World population

[JMiller]

We need to be careful not to give the government too much of the responsibility, our culture is ultimately to blame. I usually compare our current situation to the native Easter Islanders. Their culture involved cutting down trees to help move the giant stone heads (Moai) that they created. That was fine when the population was small, but as the population grew, they ended up cutting down almost all the trees. The population could no longer sustain itself and their civilization collapsed. It was the tree cutting behavior that needed to go, but it was too deeply ingrained in their culture for them to change. The question is, can our behavior change or is it too deeply woven into our civilization and human social organization.

You might be missing the point. I think most would agree, we are to blame for having sex and having a bunch of kids. No problem with that part of the discussion.

The problem is in how YOU think we are going to educate the masses as you suggest?
How can we as individuals change a world of 7 billion? Put up bill boards, write books, what?
To me it makes more sense to go ahead and allow the government to function as this agent. Only we will have to demand they do it. If they refuse, we replace them with people who will. Right?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why can't we as people, scientists, mathematicians change our government and leaders to people who will meet us half way?

Apparently because we are not mature enough to want to do so, if the result of the elections are any indication.

We start to reduce the population and they shift focus on true humanitarian efforts.

I expect elected politicians to shift focus to whatever makes them popular enough to be re-elected. I don't see them playing a significant, desirable role in the challenges that overpopulation brings us.

 

[JMiller]

Apparently because we are not mature enough to want to do so, if the result of the elections are any indication.




I expect elected politicians to shift focus to whatever makes them popular enough to be re-elected. I don't see them playing a significant, desirable role in the challenges that overpopulation brings us.

I suppose what some don't realize, is history will repeat itself, it always does. We will get so fed up with it, and overturn, or physically change the government. The problem is, that it takes so long for us to get to the point where we do this.

 

[England my lionheart]

I don't think people want to address the situation,we seem to be purposley blind to it,for Politicians the things that count are tax health and education and defense,these are the mainstay of Politics,we as voters are also more interested in these things,for example the Green party gets very little in the way of votes or interest,i would say though that even they wouldn't go far enough.

Even when scenes such as this do not make us sit up and pay attention to whats happening in the world ,this is the River Citarum west Java Indonesia and the rubbish from 9 million people where people used to fish for a living,there are around 20 Rivers in simmilar states.

 

[Warren Clark]

I don't think people want to address the situation,we seem to be purposley blind to it,for Politicians the things that count are tax health and education and defense,these are the mainstay of Politics,we as voters are also more interested in these things,for example the Green party gets very little in the way of votes or interest,i would say though that even they wouldn't go far enough.

Even when scenes such as this do not make us sit up and pay attention to whats happening in the world ,this is the River Citarum west Java Indonesia and the rubbish from 9 million people where people used to fish for a living,there are around 20 Rivers in simmilar states.

God Gold and Glory... *edit* the world we want glory.

- This isn't your land, we live here!
- Do you have a flag?

 

[Mister Emu]

And a near-extinction scenario as a pre-requisite, since even in the most optmistic of realistic scenarios it is not possible to gather enough resources to move more than a handful of people to the nearest habitable planet, assuming any even exist in the first place.

A small chance is better than no chance

Of course not. Not sure why you bring that up. Are you implying that melding with other cultures is destructive?

You said all sentient beings need to make an effort to reduce themselves to one child. That is a path to the end of our societies as we know them. Society depends on some growth, and so does further development, which requires continually narrowing specialisation.

And yes, cultural amalgamation can be destructive... if neither of the original cultures survives the merging.

I must be, for I doubt it would be a problem in the first place. Nor do I propose a 50% reduction, but instead the widespread adoption of children from other cultures.

If those other cultures don't want to send their children away? Would we then have an obligation to not reproduce at all?

Never mind that the earth is not at its carrying capacity, and claims that it will be soon(going back to the 1800's with Malthus) always end up being wrong because we continue to improve our ability to produce.

We should focus on improved education(which leads to lower population), political stability, successful distribution, efficient production, and a level of environmental care.

 

[Vendetta]

I gurantee that even if such a scenario is possible, none of us will see the new planet. Like 2012 theyll either have a genetic lottery of the best and brightest and then a general lottery. In other words most of us "dummies" are f*****.

 

[CaptainBritain]

This is a great series on the topic if anybody has not seen it

[youtube]LF15YAvT9G0[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth? (part 1 of 6)‬‏

 

[Oneatatime]

If the history of human civilization is any indicator, population will continue to rise in most places until ecological conditions become hostile to survival and millions of people start dying of famine and disease. The societies that learn to curb their population growth might survive, but they'll have to face wars over resources with those cultures that choose to reproduce unchecked. Colonizing another planet would just be a temporary fix, not a sustainable solution.

I would argue that history has taught us that when times are tough people just carry on having children and mortality rates go up due to lack of resources and overcrowding.

Some may say that its neccessary to have more children when times are hard because of high mortality but that ignores the effect which providing for too many children has on increasing mortality. Birds often settle an optimal clutch size determined the availability of resources instead of just laying as many eggs as they can in the hope that one might survive.

Birds are apparantly better at humans at planning ahead when it comes to reproducing. It seems that most humans just have as many kids as they can without any real consideration about how they will be able to support them.

 

[LuisDantas]

You said all sentient beings need to make an effort to reduce themselves to one child. That is a path to the end of our societies as we know them.

That is certainly true. Our societies can't possibly remain as they are. Not forever, and probably not for too many generations more.

What I propose is that we try and choose how it will change instead of letting the tragedy happen unchecked.

Society depends on some growth, and so does further development, which requires continually narrowing specialisation.

I simply don't think that is true anymore. Way back in the late 19th century, maybe it was.

And yes, cultural amalgamation can be destructive... if neither of the original cultures survives the merging.

That is basically a mirage. No culture survives itself, after all. The very passing of generations is the destruction and rebirth of any culture.

If those other cultures don't want to send their children away? Would we then have an obligation to not reproduce at all?

A moral duty, yes. It might come to that. Maybe it must already.

Never mind that the earth is not at its carrying capacity, and claims that it will be soon(going back to the 1800's with Malthus) always end up being wrong because we continue to improve our ability to produce.

As I posted earlier in this thread, I don't think that is even the main worry. We have cultural challenges that are by themselves very real and present.

We should focus on improved education(which leads to lower population), political stability, successful distribution, efficient production, and a level of environmental care.

True. And we must also be realistic and realize that as long as that is not universally done, we WILL deal with the consequences of other communities failing to do so.

 

[Mister Emu]

That is certainly true. Our societies can't possibly remain as they are. Not forever, and probably not for too many generations more.

I'm not talking about alteration, society changes, but destruction... two generations of your policy would reduce the U.S. to pre-20th century levels for instance. This would drastically reduce the ability of the community to do those things that need to be done.

What I propose is that we try and choose how it will change instead of letting the tragedy happen unchecked.

The change you propose and letting tragedy happen are two extremes.

I simply don't think that is true anymore. Way back in the late 19th century, maybe it was.

Losing half the world's population of scientists over the course of a generation would be a horrible tragedy... and that is if the demographic percentage of scientists remained the same, which would be unlikely.

That is basically a mirage. No culture survives itself, after all.

Thanks for the truism... However, the destructive amalgamation need not occur, culture is fine(and I believe it for the better) being diverse. We don't need to be homogeneous.

A moral duty, yes.

I believe that is absurd. No society has a moral duty to utterly wipe itself out.

As I posted earlier in this thread, I don't think that is even the main worry.

So lack of resources to provide for the population isn't the main worry? I must have missed your earlier post... could you point me to it.

True. And we must also be realistic and realize that as long as that is not universally done, we WILL deal with the consequences of other communities failing to do so.

Yes, but we can do thing to limit and/or contain those consequences for the most part while we advocate change.

 

[darkendless]

As soon as logistics become a problem humanity will have trouble supporting itself. People are caught up in their self-imposed idiocy thinking everything is ok. To be frank its not. We are so ignorant of what it takes for necessities to reach our shelves that it will be our downfall.

Over here we had the largest floods in 100 years and people began whinging about the cost of food which is typical for the ignorant. Trucks and planes keep us alive whether we choose to accept it or not.

 

[Warren Clark]

This is a great series on the topic if anybody has not seen it

[youtube]LF15YAvT9G0[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth? (part 1 of 6)‬‏

I love this stuff.

Breathingearth - CO2, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time

the end of our existence is inevitable

 

[The Wizard]

Yes, after the one child polacy is instated like in China. And after only the wealthy chosen elite and their boot licking minions are allowed to breed or have a test tube baby. We can then just instate voluntary suicide clinics and mandatory self termination laws at age 25 for third world countries or classes. Or, no, just perhaps the human race can just start eating itself. I'll have Italian please... No thanks on the human feces protein steak. So, who's signing up? No, plenty of space is left, but food is something else and wars will be fought for food or Gmo scraps after the radiation from Japan's Godzilla kills everything worldwide...hahaha.. It will balance out one way or the other that is for sure...

 

[CaptainBritain]

As soon as logistics become a problem humanity will have trouble supporting itself. People are caught up in their self-imposed idiocy thinking everything is ok. To be frank its not. We are so ignorant of what it takes for necessities to reach our shelves that it will be our downfall.

Over here we had the largest floods in 100 years and people began whinging about the cost of food which is typical for the ignorant. Trucks and planes keep us alive whether we choose to accept it or not.

there is now no of preventing hitting the 9 billion mark, all that is required to hit that number is for the under 20's to go on and have a child like we did and live long enough for thier child to have a child of of its own, ie become grand parents.

nothing bar a meteor strike of epic proportions can prevent it.

some countries will double and even tripple in population, if you like space, Russia, Japan and Germany are some of the few countries whos population will decline.

This increase can not be met by the available land with current methods, the percentage of the earths surface which is unfit for food growth is immense.

9 billion will be hit by 2050 without fail. and not even war time style rationing will plug the gap in supply and demand.

There are some innovations in the planning stages that could help such as the vertical farm concept but these schemes for the main part need massive investment.

We can only hope the politician and money people see that the scientist and innovators get the support they need, they are our only hope.

But no matter how well they do im feeling that many lives will still suffer and no life will be unaffected, like a quote from the documentary i posted says "when Titanic sank 1st class sank with the steerage"

I will be 74 in 2050, my dad died aged 62, so it might not be my problem,

 

[Otherright]

With the worlds population expected to reach between 7.5 to 10.5 billion there will eventually come a time when Humans outstrip resources,this can already be seen in third world countries,what in your view is the answer.

There is a huge difference between 7.5 and 10.5 billion.

Rely on solar, wind, and hydro energy. Farm more. Build stuff out of bamboo instead of wood.

 

[Warren Clark]

There is a huge difference between 7.5 and 10.5 billion.

Rely on solar, wind, and hydro energy. Farm more. Build stuff out of bamboo instead of wood.

That won't help the fact that our population will have increased by 50% by 2020.

 

[England my lionheart]

There is a huge difference between 7.5 and 10.5 billion.

I admit i copied that from a website,really i think the 7.5 should go

Rely on solar, wind, and hydro energy. Farm more. Build stuff out of bamboo instead of wood.

All the above are great but its how to get the message accross to third world countries and the neccessary funding for them to do it,Bamboo is a brilliant material and easy to work with,they are also trying to make building materials out of Soya so the potential is there

 

[Otherright]

I love this stuff.

Breathingearth - CO2, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time

the end of our existence is inevitable

That was awesome. Thanks for the link.

 

[Otherright]

That won't help the fact that our population will have increased by 50% by 2020.

There is still a plethora of arable land on this planet.