Overpopulation. Do you fear it?

[kira]

Didn't want to start a new thread, but I thought this was interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

ME:

When you were born, you were the:3,998,115,317th person alive on Earth

78,317,458,610th person to have lived since history began

Just missed the 4 billion person claim to fame.

I typed my birth date there as 29.10.2011 (which means, I wasn't born yet/ I'd be born tomorrow ), and I got:

When you were born, you were the: 6,996,867,315th person alive on Earth

83,214,560,807th person to have lived since history began


Then I typed again, I was born on the day after tomorrow (30.10.2011), and I got:

When you were born, you were the: 6,997,077,254th person alive on Earth

83,214,931,527th person to have lived since history began.

So, between 29 and 30th of October, there will be about 210,000 new born babies...............!!!

 

[Enmos]

So, between 29 and 30th of October, there will be about 210,000 new born babies...............!!!

No, there are many more new babies born between October 29 and October 30.
The result you got is population growth, which equals babies born minus people died.
The number you got sounds about right by the way.

Edit: The number of new babies born is equal to 83,214,931,527 - 83,214,560,807 = 370,720

 

[Shadow1]

The problem isnt the over-population, the real problem, is the economy, the unfair share of wealth, of earth's goods, if resources were used correctly, and environement had a big importance in all the economies, there will be no hungry people.
Earth can feed us all, but the world greed doesnt allow that.

 

[Billy T]

Get serious - stop fucking around

 

[nietzschefan]

The best cure for this is prosperity. When most areas of the world are able to live without a fear of basic survival..population will flatline...maybe even go back.

Either that or we are in for a global threshold moment.

 

[chimpkin]

I have looked before and can't seem to find a good link on this, but it's giving women the right to earn money and to control their own fertility that really makes the difference. Women faced with working and being the primary caretaker of kids...which, that's usually how it works out, generally will have a lot fewer kids. Those kids will be healthier in third-world countries though, as when mom gets earnings, the whole family eats better...when dad does this may or may not happen.

I'll try to come back later when I have time and try to find a decent link or two for the above assertions, ok?

 

[nietzschefan]

That sure makes sense. It's a good path to prosperity too.

 

[Billy T]

The best cure for this is prosperity. When most areas of the world are able to live without a fear of basic survival..population will flatline...maybe even go back.
Either that or we are in for a global threshold moment.

Problem is, I think, 7 billion people is already well beyond the point where only 5 billion could have even half the energy and raw material to use that even Europeans, much less Americans, would associate with "prosperity" - There simply is not enough fuel, copper, meat food, etc.

 

[nietzschefan]

Well, personally I live very spartan...so fine by me.

 

[chimpkin]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/28/opinion/pearce-population-fertility/index.html

The reason, I believe, is very simple. Women are having smaller families because for the first time in history they can. In the 20th century, the world largely eradicated the diseases that used to kill off most children. Today, most kids get to grow up. Mothers no longer need to have five or six children to ensure the next generation. Two or three is enough, and that is what they are choosing to have

So, give women the power to choose, and the assurance that their children are likely to survive, and you get small families.
Then the author of the article goes on to say...

According to Stephen Pacala, the director of the Princeton Environmental Institute, the world's richest half billion people -- that's about 7 % of the global population -- are responsible for half the world's carbon dioxide emissions, the primary cause of man-made climate change. Meanwhile the poorest 50 % of the world are responsible for just 7 % of emissions.

Oops...us again.

 

[Sock puppet path]

Apropo fertility and prosperity.
Worth a watch

 

[chimpkin]

Welcome back, SPP.

Bah, my sound's decided not to work again!

 

[Billy T]

... Oops...us again.

That is what Pogo, sage of the swamp, stated well more than 40 years ago: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

 

[kororoti]

The problem isnt the over-population, the real problem, is the economy, the unfair share of wealth, of earth's goods, if resources were used correctly, and environement had a big importance in all the economies, there will be no hungry people.
Earth can feed us all, but the world greed doesnt allow that.

In theory we could feed everyone by spending twice the effort it's worth, cultivating deserts, hydrophonics.... etc. Or we could trim the population, spend a tiny amount of effort feeding everyone, and then spend the rest of our time doing stuff that's fun and/or cool.

Our collective standard of living is going to perpetually erode until we're all working 16 hour shifts, 7 days a week, just to eat.

 

[Pacifist]

Space Colonization and Terraforming of planets

I guess the solution is simple, why not just live outside of earth? If you have not heard of planetary engineering, space colonization or terraforming, I suggest you look them up.

"The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever."
- Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

 

[Billy T]

I guess the solution is simple, why not just live outside of earth? ...

Because getting there (assuming a place even exist or at great expense could, like Mars, be made habital) would require huge use of Earth's limited resources - or in dollar terms cost more than a million dollars for each person moved "there."

 

[Pacifist]

Yeah I agree with, the downside to it is that it is very resource intensive given the limited resources we have currently. Probably not a plausible option at present, but hopefully technological advancement would have made it way cheaper by then.

 

[420Joey]

I dont fear overpopulation more than I do overpopulation control.

Actually I fear technology the most. What happens when we advance so much in nanotechnology, bioengineering, etc. that we can live way longer even forever or stay healthier alot longer??

Watch that movie "In Time" to find out what would most likely happen.

 

[nietzschefan]

Because getting there (assuming a place even exist or at great expense could, like Mars, be made habital) would require huge use of Earth's limited resources - or in dollar terms cost more than a million dollars for each person moved "there."

Well sitting here is an even bigger waste of it's resources...to what...wait for our extinction event?

Fun fact:

We cannot even put a single person in every single Galaxy CLUSTER in the universe. We need more people.

 

[Billy T]

Well sitting here is an even bigger waste of it's resources....

Well not is one sense - most every iron atom (or atom of X) is still here - just more spread out, or shared by all, more uniformly and for quite a long time (8 or so billion years as I recall) we will have energy that can be used to re-concentrate them.