I know I am new to this forum but I would like to discuss something with you guys. At what point in the human race's population growth will it reach equilibrium. That is, when we will stop growing. As our population rises a number of factors raise human mortality. Pollution, automobile accidents, violent crimes, and even suicides increase in severity and/or frequancy at an exponential rate as population density increases. Urban life also discourages large families. Eventually, logic dictates, the sharp curve of population growth will have to level off. But when. For this hypothisis accept as granted that there is no planetary exodus or human extinction comeing.
I don't think it can really reach an equilibrium. Pollution, accidents, and crimes all contribute to the decrease in human population. Just as the human population increases, there are more variables that factor in to help decrease population. However, there is no way we can stop growing as a population. There are no laws that say you cannot make babies and humans, much like other creatures, have an innate sense of survival. And this is accomplished by reproducing and thus the human race can continue on. No matter how many deaths there are, there will always be just as many births or greater. We're just like roaches, we reproduce like crazy to insure our survival. I'm thinking the only thing that will help the population reach equilibrium is surface area. One day we will run out of room to grow and expand and also out of resources. So I guess you can say we will reach equilibrium momentarily before we start to see a sharp decrease due to no more land/resources. I'm still fairly new here too. Welcome to SciForums Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm sorry, my english dictionary is still packed in one of these boxes, can you please explain what the word equilibrium means? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If I interpret correctly, I think Clockwood means when will the rate of birth = the rate of death. To specifically answer your question Bebelina: e·qui·lib·ri·um Pronunciation Key (kw-lbr-m, kw-) n. pl. e·qui·lib·ri·ums or e·qui·lib·ri·a (-r-) A condition in which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system. (taken straight from dictionary.com Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
Ahaa, thank you Halo. In that case I think we already have reached equilibrium, the growth process is part of it. The universe grows from within and dies at the edges of it existance, where energy actually dies and doesn't get transformed anymore. Just as human beings grow because of their structure, not because of outer input. Which made me wonder, what does the universe feed on, in order to maintain its existance? It must be intirely fueled by comsos. The non physical energies. Do they also die? This was too much...
No wait, now I see. The physical energies become nonphysical when they die, and from there they can go within the system and become physical again. The perfect selfcontaining system. One would not exist without the other.
I see I see. So you believe in recycling? When one dies, their energy is transferred into the system (Mother Earth?) and grows into physicality once again, thus always maintaining equilibrium. I never looked at it that way.
Of course much of that energy is not easily used again by mankind. You can not use tachyons, dispersed heat, decayed matter (inert matter of a high atomic weight), or the like as fuel. At least not at the moment, and most likely not for many thousands of years. Anyway I was talking about human population, not energy distribution. Note: True thermal equilibrium occurs only when it is the same temperature in all places in the universe at the same time.
You mean David Icke? I have only visited his site and read some there. I have to confess, I'm not much of a reader , but a thinker, or I prefer the company of my own brain more than a book. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think that is a bad thing. You can't isolate the humanity from the rest of the universe, because it is such an important part of it. The evolution of humanity is very closely related to the maintaining of existance for the entire universe, it's symbiosis. The energy is used by mankind too, for example in the creation of a new human being. I mean maybe the humanity must grow even more to be able to spare people who are going to live outside of Earth. The Earth needs to pollinate and we are the spores. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Other species may be doing the same thing and will meet up with the pollinated earthlings to create a new species together.
i dont know what to make of this... but read halfway down the page on the left about "reducing world population": http://www.sacredcow.com/reality_expander/ b.
The only way you could do that ethically would be to slow human population growth. Either willingly (by abstinance, abortion, or contraception) or unwillingly (an engineered virus that renders a percentage of people sterile). The latter and some of the former would be felt to be unethical by some.
