|
|
|
|
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/8/2006 6:56:46 PM |
Any thoughts on this subject?
Between AIDs, Avian Flu, and Iran getting nuclear weapons, I don't think overpopulation will be a problem. Finding a casket might be, however... | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/8/2006 8:02:44 PM | | Reference post #48 post #49... ''Empty in your mind . 97% empty........ninety seven percent...........3%...three percent..... developed (inhabited)........But for those who entertain thoughts that ''mother ''Earth '' can no longer sustain their presence on the planet.... Again, there are human extinction movements, such as.........vhemt.org............ procliaming the usual pagan ,people hating,self loathing,pathalogical propaganda.... Perhaps they offer lethal injections??? tickets for inter-planetary relocation??? My opinion, I think the Creator and His miraculous creation, known as earth, can accomodate all of us-and many more to come. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/13/2006 4:51:07 AM | EddyJ,
What ? Ha ha ha ....ummmm....
let's try a little grade school math here just for a start. For one thing, as has been pointed out already, the population figure you cited is seriously out of date. Maybe around 1980 it was nearly accurate.
But this is the part that cracks me up :
If all the worlds people were to form one single solitary line around the entire globe and attempted to join hands, they would be just over 1,000 feet apart
Using your figures , let's do some basic math here.
5.8 billion * 1000 = 5.8 trillion.
And what does the Earth measure in circumference (in feet) ? 131,482,560 .
Soooooo..... if you need 5.8 trillion feet to make your statement true and only 131.4 million feet are available...there's obviously a problem with either your own math or that of your source. What the truth is is that for every person on Earth , if they were in a line stretching across the equator, each person would have .02 feet at their disposal.
Know alot of really thin people ? | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/14/2006 6:53:26 PM | | referance post #54 pulse. .02, and thin people ............................. overpopulation '.....''fact or fiction'' ...... "population'' ''explosion'' .....................................In a previous post are a few randomly selected scenarios, drawn from demographics, frequently used by those who hold opposing views of overpopulation issues and to dispel them......................................................................................................................The question of flawed math, in one such scenario, regarding the circle of humanity attempting to hold hands in order to create an imaginary circle !!... line around the ??? ''equator''..........this is not a result of demographers who are poor mathamaticians, but rather, simply a matter of an ommision ,of not seperating the scenarios into two distinct catagories. ( time frames )................ One catagory representing the present era. ....1999 > > 2006. .......the other era being at a time when humanity begins to approach the next ''millennium''.................Thus, the figure > 5,860,000,000 2006 as well as many others that might be thrown in ..........................................................................................................................Food for thought """"""""" ......................................................................................................The world is nearly empty.......... there are 52.5 million square miles of land area in the world , not including Antarctica......................................................................... If all the people in the world were brought together into one place they could stand without touching anyone else in less than 299 square miles .................................................................................................................... The city limits of Jacksonville Florida. contain 841 square miles. Each square mile contains 27,878,400 square feet. The total number of square feet in the city is 23,445,734,400. Based upon many demographers mpre conservative estimates of world population. Allowing an average of 2.6 square feet for each person from babes to adults, every person in the world could stand shoulder to shoulder in just one half of the city.........................................................................................................................A common falsehood often presented as part of the population explosion myth........is the assumption that the greater the population , the lower the standard of living shall be................people equal prosperity......... not poverty................................................. ................................................................Many are familiar with the Virginia beach scenario..... this would have the entire worlds population all assemble side by side , accomodating all................................................... There are countless numbers of examples of course..................... all these examples, are based upon either the more conservative estimates of demographers and in other cases the higher figure of approx six billion population..... so exact figures will often vary somewhat................................................................................................................I'm not one to quibble or focus upon single issues or fine detail. But rather the overall picture.......... I'm of the opinion that the overall picture , of this overpopulation matter is ........just a myth............. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/15/2006 10:16:55 AM | Sure, but it's hardly a myth.
Come on now, you must realize that there is a limit to how many people the world can support. There is only so much arable land. Three quarters of the Earth is covered in salt water so that rules out a pretty big chunk of change right there. Then of course we have to acknowledge that not all land is any good for farming. For example, tundra, desert, mountainous areas..the list goes on concerning what can be used for agricultural purposes.
But let's say that the world can support twice as many people as there presently are. That actually exceeds by at least one billion the absolute highest estimate I've ever seen concerning the Earth's ability to sustain us. Now, what would it require for us to be able to feed all these people ? The majority of the world's arable land is currently covered in forests. Should we cut them all down ? Of course not yet that's exactly what we're doing to meet demand right now. Certainly the efficient use of the land we already have would make a major dent in how much new land needs to be put into production but that's only a delaying tactic. Eventually we will need to do something about our population growth. If we hit 9.5 billion by 2100 (which is the prediction based on current trends) then we're less than half a century away from that magic number of 11 billion. Then what ? At that point we have no sizeable forests left and no new land to throw into the mix. So billions start to starve. And of course, there will be wars fought over the land that is available so we can count on millions if not billions more perishing that way as well. And what for ? Because we just had to go out and have more and more babies.
Like I said in an earlier post, in places like North America, South America, Australia, and even Africa believe it or not, there is room for more people. Europe is right at the limit and Asia is definitely over it. Those are the places that need to do something about their population growth. As it happens, China is stabilizing and Japan has actually already begun to lose people. However, India is still going strong. Right now, %40 of the world population under 25 lives in India. That's right, 2 out of 5 people under the age of 25 are Indian. And can India actually feed itself right now ? I'm sure there are plenty of people who will tell us that yes it can but logic alone tells us that even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) they will have to rely on foreign food imports at some point in the near future just to stave of starvation. India is maxed out but is still growing at an exponential rate in terms of population. So should we apply the "don't ask, don't tell" method that India seems to be using to the rest of the world ? No...we have to level out the world population as quickly as we can and then work on redistribution. Or we can work on redistribution right now for all the good it will do but either way , if countries like India don't slow down, they will be faced with the greatest humanitarian disaster the world will ever see.
It's no myth and it does actually directly affect you. Every new birth is going to require a food source. If that source isn't available in their nation of birth then it has to come from somewhere else. Somewhere else is likely to be your back yard so ask yourself whether or not you want to see your parks and forests disappear so that somebody in a far off land can continue to have more children the world doesn't need. OR...would you just prefer to let them starve (which is pretty much what is going on right now but is a problem that will only worsen with population growth) If all the available food was going to where it was needed then this might not be a problem right now but it isn't and that won't change. Eventually there WILL be too many people and the only argument is what the magic number is. Either way, it's not far now. | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 56 | |
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/15/2006 9:43:08 PM | Sure...there is a lot of land mass out there that is under inhabited. We are busy burying all the prime farmland under ashphalt and concrete for roads and places to live. If we moved the whole city of the greater Toronto area 50 miles to the north, we'd have a farm belt large enough to sustain the whole nation!
Ever notice the archetecture of yesteryear in comparison to what we have now? A house built 150 years ago was meant to last for generations. Todays average house is meant to last about 40 years. What if we built to better spec? There would be far less housing shortages now.
The average family farmer knows crop rotation and leaving fields fallow. It is the big corporate farms that use ruinous practices, to feed the ever growing cities. Take a simple thing like chickens. You may eat it once a week, either in a salad, or fast food, or cooking it at home, or picking up one at a grocery store already to eat. How many chicken bits does McDonalds sell daily? Look at the roasting chickens in the grocery store. KFC sold by the bucket. Thousands of birds daily. Every single day, 7 days a week 365 days a year. Just chickens. We have to house them, feed them, breed them, raise them, butcher them, get them to the consumer. It isn't just one chicken, remember, but thousands daily. Just one food item. Apply that to everything from beans and tomatoes, to potatoes and pork. See where the lands are going?
We leave the crap land and have to force it to give us enough to eat, rather than freeing up the good lands to use.
There will be a turning some day...when the population level hits a point where we cannot afford to sacrifice farmland for housing and malls. We may be able to bulldoze a lot of the older subdivisions and return that land to the farm. It won't be for many generations though. Our own version of "soil banking". Hidden beneath the cities...the best gift we can give to those who come after us. | |
|
Cybury
|
Joined: 12/13/2005
Msg: 57 | |
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/16/2006 6:38:19 AM |
We may be able to bulldoze a lot of the older subdivisions and return that land to the farm.
actually that can never happen. when these subdivisions are built the first thing the developers do is scrape all the good topsoil off the land. This top soil is later sold to landscapers or even to garden centers where it is sold by the bag. if you tore down the houses in the subdivisions all that would be left is ruined land unable to support crops. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/16/2006 8:08:25 AM | ^^^^...Actually, all you have to do is make soil.
25% air
25% water
45% rock particles
5% organic material
and time..... | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 5/16/2006 11:41:04 AM | YNA6,
Hmmm...I'm not certain but I'm pretty sure that the land required to feed 33 million people could not be found in the GTA. Even if that is the case, I can't imagine that we would have much variety. We'd have to forget about things like free range beef for example.
Doesn't really matter though , I understand what you're getting at. One thing I will point out though is that houses today are far more resillient than they were a hundred years ago. A hundred years ago , concrete foundations, efficient insulation, even certain construction methods were unheard of. Don't forget, you only see the homes that actually DID last a century. Those homes were simply well maintained , not built better. In a century, I know that if I had to choose which house to live in (the one that's a hundred years old versus the one that's two hundred years old) I'd go with the one built in our time. If a house built today doesn't last 40 years then somebody either messed up colossally or the home was built with the absolutely cheapest materials available and no construction standards whatsoever. A drive through the countryside will reveal ample evidence of what happens to a home that was not maintained when built a century ago. It's usually leaning to one side and is held together by hope alone.
As to the agricultural side of things, I'm not an expert but I will say that all things considered, in the western world, I have no doubt that we are far more efficient with our food production vis-a-vis land usage as compared to any other time. I really don't feel that that is the problem. Farmland is valuable to a point but let's not get too entrenched in the hyperbole. Where I live there are fields of wheat and other crops stretching thousands of miles in some directions. We , here in N. America are not in danger of running out of land for agricultural purposes.
Simply put, we make far more than we consume. Prairie cities could keep on expanding at their current rate for at least a couple of centuries before it became a problem of any sort. But there we are back to what I was saying before about getting the food to where it's needed. We don't need all the food we produce. However, the market to buy the difference is too small. Certainly the customers are there but for them the price is too high. So the food rots instead. If it doesn't rot then it's simply not planted in the first place. So some say that we should give it away to those that need it. Sure, on the face of it, that seems like a great idea. There are some major problems with it though. For one thing, we need a way to actually get that food to where it's needed, store it, and distribute it from there. Secondly (and while some people will say that humanity trumps economics, that simply isn't practical) we can't afford to do that anyway. If we give away the difference to those that need it, somebody still has to pay for everything. Hey, that's alright I suppose, I'd rather that somebody didn't starve to death versus having a farmer make some money but the problem is that if we give away the food, the price goes too low for a farmer to make any money. In other words, if we just give it away, nobody will produce it. Then we're back to square one. We cut our subsidies to farmers here in Canada and many are going out of business because of it because they can't compete in the world market. If everybody did this, who would farm ? Then the price shoots up and suddenly, nobody can afford to buy the food anymore. I'm sure you see the dilemma. So the economics play a vital role and we can't dismiss them for short term solutions (and yes, I'm aware you made no such assertion...I'm not claiming you did just in case you're thinking that) Even a two-tiered system like the communist ideal of "from each according to his means , to each according to his needs" wouldn't work because it still requires far too much money to operate a system like that than is available. No profit = no incentive to produce. The simple solution is to decrease the number of people in need of this food. This won't happen overnight of course but with enough time and effort, it can. If we are going to have to pay through the nose then I'd rather we got some long term benefit for it. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 12/7/2006 4:33:49 PM | OMG--this argument of over population sounds like Thomas Malthus' argument over 100 years ago. The problem is not overpopulation--*far* from it. The problem is the *political will* to free up the technology, science, and productive forces necessary to look after the population. Factories are now portable, so they can be sent to where ever the need is the greatest. The technology to harness the ability to feed and clothe and house people is here--we just haven't collectively put it togehter to solve this problem. This thread reminds me of a few others here--rehashing tired old arguments (capital punishment, anyone?) that have been decided long ago. How's about something more challenging??
cheers | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 12/7/2006 6:02:51 PM | It does appear that someone bumped the thread to promote their web page. It's a tired old subject, and the thread has some really odd arguments and numerical disputes, but it seems to me that the population is rising, and I trust that the UN wasn't entirely lying to us about the estimated 6 million people who died of starvation and malnutrition last year. An estimate doesn't have to be an exact number.
The problem is the *political will* to free up the technology, science, and productive forces
Nail on the head. I imagine that the person who bumped the thread will realize that in time. His site probably won't get a lot of hits or donations from this forum, but you can't blame him for trying. So many of these organizations spend their money and time collecting donations and organizing rallies that they don't actually have the resources to accomplish anything else. At least the CEO of the non-profit won't be starving this Christmas. Maybe he'll have a few bucks left over to send to OXFAM. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 62 | |
| Overpopulation
Posted: 12/7/2006 6:16:25 PM | Sure, there may be plenty of room to stand on land masses if we were all to spread out equidistantly, there's the problem of resources, let's ignore energy, and even food for the time being.
Water.
Global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years, more than twice the rate of human population growth. According to the United Nations, more than 1.2 billion people currently lack access to clean water and twice that many lack basic sanitation. If current trends persist, by 2025 the demand for fresh water is expected to rise by 56 percent more than the amount of water that is currently available. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 12/7/2006 6:54:09 PM | re: post 63, late (tm)
and therein lies a significant problem too--what happens when the world's fresh water supply reaches a critical stage? Will there be a bogus "crisis" created by some nation, i.e., a la "weapons of mass destruction" and a subsequent war to secure the dwindling resource?? We really have our priotities straight don't we?--a multi billion dollar war being waged in the face of an AIDS pandemic in Africa......."let us not go gently into the endless winter night" | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 12/7/2006 6:57:37 PM | | I love it when completely uneducated people argue about subjects that they know nothing about. They quote talking points from some political show they have watched (mostly from FOX news) in an effort to make their point.... hilarious. The problem is not with third world countries. Yes they have a much higher birth rate but they also have a much higher death rate. The problem is what is consumed by the population. New York City alone produces so much garbage that they attempt to sale it to other states. There are mountains of tires visible from space. There are mountains of used car batteries at the bottom of the ocean. Plastic is not biodegradable... where the hell do you think it goes to fairyland. The polar ice caps are melting at an exponential rate, why do you think hurricanes have become so powerful and numerous in recent years. You people think because your garbage dissappears for you every Monday morning that it really does dissappear. Wake up, we inhabit the Earth, we dont own it. The Earth will go on until the sun becomes too large and turns it into a barren wasteland. There have already been many mass extinctions in the Earth's past, one more in the grand scheme of things is not only possible but statistically inevitable. At the current rate that the rain forests are being destroyed, some new virus will pop up and probably wipe out half of human kind which will simply return things to a more natural balance. You could at least attempt to make moderate changes (maybe a slightly higher mileage requirement on cars) Or you can continue to be selfish, materialistic, mindless consumers with your heads in the sand until YOU are actually effected, at which point you will begin to whine incessantly "WHY ME, I JUST DONT UNDERSTAND". Every little bit helps... recycle, conserve gas, JOIN THE KYOTO AGREEMENT. The majority of scientists believe that by the year 2050 we will need two planets with resources to keep up with demand. You can find this information on the BBC MSNBC CNN or any number of scientific journals. Its not fiction, its reality. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 12/7/2006 7:42:38 PM | | Fresh water is one of the major keys. So is arable land. Water is more localized because it is so heavy, and currently so cheap in places where it is plentiful that moving it anywhere but downhill is unheard of. When shortages occur, the first thing they do is start importing grain, because it requires a lot of water to produce grain. Getting good water to arable land becomes a big problem as resources get tighter. Obviously, moving human resources away from places that have no food and water is already a big problem due to international politics, and millions of people are already suffering because they live in such places and apparently don't have the will to stop producing children, nor the will and the means to fight for better conditions. Darfur is a hotspot where these conditions are visually amplified by a recent displacement. Outsiders do not have the will to significantly interfere with Sudan's policies, and neighboring governments can ill afford to accept refugees. The outcasts do have the will to fight, but they do not have the means. Supplying the means would create another war, and few governments have the will to do that. Few governments even have the means, and those who have both are non-existant. Do we send food, medicine, and protection to extend the lesson, or have we yet realized that the politics prevent a practical solution without a united global goal for peace and humanity? All other solutions are mostly futile extensions, and the global goal is a pipe dream. We have only to wait until such famine touches our own borders and hope that our own nations can resolve the crisis we are faced with at the time; be it the invasion of the hordes, or a pact with our neighbors to share and defend our destinies, or simply to manage our resources better than those who fail before us. Many will fail. The lesson is tragic, it is heartless, and it is inhumane, but most of the realistic alternatives are equally so. These people are effectively dying for the cause of peace, because no one would start the war to save them from their oppressors and regain their lands. There are significant parallels to Palestine and many other hotspots. In many, the displacements aren't near as stark and the death squads aren't near as publicized. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 12/7/2006 8:28:01 PM | ^^ Good posts.
One solution that should meet arid Africa's drinking water needs for the time being is using rainfall collection and storage. This route was suggested in a recent WHO report. New, simple technology that uses sunlight to keep collected water fairly sterile has been introduced.
What to do about the rivers and lakes in the Middle East Africa, China, and South America that run dry due to over-withdrawal for irrigation?
I can reduce by about 1/3 with very simple soil management technology. It will help make a big dent in green house gas issues as well. A nice two-for-one.
But that only buys the planet an extra decade or two. The US has no real infrastructure for wheeling water long distances except where large river systems and their adjacent irrigation projects already exists.
The farmers in the Plains and Midwest had best listen up to the USDA, as their summers become more dry. Soils can be manipulated to enhance plant tolerance for drought, without resorting to gene manipulation. All quite natural, but counter to Big Ag's chemo-culture agenda.
Guess we'll have to see how well stubborn mind-sets respond to anticipated shortages. If they decide its all alarmist rhetoric, then nothing will change until its too late to act. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 12/12/2006 9:57:46 PM | We are running out of grain reserves, and the harvest depends on available water and arable land which we are also running out of. I don't need a hundred rocket scientists to tell me where this is leading.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Grain/2006.htm | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 68 | |
| Overpopulation
Posted: 12/13/2006 4:28:58 PM | Fresh water....I heard that in a subdivision of Paris, a worker accidentaly hooked up a brown water line to the fresh water line...and nobody noticed the difference for over 6 months! They caught it because of a drainage problem....my god. think about it...can't drink the water there unless it is bottled. No wonder they have their kids drink wine from an early age...the water would kill them!
Just feeding people isn't that much of a problem...it is the transportation of the goods and to stop wasting what we do have. It has been said we waste up to a third of the food produced here. I'd believe it. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 7/11/2008 7:21:08 PM | I think over population is the biggest issue we have on earth. Famine, disease, global-warming, war, it's all part and parcel of global warming.
I think that modern medicine is a big part of why we are over populated. If we couldn't save as many lives as we can now, hundreds of thousands of people would be dying each year(or month for all we know).
It's great we can save lives..but doing it en masse is what is making it a problem. Don't save every life, save the lives that will have a standard. Don't keep people who are vegetables or can't even go to the bathroom on their own alive, I would rather be dead than in a coma for 10+ years in a hospital.
I can't say, just let the people who are ill be. For many people who are in pain, that would be considered torture(letting someone who is in pain not have relief from that pain is cruel).
But give them something to numb their pain, or bring euthanasia in to the picture.
This planet needs a big war, another black plague, something to kill tons of people...fast. You would probably be surprised how many of our problems would suddenly be gone. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 7/11/2008 7:51:10 PM | | The globalists ( Bush and co )want to kill 80 percent of the population and they are doing a great job at it . Just give it a few more years and you won't have any trouble finding a parking spot. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 7/12/2008 1:49:05 PM | | Overpopulation can only be achived if man no longer expands the garden. We need to expand living space until the earth is full and we can build space stations and all of the things we Star Trek fans have been looking forward to for years. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 7/12/2008 1:59:48 PM | Posted by FERYMAY :
Yes, overpopulation is a problem. But not having children at all is not the solution. Unless you think your genes have nothing to contribute in future aspects of "saving the world". I myself have chosen a different path.
Smarter kids and a smarter lifestyle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not having children is the solution, for two reasons:
- Not having children would eventually rid this planet of the virus known as humanity
- Not having children would put an end of the noise pollution caused by the little creatures | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 7/12/2008 2:06:05 PM |
Sure, there may be plenty of room to stand on land masses if we were all to spread out equidistantly, there's the problem of resources, let's ignore energy, and even food for the time being.
Water.
Global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years, more than twice the rate of human population growth. According to the United Nations, more than 1.2 billion people currently lack access to clean water and twice that many lack basic sanitation. If current trends persist, by 2025 the demand for fresh water is expected to rise by 56 percent more than the amount of water that is currently available.
Some young genius , yet to be born , will come along and invent de-salinization technology that will give the world all the clean water possibly needed.
The global socialist ideology is way too negative. That kind of negativity is self prophesising.
How about a little optimism ?
Human potential is limitless .
| |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 7/12/2008 2:18:37 PM |
Not having children is the solution, for two reasons:
- Not having children would eventually rid this planet of the virus known as humanity
- Not having children would put an end of the noise pollution caused by the little creatures
Unfortunately, that's wrong.
That only helps countries that are currently over-populated. The industrialized world is already below the replacement level yet the global population is still rising.
Secondly, if you want to think of yourself as a virus...uh, okay. Sure. Speak for yourself. | |
|
| Overpopulation
Posted: 7/12/2008 5:04:45 PM | | But human potential exists inside the world and so is limited by that. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
