U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-30-2009, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,062,995 times
Reputation: 3717

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belinda_Cooperstone1 View Post
Ok let me simplify this. The earth is not over populated. Due to the size of it and the mass of it we are still fine. But lets just say for arguments sake that it is overpopulated, then what? Do we kill the second born son of the emperor? Do we go to the poorest part of Africa and say "Sorry the earth has to many people we need to kill your children" What would you do if we were overpopulated? I beleve for every person born a person dies. So what is your solution?
I believe it was called The Kaibab Plateau, somewhere in the American SW desert, where the Fish & Wildlife guys suppressed the predator population until the exponentially growing deer population were actually climbing trees to get at the last remnants of greenery on the now-dying trees. Their numbers then crashed.

That's what always happens with uncontrolled population growth. If we choose to do nothing, and "see what happens", we'll find out exactly what nature has in store for us.

Your examples are all overwrought or excessive and theatrical. How's about simple education amongst school kids, or encouraging family counselling to limit family size, for the next 50 to 100 years (a veritable drop in the bucket) to an average of 1.5 instead of 4?). Tere's always a good World War, which will happen anyhow if we don't get a handle of things and fast...

Surely you're not suggesting that, if there is a problem (which there truly is), there's nothing we can do anyhow? Really?

We are far too numerous on this planet. Don't take my word for it. Just watch. Right now, our rapacious treatment of our natural resources is spectaculary dangerous, but who cares, long as we've got a new plastic Barbie doll to give to the kiddies, and lots of fuel for the ol' SUV. I even drive a big truck myself! Never said I wasn't part of the problem, but at least I'm aware and concerned.. As for the animal co-inhabitants? Tough luck for them, right?

But do note that if it was just "one person dies, one is born" we'd have a diminishing or at least stable population. Not quite! We're increasing exponentially.

Overall NET population growth: (as of mid-2007; it's probably higher today)

5 people per minute = 320 per hour. =7700 per day.

I said NET, which takes into account deaths. No problem? Riiiigghhhttttt.

We are, absolutely, the most egregiously arrogant, self-centered and anti-altruistic organism on the planet. Heaven help the other species here!

Last edited by rifleman; 04-30-2009 at 09:51 PM.. Reason: additional info.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2009, 09:55 PM
 
Location: TX and NM on the border of the Great Southwest.
11,769 posts, read 15,792,846 times
Reputation: 22428
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRefileric View Post
An example would be if you put a bunch of rats in a cage that is too small, they start resorting to homosexuality, canabalism, murder and other acts of attrition.
As a biologist I have to agree but based on your results of overcrowding, it sounds like humans are already there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2009, 10:23 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRefileric View Post
An example would be if you put a bunch of rats in a cage that is too small, they start resorting to homosexuality, canabalism, murder and other acts of attrition. Think about it and make a choice.
The difference is that the rats are not capable (yet) of creating imaginative and technological methods of resolving their predicament. Humans are, which invalidates the argument that we are fully and inextricably bound by biological imperatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 12:39 AM
Status: "happy again, no longer catless! t...." (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,421 posts, read 16,681,935 times
Reputation: 16420
Quote:
Originally Posted by godstabilize View Post
My posts are already very long if I put spaces between the paragraphs there's no doubt in my mind you would be even more intimidated by the size of the post alone!(It would span a whole page and clog up the forums with facts you don't like to hear) Your ALREADY not reading the whole post anyways so what difference does it make? Besides if I didn't emphasize my key points with capital letters you would miss the points like you have been doing ! I have read EVERY word that you have typed! Can you say you have done the same for me? How can you debate when you do not get past the first three sentences of the opponents posts? Or better yet how can you debate when you don't even talk about the subject at hand? You dismiss EVERYTHING no matter how true it is and instead focus your whole strategy around TINY IRRELEVANT "mistakes" that your opponent has supposedly made ! Oh by the way when you read a book written by a professional author, do the pages look like MY posts or do you see a whole bunch of tiny 3 sentence paragraphs wasting space on the page like yours? I have not seen a "paragraph" from you longer than 3 sentences! What grade are you in? It is not my fault if your reading comprehension is poor and so you therefore cannot take in a REAL PARAGRAPH NOT A CHILD'S PARAGRAPH! Do you even know the definition of a paragraph?
I can't get too far in your paragraphs since your not seperating them. A lot of us have issues with tracking down to the next line and not using normal paragraphs. This is a common problem.

It doesn't matter how long, a blank line seperating thoughts makes what your trying to say much clearer and will encourage more people to read the post. Tracking down line to line is far easier especially on tired or stressed eyes when there is less lines to deal with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 12:43 AM
 
50 posts, read 266,686 times
Reputation: 47
I say, its overpopulated when the land of the seas are over-grazed lol....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 07:13 AM
 
4 posts, read 5,660 times
Reputation: 14
Default Overpopulation

[SIZE=3]Assuming there are 4.5 acres of biologically productive land per person, earth requires about 28 billion acres of land to support the current population of 6.6 billion. There are 126,039,936,000 acres of the surface of this earth. That leaves about 100 billion acres to grow on. If this number seems too high, that’s because it is. The acreage of earth mentioned earlier refers to its entirety. The acreage of terra firma is only 29% of that, at 36,652,096,000 acres, including Antarctica, the desolate, nearly uninhabitable areas of northern Canada and Alaska, Siberia, and Greenland. By subtracting the uninhabitable areas of Greenland and Antarctica, respectively 535,251,564 and 3,520,000,000 acres, we have 33,667,347,564 acres left to sustain the human population – a surplus of 6 billion acres (not including Greenland and Antarctica). Assuming that 4.5 acres of biologically productive land are needed for each person, 6 billion acres will only support another 1.33 billion people, giving us a total potential population of just over 7 billion people overall. The problem: Earth’s population is projected to be 9 billion by the year 2050. The predicament requires that America, whose figures bear heavily on the average of 4.5 acres needed per person, along with the countries importing the voracious American lifestyle, will have to sacrifice some luxuries in order to provide a more sustainable world for posterity.[/SIZE]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,062,995 times
Reputation: 3717
Default good stuff!

Quote:
Originally Posted by High_Plains_Retired View Post
It does indeed sound interesting but whatever the results, I am sure I would not want to live there at this late stage in my life. I have lived and worked in several major American cities but I am now retired to an area of west Texas that has only 36 persons per square mile. I have to drive 3/4 of a mile to my nearest neighbor and ten miles for a cell phone signal. For this battle-hardened Beltway warrior, this is pretty close to an ideal population density.

A lot of considerations would go into a study as you suggest, some of which would be easy enough to calculate. From my perspective, this study would have to take into account the age of that population. When I was younger I was willing to live shoulder to shoulder with my neighbors. However, age tends to remove one's patience with others and add barbs to wit. Neither characteristic is desirable for a culture where humans hope live in close quarters. Now that would certainly be a politically incorrect conclusion to a research study wouldn't it? Euthanize anyone over forty?
HPR, I've really enjoyed reading your posts here. Retired from what discipline in biology, might I ask? I worked for Big Oil and the Canadian Government in the Arctic for 12 years doing research of polar bears, as well as for Ducks Unlimited and a massive NE British Columbia coal mining operation when it was under construction. I was the onsite enviro. mgr. for this $7B new mine, town and 700 mi. long electrified railway over to the B.C. Coast, all to feed the Japanese expansion machine. New Nissan anyone?

And then, as a last straw experience, I was hired by a San Francisco Enviro-consulting company to interface with the concrete-overlay-oriented US. Army Corps of Engineers on whatever fantasy projects they wet-dreamed up in their washrooms on the base.... Had to go!

In the briefest summary, I learned too much about enviro-politics and how big corporations operate ("We're paying you too much, 'rifleman', so siddownandshaddup with your whiny little concerns about the salmon and silt in the rivers and wildlife! We got some COAL to mine here, yeah!")

I also lived in Southern California for 12 years, but now live outside of a very small town in south-central Washington State on "The dry side" (≈<5.2" rain/year; lots of exposed fascinating geology; the Great Scablands flood from glacial Lake Missoula, etc. You'd prob'ly love it here! Most bios and geos do), and have somewhat withdrawn from regular interaction with too many people. Following my last corporate job, I swore to my wife that I would NEVER take a job managing anyone ever again; I'd had about 19 people under my wing in my last position and it was.. well, perhaps you understand. Also, we left our typical soCal tract home, with a spectacular view of the ocean, but also of about 297 Millon-million identical red tile roofs and swimming pools and the various odors of urbana. You could, for instance, tell what was cooking for dinner every Sat. night when all those folks lit off the BBQ lighter fluid. About 20,000 birds would fall out of the sky in our viewscape, dead from the incipient smog, I'm sure...

Anyhow, I'm thinking that biologists and ex-biologists have a unique perspective, (usually pessimistic) having seen the special, loving "effects" of man's fun ideas of cooperation, and interaction with the natural world and it's inhabitants.

And how such concerns seem to be ignored in planning, even today. The political/economic aspects of being green (i.e.: making a lot of money from the tree-hugging but ecologically illiterate) seems to be gaining steam, but the wildlife and habitat still suffer widely and significantly.

So. Overcrowding on this planet? You bet. Room for lots more? I doubt it, unless such stacked housing as I see in West Hong-couver (Vancouver, also known as Can-couver; jammed with Hong-Kongers fleeing the commies); the highest housing density in the world there now, with vast highrises on literally every block. About 18,000 people per square mile in the high-rise west end. Nice!

("Hi! how are yah? Say, could you get your left elbow out of my soup please? Oops; you replaced it with your foot....")

Pleasant if you like that sort of density, but the sounds of auto gun fire as the Asian druggies go at it on ground level now fills the once-pleasant B.C. night air.

Well.. Rant rant, eh? Great to see you here. Enjoy your "isolation", while it lasts....

Last edited by rifleman; 05-01-2009 at 07:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,062,995 times
Reputation: 3717
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinsway11 View Post
[SIZE=3]Assuming there are 4.5 acres of biologically productive land per person, earth requires about 28 billion acres of land to support the current population of 6.6 billion. There are 126,039,936,000 acres of the surface of this earth. That leaves about 100 billion acres to grow on. If this number seems too high, that’s because it is. The acreage of earth mentioned earlier refers to its entirety. The acreage of terra firma is only 29% of that, at 36,652,096,000 acres, including Antarctica, the desolate, nearly uninhabitable areas of northern Canada and Alaska, Siberia, and Greenland. By subtracting the uninhabitable areas of Greenland and Antarctica, respectively 535,251,564 and 3,520,000,000 acres, we have 33,667,347,564 acres left to sustain the human population – a surplus of 6 billion acres (not including Greenland and Antarctica). Assuming that 4.5 acres of biologically productive land are needed for each person, 6 billion acres will only support another 1.33 billion people, giving us a total potential population of just over 7 billion people overall. The problem: Earth’s population is projected to be 9 billion by the year 2050. The predicament requires that America, whose figures bear heavily on the average of 4.5 acres needed per person, along with the countries importing the voracious American lifestyle, will have to sacrifice some luxuries in order to provide a more sustainable world for posterity.[/SIZE]
good number info, Martinsway. It probably doesn't take into account the problems with plant mono-culture vulnerability to pest infestations ("Look, Martha! An entire field of soy, far as my compound eye can see, just coming into view! Hey! We could start that family of 25 billion cute little grasshoppers you've been talking about, right here! By the way, how's that "names" list coming along? And quit drooling; it's not polite!").

Also, land nutrient wasting, the water table "issue", soil erosion, droughts, storms, poorly managed or non-existant crop support and transportation infrastructure (as in Russia; big problems just getting picked corn down to the processors, so lots of it rots every year...), available energy, housing and water resources; well, you get the picture. Already proven to be all too vulnerable.

And yet, we plunge on, breeding like, well, flies.... with pandemic viruses lurking in the background, and some government and religious leaders wishing to exterminate certain other factions on this planet.

Gee... ain't man grand? Let's make a lot more! Quick, honey; to the bedroom!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 10:58 AM
 
536 posts, read 1,645,106 times
Reputation: 323
Actually I have been reading more and more about the United States slowing down population wise. While places like Indina are out of control.

In the US the cities and surrounding suburbs can feel quite crowded. But I am from the midwest and let me tell you we are nowhere near getting overpopulated. We tend to congregate near the jobs and places that we can live so it feels more populated then it is. I drive to the next state and all I see is trees, farmland, and some dirt roads on my way there.

I think this thread should have been titled "when will the world be unable to sustain us?"

Not enough farmland? Don't buy it. Maybe if we double our population. People must not drive through the midwest states at all. For all the farmland I see there is just as much undeveloped land. Not to mention we still buy crops from outside the country.

4.5 acres per person? Is this true? Is this over years? Are they factoring in grazing? I hope so because 4.5 acres of anything that resembles a vegetable is 4.5 acres someone else can have of mine That would feed me for a lifetime
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
India is not out of control at all. It is the fastest growing economy in the world, and they are aborting 10% of all pregnancies. If India can stop population growth, through improved economy, fair distribution of wealth, and reduced birth rate, all of which are being done, India will be less overpopulated than the USA during this century. India is already less densely populated than England. India spends 4.1% of its GDP on education, not far behind the 5-6% of EU countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top