world population

24

Comments

  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    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
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    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
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    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
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    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
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    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.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    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.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    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
    even flow - question mark Posts: 1,568
    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.

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08

  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    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?
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • TravisTheSky
    TravisTheSky Posts: 615
    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!
    "May you live in interesting times."
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    edited November 2009
    if you got rid of the corruption over defense contractor bids, military spending would be a fraction of what it is now. it doesnt cost nearly as much as we pay for the military equipment we have.

    but anyway, back to the subject, i doubt the population can be curbed through declining birth rates alone (without death rates rising much higher). we're not even close to that tipping point, and a future of dwindling resources will only make things worse. i dont think technological advances can keep pace, but i could be wrong. at best, technology can only sustain the levels we are at now. Given that the population is still growing rapidly, the numbers don't add up. a whole lotta people will die. countries where its still advantageous to have multiple children will not be able to develop, so they will still be makin' babies.
    Post edited by LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun on
  • WaveCameCrashin
    WaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    just go and read Eco science by John P. Holdren, Obama's science czar.. He's got some really good ideas. :crazy: :shock:
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    prfctlefts wrote:
    just go and read Eco science by John P. Holdren, Obama's science czar.. He's got some really good ideas. :crazy: :shock:

    you're sarcastically suggesting i read a book you've never even read. why now?


    and your calling it crazy?



    did one of your talking heads give it thumbs down?


    here's an idea....make up your own mind for a change.
  • sourdough09
    sourdough09 Posts: 37
    MrSmith wrote:
    if you got rid of the corruption over defense contractor bids, military spending would be a fraction of what it is now. it doesnt cost nearly as much as we pay for the military equipment we have.

    but anyway, back to the subject, i doubt the population can be curbed through declining birth rates alone (without death rates rising much higher). we're not even close to that tipping point, and a future of dwindling resources will only make things worse. i dont think technological advances can keep pace, but i could be wrong. at best, technology can only sustain the levels we are at now. Given that the population is still growing rapidly, the numbers don't add up. a whole lotta people will die. countries where its still advantageous to have multiple children will not be able to develop, so they will still be makin' babies.
    Despite the doom and gloom and even in the face of recession, there are a lot of positive signs in many developing nations to suggest that even many countries typically associated with abject poverty are showing a decline in fertility levels, steady economic growth and higher levels of literacy coupled with a sharp decrease in conflict and war. Almost as a rule, as countries become more developed, birthrates decline.

    If we're smart about how we approach aid and international development, we could drastically speed up this transition but instead most policies have been bollocks. Tied aid, agricultural subsidies and even many GMO legislation (I'm very torn on the GMO subject) have really prevented development in places like Africa. IF money is invested wisely, there is no reason why we couldn't have another Green Revolution here which could serve as a global breadbasket and not only for subsitance. That said, the water issue and climate change is ravaging much of the area... :(
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    TravisTheSky wrote:
    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!

    OMG, that's a perfect (and sick) commercial for what's going on in So. Africa. Sick, I tell you.
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    go forth and multiply. :roll:
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • sourdough09
    sourdough09 Posts: 37
    TravisTheSky wrote:
    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!
    Great video! Wow.
  • even flow - question mark
    even flow - question mark Posts: 1,568
    haffajappa wrote:
    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?

    What if it wasn't? Everybody loves god except when it is time to meet it!

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08

  • WaveCameCrashin
    WaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    Commy wrote:
    prfctlefts wrote:
    just go and read Eco science by John P. Holdren, Obama's science czar.. He's got some really good ideas. :crazy: :shock:

    you're sarcastically suggesting i read a book you've never even read. why now?


    and your calling it crazy?



    did one of your talking heads give it thumbs down?


    here's an idea....make up your own mind for a change.

    No I didnt read the whole book ,but I did read thishttp://www.zombietime.com/john_holdren/
    Sorry Commy I don't have $320 to drop on a book and even if I did I sure as hell would'nt buy the damn thing.
  • haffajappa
    haffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    even flow - question mark wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    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?

    What if it wasn't? Everybody loves god except when it is time to meet it!
    sorry i'm not sure what you're trying to say... :?:

    anyways, i liked the post better when i thought it was sarcasm.

    i just don't wanna hear about this judgement day is coming so we don't have to do anything about our problems but sit back and let the good lord take care of things. :roll:
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam

Categories