PDA

View Full Version : Earth population 'exceeds limits'



patriot45
04-01-2009, 10:43 AM
More gloom and doom! Start offing yourselves and save the planet!

Maybe instead of the 0 spending our money in all that green crap, he should have grants for developing human gills! Imagine living in the sea and lakes! Plenty o food and room!:D

Hillarys advisor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm)



There are already too many people living on Planet Earth, according to one of most influential science advisors in the US government.

Nina Fedoroff told the BBC One Planet programme that humans had exceeded the Earth's "limits of sustainability".

Dr Fedoroff has been the science and technology advisor to the US secretary of state since 2007, initially working with Condoleezza Rice.

Under the new Obama administration, she now advises Hillary Clinton.

"We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support many more people," Dr Fedoroff said, stressing the need for humans to become much better at managing "wild lands", and in particular water supplies.

Pressed on whether she thought the world population was simply too high, Dr Fedoroff replied: "There are probably already too many people on the planet."

megimoo
04-01-2009, 10:49 AM
More gloom and doom! Start offing yourselves and save the planet!

Maybe instead of the 0 spending our money in all that green crap, he should have grants for developing human gills! Imagine living in the sea and lakes! Plenty o food and room!:D

Hillarys advisor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm)
Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,

FlaGator
04-01-2009, 10:52 AM
They've run out of doom and gloom scenerios and they are recycling ones from the 1970s. Is the the change Obama told us about?

Actually this overpopulation thing stared in the mid nineteenth century.

patriot45
04-01-2009, 11:07 AM
Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,


You are not too far off, they already want to eat the rich!

wilbur
04-01-2009, 11:42 AM
They've run out of doom and gloom scenerios and they are recycling ones from the 1970s. Is the the change Obama told us about?

Actually this overpopulation thing stared in the mid nineteenth century.

It started with Malthus, who figured out food supplies only grow linearly, while populations grow exponentially.

Of course, agriculture technology has fudged up that process, and helped us more than he could have imagined, I think... but if our technology fails to meet the pace of our population growth it will be a pretty bad time for a lot of people... and we have other resources to worry about, not just food... such as fresh water.

At what time does it become appropriate to consider the problems that could be caused by overpopulation? Never?

What is certain is that, should it ever occur on a large scale, the population WILL recede back to equilibrium... do we be forward thinking about it and take steps to reduce the problem before hand, hedge our bets on technology improvements, or do we submit to the painful process of natural selection... and let famine and disease cull us back to supportable levels?

Molon Labe
04-01-2009, 11:47 AM
I guess that makes tow who have their supply of Soylent green all ready

gator
04-01-2009, 11:48 AM
Actually I hate to admit it but they are right. As an environmental engineer I have studied the effects of pollution and the impact of humans. I made a living for many years cleaning up the mess.

Almost seven billion humans are doing tremendous damage to the Biosphere. We have pretty well screwed ourselves. Soon there will be ten billion people and it will only get worse.

A comfortable level for the earth would be in the 1 billion range.

Gingersnap
04-01-2009, 12:02 PM
It started with Malthus, who figured out food supplies only grow linearly, while populations grow exponentially.

Of course, agriculture technology has fudged up that process, and helped us more than he could have imagined, I think... but if our technology fails to meet the pace of our population growth it will be a pretty bad time for a lot of people... and we have other resources to worry about, not just food... such as fresh water.

At what time does it become appropriate to consider the problems that could be caused by overpopulation? Never?

What is certain is that, should it ever occur on a large scale, the population WILL recede back to equilibrium... do we be forward thinking about it and take steps to reduce the problem before hand, hedge our bets on technology improvements, or do we submit to the painful process of natural selection... and let famine and disease cull us back to supportable levels?

Well, count me in for thinking globally and acting locally! Let's start by deporting all of the illegal aliens regardless of skin tone and temporarily suspending almost all student/work visa entries until we get a handle on all this.

I would fully support having prisoners grow their own food and I would naturally support one heck of a hefty tax break for couples who do not have children (either with each other or separately).

See? We really do have something in common after all. :)

Odysseus
04-01-2009, 12:29 PM
Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,Soylent Green,

EXT, DAY, Police officer played by CHARLTON HESTON is being carried on a stretcher.


HESTON
Soylent Green is made out of people... It's people...


ANOUNCER
(Voice over)
That's right. But did you know that our competitors use people by-products and cereal fillers in their wafers?


HESTON
What..? But Soylent Green is made from people!


ANOUNCER
(steps into camera frame)
That's right. Soylent Green is made from people. Each wafer is 100% human protein. We guarantee it. That's why we at the Soylent Corporation will never use artificial additives or non-human products, because people are our most valuable resource.


HESTON
(Faintly, as he is carried off camera)
Soylent Green is made out of people... It's people...


ANOUNCER
And it always will be. That's our pledge to you, the consumer. Soylent Green will always be made from people. And try new Organic Soylent Green, made from free-range people, with a lower fat and salt content.

:D

Now, if Hillary is serious about depopulating the world, I call on her to personally set the example and take herself out.

ironhorsedriver
04-01-2009, 12:51 PM
It would help if they would quite trying to put all of us small farmers out of buisness.

Molon Labe
04-01-2009, 03:45 PM
It would help if they would quite trying to put all of us small farmers out of buisness.

Have you seen the new thing to hurt the small farmer.

HR 875
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-875


HR 759
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-759

also notice how many Republican's sponsored the bill. Nill!

How do they expect us to have a decent food supply if it's overregulated?

hampshirebrit
04-01-2009, 03:55 PM
Let's start by deporting all of the illegal aliens regardless of skin tone and temporarily suspending almost all student/work visa entries until we get a handle on all this.

Doing this will not reduce global population, but just transfer part of it elsewhere on the planet. The deportees will continue to consume food and energy resources. The rate of consumption would decrease slightly, at best, if at all.

I agree with Federoff on this. In my own area of expertise (energy) it is becoming obvious that the sheer numbers of people are placing what are rapidly becoming unsustainable demands on available resources. Much the same applies to other resources, particularly water and food resources.

Odysseus
04-01-2009, 04:25 PM
Doing this will not reduce global population, but just transfer part of it elsewhere on the planet. The deportees will continue to consume food and energy resources. The rate of consumption would decrease slightly, at best, if at all.

I agree with Federoff on this. In my own area of expertise (energy) it is becoming obvious that the sheer numbers of people are placing what are rapidly becoming unsustainable demands on available resources. Much the same applies to other resources, particularly water and food resources.

The Earth is not overpopulated, but significant parts of it are very poorly managed.

The real problem is not that population is growing, it's that productive sectors of the population are growing while non-productive are shrinking. European birthrates are far below replacement levels, while third world birthrates are substantially higher (American birthrates are exactly at replacement levels, for the moment). The regions which are marked by the worst governments, the most restrictive economic and social orders and the most backward worldviews are also the regions with the highest birth rates. Western Europe, the US and Australia have been able to feed ourselves for years. Even Israel, which was founded in a backwater of swamps and deserts, was able to feed itself within a generation and became an exporter of food. Meanwhile, the percentage of the Saudi economy that is based on oil exports remains unchanged over the last five decades, and will most likely remain that way. They cannot feed themselves now, nor are they ever likely to be able to, and they have refused to use the revenues from oil to diversify their economy and develop the means to support themselves. If it were not for oil, they would starve en masse. This same phenomenon occurs throughout the Third World. Zimbabwe was once a food exporter, but Mugabe's policies have turned it into a famine state. South Korea, Japan and Taiwan have no problem feeding their populations, despite extremely inhospitable climates for mass agriculture, while North Korea continues to starve. Venezuela's economy continues to deteriorate, even as its population increases and Chavez' policies continue to impoverish his people.

Malthus' argument, that population will outstrip food production, never accounted for human ingenuity and man's ability to solve problems, especially problems of life and death. It is only those people who insist that their problems are not theirs, but the result of colonialism, racism, capitalism or infidelity to the right religion who cannot take the necessary steps to become self-sufficient.

Molon Labe
04-01-2009, 04:39 PM
Doing this will not reduce global population, but just transfer part of it elsewhere on the planet. The deportees will continue to consume food and energy resources. The rate of consumption would decrease slightly, at best, if at all.

I agree with Federoff on this. In my own area of expertise (energy) it is becoming obvious that the sheer numbers of people are placing what are rapidly becoming unsustainable demands on available resources. Much the same applies to other resources, particularly water and food resources.

These kind of things tend to work themselves out eventually. Plague, famine. If it does occur, it's not going to be pretty.

Odysseus
04-01-2009, 04:44 PM
These kind of things tend to work themselves out eventually. Plague, famine. If it does occur, it's not going to be pretty.

How about genetically modified seeds, industrial farming techniques, increased electrical capacity which expands refrigeration and prolongs the life of food supplies, conversion from subsistence farming economies to industrial and post-industrial economies, which tends to reduce the need for children as surplus labor, and all of the other means of increasing food supplies that come from human ingenuity and industry?

Gingersnap
04-01-2009, 04:49 PM
Doing this will not reduce global population, but just transfer part of it elsewhere on the planet.

Hey! Works for me. ;)

FlaGator
04-01-2009, 04:58 PM
It started with Malthus, who figured out food supplies only grow linearly, while populations grow exponentially.

Of course, agriculture technology has fudged up that process, and helped us more than he could have imagined, I think... but if our technology fails to meet the pace of our population growth it will be a pretty bad time for a lot of people... and we have other resources to worry about, not just food... such as fresh water.

At what time does it become appropriate to consider the problems that could be caused by overpopulation? Never?

What is certain is that, should it ever occur on a large scale, the population WILL recede back to equilibrium... do we be forward thinking about it and take steps to reduce the problem before hand, hedge our bets on technology improvements, or do we submit to the painful process of natural selection... and let famine and disease cull us back to supportable levels?

Malthus was who I was referring to when I referenced the mid 19th century. I couldn't recall his name and I was too lazy to look it up. It seems that technology over comes production constraints as quickly as constraints are identified.

It seems that you are expecting a bleak future when you have no evidence that it will ever happen. We do not know what the future has in store for us. Maybe they'll event a pill that will end hunger. Maybe a comet will wipe out 80 percent of the population. Who can say...

FlaGator
04-01-2009, 05:02 PM
Doing this will not reduce global population, but just transfer part of it elsewhere on the planet. The deportees will continue to consume food and energy resources. The rate of consumption would decrease slightly, at best, if at all.

I agree with Federoff on this. In my own area of expertise (energy) it is becoming obvious that the sheer numbers of people are placing what are rapidly becoming unsustainable demands on available resources. Much the same applies to other resources, particularly water and food resources.

I think that all Americans can get behind that idea. You guys in England have a lot of unused space with those moors and all. Perhaps we can relocate some to Great Britian if you have any room after the Muslims get finished migrating there.:D

patriot45
04-01-2009, 05:55 PM
the only places overpopulated are cities, get rid of them, problem solved! :D

Molon Labe
04-01-2009, 06:06 PM
How about genetically modified seeds, industrial farming techniques, increased electrical capacity which expands refrigeration and prolongs the life of food supplies, conversion from subsistence farming economies to industrial and post-industrial economies, which tends to reduce the need for children as surplus labor, and all of the other means of increasing food supplies that come from human ingenuity and industry?

I don't disagree. The methods you describe are what makes it possible to sustain a population of several billion.
From the links I posted above to the new regulatory bills on farming with more government meddling, I see the foundations for breeding more inefficient central planning methods into our system. Even science can't fix what governments screw up.

AlmostThere
04-01-2009, 06:27 PM
The Earth is not overpopulated, but significant parts of it are very poorly managed.

Maybe in global terms we're not over-populated, but as long as we have sovereign nations, I think we are. India, China?

Gingersnap
04-01-2009, 09:26 PM
Maybe in global terms we're not over-populated, but as long as we have sovereign nations, I think we are. India, China?

In the mid-90s, all the economists and environmentalists were predicting that China would suffer a catastrophic collapse of food supplies as their population "exceeded" the carrying capacity of their agricultural system. By catastrophic, I mean that serious people were predicting that half the population would be hit by primary starvation and secondary impacts such as chronic malnutrition, opportunistic infections, social upheavals, and so on. They thought this would happen around 2003 - 2005.

Once India dumped its socialist policies, growth and production capacity went through the roof. Although large numbers of Indians still live in poverty, the average income for everybody there is expected to quadruple within the next 10 years or so. A growing and vocal middle class is demanding improvements in education, opportunity, and living conditions for the poor.

Food problems are primarily government problems, not agricultural or ecological problems. Distribution of food supplies is still dicey and warlords and corrupt politician still rob children of available food in many places. Water is mismanaged in a lot of areas with growing populations. Neolithic water management practices are wasteful.

Overall, global populations are dropping and this is also true in third world-type countries. While a Mexican woman or a Somali woman might have more children than the average American woman, she has shockingly few children compared to her mother and grandmother.

wilbur
04-01-2009, 10:16 PM
Overall, global populations are dropping and this is also true in third world-type countries. While a Mexican woman or a Somali woman might have more children than the average American woman, she has shockingly few children compared to her mother and grandmother.

I'm not aware of any projections that predict a decrease in the world population....

PoliCon
04-01-2009, 10:31 PM
More gloom and doom! Start offing yourselves and save the planet!

Maybe instead of the 0 spending our money in all that green crap, he should have grants for developing human gills! Imagine living in the sea and lakes! Plenty o food and room!:D

Hillarys advisor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm)no no no silly - we have to approach this the right way. We start off killing off all the leftists. Then we kill off all the feminists. Then the politicians. Then the lawyers . . . . we could have a veritable utopia when it's all said and done!:D

Gingersnap
04-01-2009, 10:46 PM
I'm not aware of any projections that predict a decrease in the world population....

Steep decline in world fertility rates (http://www.springerlink.com/content/vg99434v33p43652/);

Population (http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf);

Fertility decline in Africa (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1973678);

Global fertility decline faster than predicted (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb264/is_20_10/ai_n28974573/).

There are more, obviously. As with anything else, careers and eternal programs are built on ideas that appear logical but don't always stand the test of time. Urbanization, contraception, abortion, education, women's rights movements, government intervention, and a rising global standard of living have all played a part in the "unexpected" decline in global fertility. While population figures lag behind fertility rates to some degree, this is a real and current (not predicted) phenomena.

Post WWII Japan had a fertility rate of 3.65. People envisioned an time when the Japanese would simply run out of actual room to house this burgeoning population. Didn't happen. Japan went from a nation of small farmers with little education or urban interests (for most of the population) to a techno giant in the space of a few generations.

Now the Japanese are building robots to replace the people it needs to sustain the elderly and the very young.

gator
04-01-2009, 11:15 PM
the only places overpopulated are cities, get rid of them, problem solved! :D

The earth is over populated by a good margin.

Each year we lose an area of forest the size of both North and South Carolina combined. This is year after year after year. We lose about the same amount of area of grassland as it turns into desert. We are fast depleting and polluting the oceans. There is hardly anyplace on earth that has not been polluted to some degree by mankind. Many places have been severely polluted.

There are far too many people on the earth. Even with technology we take more out of the earth each year than can be sustained. We have over reached the buffering capacity of the eco systems by a good margin.

Here in the US we put a few hundred billion dollars into pollution control each year and that makes it seem like things are not getting worse but that is not the case.

Let me give you an example. When I was a kid the Floridian Aquifer in Florida was pristine and about 2,000 feet deep. You couldn’t dig a fencepost hardly anywhere in the state without it filling up with water. Nowadays major portions of the aquifer are polluted and the depth has been reduced by half. We are running out of water in a state that averages 56 inches of rain a year due to over population. Water will be the limit of growth for Florida in the future.

Asia, Africa and South America are in very bad shape. We are pretty well fucked. It will only get worse because the population will increase another three billion before it evens out.

I am hardly an environmental wacko and I don’t believe in man made climate change but I do understand the effects of excess population and the resulting pollution on the earth.

As I kid I also remember when you could drive on I-4 from Tampa to Orlando and hardly see another car. The road was lined with woods and maybe a few orange groves. Nowadays it is almost bumper to bumper traffic from St Pete to Daytona Beach. If you don’t think that Central Florida is overcrowded then you don’t have your eyes open. Many places in the US are worse. Many places in the world from Brazil to Hong Kong are far worse.

PoliCon
04-01-2009, 11:19 PM
Rainforsts are GROWING not shrinking. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)

Deforstation and over population myths. (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606)

gator
04-02-2009, 12:57 PM
Rainforsts are GROWING not shrinking. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)

Deforstation and over population myths. (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606)


You stupid shit. If you are going make a comment on an Internet discussion board and quote something then you really need to underestand what you quote.

Just because a few abondoned farms in Central America have reverted to jungle does not mean that rainforests are increasing.

Just because some areas in the US are increasing the size of forest due to managment does not mean that worldwide forest are not decreasing.

Here is some stats on some of the worse places in the world for deforestation. When I was in Vietnam in the 1960s there were jungles everywhere. It looks like about half of the jungle was lost just between 2000 and 2005.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/2005/worstdefor.jpg

Odysseus
04-02-2009, 03:24 PM
You stupid shit. If you are going make a comment on an Internet discussion board and quote something then you really need to uderestand what you quote.

Remember when SNL used to run Point-Counterpoint on Weekend Update and Dan Akroyd would open his statement with "Jane, you ignorant slut!"? The difference is that Akroyd was funny, while Gator is just nuts.

Any minute now, he's going to propose reducing global population by nuking Israel.