Over population.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Will be a case of having to be vegetarian, they will have no choice. We will also see insects on the menu a lot more in the coming decades such as "mealworm Burgers" But if we start introducing these things to today's kids now, then perhaps there is hope!

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: flammadraco

On what data those that prediction include? Garbage.

Perhaps you missed it but for ease, here it is again!!
A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF),

That technology has actually reduced the starvation rate world-wide even as the population has soared.

11.3% of the World is still undernourished so if we cannot support and feed those already on our planet, how on earth can we feed in excess of 10 Billion?
Source

Look to the stars, that's the real 'out' for this race.....

Concur and already been said that we need to head for the cosmos!

a reply to: flammadraco

Perhaps it's just me, BUT, the current 'studies' especially funded by vested interest groups, look to have that vested interest validated by the 'study'.

Add in the propensity to trust scientists' predictions with the same faith as a priest's, back in the day, and one who is a skeptic will question both.

We are close to fusion power and instead of turning the Sahara, et al, into solar sources, irrigate them.

What will suffer is wild-life...oh yes, that's right, that's who funded the 'study'....

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

So are you (changing your living habbit?) not that it matters really.. (sadly).

But sure I read they are for example trying to make meat that taste the same as real meat but without animals.
Still the meat production is a very big economic resource, anything that would harm it would be fought.. and people just buy what's cheap mostly (except the few who don't care or have lots of money). So if that would be more expensive, people don't care!! also just the tought it wouldn't be real meat.. would be enough for most for ignoring such products.
In my country (holland), we got more pigs then people for meat production lol and holland is a tiny country. Correction: 12 million pigs/each year for meat production, so less then the 17 million people but 12 million pigs slaughtered each year in this tiny country (so still basiclly far more then people overall over the years), and am not even talking about other animals for meat production.. but see this on a world scale > insane numbers.

originally posted by: Pluginn
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

So are you (changing your living habbit?) not that it matters really.. (sadly).

But sure I read they are for example trying to make meat that taste the same as real meat but without animals.
Still the meat production is a very big economic resource, anything that would harm it would be fought.. and people just buy what's cheap mostly (except the few who don't care or have lots of money). So if that would be more expensive, people don't care!! also just the tought it wouldn't be real meat.. would be enough for most for ignoring such products.
In my country (holland), we got more pigs then people for meat production lol and holland is a tiny country.

Lifelong vegitarian here, never ate meat before! 40 years and never had a health problem.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Good, still that doesn't make a dent.
But would be great if we all would stop eating meat, I agree. But you have a car? using electric power or any product made from oil, planting trees and so on and on? My wild guess in 5% you have succeeded which most (by far) don't with living in balance... still you are 1 of the best out there from us.

a reply to: ChaosruptureS420 I imagine mass pandemics will cull the herd along with famine , wars for resources and all other good stuff, you can't blame government for this run away train

a reply to: nwtrucker

I agree with your points, we can use the example of Tobacco companies financing studies! But it's quite obvious that the way us humans are going at the moment, it is not sustainable.

I agree with your point about Fusion Power but there has to be someone making money from this for it to become commercially viable. If I'm not mistaken, Tesla found a unlimited power source but all his research about this is now in the hands of the U.S. Goverment. Probably they used his research when they started using the HARRP technology. But as long as there is money to be made in fossil fuels, anything that could benefit man kind is kept from the populace.

Would be akin to the pharmaceutical industry finding a cure for cancer. Would they release the cure to us or would their shareholders prevent such a thing due to the £15,000 per bag of chemotherapy they make profiteering from illness?

We could all live with nature and sustain ourselves, but who here is going to give up their creature comforts, materialism and everything else we take for granted in the West?

originally posted by: ChaosruptureS420
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

What would cause a decline or stand-still in population?
/besides the government of course.
I see where you're coming from, but tbh I don't see anything slowing us down.
Unless I've missed something important in the headlines lately?

Hey Chaos.

'A new model indicates that if current growth trends don't change dramatically, ''

If current growth trends don't change.

Based on current models of growth,

My bet is that these models do not take into account the dramatically changing models over the last hundred years or so. or even more over the last twenty.

The alarming findings were made using population models of demographic change from historical data.

Again, this is based on historical data. I see no mention in the study of climate change, water shortages, food riots, contraception, authoritarianism, high tech, virtual reality, bio-engineering etc. All of these things are making all those old 'historical models completely obsolete.

This is the scenario that the world seriously faces if fertility rates continue at their current rate.

This study says over and over, if, if, if , if.

For example, the model predicts that the U.S. will be accommodating 1.5 million extra people each year until the end of the century.

This is telling to me. The big if of will there even BE a US in 85 years.

So you see Chaos, it is not that I disbelieve the prediction but rather that at this point it is futile to project that far into the future with any real accuracy. Ten year, maybe twenty but eighty five I think is just, well, moot.

Don't think resources or space will be an issue anytime soon. We will force better resource use out of necessity and space, well.......

originally posted by: In4ormant
Don't think resources or space will be an issue anytime soon. We will force better resource use out of necessity and space, well.......

Finally some sanity dealing with the global depopulation topic. There is no need for depopulation, people just need to learn how to live in harmony with the earth, other life forms, and with each other.

What would cause a decline or stand-still in population?

Lack of fresh water, lack of food, poverty, war caused by the first three. A lot of people will probably choose to not have kids as it becomes more and more obvious that our society is a giant game of musical chairs.

Just look at what happened in Greece- depression and austerity caused a lot of people to commit suicide. In fact, I read that a lot of farmers in India have killed themselves over the last few years because they have no water for their crops.

And the idea that there's "plenty of room" is stupid. Most uninhabited areas don't have water or have very extreme climates which is why people don't live there.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

OK, How?

How can the Earth which is at the end of the day a "Biosphere" sustain over 10 billion people? The Earth does not have unlimited resources, so please do tell how mother nature can sustain over 10 Billion Humans.

Actually I already answered this on the first page. Our problem isn't whether or not the Earth can sustain more life. Our problem is that our priorities are screwed up.

There's enough water on the planet to sustain a nearly infinite number of humans & agriculture. But we'd have to build an international system of desalination plants first (and a global water distribution grid). Instead we spend that money on war, cosmetics, apparel, etc.

There's enough sunshine in the world's deserts to produce an almost inconceivable amount of solar energy, particularly since solar panels keep becoming more efficient. But we'd rather spend hundreds of billions of dollars on wars to secure & manipulate petroleum markets rather than developing this magnificent supply of energy.

And the world can produce more food than humans could ever exhaust. But once again, it's a problem of priorities. We'd rather block off fertile land under "property rights" of individuals, organizations, and corporations than use that land to actually feed the world.

And another example is this: The US alone produces more than 300 million TONS of corn every year. But only about 20% of that is allocated for human consumption (and this includes the food wasted by humans). Roughly 40% is allocated to ethanol & another 40% goes to cattle feed. And this is just 1 example from 1 crop in 1 country.

Sometimes I think people need to get out of the cubicle, put the phone down, leave the computer at home, get far away fron the city and take a drive to the wonderful countryside. Maybe go for a walk in a forest.

My house litterally is surrounded by corn fields, and acres and acres of bean fields.

Over population is only in the cities where for some reason people want to reside, just so they can sit and bitch about too many people, poor trashy conditions, and how humanity is doomed.

Put down the brain washing propaganda machines and live a little people.

If it is too crowded where you live, man up and do something a about your situation.

a reply to: flammadraco

can only hold 9 to 10 billion humans.

So we currently have about 7 Billion people. That means we have to add about 20% more floor space. Means building an extra few hi rise towers. Problem solved. As to resources there are plenty. But they keep creating wars to control the monopoly.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Actually, I already gave an answer on page 2/3 of this thread that said even if all the farming land in the world was used just for crops to feed humans then the earth only has enough arable land to feed 10 billion MAX! And that's only if every human became vegetarian!

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

No one said it was a space issue for new housing??? There won't be enough food for more than 10 billion people. We currently have 11% of the human population malnourished as it is, how can we feed another 3 billion humans if we can't feed what we already have!

a reply to: liejunkie01

Sometimes I think people need to read what is written properly before writing, again no one has said its a space for housing issue, it's a resource issue and if everyone had to reduce the amount of resources they used so they could easily be shared with everyone on the planet, then the U.S. Population which uses 50 times more resources than someone in China is in for a rude awakening!!

I'm glad you have corn fields around your home, we just need another 3 billion hectares to feed 10 billion people a vegetarian diet.

Again, this is not about space, this is about resources.

Thank you guy for your well discussion. Over population is always the big problem for a country if the country don't have proper accommodation and necessary things. People of that country should be careful about this.