The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Milkman

World population to reach 9.2B in 2050



By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer March 14, 2007


Entire & Link: World population to reach 9.2B in 2050 - Yahoo! News

-
I've always believed that over-population would be a serious dilemma as water and food sources, pollution, cities with high density, would strain too much.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

_____________

blackgang

Damn there are so many people that they are ruining everything on the planet now.
Not enough water, forest products, food, space, I would say it was over populated when it was 4 billion

Milkman

I totally agree, BG.

It seems no one really pays much attention to this topic.

And also, I do not see any way to stop population growth.

Lower birth rates in these countries? I don't see it happening.

Famine, AIDS, and war will not reduce the increase of the population enough.


I don't think the Earth's future is limited to Global Warming, although it's an issue that is likely going to be serious.

Overpopulation will be very serious.

DrB0b

A lot depends on whether you look at it on a global scale or on
a national scale. Overpopulation is the ratio of population to
available resources. On a global scale, given fair distribution of
resources, there shouldn't be any overpopulation problem. Of
course a fair distribution of resources isn't going to happen
anytime soon. On a national scale some countries have a very
serious problem given that they lack the resources needed to
sustain their populations and that whatever resources they have
are generally stolen by the political and military elites. I think that, like
many world problems, the solutions are available but not implemented
because they provide no benefits to the powerful and the greedy.

The blame doesn't lie with those at the bottom of the heap but with
those who take more than their fair share.

Whiteshiva

Increasing the living standard in the developing world would be the best bet. When people are better off and better informed, they do tend to get fewer children.

__________________
Any error in tact, fact or spelling is purely due to transmissional errors...

man with no head

Wrong. Increased living standards = increased appetite for resources. Do you really want to see what happens when 2-3 billion people have living standards like those in the U.S.?

The guy in Los Angeles driving his Expedition to work every day places more demand on world resources that a family of 15 in Issan.

Mr Earl

Good news for countries like Thailand who are net exporters of food and many other consumable products.

Good news for countries like the USA where "wide open space" is becoming a valuable commodity.

man with no head

There are no more 'wide open spaces' where people actually want to live

Milkman

Good point. Although some regions seems overpopulated for the resources they have. But I do agree with you. the U.S. has x amount of the world's population (minute) but waste 50% of the world's energy, so they say.

Whiteshiva

Who is talking about the US? When I speak of increasing living standards for the poor, I am talking about access to clean water, proper health care and education and free information about family planning. Surely you wouldn't want to deny anyone these "privileges"?

None of this need to have a detrimental effect on the environment, or the worlds renewable resources. More likely, it will improve the situation - provided the poor don't get as ignorant and egocentrical as you yanks are.

man with no head

Consider this as well: the poor are most likely to get things locally. What are the chances that my wife's family buys a single imported item? Very small. In the U.S. what are the chances something is imported? Very high. Imports = more waste and more pollution.

The wealthy, on the other hand, are too willing to pay $5 for that bottle of mineral water which was flown half-way around the world just to be pissed down the toilet.

Overpopulation by the poor threatens very little when compared to how wasteful others are.

blackgang

The world is over populated now.
As was said, about everything in the US is imported, they have outsoursed all the jobs in factorys and people are out of work by the millions I would say, Homeless and others just barely getting by because of no jobs and immigrants by the thousands or millions coming every day with no chance of a job. The only thing that they export anymore is foodstuffs, mostly grain. Millions out of work.

Thailand does export some consumables, world top exporter of rice, some chickens going out but not many,,bird flu, Not many shrimp going out because they are raised in contaminated ponds. And lots of people out of work.

India ,lots of people, lots of jobs now but most are filled and a lot of people out of work

Most of africa has a lot of people, do no work and have no food or money to pay someone else to grow it for them, lots of people out of work.

When the worlds population gets to such a point that there are millions of people out of work and looking for jobs and a hungry gut,, now thats over population.

Does anyone know of a place in the world that has a lot of jobs and no people living there that can do the work?? I don't mean jobs and a lot of people not working, but where everyone that wants a job can have one??

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Political Correctness: A doctrine, fosteredby a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

mad_dog

9 billion people can't live the "fat arse" UK/sepo don't give a shit lifestyle for long thats for certain. It would be death by fist fucking for mother nature.

That's part of the problem about the climate change debate: have other factors like population growth been figured into the equations ?

__________________
They champion falsehood, support the butcher against the victim, the oppressor against the innocent child. May God mete them the punishment they deserve

Hootad Binky

I made a new thread out of this post - off-topic.

attaboy

Being ignorant and egocentric is not a learned trait. It comes natural for plenty of people. I don't want to sound like I'm beating up on the poor but they aren't saints. Out of necessity or ignorance many strip the trees for fuel, over fish the waters, overgraze their pastures, over hunt wild game, and they pollute their water supply. According to Al Gore one-third of the CO2 released into the atmosphere is from people setting fires to clear land or make charcoal.

Off topic: I agree raising the living standard eventually brings about a a slower population growth. So what is the problem with the basic liberal economic theory of globalization? It's raising the living standards in less developed countries. As the foreign currency moves through the economy it can be taxed and used for public projects. It's up to their learning institutions to educate the people not to be too egocentric.

__________________
As a kid I always thought my nickname was "attaboy" until I realized they were rooting for the dog: "Attaboy, get 'em! Get 'em!".

man with no head

You're going to have to convince me that a poor person clearing a patch of land using fire is worse than another person in one of the industrialized countries who buys a new computer every year because his old one is infected with pop-ups and porn.

Do you realize the amount of environmental destruction caused by someone in Southen California, for example, by the time he or she burns up one gallon of gasoline (including the destruction caused to produce the car they replace every few years as well)? I seriously doubt that on a per capita basis that the guy in Issan burning the rice paddy comes even remotely close to the typical lifestyle of a Westerner when it comes to CO^2 production let alone liquid or solid waste.

Overfishing? Do you not think the real cause of overfishing is caused by the hungry appetites of those in restaurants in aflluent societies thousands of miles away? Every bit of the frozen seafood I see in my local markets comes from either China, Vietnam, or Thailand. How wasteful is it to carry those items nearly 10,000 miles from their point of origin?

What about the typical method in the West of using tons of chemicals and petroleum based fertilizers to produce the same food that is grown without those items in the poor parts of the world because the poor cannot afford them?

stroller

Look at China and the social and environmental probs created.

Careful, developing countries aren't exactly squeamish in their use of chemicals.

attaboy

Like I said I don't want to sound like I'm beating up on the poor but they aren't saints. So I guess that aspect of discussion (one-third of the CO2 released into the atmosphere) is out of bounds else I'll sound like a capitalist pig. You stated the poor are most likely to gather things locally. They can and do devastate the environment locally I don't know about you but when I change my oil I don't pour it out on the side of the house. I don't have a garbage dump in my backyard where I throw all my paint cans and solvents. Have you ever seen a toilet which is a plank of wood extending over a river so you shit right in the water? The poor can be educated and they can participate in reforestation programs. It's a form of a farming and it's low tech. You make good points. But don't word them as if I personally believe the burden should be on the poor to clean up the mess so I can sip water from France.



Here's a couple of pics of the deforestation and subsequent erosion of Haiti's landscape. It's caused by a demand for charcoal. Can the land be restored or is it lost? Where will the funds come from to restore it after the damage is done? The mud from the hills rushes down into the sea and destroys the fishing grounds. The silt drifts out into the ocean and chokes reefs as it settles. In November of 1994 they had mudslides which killed 800 people. I don't have that obvious of an impact on my local environment and I don't know if I do on the earth overall. The Haitians are doing a hell of a job destroying things around them.


Here's a pic of the Haitian/Dominican Republic border. Granted somewhere else along the border might not show such a glaring difference in the two methods of stewardship.

Also the Dominicans have designated certain reefs out of bounds for fishing. Those specific reefs renew the fish stock in other areas so the available food source is sustainable. They also regulate size limits for fish and the type of nets used. The Haitians don't do any of these things and their waters are nowhere near as productive. (note I have not personally been to Haiti or the Dominican Republic so I must rely on media sources for information)