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.
This is true no doubt but mankind is one of the most dependent creatures on the planet. Just as we are so dependent upon technology for our survival and well being. (consider if electricity were turned off around the world for one month) So too are we dependent upon a large number of natural systems.
No bees, no earthworms, no corn, unless you wish to pay people with paint brushes to pollinate every corn stalk, which would certainly ensure 100% employment rate, but at what pay rate?
Man, despite his feeling of omnipotence is actually a rather fragile and dependent animal these days. Oddly enough, it there was some massive extinction of species, it would probably be those people most primitive now who would best endure. Could you picture a tax accountant suddenly trying to figure out what how to grow carrots in Tennessee sandstone/clay soil. (buahahaha)
man is more adaptable than you give us credit for. for instance if the power went off for a month, yes there would be some panic in the streets for a short time, but then the old ways would kick in, and old technologies would show up all over the place to get water to the people.
there are also enough farmers, and books on gardening, that the average person with a moderate reading comprehension level would be able to grow their own garden. it would in the end be a huge help to mankind since the people would have to work together to grow crops, bring water out of the ground, and protect their colonies. heck we can make ethanol and run engines on it to generate electricity and power automobiles. even natural gas can be used, to power generators. technology is both bane and boon to mankind.
and by the way, putting meat on the table wont be that hard either, as hunting skills have not gone away, and rabbits breed like........well like rabbits.
man is more adaptable than you give us credit for. for instance if the power went off for a month, yes there would be some panic in the streets for a short time, but then the old ways would kick in, and old technologies would show up all over the place to get water to the people.
there are also enough farmers, and books on gardening, that the average person with a moderate reading comprehension level would be able to grow their own garden. it would in the end be a huge help to mankind since the people would have to work together to grow crops, bring water out of the ground, and protect their colonies. heck we can make ethanol and run engines on it to generate electricity and power automobiles. even natural gas can be used, to power generators. technology is both bane and boon to mankind.
and by the way, putting meat on the table wont be that hard either, as hunting skills have not gone away, and rabbits breed like........well like rabbits.
I think you're missing that critical period where most people would die off without clean water and food within 3 weeks. That's not enough time for gardens or to build large aqueducts. The more dense the population the worse things get as it increases the likeliness of scarcity. After people start dying then you get disease taking hold. It's a slippery slope, of course.
Quote:
Contemporary U.S. society is not structured, nor does it have the means, to provide
for the needs of nearly 300 million Americans without electricity. Continued electrical
supply is necessary for sustaining water supplies, production and distribution of food,
fuel, communications, and everything else that is a part of our economy. Continuous,
reliable electrical supply within very tight frequency boundaries is a critical element to
the continued existence and growth of the United States and most developed countries.
For most Americans, production of goods and services and most of life’s activities stop
during a power outage. Not only is it impossible to perform many everyday domestic and
workplace tasks, but also people must divert their time to dealing with the consequences
of having no electricity. In the extreme, they must focus on survival itself. The situation
is not different for the economy at large. No other infrastructure could, by its own collapse
alone, create such an outcome. All other infrastructures rely on electric power.
Conversely, the electric power infrastructure is dependent on other infrastructures that are
themselves vulnerable to the direct effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) in ways that
are described elsewhere in this report. No infrastructure other than electric power has the
potential for nearly complete collapse in the event of a sufficiently robust EMP attack.
I'm not sure where you're getting the 30 billion. While it is true that technology does extend the carrying capacity of our species, most scientists put maximum capacity for humans on earth somewhere in the 13-15 billion mark. We really don't have the technology to exceed that at the moment.
Plus, population is already a massive problem in undeveloped countries. Or were you just talking about your own population?
No reason to think we couldn't have 30 billion in 500 years or so.
Population is not the problem in undeveloped countries. It's the governments.
The United States is the 3rd most poulous country in the world. If population caused poverty we wouldn't also be the wealthiest.
China and India are the most populous. They are better off than small population countries like Rwanda, Somalia (pre-war) Afghanistan (pre-war), Iran, Cuba, Ethiopia, Hati and a host of other countries.
The U.S. embraced capitalism. This cured homelessness, disease, poverty. India and China have less government control over industry than they used to and they have gotten wealthier.
Man, despite his feeling of omnipotence is actually a rather fragile and dependent animal these days. Oddly enough, it there was some massive extinction of species, it would probably be those people most primitive now who would best endure. Could you picture a tax accountant suddenly trying to figure out what how to grow carrots in Tennessee sandstone/clay soil. (buahahaha)
Man has been smart enough to have developed "division of labor". There is now no reason for the accountant to know how to grow food. There is no reason for the farmer to know tax law. One can specialize in something. This benefits everyone.
It's not a weakness. It's our greatest strength.
And animals are far more dependent on humans than the other way around.
"A growing number of creatures could disappear from the earth, with one-fifth of all vertebrates and as many as a third of all sharks and rays now facing the threat of extinction, according to a new survey assessing nearly 26,000 species across the globe."
I think you're missing that critical period where most people would die off without clean water and food within 3 weeks. That's not enough time for gardens or to build large aqueducts. The more dense the population the worse things get as it increases the likeliness of scarcity. After people start dying then you get disease taking hold. It's a slippery slope, of course.
interesting report, but you forget that we dont need large aqueducts to supply water, just need to use old style hand pumps. as for food, there will be people who will die from starvation, true, but i dont think the die off will be as large as this report makes it sound. remember that grocery stores do have substantial supplies for a short time, this of course is where cooperation comes in. but humans dont need to have vegetables in the short run, living on meat is adequate until such time as vegetable gardens can come in, and farmers can get crops in, etc. mankind survived quite well for thousands of years without electricity, and we can do it again if we need to.
I don't think there would be any cooperation in widespread panic in the face of end times. I think it would be every man, woman and child for themselves. There may be small pockets of people who band together but overall it would be a dog eat dog world. Imagine New Orleans without the ability to have outside help.
Population is not the problem in undeveloped countries. It's the governments.
The United States is the 3rd most poulous country in the world. If population caused poverty we wouldn't also be the wealthiest.
There is a huge difference between populous industrialized nations and populous undeveloped countries. There is a reason why people in this country don't die of malaria, yet about 800 million people do annually. Infectious disease is a massive problem (and the number one cause of death) in areas with a large population that lack the technology and infrastructure to provide them with something as simple as clean water. In a population center where you have many people (read: many people washing, defecating) and not enough water, disease runs rampant. While I would agree that corrupt government isn't helping these people, government involvement is pretty much the reason why you don't have yellow fever right now.
And I bring up water because soon we're going to have global water problems. We don't have 500 years to develop the right technology. We're going to hit carry capacity way before then.
Report: Far More Polar Bear Cubs Dying in Alaska - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230018,00.html - broken link)
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.
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.
