Planetary human over population

Originally posted by Dianec

Originally posted by benrl
the entire human population on the planet can fit in Texas, with a population density of New York city.

Thats the entire planet.

Its not that its over population, its too much greed that is the problem.

Based on 7 billion, standing shoulder to shoulder we could all fit into Los Angeles but this is misleading as is the Texas comparison because as you point out - waste and human consumption. Each person needs sustinence. Livestock, vegetation to feed the livestock, vegetation for us, water. Each person needs space for their waste. People need homes.
Those are just basic needs so theoretically we could probably fit more people onto the planet but that would be if people lived simple and bare bones lifestyles. Energy would need to be free of pollution; fresh water for drinking and bathing only, populations dense to avoid loss of vegetation which produces oxygen and cleans the air, etc. not to mention leaving space for other species and not impinging on their resources to fulfill our own.

A nat geo article once stated we can only sustain 9-10 billion without depleting resources completely. I would need to find that but it makes sense given how most people's lifestyles are (minus the indigenous tribe here and there who live based on needs alone). .People also like their space. We could probably fit a zillion people but would we want that?

All of the above is based on the current system of Economy and Government, and is absolutely right.

You don't think if all the resources the world spends on war, went to self sustaining tech in stead we could not see a World where Poverty and Famine are a thing of the past

Oh wait right, that would mean the Western world might have to give up the Mcmansion mentality, 2 car life style, with a Flat Screen in every room... Oh wait, that dream has already slipped through most american hands.

Damn, I guess we have to keep exploitation of the rest of the world to a maximum to maintain the luxury we have grown accustom to even as it fades.

reply to post by benrl

if the the story is meant for Moses. Then folk need to stop following it. Its like a beginner physics student trying to be the next Einstein. It should end.I vote 2 kids per family.

reply to post by FreedomEntered

Was it meant to be this way? I understand the biological need to breed. What I am unclear of is was this the plan? is it healthy for the planet and animal? Since creation of Adam and eve , has it been the goal to conquer every part of the planet with human life.

The need to breed... how absolutely right! In fact, it is unavoidable... unless we have our equipment removed.

The question we should be asking is whether there is a breeding check-down built in to prevent overpopulation...

Observation suggests that there is by way of war, disease, lack of food and things like homosexuality. All would limit population growth... and none of it; not one thing, would be 'wrong' or unnatural. In fact... we should perhaps even leave it alone.

Nature cures itself when left to do so...

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by benrl

 

if the the story is meant for Moses. Then folk need to stop following it. Its like a beginner physics student trying to be the next Einstein. It should end.I vote 2 kids per family.

Once again, the bible talks about Stewardship, people should not have more kids than they could support. Id go a step farther and say they shouldn't have more than their community could support as well.

But thats on them, to many people don't read the Holy books of their religion they claim to represent.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


I no longer think it is a biological *need* to reproduce (at least for us). The global population is 7 billion and steadily counting, so our preservation is the least of our worries. This modern normative ideal of a nuclear family that many un/married couples aspire to attain has been embedded in many societies, so I think that it has blurred the line between *wants* and *needs*.

It's quite sad, though, that as the human global population continues to precipitously rise, the population numbers of our closest nonhuman primate relatives are dwindling, and other species for that matter.

Just like biologist E.O. Wilson said, "[The human species is] an environmental abnormality."

reply to post by redoubt


But the culling of human kind by disease and war. Is just a dreadful way to depopulate and not even that successful because humans fight it.

reply to post by Nacirema


Animals dying cos they are bred purely as food source. Not treated as Coinhabitants.

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by redoubt

 

But the culling of human kind by disease and war. Is just a dreadful way to depopulate and not even that successful because humans fight it.

Nature has never been terribly kind. Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes (think of Pompeii!), hurricanes, floods, droughts, heavenly bodies crashing into the planet...

... but it is natural. Regardless of your personal beliefs, war is a natural human thing. It's not good but we do it often enough to know that we didn't invent it from thin air. From there, add in our technology and... as we grow in size, we grow in capacity to reduce the same.

The challenge is to evolve out of this nursery and away from those things we ourselves do to ourselves... and when that finally happens, if it ever does, maybe we will have figured out a way to do it all a little justice from this side of the equation.

reply to post by benrl


I completely agree with you and it is my ultimate button pusher. The thing is - I even admit if we lost all of the conveniences and were stripped to bare bones I'm not sure I could survive (would be hard). I want to believe I could but its been conditioned in people (these conveniences). I was talking to a guy about Lewis and Clark (how they hiked 40 miles out of their way at some point). To hike 5 miles with everything you own is not something most people would know how to do (how to make camp, how to get clean water, feed selves, not to mention the withdrawals from comforts such as an easy light and heat source, soft bed, easy Heigeine, toilets, refrigeration, bug protection, etc).
That's going overboard but it was meant to convey how far we have come in only a few hundred years with what we are entitled to.

The yardstick for security and comfort has changed. 300 years ago getting a candy cane for Xmas would have been awesome (depending on status I suppose) but today that would be considered child neglect. When I was a kid we had cartoons only on Saturday morning (black and white tv). Today every home has at least 1 tv and most have more, and they are turned on more than turned off. More baggage equals more space each person takes up (through energy, pollution, and even emotional space as we see stress increasing).

I don't see how we can sustain many more people and their baggage (how the earth can). But "if" people would take the time to shed some of the excess they could reset to live more simply, making it quite possible to increase the population. Don't see it happening sadly.

Originally posted by Dianec
reply to post by benrl

 

I completely agree with you and it is my ultimate button pusher. The thing is - I even admit if we lost all of the conveniences and were stripped to bare bones I'm not sure I could survive (would be hard). I want to believe I could but its been conditioned in people (these conveniences). I was talking to a guy about Lewis and Clark (how they hiked 40 miles out of their way at some point). To hike 5 miles with everything you own is not something most people would know how to do (how to make camp, how to get clean water, feed selves, not to mention the withdrawals from comforts such as an easy light and heat source, soft bed, easy Heigeine, toilets, refrigeration, bug protection, etc).
That's going overboard but it was meant to convey how far we have come in only a few hundred years with what we are entitled to.

The yardstick for security and comfort has changed. 300 years ago getting a candy cane for Xmas would have been awesome (depending on status I suppose) but today that would be considered child neglect. When I was a kid we had cartoons only on Saturday morning (black and white tv). Today every home has at least 1 tv and most have more, and they are turned on more than turned off. More baggage equals more space each person takes up (through energy, pollution, and even emotional space as we see stress increasing).

I don't see how we can sustain many more people and their baggage (how the earth can). But "if" people would take the time to shed some of the excess they could reset to live more simply, making it quite possible to increase the population. Don't see it happening sadly.

And like a spoiled child, we all need a good spanking to break that mentality that an Ipod is worth the suffering of 1000's in another part of the world.

reply to post by Dianec


We don't need to go to basics. I think simple sharing is enough .but as someone pointed out that won't prevent nature from culling occassionally. Every person has baggage.

reply to post by benrl


Everyone can have an iPod. I think if we took the rat from the rat race we would see a vast improvement.

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by Dianec

 

We don't need to go to basics. I think simple sharing is enough .but as someone pointed out that won't prevent nature from culling occassionally. Every person has baggage.

Basics is too extreme but at minimum begin to cut back on excess.

We had 3 billion people on the earth 46 years ago. It took tens of thousands of years to build to that many people yet in less than 50 years more than doubled the population. If people don't simplify they will eventually find that basic needs are all they wish they had because the planet wont be able to maintain the status quo at the rate were going with population and consumption.

The problem i see is not only the size of the population, but the resources needed to sustain this population.
More people need more meat, water, wheat etc, which in turn needs more pastures, dams, farms etc. etc. etc.

I failed to read the most simple explanation.

Life needs to breed to survive for just one simple reason. Pass their genes to their offspring.
People need to breed to pass these same genes to their offspring. It's the only way to keep on surviving.

All life gets bullied too... By bacteria, viruses etc, that's why life created multiple ways to create as much as genetic varieties as possible. By using female and male combinations for example. Only because it will possibly protect some against the deathly diseases that torments life, so some will live on.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


So people just breeding for the " sake of it" . I don't get that. How can people have kids and think they are bringing them into this wonderful world, it is not a wonderful world. It has many challenges.

Isnt it from pure " ego" that people just think to breed is the way. When quite frankly we have enough problems as is, such as the inability to share and get on with our neighbours. And to treat other humans with dignity.

Who really feels good about leaving their children in this world? What does it achieve.

FreedomEntered
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

 

So people just breeding for the " sake of it" . I don't get that. How can people have kids and think they are bringing them into this wonderful world, it is not a wonderful world. It has many challenges.

Isnt it from pure " ego" that people just think to breed is the way. When quite frankly we have enough problems as is, such as the inability to share and get on with our neighbours. And to treat other humans with dignity.

Who really feels good about leaving their children in this world? What does it achieve.

People breed at various rates for different reasons. But behind them all is socio economic disparity, clearly it would seem that high rates of poverty and accompanying high infant mortality increase birth rates. The main evidence for this is shown by comparing the demography of industrial Europe with that of sub saharan Africa. In the former we have high living standards with social welfare provision and low infant mortality (comparatively) in fact the population of Europe as a whole is aging fast and would be decreasing in numbers if it was not for immigration from outside the EU boosting the decline in population. Africa on the other hand is exploding in population terms. As are other regions like India in where serious poverty is endemic. With poverty comes a lack of proper education effecting sexual education and family planning. Poverty also leads to limited access to contraceptives and vulnerability to influences from sexually regressive religious practices that disaffect third and developing world peoples. In fact biologically humans experience heightened propensity for sexual activity when living on a survival diet. It seems when the body is on the verge of starvation and or malnutrition stimulates basic human instincts, like sexual reproduction, for which there are sound Darwinian principles for.

Eliminate poverty worldwide...and eventually we could manage a static population.

There is no over population, not even close, it's nothing but propaganda created by the social engineers. The massive greed of the banksters and energy tycoons (among others) are the main cause of our problems. Why would these energy companies want us to convert to clean sustainable energy? It would demolish their trillion dollar industry. Humanity is in the 21st century being held hostage by 19th century energy interests.