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.
One of the most serious issues facing the world and definitely one of the least talked about. Hard social and moral choices will have to be made.
We are fast reaching the maximum capacity of the earth to sustain populations. There are only a finite amount of resources and a finite level of biophysical capacity that is closely tied to petroleum production. (agricultural fertilizers) As more and more people compete for dwindling global resources, conflicts are sure to arise.
Should the nations of the world impose birth rate limits and more openly talk about this most serious and quickly growing risk?
I'm not worried about it. When the earth has decided it is overpopulated with humans, we will be wiped away without any choices. One massive volcano exploding and depleting sunlight and therefore agricultural production would be enough to knock out a huge chunk of population. We are feeding on a system that is near its max right now, and one glitch such as a summer with very little sunlight due to volcanic ash would break the system and starve at least hundreds of millions, if not billions.
Status:
"Mistress of finance and foods."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Coastal Georgia
50,052 posts, read 63,394,930 times
Reputation: 92611
We are nowhere near capacity on the earth. There are still almost 6 acres per person of land on earth (but I hope mine isn't at the top of Mt. Everest.). If we choose to deplete our resources, then nature will regulate the population accordingly.
People can be so arrogant. Nature will always regulate humans on the planet in the same way it regulates any other living thing. We don't want to admit it, but we are no more significant to nature that a bug. Disease, famine, climate changes, and survival of the fittest, are always in play for all of us.
One of the most serious issues facing the world and definitely one of the least talked about. Hard social and moral choices will have to be made.
We are fast reaching the maximum capacity of the earth to sustain populations. There are only a finite amount of resources and a finite level of biophysical capacity that is closely tied to petroleum production. (agricultural fertilizers) As more and more people compete for dwindling global resources, conflicts are sure to arise.
Should the nations of the world impose birth rate limits and more openly talk about this most serious and quickly growing risk?
Back when Economics was founded, the guy (name escapes me atm) stated it was the "Depressing science" because he calculated that in a few decades people would be starving becuase there wouldnt be enough food. However, technology improves. A corn plant that used to provide one ear of corn now provides three.
We could do a lot to better distribute resources. There are lots of examples. We could eat less meat, for one. I'm not a vegetarian. I'm not a "poor animals" guy. Thing is, though, we currently use pounds and pounds of corn and grain to get one pound of meat. We feed animals food we could eat directly, and then eat them. It's inefficient. I'm not saying we should eat no meat. Less would be better, though.
We could do more to minimize the impact of our waste and pollution emissions. Human effluence pollutes rivers worldwide, ruining them as a water source. Access to drinkable water is a HUGE problem worldwide and one problem with overcrowding. In fact, water is getting to be a huge issue. We use a lot of water irrigating for things other than crops.
Birth control should be more available, too. It's amazing what a little thing like a condom can do sometimes. Yeah, i know people don't always use them, but if one unplanned birth in 100 is prevented, that's one less mouth to feed. Sounds callous, but reductions need to be made. A pregnancy prevented is a good thing in many cases.
Granted, people won't do much until it's probably too late. People love to argue about minutia until the hounds are at the door and it becomes real. I think the more dire it gets the more choices we'll all have to make.
And it isn't 'depressing science', it's 'dismal science'. Thomas Carlyle called it that. He coined the term in response to Malthus's Population Principle, if I recall my college econ classes correctly.
One of the most serious issues facing the world and definitely one of the least talked about. Hard social and moral choices will have to be made.
We are fast reaching the maximum capacity of the earth to sustain populations. There are only a finite amount of resources and a finite level of biophysical capacity that is closely tied to petroleum production. (agricultural fertilizers) As more and more people compete for dwindling global resources, conflicts are sure to arise.
Should the nations of the world impose birth rate limits and more openly talk about this most serious and quickly growing risk?
Nonsense! Pure nonsense! We aren't even close, not even a serious issue, just another piece of the "mankind is bad" puzzle, from the crazy envirocoms !
Nonsense! Pure nonsense! We aren't even close, not even a serious issue, just another piece of the "mankind is bad" puzzle, from the crazy envirocoms !
Which begs the question: why are people starving and overcrowded all over the world?
We are fast reaching the maximum capacity of the earth to sustain populations. There are only a finite amount of resources and a finite level of biophysical capacity that is closely tied to petroleum production. (agricultural fertilizers) As more and more people compete for dwindling global resources, conflicts are sure to arise.
Should the nations of the world impose birth rate limits and more openly talk about this most serious and quickly growing risk?
And how do you know the maximum capacity for sustainable populations? We had a similar thread a few weeks ago and nobody cared to provide any analytical answer, just anecdotal (boy it sure feels crowded, or 6 plus billion sounds like a lot of people).
Also, nobody seems to believe the population decline projections either:
My summary position, which nobody will agree with, is that we really don't have a population sustainment problem.
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.