main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

World population

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by SuperWatto, Jul 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    I heard somewhere the population that the planet can sustain is 12 billion people. I also find your posts decidedly grim, Jabba. True as some of that stuff may be it's a defeatist attitude that humanity is doomed by our own population and unsustainable resources. Yes, the resources on this planet are finite, but that's why we have people trying to develop renewable energy and new ways to build cities--think buildings that can hold a city's population--they are not cowering in some corner somewhere waiting for the end to happen. Or going on about how humanity's doomed by our own actions. Yes, what you say makes some sense, as I said, but it also neglects human ingenuity and our ability to adapt. Those are things worth considering before going all doom and gloom about humans.

    Our species has survived worse than this and it'll continue to survive. How we live is up to us and how we treat each other and our planet. At one point we were close to extinction and endured.
     
  2. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Overfishing by companies happens to be one of the biggest problems right now.
     
  3. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    I find the idea that we can somehow grow our way out of population overshoot to be absurd. The issue is not that we cannot hope to solve our problems, but we waited so long that the only solutions are now too terrible to face. I don't doubt that we could feed 12 billion people for a while, but at what cost to civilization? I don't doubt that we will dramatically expand the alternative energy supply, but it cannot happen at a rate that will compensate for the collapse of fossil fuel resources.

    Nothing will compensate for the terminal depletion of freshwater resources (melted glaciers, drained fossil water reserves). We are mere years, not decades, away from all out water wars. In the U.S. we can fight the Canadians (and win!) for the great lakes, and then pump them dry to keep California from turning into the dustbowl it so richly deserves to become.

    I don't worry so much about the loss of all ocean protein. By the time the oceans are truly barren of life in 50 years or so, anything remaining alive will be far too toxic to eat.
     
  4. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    I'm not saying we can grow our way out of our population problems. Just that we can support it. And where do you get these posts from, 'Misanthropic Monthly'? The fish will be too toxic in 50 years? Okay. If we don't clean up our act, but I'd think in 50 years we could find a solution to that problem. Ditto to our water supply problems. I'm not saying we're going to find solutions or that some of what you're saying won't happen, but I'm not going to attempt to predict the future in such a...dramatic ash and Earth view that you're painting it. No, this is not being blindly optimistic, I'm just saying that things won't or can't be as bad as you're predicting. I recommend saving the end is nigh talk for futurist dystopian types. They seem to get off on it.
     
  5. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    I have my share of objectionable personality traits. I plead guilty to loony doomerism, but I'm not misanthropic. I feel very sorry for all of us, particularly those of you who will still be alive mid century. I'm not likely to make it to 2050, so I won't see the worst of the collapse, unless it comes even sooner than I fear. Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that the only way out is to kill off at least 6 out of ever 7 people on the planet. However, I wouldn't pull the trigger even if I could. I'm suicidal that way.
     
  6. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    Gotcha. Well, I'm likely to get somewhat there. I think. But at any rate I don't think things can get as bad as you're making them out to be. Sure, things can be bad. However, there was something like less than 20,000 humans at one point on this planet due to Yellowstone's volcano (if that documentary is to be believed) and we survived as a species. So, while things can get worse they can also get better and I'm putting my faith in humanity and hoping that things can improve and get better.
     
  7. SithLordDarthRichie

    SithLordDarthRichie CR Emeritus: London star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 3, 2003
    There is the "Global Hectare" calculation to factor in.

    Using this principle, each person in the world should be able to live on 2 global hectares each in order for the population to be sustainable.

    Currently most of Africa uses about 1 Gha, even China uses just over 2Gha and that has a vast population.

    America by contrast uses about 9Gha and the UK uses around 5Gha.

    [image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/World_map_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint.png]
    Not sure how old that map is, but it showshow far off we are from achieving the equality neccessary to have a large and sustainable population.
     
  8. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    If human ingenuity were so dependable, we would have started dealing with our global population growth issues 40 or 50 years ago at least. China remains, to date, really the only significant nation that has made any systematic attempt to do something about population growth. If they hadn't, China today would be even more the environmental hell hole it most certainly already is anyway. When China began its policy its population was .97 billion. Despite the policy, demographic momentum ensured continued growth, and today they have a population of more than 1.3 billion and still growing.

    Because they started much, much too late to deal with the problem, they have too many people and, despite policies that can be described as draconian, their population will still double in a little more than a century at the current growth rate. You won't live that long, so it won't be your problem or mine, but imagine 2 billion Chinese living on a land that can't sustainably support 500 million. The population of the United States and Canada will double in a mere 75 years at current growth rates. A few of you may actually get to find out what the U.S. is like with a population of 600 million.

    We have amazing intellectual capacity, it's true, but because evolution produced us instead of some deity designing us from the ground up for rational decision-making, our big brains are haphazardly parked on top of what amounts to bunny brains that really do all the thinking for us. And bunny brains are meant to do one thing only: eat and reproduce as long as the food supply supports reproduction. The bunny brains have all the real power in an abusive relationship with higher level cognition and actively repress any effort by the big human brain to come up with answers. That's why we're susceptible to religion. Religion is so comically subversive precisely because the bunny brain actually coopted the human brain to create religion in order for the bunny brain to control the human brain more easily. A central tenet of catholicism for example is to "ignore all those rational concerns about population growth: just keep ******* and having children. And don't **** unless you're doing it to produce a child."

    The bunny brain won't get involved in helping to solve the problem until the food supply is in such obvious danger of imminent collapse that even it can't ignore what's happening, at which point it will order the big human brain into action. But by then of course it will be too late for benign and pleasant solutions. It's already too late.

     
  9. New_York_Jedi

    New_York_Jedi Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Even the "bunny brain" was powerful and so universal, why do we see wildly different population growth rates between countries, including falling populations in Japan and some Western European countries?
     
  10. SithLordDarthRichie

    SithLordDarthRichie CR Emeritus: London star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Our big problem is our ability to defeat nature's attempts to destroy us.
    World population has only risen significantly since about 1800, because that is when we started iradicating many diseases that would wipe out a lot of people.
    Add to that our ability to survive many extreme weather conditions and we can combat a lot of the "natural selection" nature throws at us.

    Also, population explosion is a problem in many other species that do not have predators. In Scotland the Red Deer numbers have increased to almost unmanagable figures because the only animal that was able to keep numbers down, The Wolf, is no longer present in the UK.

    Without natural management populations get out of hand.
     
  11. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    So then start an annual limited hunt.
     
  12. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Wealth and education do seem to offer diversions that can help distract the bunny brain from the hard wired exigencies of procreation, but only to a certain extent. If human intellect were truly capable of taming the bunny brain population growth rates across the first world would be zero or below.

    Religion, as I noted, represents the ultimate victory of the bunny brain over high level cognition. I don't think it's an accident that among the wealthiest, best educated and least religious communities of the developed world there's often actual population decline. But population growth elsewhere overwhelms these hopeful trends, and so the bunny brain, in the aggregate, wins the day.

    Eradicating religion and improving education levels globally would be a tremendous step in the right direction, but I don't see much progress or hope of progress for that process.
     
  13. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Shamelessly wrong.You're ignoring immigration and treating people as mindless little rational bots working only on the scale of macro forces. Even the most shameless of economists would at least throw a Ceteris Paribus thing and hope he didn't get lambasted too hard for it.
     
  14. LtNOWIS

    LtNOWIS Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 19, 2005
    The United States, Canada, and basically all of Europe (including Russia) have birthrates that are either below or just above replacement level. If those countries simply blocked immigration, than a good portion of the world would be without population growth.

    The US, I think, has the ability to feed 300 million citizens all on its own.
     
  15. SithLordDarthRichie

    SithLordDarthRichie CR Emeritus: London star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Deer are property of The Crown, like Swans. Killing them is not allowed.

    Anyway that is totally off the point. The reason there are so many is because the natural means of controlling the population was removed. Human-controlled population numbers are not being naturally managed, they are being artificially managed.

    As Humans have no natural predators it is disease and the powers of nature that are responsible for controlling population. And up until the 1800s it was doing a pretty good job since the human population was about 2billion.
    Now, due to massive advancements in science, most once deadly diseases are treatable. So death rate is no longer greater then birth rate, which equals population increase.

     
  16. Darth_Yuthura

    Darth_Yuthura Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 7, 2007
    That is an overly simplistic and naive perspective. I would go so far as to say that the US economy could face total collapse if gas prices were to double in the Middle East. Although life would still go on, losing this one resource would bring total chaos in the US.

    Yeah and look at how deeply everyone had been impacted by 9/11. And that was only 2,500 deaths. Humans may live on very easily, their ways of life can easily be disrupted by very minor events. Peak oil is only the first of a significant depletion of resources that would have dire consequences on the geography of Earth.

    You believe whatever you wish, but the reality of the situation is more dire than anyone is aware of. We're entering a stage in human development where globalization is being uprooted by a shortage of resources. US domestic oil production is only half of what it was in the 1970's... and that was in spite of advancements in technology towards oil extraction. You can't use dollars and rates of change to justify hope for the future. The only reason Americans haven't felt the effects is because a capital economy has a tendency to manipulate prices in a way that influences demand much faster than sustainable supplies can be maintained. Once global supplies come into question, who are we going to outsource to then?
     
  17. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    You know what I like? When someone says a 'situation is more dire than anyone is aware of' without offering a shred of evidence that anyone else believes this. Yet you hold the magical knowledge of this to claim it's fact. Gotta love that. I think I'm gonna go to downtown Baltimore with two slabs of cardboard on my back with, "The End Is Nigh," on them. Since the reality is much more dire than anyone knows about. Except for yourself. But I'm gonna take your word for it and just accept it as fact. Never mind trying to do anything positive for this planet or anything. Let's just give-up since the situation is very very dire. In fact, only you know it. Yep. That's just what I'll do.

    I dunno what I dislike more: doomsayers or doomsayers who think they're stating facts.
     
  18. SithLordDarthRichie

    SithLordDarthRichie CR Emeritus: London star 9

    Registered:
    Oct 3, 2003
    The doubters won't be laughing when their homes are under water and the have to push their car home because there is not petrol left and they didn't plan ahead and get a greener vehicle.

    In the end, Earth will survive whatever climate changes occur, far worse things have happened to it in the past and still it carries on.
    Human population needs a massive reduction. As bad as things might get, I doubt we'll lose nearly half the global human population, which is really what needs to happen in order for resources to be manageable.
     
  19. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Okay... Jabba, Ritchie, let's be realistic here. You say more than half the world's population needs to die. All good. But what half? And who gets to decide what half? No matter how you slice it, the one who gets to make that decision will go down in history as the worst tyrant ever. I imagine you'll get 0 applications, and if you get any, they'll be mentally unstable which would throw the responsibility back in your lap.

    So, your suggestions aren't realistic. It makes as much sense to say 'let's just double the earth's resources'.

    Your suggestions might have some merit if you'd actively start a national U.S. political organization with the aim of wiping out the Second and Third World, but you should get to it speedily, because time is tickin' away.
     
  20. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    I'd say anyone within a mile or so of the coast. See, global warming has its benefits.
     
  21. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2001
    link

    As my friend said: Wouldn't it be funny if all our efforts to combat global warming were a complete waste of time?
     
  22. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    SuperWatto. Not half. Five sixths. As I state, the solutions are too terrible to contemplate, so the problem will be solved in the old fashioned ways, through warfare and famine.
     
  23. LtNOWIS

    LtNOWIS Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 19, 2005
    Well if warfare and famine are the answer, than it looks like we can just stay the course.
     
  24. Darth_Yuthura

    Darth_Yuthura Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 7, 2007
    I don't admit that I know better than everyone else. I'd hardly consider myself an expert.

    Who uses money and market value to measure when the price of a product is predicted to rise?

    Who has considered that the greatest impact to sustainable development comes down to lifestyle change, as opposed to advanced technology being expected to make life easier?

    Who hate coal because it's a dirty fuel, yet complain when their electrical prices increase?

    Who view the 9/11 terrorists and assume that's how the Muslim world perceives the US?

    Who thinks that the US is still a democracy and that their votes still count? And that the biggest impact on politics comes from the choice between democrat and republican leadership?

    These answers probably don't surprise anyone.
     
  25. New_York_Jedi

    New_York_Jedi Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 16, 2002
    out of curiosity, where do you doomsayers get your numbers from? Earth can only sustain 1 billion people? 3 billion? Is there a reason for these, or did you pull it out of thing air?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.