World Population Out of Control (interview, generations, financial, money)

[my54ford]

I have always felt an inner revulsion when confronted with the concept of a haveing no family. I don't mention it to people, ever, but I think less of those involved in life without kids....I think most of them are more than likely selfish leftist greenies. Thank God we'll breed them out of the genepool!

[GregW]

Assuming that the world's human population continues to grow at an exponential rate what do you think might be the upper limit if there is an actual upper limit? I believe there is an upper limit and that it is not much larger than the current population. I do not expect the world to be able to support another doubling.

Whenever the population reaches the tipping point it will start to decrease due, most probably to war, disease, famine and pests. Once it starts to drop the rate will increase as more and more human cities depopulate and the remaining trade and food transport fails. Eventually the population of the world will drop to less than 1/3 to 1/2 of the current level. I expect it will take less than a decade.

The effects of this rapid decrease in population on the economics will be interesting. Almost all of the human economics are based on constant or exponential growth. Even steady state populations are not acceptable. Maybe a new form of economics will emerge after the collapse. I wonder if a new civilization will develop that is finally aware of the end result of uncontrolled increases in the human population.

I posted this statement a couple of days ago. It states in shorter form what I said in this Post but removed because it was apparently too flippant for this serious forum. Here it is anyway:

"The Four Horsemen are out in the stable mounting their steeds. The results are not going to be pretty. Just hope a technical civilization survives the apocalypse." GregW

We will suffer the loss of a great many humans when we reach the limit. I do hope a technical civilization instead of a low tech nightmare survives.

[kinkytoes]

Originally Posted by my54ford

I have always felt an inner revulsion when confronted with the concept of a haveing no family. I don't mention it to people, ever, but I think less of those involved in life without kids....I think most of them are more than likely selfish leftist greenies. Thank God we'll breed them out of the genepool!

WTH I think you need to thank "Leftist Greenies" (especially high-earning and highly taxed greenies) because without them families with children would have an even harder time than they do now. If everyone in the US decided to have a "family" then we'd be in the same boat as India.

People who decide not to have children are extremely generous, IMO since they pay to subsidize those who have families. Public schools, lower taxes for families with dependent children the list goes on...

But I read the article. Interesting!

As with any location on earth, once there are not enough resources to support the existing populace, a bunch of people are going to die. This can happen anywhere and "resources" may vary depending on the location.

Sadly, I don't think it something you can predict... If people live to close together (as in many of the cities in the world) then all it takes is one fatal, communicable disease to kill the majority of them...

If there isn't enough energy to make heat in colder climates...well a bunch of people are inevitably going to freeze to death. Same goes for places that are really hot whenever there aren't enough resources to provide cooling. Those "resources" can be air conditioned houses, or something as natural as shade trees...which may have been cut down to make room for the extra people.

Look at the heatwave in the 2003 in Europe. Forty thousand people died, and compared to a lot of places on earth...it wasn't even that hot. The same can be said for the people who died in India during a cold spell in one of the states there.


I think the statistics are just showing that at time X, planet earth has the resources to support a population of Y. The numbers change at a different point in time. As Blaise Pascal famously said, human beings are "a finite between two infinites." Attempting to come to any useful conclusions based on a the numbers at hand is (IMO) a fruitless exercise.

[Chango]

The planet can support a much larger number of people who live in poverty, but not nearly so many comfy middle-class people.

Considering the middle class is shrinking while very poor populations are shooting up like a Saturn V rocket, the eventual outcome here is pretty obvious.

Expect populations to get much larger and much poorer.

[crisan]

Originally Posted by GregW

Almost all of the human economics are based on constant or exponential growth.

Why is this? Is it because so many want the comfy middle-class life, a life dependent on cheap human labor (China)? No other animal can be trained to maintain the complex lifestyle we have.

Originally Posted by GregW

"The Four Horsemen are out in the stable mounting their steeds. The results are not going to be pretty. Just hope a technical civilization survives the apocalypse." GregW

Who is going to be maintaining that technical civilization which I suppose was created by the rich before the apocalypse?

I can hear it now..."I bred you to be my engineer."

[GregW]

After regional collapses I doubt if the technical aspects of the civilization will be maintained just because it takes a lot more training to operate a complex power plant than live in an abandoned shack.

[crisan]

Abandoned shack!!! Count me out. I was thinking a high rise near Central Park.

[GloryB]

I think some folks need to get out from the city and drive though the great plains or the forest lands of the south. There's lots of room and many resources. Maybe you just aren't aware of them.

[jc76]

Originally Posted by goldengrain

Earlier predictions of slowing growth were too conservative.

Fertility is not declining as rapidly as expected in some poor countries, and has shown a slight increase in many wealthier countries, including the United States, Britain and Denmark.

U.N. Forecasts 10.1 Billion People by Century?s End - NYTimes.com

Wars and disease seem no longer reliable to thin the herd and we should be using our brains and technology to curb our growth. This article claims that the education of women to know that there is a choice involved in whether or not to have a family is important, and that we cannot stop at just disseminating birth control devices. So, cultural changes are essential.

My opinion is usually less attractive and actually makes people mad: Limit 2 kids per couple. Period.

[miu]

Originally Posted by PatsCats

We are already destroying this planet. I'm not in favor of starting on another one.

My husband and I are not contributing to world population growth.

My boyfriend and I feel the same way. We have no right to trash other planets. Less humans are what the universe needs.