Risk of overpopulation [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Risk of overpopulation


RWBlue
03-12-2012, 21:14
This is a theoretical question. I would like to see some out of the box thinking. I think I have the basic facts correct, if not let me know where I have it wrong along with a link to the correct info.

The earth is only so large and only has so many resources. Some resources are renewable. Some resources do not renew for lifetimes.

The population is growing. The people from more developed countries (better educated, more skilled) are not reproducing as fast as the less developed countries (less skilled, less educated). At the same time the baby boomer generation in America is getting older and dare I say dying off.

There is more than enough food now to feed everyone on earth right now, but that will not be the case in the next 30 years.

The questions I have come up with so far….
Are my facts correct?
Will there be a price correction as the baby boomer generation passes, will there be a price correction in America for property or …?
Can something be done about the population/population control? Will the gov. do something to help or hurt the overpopulation? Should we do something to effect the population?
Should we do something now with the understanding that the population will continue to grow?

What are the odds of technology increasing to the point that we will have a colony on another planet in the next 30 years?

Carry16
03-12-2012, 21:44
Here's a book I read - and believed to an extent - in 1968 - projected mass starvation in the 70's and 80's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

janice6
03-12-2012, 21:48
This is the same story I got from the teacher when I was in grade school (1940's). She said when the earth's population got to four Billion people, everyone would starve.

Aint gonna happen now either. Not while there's money to be made creating food.

RWBlue
03-12-2012, 22:24
This is the same story I got from the teacher when I was in grade school (1940's). She said when the earth's population got to four Billion people, everyone would starve.

Aint gonna happen now either. Not while there's money to be made creating food.

It looks like you are saying that this will never happen.

Although my time frame may be wrong, this risk will come to pass sooner or later. Assuming we don't leave this planet, this risk will come to play. There is only so much technology can do.

janice6
03-12-2012, 22:27
It looks like you are saying that this will never happen.

Although my time frame may be wrong, this risk will come to pass sooner or later. Assuming we don't leave this planet, this risk will come to play. There is only so much technology can do.


I'm saying that there's always Soylent Green.

(I never say Never)

RedHaze
03-12-2012, 22:35
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q16o9WsyUN8/TyBsw8YxUbI/AAAAAAAAKuE/ejG4oCHLyGs/s1600/soylent-green.jpg

Devans0
03-12-2012, 22:50
Poorest countries have many children to insure that some will survive to take care of parents in their old age. As infant mortality drops and education increases, births. decline. Our capacity to grow food is far from tapped. Even progressing to a manual plow will increase food output to third world countries 10 fold. We are ate the threshold of creating plankton protein and fuel. That is a hundred fold increase of food production, and fuel too. The future doesn't have to be grim.

Some countries will climb out of poverty and underdevelopment. Others will languish, held down and bled dry by the jackboots of despots. Food is a political weapon to deprive ones enemies of life, amidst plenty, rotting in warehouses. Life can be mean. There are no guarantees, or fairness doctrines.

www.globalrichlist.com/ (http://www.globalrichlist.com/) to see where you rate in world income....an eye opener.

racerford
03-12-2012, 23:27
Over population is a self correcting situation. It happens in nature all the time. We are more mobile that most animals and have opposable thumbs, tools, weapons of mass destruction, and large brains by comparison. We cope better than most animals.

Malthus was quite popular and wrong. His projections were the subject of high school debate competitions in the late 70's.

donthelegend
03-12-2012, 23:48
The questions I have come up with so far….
Are my facts correct?
Will there be a price correction as the baby boomer generation passes, will there be a price correction in America for property or …?
Can something be done about the population/population control? Will the gov. do something to help or hurt the overpopulation? Should we do something to effect the population?
Should we do something now with the understanding that the population will continue to grow?

I think the only flaw in your scenario is that it doesn't accurately take into account technological advancement (or at least I don't think it does). I think technology will keep up for longer than 30 years. I have no facts to back up that statement because its pretty much impossible to predict technological advances. However, necessity WILL push technology faster, especially if it becomes a global problem and is not just limited to one nation.

Out of curiosity, where do you get the 30 year figure for not being able to feed the population? I'm not doubting it, just curious.

WRT something being done about the population/population control... I think the best answer is responsible potential parents. Look around before you decide to bring a new person into the world. If you have trouble feeding yourself, you probably shouldn't be adding another mouth to feed. Now that may be unrealistic, and looking at things today there are too many situations where that already doesn't happen, but for the sake of discussion I'll be idealistic about it and say that is what we should do.

For the .gov to step in and enforce some sort of active population control would have serious repercussions with the populace, and would mean that things are bad. I don't really see any way for population control to not set off a lot of people (although if the situation gets bad enough for this to even be a serious discussion, people are probably going to be thinking much differently than they are today and I don't really have a way to comprehend that).

rilkil23
03-12-2012, 23:55
Don't blame me, I'm not getting any..........

Brian Lee
03-13-2012, 02:10
Our teachers may have been wrong about 4 billion people being too many, but there has to be a limit somewhere. Can the world really feed 25 or 30 billion people? It's unavoidable that we'll eventually have to face facts about controlling our own reproduction, and deciding who gets to have kids & who doesn't. We may not know yet what the exact maximum population will be, but there has to be a max at some point. We also have to develop an economic system that does not depend on constant growth for it's survival. The size of the ecomony has to level off at some point too (after the population does).

We should start thinking now about how to institute a system where people must qualify themselves for parenthood by making an effort to learn how to be good parents before they actually do it, and then get themselves licensed to do so. Violators would have to loose their illegally produced children to someone more qualified to be a good parent, and habitual criminals and other mental defectives will have to be prohibited from creating more babies like themselves. My guess is that this will solve about 95 percent of our problem with the over-bloated social welfare system, which will eventually become unneeded if we just try to be more careful about who is allowed to have kids.

I don't advocate a Hitler-like system of trying to produce a super race, but rather the fostering of the mentally normal & average human being, just by limiting the reproduction of the lowest 5 or 10 percent of our most obvious social defectives. It is the healthy & average human genetic stocks that give birth to the mutant geniuses - not the psycho's and slothful life-long beggars.

It is a false sense of charity & a poor excuse for kindness when society blindly chooses to help our most mentally & socially defective people become a new majority at the expense of those who should have had more children for the good of humanity's future. We could literally breed rampant criminality out of existance if we had the moral courage to do so. Right now, humanity still fools itself into thinking that unlimited and blindly bestowed charity is the highest form of kindness. It isn't.

pugman
03-13-2012, 06:40
I read an article somewhere which discussed this and boiled it down to a few things

Energy
Land Use and
Standard of living/personal motivation

Even if we farmed every possible acre in the world based on available climate we simply don't have the energy to do it for any extended period of time.

Farm equipment is a probably a million times more efficient than hand labor but it still uses gas; then there is the problem of transportation...which uses gas.

Then you have the fact people would rather play Xbox than garden. I helped an uncle for three summers in high school since he couldn't get hired help otherwise...very few people have the fortitude to do manual labor. Sure now a days probably 95% of this same uncle's massive farm system is mechanical but it still amazes me how many people living in Wisconsin nearly puke when they smell that "fresh country air" every spring when farmers spread.

Think those folks in San Diego would allow their city to be upheaved and converted to farms...doubtful (I've heard overall San Diego weather is nearly perfect year long); and quite a bit of land simply is just unusable.

The article's final assumption was given a perfect scenario where food production and consumption for the most part stayed local; you were able to exploit as much human labor as possible, storage was plentiful and waste was kept to a minimum the planet could support somewhere between 33-38 billion people.

However, remember this was a perfect scenario...no wars...little to any price competition...and everyone's job was somehow related to the growing, transportation, storage, or distribution of food. In other words make believe.

bdcochran
03-13-2012, 08:19
Are my facts correct?

yes and no.

you don't need to be an apprentice to a master journeyman (when there are videos and more modern educational techniques) to become a medical doctor, a computer assembler or a graphic artist.

Will there be a price correction as the baby boomer generation passes, will there be a price correction in America for property or …?

you can create benefits or detriments to real estate ownership quicker and more profoundly by building codes, property taxes, political stability, the general tax code, and delivery of medical services. oh, and i forgot, population density.

Can something be done about the population/population control?

yes. however, you have to change the political climate, religious beliefs, the social welfare system. heck, when you posed that question, you already knew that providing free abortions, free birth control and cash in exchange for voluntary birth control were away of keeping the population down. so, OP why doesn't the US provide this aid overseas?

Will the gov. do something to help or hurt the overpopulation?

your government is directed by self aggrandizing people who are largely interested in benefits to themselves or their immediate families. what your legislators do is whatever they perceive will get them political donations and re-election.

Should we do something to effect the population?

probably.

Should we do something now with the understanding that the population will continue to grow?

probably

What are the odds of technology increasing to the point that we will have a colony on another planet in the next 30 years?

better than they were 60 years ago when I would look up at the moon and wonder if a space ship would ever be built to get to the moon.

PettyOfficer
03-13-2012, 08:35
The population is growing. The people from more developed countries (better educated, more skilled) are not reproducing as fast as the less developed countries (less skilled, less educated).

This movie should be taught in schools with a focus on why its funnier than they think: the underlying social commentary which scares the bejezus out of me.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808

PettyOfficer
03-13-2012, 08:52
I think the best answer is responsible potential parents. Look around before you decide to bring a new person into the world. If you have trouble feeding yourself, you probably shouldn't be adding another mouth to feed.

Now that may be unrealistic


The problem is that many responsible people already do that.

It's the religious nuts who think they need to populate the planet with gods warriors.

It's the uneducated and dirt poor folks who rely on welfare to pay them more when they have more kids but don't have the basic mathematical reasoning skills to understand more kids = more costs = less disposable income

Its the idiots who grew up with multiple siblings because their parents were boomers who were raised that way because of the WWII vets who felt they needed to go forth and multiple and make the world a better place after the war. Back when times were less advanced and having a larger family meant more help on the family farm (without regard to what happens to the younger children who won't get a share of the land when the eldest laid their claim). It's people like this who thinks their family should be just as big because it worked out so well for them (my damn family falls in this trap every other year, I have so many damned 2nd cousins that I can't remember any of their names). Several cousins have 3 kids each, one cousin has 5!!!

This might trigger some flames but the book (and movie) 'Freakonimics' statistically justified the rise in crime in some eastern european country when women were forced to have children they didnt want. The children grew up without proper parenting and made a mess of things. The counter argument is that legal abortion prevents the unwanted from being born and raised in households where they won't be treated well properly and they won't develop social issues that cause a burden on society.

In the end, my reference to the movie Idiocracy above is becoming apparently realistic.

First things first: force Snookie to have an abortion, lock up all the Kardashians (mom and brother included) and just outright execute the cast of (and all those who auditioned for) the show Jersey Shore.

Only then will we have a chance at stemming rampant ignorance.

I have no solution for the ignorance of the religious right however... They at least think they're doing the right thing.

racerford
03-13-2012, 10:17
This movie should be taught in schools with a focus on why its funnier than they think: the underlying social commentary which scares the bejezus out of me.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808

For those that don't click unknown links. It is the IMDB page for "Idiocracy" a future classic cult film. And possibly a future classic documentary:crying:

pugman
03-13-2012, 10:49
This is a theoretical question.

The population is growing. The people from more developed countries (better educated, more skilled) are not reproducing as fast as the less developed countries (less skilled, less educated). At the same time the baby boomer generation in America is getting older and dare I say dying off.



More true than you know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

Let just focus on the CIA list since its from 2011. Look at the top ten...Zimbabwe, Niger, Uganda, Burundi, Ethiopia, Rwanda...

What does this list also represent? Places I would never want to visit or live.

Then look towards the bottom...Japan and Germany were both negative. A good portion of Europe is less than 0.50% and the U.S didn't crack 1%

Another scary idea: As of 2011, it is predicted that the world's Muslim population will grow twice as fast as non-Muslims over the next 20 years

Or "Monsignor Vittorio Formenti, who compiles the Vatican's yearbook, said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that "For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us". He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population—a stable percentage—while Muslims were at 19.2 percent. "It is true that while Muslim families, as is well known, continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer," the monsignor said

RWBlue
03-13-2012, 12:46
www.globalrichlist.com/ (http://www.globalrichlist.com/) to see where you rate in world income....an eye opener.

I am a 1%er. So are most of not all the people who post here. I guess we should go after the 99% people who were protesting Wallstreet.

RWBlue
03-13-2012, 12:53
Out of curiosity, where do you get the 30 year figure for not being able to feed the population? I'm not doubting it, just curious. today and I don't really have a way to comprehend that).

It just happens to be the number I settled on.
It is a semi-educated guess based on population growth, death rates, conversations with farmers, loss of land to subdivisions.....

I think we are already on the down ward slide when it comes to oil reserves. 30 years may be an over estimate of what we have left.

Additionally, it is close to my life expectancy. If I live another 30 years I will be beating the odds for my family genetics. Things will be what they are at that point for me.

Chindo18Z
03-13-2012, 16:43
I imagine that standard ecosystem factors will reduce immense population pressures.

Famine
Drought
Pestilence (natural mutation or bio-engineered)
Predation (protracted global warfare or use of WMDs)

These four things will inevitably reduce regional or global overpopulation to a sustainable level.

The same factors that correct overpopulation by rabbits, whitetails, locusts, or bison.

Except for the nuke thing.

Sam Spade
03-13-2012, 17:36
Two observations:

One of mankind's greatest problems is the inability to understand exponential increases, aka geometric progressions.

OTOH, never underestimate the usefulness of a natural kill-back.

Dexters
03-13-2012, 17:53
This is a theoretical question. I would like to see some out of the box thinking. I think I have the basic facts correct, if not let me know where I have it wrong along with a link to the correct info.

The earth is only so large and only has so many resources. Some resources are renewable. Some resources do not renew for lifetimes.

The population is growing. The people from more developed countries (better educated, more skilled) are not reproducing as fast as the less developed countries (less skilled, less educated). At the same time the baby boomer generation in America is getting older and dare I say dying off.

There is more than enough food now to feed everyone on earth right now, but that will not be the case in the next 30 years.

The questions I have come up with so far….
Are my facts correct?
Will there be a price correction as the baby boomer generation passes, will there be a price correction in America for property or …?
Can something be done about the population/population control? Will the gov. do something to help or hurt the overpopulation? Should we do something to effect the population?
Should we do something now with the understanding that the population will continue to grow?

What are the odds of technology increasing to the point that we will have a colony on another planet in the next 30 years?

You are on the right path. You should study population growth and you will see that it is out of control. We are at 7B now and going to 10B in 50 years. We hit 1B in 1800

You are talking about a SHTF by too much of a good thing. Read the book 2030 for what the USA will be like if cancer is cured and other old age problems are resolved.

You are seeing the effects of overpopulation in the middle east - young population 26 y/o - the governments can no longer afford to subsidies food and energy, and jobs are scarce. That has led to the political instability. That is the USA's future. We use food stamps now, and other programs give $ to offset energy costs; jobs - look at all the unemployed college grads now.

Also, look towards Japan as a population ages - things tend to stagnate. Europe's population will age faster then the USA because it does not have many immigrants.

The problem with some here is that they can only address one variable at the time. They can only see the population growth as a food issue - just grow more or hope for a technological solution.

So, don't look at the population growth problem as a food problem but economic and political problems that follow.

RWBlue
03-13-2012, 18:00
More true than you know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

Let just focus on the CIA list since its from 2011. Look at the top ten...Zimbabwe, Niger, Uganda, Burundi, Ethiopia, Rwanda...

What does this list also represent? Places I would never want to visit or live.

Then look towards the bottom...Japan and Germany were both negative. A good portion of Europe is less than 0.50% and the U.S didn't crack 1%

Another scary idea: As of 2011, it is predicted that the world's Muslim population will grow twice as fast as non-Muslims over the next 20 years

Or "Monsignor Vittorio Formenti, who compiles the Vatican's yearbook, said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that "For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us". He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population—a stable percentage—while Muslims were at 19.2 percent. "It is true that while Muslim families, as is well known, continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer," the monsignor said

I wonder if they included an estimated illegal immigrants.

RWBlue
03-13-2012, 18:02
You are on the right path. You should study population growth and you will see that it is out of control. We are at 7B now and going to 10B in 50 years. We hit 1B in 1800

You are talking about a SHTF by too much of a good thing. Read the book 2030 for what the USA will be like if cancer is cured and other old age problems are resolved.

You are seeing the effects of overpopulation in the middle east - young population 26 y/o - the governments can no longer afford to subsidies food and energy, and jobs are scarce. That has led to the political instability. That is the USA's future. We use food stamps now, and other programs give $ to offset energy costs; jobs - look at all the unemployed college grads now.

Also, look towards Japan as a population ages - things tend to stagnate. Europe's population will age faster then the USA because it does not have many immigrants.

The problem with some here is that they can only address one variable at the time. They can only see the population growth as a food issue - just grow more or hope for a technological solution.

So, don't look at the population growth problem as a food problem but economic and political problems that follow.

So what are the solutions?

I have come up with some ideas, but they would not be socially acceptable (even on this board).

Dexters
03-13-2012, 18:03
I'm saying that there's always Soylent Green.

(I never say Never)

Considering the book was written in the early 60s it has hit on many thing that are coming/or will:
- Over population
- Over fishing of the oceans
- High Unemployment
- Widespread poverty
- Small, fragile middle class
- Large Corporations
- Global Warming
- Air/Water pollution
- Computers overtaking books

Dexters
03-13-2012, 18:10
So what are the solutions?

I have come up with some ideas, but they would not be socially acceptable (even on this board).

Why do you think there are solutions?

I'm not a big supporter of Global Warming and you can tell all the solutions they come up will amount to nothing because they do not even discuss population growth - the demand.

There are no solutions. Just like the USA is following all the past empires in its decline men will not do anything about the population or when it does awake to the problem it will be too late.

Having said that we in the USA will probably not be as bad off as outside the USA. Remember, the dark ages began at the edges of the empire and moved towards Rome.

Ted the Ninja
03-13-2012, 18:15
We are at or around the 7 billion mark and no matter what anyone says, it will not be sustainable. Can you imagine 11 or 12 billion? How hard is it to get down the highway in rush hour right now? Not only food, but jobs, energy, and space will all be an issue. I'm with RWBlue. You can't, in this age of being P.C., say what could and probably should be done.

RWBlue
03-13-2012, 18:23
Why do you think there are solutions?


I know there is a solution, but I don't think anyone will like it.

Dexters
03-13-2012, 18:31
I know there is a solution, but I don't think anyone will like it.

Won't happen.

First is timing. Population growth is not on anyone's discussion list.

By the time it gets on the list it would be too late to do anything.

banger
03-13-2012, 19:01
Don't blame me, I'm not getting any..........




Alright Wiseguy....Just who is going to clean up my keyboard from the soda I just spit over it?

Now,that was FUNNY:rofl:

bdcochran
03-13-2012, 19:05
I was in Algeria in the 1970s. On the train, the men were boasting - 11 children, 14 children. My wife and I sat there, childless, ridiculed.

I simply imagined what the world would look like in 30 years. No job opportunities in Algeria, the population concentrated along a coast, about 12 miles deep.

30 years late. No improvement in Algeria.:wavey:

Dexters
03-13-2012, 19:11
I was in Algeria in the 1970s. On the train, the men were boasting - 11 children, 14 children. My wife and I sat there, childless, ridiculed.

I simply imagined what the world would look like in 30 years. No job opportunities in Algeria, the population concentrated along a coast, about 12 miles deep.

30 years late. No improvement in Algeria.:wavey:

And those same 3rd world countries will have the largest population growth & the associated problems in the future.

I've been to all the 3rd world countries I wanted to see. The last was Egypt in 2006.

lawman800
03-13-2012, 20:50
As medical technology progresses and people live longer and longer, there will be a tipping point. Will it happen in a generation or two, I am not certain, but unless we find a new source of food which can sustain the continued growth, there will be a day of reckoning.

ancient_serpent
03-13-2012, 22:42
Of course there are solutions. RWblue is right, no one will like them. Instead of dressing a solution in race politics or blind hatred, who should we encourage to reproduce? Who should we discourage?
Commons sense says we should want the smartest, strongest and most capable among our species to survive and pass their genes along.
Does it have to be as strict as say, China? I don't think so; perhaps simply cutting off additional funding for social services programs that pay more per child is a start. Removal of illegal immigrants from the US wouldn't hurt, either.

Devans0
03-13-2012, 22:50
After the boomers, there will be a shortage of replacement labor. Labor intensive jobs won't be able to fill jobs (unless there may be a country with a working population that is willing to emigrate to a colder climate with job opportunity). China has N Korea, Germany had E Germany, and USA has the Southern American countries. Illegal immigrants will save USA's butt in the next thirty to fifty years.

Bilbo Bagins
03-14-2012, 07:56
I think evetually we will reach a peak at 9 to 10 billion, then start to decline. Look at Russia, Japan and countries in Europe, they are actually seeing a decline in population growth. I don't think we will ever grow exponentially

7 Billion People: Everybody Relax! - YouTube

I am concern about non renewable resources being used up. As large populations become more advanced, like China and India, they are going to put a strain onthe world's resources. I really can't see oil lasting beyond 100 years. Water and farmable land will be another issue.

I really think a long term goal for the human race should be space exploration and colonization of other planets

bdcochran
03-14-2012, 08:44
40 years ago I walked around Syracuse, Sicily. Some 2000 years ago, the people spoke Greek there and the population was about 500,000. Now, the people did not speak Greek. The population is about 1/4 of what it used to be.

Thousands of years ago, people lived on fish, wild animals and wild plants. Today, the world diet is based upon grains.

Tulupia, salmon, catfish, sea urchins are now cultivated. This wasn't true 30 years ago.

The world adjusts. People adjust. Doesn't mean that it better, just different.

Peak oil, alternative fuels, go green. The only wind power is from politicians who drive suvs.

Save the earth bs. If you truly believed in it, get rid of your dogs and cats. I had a university tour guide in Costa Rica show the herds of scrawny cattle denuding the jungle hillsides. And why were the cattle raised? Not for local food consumption! To be dogfood fed to dogs and cats of hippies living in Berkeley and elsewhere in the US.:faint:

lawman800
03-14-2012, 08:51
I think long term solution is war and pestilence. Nature does have a way of correcting itself and bringing back balance.

Bilbo Bagins
03-14-2012, 11:40
I think long term solution is war and pestilence. Nature does have a way of correcting itself and bringing back balance.

+1

You do have a solid point. Imagine how may people would be around if there was no such thing as WWI, and the Spanish Flu. The death count is 15 million dead from WWI worldwide and 50 Million dead worldwide from the Spanish Flu. All that dead in just a 5 year period.

Blankshooter
03-14-2012, 11:48
Don't really want to join the discussion, just thought this could be entertaining if nothing else.

I find it fun to watch our deaths approaching.


http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Dexters
03-14-2012, 15:47
I think long term solution is war and pestilence. Nature does have a way of correcting itself and bringing back balance.

The Spanish Flu killed between 50 - 100m, WWII 60m - they weren't even speed bumps.

RWBlue
03-14-2012, 17:23
The Spanish Flu killed between 50 - 100m, WWII 60m - they weren't even speed bumps.

But their kids having kid having kids....it adds up.

glockaviator
03-14-2012, 17:45
Nobody knows.

As I get older, I come to realize that "nobody knows" is the answer to most of those questions about what is going to happen in the future.

It would be better if the world population wouldn't grow too much from here. But....it probably will. Somewhere there is a maximum. Probably depends on how much oil we have left, which, again, nobody knows how much there is left. So....nobody knows.

Dexters
03-14-2012, 18:01
Nobody knows.

As I get older, I come to realize that "nobody knows" is the answer to most of those questions about what is going to happen in the future.

It would be better if the world population wouldn't grow too much from here. But....it probably will. Somewhere there is a maximum. Probably depends on how much oil we have left, which, again, nobody knows how much there is left. So....nobody knows.

Then, why are there internet forums?

racerford
03-15-2012, 00:34
I appreciate the concern for our ability to feed the population of the world.I think short of some sort major regional disaster, food problems will be mostly distribution issues for at least 10 years maybe longer. It has been that way for thousands of years.

Right now, the US still pays farmers to not grow crops. If demand and prices increased, we could produce more food. If we stopped turning food into fuel in a substandard inefficient process we would have more food.

We spend billions (trillions?) of dollars every year stopping natural processes that control populations. Things like starvation, disease, and war when those don't work.

Starvation is nature's way of species that there are too many of them in one area. Either relocate to a better area or die. We thousands of tons of food to places that people should not live because it can't grow food and there is little to hunt. It cleared the population of individuals that could not feed themselves. Survival of the strong and smart, and not unlucky.

Disease and other maladies clear the weak and unlucky out of a population. Well it used to before all the modern medicines and life prolonging treatments. Bad illness and conditions kill of the weakest of an animal population before they reproduce in the gene pool. Currently, humans do pretty much everything they can to prevent this. Not that I don't understand this on a personal and humanitarian basis, it is just a fact

War has become unpopular, sterile, and even more polite than the old European wars where armies lined up on a field and battled like on some large boardgame. The US goes to battle (not wars... when was the last time there was a declared war?) to defeat armies and the goes and rebuilds, instead the time honored "to the victor goes the spoils" and you kept the land you conquered. You stripped the conquered land of valuables to pay for the war. It killed a lot of the breeding age males which kept the population in check.

Most of the natural actions taht controlled populations, have ben pushed aside. It is not that we are breeding too fast, it is that we are not dying quickly enough. How can you double the life expectancy of a population in a short period and not expect at least a doubling of the population(a higher percentage of the population reaches breeding age) over the same period?

We are smart we will figure out how to feed ourselves for a long time. If not over-population will fix the problem soon enough.

lawman800
03-15-2012, 08:03
The Spanish Flu killed between 50 - 100m, WWII 60m - they weren't even speed bumps.

It's not the absolute numbers either so much but WHERE the deaths occurred which also contributes to the adjustments.

As populations grow, the pressure may push people into areas which then get contested as to ownership or fight over resources. That is one cause of war.

Not to say every war is caused by those factors, but, in overpopulated areas between villages or civilizations, war certainly erupts due to population pressures. Look at imperial Japan and their reasons for their Pacific war... overcrowding, dwindling resources, etc.

So while 100M dead worldwide is not a significant statistic, if 50M of those dead occurred in an area where only 500M people lived, that is significant.

Dexters
03-15-2012, 10:08
It's not the absolute numbers either so much but WHERE the deaths occurred which also contributes to the adjustments.

As populations grow, the pressure may push people into areas which then get contested as to ownership or fight over resources. That is one cause of war.

Not to say every war is caused by those factors, but, in overpopulated areas between villages or civilizations, war certainly erupts due to population pressures. Look at imperial Japan and their reasons for their Pacific war... overcrowding, dwindling resources, etc.

So while 100M dead worldwide is not a significant statistic, if 50M of those dead occurred in an area where only 500M people lived, that is significant.

Your point about location is a good one. The majority of future growth will be in 3rd world counties in a band from Morocco to China to Mexico.

We are 7B now and going to 10B in 40+ years.

What number do we need to be at and maintain?

See my first post in this thread for the issues I'm focusing on.

powder86
03-15-2012, 10:51
i ain't worried about running outta food. nope. never in my life, or my great grandchildren's lives. and i'm 25.

Dexters
03-15-2012, 13:14
i ain't worried about running outta food. nope. never in my life, or my great grandchildren's lives. and i'm 25.

Great!

Why are you interjecting it into this thread?

20South
03-15-2012, 13:44
This movie should be taught in schools with a focus on why its funnier than they think: the underlying social commentary which scares the bejezus out of me.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808

It was the first thing I thought of when reading the OP. My wife thinks I am crazy, but I love the movie for the reason you stated. IMO it is a great representation of the path our voting populace is on. The 2008 election machine operated very similarly, I expect more this time around.

20South
03-15-2012, 13:51
I imagine that standard ecosystem factors will reduce immense population pressures.

Famine
Drought
Pestilence (natural mutation or bio-engineered)
Predation (protracted global warfare or use of WMDs)

These four things will inevitably reduce regional or global overpopulation to a sustainable level.

The same factors that correct overpopulation by rabbits, whitetails, locusts, or bison.

Except for the nuke thing.

I agree with this, but it won't be before we have a political structure that tinkers with Eugenics as the answer.

blueyedmule
03-25-2012, 08:41
Look up the youtubes "Demographic Winter" and "Demographic Bomb". These are mostly demographers from major secular universities and much UN data is cited. Nobody in these videos has a religious axe to grind. Not only is there not going to be a population explosion, the inverse is happening.

Boot Stomper
03-25-2012, 22:19
Over population is only a problem in Communist/ Socialist societies.

Under communism people are viewed as liabilities or assets. Everyone under communism is a liability or burden eventually in one's life. Your value as an asset depends on your ability to work. Population control is essential to remove or limit liabilities and the burdens.

Under capitalism in a free market society, the people are consumers, producers, workers, inventors and job creators. Everyone young and old, healthy and sick, strong and weak can contribute. Population control is not needed since more people mean more consumers, more producers, more workers and inventors.

The current problem in the United States is we are leaving the Free Capitalistic Society for Socialism and people are beginning to be viewed as burdens on society.

Glock30Eric
03-26-2012, 04:17
There is no such as a risk of over population. It's a question to ask, are they able to live on their self-reliance, such as farming, homemaker, trading? No, that is the problem.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

TangoFoxtrot
03-26-2012, 05:00
As far as over population, it balances itself out. Just maybe the next world war will trim the population down sooner than you think.:whistling:


Quote:"What are the odds of technology increasing to the point that we will have a colony on another planet in the next 30 years?"

Hell no being the Obama administration killed any funding for manned moon missions and shut down the shuttle program with nothing to replace it. Technologies across the board will suffer. Now we (U.S.) are going to be 30 years or more behind the curve. For what? To pour money into other needy countries???:steamed: Manned missions to the moon or even Mars will never happen in our life time.:upeyes:

lawman800
03-26-2012, 09:14
As far as over population, it balances itself out. Just maybe the next world war will trim the population down sooner than you think.:whistling:


Quote:"What are the odds of technology increasing to the point that we will have a colony on another planet in the next 30 years?"

Hell no being the Obama administration killed any funding for manned moon missions and shut down the shuttle program with nothing to replace it. Technologies across the board will suffer. Now we (U.S.) are going to be 30 years or more behind the curve. For what? To pour money into other needy countries???:steamed: Manned missions to the moon or even Mars will never happen in our life time.:upeyes:

Hey, he told NASA to share technology with Muslim countries because we left them behind... so maybe they will send some people to the moon or Mars. We are all in it together for humankind!:whistling:

bdcochran
03-26-2012, 11:53
For Lawman800:

Bolden told Al Jazeera's Imran Garda that when he took over at NASA, Obama had directed him to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering."

Obama: "Feel good about any historic contribution to science, math and engineering."

Muslim World: "Wow. We feel good!" (Let's forget that the contributions were a thousand years ago - and even more as Arabic numerals pre-dated Mohammad).

Obama: "Now you are all invited to the White House for a beer."

Bin Laden: "Sorry we missed the White House the last time we were in the Washington area.":rofl:

mac66
03-26-2012, 15:42
Back in the 60's population growth was a big issue. In fact there was a big campaign called Zero Population Growth. The liberals passed out buttons that said ZPG on them. And you know what? It worked. Families in industrialized countries voluntarily started limiting families to 2.5 children which is kind of the norm now.

None other than Jesse Jackson was pushing for birth control and abstinence etc...until. Until some of the other black leaders sat him down and explained the facts of life to him. Limiting black births was like cutting your own throat if you relied on that constituency for your support. Don't put yourself out of business. Increase minority propagation until it becomes the majority.

Which kinds of brings up the point that if the world was really being controlled by a New World Order, then certain populations would be declining by now. That's not happening.

RWBlue
03-27-2012, 14:27
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/03/27/149403215/in-haiti-bureaucratic-delays-stall-mass-cholera-vaccinations

In Haiti, Bureaucratic Delays Stall Mass Cholera Vaccinations