Overpopulation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

I for one don't think our species will ever reach 11 billion. The planet wont allow or sustain it. We have already fucked it up enough that we have trouble living.

---

Can you expand on that? I'm not sure what you think the planet can possibly do to prevent it. With modern medicine we're living for much longer and keeping on top of any viruses nature is throwing at us.

It's a very simple equation. The world will never get any bigger than it is, that's a given and the population is expanding rapidly. The OP talks about the year 2100, but what about 2200? What about 2600? There will have to come a time when we simply don't have enough space to live and will have to deal with the ever increasing health and crime problems that go with it.

Put a half full glass of water under a tap and turn the tap on. Even if the tap is only dripping, there will have to come a time in the future that it's full and over flowing. The glass isn't going to get any bigger nor is it capable of turning the tap off.

The only chance we have, is if we have the technology to colonise other planets before this happens, which I'm not convinced we will.

---

We have only gotten as far as this due to our tech keeping pace with population. At some point our tech will fail be it by natural disaster or just the limits of exponential growth.

Nature seems to have an overpopulation machanic built in. When a species becomes to much of a burden on environmental resources it is usually put back into balance from disease or food shortage. Our tech has kept up with both so far but imo it will hit a wall at some point.

I dont see us ever colonizing other planets if we cant come up with anything better than fuel propelled rockets.

^ Natural disasters helping the issue is a real possibility but that isn't really as a direct result of over population and therefore can't really be deemed to be the planet dealing with the problem itself. Not only that but the Boxing day tsunami was the biggest such event in 40,000 years or so and it didn't scratch the surface of world population.

I can see the planet changing dramatically and for want of a better word 'dying' at our hands but I can't see it ever fighting back. I don't think it will ever be able to do what's best for population numbers as it can with other less intelligent creatures. We've long since evolved past that point IMO.

Even under populated, the issues [and problems] would remain the same.


Still not getting it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

I don't think it will ever be able to do what's best for population numbers as it can with other less intelligent creatures. We've long since evolved past that point IMO.

---

You are wrong. Being able to feed so many requires a quite stable weather pattern that allows us to grow food in certain places. If climate change only shifts the weather patterns we can adjust, moving the areas where the food is grown. However at this time it seems likely the changed weather patterns will not be stable. So growing food in one place is possible this year but not next year. Or hurricanes or sudden rain or cold period will destroy crops before harvest. This will severely reduce the ability to feed so many people.

^ But we have the technology to grow artificial food in artificial environments, and we can change our habits and change our diets if necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

^ But we have the technology to grow artificial food in artificial environments, and we can change our habits and change our diets if necessary.

---

But this would support a much smaller population. If we can maintain a technical civilisation under these conditions that might be possible. I am not sure we can, though.

It does not mean humanity cannot survive. But maybe back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle with the earth supporting a few million people max. And whole regions depopulated occasionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

^ But we have the technology to grow artificial food in artificial environments, and we can change our habits and change our diets if necessary.

---

But this would support a much smaller population. If we can maintain a technical civilisation under these conditions that might be possible. I am not sure we can, though.

It does not mean humanity cannot survive. But maybe back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle with the earth supporting a few million people max. And whole regions depopulated occasionally.

---

With the right technology I don't see why scale would be a problem.

What are you suggesting happens between now and the future that has just a few million hunter gatherers? It's what we do to get past the over population problem that's the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

With the right technology I don't see why scale would be a problem.

---

Are the costs of the use of technology decreasing the cost of the food?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

With the right technology I don't see why scale would be a problem. What are you suggesting happens between now and the future that has just a few million hunter gatherers? It's what we do to get past the over population problem that's the issue.

---

The basis of everything would be energy, lots of it. There will likely be much more cloud cover so less energy from solar farms. Mabe more wind so more from wind power. However that goes between zero wind and too much wind for power generation and it is not always available when needed. Simple and cheap fusion power seems to be the only way that could sustain a technical society under these conditions.

One big problem would be the transitional period. Billions of people starving and ready to wage war for the next bowl of rice or bread. Those with high technology would have to be absolutely ruthless in killing those billions to protect their own resources. If and when they succeed they can build up a new society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

Boxing day tsunami was the biggest such event in 40,000 years or so and it didn't scratch the surface of world population.

---

Actually, it pales when you think of the plague...

Stored energy and stored food and water to help through the "lean times"...

Even though we have come a long way "reducing our waste" or recycling, we are still extremely wasteful...And the whole world is not nearly "farmed" as efficiently as it could be...

Probably the politics and our own nasty nature will prevent complete cooperation unless there is a "messiah" to lead us...

Even so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

With the right technology I don't see why scale would be a problem. What are you suggesting happens between now and the future that has just a few million hunter gatherers? It's what we do to get past the over population problem that's the issue.

---

The basis of everything would be energy, lots of it. There will likely be much more cloud cover so less energy from solar farms. Mabe more wind so more from wind power. However that goes between zero wind and too much wind for power generation and it is not always available when needed. Simple and cheap fusion power seems to be the only way that could sustain a technical society under these conditions.

One big problem would be the transitional period. Billions of people starving and ready to wage war for the next bowl of rice or bread. Those with high technology would have to be absolutely ruthless in killing those billions to protect their own resources. If and when they succeed they can build up a new society.

---

I like what you're saying but are you not contradicting yourself slightly? You said I was wrong to suggest that the planet isn't capable of preventing itself from becoming over populated, but then go on to describe the power and starvation issues we will face once we have become over populated. Bit of a chicken and egg situation going on.

At the end of the day all these theories and ideas are very interesting but pretty fruitless. Nobody can possibly dispute that over population is almost certainly going to become a major issue at some time in the future. The question is what do we start doing about it NOW?

I kid you not, I honestly believe this is such a major issue that seriously drastic measures need to be implemented asap. Things such as it being illegal for anybody to have children they can't afford to look after properly. No more than two children for anybody eventually. And even forced sterilisation for people convicted of serious crimes and people who have been proven to be incapable of looking after the children they already have. (no not joking) If we then need to end up copying the chinks with only a single child each then so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

I like what you're saying but are you not contradicting yourself slightly? You said I was wrong to suggest that the planet isn't capable of preventing itself from becoming over populated, but then go on to describe the power and starvation issues we will face once we have become over populated. Bit of a chicken and egg situation going on.

---

Not really. The earth does not prevent overpopulation. She regulates it with the methods I described. Animal populations go through cycles too. More rabbits, more predators feeding on them. Reduction of rabbit population, number of predators go down. With humans it would be climate if we don't act ourselves. Sometimes I believe it is already too late. A disease with the mortality rate of Ebola and the infection ways of the common cold could help there. But maybe not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

I kid you not, I honestly believe this is such a major issue that seriously drastic measures need to be implemented asap. Things such as it being illegal for anybody to have children they can't afford to look after properly. No more than two children for anybody eventually.

---

Two children? China doubled its population despite one child per family. That's because of the population pyramid they started with. It now no longer is a pyramid but a cylinder so growth tapers off and two children become possible for stable population. Countries like the Philippines would too at least double their population with a one child policy. India the same. Now if Africa joins the race with a population explosion .............

I see 20 Billion people coming up with a two children policy.:spin:

^ Sorry for being slow but I don't get what point you're making. Limiting the number of children allowed to two and then to one may not be enough but how could it possibly be anything other than an improvement and a good place to start?

If China doubled it's population with the one kid rule, what would have happened if they hadn't implemented it?

It's simply utter fucking madness that inbred fuckwits who aren't even capable of keeping themselves bathed and wearing clean clothes, let alone educated and employed, are allowed to bring 3, 4, 6, you name it amount of children in to the world. Needs to he stopped asap!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

^ Sorry for being slow but I don't get what point you're making. Limiting the number of children allowed to two and then to one may not be enough but how could it possibly be anything other than an improvement and a good place to start?

---

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I mean 2 children is still too many in large parts of the world. It really needs 1 like China. I am aware though that even a 2 children policy would not be enforcible anywhere except China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

It's simply utter fucking madness that inbred fuckwits who aren't even capable of keeping themselves bathed and wearing clean clothes, let alone educated and employed, are allowed to bring 3, 4, 6, you name it amount of children in to the world. Needs to he stopped asap!

---

Full agreement. But of course we have no right to interfere with the internal policy or culture of any country. But then maybe we should not interfere with the next famine or Ebola outbreak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

^ Sorry for being slow but I don't get what point you're making. Limiting the number of children allowed to two and then to one may not be enough but how could it possibly be anything other than an improvement and a good place to start?

---

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I mean 2 children is still too many in large parts of the world. It really needs 1 like China. I am aware though that even a 2 children policy would not be enforcible anywhere except China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

It's simply utter fucking madness that inbred fuckwits who aren't even capable of keeping themselves bathed and wearing clean clothes, let alone educated and employed, are allowed to bring 3, 4, 6, you name it amount of children in to the world. Needs to he stopped asap!

---

Full agreement. But of course we have no right to interfere with the internal policy or culture of any country. But then maybe we should not interfere with the next famine or Ebola outbreak.

---

If the weather patterns keep destabilizing like they have been then we wont have to worry about overpopulation as most will starve to death before population becomes a problem.

How quickly do you think the population will decrease if people couldn't go down to the local Walmart or whatever and pick up enough food to feed their 6 welfare fatherless children? How many would be able to hunt and grow their own food?

The developing nations would fare better imo just because they are not too far removed from that lifestyle yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

The developing nations would fare better imo just because they are not too far removed from that lifestyle yet.

---

That is an interesting avenue to explore...I've often thought about how much hardier they are...

One of the "masters" says: "All you need is to breathe"...

I read a lot of bullshit here - such as you shouldn’t have babies you can’t afford, and stripping people of their wealth.

As if thats the issue with overpopulation.

We face a few things, even at current population levels:
- We run out of clean drinking water, not only to drink, but also to use for the production of a lot of other things, including the meat you eat;
- Resources are limited, and will run out. To believe that we can maintain our current levels of consumption, let alone the levels of consumption for 11 billion, that’s ignoring reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

How quickly do you think the population will decrease if people couldn't go down to the local Walmart or whatever and pick up enough food to feed their 6 welfare fatherless children? How many would be able to hunt and grow their own food?

---

You may underestimate peoples ability to adapt. That's not what's missing.

The problem is that this kind of subsistence living will not support that many people. Yields way down without fertilizers and pesticides, lack of transport and storage. Where I live, in densely populated Germany I think less than 10% of the present population could be sustained. And that is not counting adverse weather effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeovers

You may underestimate peoples ability to adapt.

---

I don't think so. By the time most "normal" people get hungry enough to scavenge for food the stronger people will have already taken most of whats available and started to killing off the weaker. Most people I know from the west would not eat an animal if they had to catch and kill it hell they wont even eat a fish if it has the head on it.

^ You'd be amazed how quickly that would change when real hunger/starvation kicked in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warrior

I read a lot of bullshit here - such as you shouldn’t have babies you can’t afford, and stripping people of their wealth.

As if thats the issue with overpopulation.

We face a few things, even at current population levels:
- We run out of clean drinking water, not only to drink, but also to use for the production of a lot of other things, including the meat you eat;
- Resources are limited, and will run out. To believe that we can maintain our current levels of consumption, let alone the levels of consumption for 11 billion, that’s ignoring reality.

---

So bringing babies in to the world that you can't afford to take care of is a good idea is it?

With resources already so limited as you mention, how can you possibly say reducing the amount of people in the world isn't an extremely important part of the solution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fozzy

^ You'd be amazed how quickly that would change when real hunger/starvation kicked in.

---

Oh I agree with you but I think it would be too late for most by the time they were hungry enough most easily available food sources would be gone and most city and suburban dwellers don't have the physical or mental abilities to hunt or grow anything.

A major global policy for reducing the population would benefit mankind and the planet.

It is the amount of people that cause our problems, a numerical reduction would arrest global warming, would help conserve our fossil fuels etc.

However this could only be achieved if the human race were in harmony or had a global leader, unfortunately we have neither.
The closest we have as a leader is the USA but leadership from this source is a joke, the clowns still believe in an old book that allows them to go forth and multiply!

The religions that dictate that the man in the sky will take care should now be ignored and serious action taken before we pass the point of no return for big blue.

Any suggestions for a global leader?...