World Population To Hit 7 Billion! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : World Population To Hit 7 Billion!


TangoFoxtrot
09-25-2011, 06:49
World Population Expected To Hit 7 Billion On Halloween

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/24/world-population-halloween-2011-7-billion_n_979191.html

Sounds like the only thing that will lower these numbers is a global war or a major global disaster.

bdcochran
09-25-2011, 08:28
Yet we still have people stating that when shtf, they will bug out with a pack.

Dexters
09-25-2011, 08:39
World Population Expected To Hit 7 Billion On Halloween

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/24/world-population-halloween-2011-7-billion_n_979191.html

Sounds like the only thing that will lower these numbers is a global war or a major global disaster.

Check out the deaths from the Spanish Flu and WWII - they were just speed bumps.

The world population is going to 10B by about 2050.

All types of problems will arise from that.

eracer
09-25-2011, 08:41
Gayness. It's the new population control.

Dalton Wayne
09-25-2011, 08:46
Were going to breed our self's into extinction or at least very hard times, and yes we are just as guilty, everyone thinks they gotta have two to four or more kids, hard times are a coming I tell ya

Dalton Wayne
09-25-2011, 08:55
Ivote for global ww111

rhikdavis
09-25-2011, 09:02
Were going to breed our self's into extinction or at least very hard times, and yes we are just as guilty, everyone thinks they gotta have two to four or more kids, hard times are a coming I tell ya

Who's we? Birthrates are low for the people that matter. Us Americans.

Kill yourselves now and beat the rush.

pugman
09-25-2011, 09:32
People have been trying to come up with a “how many people could live on earth” for centuries when they really should concentrate on how many people should. Anton van Leeuwenhook (1673-1723) estimated the earth could support just over 13 billion; very insightful considering most modern scientists believe the sustainable number is around 12 billion.

What is even scarier is where the increases in population are occurring. For the most part it doesn’t really matter whose numbers you use (United Nations, World Bank, etc) but for consistancy sake I will use the United Nations. For simplicity I’ve only added the high and low growth rates. These are also only from 2005-2010.

Top 20 highest growth rate countries

Liberia (4.5%), Burundi, Afghanistan, Western Sahara, East Timor, Niger, Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, Palestinian territories, Jordan, Mali, Benin, Guinea-Bissau, Yemen, Somalia, Burkina Faso, Chad, United Arab Emirates, Angola (2.78%)

Notice anything? You don’t see a lot of first world countries in there. How many of those are Muslim?

You had to go all the way down to #69 Ireland before you hit a country not in Africa, South America or the Middle east.

An interesting American monument called the Georgia Guidestones believes we should maintain a population of no more than 500 million (http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm).

Although I don’t agree with it, some of their principles make sense if you want to control population including a single world government and single language. I do agree with principle #7 (Avoid petty laws and useless officials).

Then you will run into all the people who tell you procreation is a right. I won’t go down this path except to mention it.

You also need to include quality of life. The earth could support a LOT more people than 7 billion if you 1) managed calorie intake...think of all the fat people at McDonalds on a daily intake of what they eat in a single meal at McDonalds 2) simplified diets 3) cultivated all the available land on earth.

Some estimates put the number at 33 billion; but these are 33 billion people whose sole job would be to feed each other and deal with basic human needs.

If it hits 10 billion by 2050 I would/will be very potentially alive (I’m 41 now). Not sure I even want to see it.

G29Reload
09-25-2011, 11:30
3) cultivated all the available land on earth.




I believe the amount of people we can sustain is roughly half the amount here now.


The reason why more are here is due to the artificial framework of oil and fossil fuels.

I won't get into a debate on peak oil, and I certainly never bought into the global warming nonsense.

Its like this: Without petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides, and the ability to transport food to market and power to pump massive volumes of water to where it isn't, half the current population would starve to death.

Fuel to till and prep
fuel to plant and sew
fuel to harvest
fuel to process
fuel to get to market
fuel to make fertilizer
fuel to keep bugs from destroying your crop.

Whoever controls oil, controls food.

Our midwest is also running out of what else is needed. Some say the aquifer under it is drying up.

In the next 50-100 years, something REALLY ugly is gonna happen and I don't want to be here to see it.

You could not stock enough canned goods to outlast it either.

pugman
09-25-2011, 12:20
I believe the amount of people we can sustain is roughly half the amount here now.


The reason why more are here is due to the artificial framework of oil and fossil fuels.

I won't get into a debate on peak oil, and I certainly never bought into the global warming nonsense.

Its like this: Without petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides, and the ability to transport food to market and power to pump massive volumes of water to where it isn't, half the current population would starve to death.

Fuel to till and prep
fuel to plant and sew
fuel to harvest
fuel to process
fuel to get to market
fuel to make fertilizer
fuel to keep bugs from destroying your crop.

Whoever controls oil, controls food.

Our midwest is also running out of what else is needed. Some say the aquifer under it is drying up.

In the next 50-100 years, something REALLY ugly is gonna happen and I don't want to be here to see it.

You could not stock enough canned goods to outlast it either.

The X factor in all this is technology. I am no scientist but whether peak oil is real or not the simple fact is oil is eventually going to dry up. 20, or 50 or 100 years from now it will be gone.

As for global warming I can't say anything for sure. However, I can say with 100% certainity the weather pattern in my AO has definitely changed. 25 Years ago when I hunted we had snow on the ground...sometimes 1-2' by Thanksgiving. Now? We might get a dusting. We haven't had a significant snow fall in Southern Wisconsin before 12/1 in a very long time. Heck, three Christmas's ago people were playing golf on Christmas Eve as I drove home from work.

As I type this, we have an absolute downpour hitting us. We most certainly will break a record for rain today.

As for cultivating land...I believe this estimate included human labor.

Could this planet sustain 33 billion lives long term...absolutely not.

G29Reload
09-25-2011, 12:28
The X factor in all this is technology.

Tech powered by oil.

Don't get me wrong, I love the stuff. I can't estimate when we'd ever run out of the stuff. It could go on for a couple centuries more. We might not be here to see its end.

The truth is, the explosive, locomotive, BTU capacity in a gallon of gasoline is almost indistinguishable from magic. Even diesel, with its heavy lifting power.

Black gold.

AND...the other things you can do with it. biopharma, paints, plastics, fertilizers, pesticides...almost endless.

Chuck TX
09-25-2011, 15:32
Yet we still have people stating that when shtf, they will bug out with a pack.

Well you definitely wouldn't want to bug out to India or China. :supergrin:


Were going to breed our self's into extinction or at least very hard times, and yes we are just as guilty, everyone thinks they gotta have two to four or more kids, hard times are a coming I tell ya

That's only because in many cases it's being subsidized. Stop that and it'll correct itself.

Aceman
09-25-2011, 15:55
Here is the question: Why do birthrates go up in impoverished areas? This seems contrary to reason. Less resources for more. That's not what it's all about.

High birth rate groups - no matter where or who, tend to stem from one thing: Need for survival.

If there is a 50% that your child won't make it because of low resource, you might think why have any? Or having one is your best bet. Not so.

What are the odds of AT least one child making it?
1 child = .5
2 children = .75
3 children = 1.38 or so....meaning 100% AT LEAST ONE will survive!
(or something like that)

and that's what DNA is all about no matter what you think or say.

The less likely survival, the more kids you'll have. Now take a look at that list of locations.

kirgi08
09-25-2011, 16:13
It's self evident.In the US anyway.'08.

cowboy1964
09-25-2011, 16:22
Nature will seek balance eventually, one way or the other. OTOH, human technology tends to counteract nature. What was the average life span 200 years ago, for example?

If we can provide enough water, food, and energy, there is basically no upper limit to things.

wjv
09-25-2011, 20:08
Need more ammo. . . .

TangoFoxtrot
09-26-2011, 06:25
Heres some fuel for thought! Instead of sending BILLIONS of dollars in aid to these African third world countries, maybe we should teach them birth control and send crates of condoms. I think in a lot of cases the U.S. government is too quick to send our hard earned tax dollars and be enableing their behavior. Then! When our own citizens need help during diasters FEMA suddenly is short money. Well I say take care of our own population first! :upeyes:

Vic777
09-26-2011, 06:38
Ivote for global ww111I doubt we will ever make it to ww111.

Vic777
09-26-2011, 06:41
Heres some fuel for thought! Instead of sending BILLIONS of dollars in aid to these African third world countries, How else can Politicians launder tax money and stick it in their own Swiss Bank Accounts?

TangoFoxtrot
09-26-2011, 06:54
How else can Politicians launder tax money and stick it in their own Swiss Bank Accounts?


I here ya!:rofl:

Big Bird
09-26-2011, 06:58
Affluence is the best population control. Wealthy nations and societies tend to have negative population growth. This is true in the US and most of Europe.

Bilbo Bagins
09-26-2011, 08:46
Affluence is the best population control. Wealthy nations and societies tend to have negative population growth. This is true in the US and most of Europe.

+1

Look at India and China. They use to be baby factories, but as they start come out of poverty and build a middle class, you will see a slowdown in multi children families.


What worries me is overall consumerism with a large countries like China and India coming out of poverty. People like to point fingers at American as being a wasteful and bloated culture, that uses a lot of the worlds resources. Sure Americans, and other western cultures do use up a lot of resorces, Its what happens when you are a modern country that has little poverty. However, what happens when instead of 300 Million American are all driving cars and burning up billions of gallons of oil a year, eating billions of tons of food, using billions of gallons of water, using billions of tons raw materials, you now have 4 billion Chinese and Indians doing the same thing.

I think we are going to start running out of resources and it will probably lead to war.

G29Reload
09-26-2011, 11:29
Well you definitely wouldn't want to bug out to India or China.

...you'll work hard with a gun in your back
for a bowl of rice a day...

DK's, Holiday in Cambodia

cyrsequipment
09-26-2011, 13:17
I doubt we will ever make it to ww111.

We're already in WWIII


As for the population part, God (or if you believe different, Allah, The Great Spirit, Mother Nature, Aliens or The Great Pumpkin) is gonna do something to crush down the population at some point.

This planet cannot sustain a population much larger. Eventually there will be a pandemic, war, meteor, something that will knock us down either partially or totally.

If we are not totally wiped out then I hope those that remain have the wisdom to do things a bit smarter than we have...

B.Mauser
09-26-2011, 13:27
Need more ammo. . . .

Exactly what this made me think too.

G29Reload
09-26-2011, 13:56
This planet cannot sustain a population much larger. Eventually there will be a pandemic, war, meteor, something that will knock us down either partially or totally..


Meteors don't arrive because we overpopulate. Pretty random!

The other stuff, sure...:supergrin:

cyrsequipment
09-27-2011, 05:00
Meteors don't arrive because we overpopulate. Pretty random!

The other stuff, sure...:supergrin:

Well, true, BUT my statement was that God (or other deity) would "send" one....:tongueout:

pugman
09-27-2011, 05:32
Heres some fuel for thought! Instead of sending BILLIONS of dollars in aid to these African third world countries, maybe we should teach them birth control and send crates of condoms. I think in a lot of cases the U.S. government is too quick to send our hard earned tax dollars and be enableing their behavior. Then! When our own citizens need help during diasters FEMA suddenly is short money. Well I say take care of our own population first! :upeyes:

The boatloads of condoms will never happen.

First you will have to fight you way through the army of religious charities who help feed this part of the world. This isn't a rip on these organizations-they probably do a lot more good than I will ever do-but the Catholic church will fight you on this.

Second, your point is absolutely and utterly the single most true statement on the web. The Federal Government of the U.S knows NO OTHER ACTION than to throw money at a problem...look at Obama's stimulus package...or Bush's $600 early tax refund several years ago. Politicans have dumbed down to the point their only courses of action are to 1) throw money at it 2) take money away from it. Prime example and completely off topic to make the point. Look at Wisconsins' drunk driving law.

Our BAL was .10 for decades. The federal government told Wisconsin lower it to .08 or lose all federal highway funding.

Anyone can see lowering it makes sense...its safer for Wisconsin roads...we get our share of billions...and the loss in federal dollars easily outweighs any loss in state income due to lower sales and liquor tax revenues.

I have a unique perspective on this. A cousin of mine has worked at numerous African relief effots at a very high level including Save the Children a education program designed to develop programs related to women's health and education in Africa. Its like trying to empty the ocean with a thimble.

In his own experience and words, bringing condoms to this part of the world is a lost cause.

SDDL-UP
09-27-2011, 22:37
They myth of "overpopulation" has been debunked every day for the past 100 years. New innovations in food production and preservation happen all the time. Don't worry about this issue - it's that simple.

TangoFoxtrot
09-28-2011, 04:20
Quote :"I have a unique perspective on this. A cousin of mine has worked at numerous African relief effots at a very high level including Save the Children a education program designed to develop programs related to women's health and education in Africa. Its like trying to empty the ocean with a thimble".

"In his own experience and words, bringing condoms to this part of the world is a lost cause".

Well than let the catholic and other organizations use their own (undonated) funds for the lost cause, if its a waste of time. Their are folks in my area (Tax paying citizens) still under water and without a home from flash floods because FEMA has no money!

pugman
09-28-2011, 05:09
Quote :"I have a unique perspective on this. A cousin of mine has worked at numerous African relief effots at a very high level including Save the Children a education program designed to develop programs related to women's health and education in Africa. Its like trying to empty the ocean with a thimble".

"In his own experience and words, bringing condoms to this part of the world is a lost cause".

Well than let the catholic and other organizations use their own (undonated) funds for the lost cause, if its a waste of time. Their are folks in my area (Tax paying citizens) still under water and without a home from flash floods because FEMA has no money!

I agree. Ironically, he was a U.S Congressman...who went to become an Ambassador for an African nation...then ended up running this charity (all along collecting a deep 6 figure salary...while running a charity....seems a little strange doesn't it)

In reality its a smoke and mirrors job. Culturally the nations he was involved with were against it. Considering the infant mortality rate, many woman need to have 6-7 children to have 1-2 live past the age of 5. At least in the experience he conveyed to me the biggest obstacle were the men. Even if the woman wanted to use protection the men were simply against it.

TangoFoxtrot
09-29-2011, 00:39
I agree. Ironically, he was a U.S Congressman...who went to become an Ambassador for an African nation...then ended up running this charity (all along collecting a deep 6 figure salary...while running a charity....seems a little strange doesn't it)

In reality its a smoke and mirrors job. Culturally the nations he was involved with were against it. Considering the infant mortality rate, many woman need to have 6-7 children to have 1-2 live past the age of 5. At least in the experience he conveyed to me the biggest obstacle were the men. Even if the woman wanted to use protection the men were simply against it.


See the above high-lighted statement...Then just let them starve, its that simple. Its all self inflicted.:upeyes: