Population Control

Kama

Apropos of overpopulation, it's not a straight numbers game, its far more to do with carrying capacity and resource use per capita. The issue is we have substituted petrochemicals for other inputs with the Green Revolution, and have a population boom which increased to match. The question is whether this is sustainable in the absence of cheap energy.

Raw land area isn't much use; think of Australia, there's loads of land, but very little that is productive without *large* resource inputs (water etc). Or try living in Siberia, or the Gobi. The population density that the area can carry isn't nil, but its *far* lower than from productive agricultural land.

Yes natural selection does deal with over-population in the long-run; its called a die-off, and does exactly what it says on the tin. So one way of thinking about it is you wait for this to happen, which would look pretty ugly, or by policy you attempt to limit population, as in China.

On an AIDS tangent, its currently looking like transfer happened a little earlier than expected, with the growth of colinial cities in West Africa at the turn of the 20th century

andrewlownie101

Here's the rule to judge overpopulation by;

If you think overpopulation is a problem, off yourself first. Lead by example.

Kama

This is my fave resource on those lines...Don't need to go the whole hog, just quit your rutting!

andrewlownie101

Kama wrote: »

This is my fave resource on those lines...Don't need to go the whole hog, just quit your rutting!

This is being taught in school nowadays.

aidan24326

derry wrote: »

Face facts

The earth is not overpopulated now

the earth even with hell for leather flat out reproduction would not be remotely overpopulated within 200 years

So debating overpopulation as a fact today and and a immeadiate threat to people today is like 18Th centery guys predicting that the exponetial grwoth of the horses in cities would immerse the towns twenty foot deep hourse manure

Small pockets of the planet can sometimes be overpopulated from failure of crops or war or some local factors

But the total planet is presentl empty in most all of it

Just cuase the beach in brittas bay or the marbellia is balck in august doesnt mean the planet is overpopulated

I have been on several planes overflying Africa west and east and South and travelled overland through big chunks of it

It 99% empty in Africa and any food shortages are often from wars or local politics which try to use food as a wheapon with the odd regonal drought which puts pressure on the peoples banished to the marginal regions as the good land is used with irrigation and stolen from the peoples

So go out have fun and dont worry your tiny little head about some problem that might affect the world in 2250 as I am sure they will have developed any suitable solutions to solve thier problems in that time

imagine in 2250Ad the boards guys saying look at guys worring about over population in 2008 were they for real or smoking something
20feet of house manure my a$$

Derry

You really don't know what you're talking about. Read Kama's post. It's not about land space but about resources. There's a reason that much of the earth's land space is empty, and a reason why populations tend to congregate in certain places that are resource rich, have arable land, access to water etc. Try living in the Sahara Desert or the frozen wastelands of Greenland.

andrewlownie101 wrote: »

Here's the rule to judge overpopulation by;

If you think overpopulation is a problem, off yourself first. Lead by example.

Very helpful, thanks for that.

Kama

Imo 1 Western consumer offing themselves does more for the worlds carrying capacity than sterilizing 100 Bangladeshi. But population control in world terms disproportionately affects those of darker hue and poorer wallets. Otoh, Western populations are in decline already, while 'developing' countries are expanding in both population and resource use.

Carrying capacity isn't fixed, on either the 'demand' or 'supply' side; we can improve our support system (reclaim desert, use high-intensity permaculture agriculture, garden allotments in cities, increase energy capture from renewables, whatever) or reduce our drawdown of resources (live lighter, constrict population, use energy more efficiently)

The choice (to me) is between a managed energy descent, or a dieoff. That's taking the pessimistic assumption that we don't get some cornucopean cheap energy solution. Both of these can happen in a 'natural' market distribution, or something fairer.

Smudgeyboy

I'm sure there's plenty being kept from us in terms of energy and renewable resources.

You can make cars out of hemp and run them on eythl alcohol.
Henry Ford built one in the 1940's.
http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml

Oracle

Interesting topic. My opinion is the world is not overpopulated, the very term is anti-humanity. It implies that humans are a burden on the earth, their only effect to drain and plunder it's resources. In fact the opposite is true; human work, ingenuity and technology have transformed the earth from a ravaged, inhospitable planet to a civilization that provides enough food, water and shelter for billions. Humans were at the mercy of natural disasters, endless feudal wars, infectious diseases and seasonal scarce food, but now there's widespread full nutrition and optimum health for many.

The current talk about overpopulation is at the nexus of many fashionable trends, for example:

• The green ecology agenda with it's primary focus on the earth itself, humanity as a burden on it.
• The loss of confidence in science and technology.
• The atomised individual with increasing concern about self, such as image, attitudes, gender, sexuality and self-care.
• The loss of faith in humanity to provide for all and overcome collective human challenges
• The questioning and loss of credibility of moral authority, from the church to governments and more recently financial systems.

Mix these all together and it's suddenly reasonable for a national newspaper journalist to suggest that famine is natures way of controlling population. Instead of people criticizing him for being fatalistic, fascist and racist his ideas actually get taken seriously and usually intelligent people start to debate and even believe these stone-age theories.

nyarlothothep

+2


Humanities future is in space. Stephen Hawkings states that we have to become properly spacefaring establishing colonies and mining operations within a 100 years.

So the third way is to 1. vastly extend lifespans and 2. go into space 3. develop ftl

That solves over population and resource drain

derry

Oracle wrote: »

Interesting topic. My opinion is the world is not overpopulated, the very term is anti-humanity. It implies that humans are a burden on the earth, their only effect to drain and plunder it's resources. In fact the opposite is true; human work, ingenuity and technology have transformed the earth from a ravaged, inhospitable planet to a civilization that provides enough food, water and shelter for billions. Humans were at the mercy of natural disasters, endless feudal wars, infectious diseases and seasonal scarce food, but now there's widespread full nutrition and optimum health for many.

The current talk about overpopulation is at the nexus of many fashionable trends, for example:

• The green ecology agenda with it's primary focus on the earth itself, humanity as a burden on it.
• The loss of confidence in science and technology.
• The atomised individual with increasing concern about self, such as image, attitudes, gender, sexuality and self-care.
• The loss of faith in humanity to provide for all and overcome collective human challenges
• The questioning and loss of credibility of moral authority, from the church to governments and more recently financial systems.

Mix these all together and it's suddenly reasonable for a national newspaper journalist to suggest that famine is natures way of controlling population. Instead of people criticizing him for being fatalistic, fascist and racist his ideas actually get taken seriously and usually intelligent people start to debate and even believe these stone-age theories.

Thanks you say it abit more classy than iI do but same thing

onmce you see this over population debate is a lie then its clearer who is driving this this unnessary death and famine in the world and it isnt over population


Derry

wasper

kryogen wrote: »

can you gimme a quick list of products that contain aspartame?

Fizzy drinks

Smudgeyboy

wasper wrote: »

Fizzy drinks

Most things that say they are sugar free

C\m\C

i would have to say that population control is an evil necessity (2 c's or 1?) mainly because we cannot sustain a large population on planet earth.

I'm not saying "exterminate 5 billion people for earth" just to keep mother nature happy..but we have to consider exploring the fundamentals of our economy.

Construction isn't getting anymore popular amongst the liberals, and they're starting now to gain more power with the socialist attitudes in society.

what will become of it all? i don't know..we'll have to ask the 8 ball.