|
|
Post by beth on Nov 7, 2011 22:02:21 GMT -5
So ...
7 Billion People
Can the earth sustain continued population growth?
If not, what do you think will bring it under control?
Will countries with run-away increases need to take on a China-like set of policies and mandates to reduce reproduction?
Or ... are we sitting on a powder keg, waiting for some kind of thinning process - war, disease, major natural disaster - to bring things back to a reasonable level?
What are your thoughts (shallow or deep)?
|
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 8, 2011 5:57:39 GMT -5
we are living on a powder keg
and a culling will happen...but it will have to be a massive culling to thin out the worlds population
the optimum population for the UK to handle is 3o-40 and we are way way ahead of that
that is the size of population this island can sustain happily with uncrowding
rats turn on each other in over crowded living space...and so do humans and we can see the results on our society..stress..angciety...neurosis..depression...the numbers of still births and early and malformed births..a depletion of good genetic strains...violence and anti social behaviour in general etc etc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2011 12:15:17 GMT -5
Can the earth sustain continued population growth? Yup what do you think will bring it under control? Why bother? Will countries with run-away increases need to take on a China-like set of policies and mandates to reduce reproduction? Does it matter? Or ... are we sitting on a powder keg, waiting for some kind of thinning process - war, disease, major natural disaster - to bring things back to a reasonable level? What exactly is reasonable? There are resources to support a trillion people, let alone a measly 7 billion. We went through this irrational population "explosion" nonsense in the 1970s. Our ego problem persists forty years later. We still maintain the fiction that the planet Earth is ours to save. It isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Nov 8, 2011 12:27:17 GMT -5
Can the earth sustain continued population growth? Yup Why bother? Does it matter? Or ... are we sitting on a powder keg, waiting for some kind of thinning process - war, disease, major natural disaster - to bring things back to a reasonable level? What exactly is reasonable? There are resources to support a trillion people, let alone a measly 7 billion. We went through this irrational population "explosion" nonsense in the 1970s. Our ego problem persists forty years later. We still maintain the fiction that the planet Earth is ours to save. It isn't. Joseph A trillion? Most amusing. Ecology doesn't come into it, I suppose. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2011 12:45:19 GMT -5
A trillion? Most amusing. Ecology doesn't come into it, I suppose. The resources are available. There would be suffering, but it would work. The problems of the world are a function of politics, not of population. Controlling the population doesn't solve all the political problems. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Nov 8, 2011 13:48:04 GMT -5
A trillion? Most amusing. Ecology doesn't come into it, I suppose. The resources are available. There would be suffering, but it would work. The problems of the world are a function of politics, not of population. Controlling the population doesn't solve all the political problems. Well that really depends. Like a good many other higher species, Homo Sapiens is a territorial animal. When resources run out in an area the natural order of events tends to involve a (mass) migration into another groups territory. Globally, water usage has increased by six times in the past 100 years and will double again by 2050, driven mainly by irrigation and demands of agriculture. Some countries have already run out of water to produce their own food. Without improvements . In the US large areas are already using substantially more water than can be naturally replenished. Population growth and economic development will lead to nearly one in two people in Africa living in countries facing water scarcity or what is known as 'water stress' within 25 years. A trillion... I don't think so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2011 14:17:59 GMT -5
A trillion... I don't think so. The Earth can't run out of water. It's a closed system. There's something like 300 million cubic MILES of water, plenty enough for a trillion people. All you have to do is take the salt out of it. There is enough biomass, too, to support the species, assuming it doesn't destroy itself. If it does, it won't be because of population. |
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Nov 8, 2011 14:47:14 GMT -5
The Earth can't run out of water. It's a closed system. There's something like 300 million cubic MILES of water, plenty enough for a trillion people. All you have to do is take the salt out of it. Joe, believe me, it's not 'that' simple - apart from the question of where the salt you remove would be put, the energy required to produce potable water from salt water is massive |
|
|
|
Post by maggie on Nov 8, 2011 14:48:23 GMT -5
As Fret says, if food runs out in a country, people will migrate to another. Maybe GM crops are the answer. I understand they are grown in large amounts in the USA though some countries are against GM food for a number of reasons. Better than people starving that's for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2011 14:52:19 GMT -5
Joe, believe me, it's not 'that' simple - apart from the question of where the salt you remove would be put, the energy required to produce potable water from salt water is massive It matters not how much energy is required to produce potable water from saline. It's THERE. It's done in California. It can be done anywhere. People die of thirst and hunger because of politics, not for lack of water and food. |
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Nov 8, 2011 16:22:19 GMT -5
Joe, believe me, it's not 'that' simple - apart from the question of where the salt you remove would be put, the energy required to produce potable water from salt water is massive It matters not how much energy is required to produce potable water from saline. It's THERE. It's done in California. It can be done anywhere. People die of thirst and hunger because of politics, not for lack of water and food. But it DOES matter - the scale of what you're proposing beggars belief  There's another point too - you start buggering about with the oceans; that would change weather patterns, temperature gradients - who knows what might happen? |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Nov 8, 2011 17:36:02 GMT -5
A trillion... I don't think so. The Earth can't run out of water. It's a closed system. There's something like 300 million cubic MILES of water, plenty enough for a trillion people. All you have to do is take the salt out of it. There is enough biomass, too, to support the species, assuming it doesn't destroy itself. If it does, it won't be because of population. So that's the plan, drink the seas dry. Bad news for landlocked countries, though. But even if we could get around the expensive pitfalls Mark pointed out, food will be a limiting factor. Large parts of the globe just aren't an agricultural go. These areas are not static either, they move in response to variations in the climate. Crops and rains often fail, as they always have done. Desalinated irrigation is far too expensive to contemplate, it's not great on the environment either. We haven't mentioned the fact that animals need water too. And we need ecosystems. It would be nice to hang on to some marine life.  There is no way the planet's carrying capacity could extend to a trillion, no way at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2011 18:59:05 GMT -5
So that's the plan, drink the seas dry. Bad news for landlocked countries, though. But even if we could get around the expensive pitfalls Mark pointed out, food will be a limiting factor. Large parts of the globe just aren't an agricultural go. These areas are not static either, they move in response to variations in the climate. Crops and rains often fail, as they always have done. All problems of a purely political nature. Surely the world's starry-eyed iThinkers shall overcome, by the time our population reaches a trillion?  Desalinated irrigation is far too expensive to contemplate, it's not great on the environment either. Agriculture does not require soil. We haven't mentioned the fact that animals need water too. OK, so we reserve a few million cubic miles for them. There is no way the planet's carrying capacity could extend to a trillion In terms of biomass, we comprise a minority species, and would if multiplied 160-fold (to a trillion members). It is therefore irrational to suggest what the planet's carrying capacity really is, since the population density of the world is already so low. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2011 19:04:18 GMT -5
But it DOES matter - the scale of what you're proposing beggars belief I'm suggesting that the math of the doomsayers is wrong. Mathematically, the resources exist to support a world population of a trillion people. It is simply a question of management and distribution. There's another point too - you start buggering about with the oceans; that would change weather patterns, temperature gradients - who knows what might happen? The species has adapted quite well so far. We have figured out how to live in space and on the moon. We can certainly figure out how to adapt to climate change. We survived much worse climate change in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Nov 9, 2011 1:03:51 GMT -5
Well, Joe, you seem to have it all worked out. I'm still not convinced, though. Sorry.
Water is the big issue, then food, & then there's that ole' devil of 'human nature', plus power requirements etc etc
Nah, ain't going to happen. Apart from the pitfalls we've already mentioned, mankind WILL destroy the world we know, & it'll probably start somewhere between the east coast of the Mediterranean and west of Dondra Head...
|
|
Omega
