City-Data Forum The population question (health care, Clinton, Obama, compared)
 User Name Remember Me Password [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

12-01-2008, 06:20 AM
 Location: Tampa 3,981 posts, read 9,242,776 times Reputation: 1164

i read a book for school a while back, where a guy calculated how much food/water people need, and based on his estimates, the earth can sustain long term populations based on he following tech/society levels

American - 2 billion
Italian - 4.5 billion
Indian - 9 billion

12-01-2008, 08:19 AM
 Location: Somewhere out there 9,616 posts, read 11,064,818 times Reputation: 3717
Say what???? Heee hee

Quote:
 Originally Posted by crystalblue i read a book for school a while back, where a guy calculated how much food/water people need, and based on his estimates, the earth can sustain long term populations based on he following tech/society levels American - 2 billion Italian - 4.5 billion Indian - 9 billion

#\$%\$#%#%%......\$%^^%&*&*^%

Hahahahahaha..#\$%\$%#%#.. hahahhaaaaaaaa

Sorry... took me a while to get up off the floor! (Heee hee hah...)

In an ideal world, perhaps. With no global or continental droughts, pest-insect or human plague outbreaks or a multiplicity of density-dependant issues (like, how many rats CAN you cram into a cage? Let's say 25 in a 20 gallon aquarium. Will they be happy? I won't even answer that one. But it CAN be done for sure).

(Oh, BTW, did your author also add in the new gross populations of Europe, Australia and Africa? another what, 10 billion? A half a billion in the Scandinavian countries?)

What if we all "fahrt" at the same time? Someone lights a match somewhere and "Ka-Bang", the whole surface of the Earth lights off! Yippeeeee!

What about increased global hostilities? Marketplace competitiveness that ruins another country's product's saleability via nasty marketing practices, for example. There are SOOO many incalculables that work against such spectacular population numbers. The national, continental and global transportation issues alone...my gawd! Imagine if some despot or terrorist bombs the Panama Canal. Or it's new owners (why again did we give it up?) raise the tariff by some huge number?

What has that got to do with population sustainability you ask? Well, everything. Because we're not sedated lab rats or white mice. We interact, and the more of us jammed onto this planet, the more interaction. And the more interaction, especially between us loving, caring altruistic humans, the worse it gets. Proven. No argument.

Plus, whomever your author was, he probably either silently assumed a lot, or there was more to the article than you mention. Like the assumption of vast improvements in ag-productivity, transportation improvements, reduced dependance on hydrocarbons, etc. We're running out of sustainable fish populations right now, at only 6 billion! Today in Russia and China crops go to waste out in the country simply because they don't have the sophisticated infrastructure to get the stuff where it needs to be. Within their own country! (Did you know it was just last summer that China switched from coal-burning steam locomotives to diesels? Choo choo!) So they both buy wheat from us and Kanada, all the while posting nasty political threats towards our military.

Left hand, meet the right hand! Now, STOP that fighting!

Ho hum. Well, it was good for a stress-relieving laugh. Thanks CrystalBlue!

(PS: in reality, even given vast improvements in sustainable energy and food production, water and health-care and waste management, we can handle, at best (my educated estimate) about 3.5 billion people).

Last edited by rifleman; 12-01-2008 at 08:25 AM.. Reason: typos

12-01-2008, 10:31 AM
 Location: Heartland Florida 9,324 posts, read 23,234,062 times Reputation: 4895
This is the same point I have been making. We can choose to have billions of people crammed on the earth like a rental storage unit or fewer people living with breathing room well fed and much happier. The short-lived stunted growth humans that make up the bulk of the population are living a deprived life. The earth is finite and there's no place we can travel to now that gives us breathing room. The decision on how to cut population will be made either by humans or nature. I would rather have people learn contraception and stop listening to archaic religious nonsense to breed and kill your children through neglect. Otherwise a series of plagues, famines, or a world war will cut population.

12-01-2008, 10:38 AM
 Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot 8,309 posts, read 33,335,973 times Reputation: 7038
Quote:
 Originally Posted by kb09 The Earth needs time to replenish it's resources; and when I say time I mean years, like hundreds of years...
This is an understatement of the highest order.

12-02-2008, 08:11 PM
 Location: Brooklyn 40,057 posts, read 29,718,655 times Reputation: 10450
So maybe instead of pouring countless dollars into the military, we should be spending some of that money developing, or should I say perfecting, the technology necessary to "terraform" Mars. (Not that we wouldn't destroy that planet the same way we're taking care of this one, but at least it would give us some--pardon the expression--breathing room).

12-02-2008, 10:31 PM
 48,519 posts, read 81,030,761 times Reputation: 17978
Hillary clinton has talked about actaully giving a bonus of sorts to peole who have cildren in this country because of population loss. Muich of our growth is in immagrants both legal and illegal it seems .

12-03-2008, 05:57 AM
 464 posts, read 1,479,475 times Reputation: 208
Quote:
 Originally Posted by tallrick How will we know when there are too many people? Are there too many already? Every problem we face today has population growth at its core. We would not all be happy if there were only one person per mile, but there is a limit as to how many bodies we can pile up on this earth. Where is the line between empty and full when is comes to population?
Dont forget....overpopulation now means more oil for future generations which results from decomposition of human bodies , dinosaurs, etc... in the earth over lots of time. You just might be helping someones car get proper lubrication in circa 6810 , and that is a very good thing !

12-05-2008, 06:28 AM
 Location: Exit 14C 1,555 posts, read 3,637,871 times Reputation: 390
As before, not disagreeing with you on the whole, tallrick--I also dislike crowds, would prefer less population than we already have, etc., but there's one thing I have to disagree with:
Quote:
 Originally Posted by tallrick The earth is finite and there's no place we can travel to now that gives us breathing room.
There are plenty of wilderness and scarcely populated areas left on the Earth. Many of them are not the easiest places to get to--as should be the case for a wilderness area , and many of them would not be the easiest place to live in year-round, but they exist.

12-05-2008, 06:30 AM
 Location: Exit 14C 1,555 posts, read 3,637,871 times Reputation: 390
Quote:
 Originally Posted by texdav Hillary clinton has talked about actaully giving a bonus of sorts to peole who have cildren in this country because of population loss. Muich of our growth is in immagrants both legal and illegal it seems .
Wherever people are coming from, it's not a population loss though . . . I wonder what the heck she was getting at there.

12-05-2008, 06:34 AM
 Location: Exit 14C 1,555 posts, read 3,637,871 times Reputation: 390
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Fred314X So maybe instead of pouring countless dollars into the military, we should be spending some of that money developing, or should I say perfecting, the technology necessary to "terraform" Mars. (Not that we wouldn't destroy that planet the same way we're taking care of this one, but at least it would give us some--pardon the expression--breathing room).
I'm all for that. If humans are to survive for as long as possible, they have to figure out how to live for indefinite periods of time on other planets (and after that, how to practically travel huge distances and settle on planets outside of our solar system). I don't suspect that figuring out how to survive for indefinite periods of time on a variety of other planets is going to be very easy, so it's a good idea to start experimenting with this now. We may need to know how to do this much sooner than we think (given the current received views in the sciences).
 Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over \$68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned. Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.