Is planetary population going from 7 billion to 9 billion a good thing?

let me ask you a question. If someone told you they were going to adopt a poor child you would probably say it is noble right?

Now if someone else told you they were going to adopt a child every month of their life with no regard or planning for where to put them or dealing with the financial or family ramifications you would say they're crazy right?

Or would you say it sounds like fun, go ahead and do it and when you run out of room and money you can start billing me for it and putting some in my house?

No, unless you want to keep the majority of people living in poverty. Your goals are contradictory, you either want as many people as possible, living in the most deplorable conditions possible; or you want to eliminate poverty.

Basically, if everyone on Earth lived like a middle-class American, consuming roughly 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and about 250 times the subsistence level of clean water, the Earth could only support about 2 billion people

science.howstuffworks.com...

originally posted by: GodEmperor
No, unless you want to keep the majority of people living in poverty. Your goals are contradictory, you either want as many people as possible, living in the most deplorable conditions possible; or you want to eliminate poverty.

Basically, if everyone on Earth lived like a middle-class American, consuming roughly 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and about 250 times the subsistence level of clean water, the Earth could only support about 2 billion people

science.howstuffworks.com...

My only question to that is to clarify the base food & water needs. Would that be accounting for a social rethinking of stuffing our obese First World faces til we bust buttons & thus downsizing our gigantic caloric intake/portion sizes to make room for others at the proverbial table? And would that water uptick be accounting for being mindful & not wasting water left & right on pointless s# like washing the car every other day, watering the lawns during thunderstorms, etc?

What's everyone's definition of poverty, though? Most Americans might describe a lifestyle without an IPhone or television as "living in poverty." On the other hand, I'm hard pressed to describe a life in which you're well-fed, sheltered, and safe, with access to things like good transportation and medical care, as "impoverished" in any way.

The poor, put-upon first-worlders would probably be unwilling to set aside the cheap games and distractions if it meant making the rest of the world better off.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: GodEmperor
No, unless you want to keep the majority of people living in poverty. Your goals are contradictory, you either want as many people as possible, living in the most deplorable conditions possible; or you want to eliminate poverty.

Basically, if everyone on Earth lived like a middle-class American, consuming roughly 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and about 250 times the subsistence level of clean water, the Earth could only support about 2 billion people

science.howstuffworks.com...

My only question to that is to clarify the base food & water needs. Would that be accounting for a social rethinking of stuffing our obese First World faces til we bust buttons & thus downsizing our gigantic caloric intake/portion sizes to make room for others at the proverbial table? And would that water uptick be accounting for being mindful & not wasting water left & right on pointless s# like washing the car every other day, watering the lawns during thunderstorms, etc?

Majority of first worlder water usage comes from toilet, shower, and faucet.

The useless s# you are referring to would have a negligible impact.

I haven't seen the video​, but how about instead of inventing new things, why not upgrade old ones?

Is there a possibility that we can produce more with less, and reuse what isn't broken?

Technology is the greatest advancement the human race created. Information being second. Why would we need new "culture"?

And if we do need it, why would we start profiting it and create competition instead of cooperation?

Short answer: no

Long thought out answer: hell no

I think there is probably an optimal population range. My guess, about 3-4 billion with a better emphasis on relatively cleaner, renewable energy sources.

No, im not into the nwo depopulation agenda. But i do realize that everything has natural limits. We can voluntarily stay inside those or nature will ultimately do it for us.

a reply to: Metallicus

And on what basis do you make that claim?

a reply to: schuyler

You know that's a complete fantasy, right - - getting to Mars as if we weren't an Earth-born creature whose atoms/structuring is entirely a function of Earth-based physics?

Have you even read a book by astronauts or the toll it takes on their bodies? To date, only a year has been accomplished. We don't know what happens at year 2, o 3, yet if the non-linearity of biophysical systems holds true, a phase-shift may occur where the bodies systems go haywire.

This really shouldn't be in the least bit surprising - although star trek, star wars and other sci-fi has stuck a fantasy in our heads that contemporary biophysics, biochemistry and biology considers to be desire with all sorts of constraints and physical restrictions that work against the biophysical facts of our structure.

Anyone who seriously has in their heads "We got to get to Mar's", is mentally ill. This person lives on Earth. Evolved on Earth. It's home and Mother is Earth. The conditions we have here are fundamentally better than on mars - which, btw, doesn't even have a liquid iron core to prevent UV rays from bombarding its atmosphere - hence the absence of one. How exactly is "terraforming Mars" going to deal with that?

10b is a nice number with a high tech environment
10b in abject poverty (say India or the like) is asking for trouble. 10b in some glass skyscraper city being the norm in the center of the ocean and in space stations would be fantastic...more actually if we hit space.

with any luck, in a hundred or two years, we will span this star system and perhaps our neighbor with numbers in the hundreds of billions...if everything goes right.

All comes down to how. For now, the planet is struggling to accommodate what we have, but we are rapidly inventing our way out of the major dangers
Necessity fuels innovation.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: schuyler

You know that's a complete fantasy, right - - getting to Mars as if we weren't an Earth-born creature whose atoms/structuring is entirely a function of Earth-based physics?

Have you even read a book by astronauts or the toll it takes on their bodies? Have you seen those studies which show a reduction in telomere length in astronauts?

This really shouldn't be in the least bit surprising - although star trek has stuck a fantasy in our heads that contemporary biophysics, biochemistry and biology considers to be a fantasy with all sorts of constraints and physical restrictions that work against the biophysical facts of our structure.

Anyone who seriously has in their heads "We got to get to Mar's", is mentally ill. This person lives on Earth. Evolved on Earth. It's home and Mother is Earth.

The telomere issue comes from Zero-g
on a space station (rotating) or on a gravity planet, that isn't a issue.

a reply to: SaturnFX

What is your opinion of Humans going to Mars?

This is the problem with some people. Biophysics should be the primary consideration in this question - which is why NASA and other serious agencies employ biophysicists to consider the problems and possible solutions to living in space.

I am not saying that space travel isn't interesting (should be considered ancillary in any society which has gross inequality, as our present society does) but that this dream of going to Mars is a ridiculous, completely unscientific wishful fantasy which has major, perhaps fundamental obstacles for Earth based creatures. The most obvious one is the size difference between Earth and Mars and the effects that would have on our biophysical processes. Not all molecules evolve on all planets, so it would be unreasonable to think Matt Damon on Mars is a realistic situation.

As mentioned in a previous post, Mars can't contain an atmosphere because it doesn't project a magnetic field - this is because it lacks the mass to maintain a liquid iron mantle like the one Earth has. These are fundamental issues.

Now, of course, I'm not saying we shouldn't one day seek to do something like colonize Mars - but in todays world, with todays problem, it is downright nihilistic/imaginary to focus your mind and your energies in this way. Humans need Earth, or at the very least, a planet roughly the same size as Earth, anchored by a large moon like ours, and protected in some way by frequent meteoric bombardments from outer space the way Earth is protected by Jupiter. Oh - and the sun we have may also be a very necessary feature.

It'll be good for Apple and Facebook who will see more people as a bigger marketplace. In reality it is a disaster for the world, the environment and the furure.

Billions of these people will persist in poverty, ignorance and filth - where's the progress in that.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: SaturnFX

What is your opinion of Humans going to Mars?

This is the problem with some people. Biophysics should be the primary consideration in this question - which is why NASA and other serious agencies employ biophysicists to consider the problems and possible solutions to living in space.

I am not saying that space travel isn't interesting (should be considered ancillary in any society which has gross inequality, as our present society does) but that this dream of going to Mars is a ridiculous, completely unscientific wishful fantasy which has major, perhaps fundamental obstacles for Earth based creatures. The most obvious one is the size difference between Earth and Mars and the effects that would have on our biophysical processes. Not all molecules evolve on all planets, so it would be unreasonable to think Matt Damon on Mars is a realistic situation.

As mentioned in a previous post, Mars can't contain an atmosphere because it doesn't project a magnetic field - this is because it lacks the mass to maintain a liquid iron mantle like the one Earth has. These are fundamental issues.

Now, of course, I'm not saying we shouldn't one day seek to do something like colonize Mars - but in todays world, with todays problem, it is downright nihilistic/imaginary to focus your mind and your energies in this way. Humans need Earth, or at the very least, a planet roughly the same size as Earth, anchored by a large moon like ours, and protected in some way by frequent meteoric bombardments from outer space the way Earth is protected by Jupiter. Oh - and the sun we have may also be a very necessary feature.

Gravity issues. I think space stations around mars will be more popular with martian soil being more a mining and perhaps vacation area...but you dont want low gravity for years on end as it will no doubt cause issues.

I think a nice space elevator on mars will be perfect though for some serious construction for megastations

Limits to growth

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: dfnj2015


No it's not a good thing.

I have had neighbors that literally have 5-7 children. None of them work. Who do you think pays for that.

Personally, I don't think it is right to keep bringing children into this world when you cannot afford to do so. As a mother, it would hurt me to not be able to provide a better life for them; but unfortunately, there are so many who do not care.

Seriously, birth control needs to be free!

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: dfnj2015

The correct global population of this planet is right around 1 billion.

I do agree that more people equals faster advances in tech as long as people are educated and motivated, but what percentage of a 9 billion population is going to be educated and motivated?

I am not sure we need more tech...we need more God and morals.

We do need more tech but not the useless variety that we see being developed.
Rather we need to get back tot he spirit of exploration - and that means space and colonising other planets. That way we won't need the Earth to support a rapidly increasing population alone.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Lemme think...

More people requires more land.

More land requires more deforestation.

Forests store CO2 and releases it after death, ergo deforestation is bad.

The sea levels will rise, leaving less room for crops and people, and some soil will become too saline to grow crops.

Then eventually mankind will become the four horsemen-famine, conquest, war, then death. I'm not a religious man but that is the most eerie interpretation of the book of revelations I can think of.

We are the four horseman.

Nope . Too damn many people in world already .