Yes, I know this has probably been discussed to a limit that makes you want to hurl ur intestines out. Neways, I'm sure your not on this website to get utterly annoyed.(Plus I Wanted to get onto my topic and not dig around for dead ones)

1. Lets say in the next 10 years we face a problem with overpopulation What do can you do to prevent such a thing.

2. Not only are you faced with this problem You are faced with the rise of the AntiChrist.

National Geographic? I think that was it. At any rate, statistics in 1997, I believe, suggested that should humanity undertake the improbable venture of voluntarily limiting births to one child per family, the world population would decrease drastically over the course of fifty years.

Consider:

• 2 parents, 1 child: population -1
• 2 parents, 2 children: population +/- 0
• 2 parents, 3 children: population +1
• 3 parents, 2 children: population -0.5

... and so on.

In other words, responsible reproduction, or, at least, net-negative reproduction, would stave off the problem.

To the other, though: I'm not worried about the AntiChrist. I doubt people will be able to tell the difference between one or the other era.

Tiassa, isn't it true that China has limited the number of children a couple could have to one?

1. Lets say in the next 10 years we face a problem with overpopulation What do can you do to prevent such a thing.

Pretty much what tiassa explained can prevent it.

2. Not only are you faced with this problem You are faced with the rise of the AntiChrist.

I'm not worried about the Antichrist.

We could possibly count on several global disasters, meteors hitting Earth, and countless holocausts. We could create a deadly virus and infect one-half of human life, send lots of people to the moon, or make parenting look un-trendy.
Maybe humans are reproducing like rabbits because soon we will have a horrible Earthly disaster and we'll need as many living humans as possible to beat the odds of extinction.

Maybe humans are reproducing like rabbits because soon we will have a horrible Earthly disaster and we'll need as many living humans as possible to beat the odds of extinction.

Of course. That's the point of reproducing. :p

::apple falls from tree and hits little OverTheStars on the head::
"Eureka! So that is the meaning of life!"
:m: :eek: :m:
go to hell.

If women were to have an average of 2.1 children each, the population would remain stable. There's a whole chapter about in Edward O. Wilson's book The future of Life... I believe he said the current average is 2.6 or something like that, and that the number has been steadily decreasing. Let us hope that it keeps up... and that when things finally get to the point of decreasing population, it isn't too late. (It was a very good book, by the way; I highly recommend it.)

go to hell.

I'm taking everyone with me.

1. Lets say in the next 10 years we face a problem with overpopulation What do can you do to prevent such a thing.
If every human soul on this planet was given 100 sq metres of land each they all would fit very easily into the US state of Oregon or the nation of Byelorussia and still have room for more . Over population is a myth created by wealthy nations to scare the shit out of its populations about ravenous hordes of dark skinned 3rd Worlders wanting over run our nations and steal our wealth .

^^^^
gee, thats good news

Tiassa, isn't it true that China has limited the number of children a couple could have to one?

As far as I know, that's still the rule. I haven't checked lately, though. Things like that tend to reach me through some sort of grapevine, though.

As a general note, I should also mention that I think my math is faulty. I'll look around and see if I can find it. Nonetheless, the general idea still holds.

What if the problem turns out to be underpopulation? Not enough new consumers to feed the machine, and we die of bankruptcy.

These days, if Christ comes back, we will kill him again as the Anti-Christ. Maybe this time his daddy will save him.

If every human soul on this planet was given 100 sq metres of land each they all would fit very easily into the US state of Oregon or the nation of Byelorussia and still have room for more . Over population is a myth created by wealthy nations to scare the shit out of its populations about ravenous hordes of dark skinned 3rd Worlders wanting over run our nations and steal our wealth .
Overpopulation isn't about land, it's about resources. Drinking water, food, etc., are the things to worry about.

Ye but the idea is that you can fit them all into oregon and then bomb it to get rid of some people.

Yes, I know this has probably been discussed to a limit that makes you want to hurl ur intestines out. Neways, I'm sure your not on this website to get utterly annoyed.(Plus I Wanted to get onto my topic and not dig around for dead ones)

1. Lets say in the next 10 years we face a problem with overpopulation What do can you do to prevent such a thing.

Given women more choices than marriage and children. In cultures where that has happened, girls/women tend to put off motherhood and have fewer children.

I have a better idea.. shoot some women .. say 30% .. then we loose alot of productivity in baby terms... and we get rid of the cause of all of men's problems in life eg. bitching , complaining , asking stupid questions.

2. Not only are you faced with this problem You are faced with the rise of the AntiChrist.

By this logic then I believe we can conclude that over-population will not become a true threat until some time after the death of our current Pope. Let me explain myself. Although I do not believe it is written in revelations, I do think it goes without saying that the pope is going to have to challenge the anti-Christ to a boxing match, danceathon, or chilly cook-off, and currently our pope is too frail to make much of an attempt at any of these options.

Ooh I do hope that it's a chilly cook off. I hear that they make some damn good chilly in hell.

"Tiassa, isn't it true that China has limited the number of children a couple could have to one?", Athelwulf

That was true. Recently, China has relaxed that rule after observing some potential problems if it were to continue. The first is the fact that the younger generation becomes outnumbered by the older retired generation. Secondly, the rural areas, who have the least educated and were producing children the most rapidly, were least likely to have the one child rule enforced.

That said, the one child rule in China was extremely successful. Many attribute this policy as directly related to the growning Chinese economy. Uncontrolled population growth has a tendency to stifle the economic growth of a nation. India needs to learn this lesson, but a democracy makes creating such a one child policy impossible.

I have a better idea.. shoot some women .. say 30% .. then we loose alot of productivity in baby terms... and we get rid of the cause of all of men's problems in life eg. bitching , complaining , asking stupid questions.

When the murder rates skyrocket from the amount of horny jealous assholes there are fighting over the same bitches, then you will know why you made this sarcastic post. Seems much too destructive.

Abstraction:
".....It was in the year 2020 that the UWGB [United world Governing Body] passed legistalation due to the increasing problem of global over population that required that a micro hormone chip be installed in all children born. This hormone chip renders the human child as infertile and not interferring with normal growth cycles and sexuality.

This de-fertilisation can only be reversed upon successful application to the UWGB for the priviledge of having a child. Once the license is granted a temporary fertilisation hormone chip is installed allowing the conception of only one child.....further application must be made for any subsequent desire for a child with a limit of 3 per female allowed...."

Can you imagine what would be required to be successful in applying to have a child?
Wealth?
Intelligence?
Status?
Race?

If every human soul on this planet was given 100 sq metres of land each they all would fit very easily into the US state of Oregon or the nation of Byelorussia and still have room for more . Over population is a myth created by wealthy nations to scare the shit out of its populations about ravenous hordes of dark skinned 3rd Worlders wanting over run our nations and steal our wealth .

I think people should pay attention to what Brian is saying here. I'm not sure about the possible origins of the speculation about imminent problems caused by the human population, but I am not convinced that they are well-founded. I actually raised this issue in an article myself a few months back - you can read the article here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41973).

In relation to the 'anti-christ', I threw some rather wild notions out on the table in relation to that issue (or at least a related issue) as well not so long ago - you can read about them here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35951). The argument I present there is quite possibly flawed - but hey!!

But it must be recognized that overpopulation in a world increasing living standards for billions in a real problem, pollution, overconsumption of goods and food, and super intensification of the land will cause humanity to collapse if we don't stop over populating the planet, and much of the world's population growth is occuring in India to Morrocco, largely the Muslim world where contraception is let's face it...a sin, and never really spoken about. If population is not controlled in these countries things will get VERY ugly there.

When the murder rates skyrocket from the amount of horny jealous assholes there are fighting over the same bitches, then you will know why you made this sarcastic post. Seems much too destructive.

And if the murder rates go up then the population goes down does. So you support the issue?

Ideally we would only have about 500 million people on earth, each of which lives like a king. But that is only one man's opinion.

Ideally we would only have about 500 million people on earth, each of which lives like a king. But that is only one man's opinion.If everyone lives like a king, who does all the work? Only about 30 percent of the population of Europe was killed by the Plague, but dividing their wealth among the survivors brought on an age of great prosperity. Nonetheless, everybody still had to work. ^_^

Hopefully more and more will be automated. Whole farms and factories which run with only the supervision of a single individual. Computerized trucks and ships that lug the cargo from point a to point be without so much as a human loader. That is the ideal for me.

does anyone know the world wide split among men and women? how many %

Ideally we would only have about 500 million people on earth, each of which lives like a king. But that is only one man's opinion.

you see clockwood??! see how patriarchally SET your world view is. everyone a 'KING'?
....EVEN the women?...hah

you forget that in ten years (2015) russia will nuke all major cities in the us

that will take care of your over population, stds, and mad cow disease because we will grow our own food.

You've got three posts so far, all preoccupied with The Bomb.
You need to pour a chilly one or twist one up and relax a bit.

;) Welcome to SciForums.

If every human soul on this planet was given 100 sq metres of land each they all would fit very easily into the US state of Oregon...

Area of Oregon (http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/or_geography.htm): 96,003 sq miles or 248,647,625,809 sq meters

Available 100 sq meter plots:
248,647,625,809/100 = 2,486,476,258

Current world population (http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fipc%2Fpopclockw) (est):
6,425,013,492

Over population is a myth created by wealthy nations to scare the shit out of its populations...

Kind of like trying to mislead them with inaccurate statements.

:m: Peace.

Ok so the state of California then !

Ok so the state of California then!

Sure. But then where are all those people gonna' piss and shit? How do they get rid of their garbage? Where are they gonna' get their food? And where are they gonna' get their clean, fresh drinking water?

As someone has already said, and few paid any attention, overpopulation is NOT about numbers of people or where they'll live, but the necessary RESOURCES to provide for them.

Drinking water and irrigation water for crops is the most immediate concern RIGHT NOW in most of the populated areas of the world ...and that inculdes the United States!

Baron Max

I hate it when Anti-Christ comes to stay, what a bitch she is :D

My math teacher said that when over population becomes a problem we have to start wars just to reduce the population.

Makes sense to me. Wouldn't work for America though as we lose only a handful of individuals in any modern war. We would need good WWI-type campaign to really put a dent in things.

Population is self limiting one way or the other anyway.

Sure. But then where are all those people gonna' piss and shit?
Human sewerage is biodegradable , in some asian natiosn human wastes is used for fertilization .
How do they get rid of their garbage?
Again just use biodegrable products and ensure all manufacturing waste can be recycled for re-use .
Where are they gonna' get their food?
Growing high yeiding organic crops on clean land which there is plentiful open space to grow crops . Just take South America especially Argentina or the vast prime agricultural lands of africa or Russia . Even the American midwest posseses vast tracts of un used rich farmland . People starve in Africa because their respective nations must service debt repayments to the IMF it is a simple case of not having any cash to buy food . Over population is a fraud that has been around since the start of the 20th century .
And where are they gonna' get their clean, fresh drinking water?
70% of the Earth is water ! If we as a global unit follow the above procedures water would not be so polluted and that water which is can be made safe by filtration .
As someone has already said, and few paid any attention, overpopulation is NOT about numbers of people or where they'll live, but the necessary RESOURCES to provide for them.
There is more than enough resources for all to use present and more than enough for future generations . The real threat is rich greedy nations wishing to retain their lifestyle with enviromental vandalism .
Drinking water and irrigation water for crops is the most immediate concern RIGHT NOW in most of the populated areas of the world ...and that inculdes the United States!
Where is the shortage ? Saudi Arabia desalinates sea water for safe use , Canada and New Zealand could very well export water to nations for use if need be . Water is renewable it will always be their more than ample .

70% of the Earth is water !

I hate to brake your water bubble, but 70% of the planet's surface is covered in water. That is not quite the same as the earth being 70% water.

The most abundant element in the earth's crust is oxygen, making up 46.6% of the earth's mass. Silicon is the second most abundant element (27.7%), followed by aluminum (8.1%), iron (5.0%), calcium (3.6%), sodium (2.8%), potassium (2.6%). and magnesium (2.1%). These eight elements account for approximately 98.5% of the total mass of the earth's crust.

Either way there is no water shortage .

If you want to crank out an insane amount of energy in desalinization and suitable infrastructure. Where are they going to get the energy with today's tech?

If you want to crank out an insane amount of energy in desalinization and suitable infrastructure. Where are they going to get the energy with today's tech?
Solar evaporation catchment systems would solve that problem .

It's sort f ironic isn;t it that a tribe of people in Africa can die from thirst when all it would take is the digging of a well. Certainly cheaper than a desalination plant.
The problem is not money or technology, the problem is simply having the will to make a difference.....

...the problem is simply having the will to make a difference.....

Yeah, I think that's probably correct. And yet so many want to "save" those people who have no will to work or survive on their own. Fuck 'em, like 'em die! Thus the population issue wouldn't be nearly so great for the rest of us.

Baron Max

It's sort f ironic isn;t it that a tribe of people in Africa can die from thirst when all it would take is the digging of a well. Certainly cheaper than a desalination plant.
The problem is not money or technology, the problem is simply having the will to make a difference.....
Where did you get this info from, that people will die of thirst rather than digging a well?

Yeah, I think that's probably correct. And yet so many want to "save" those people who have no will to work or survive on their own. Fuck 'em, like 'em die! Thus the population issue wouldn't be nearly so great for the rest of us.

Baron Max

ohhhhh, my my, WHAT compassion. What inner joy, and life and humanity.

How this view doesn't tally with the other views you are propaganderizing round here!

Quantum Quack:"...the problem is simply having the will to make a difference..... ”
Baron Max: "Yeah, I think that's probably correct."

Baron, you appear to have made two errors here.
1. That is not correct.
2. You do not think: you excrete nonsense. These are different processes.

Spidergoat, I was using an exagerated absurdity to add emphasis to my point.
There is no tribe dying of thirst, however certainly I think I can safely say that there are many thirsty Africans for lack of a well.

The whole point of my post was to say that expensive high tech solutions are not necessarilly the only solutions, that simply digging a well would solve the plight of many people when it comes down to drinking water.

Of course I understand that it isn't as straight forward as all that. People being people, but if there is a collective will to make a difference then that difference has a chance of happening.

...simply digging a well would solve the plight of many people when it comes down to drinking water.

"Digging" a well is not such a simple thing ...especially if the water is deep underground, as it is in most places where drinking water is a problem.

But don't get me wrong, I'm in agreement with you to a point. But even if we could drill deep enough for that water, how long would it last? The water that Texans have enjoyed for years and years is being depleted rapidly ...to the point that special legislation is probably coming soon! You can't just keep taking water from those natural reservoirs forever without letting them replenish.

India is having a major drinking water problem right now, as is many parts of the world. It's not something that we can just solve by "digging" a well.

Baron Max

I guess I could have also said that over population is just as easilly solved using the same philosophy, just a matter of will.....guys and gals...you just gotta say NO!!! :)

Baron, I agree with your post......

Water would last for thousands of years if we gave up lawns, flush toilets, and bathing. I need volunteers.

Actually, I read an article last year when I was in Florida and some "scientist" had calculated that if all Americans quit watering yards, there be enough ground water to provide for double the current population. I don't know if it was accurate or just bullshit, but it gave me some thought. In Texas, we water yards and lawn areas to the point of being ridiculous, then bitch n' moan about water rationing.

Oh, and by the way, yes, I did quit watering my yard. It lives or dies by the amount that falls out of the sky. :)

Baron Max

Branding overpopulation as a myth is not the most intelligent way to go about things, but i will take everything in steps.

1. China

China did have a one child policy that has gone lax lately, but whether or not it was a success is a matter of great controversy. Do you know how the high the rate of Infaticides rose because people were unwilling to have girls? Many women were kidnapped and raped and sold. The One child policy created a massive gender gap in addition to being (in my opinion) morally unacceptable.

2. Overpopulation

Overpopulation like someone said is not a matter of land but a matter of resources. There is a concept known as an ecological footprint, basically the load a given population has on the environment. So a country that uses a vast amount of resources such as america has a larger ecological footprint then india or china may have, because the people in America (and Europe as well) consume more. Depending on how you wish to define overpopulation, America may be considered overpopulated. In fact, if everyone in the world lived like the average person in the west, we would need more than one world to support us all.

As for the idea that overpopulation will lead to war, this is something already observed by a geographer called Malthus, but it is still only a theory.

3. Underpopulation

Most may think this is nothing to be afraid of, but i beg you to look at the economic situation in germany. The growing size of the older population and the decreasing younger population is putting huge strain on the economy, because there are not enough young people to support the older population. This is something that must be taken into consideration.


Depending on how you look at overpopulation it is very real and can happen even without further growth in world population, just think of what will happen as people in developing countries start to approach western standards of living. They will begin to use more and more resources...

"Digging" a well is not such a simple thing ...especially if the water is deep underground, as it is in most places where drinking water is a problem.

But don't get me wrong, I'm in agreement with you to a point. But even if we could drill deep enough for that water, how long would it last? The water that Texans have enjoyed for years and years is being depleted rapidly ...to the point that special legislation is probably coming soon! You can't just keep taking water from those natural reservoirs forever without letting them replenish.

India is having a major drinking water problem right now, as is many parts of the world. It's not something that we can just solve by "digging" a well.

Baron Max
True, and if you can't irrigate your fields, and you have nothing to eat, you will have no energy for manual labor.

Also, lawns are a waste of water, and mowing them typically means using 2- stroke engines, or equipment without catalytic converters, which are bad for the environment. I'm planning to place paving stones over much of my small lawn, and plant the rest with drought tolerant perennials. You can even catch the water from your downspouts to use in the garden.

Overpopulation is the biggest myth since the tooth fairy.

You got it , the over population myth is a creation of the corporate media and think tanks at the behest of the financiers to explain 7 million human beings dying each year of hunger . The real reason is debt service of African nations to wealthy nations this means these unfortunate nations must pay debt before they purchase food .

The real reason is mismanagement of resources.
If one is able to conceive of the unfathomable amount of resources that humanity throws away, one is able to comprehend how little resources is really needed to support the planet very well.

The real reason is mismanagement of resources.
And just how are Africans mismanaging their resources ?

And just how are Africans mismanaging their resources ?
Africans are too backwards and primitive to manage themselves.
Ivory Coast Republic for example is swimming in diamonds, but all they do is buy weapons for those resources and slaughter each other. In Zambia (?) white farmers were kicked out of their farms, but the africans in place didn't even know how to farm, so they looted all the equipment and continued to live on eating worms and each other.

I've long since proposed to bring back the colonial regime to Africa and you'll then see many if not all of Africa's problems dissapearing.

And just how are Africans mismanaging their resources ?
Who cares.
Resources are being mismanaged period.
Nobody specified that they were mismanaging in Africa.
It's being mismanaged in the USA.

Who cares? I certainly don't care about the USA.

Of course because USA's idiodicy in financial management affects the world.
The fact that we refuse to get it together is the reason people in Africa and other countries are suffering.


Law of Supply and Demand

The myth of overpopulation basically states that there is not enough supply on earth to meet the ongoing demands of the increasing world population.

It is a myth. The planet has faaaaaaaar more than enough earth and human resources to meet the demands of the telescopically growing population for centuries to come.
As long as the humanity manages the resources correctly.

Any solution other the proper management of earth resources to fulfill the growing demands of the population is nothing more than a quick fix.
That includes regulating reproduction.
It is not practical to commit an unjust action for the sake of a just outcome.

Area of Oregon (http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/or_geography.htm): 96,003 sq miles or 248,647,625,809 sq meters

Available 100 sq meter plots:
248,647,625,809/100 = 2,486,476,258

Current world population (http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fipc%2Fpopclockw) (est):
6,425,013,492



Kind of like trying to mislead them with inaccurate statements.

:m: Peace.
That would fit the population of the USA only.

Underpopulation occurs when there are not enough people to meet the needs of a growing elderly population.
Such is the case in Japan and other countries.

The overpopulation myth is completely unfounded.
The nonsense debate over the issue between the amount of land versus the amount of resources is even more so retarded.
We are talking about earth.
On earth, land = resources.

Area of total surface land on earth: 57,393,000 sqmi.
100% is habitable.

For arguments sake, I shall assume that 50% is habitable.
That leaves us with a total surface land area of: 28,696,500 sqmi.
Teeming with natural resources and agriculture. To be consumed/recycled.

The population of earth is about 6,500,000,000.
That would give us: 123,100sqft/person on habitable land. (350ft x 350ft).

Let us assume that there are numerous arcology type buildings throughout this habitable area.
That would mean we could say about 90% of this area would be wilderness/agriculture, and about 10% would be high-density skyscraper-arcologies. (Cities that are built upwards instead of outwards. Dense population that is well saturated, but far from overcrowded. Arcology = Ecology + Architecture.)


Arcology type cities could be scattered throughout the habitable areas of earth covering a combined earth surface area of: 2,869,650 sqmi.
Because such cities are built upwards, artificial surface area would increase. (If you are on a second story of a building, you are occupying artificial surface area. The same if you are within an artificial building that is burrowed underground or in a mountain.)

Built properly, skyscraper cities could increase a particular surface area 220 fold.
2,869,650sqmi is rises and burrows to become a total of: 631,323,000sqmi.

That would give us: 2,708,000sqft/person. (1650ft x 1650ft).


World Population: http://www.census.gov/population/www/index.html
Land Surface Area: http://www.planetpals.com/planet2.html
Arcology: http://www.arcology.com/

In my take, overpopulation is rather unlikely. It's been shown for facts that people have less and less children these days due to upkeep and such.

Another look at it would also suggest that men are becoming sterile as time passes by. A simple look at genetics would state the same thing, as well. The conflicts between the X and Y chromosomes can result in the Y chromosome--the male chromosome--being shut down due to the X chromosome.

Even another theory is that of evolution, which looks into the depleting species and how some may be at the brink of extinction.

If we were to be faced with overpopulation somehow, one could only guess that our technology exceeds that of the reproductive growth.

And lastly, about the Anti-Christ. Well, I'm not Christian, so I do not really have a say in this matter, but the subjective reasoning could point to beliefs and renditions.

"Another look at it would also suggest that men are becoming sterile as time passes by. A simple look at genetics would state the same thing, as well. The conflicts between the X and Y chromosomes can result in the Y chromosome--the male chromosome--being shut down due to the X chromosome."

It's rather silly to advocate "a simple look at genetics" when you don't understand simple genetics, isn't it?

Underpopulation occurs when there are not enough people to meet the needs of a growing elderly population.
Such is the case in Japan and other countries.

The overpopulation myth is completely unfounded.
The nonsense debate over the issue between the amount of land versus the amount of resources is even more so retarded.
We are talking about earth.
On earth, land = resources.

Area of total surface land on earth: 57,393,000 sqmi.
100% is habitable.

For arguments sake, I shall assume that 50% is habitable.
That leaves us with a total surface land area of: 28,696,500 sqmi.
Teeming with natural resources and agriculture. To be consumed/recycled.

The population of earth is about 6,500,000,000.
That would give us: 123,100sqft/person on habitable land. (350ft x 350ft).

Let us assume that there are numerous arcology type buildings throughout this habitable area.
That would mean we could say about 90% of this area would be wilderness/agriculture, and about 10% would be high-density skyscraper-arcologies. (Cities that are built upwards instead of outwards. Dense population that is well saturated, but far from overcrowded. Arcology = Ecology + Architecture.)


Arcology type cities could be scattered throughout the habitable areas of earth covering a combined earth surface area of: 2,869,650 sqmi.
Because such cities are built upwards, artificial surface area would increase. (If you are on a second story of a building, you are occupying artificial surface area. The same if you are within an artificial building that is burrowed underground or in a mountain.)

Built properly, skyscraper cities could increase a particular surface area 220 fold.
2,869,650sqmi is rises and burrows to become a total of: 631,323,000sqmi.

That would give us: 2,708,000sqft/person. (1650ft x 1650ft).


World Population: http://www.census.gov/population/www/index.html
Land Surface Area: http://www.planetpals.com/planet2.html
Arcology: http://www.arcology.com/


Of course on paper it all works out perfectly doesnt it?

The reality of the situation is that people cannot simply inhabit any land they choose to. When examined from a macro-demographic perspective, sure overpopulation doesn't affect anyone, but then explain why some countries (China, India) would opt to have policies to control their population? Someone must have spotted some kind of threat...

Your calculations work out perfectly and make sense to me, but overpopulation is really about the resources; meeting the basic needs of people in a given area...
It's obvious that somewhere in the world these resources exist, but can they be readily accessed by everyone in the world?

The possible strain on resources has not been emphasized yet because the majority of people live with a lot less than the minority. As the world gradually becomes more developed, we will certainly begin to see shortages in some areas, you can already see this happening to some extent with Oil...

Some relevant recent info perhaps here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4391835.stm)

The overpopulation myth is completely unfounded. ....
Area of total surface land on earth: 57,393,000 sqmi. ... 100% is habitable.

Well, since you like to calculate things ....

How many acres does it take to raise a cow for meat? ...and don't forget to include how many acres that requires for water to irrigate that land.

How many acres does it take to grow lettuce, tomatoes, corn, fruits, etc for the "mythical" population of billions? ...and don't forget to calculate the water required to irrigate that land.

How many acres of land does it take to grow the wheat to make the flour to make the hamburger buns? ...and don't forget to calculate the water required to grow that wheat.

Over population calculations never seem to include such things, do they? And why not? Ahh, 'cause it shows that over population ain't no myth! :)

And for those who still aren't convinced, do a little quick research on the supplies of fresh water for the teeming billions on earth right now. It's pretty scary in some locales.

Baron Max

A good example of land vs population can be taken from Australia.
I don;t know the figures but a huge percentage of land here is arid ro desert land. Due to this most of the population live on the coast where the soil and temperatures are more suitable.

Last count l hear put our meager population to 22 million yet we are even now struggling with issues of fresh drinking water and our huge salinity problems due to over irrigation.

The biggest argument against immigration and accepting refugees seems to be all about our limited water resources.

The biggest argument against immigration and accepting refugees seems to be all about our limited water resources.

Well, I don't know about Aussie-land (only read a few articles), but New York City has to pipe water from Maine and Vermont, for god's sake. So what does that say about cities being so efficient in using land area? And New Yorkers eat beef raised in the mid-west and lettuce raised in California. So do we count the mid-west and Calif as "part" of New York???

But most people who talk about over-population are too narrow in focus and make "calculations to prove" that the world isn't over-populated. But those "calculations" don't take into account the myriad of issues that are really involved ...it's not such a simple issue when you open your eyes! I mean, hell, we could put several millions of people on the Sahara Desert, right? :)

Baron Max

Well, I don't know about Aussie-land (only read a few articles), but New York City has to pipe water from Maine and Vermont, for god's sake. So what does that say about cities being so efficient in using land area? And New Yorkers eat beef raised in the mid-west and lettuce raised in California. So do we count the mid-west and Calif as "part" of New York???

But most people who talk about over-population are too narrow in focus and make "calculations to prove" that the world isn't over-populated. But those "calculations" don't take into account the myriad of issues that are really involved ...it's not such a simple issue when you open your eyes! I mean, hell, we could put several millions of people on the Sahara Desert, right? :)

Baron Max

What you are mentioning about New York is something called an Ecological Footprint. This illustrates just how important resources are and how even if people can live on "artificial space" they still need real space to provide them with resources...

yeah.,i remeber hearing that the footprint for london was basically the whole south-east of england.

sure overpopulation doesn't affect anyone, but then explain why some countries (China, India) would opt to have policies to control their population? Someone must have spotted some kind of threat
OMG!
Are you not aware we live on a quick-fix planet. Overpopulation is a myth. We are not on the slightest overpopulated. Quck fix solutions solve problems that do not exist.
Land = Resources. Land and resources are abundant. Control over land and resources is based on pursuit of material happiness instead of pursuit of justice and a better world environment. It's not that there are too many people in the world. It's not that rate of population growth is too fast. The problem lies in control of resources. Resources used effectively will accomodate a growing population and decrease the rate of population growth as well as allow for higher standard of living for all.

Well, since you like to calculate things ....

How many acres does it take to raise a cow for meat? ...and don't forget to include how many acres that requires for water to irrigate that land.

How many acres does it take to grow lettuce, tomatoes, corn, fruits, etc for the "mythical" population of billions? ...and don't forget to calculate the water required to irrigate that land.

How many acres of land does it take to grow the wheat to make the flour to make the hamburger buns? ...and don't forget to calculate the water required to grow that wheat.

Over population calculations never seem to include such things, do they? And why not? Ahh, 'cause it shows that over population ain't no myth! :)

And for those who still aren't convinced, do a little quick research on the supplies of fresh water for the teeming billions on earth right now. It's pretty scary in some locales.

Baron Max
Wrong!
It takes lots of acres and lots of resources to support a meat-eater society.
Humans are not meant to eat such animal products and processed food. What is wrong with you? The problem is NOT that there are too many people on earth or the rate of growth. The earth CAN handle the current population and the growth. Over population is a myth. The problem is the way we use our resources.

1. A meat driven society seriously screws up environment beyond recognistion.
Gazillions would be saved, and we would be way healthier if we grew and consumed all herbivore products. The costs of feeding animals and animal agriculture is a serious threat. The only thing we should be farming is land for vegetation growth.

2. A motor-car society seriously screws up the environment beyond recognition. Gazillions would be saved if we get rid of ALL cars and roads. If you believe driving you own car is not public transportation, you are mistaken. The roads and all the gazillions we spend to regulate traffic is public money, and ravages the earth beyond recognition. Furthermore, individuals would not have to deal with the BURDEN (not privilage), of HAVING (not choosing) to drive so they can make a living and get to where they need to go. http://www.caliditta.com/concepts/nocar.htm


There are way more things we are doing that taxes the individual out of convenience, and damages the earth at the same time. Those are just 2 examples of what human culture does to:
1. Invconvenience our selves. (No-motor vehicles = no huge roads = everything is close by. We do not HAVE to get a car to get where we need to go.More convenience. Herbivore society gives humans way better health.

2. Damage the earth. Both examples, and many more that are not inclused not only inconvenience the individual, but damage the planet as well.

A good example of land vs population can be taken from Australia.
I don;t know the figures but a huge percentage of land here is arid ro desert land. Due to this most of the population live on the coast where the soil and temperatures are more suitable.

Last count l hear put our meager population to 22 million yet we are even now struggling with issues of fresh drinking water and our huge salinity problems due to over irrigation.

The biggest argument against immigration and accepting refugees seems to be all about our limited water resources.
That is so easily solved it's not even funny.

Well, I don't know about Aussie-land (only read a few articles), but New York City has to pipe water from Maine and Vermont, for god's sake. So what does that say about cities being so efficient in using land area? And New Yorkers eat beef raised in the mid-west and lettuce raised in California. So do we count the mid-west and Calif as "part" of New York???

But most people who talk about over-population are too narrow in focus and make "calculations to prove" that the world isn't over-populated. But those "calculations" don't take into account the myriad of issues that are really involved ...it's not such a simple issue when you open your eyes! I mean, hell, we could put several millions of people on the Sahara Desert, right? :)

Baron Max
Earth resources way more abundant than enough to support the growing population.
The problem again comes to how the resources are being:
1. Used in a way that makes life for the individual more inconvenient.
2. Screwing up the planet which taxes on even more inconvenience to the individual.

Land Division of Earth:
1% Devoted to artificial cities for humans. (Average size of buildings = 4 stories. To accomodate increasing population, urbanization moves upwards instead of outwards therefore increasing average size of buildings.

3% Devoted to Mining/Agriculture, and anything related to supporting the cities.

97% Absolute wilderness.

Ok, well by reading your posts cool skill, i think i gather what you are saying. However, do you honestly expect our society to change? That is, the western society...? The fact that we are predominantly not herbivores and the fact the we rely on cars, do not seem to me to be easily solveable...

I see people moving towards the west or wanting to be like the west, however i also know that if everyone lived like we did in the west, there would not be enough resources on earth...

The ecological footprint of western countries is simply too great to be sustainable. There is an article supporting this here (http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/ranking.htm).

Its quite a long read, so i will quote for you.

The data reveals that humanity lives too heavily on the Earth. Humanity’s average ecological footprint measures 2.3 hectares of ecologically productive space. In contrast, as explained above, only 1.7 hectares are available. This means that the average footprint is more than 35 percent larger than the available space. This overshoot indicates that humanity’s consumption exceeds what nature can regenerate on a continuous basis. In 1992, this ecological deficit was still closer to 25 percent. The 10 percent growth since then demonstrates humanity’s fast expansion.

You will need to at least read the full page (its a whole report, so obviously reading everything would be overkill) to understand how they came to that conclusion...

"However, do you honestly expect our society to change?"
Irrelevant. Regardless of expectations, it is up to the individual to pursue change or remain docile under the leadership that wishes to persist our current destructive trends.

Peace leaders such as Dr. King and others have brought about major change. I cannot come to conclusions on the likely hood that our society will change. I definitely have no logical reason to assume that it will not. Nor is there any logical reason I can think of to pursue anything but change either way.

"However, do you honestly expect our society to change?"
Irrelevant. Regardless of expectations, it is up to the individual to pursue change or remain docile under the leadership that wishes to persist our current destructive trends.

Peace leaders such as Dr. King and others have brought about major change. I cannot come to conclusions on the likely hood that our society will change. I definitely have no logical reason to assume that it will not. Nor is there any logical reason I can think of to pursue anything but change either way.

Ok, i accept that. I guess under pressure to do so, anyone will change. But what is your response to the article i provided?

I don't think Dr. King brought about much change - rather, said change was convenient to industry, thus it got passed.

Change can occur, but really, is the question of needing change as much as needing a reality check?

Of course because USA's idiodicy in financial management affects the world.

The USA is a superpower, and thus its fall will affect the entire world.

Hopefully, it will get them to stop structuring their societies along the same lines as society in the USA.

Ok, i accept that. I guess under pressure to do so, anyone will change. But what is your response to the article i provided?
It's just more information about how backwards the world lives. It's upside down. If our resources were handled more appropriately, our available space would far exceed our footprint. The amount of land and resources on this earth by far exceeds the amount of land/resources our growing population needs to abundantly thrive prosperously. Unfortunately, the amount of land/resources on this earth is insufficient to sustain the land/resources we use to pursue the betterment of those in control. (Those in control meaning the rich/powerful. Poor person vs. rich person is no different from mouse vs lion. Those in control, desiring more control, are the lions.)

Any solution other than a movement towards abundantly thriving prosperously is nothing more than a quickfix.

Any solution other than a movement towards abundantly thriving prosperously is nothing more than a quickfix.

Yeah, and any solution which doesn't take into account the basic human traits of greed, selfishness and ego-centricism is nothing more than a pipe dream, a wild fantasy of a vivid imagination.

And then, to be able to "control" those human traits are nothing more than taking away some of their basic freedoms, which is something that's been building in intensity since the 50's or longer.

So what's a good solution ...which STILL accommodates the basic human greed and selfishness? ...without stomping on human freedoms?

Baron Max

LMAO!!!! Right, and Santa Clause will be visiting the ghetto this Christmas. Get real.

The only fantasy is the utter fakism that is relentlessly bombards our every waking moment. The objective is individual freedom and justice for the individual. The pursuit of anything but that is a pursuit of what? The desires that have been bestowed upon you by those that wish to keep you docile in their quest for power, control and influence?

Are we going to choose to pursue freedom and justice, or are we going to make petty fakist excuses?
Are we going to allow them to convince us that frredom and justice for the individual is not possible? Therefore, we should not pursue it, and pursue whatever they shove down our throats wherever we turn?

It's a choice. Pursue freedom, justice, and a better world for all? Or relax, and live life as best you can according the destructive standards set by those that control us and seek more control? Are we going to live in the real world, or are we going to walk around, and believe in the appearances that are placed in front of us? Red pill or blue pill?

The idealists (the true 'real'ists) have been the major catalysts inciting civilization progress. They are the heart of all that cause any social progress. They have taken the responsibility to seek out the practical solutions. Weather the world will die or not, they have chosen to fight for life.


Those that call themselves realists (but are really nothing more than fakists) are the major burden preventing civilization progress. They are the heart of all that cause massive social stagnation and destruction. They have taken no responsibility but to accept their docile fates in a dying world.
SECTION 3: Fakists (http://www.caliditta.com/concepts/fakists.htm)

While the fakist majority of our population impractically sits on their behinds focusing on the barriers to individual freedom and prosperity, few practically focus on doing whatever it takes to tear down those barriers to individual freedom and prosperity.

Freedom and justice for all? How will that help? Most people can't figure out how to tie their shoes, much less make such decisions.

No, a PLAN is needed for the future, not more bullshitting about "freedom" and other indefinable terms!

A plan for what? What are you talking about?

Government control is always unnecessary. Especially in the case of population control. Give people the freedom and they will solve their own problems. When the incentive for intersteller expansion arises we will be colonizing and floating around in space stations before you know it.

If you cap our population at Earth's capacity you are inhibiting our growth. The incentive to colonize elseware would be diminished greatly.

population control is an ill-conceived idea. It ostensibly seems reasonable, but truly is just another bad idea from stupid people

Imagine a virus... very highly communicable, no more lethal than chicken pox, and resulting in 50% of all those contracting it, male and female, becoming sterile.

Here's the ethical question for y'all - if you had this virus in a test tube, would you release it into the world?

Too late. Already done: AIDS

No. Aids kills nearly everyone it infects (a few percent are naturally immune) but lets them live long enough to have kids. Some of which are not infected but who will grow up without parents. Not what you are looking for.

I would prefer a contraceptive bomb. Very selective and with a duration of several years.

Okay, maybe sterility is a bit much. How about a designer virus that just cuts fertility by 50%?

Then people screw twice as long to get pregnant. But since we do it every night anyway, those who aren't using protection still get pregnant in a couple of weeks.

"Here's the ethical question for y'all - if you had this virus in a test tube, would you release it into the world?"

Why would anybody want to do amething that dumb?




"No. Aids kills nearly everyone it infects"

No what? What is your point?

Especially in the case of population control. Population control is an ill-conceived idea. It ostensibly seems reasonable, but truly is just another bad idea from stupid peopleThe best population control is prosperity. Prosperous communities have fewer children. That has been the rule throughout history. It is still true today. The birth rate in Europe and among native-born Americans has dropped below replacement level. Even in the Third World, the countries with growing economies have seen a dramatic decrease in fertility rates. In places where twelve children was once the norm, families now have only eight.