Human population: Is it a problem? If so, what are the solutions?

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

Funny timing. Just announced today that in 2017 there were the fewest number of births in the US in the last 30 years, and that the fertility rate in the US is below replacement level

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/17/611898421/u-s-births-falls-to-30-year-low-sending-fertility-rate-to-a-record-low

It's like that across the developed world - that why immigration from less developed nations is needed. Trump didn't get the memo I guess.

We need immigration so we can up our population?

From what I've read the more knowledge you have the less kids you want to have.  I must be a friggin genius then!!!

*fewer kids

Oh dammit... I'll get that right sooner or later, lol.

You were this close to genius.....

tempo_n_groove

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

Funny timing. Just announced today that in 2017 there were the fewest number of births in the US in the last 30 years, and that the fertility rate in the US is below replacement level

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/17/611898421/u-s-births-falls-to-30-year-low-sending-fertility-rate-to-a-record-low

It's like that across the developed world - that why immigration from less developed nations is needed. Trump didn't get the memo I guess.

We need immigration so we can up our population?

From what I've read the more knowledge you have the less kids you want to have.  I must be a friggin genius then!!!

*fewer kids

Oh dammit... I'll get that right sooner or later, lol.

You were this close to genius.....

I can be a genius and be just ok at grammar, no?

Go Beavers

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

Funny timing. Just announced today that in 2017 there were the fewest number of births in the US in the last 30 years, and that the fertility rate in the US is below replacement level

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/17/611898421/u-s-births-falls-to-30-year-low-sending-fertility-rate-to-a-record-low

It's like that across the developed world - that why immigration from less developed nations is needed. Trump didn't get the memo I guess.

We need immigration so we can up our population?

From what I've read the more knowledge you have the less kids you want to have.  I must be a friggin genius then!!!

*fewer kids

Oh dammit... I'll get that right sooner or later, lol.

You were this close to genius.....

I can be a genius and be just ok at grammar, no?

*OK (all caps)

tempo_n_groove

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

Funny timing. Just announced today that in 2017 there were the fewest number of births in the US in the last 30 years, and that the fertility rate in the US is below replacement level

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/17/611898421/u-s-births-falls-to-30-year-low-sending-fertility-rate-to-a-record-low

It's like that across the developed world - that why immigration from less developed nations is needed. Trump didn't get the memo I guess.

We need immigration so we can up our population?

From what I've read the more knowledge you have the less kids you want to have.  I must be a friggin genius then!!!

*fewer kids

Oh dammit... I'll get that right sooner or later, lol.

You were this close to genius.....

I can be a genius and be just ok at grammar, no?

*OK (all caps)

ok then.  I don't use caps because you might mistake it for Oklahoma...

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

Funny timing. Just announced today that in 2017 there were the fewest number of births in the US in the last 30 years, and that the fertility rate in the US is below replacement level

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/17/611898421/u-s-births-falls-to-30-year-low-sending-fertility-rate-to-a-record-low

It's like that across the developed world - that why immigration from less developed nations is needed. Trump didn't get the memo I guess.

We need immigration so we can up our population?

From what I've read the more knowledge you have the less kids you want to have.  I must be a friggin genius then!!!

*fewer kids

Oh dammit... I'll get that right sooner or later, lol.

You were this close to genius.....

I can be a genius and be just ok at grammar, no?

*OK (all caps)

ok then.  I don't use caps because you might mistake it for Oklahoma...

And break into song?

brianlux

Play it safe.  Go with "okey dokey".

tempo_n_groove

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

oftenreading said:

tempo_n_groove said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

Funny timing. Just announced today that in 2017 there were the fewest number of births in the US in the last 30 years, and that the fertility rate in the US is below replacement level

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/17/611898421/u-s-births-falls-to-30-year-low-sending-fertility-rate-to-a-record-low

It's like that across the developed world - that why immigration from less developed nations is needed. Trump didn't get the memo I guess.

We need immigration so we can up our population?

From what I've read the more knowledge you have the less kids you want to have.  I must be a friggin genius then!!!

*fewer kids

Oh dammit... I'll get that right sooner or later, lol.

You were this close to genius.....

I can be a genius and be just ok at grammar, no?

*OK (all caps)

ok then.  I don't use caps because you might mistake it for Oklahoma...

And break into song?

I will foursquare all up and down your ass and smile as I dosey-doe...brianlux said:

Play it safe.  Go with "okey dokey".

Nope.  Okey is slang for okay and some of the spelling police might have a say in it so let's just leave it at ok, OK?

KC138045

brianlux said:

Play it safe.  Go with "okey dokey".

I always thought it was okie dokie.  I looked it up and apparently both are acceptable with either 'ey' or 'ie'

brianlux

OK grammarians, but what about population?  Problem/ not a problem?  Solutions?

I think it's our number one problem.  The human population has almost TRIPLED in my short life time.  How can that not be a problem?

tempo_n_groove

brianlux said:

OK grammarians, but what about population?  Problem/ not a problem?  Solutions?

I think it's our number one problem.  The human population has almost TRIPLED in my short life time.  How can that not be a problem?

Brian aren't we at 75/85% of capacity with food that is made in the world?  If we have more people and grow less crops we will be in a deficit.

When that happens we will be in big trouble.

tbergs

If we changed our eating habits and reduced the reliance on meat and seafood, we could produce a lot more food. The fact that there are starving people right now tells you how well we do at spreading resources already available to take care of everyone. Human greed always gets in the way.

HughFreakingDillon

I keep hearing these talking points about how wasteful we are, that we throw away enough food in a (time frame) to feed the entire world in a (time frame). So how are we hitting capacity with food that's made in the world?  Also, drive anywhere in rural North America and there are massive swaths of land not being used for anything, not farming, not residing, no resources of any kind. And that's just what's visiible from the highway. go miles in any direction and it's nothingness. 

sure there are places on earth that are highly dense with humans, but as PJS said, I think the real problem is more a byproduct of all of us living here: ruining the environment with all the wasteful shit we have and discard. if people didn't think they needed a new iphone every time apple told them they do, the planet would be a lot better off. 

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

OK grammarians, but what about population?  Problem/ not a problem?  Solutions?

I think it's our number one problem.  The human population has almost TRIPLED in my short life time.  How can that not be a problem?

Brian aren't we at 75/85% of capacity with food that is made in the world?  If we have more people and grow less crops we will be in a deficit.

When that happens we will be in big trouble.

I'm not sure about the % of capacity but I am sure it's "fewer crops" not "less crops".  LOL, I'm sorry, man, couldn't resist!

tbergs said:

If we changed our eating habits and reduced the reliance on meat and seafood, we could produce a lot more food. The fact that there are starving people right now tells you how well we do at spreading resources already available to take care of everyone. Human greed always gets in the way.

Eating lower on the food chain is a great idea.  Evidence to that affect:

"The IME estimate that 30-50% (1.2-2bn tonnes) of all food produced is "lost before reaching a human stomach"."

"IME state that to produce 1kg of meat requires between 5,000 and 20,000 litres of water whereas to produce 1kg of wheat requires between 500 and 4,000 litres of water."

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste

HughFreakingDillon said:

I keep hearing these talking points about how wasteful we are, that we throw away enough food in a (time frame) to feed the entire world in a (time frame). So how are we hitting capacity with food that's made in the world?  Also, drive anywhere in rural North America and there are massive swaths of land not being used for anything, not farming, not residing, no resources of any kind. And that's just what's visiible from the highway. go miles in any direction and it's nothingness. 

sure there are places on earth that are highly dense with humans, but as PJS said, I think the real problem is more a byproduct of all of us living here: ruining the environment with all the wasteful shit we have and discard. if people didn't think they needed a new iphone every time apple told them they do, the planet would be a lot better off. 

Some good point HFD but as far as open land goes,  I would argue that open land is essential for wildlife and particularly open corridors of land are essential for migration.  Also, is water plentiful in the lands you mention?  A lot of the rural west is fairly uninhabited but mostly due to lack of fresh water.  Places like Las Vegas only exist because water is diverted and causes problems further downstream. 

oftenreading

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

OK grammarians, but what about population?  Problem/ not a problem?  Solutions?

I think it's our number one problem.  The human population has almost TRIPLED in my short life time.  How can that not be a problem?

Brian aren't we at 75/85% of capacity with food that is made in the world?  If we have more people and grow less crops we will be in a deficit.

When that happens we will be in big trouble.

I'm not sure about the % of capacity but I am sure it's "fewer crops" not "less crops".  LOL, I'm sorry, man, couldn't resist!

tbergs said:

If we changed our eating habits and reduced the reliance on meat and seafood, we could produce a lot more food. The fact that there are starving people right now tells you how well we do at spreading resources already available to take care of everyone. Human greed always gets in the way.

Eating lower on the food chain is a great idea.  Evidence to that affect:

"The IME estimate that 30-50% (1.2-2bn tonnes) of all food produced is "lost before reaching a human stomach"."

"IME state that to produce 1kg of meat requires between 5,000 and 20,000 litres of water whereas to produce 1kg of wheat requires between 500 and 4,000 litres of water."

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste

HughFreakingDillon said:

I keep hearing these talking points about how wasteful we are, that we throw away enough food in a (time frame) to feed the entire world in a (time frame). So how are we hitting capacity with food that's made in the world?  Also, drive anywhere in rural North America and there are massive swaths of land not being used for anything, not farming, not residing, no resources of any kind. And that's just what's visiible from the highway. go miles in any direction and it's nothingness. 

sure there are places on earth that are highly dense with humans, but as PJS said, I think the real problem is more a byproduct of all of us living here: ruining the environment with all the wasteful shit we have and discard. if people didn't think they needed a new iphone every time apple told them they do, the planet would be a lot better off. 

Some good point HFD but as far as open land goes,  I would argue that open land is essential for wildlife and particularly open corridors of land are essential for migration.  Also, is water plentiful in the lands you mention?  A lot of the rural west is fairly uninhabited but mostly due to lack of fresh water.  Places like Las Vegas only exist because water is diverted and causes problems further downstream. 

Yes to this. And much of the land that looks open isn’t actually suitable for food production, anyway. The big issue isn’t that we aren’t farming open land, it’s that we are paving over or building on arable land far too often. 

brianlux

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

OK grammarians, but what about population?  Problem/ not a problem?  Solutions?

I think it's our number one problem.  The human population has almost TRIPLED in my short life time.  How can that not be a problem?

Brian aren't we at 75/85% of capacity with food that is made in the world?  If we have more people and grow less crops we will be in a deficit.

When that happens we will be in big trouble.

I'm not sure about the % of capacity but I am sure it's "fewer crops" not "less crops".  LOL, I'm sorry, man, couldn't resist!

tbergs said:

If we changed our eating habits and reduced the reliance on meat and seafood, we could produce a lot more food. The fact that there are starving people right now tells you how well we do at spreading resources already available to take care of everyone. Human greed always gets in the way.

Eating lower on the food chain is a great idea.  Evidence to that affect:

"The IME estimate that 30-50% (1.2-2bn tonnes) of all food produced is "lost before reaching a human stomach"."

"IME state that to produce 1kg of meat requires between 5,000 and 20,000 litres of water whereas to produce 1kg of wheat requires between 500 and 4,000 litres of water."

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste

HughFreakingDillon said:

I keep hearing these talking points about how wasteful we are, that we throw away enough food in a (time frame) to feed the entire world in a (time frame). So how are we hitting capacity with food that's made in the world?  Also, drive anywhere in rural North America and there are massive swaths of land not being used for anything, not farming, not residing, no resources of any kind. And that's just what's visiible from the highway. go miles in any direction and it's nothingness. 

sure there are places on earth that are highly dense with humans, but as PJS said, I think the real problem is more a byproduct of all of us living here: ruining the environment with all the wasteful shit we have and discard. if people didn't think they needed a new iphone every time apple told them they do, the planet would be a lot better off. 

Some good point HFD but as far as open land goes,  I would argue that open land is essential for wildlife and particularly open corridors of land are essential for migration.  Also, is water plentiful in the lands you mention?  A lot of the rural west is fairly uninhabited but mostly due to lack of fresh water.  Places like Las Vegas only exist because water is diverted and causes problems further downstream. 

Yes to this. And much of the land that looks open isn’t actually suitable for food production, anyway. The big issue isn’t that we aren’t farming open land, it’s that we are paving over or building on arable land far too often. 

Shades of Joni Mitchell!

mace1229

brianlux said:

KC138045 said:

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

I think that may be so and that's good but one thing that I read that was eye opening is that couple having only two children is, of course, better than more than two but even at just two, the population does not decrease because most often, the two children grow up and reproduce before the first set of parents die i.e. grand parents and great grand parents).  The population increases anyway, though more slowly.

Also, just FYI, "fewer children" is correct, not "less children". 

The usage rule states: "Fewer is only to be used when discussing countable things, while less is used for singular mass nouns. For example, you can have fewer ingredients, dollars, people, or puppies, but less salt, money, honesty, or love [or children]. If you can count it, go for fewer.

I don't mean to be the grammar police saying this!  I did not learn this well myself until my wife started pointing it out to me years ago.  I still have to catch and correct on it myself now and then!

I did not know this either. I like tid bits like this. I also like how your correction wasn’t condenscending.
I make mistakes when typing all the time that I wouldn’t say. For example I know it’s a “moot point” and not “mute point” (Jessie’s Girl taught me that).
But when typing I type it as “mute”almost every time. Don’t know why. It rarely goes uncorrected, and usually with a grammar lesson intended for a 4th grader after dismissing whatever point I was trying to make.

brianlux

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

KC138045 said:

I think in general people are having less children.  My parents for example had three children before they were 30.  Now it seems most people are waiting until their early 30's or later to have children as they focused on college and starting a career before they got married and started a family and a lot of these people only have one child.

I think that may be so and that's good but one thing that I read that was eye opening is that couple having only two children is, of course, better than more than two but even at just two, the population does not decrease because most often, the two children grow up and reproduce before the first set of parents die i.e. grand parents and great grand parents).  The population increases anyway, though more slowly.

Also, just FYI, "fewer children" is correct, not "less children". 

The usage rule states: "Fewer is only to be used when discussing countable things, while less is used for singular mass nouns. For example, you can have fewer ingredients, dollars, people, or puppies, but less salt, money, honesty, or love [or children]. If you can count it, go for fewer.

I don't mean to be the grammar police saying this!  I did not learn this well myself until my wife started pointing it out to me years ago.  I still have to catch and correct on it myself now and then!

I did not know this either. I like tid bits like this. I also like how your correction wasn’t condenscending.
I make mistakes when typing all the time that I wouldn’t say. For example I know it’s a “moot point” and not “mute point” (Jessie’s Girl taught me that).
But when typing I type it as “mute”almost every time. Don’t know why. It rarely goes uncorrected, and usually with a grammar lesson intended for a 4th grader after dismissing whatever point I was trying to make.

The music memoir I've been working on for the last 3 or more years is finally almost done.  One of the hardest- or at least most tedious- aspects of writing the book has been editing.  I tried my hardest to edit it through all six revisions.  My wife is a very good editor/speller/grammar queen and did a huge amount of the work through two major edits.  The only guarantee is, there will always be an overlooked error or three.  I don't know how professional editors can catch every mistake in a book.  It boggles my mind!

rgambs

The big paradox there is that the lands which are only marginally arable for plant farming are often able to support grazers like cattle and sheep, which increase the fertility of the land over time...if managed properly.

Still, less meat would be a big step.

I am not willing to eliminate meat from my diet, so I have cut back significantly and I'm working toward only consuming meat that I've raised myself.  
If you can't look your dinner in the eye as it dies, you shouldn't be putting it in your mouth when it's processed down into food.

oftenreading

rgambs said:

The big paradox there is that the lands which are only marginally arable for plant farming are often able to support grazers like cattle and sheep, which increase the fertility of the land over time...if managed properly.

Still, less meat would be a big step.

I am not willing to eliminate meat from my diet, so I have cut back significantly and I'm working toward only consuming meat that I've raised myself.  
If you can't look your dinner in the eye as it dies, you shouldn't be putting it in your mouth when it's processed down into food.

I’m not sure my building manager would be happy with that. 

Thoughts_Arrive

The solutions are love.
Love is the way.
Fire.