How would you solve the issue of exponential growth within the Human population?

a reply to: Ghost147

We don't know the true depth and breadth of our technology.

a reply to: Ghost147

I don't believe there's a problem of overpopulation. The world is vast & can provide food for all of its inhabitants.

The problem we have is our priorities. Imagine if our nations spent our resources on desalination plants, water pipelines, and large scale farms for public consumption, instead of for war, weapons, and other enterprises. We'd be set. Imagine if all of our defense contractors, security firms, weapons manufacturers, law enforcement agents, prison complexes, and the such were strictly focused on increasing global food & water supplies.

Also, the US alone produces more than 300 million TONS of corn a year. But roughly 40% of that is used for animal feed & another 40% is converted into ethanol. And that's just one example. So once again, just imagine if the world's nations focused more on food security. We'd have nearly an endless supply of food.

I'd also point towards our usage of land as a problem. Imagine if the world came together & decided some major endeavor like converting the Sahara Desert or Australian desert into massive agricultural centers. It may seem like an impossible feat now, but at one time, so did the possibility of talking to a person on the other side of the world in real time.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Reclaiming 'waste' land such as deserts is certainly the way forward IMO. There are also reports of Africa receiving more rain than before thanks to natural climate alterations.

If there could be large scale weather manipulations diverting some Monsoon cloud to places like Africa and collected and utilised more productively in the places it lands such as India, those places would be more self sustaining.

Places like India and China are vastly growing populations and their cities are vastly overcrowded, they need to reorganise their land and population location as well as curbing their birth rate. Same for Africa.

Developed lands need to stop taking in immigrants in the amounts they do as that is disabling them as already established first world nations and ruining their economies.

The wealth distribution also has to be looked at, pyramid structured wealth is not a long term viable solution to national economies unless managed honestly, effectively and in a non corrupt way.

For a while, some communist strategies might well work in many places. For example, non corrupt, non profit organisations in developing worlds that pay people in food and housing like the ancient Egyptian system while they work the land and in production and processing food and housing materials. All done on local and national scales, all accountable to a system that rules out corruption.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Places like India and China are vastly growing populations and their cities are vastly overcrowded, they need to reorganise their land and population location as well as curbing their birth rate. Same for Africa.

I agree with a lot of what you typed. But there's a common misconception with this part. Africa is the 2nd largest continent and it has more than 50 countries. But it has fewer people (1.1 billion) than either India or China. So it doesn't have an overpopulation problem at all. There's an interesting map that shows the world population issue.

The problems with Africa are because its nations just regained its freedom from Europe between the 1950s and 1980s. During colonial rule, the majority of the populations were oppressed & uneducated. And the majority of the land was undeveloped, mostly being used strictly to export resources to the colonial power. So infrastructure was only built in ways that help this.

But that infrastructure was destroyed during their wars for independence & the long proxy wars that followed (during the Cold War). So kind of like Afghanistan & Libya today, the African nations are having to rebuild everything from scratch. If you look at the places where there's the most poverty and/or refugees, you'll see this pattern (like Zimbabwe, which just kicked out the British in 1980). But Africa has more than enough natural resources to sustain its people. It just needs time to re-stabilize itself.

Places like Ethiopia & the DR Congo are building a lot of hydroelectric dams now to aid in development. Ethiopia's will revolutionize its economy once its major new dams come into service (particularly the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam).

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I know Africa isn't overpopulated, I said India and China are, though Africa could use controlling it's birth rates until it resolves it's other issues such as disease, drought, famine, corruption, lack of education, wars etc.

a reply to: Passive

Many people would say your view is selfish. That you are putting your own desires and happiness before humanity. Do you admit that? It's ok if you do, but just own it. And know, you're aiding in the destruction of our future with such a view. Sure we all want kids, but is it realistic to say,"eh, screw it." Because that's the view Money mongols have regarding our diminishing natural resources. They don't care because they'll be dead soon and not have to deal with it.

I don't have the answer but TPTB do. We know what they will do but we all tell ourselves they won't. Population control will be orchestrated to look like people are dying from random civil unrest, disease, war, etc...People are going to die from diseases TPTB don't stop because they see it as collateral damage. They will establish a globalist Orwellian style system, chaos will commence, populations will be depleted etc...in plain words, people will be slaughtered directly and indirectly. This Gov't will be accepted because it will be viewed as a 'necessary' step towards fixing the world, almost the way hurler convinced countries to follow his twisted ideology. People will blindly follow but a few. Just wait and see. It's coming very soon.

Humans already have the solution, it has been implemented since the dawn of man.

It's called war, and when the strains are too apparent to ignore, we will see a VERY large war.

PS - Increasing the food supply, does not solve exponential growth, it delays and compounds the problem.

This is probably not the time nor place but the first thing I instinctively thought was:

ALL YOU CAN EAT BUFFETS.

But that's just a joke.
Honest. Scouts honor.

Well ok, yeah I'm lying again.
Kinda sorta but not really.

No but seriously and for real I find most humans very interesting and capable of all manner of wonderful arts and technologies that leave me absolutely mystified and speechless. I don't think I could eat something that had the potential to create something beautiful and sustainable. Now, for certain behavioral entities that show no signs of independent thought, different story entirely. Nature always finds a way, even in the vastness of planetary systems and the Great Beyond of infinite space.

*burp*

Excuse me.

I suppose trans-dimensional Star-Gates and Lightworker wormhole technologies might be applicable, but I haven't the ability to design such schematics, much less explain them. I kind of have faith in the Higher Orders to handle such things. All I understand is the need to maintain sustainable ecosystems and not go overboard with designs.

For a while I thought of walled off city-states to stem the suburban sprawl, but that already seems to be happening in a lot of regions. Boundaries are defined to where the property lines are respected and defended, and yadda yadda yadda.

I am but an egg....high in protein and low in fat. I prefer to be served over easy as opposed to scrambled. With a side of sweet bacon, hashbrowns and wheat toast. Orange juice and milk alongside a cuppa fresh coffee. No decaf please, five sugars and a touch of cream. Thank you so much.

You're all total sweethearts.
Sorry for being so weird sometimes.

*cheers*

a reply to: Ultralight

Yes, we do. We no for a fact that our current technology would be unreasonable to use to get any amount of human populous to Alpha Centauri, for example, or even mars. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make?

a reply to: Ghost147

I believe we have advanced farther and faster that people realize or want to believe. I am ok with that.

a reply to: Ultralight

Are you implying that we do have the technology to travel to other planets and colonize them? You're posts are all very vague.

The planet may not be overpopulated now, but simple math tells us that it eventually will be unless something stops it. Birth rates are highest among the most uneducated and poorest societies, and birth rates are the lowest among the most civil and educated... Simple math tells us that this does not bode well for the future of humanity.

We need to ask ourselves... what do we want our planet to look like 100 years from now? We live in a society of paradox.. On one hand you have republicans who are hard on crime and seen as unsympathetic to the plight of the uneducated and criminal elements within that group.. yet on the other hand they are completely anti abortion even though statistics show that a significant correlation exists between legalizing abortion and falling crime rates (The theory being that those who abort their babies tend to be not ready for parenthood or responsible enough to raise a well adapted child, whereas if that same person goes through with having a child, that child will be far more likely to become hardened, angry, and turn to criminal activity to cope with their existence).

I wish we lived in the world as I perceived it as a child (having been afforded the great chance of being raised in a loving and warm home), where everyone was good, and every person was treated as though they were good because there is always "potential" for anyone.

However the reality of this life is despite potential and idealistic notions, at the end of the day you have good fruit and you have bad. When this boat called Earth becomes to full and starts to sink, those perceived to be bad fruit will be forced to draw the short straw, or at least many will attempt it...

a reply to: enlightenedservant

So what do you think our options are?

We need to branch out from this spinning little mudball.

There are plenty of other planets out there, and moons. Some even in our own solar system. That could be made to support life. We find near Earths all the time. We just need to really dedicate the resources to get us there. Even if it takes generations in space to do so. We will eventually. At some point, it will reach a crucial point, and then, there won't be a question of whether or not it is worth it....

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I know Africa isn't overpopulated, I said India and China are, though Africa could use controlling it's birth rates until it resolves it's other issues such as disease, drought, famine, corruption, lack of education, wars etc.

Most African countries would never do population control because most of them are Christian and/or Muslim nations. Some like Kenya do have legalized abortions, while other like Ethiopia are against contraceptives period. I was just pointing out that population isn't Africa's problem. It just needs several more decades of stability & infrastructure improvements.

a reply to: Galacticsun

I understand where you're coming from. I just don't agree with the conclusion. If humans were as determined to develop water supplies as we are petroleum & natural gas supplies, there would be no issue. Our business & political leadership even pushes artificial scarcity strictly to drive up prices. Artificial Scarcity

So the point I'm making is that there will always be the perception of "not enough resources" as long as someone can profit from that perception. But in fact, there's more than enough resources to go around. We just need to change our priorities.

I'd even say to look at homeowners as an example. How many of them have yards but don't grow any food on it? And it would be easy for people to have goats or chickens as pets, since they'll provide the owner with milk or eggs (hence, increasing the food supply). Just saying our priorities are the reason it seems like there's a shortage of resources.

Here are some stats, this site quotes stats from 2002, but it is similar today, I have a lot to do so if you want 2015 stats they might be online.

The exponential world population growth adds around 79 million people per year to Earth.

95% of which are in developing nations, Africa the worst.

Developing means they aren't yet properly self sufficient and as we know those places have struggles of famine, drought etc and have had vast amounts of money from developing nations thrown at their corrupt governments as an attempt at fixing their issues of starvation, lack of medical care, lack of education, diseases etc.

If their nation isn't in a good way, adding population makes it worse for them, they need to REDUCE their birth rate, exponentially for their own survival.

Developing nations spilling into developed nations also is not helping the global issues of population, economies and resources.

Developing nations substantially reducing their birth rates and being self sufficient whilst not spilling into other areas is the most effective strategy for true good management of Earth's population and resources.

www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu...

Telegraph





a reply to: enlightenedservant

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Why not also bring up the fastest growing economies, the massive increase in health care technologies, the increase in agricultural yields, the increase in education & transportation standards, etc? Even Rwanda has universal health care now, so why should they start reducing their population? Eritrea's one of the few countries in the world that boasts 100% food security. And Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa until NATO recently destroyed it.

Going by modern standards, the entire world was in "developing" status just 100 years ago. The medical field was atrocious & inefficient; transportation was still with camels, horses & inefficient trains & boats; the "rich" nations were pushing eugenics around the globe instead of civil rights; there were no animal rights or environmental protection efforts, etc. In other words, most of the world was in the same state as Africa's poorest countries are today, except even Africa's poor countries have modern technology.

The point is that those African countries are just now getting to rebuild after kicking out their colonizers. All they need is time & stability, not depopulation. Because they have more than enough resources to take care of their growing populations. Just as World War II left Europe, Russia, China, and Japan shattered, the Cold War & its African wars of independence left the African nations shattered. And just as the 1950s Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe, today's progress is rebuilding Africa.

It's literally the same thing as pointing at Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq & saying they need to depopulate because of their poverty. All while conveniently leaving out how they were invaded & that their infrastructures were shattered in foreign-led wars. But in reality, they just need more time & stability so they can rebuild their lands.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

All the research suggests Africa's ability for progress is hampered under it's population rates. It also needs to look at itself instead of blaming others.

www.un.org...
africanstudies.tripod.com...

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All the research suggests Africa's ability for progress is hampered under it's population rates. It also needs to look at itself instead of blaming others.

www.un.org...
africanstudies.tripod.com...

LOL So Libya should blame itself for its shattered infrastructure, even though NATO's war is the literal cause of it? Because Libya's in Africa too, you know. And what about Mali, which France just invaded a few years ago? And what about Angola? The US directly supported 2 of the 3 sides in its 20+ year long civil war, in a situation similar to the US's support for Syrian rebels. That war just ended in the early 2000s. Angola doesn't need to reduce its population, it just needs time to rebuild.

And what about Sudan & South Sudan? The US & Israel supported the South (and some of the fighters in Darfur) during the 30 year civil war because they wanted to weaken the pro-Arab government of Sudan. South Sudan just split from Sudan less than 5yrs ago, and thus, just needs time to rebuild itself.

Zimbabwe was a British colony (Rhodesia) until their rebels forced the British to leave in 1980. In response, the West levied massive sanctions on Zimbabwe which still exist today. In fact, Zimbabwe is well known in economic circles for the massive inflation that occurred at the time, which forced its government to print a 1 TRILLION dollar bill. lol Zimbabwe has all of the precious metals & stones they could ever need, but they're still hampered by sanctions, not population.

Should I go into Somalia, as well? And how the US backed African Union is still occupying & fighting a war against al-shabaab there? The areas that have been freed from al-shabaab are experiencing massive growth rates & have the best telecommunications infrastructure in Africa. But it takes time for this growth to spread.

I could go on about nearly every country there (like Apartheid South Africa). The point is that the studies you link always leave out the root causes of the poverty or poor standards of living. Population itself is not the problem. That's like me abducting half the people in your neighborhood, poisoning your food & water supplies, and then saying the reason you have problems is because the surviving half of your population is too large.