"7 Billion: How did we get so big so fast?"

[Skwim]

Nothing new, just an interesting presentation and prediction.

[youtube]VcSX4ytEfcE[/youtube]

​

So, what do you think could likely stabilize the population by the end of the century

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not being able to feed such a large population once fossil fuels run out will probably have some impact.

 

[Skwim]

Not being able to feed such a large population once fossil fuels run out will probably have some impact.

That's my impression as well. In fact, in the future I can see the period we're now living in being referred to as the Golden Age of Humanity.

 

[orcel]

NPR had a report about 7 billion people. They said all 7 billion can fit within the city of London (with enough room to dance). Back when there was 6 billion I did the math and "fit" the entire population of the planet inside Texas with everyone grouped into families of 4 and each family given 1/8 of an acer of land.

Of course neither of these measures account to roads, schools and other infastructure, but it demonstrates how underpopulated the planet is. Lets expand from texas and we'd fit everbody within north America with plenty of rooom to spare, then we'd have the entire rest of the planet for farming and industry. While this may not be practical we find that we do not have population problem, rather a resourse distrobution problem.

 

[Me Myself]

[/INDENT][/INDENT]So, what do you think could likely stabilize the population by the end of the century

Homosexuality. Lots and LOTS of homosexuality.

We need this people.:yes:

 

[Skwim]

Homosexuality. Lots and LOTS of homosexuality.

We need this people.:yes:

Hmmmm. A possibility. A possibility.
​

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So, what do you think could likely stabilize the population by the end of the century

Free condoms.

 

[Noaidi]

While this may not be practical we find that we do not have population problem, rather a resourse distrobution problem.

Resource distribution is only part of the story. We also need to address our resource consumption.

Also, there appears to be a link between the improvement in the access to education for girls and women and a reduction in fertility rates, with many educated women deciding to delay having children until later in life. If governments want to help stabilise or reduce population growth rates, funds should be channelled into this (of course, there are governments and cultures that are opposed to allowing females widespread access to education).


From the summary of 'Women's Education and Fertility Rates in Developing Countries, With Special Reference to Bangladesh'
http://www.eubios.info/EJ124/ej124i.htm
"From our discussion thus far, we have observed that education does have a major impact on fertility. Even after controlling for other relevant factors, the education of women stands out as a significant factor in determining fertility. It mostly operates through some intervening variables that determine the demand for children, supply of children and costs of regulation.

It was shown that the greatest impact of education on fertility occurs when levels of education are at secondary level. Small amounts of primary education are not likely to have a significant impact. However, the threshold level varies from one social setting to another. In highly gender-stratified societies, the threshold level is likely to be higher than in relatively egalitarian societies.

Education has been found to increase women's levels of autonomy in decision-making, in acquiring knowledge, in gaining access to economic resources, and in interacting with a wider social circle. It is through this autonomy that education exerts an impact on fertility."

 

[orcel]

Resource distribution is only part of the story. We also need to address our resource consumption.

Also, there appears to be a link between the improvement in the access to education for girls and women and a reduction in fertility rates, with many educated women deciding to delay having children until later in life. If governments want to help stabilise or reduce population growth rates, funds should be channelled into this (of course, there are governments and cultures that are opposed to allowing females widespread access to education).

Your points suggest that you accept the premis that population is the problem. I pruport that the planet has the resources to support the current population and many, many more. We ought be addressing resource distribution rather then attempting to slow population growth.

 

[Noaidi]

Your points suggest that you accept the premis that population is the problem. I pruport that the planet has the resources to support the current population and many, many more. We ought be addressing resource distribution rather then attempting to slow population growth.

Are you in favour of continued population increase? You didn't explicitly state as much, but I'm guessing you may be leaning that way (apologies if I have misunderstood your post).

For those that favour continued growth: don't you think that the natural world is strained enough already?
Where do we house millions / billions more people without further encroaching on forested land? How do we feed these people without converting forested land to arable land and increasing the strain on the oceans? What do we do with the concomitant pollution and waste produced by more people, ever more eager for gadgets and toys which are produced from a finite supply of minerals and materials?

It's a cliche to say this, but there are other species that share this planet with us and this tends to be ignored. Yes, the Earth is probably capable of supporting more people, but at what ecological cost?

 

[orcel]

Are you in favour of continued population increase? You didn't explicitly state as much, but I'm guessing you may be leaning that way (apologies if I have misunderstood your post).

For those that favour continued growth: don't you think that the natural world is strained enough already?
Where do we house millions / billions more people without further encroaching on forested land? How do we feed these people without converting forested land to arable land and increasing the strain on the oceans? What do we do with the concomitant pollution and waste produced by more people, ever more eager for gadgets and toys which are produced from a finite supply of minerals and materials?

It's a cliche to say this, but there are other species that share this planet with us and this tends to be ignored. Yes, the Earth is probably capable of supporting more people, but at what ecological cost?

I suggest that those who panic merely because weve grown to a world of 7 Billion are over-reacting. And while I agreee that humans consume resources we are very far from overharvesting the resources this world is gifted with. BUT again i agree we ought better care for this world too. We can grow and minimize any negitive ecological impacts, if we try. Perhaps that's a better use of our time and monies.

 

[Father Heathen]

Those of a fundamentalist persuasion try to bend reality around their scriptures. In this case "be fruitful and multiply".

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I suggest that those who panic merely because weve grown to a world of 7 Billion are over-reacting. And while I agreee that humans consume resources we are very far from overharvesting the resources this world is gifted with. BUT again i agree we ought better care for this world too. We can grow and minimize any negitive ecological impacts, if we try. Perhaps that's a better use of our time and monies.

You do realize that without fossil fuels, we wouldn't be able to either produce, nor distribute close to enough to food to feed the current world population, let alone support a growing population, right?

 

[orcel]

You do realize that without fossil fuels, we wouldn't be able to either produce, nor distribute close to enough to food to feed the current world population, let alone support a growing population, right?

How's that renewable energy industry coming? Perhaps we should put some efforts there.

 

[Noaidi]

I suggest that those who panic merely because weve grown to a world of 7 Billion are over-reacting. And while I agreee that humans consume resources we are very far from overharvesting the resources this world is gifted with. BUT again i agree we ought better care for this world too. We can grow and minimize any negitive ecological impacts, if we try. Perhaps that's a better use of our time and monies.

With reference to the part I've highlighted, what makes you think that this is the case?

 

[Father Heathen]

How exactly does it benefit us as a species to breed and populate like fruit flies (unless we plan on using babies as a fuel/food source)? Even if the resources are there, it shouldn't be a race to consume them.

 

[orcel]

Those of a fundamentalist persuasion try to bend reality around their scriptures. In this case "be fruitful and multiply".

Actually my fundimentalist friends, as well as my more liberal buddies both refuse to believe me when I describe myself as fundemental.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How's that renewable energy industry coming? Perhaps we should put some efforts there.

There's nothing on the horizon even remotely capable of replacing the current energy usage we get from fossil fuels.

Tick tock.

 

[orcel]

How exactly does it benefit us as a species to breed and populate like fruit flies (unless we plan on using babies as a fuel/food source)? Even if the resources are there, it shouldn't be a race to consume them.

It doesn't, however to misuse our energies, efforts, monies and focus to support population controls is wasteful.

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't, however to misuse our energies, efforts, monies and focus to support population controls is wasteful.

I bet it'll take far more energy, effort, money & focus to deal with overpopulation than to limit it.