a better distribution of wealth should be what is called for.
The problem as I see it is the exaggerated use of resources by developed areas of high population (like cities in developed nations). The pollution and the large amount of waste and stress on the enviroment these greedy resource hungry cities bring is more of a concern than overpopulation. Cut down the world population from 6 billion to 4 billion and the big cities like London and New York will still be a major problem to the environment and resources.
Its also a phenomenon that the least developed nations usually have the highest birthrate. This is evident in the CIA World Factbook. However the least developed nations are usually used as cheap labor and trade for corporations from developed nations who usually extort these nations by using their resources under the banner of unfair trade laws. It becomes more evident that the fight for resources doesn't have much to do with the issue of overpopulation as it does developed nations wasting those resources in a fraction of a space. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 8/11/2009 4:28:10 PM |
In other words, if every person in the United States was cloned another 7 times, multiplying the whole population of the USA by 8, and bringing them to a massive 2.4 billion people, well over double the population of China, it would still be no more populous than the UK, which is not overpopulated at all. The UK has lots of land, and there is only a problem in the inner cities, because everyone is moving to the big cities for more money. So there really isn't a problem with overpopulation in the USA at all.
I think you're missing the point. Just because I have the physical space in my home for ten dogs and 50 people does it make any social sense whatsoever to do that? This planet does not have infinite resources. It can only sustain so many people/animals and beyond that point, it's destroying the very thing that sustains us - mother earth. There's a huge difference between physical overpopulation and social overpopulation. Bottom line, there's too many people on this globe. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 8/12/2009 6:17:05 AM | Caught a lecture from Gwynne Dyer recently. He has written a few books about wars and his most recent addresses this issue quite well.
The major power military think tanks are already formulating self preservation scenarios based on what is evident in some posts here as problem what problem? posts such as scorpionmovers etc.
Whether you choose to believe in climate change is your option but if you look at a globe you will notice two things. Roughly all deserts are the same distance from the equator. They are growing and if the average temperature climbs another 1.5 degrees overall the rate of growth will increase dramatically.
If you look at what lies next to to deserts is the globes most fertile agricultural lands. We through the use of oil byproducts have essentially maxed out the capabilities of this land.
Wheat production after WWII grew at a rate 3 to 5 percent until about 10 years ago, since then it has leveled off. We have always maintained what is called a reserve of wheat stores for emergencies etc and ten years ago that reserve was capable of feeding many for roughly 150 days.
That "extra" supply has now been reduced to 50 days mainly due to population growth and an increase of natural and man made disasters.
This band of agricultural land is most threatened by lack of water. China water supply will disapear within the next 15 to 20 years the glaciers that naturally supplied the irrigation are shrinking at an alarming rate.
Even here in NA can see a decline in our water supplies and california's agriland is threatened greatly because of the same trend.
There many things that human populations can do without. Food and water are not an option. This will cause mass migration on a scale the likes we cannot imagine.
Capitalism is the greatest threat to mankind, sure it got us here but it will be the cause of our demise and unless we can rethink our entire gameplan that growth is good the next 20 years will be the tipping point where even with the technology we have will not save us from ourselves. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 46 | |
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 8/12/2009 7:27:06 AM |
How many of you think that humanity is a plague on mankind. Any opinion?
no opinion, just an observation. sounds like a quip from the great yogi berra. humanity a plague on mankind? hahahaha. good one. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 8/12/2009 7:31:01 AM | How can there be "too many" people on this globe? Canada is screaming for mor epeople all the time, just to increase the tax base!
Lots of "open land" available. Just takes money to buy and develope it.
A redistribution of wealth and food would go a long ways towards wiping out hunger and poverty the world over.
Also...don't forget...with "global warming" we will get a whole new continent (Antartica), free of people, no natives, full of resources!
I have to agree...it is the "congregating" in a small area that makes it seem as if we are overpopulated. We aren't! | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 8/12/2009 8:22:07 AM | Its naive to think you can just proportionally spread the population over the globe.
where people live depends on resources, jobs and politics.
people congregate in cities for a reasons and mainly because the countryside does not support them well enough. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 8/12/2009 2:43:49 PM | I'll go with option #2, redundancy is a plague on redundancy, for $500.00.
We do not have overpopulation, we have overconsumption coupled with ecologically reckless practices and senseless land use.
If you look at the number of calories of edible grain required to produce one calorie of chicken, one calorie of pork or one calorie of beef, it very quickly becomes evident that a vastly greater population of near-vegetarians can be supported by the same extent of arable land. I'd state near-vegetarians because there is some land that can produce meat but cannot really produce anything else in an efficient fashion. The near-vegetarians will also be far healthier.
Combine that with the vast resources consumed by completely unnecessary international transportation of foodstuffs. There is no nutritional reason why an inhabitant of Detroit needs to eat an avocado transported from California, or why an inhabitant of Hong Kong needs to eat pork imported from Canada.
We also have governments that subsidize agriculture in a completely senseless fashion, designed to keep prices in the stores from reflecting what the stuff actually costs to produce. Eliminate all subsidies for agriculture and have the pricing on all of it actually reflect the cost of production.
We also have zoning laws that make destroying farmland and wild space to make room for sprawl development an extremely profitable activity, for no good reason at all. Ban sprawl, build upwards instead of sideways. Rip out suburbs and replace them with farmland, take some existing farmland and let it go wild again. Consume less gasoline, maintain less roadway, require fewer cars, generate less pollution, create a more efficient network of food distribution because more of the food goes to fewer places. | |
|
| The threat of Overpopulation
Posted: 8/12/2009 9:12:41 PM |
Hmm, maybe if we in the affluent nations do more to help the developing and poor nations, that would benefit everyone.
Developed countries have been helping third world countries survive drought, disease etc. for many years. About all it has done is increase population growth in those countries further outstripping their resources and ability to survive hard times but again, we lend a hand when that happens. In the mean time, efforts to promote population control in those countries have been met with accusations of some form of genocide by birth prevention. What this does is increase first world use of limited resources to crank up our overproduction of food to feed the growing third world populations. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
