05-13-12, 05:44 AM #21
The same problem plagues Ukraine and Belarus...
Estimated: 2025 - 125,687,000 / 2050 - 104,258,000
Estimated: 2025 - 39,569,000 / 2050 - 29,959,000
Estimated: 2025 - 9,335,000 / 2050 - 8,305,000
YouTube: RT News: Russia's population decline speeds up
Interestingly enough, although the reasons for population decline are varied and myriad, all three border nations suffered exceedingly high population losses during World War II.
05-19-12, 04:58 PM #22
I don't believe overpopulation of the Earth is likely, perhaps it can happen in certain areas but other parts of the planet can be used to sustain them. If the human race combined its efforts on advancement we could probably be traveling the stars in 100 years. I read a statistic that is a little outdated being from the 90's but it said if the U.S. reduced its meat consumption by 10% we could end world hunger. this is because it takes significantly more land to produce meat than it does vegetables. Also large sparsely populated and fertile areas can be transformed into mega farms, this combined with fusion tech or other free energy would make feeding double the Earths population quite easy. Petroleum based megafarming however is not very good. Also genetically modified plants that aren't evil like monsanto would help us produce more with less. Overpopulation is a myth. Free energy would require much less wasting of resources.
05-19-12, 05:21 PM #23
Overpopulation has and does occur in parts of the earth all the time. Which results in a lot of death through famine when food stuffs are not available. This culls the population back. Which then starts to climb again. No different than any other species. So, it seems we're already at overpopulation for the way we organize ourselves. This is what it would look like - pretty normal huh?
05-19-12, 06:26 PM #24
05-19-12, 09:01 PM #25
I probably should have said 'natural'. Humans, like all animals, expand their population which collapses, and then expands again. "Overpopulation" IS occurring as it does for all animals. Lots of human populations in African go through population collapse due to overpopulation. Unless you're going to prevent human expansion as China did, then I'd expect it to happen in areas where human population exceeds resources.
05-19-12, 09:09 PM #26
My point is mostly that the planet can support the growing population but overpopulated areas can not independently support themselves.
05-20-12, 01:50 AM #27
I personally think the earth pasted the comfortable limit about 2 billion humans back and would like to see our numbers go into decline through natural reduction in child birth to two per couple.
05-20-12, 06:52 AM #28
Exactly how is overpopulation being defined here?
1. One could say as long as you can feed all the people, then you don't have overpopulation.
2. Or you could say, overpopulation can be defined by the stress we are putting our biosphere under.
In the first, we are supporting the population growth with our technology, which in reality is more like building a house of cards. The number of ways that house of cards can come tumbling down are to numerous for me to list here. (It will happen sooner or later) But then starving billions of people is natural, which makes it okay,right?
In the second, humans are currently causing a major extinction event, which will make our planet a less desirable place to live. But then future generations won't miss what they never had, right?
05-20-12, 07:41 AM #29
there is a video thats part of a series some guy is doing. I didn't fact check it or anything but I still believe with some advancements in LENR tech or something like that the human race will prosper on Earth and else where in the solar system.
05-20-12, 07:42 AM #30
05-23-12, 02:02 PM #31
You guys haven't been reading your memos. The second derivative of population went negative in the early 1980s. I.e., the rate of growth has been steadily dropping for thirty years. The first derivative (rate of growth) is universally predicted to fall to zero sometime near the end of this century at a peak population right around ten billion.
At that point the rate of growth will continue to fall. In other words it will become negative and population will begin to shrink.
The reason is that prosperity turns out to be the best contraceptive. As poverty decreases people have fewer children for a variety of reasons.
- They can afford contraception.
- They don't need to have ten children to ensure that two of them will reach adulthood.
- They don't need progeny to take care of them in their old age.
- They have other interesting and entertaining things to do at night besides staying home and reproducing.
As a result, in places where families typically had twelve children they now have seven. Where they had eight they now have five. Where they had four they now have two.
In the Western countries the birth rate has already fallen below replacement level--approximately 2.1 children per woman, allowing for childhoold mortality. This phenomenon is masked by immigration in the USA and Europe, where, paradoxically, many native-born people rail against the immigrants who are propping up their social security schemes. Japan does not welcome immigrants and makes it very difficult for them to become citizens, and in that country the falling birth rate is a crisis as a smaller number of working young people support a larger number of retired old people.
So stop worrying about a problem that no longer exists. The still-sparsely populated Western Hemisphere can grow enough food to feed more than ten billion people and still restore our rainforests. Even the USA is a net exporter of food, although in shame I must admit that it's largely corn ("maize" to you Brits), not one of the world's more nutritious plants.
Start worrying about the problems that are already starting to hit, such as (in the USA) the imminent collapse of Social Security. When it was launched there were something like six workers for every retiree. Today there are only three. You kids will be retiring at age 80, although you may not notice because you'll still spend all day sitting at your computers.
Perhaps the biggest problem is that every economic model since Adam Smith implicitly relies on a steady increase in the number of producers and consumers as its engine of prosperity. The last time the population of Homo sapiens underwent a major shrinkage was something like eighty thousand years ago when we were still nomadic hunter-gatherers with tools made of stone and wood. So we're not really prepared for this.
05-23-12, 07:22 PM #32
05-23-12, 07:45 PM #33
05-24-12, 04:02 AM #34
People have been saying since Moore's Law that "it would never happen that fast" because they either cannot fathom or are uncomfortable with the prospects of the technological advancement. One of the most researched technologies right now, who's size cuts in HALF every two years is nano-robotics. Robots have already been engineered the size of human cells. Fully functioning robots the size of human cells. Computer technology has doubled at least every 18 months. Do you doubt that?
Well, all you have to do is plot it on a chart and see what that means. It means, in absolute terms, exactly what I said. And people--of course--have been saying, "Well, yeah, we're here now, but it won't be that way in the future."
I remember Kurzweil predicting talking phones, with cameras and access to the WWW by 2015 back in 1995. People literally called him nuts. Back in 1990 when the Human Genome Project had mapped 1/10,000th of the human genome, they predicted needing another 20 years. Kurzweil predicted they'd need less than ten. They finished mapping the human genome by 1997.
Technology advances logarithmically. Technological advancement is increasing, and the rate of increase is increasing. The most powerful computer today in the USA is over 100,000,000 times as powerful as the most powerful computer just 20 years ago.
05-24-12, 07:45 AM #35
Really???? Nature has ways of fixing its problems....wars are not the only way
05-24-12, 09:25 AM #36
Ah, yes, technology.
Wonderful stuff yet a double-edged sword, the resources for which are contributing in large measure to many of our environmental concerns.
Still, it acts also as a contraceptive in my observation. No one is going to get pregnant while texting or playing video games.
Population densities are variable around the globe and wherever a region cannot support the population, I would consider the habitat to be overpopulated.
To examine the population in a global aspect is a false paradigm, IMO. The math might work but demonstrably human nature does not follow such simple logic. Why don't we share the resources with those who have none? What is preventing us?
Simply using the ability to produce food as a parameter is also inadequate for our nutritional needs are but a small part of the total impacts of our species on this planet.
05-24-12, 10:07 AM #37
05-25-12, 09:52 AM #38
Still, it acts also as a contraceptive in my observation. No one is going to get pregnant while texting or playing video games.Population densities are variable around the globe and wherever a region cannot support the population, I would consider the habitat to be overpopulated.
- Paleolithic nutrition technology (hunting and gathering) could only support a world population of a million or two.
- Neolithic technology (stone age farming and animal husbandry) could feed maybe ten times that many.
- Iron age technology (metal plows, traction animals towing wheeled carts, etc.) added another zero.
- Industrial technology (machines driven by the chemical energy in fossil fuels rather than human and animal musclepower) pushed that into the billions.
There are still quite a few places that are barely out of the Stone Age and can't quite feed their people. At the other extreme there are industrialized and largely-computerized regions like NAFTA that could feed something like half of the world's population without breaking a sweat, if only the food distribution network could reach them.
As I've pointed out before, the (by world standards) ridiculously underpopulated USA, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Argentina and Chile could probably feed twice as many people as there on earth. As the end of the current ice age (whether or not our own carbon contributions are accelerating global warming) turns Greenland and Siberia into farmland, we could probably feed the Klingons and Vulcans too.To examine the population in a global aspect is a false paradigm, IMO. The math might work but demonstrably human nature does not follow such simple logic. Why don't we share the resources with those who have none? What is preventing us?
Fortunately even this problem is yielding to technology. The main weapon of a despot against his own people is not guns but ignorance. The internet and cellular telephony have opened up the entire world to its most downtrodden people. They're learning to read, arguably their own most powerful weapon against repression. They're making contact with each other so they can organize, and with people outside the country who can provide at least encouragement and information, and sometimes even tangible help.
Twenty years ago village leaders in the world's benighted countries blessed Jim Henson and CTV for "Sesame Street" because it appeared so innocuous that their leaders didn't crack down when the village's one TV set was tuned to it for half an hour every afternoon. That one TV show taught their children that it was okay to strive for a better life than their parents had, and gave them the basic tool to begin striving: reading and writing.
Imagine how those village leaders feel about the internet.
With every passing decade, the number of people living under despotic governments drops precipitously. (Even though by our smug Western standards we still call China "despotic," the people who live there with their jobs, cars, TVs, computers and Confucian philosophy of respect for their elders no longer think so.)Simply using the ability to produce food as a parameter is also inadequate for our nutritional needs are but a small part of the total impacts of our species on this planet.
05-25-12, 04:39 PM #39
And "respect for elders" doesn't so much apply to a state that's run by "princelings."
The next big "preciptious drop" in people living under despotism will very likely occur when China's current system of government fails.
05-25-12, 08:16 PM #40
I hate to be the isolationist here, and I can only imagine the losses. In American, the borders need to be closed and immigration reduced to 1960's levels. That's when America's population began to rapidly expand. The the process, I feel that the original intentions of the Founders has been lost.
I have to blame the Cold War and Communism. If the Red Menace didn't have the overwhelming authority in hand to hand combat, we might have been able to set our fears aside and control the numbers of people entering and staying in America.
Too many people and too few jobs might hurt the economy, but it keeps the barracks full in out all volunteer military. One thing is already certain. America will be the most powerful 3rd World Country by 2050. Dumb as door nails too boot.