Overpopulation and solutions

Hey all i know topic is hard and controversial but we need to talk about it.
how long can we support such a population growth in current system of governance its impossible since people do not support them selfs they use paper to buy stuff.

I know some may call me names after this but ill say it.

Religion blocks abortion and eutanasia
if we rose above such superstitions (ill get spanked for that one )
and lets say allow abortion and eutanasia + lets be clear .. some people want to die (young , old - does not matter) why not let them do that in a easy way?

my point is even if we stop growth of population we dont have enough stuff on earth to support us for long.

we would need to have higher death to birth ratio.

what are your thoughts and please if you do not agree with me then ok but do not attack me because of Your belives .

thank you and post your ideas.

Religion is the bane of humanity.

One solution: Cut off ALL aid to 3rd world nations, who have a tendency to have extremely high birth rates.

Let nature take its course.

reply to post by reassor

even if we stop growth of population we dont have
enough stuff on earth to support us for long.

Why do you believe this?

post your ideas

I don't see a problem. Earth can easily support trillions of people. It's simply a matter of efficient use of space and technology. People need food, water, clothing, shelter...simple things, really. There are technological solutions to any problem.

Water can be extracted directly from the air
Meat can be grown in a lab.

If you were to develop the available 148940000 km² land mass of earth as densely as the 337/km2 of Japan, you could accomodate 50,192,780,000 (50 billion) people. If you build as densely as the 10,452/km² of New York City, you could accomodate 1,556,720,880,000 (1.5 trillion) people. And that's just on the surface. There's phenomenally more room underground.

There's plenty of space and material. We just need to use it intelligently.



[edit on 8-2-2010 by LordBucket]

reply to post by LordBucket


i belive that we cant just because of our current way of using resources - gas , oil - lets for a minute assume that peak oil is right.
why not let people die with little dignity than let em suffer pain of cancer etc.

if we could change our way of governing things then by all means it would solve something.

as for 3rd world country's and 2nd poster's solution - my post is exactly to find another way. because now its happening.

reply to post by LordBucket


Would you eat meat grown in a lab?


How would you propose providing energy to all of these people you believe the planet could hold? How about water?

Like any ecosystem, Earth has a carrying capacity, and it has nothing to do with having enough room.

It's called intelligent management of resources.

Additionally, from your own source:

Several current research projects are experimentally growing in vitro meat, but no meat has yet been produced for public consumption

[edit on 8-2-2010 by brainwrek]

reply to post by reassor

because of our current way of using resources - gas , oil
- lets for a minute assume that peak oil is right.

So stop using resources like that. The internal combustion engine is over 150 years old. It is ancient technology. There is absolutely no reason for us to be using gasoline as fuel. We may as well start carving houses from stone.

my post is exactly to find another way

Use technology. It's there. It just needs to be used.

reply to post by LordBucket


im not talking about gasoline only. what about pastic? rubber and other stuff that need oil to be produced?

im well aware that fossil fuels engines are old - but we do not see any alternative.

there we have sollar panels wich are inefficient (cost vs output)

imagine what a waste of resources is fishing tunna on hawai shipping it to us for canning and then distributing around the world ... (i dunno if they fish for tunna around hawai its just an example)

how much all that transport costs?
how much of that transport cost could be used otherwise?

lets get back to the topic cause with simple math we can show that population growth is exponential wich means we do not have much time...

reply to post by brainwrek

Would you eat meat grown in a lab?

Yes.

Or would you prefer to reduce the population by five and half billion people? And are you volunteering to be one of them?

How would you propose providing energy to all of these people you believe the planet could hold?
How about water?

Are these rhetorical questions you're asking? The tecnology is there. We have the ability to desalinate ocean water, we have the technology to extract water from the air, there are already cities powered by wind turbines.

What are you really asking? Or are you so fixated on finding problems that you can't be bothered to accept solutions?

from your own source:
but no meat has yet been produced for public consumption

Yes. So? The technology is there. It has been done.

It's called intelligent management of resources.

Yes it is. And technology is a resource.

First you have to really define what is over population.. for me it is the ratio of resources to humans.. the number of humans is almost irrelevant. It is the social engineering that is in place that needs to be changed.

Prior to the black death we had over population because the elite controlled the ratio of resources to humans via the socially engineered serf system..

The current problem with over population is the way the elite again control the resources, and technology this time with a socially engineered serf system based on debt.

There is an added layer of social engineering with war and economic destruction of rural areas that push migrants to safe zone... (US, EU) which have altered the ratio of resources to humans in those areas.

Every time such systems have arisen throughout history events have happened to balance out the ratio of resources to humans (war, plague, famine)

There has also been an additional factor, in that society at those points (the elite generally) become wasters with little to no care for the ants (us humans) and this is the point at which change occurs.

Pre-Black death the elite were wasters their desire for spices and fine goods is what allowed the black death to spread throughout the world and broke their hold, the fall of the Roman Empire had Nero fiddling while Rome burned, The roaring 20s led to economic destruction of the 30s and war.

How many people can really up-sticks and move at the moment? they can't while they are in debt servitude, however they are also extreme wasters of those resources and going by previous examples this stage is followed by war, disease and famine and the current society, the binds that hold us all will be broken and adjusted.

trying to find ways to adjust the current over population will be a false one unless the serf system we currently live under is broken.

reply to post by reassor

im not talking about gasoline only. what about pastic?
rubber and other stuff that need oil to be produced?

There are non petroleum based plastics.

rubber

Rubber comes from plants.

lets get back to the topic

...aren't we discussing the topic? You said you're looking for solutions to overpopulation. You said you wanted to "find another way." I'm giving you solutions. I'm giving you another way.

reply to post by LordBucket


Land mass is not the problem with overpopulation - access to and distribution of resources are the real issues. The current World Population (WP) is too high to produce and distribute resources evenly amongst people scattered around the world. Some civilisations around the world are able to build and sustain an economy around them, others are not. Those that are not will only increase in number as the WP gets higher. It means more of those who are dependent on aid from others will place strain on all of those that are independent and can self-sustain.

The higher the WP becomes, the greater the need for extra land and infrastructure. This comes at a cost to animals and other creatures already living in these areas. Areas where food can be naturally produced will be under great strain as will many natural habitats. More people also means more pollution, more waste and greater responsibility.

The Earth's resources are not limitless and our means to deliver aid to those in need aren't either. Altruism will not solve the problems that we face, but Realism might.

reply to post by reassor


Jack ass, hows that for a name calling? I'm just joking. I dig what your saying bro, and I wouldn't be worried about it. Something big is coming, really big. It always does. God or nature. or what ever you want to call it, will do a great deal of cleaning soon. That's just how earth works, and it's been that way for millions of years. Don't worry about it, and go have a drink ;-)

[edit on 8-2-2010 by Lophe]

reply to post by Dark Ghost

access to and distribution of resources are the real issues.

Do you think the current 6.8 billion people could be supported using only horse drawn carts from 200 years ago? No? So why should we plan to use only technology from 150 years ago to solve problems 50 years from now?

My point here is that we're already dependant on technology to survive as it is. Without trucks, without transit systems, without irrigation, without all of these things we do, we would not be able to have the nearly 7 billion of us there already are. But...we do.

The only reason we're using fossil fuels is because at this particular moment...right now, it happens to be more cost effective than other methods. If those fuels start becoming insufficient for our needs, their cost effectiveness is going to change.

It doesn't make sense to say that we can't support more people because the methods that happen to be most cost effective at this particular moment with this many people can't accomodate more people and won't last forever. Use other methods. Problem solved.

access to and distribution of resources are the real issues.

So solve those problems. Use different resources, fly resources instead of driving them, recycle resources...all of this is nothing but logistics. There's no fundamental problem here.

Areas where food can be naturally produced will be under great strain

So don't produce food naturally. Do what I've been suggesting this entire time: use technological solutions. We already produce food unnaturally. So instead of trying to find ways kill off billions of us, why don't we simply improve our methods?

The Earth's resources are not limitless

They don't need to be.

Forget About abortion and eutanasia! how about Combining Free Energy technology with simple Living as Solution for Overpopulation?

reply to post by masonicon


Do that and come back when you have built a working free energy machine.

But you nailed it, actually:

The second law of thermodynamics stands in the way of all the proposed utopian solutions.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by LordBucket


If we lived like that, we'd no longer live on Earth, but Coruscant from the Star Wars movies. Surely we'd want our kids' kids' kids to know what a "meadow" is, or what a "stream" is, or what an "animal that isn't a foodsource" is.

OK, by your calculations, we can fit trillions of people on the Earth. Well, if we had that amount of density, we'd still run out of space one day. Not to mention disease would spread like wild-fire, and we'd not have anywhere to put our garbage, etc.

Living at that density across the entire planet would not be living.

Education is the key to overpopulation. Make people realise that the world is not infinite in size, and they'll figure it out. Make them realise that the very act of having too many kids is eventually condemning those kids to a terrible life, and they'll stop shooting out crotch-fruit.

If it wasn't for religion we would be eating soilent green by now!

Soilent Green is the only way forward, that or the sterilisation of a massive part of humanity such as the typical breeders

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

The second law of thermodynamics stands in the way of all the proposed utopian solutions.

You have obviously never studied engineering, and have no idea at all what you are talking about, throwing around the word 'thermodyamics' as a catch-all phrase; you clearly do not understand the concept of entropy.

It makes me laugh; much appreciate the entertainment.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by some joes email


Is it much fun to copy my responses to your incoherent rants?

I would think that the concept of enthropy speaks against the feasability of several trillion inhabitants on earth. But hey, that's just me.

You seem to be very fond of ad hominems. Does that come from the lack of attention you get in real life or is that an unrelated issue?