world population

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

we're about to hit 7 billion people early next year, and that number is probably gonna climb at least another couple billion in a few decades. In MY LIFETIME. thats crazy.

i was just wondering what people's thoughts are. is it possible for that many people to be financially capable of living happily and healthily? does it creep any one else out that the predictions of the population levelling off is dependant less on lower birth rates, but higher death rates from war, famine, and disease? or that the last time the world population shrank for an extended period of time was the Black Death?

sandras

How do you feel about 2012 and the world ending? What will do more people in Swine Flu, natural diaster, or man made ourselves? Is it already in motion or can mankind stop this? Are we better now at stopping death but living a worse quality of life? Does thinking about this make anybody happy,smile. Easier not to think about.

Byrnzie

The more the merrier! :P

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

sandras wrote:

How do you feel about 2012 and the world ending? What will do more people in Swine Flu, natural diaster, or man made ourselves? Is it already in motion or can mankind stop this? Are we better now at stopping death but living a worse quality of life? Does thinking about this make anybody happy,smile. Easier not to think about.

at least shit is gonna get blowed up real good in 2012. the documentary is coming out in a couple weeks.

rebornFixer

I think that population growth rates are too high (especially in developing parts of the world), and that people need to quit procreating like our lower mammalian cousins so that the planet might get a shot at recovery. Need to get laid? Have at it, big guy ... But is it that big a goddamn deal to use contraceptives? Also ... No one needs 12 kids. You just plain don't. Sorry. Surely three or four would suffice.

That felt good ... In all seriousness, though, I do feel that its getting to be too much. I really do like people ... I also feel that the planet can have too much of a good thing.

soulsinging

rebornFixer wrote:

I think that population growth rates are too high (especially in developing parts of the world), and that people need to quit procreating like our lower mammalian cousins so that the planet might get a shot at recovery. Need to get laid? Have at it, big guy ... But is it that big a goddamn deal to use contraceptives? Also ... No one needs 12 kids. You just plain don't. Sorry. Surely three or four would suffice.

That felt good ... In all seriousness, though, I do feel that its getting to be too much. I really do like people ... I also feel that the planet can have too much of a good thing.

i would say even 3-4 is unnecessary.

FiveB247x

Thomas Malthus!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

"it is in your nature to destroy yourselves".

-The Governator

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

FiveB247x wrote:

Thomas Malthus!

he was wrong once, but for how long?

sourdough09

Good news. Fertility rates are falling across the board even in most developing nations. This does not mean that we won't have a population problem of course. The population is still projected to rise until ~2025 before levelling off but by then the world's pop will be quite high. Still at least there is some promising news.

Educate young girls in developing countries and the fertility drops almost immediately.

rebornFixer

sourdough09 wrote:

Good news. Fertility rates are falling across the board even in most developing nations. This does not mean that we won't have a population problem of course. The population is still projected to rise until ~2025 before levelling off but by then the world's pop will be quite high. Still at least there is some promising news.

Educate young girls in developing countries and the fertility drops almost immediately.

That is indeed highly encouraging.

TriumphantAngel

you have to wonder where all the resources will come from (water, food, shelter, energy, transportation, to name just a few), that's going to be needed to support all these people. we can't even take care of all the ones that are here now.

Shawshank

Here's the most encouraging news I've seen today. Let's just hope this is true. :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDftD70E_Wk

TravisTheSky

Shawshank wrote:

Here's the most encouraging news I've seen today. Let's just hope this is true. :roll:

I don't know how accurate that one video is, but I've been reading for years that the recent population increase of U.S and Europe is due to immigration, NOT reproduction.

sourdough09

TriumphantAngel wrote:

you have to wonder where all the resources will come from (water, food, shelter, energy, transportation, to name just a few), that's going to be needed to support all these people. we can't even take care of all the ones that are here now.

Hopefully with more efficiency, conservation and technology. We already have enough food to feed everyone. Actually more than enough food, the problem is distribution. Water is more difficult and clearly this in my mind will become the biggest limiting factor. If we could figure out a cheap and energy efficient method of desalinization... that would be awesome. Transport could be interesting. Much of the developing world lacks tons of infrastructure that we have and it is possible that some technology can be leapfrogged into better and more efficient uses. ie. cellphones in Africa leap frogged land lines. Maybe we can see the same with smart power grids and green energy?

Commy

if the motivation and incentive to create weapons was half as prominent as the development and research for sustainability....we could sustain this race, whatever the population.


our priorities are all fucked up. scientists are being geared towards weapons, not toward human sustainability.

motivate them to kill not to care. and that's what they are doing.

OffHeGoes29

I hate to say it, but nature has a way of correcting itself if it gets to be too much.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

its not just people's sustainability. wtf is an elphant or whale gonna do on a planet with 10 billion people on it? die. thats what.

unless the man herds us into city apartments and feeds us soylent green. not everyone wants to live that way.

sourdough09

MrSmith wrote:

its not just people's sustainability. wtf is an elphant or whale gonna do on a planet with 10 billion people on it? die. thats what.

unless the man herds us into city apartments and feeds us soylent green. not everyone wants to live that way.

Not necessarily... Population is going to increase for the next few decades but if we're smart about how we manage and plan, we can help prevent SOME of the problems we are likely to encounter. Sure, there will be more extinctions. Right now there are already mass extinctions that occur everyday. There is actually an elephant cull being discussed in South Africa due to over population BTW.

I'm sorry if people don't "want" to live that way, but seriously there simply is not enough space for everyone to own a huge house and large yard. I'm sure people not long ago would have scoffed at giving up acres of land to live in houses with mere yards. We'll have to adjust and learn to live more efficiently and we are.

Urbanization is rapidly accelerating in developing countries as well as in the richer western countries. People are living in more densely populated buildings which is becoming the norm in many places. I don't recall any "herding" by anyone.

arthurdent

MrSmith wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Thomas Malthus!

he was wrong once, but for how long?

the only thing keeping Malthus from being right is Norman Borlaug and the "Green Revolution"

he still stands

arthurdent wrote:

MrSmith wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Thomas Malthus!

he was wrong once, but for how long?

the only thing keeping Malthus from being right is Norman Borlaug and the "Green Revolution"

I'm surprised the "Food Inc crowd" hasn't pounced on the Norman Borlaug reference.

The increase in yields I think is about to hit an apex. If you look at trendlines of average yields over the past century it is approaching a peak. Without some sort of radical change in production or some sort of discovery that will shift the curve upward, we will eventually come to the situation that Malthus predicted. The green revolution probably just delayed this by 50 or 100 years.

Jeanwah

sourdough09 wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

you have to wonder where all the resources will come from (water, food, shelter, energy, transportation, to name just a few), that's going to be needed to support all these people. we can't even take care of all the ones that are here now.

Hopefully with more efficiency, conservation and technology. We already have enough food to feed everyone. Actually more than enough food, the problem is distribution. Water is more difficult and clearly this in my mind will become the biggest limiting factor. If we could figure out a cheap and energy efficient method of desalinization... that would be awesome. Transport could be interesting. Much of the developing world lacks tons of infrastructure that we have and it is possible that some technology can be leapfrogged into better and more efficient uses. ie. cellphones in Africa leap frogged land lines. Maybe we can see the same with smart power grids and green energy?

Clean water is a big issue now, and will be a huge issue in the future. People in South Africa are dying from drinking dirty water, as water is now being commodified, and companies are buying, taxing and charging regular people in 3rd world countries to drink what's ultimately necessary to survive. And that idea of owning water sources is spreading. Soon to come to a country near you.

Kel Varnsen

Commy wrote:

if the motivation and incentive to create weapons was half as prominent as the development and research for sustainability....we could sustain this race, whatever the population.


our priorities are all fucked up. scientists are being geared towards weapons, not toward human sustainability.

motivate them to kill not to care. and that's what they are doing.

Not that I disagree with you, but I do think it is kind of funny that someone is complaining about military research spending on the internet (which was developed largely thanks to military research).

soulsinging

he still stands wrote:

I'm surprised the "Food Inc crowd" hasn't pounced on the Norman Borlaug reference.

The increase in yields I think is about to hit an apex. If you look at trendlines of average yields over the past century it is approaching a peak. Without some sort of radical change in production or some sort of discovery that will shift the curve upward, we will eventually come to the situation that Malthus predicted. The green revolution probably just delayed this by 50 or 100 years.

i'll be dead in 50-100 years. not my problem.

soulsinging

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Commy wrote:

if the motivation and incentive to create weapons was half as prominent as the development and research for sustainability....we could sustain this race, whatever the population.

our priorities are all fucked up. scientists are being geared towards weapons, not toward human sustainability.

motivate them to kill not to care. and that's what they are doing.

Not that I disagree with you, but I do think it is kind of funny that someone is complaining about military research spending on the internet (which was developed largely thanks to military research).

i don't know anyone that has ever argued the entire military budget should be cut. nobody has a problem with military spending. body armor, soldier benefits, valuable technology like the internet = good. but so much money that our schools and elderly are bankrupt due to underfunding so that we can spend billions on a missile defense shield that every scientist says will never work? = not so good.

he still stands

soulsinging wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Commy wrote:

if the motivation and incentive to create weapons was half as prominent as the development and research for sustainability....we could sustain this race, whatever the population.

our priorities are all fucked up. scientists are being geared towards weapons, not toward human sustainability.

motivate them to kill not to care. and that's what they are doing.

Not that I disagree with you, but I do think it is kind of funny that someone is complaining about military research spending on the internet (which was developed largely thanks to military research).

i don't know anyone that has ever argued the entire military budget should be cut. nobody has a problem with military spending. body armor, soldier benefits, valuable technology like the internet = good. but so much money that our schools and elderly are bankrupt due to underfunding so that we can spend billions on a missile defense shield that every scientist says will never work? = not so good.

Yep... even guys "on the fringe" like Chomsky would agree that a military budget is necessary, but for the purpose of U.S. national defense - not preemptive war, exploitation of resources, regime change, etc.

he still stands

soulsinging wrote:

he still stands wrote:

I'm surprised the "Food Inc crowd" hasn't pounced on the Norman Borlaug reference.

The increase in yields I think is about to hit an apex. If you look at trendlines of average yields over the past century it is approaching a peak. Without some sort of radical change in production or some sort of discovery that will shift the curve upward, we will eventually come to the situation that Malthus predicted. The green revolution probably just delayed this by 50 or 100 years.

i'll be dead in 50-100 years. not my problem.

Unfortunately there are many people, including many politicians and business leaders, who actually feel this way. The almighty $$$ is the driving factor for these guys to keep their jobs... not their environmental stewardship.

soulsinging

he still stands wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

he still stands wrote:

I'm surprised the "Food Inc crowd" hasn't pounced on the Norman Borlaug reference.

The increase in yields I think is about to hit an apex. If you look at trendlines of average yields over the past century it is approaching a peak. Without some sort of radical change in production or some sort of discovery that will shift the curve upward, we will eventually come to the situation that Malthus predicted. The green revolution probably just delayed this by 50 or 100 years.

i'll be dead in 50-100 years. not my problem.

Unfortunately there are many people, including many politicians and business leaders, who actually feel this way. The almighty $$$ is the driving factor for these guys to keep their jobs... not their environmental stewardship.

that's kinda inevitably what you're going to get with capitalism.

even flow - question mark

For all the people who put faith in the bible and the stories in there. Famine wiped out people for a reason. Why do we as humans interfere when it is all god's will. Would keep the population down.

haffajappa

even flow - question mark wrote:

For all the people who put faith in the bible and the stories in there. Famine wiped out people for a reason. Why do we as humans interfere when it is all god's will. Would keep the population down.

was this sarcasm?

TravisTheSky

Jeanwah wrote:

Clean water is a big issue now, and will be a huge issue in the future. People in South Africa are dying from drinking dirty water, as water is now being commodified, and companies are buying, taxing and charging regular people in 3rd world countries to drink what's ultimately necessary to survive. And that idea of owning water sources is spreading. Soon to come to a country near you.

This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDkz6jhMjcA

Ooh, it's delightfully evil!