Population control

[Flynn]

Just wondering what the general consensus of opinion on this subject is. It seems to be a political taboo to even speak of it.

I think the world's ideal "sustainable" population is somewhere between 2 and 4 billion mark. At current levels and beyond we are destroying the environment, directly (and indirectly) causing other species to become extinct and affecting climate change. Not to mention the speed that we are consuming our irreplaceable deposits of fossil fuel.

Before anyone replies i would urge you to watch the following link. It may be the most important video you have ever watched:

Arithmetic, Population and energy - part 1 of 8

Unfortunately, due to religious, moral and economic reasons there are no easy answers to this problem.

Another interesting link regarding population:

Easter Island - A microcosm of earth?


The above happened hundreds of years ago but is still, in my opinion, very relevant to our current situation.

Thoughts?

[Woody1985]

I've not watched the videos so apologies (at work) but I think that the world population is one of the main reasons that western and other governments don't give a **** about Africa.

Should Africa become developed, along with other continents/countries then the world wouldn't be able to sustain the population.

Can you imagine the entire world having life expectancy of 70/80. Has anyone done a calculation to work out what the population would be should that be the case?

[Flynn]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've not watched the videos so apologies (at work) but I think that the world population is one of the main reasons that western and other governments don't give a **** about Africa.

Should Africa become developed, along with other continents/countries then the world wouldn't be able to sustain the population.

Can you imagine the entire world having life expectancy of 70/80. Has anyone done a calculation to work out what the population would be should that be the case?

I'm not sure but I would imagine it would be at least double the current population. We need to reduce our population. That is a fact. We have to choose to either voluntarily reduce our numbers through birth control, smaller families, choosing not to procreate at all (my choice incidentally), euthanasia and many more controversial "solutions" or have mother nature do the job for us. I know which I would prefer.

[(((Fergus)))]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not sure but I would imagine it would be at least double the current population. We need to reduce our population. That is a fact. We have to choose to either voluntarily reduce our numbers through birth control, smaller families, choosing not to procreate at all (my choice incidentally), euthanasia and many more controversial "solutions" or have mother nature do the job for us. I know which I would prefer.

I wouldn't worry about all that. Infertility is a bigger problem. Luckily the muslims and africans are taking up the slack.

[ancient hibee]

I can't take anyone seriously who throws around figures like betrween 2 and 4 billion.One figure is double the other for goodness sake.

[Flynn]

Nobody knows what the sustainable population for humanity will be for sure. It's not an exact science. 2-4 billion was my best guess. Take fossil fuels out of the equation and in the future it will be impossible to feed everyone in the world. We can't even feed everyone now...how many people die through poverty and starvation a day I wonder.

If everyone in the world had the same standard of living as the USA (which most countries seem to aspire to for some bizarre reason) we would need another 3 planet Earths to accommodate the demand for resources. Places like China and India are now thirsty for the American way of life. Things are definitely coming to head within most of our lifetimes. The longer we avoid the issue the harder it will be in the long run and will cause more devastation to the planet, other species, and your descendants. This is the number one problem facing the human race IMO. Almost every other BIG problem can be traced back to it.

It doesn't help when we have an economic system that requires infinite growth (a growing population essentially) and several monotheistic religions that tell it's followers to "go fourth and multiply". Surely it would have been helpful to add, "until it gets a bit crowded, then calm down a bit, yeah."

[Woody1985]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nobody knows what the sustainable population for humanity will be for sure. It's not an exact science. 2-4 billion was my best guess. Take fossil fuels out of the equation and in the future it will be impossible to feed everyone in the world. We can't even feed everyone now...how many people die through poverty and starvation a day I wonder.

If everyone in the world had the same standard of living as the USA (which most countries seem to aspire to for some bizarre reason) we would need another 3 planet Earths to accommodate the demand for resources. Places like China and India are now thirsty for the American way of life. Things are definitely coming to head within most of our lifetimes. The longer we avoid the issue the harder it will be in the long run and will cause more devastation to the planet, other species, and your descendants. This is the number one problem facing the human race IMO. Almost every other BIG problem can be traced back to it.

It doesn't help when we have an economic system that requires infinite growth (a growing population essentially) and several monotheistic religions that tell it's followers to "go fourth and multiply". Surely it would have been helpful to add, "until it gets a bit crowded, then calm down a bit, yeah."

There will probably be another war over resources when they are getting low. By that time China and India will be far more developed and probably engage in war with America, which will probably result in America getting butt ****ed or nukes going off everywhere.

[Jack]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't take anyone seriously who throws around figures like betrween 2 and 4 billion.One figure is double the other for goodness sake.

Got to agree with that. Its hardly an informed discussion when the variance of the sustainable population, plucked out the air, is so huge.

And forget about fossil fuels bringing on the demise of the planet, water is what will spark this off.

Oceans rising and submerging huge swathes of land currently occupied by huge numbers of people. This is happening all over the world and an extreme example of this is currently happening around the north east of India / Bangladesh area, or somewhere around there.

Rivers are also causing disputes, surprisingly around the same area and around Europe. Countries are damming the rivers in their own countries, for their own use, drinking, power, industry, and starving the countries downstream who need / have used that water for the same purposes. Whose water is it?

The Yangtze river in China is goosed as well so that’s China in an unsustainable position.

And that’s not to mention Africa and its regular appeals for assistance due to drought. They’ve been having droughts since I was wee and probably before.

Now correct me if I’m wrong but I think maybe Africa is a continent prone to droughts and should be left alone to find its own sustainable level. All the money that’s been pumped in over my lifetime has achieved the square root of SFA.

[Flynn]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Got to agree with that. Its hardly an informed discussion when the variance of the sustainable population, plucked out the air, is so huge.

And forget about fossil fuels bringing on the demise of the planet, water is what will spark this off.

I would like to hear from people who are "informed" as I would be interested in what they have to say. If it makes you feel better I will stick my neck out and say that 2 billion is the "sustainable" figure. Some scientists like James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believe that it is somewhere between 0.5-1 billion. Pre-industrial age levels.

As I said in a previous post, no-one knows for sure what the maximum sustainable population is. It depends on so many different factors. And I'm certainly no expert. Should that prevent stimulating serious discussion and debate on this issue? I don't think so.

I would also add top soil erosion to your concerns about fresh water depletion (as well as the demise of fossil fuels) that will seriously alter our way of life in the future.

As for the population explosion, how can we tackle the problem?
Is there a problem? I would be interested in hearing opposing views on this subject. Do you think the earth can sustain 9 billion people which is the projected level of population by 2050?
Should governments intervene like China's one child policy?
Should it be left to the individual?
Where does education come into the equation?
Is it mostly a developing world problem?

Has anyone watched the video that I linked to in my original post? It is really fascinating as well as being a bit scary. It's well worth taking the time to see.

Thoughts?

[Green Mikey]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would like to hear from people who are "informed" as I would be interested in what they have to say. If it makes you feel better I will stick my neck out and say that 2 billion is the "sustainable" figure. Some scientists like James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believe that it is somewhere between 0.5-1 billion. Pre-industrial age levels.

As I said in a previous post, no-one knows for sure what the maximum sustainable population is. It depends on so many different factors. And I'm certainly no expert. Should that prevent stimulating serious discussion and debate on this issue? I don't think so.

I would also add top soil erosion to your concerns about fresh water depletion (as well as the demise of fossil fuels) that will seriously alter our way of life in the future.

As for the population explosion, how can we tackle the problem?
Is there a problem? I would be interested in hearing opposing views on this subject. Do you think the earth can sustain 9 billion people which is the projected level of population by 2050?
Should governments intervene like China's one child policy?
Should it be left to the individual?
Where does education come into the equation?
Is it mostly a developing world problem?

Has anyone watched the video that I linked to in my original post? It is really fascinating as well as being a bit scary. It's well worth taking the time to see.

Thoughts?

The ship has already sailed with reagrds to population growth, there is no way that world population can be reduced to between 2bn and 4bn. With life expectancy rising in the west and population growth in the east and Africa, there would have to be drastic measures taken in every country to ensure that the birth rate was lowert han the death rate.

People should concentrate their efforts on making our current lifestyle sustainable becasue there is no way we can reverse the position we are in.

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't take anyone seriously who throws around figures like betrween 2 and 4 billion.One figure is double the other for goodness sake.

Aye but you'd not be scoffing - or rather, you would be scoffing - if someone offered to buy you a pint or (100% margin of error coming up) two.

[Flynn]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

People should concentrate their efforts on making our current lifestyle sustainable becasue there is no way we can reverse the position we are in.

Then we are well and truly ******ed it would appear. I will look forward to all the cannibalism coming our way in the mid to late 21st century. Nice.

For what it's worth I don't believe it is beyond our capabilities to reduce our numbers through choice. It will just be very, very hard to achieve. Population will reduce in future though whether we like it or not, it is a certainty that nature will intervene. I'm glad I won't be here to see the worst of it.

[Jack]

Solient Green anyone?

[Flynn]

I'll see your "Soylent Green" and raise you a "Logan's Run"

Channel 4 tonight 9PM - "OCTOMOM: ME AND MY 14 KIDS"

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think the government's policy of confining the weak to specific areas and altering their biochemistry with fags and Farmfoods cuisine should pay dividends in a few years.

[hstn747]

As ever science/engineering will find ways to solve the problems as it has it in the past.

New supplies of energy & improved technology (Thorium & fast breeder reactors) will allow more people access to cheaper energy. More energy will allow people to de-salinise water & grow better, energy intensive crops, to feed more people. As people become better off they will have fewer children.

The quicker that the standards of living rise (access to cheap energy), the quicker the world population will stabalise.

[(((Fergus)))]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As ever science/engineering will find ways to solve the problems as it has it in the past.

New supplies of energy & improved technology (Thorium & fast breeder reactors) will allow more people access to cheaper energy. More energy will allow people to de-salinise water & grow better, energy intensive crops, to feed more people. As people become better off they will have fewer children.

The quicker that the standards of living rise (access to cheap energy), the quicker the world population will stabalise.

What brought you to that conclusion?

[Lucius Apuleius]

A lot to be said for war and pestilence.

[hstn747]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What brought you to that conclusion?

Standard Grade Geography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...onomic_paradox

Rather than helping the family earn money by putting them to work, children become expensive.

[Dashing Bob S]

We have to applaud the Jambos in this. They seem to have reduced the 400,000 down to a more manageable 12,000. If everyone took a leaf out of their book, the planet would have sustainable resources.

They could do more though, by simply taping up Christian Nade's mouth.

[Rossco1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We have to applaud the Jambos in this. They seem to have reduced the 400,000 down to a more manageable 12,000. If everyone took a leaf out of their book, the planet would have sustainable resources.

They could do more though, by simply taping up Christian Nade's mouth.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just wondering what the general consensus of opinion on this subject is. It seems to be a political taboo to even speak of it.

I think the world's ideal "sustainable" population is somewhere between 2 and 4 billion mark. At current levels and beyond we are destroying the environment, directly (and indirectly) causing other species to become extinct and affecting climate change. Not to mention the speed that we are consuming our irreplaceable deposits of fossil fuel.

Before anyone replies i would urge you to watch the following link. It may be the most important video you have ever watched:

Arithmetic, Population and energy - part 1 of 8

Unfortunately, due to religious, moral and economic reasons there are no easy answers to this problem.

Another interesting link regarding population:

Easter Island - A microcosm of earth?


The above happened hundreds of years ago but is still, in my opinion, very relevant to our current situation.

Thoughts?

Ther are a number of fairly serious flaws in the over-population/sustainability argument.

The idea that over-population is a major cause of global warming is pretty bizarre given that the nations with the greatest percentage increase in birth-rates tend to be those where carbon (and other) emissions are as good as negligible and the nations with the highest tend to have declining levels of poulation growth (ie. birth rates are contracting).

Claims that you can extrapolate trends in population growth from now into the future is equally ludicrous, and hilariously illogical.

It's all a handy attempt to democratise blame for global warming and other environmental damge - something Green groups are very quick to do, given that they want to be all inclusive and non-conflictive - rather than apportion blame to the correct people, trends and systems.

It's similar to the arguments (including in this thread) about population outstripping food production. Again, it's absolutely ludicrous. Increases in food production have never done anything other than leave population increases in its wake (a stolen statistic, population grew by 140% from 1950-2000 while food production grew by 250% between just 1950 and 1970). It's another attempt to deflect blame for environmental damage away from the proper recipients and onto people who should shoulder no blame whatsoever and cannot do anything about it even if they were in some way complicit.

If it was really quite depressing it would be pretty funny that people would prefer to contemplate limiting child-birth or other seriously strange (scary) ideas to cut the world population rather than actually address what is at the heart of things.

[GlesgaeHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ther are a number of fairly serious flaws in the over-population/sustainability argument.

The idea that over-population is a major cause of global warming is pretty bizarre given that the nations with the greatest percentage increase in birth-rates tend to be those where carbon (and other) emissions are as good as negligible and the nations with the highest tend to have declining levels of poulation growth (ie. birth rates are contracting).

Claims that you can extrapolate trends in population growth from now into the future is equally ludicrous, and hilariously illogical.

It's all a handy attempt to democratise blame for global warming and other environmental damge - something Green groups are very quick to do, given that they want to be all inclusive and non-conflictive - rather than apportion blame to the correct people, trends and systems.

It's similar to the arguments (including in this thread) about population outstripping food production. Again, it's absolutely ludicrous. Increases in food production have never done anything other than leave population increases in its wake (a stolen statistic, population grew by 140% from 1950-2000 while food production grew by 250% between just 1950 and 1970). It's another attempt to deflect blame for environmental damage away from the proper recipients and onto people who should shoulder no blame whatsoever and cannot do anything about it even if they were in some way complicit.

If it was really quite depressing it would be pretty funny that people would prefer to contemplate limiting child-birth or other seriously strange (scary) ideas to cut the world population rather than actually address what is at the heart of things.

There is a link though. Take sub-Saharan Africa for example where population is growing rapidly.

SSA contributes a very small amount to global C02 emissions as they do not have the infrastructure/energy consumption of Europe/USA/China etc

However, as population expands, they are having to cut down forests to boost their weak economy/for agriculture needs/to boost land space for living in.

This releases vast amounts of C02 into the atmosphere, as the forests are great stores of carbon.