The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by snowen20

 

Overpopulation give me a break. Lets make more jobs by developing undeveloped land and spread the hell out.

It's your type of thinking that makes me think human kind truly is some kind of virus..."spread and multiple"...go ahead and plumage and destroy the Earth...I couldn't care less anymore, dirty humans can live on a dirty planet, it suites them.

[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]

plumage ?

en.wikipedia.org...

I think I will deny ignorance here as you do not even know
what you are saying.

Dirty humans ? I guess the wild boars are clean ?

I bet you lay awake crying at night that you could not make it
to the professor Pianka speech.

en.wikipedia.org...

In a March 3, 2006 lecture at this 109th Annual Meeting, Pianka argued that overpopulation since the onset of industrialisation was destroying the planet[1] and that the Earth would not survive unless its population was reduced to one tenth of the present number. He suggested that the planet would be "better off" if the human population were to crash, and that a mutant strain of Ebola (which has up to a 90% mortality rate) would be the most efficient means. After he finished his address Pianka was given a standing ovation. According to science writer Forrest Mims "some even cheered. Dozens then mobbed the professor at the lectern."[2].

As sun Tze said, know thy enemy.

As I have said Evil was not defeated during WW2, it was imported.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

Originally posted by platipus
We have excess of "basic needs" we choose to waste all the time.
yet there are still people who lack these basic needs that the fortunate ones have.

It's human nature that once basic needs are met (and even before) other needs take over. People want to breed, raise families, and then make it better for their children. It's that love that stimulates a growth spiral that leads to more consumption.

Love for our children and families will kill us in the end.

reply to post by ipsedixit


That's a great idea. I will help spread the concept.

I see the real problems with world population as a social/economic problem.

We have the technological capabilities, we just lack the maturity as a species to take it to the next level.

reply to post by Blue Shift


It is more that once the basic needs are met, too many people want to lord it over others. They must make the world in their image, as they think they are some sort of god.

They can't stand the idea that someone else has something that they don't. There are too many jerks who just can't stand to see others have fun.

Originally posted by mattias
I used to believe in overpopulation, that is until I read that the state of California has 36 (almost 37) million people... thats 2 (almost 3) million more people then ALL of Canada, the second biggest country in the world. So I think it's fair to say the world is NOT overpopulated!

Yeah, but if it wasn't for places like Canada being relatively underpopulated, that number of people wouldn't be able to live in California. We could take half the population of California and spread them out all over Canada, but then that would wipe out a lot of needed farmland, and we'd still have to build roads and electrical lines and other infrastructure to keep those people alive. So long, Canadian forests and clear running mountain streams!

Again, it's not about spreading people out. It's about finding a population level where everybody has food, water, a place to live, a job, less claustrophobia, and a feeling of control. We don't know what that is, yet, though. So maybe it's a good idea to slow down on the mostly uncontrolled breeding until we can figure it out.

Originally posted by CHA0S
What...so this is just plain wrong? There have been like 20 people born in the time it took me to make this post...I look around the world...and I see cities so polluted you can't see the horizon, I see the vast majority is starving and/or homeless...why don't you look up the numbers on that...there are already too many people on this planet IMO...we need to stop where we are now...I wouldn't say we are currently overpopulated to the degree where we need to take aggressive action, but we can't afford to ignore the problem and act like it doesn't exist or wont manifest into a problem...

I'll address your concerns one by one.

1) Pollution is a problem, ppl are working on solutions and several
ways to move away from fossil fuels are in the works.

One of the better is Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.



This would also solve power issues for a very long time until
other means can be brought online like jet stream power.

en.wikipedia.org...

2) Ppl starving issue.



1 million pounds of food on 3 acres over 360 days a year
in a northern state of the US.

Scaling this up you could provide 2 lbs of food for 7 billion ppl
everyday on a land mass the size of the state of West Virginia.

Of course it is better if this method is close to ppl that need the
food and end all long haul transport of food as it is unsustainable.

Also Hydroponics uses 10 times less water than conventional methods.

3) Ppl homeless issue.

This is due to greed and not allowing building methods like cob.

We could build housing from cheap natural materials with think walls
that make it so they do not require Air conditioning or heating unless
in VERY extreme climates.

en.wikipedia.org...

One man even shows how to build a bermed earth or underground house
for as little as $50.

www.undergroundhousing.com...

At some point there may be too many ppl on the planet, but as
a VERY brilliant man said he thinks humanity will be wiped out
unless we find a way into space.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

There is a lot of proof to this and Professor Hawking is one of the
brightest among us.

I will take his word over that of the Neo-Malthusian GAIA
worshiping Neo-druids and their guide stones any day.

www.radioliberty.com...

Some ways we are likely to be reduced in numbers include

1) New biological killer like the Spanish Flu of 1918 or worse

2) Asteroid or Comet

3) One of the several Super Volcanoes

4) Long before SUVs an Anoxic event killed almost all oxygen
breathing life on earth.

en.wikipedia.org...

5) The recurring 26 million year Nemesis Theory

en.wikipedia.org...

The repeating extinction event is agreed by almost all scientists,
the cause is the only aspect up for debate.

6) GRB - Gamma Ray Burst from the ejectors of a dying star.

en.wikipedia.org...

7) Long before SUVs massive Ice Ages and Greenhouse effects
took place and radically changed life on earth.

8) Unknown unexpected long term event like the Super Massive
Blackhole at the center of all Galaxies reaching critical mass
and exploding greater than anything we have witnessed before,
almost like a Big Bang...

At the end of the day what we have is VERY poor resource management.

We could do so much better, and a lot of what is going on is due
to the concept of money.

Common sense tells us it is better for ppl to grow their food locally
than ship it over a thousand miles to some place where it is cheap
to package it then ship it another thousand miles to the place
it is to be consumed.

We find mercury in corn syrup, we put rBGH in our milk when we
know it raises tumor risks, we have food additives with known
side effects.

We know that a raw food organic diet reverses 80% of diabetes in
30 days or less.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


Yo man. This is great. Lots to learn for architecture.

You should look up FLLW buildings and what he did with them. This crap they build these days for homes are cloned failures for environmentalism. A locust of failures. FLLW chose a different style. Totally look him up.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by poet1b

 

The "peak oil" problem is a very serious one, even if so called abiotic oil were to be found to be a reality. I think that the "self-replenishing" oil well is a fantasy, myself. I think that there is no doubt that over the long term, we will need another energy source. Something to get us to the stage where "nano" fabrication of all materials becomes possible.

One of the keys to future sustainability is a revolutionary improvement in our ability to desalinate water. If water desalination were possible on a truly huge industrial scale, then the Sahara could become the bread basket of Africa and the Gobi desert could become the breadbasket of China.

If I had anything to do with science education in our world, I would be encouraging young scientists to do for salt what George Washington Carver did for the humble peanut, i.e., find a hundred and one industrial uses for it, so that water desalination could be integrated into a comprehensive salt-based suite of industries, hopefully making desalination of sea water part of a booming industrial complex that had as it's waste product, water suitable for irrigation purposes.

The oil issue is solved, we can grow oil, and in time we can
switch that over to growing hydrogen biologically.



en.wikipedia.org...

One of the tricks of algae and salt water is it turns it into fresh water.

The algae left over from extraction also makes and organic
fertilizer.

The Sahara can be both a Solar Thermal power plant, and the
largest fresh water desalination facility on earth.

A very low tech solar still here:

sustainabledesignupdate.com...

The sand could also be turned into glass blocks for building via something
like a solar furnace.

en.wikipedia.org...

The salt collected can be sold as sea salt for various uses.

Molten Salt also makes a great thermal storage for Solar Thermal.

en.wikipedia.org...

We know what we need to do and have for years, the politicians
are all just paid off to play the role of puppets for the plutocrats
running the game.

reply to post by LiveForever8


I can agree with this, but right now we aren't smart eniough as a species to use all of earth's land PROPERLY. If we all grew our own stuff and and provided energy for oursleves. Then yes I beleive we could support 10 billion. However, the way we do things NOW, there is no way we could support that much people. Besisdes the more people the more intrusion into animals habitat, the more animals will become endangered...

At which point is the world considered UNDER populated? Think about it. If OVER population means there is not enough land mass and/or resources to sustain the Global Population currently, how exactly can the opposite be a logical consideration? Does Earth need humans to survive? History shows us that humans have survived at various times in the past with substantially much fewer people than have been on this planet in the last century.

If somebody could find a positive correlation between the number of people living on Earth and the Earth's health improving, that might be reason to increase the Global Population. The reality is that it seems the Earth's health in many ways has decreased as the number of human beings in existence has increased.

[edit on 18/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

While your data may be sound, or it may not (I'll have to research it.)

And if you look around you, there is tons of un(HUMAN)populated land.

But let's not forget, that everything on this planet has an interdependence. The Earth may have a huge capacity for Human Bodies, but for human beings to live and for the planet to survive. We can't keep building more schools, more towns, tearing down forests and displacing wild-life. There is a certain amount of life that can be sustained by the planet, and at the rate most AMERICAN's live it takes at least 3 planets to sustain each of us. That is how the overpopulation is viewed as, it's not a matter of how many sardines we can squeeze into the can but it's about sustainability, which your report says nothing about. In fact America has an increasing YOUTH population which means there are more BIRTHS than their are people growing to be ELDERLY. In Italy for example, the opposite is true. They have a fear of their culture being too elderly. Mainly because of the education women receive there. It has been proven that the education of women directly effects the birth rate in any given country, If you look at Africa or Mexico or any developing country where women are very poorly educated, the birthrate is way up. I don't have charts to substantiate this, however the information is widely available on the net just research the topics as I doubt you'd click any links I'd provide.

The point is this: The planet may have all this space, but you forget that all our lives resources come from the planet. If you start filling in the spaces, the animals and plants die as does the planet. There is a population cap, and that is not mentioned anywhere in your data.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


No, the phrase under and over populated do not exist. The only risk is that too few "common" people makes the leaders easier able to control people.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by mattias
I used to believe in overpopulation, that is until I read that the state of California has 36 (almost 37) million people... thats 2 (almost 3) million more people then ALL of Canada, the second biggest country in the world. So I think it's fair to say the world is NOT overpopulated!

Yeah, but if it wasn't for places like Canada being relatively underpopulated, that number of people wouldn't be able to live in California. We could take half the population of California and spread them out all over Canada, but then that would wipe out a lot of needed farmland, and we'd still have to build roads and electrical lines and other infrastructure to keep those people alive. So long, Canadian forests and clear running mountain streams!

Again, it's not about spreading people out. It's about finding a population level where everybody has food, water, a place to live, a job, less claustrophobia, and a feeling of control. We don't know what that is, yet, though. So maybe it's a good idea to slow down on the mostly uncontrolled breeding until we can figure it out.

Hahahahahahahahahaaha!

Oh man. What a load of carp.

The cities we already have would get bigger. The farmland that shouldn't have been paved over was already done.

If every major center in Canada grew by twice, it would barely effect the amount of farmland at all.

The growth of inter-urban roads would have to go up. So you'd have to add what - four lanes to like seven major highways outside of Ontario and Quebec.

I'm sure that that those 20 metres width spread over 1000s upon 1000s of square kilometers would be just devastating.

We could drop the entire state into Newfoundland three times.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
At which point is the world considered UNDER populated? Think about it. If OVER population means there is not enough land mass and/or resources to sustain the Global Population currently, how exactly can the opposite be a logical consideration? Does Earth need humans to survive? History shows us that humans have survived at various times in the past with substantially much fewer people than have been on this planet in the last century.

If somebody could find a positive correlation between the number of people living on Earth and the Earth's health improving, that might be reason to increase the Global Population. The reality is that it seems the Earth's health in many ways has decreased as the number of human beings in existence has increased.

[edit on 18/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

The Earth isn't static. You'd have to base that on what teh climate is at the time.

How many people during the last ice age? The lower Drydas? The beginning of the Holocene? The last temperature maximum?

You know we are in a cold period right now?

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 2010/8/18 by Aeons]

Sarcasm:
Oh, good we can stop fighting for the last of the natural resources, we are underpopulated.

Originally posted by earthdude
Sarcasm:
Oh, good we can stop fighting for the last of the natural resources, we are underpopulated.

Sarcasm:

Originally posted by Blue Shift
... Again, it's not about spreading people out. It's about finding a population level where everybody has food, water, a place to live, a job, less claustrophobia, and a feeling of control . We don't know what that is, yet, though. So maybe it's a good idea to slow down on the mostly uncontrolled breeding until we can figure it out.

I am highly suspicious of you. Let's take your list that I bolded.

food: agree

water: agree

a place to live: agree

a job: don't agree. Our tech is growing to the point where machines are more efficient than humans for most essential tasks. We don't all need "fulltime jobs". We can let the machines do the work and be, more or less, on welfare.

Or, we can say everyone has to have a job, so we won't allow more people than that, and rather than spreading the surplus around, a few people at the top take it all. As you know it's not a new idea. Do you work for the people who have this idea?

less claustrophobia: here's an idea. In densely packed areas, get groups of 3 together, then kill one so they remaining 2 would have less claustrophobia. Bad idea.

a feeling of control: you either have control or you don't. If you don't, we cannot be responsible for providing a false feeling that you do.

Well there's no worries about overpopulation of non-humans ......

www.guardian.co.uk...

I've seen it suggested that the current species extinction rate can now be measured in terms of species per hour ...... primarily due to human activity, particular burning rain forests so that we can grow the likes of palm oil .....

But when did humans ever care about anyone but themselves?

I'd rather live on a planet with 2 billion humans leading a comfortable lifestyle and a huge variety of other species, than 20 billion starving people plus a few rats and bed bugs .....

Of course, you are all entitled to disagree.

Originally posted by Essan
... I'd rather live on a planet with 2 billion humans leading a comfortable lifestyle and a huge variety of other species, than 20 billion starving people plus a few rats and bed bugs ...

I'll give you that, it would be better for the 2 billion humans remaining, to have all those natural resources at their command. Humans can command natural resources; they don't talk back.

In fact your argument is the same as that of the Club of Rome.

For people who think that way, I guess don't have children. But then the fact is that someone else will be making more than 2 billion people in the next generation anyway.

And I saw one theory that the fast immigration and open borders of the USA are a response to our under-utilization of our resources. If we had our own babies, "powers that be" would not arrange for so many foreigners to come here. Many details missing but something to think about.

Originally posted by oniongrass
a job: don't agree. Our tech is growing to the point where machines are more efficient than humans for most essential tasks. We don't all need "fulltime jobs". We can let the machines do the work and be, more or less, on welfare.

Or, we can say everyone has to have a job, so we won't allow more people than that, and rather than spreading the surplus around, a few people at the top take it all. As you know it's not a new idea. Do you work for the people who have this idea?

In my experience, if you have a lot of people around who don't work but also don't have to worry about surviving, you get more children who grow up to do essentially nothing productive. And so it goes, adding to the problem. Of course, some people are just lazy, and they would love to sit back and have "technology" foot the bill.

less claustrophobia: here's an idea. In densely packed areas, get groups of 3 together, then kill one so they remaining 2 would have less claustrophobia. Bad idea.

Some people have a greater sense of claustrophobia than others. I just think it would be nice to still have the choice. That won't happen if all the useful land has to be squirreled away by either the government or large agriculture companies to keep everybody in the cities well-fed.

a feeling of control: you either have control or you don't. If you don't, we cannot be responsible for providing a false feeling that you do.

I agree with you somewhat on that. However, the more people around, the less choice you have about where you live, what you do for a living, how much land you can own, etc. If we were in a purely competitive society, that would be fine with me. I can handle myself. But when resources get too scarce, the government steps in and starts taxing and regulating and all kinds of things that constrict us all. I personally think it would be good to try and avoid that.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Blue Shift]