Population Explosion: The real threat and what are we to do?


View Poll Results: Is the world's soaring population a real serious issue?
YES! 10 66.67%
Nah, nothing to worry about! 5 33.33%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

westmanguy
#1
Quote: Originally Posted by tamarinView Post

So what does planet Earth have to say about 9.2 billion humans? It's a huge number. There should be plans afoot right now to deal with this nonsense. Overpopulation is every bit as important as global warming and - more importantly - no one denies it's happening. So where is overpop's own Kyoto agreement?

Quote: Originally Posted by CuriosityView Post

Tamarin

Good question - you don't want to ruffle the U.N. with that - overpopulation seems to be a conundrum for most of their major players these days....best we tiptoe around it and pretend it doesn't exist....

Quote: Originally Posted by tamarinView Post

Curiosity, the century's single most pressing issue is biodiversity. Sustaining it, protecting it. Overpopulation is a scourge. There should be caps on population. Hey, just imagine at the same time as they're setting up a global trading market for emission credits we could be setting up a global trading market in population credits. Would that ever piss off India and China.

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

If you're sincere there is something you can do personally to partially corect the problem.

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

There is a formula for that very adjustment, a global head tax of some sort, I think the book was Stand on Zanzibar by Dalgren somebodyorother.

Quote: Originally Posted by CuriosityView Post

Tamarin

I like your thinking...... ever consider going into politics? We could use some level heads like yours.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Meh, sooner or later some pandemic will even things out.

The other thread was getting off topic, so I took the cortesy of making this one!

So my thoughts.

China has recognized this, and has decreased its population, which probably helps their nation, but they did it in the wrong way. Limit of 1 child per family, and constant abortions because parents want boys, to have a child who can "look after them" when they get old. So in result high abortion rate, 1 child per couple, and messed up gender levels.

Now, do we tax children? Thats like taxing human life.

But the fact is our populations are soaring, something like 3 billion in the 40s and now 6.6 billion now! This is getting out of control, and how much people can our world sustain?

So my questions for you is:

How much people, in your opinion, can our world sustain?
In what way would you go about with dealing this issue?

I want some responses and then I'll jump in!
 
Tonington
#2
Some good questions West. I'm not sure how many people our planet can sustain. I think we can still sustain some more, with better agricultural practices and resource efficiency. I think those are rather big 'if' type statements though.

Sharing of technology rather than sums of money for development would be a good start. I think the micro-loans program has helped many millions of people get out of poverty, but I don't know how or if that helps sustainability. Personally I think genetic modification of food stuffs could help.

The population growth is so intertwined with so many other issues. Larger population has a larger impact on the environment, which has a larger effect on health and catastrophe, has a larger strain on resources. Kind of a snowballing problem.
 
westmanguy
#3
Yep! And the other thing we need to realize is, us 1st nations could reduce our populations, but all the other issues in 3rd world countries with population problems will effect us!

Most directly, enviroment, even if we bring down our population in the 1st nations, the 3rd nations will continue to soar in people, and then they will be shabby with enviromental practices, and that is something that can and will effect us!

Not to mention, do we turn our back on people of poverty?

But I think, the main issue is immigration, our 1rst nations, are not having as much kids as we used to, but nations with easy immigration access are soaring in population (Canada).

So to me its a matter of dealing with our own population issues, then helping the rest of the world.

But thank God Canada is an abundant source of natural resources that can sustain many people!
 
CDNBear
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Some good questions West. I'm not sure how many people our planet can sustain. I think we can still sustain some more, with better agricultural practices and resource efficiency. I think those are rather big 'if' type statements though.

Sharing of technology rather than sums of money for development would be a good start. I think the micro-loans program has helped many millions of people get out of poverty, but I don't know how or if that helps sustainability. Personally I think genetic modification of food stuffs could help.

The population growth is so intertwined with so many other issues. Larger population has a larger impact on the environment, which has a larger effect on health and catastrophe, has a larger strain on resources. Kind of a snowballing problem.

I agree with most of what you said Ton, but the problem with genmod food is the companies that own the trademarks on them and how those trademarks and patents render the user open to abuse and expoitation.

Quote:

Who benefits from genetically modified crops?

The introduction of GM crops has increased the biotech industry's control over the seed supply. Key facts about Monsanto's undesirable influence over agriculture and food policies in many countries.
13 January 2006 - Friends of the earth international
Source: Africa Infoserv

www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfr...art_10603.html (external - login to view)

Big "Corp." has to be far removed, before any good can come of such programs.
 
Tonington
#5
No doubt, like I said, big 'ifs', realy big ifs.
 
tamarin
#6
Intriguing thread! All I can say is the people of the year 2150 will judge us more on the issue of biodiversity than any other. It is great to help the impoverished and the oppressed but there is a whole circle of life beyond our species and it is it that is suffering the consequences of human activity more than any segment of the human community. We have to protect animal and plant habitat. Habitat depletion and debasement is directly tied to human population growth; we have to start making some important decisions. If we are indeed the wise, far seeking species we pretend to be, let us, just for once, make the right decisions.
 
darkbeaver
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by tamarinView Post

Intriguing thread! All I can say is the people of the year 2150 will judge us more on the issue of biodiversity than any other. It is great to help the impoverished and the oppressed but there is a whole circle of life beyond our species and it is it that is suffering the consequences of human activity more than any segment of the human community. We have to protect animal and plant habitat. Habitat depletion and debasement is directly tied to human population growth; we have to start making some important decisions. If we are indeed the wise, far seeking species we pretend to be, let us, just for once, make the right decisions.

I would suggest that we have to get back to gardening, and promote social reorganization away from the capitalist model to even begin to address the problem, of course there do exist the chemical and biological emergency contingency plans for a desperate last grab of living space. In your opinion what would be a right decision and by right do you mean correct?
 
tamarin
#8
Right decisions are usally tough ones. They're seldom easy. First demand that all countries submit plans for habitat and species protection to a central bureau. Work out an expectation for all countries as to what proportion of their land and water mass must be protected. Put teeth into international conservation efforts. For example, as far as the IWC is concerned, guarantee it its own power of compliance. Blow the Japanese out of the water if they continue to whale. Get tough, set targets and have the wherewithall to enforce them.
That's a start.
 
gopher
+1
#9  Top Rated Post
As an anti-Malthusian, I believe that we can sustain continued population growth for several decades to come due to progress in food hydrization. What follows is an article on the subject:

209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a (external - login to view)

The University of Minnesota's School of Agriculture pioneered scientific advancement in rice hybridization and I sincerely feel we have only scratched the surface of such progress. As Charles Mann noted in his book 1491 hybridization is nothing new -- science has proven that it was Native American scientists who invented corn several thousand years ago. Today, it is an essential crop that feeds hundreds of millions of people world wide. New species of corn, rice, oats, and other precious commodities can be created without any harm to humans or animals. This can feed billions more if the population grows to such levels.

Scientific progress has also created water de-salinization which can be used to purify billions of gallons in potable water. This can be used for irrigation and for drinking water. All it takes is for governments to have the will to create and to utilize these resources.

Therefore, contrary to the beliefs of wrong thinking types or of certain fearmongers, there is no lack of water and comestible resources.
 
nelk
#10
Hello,
we can keep procreating like Lemmings und collectively drown ourselves; works for them.
Side benefit could be that our piled up cadavers could serve to be the base stock for future oildeposits, providing nature comes along and covers things up nicely.
If you think of it, all the unburned calories got be good for something; they dont need too much transformation to change back into oil.
Some offspring of left over (I hate the word left in here) former human race will in time find those deposits and start a new era of motorised civilisation, right? (another bad one).
And I am serious; why should it be allways fish or other critters to be on the loosing end?
We did it..... Many warnings along the way........
Remember Club of Rom 35 years ago, they are still around and their updates not much nicer.
Here is an other interesting link.
peakoil.com/modules.php?name=...icle&sid=24257 (external - login to view)
have a good one
Nelk
 
L Gilbert
#11
Anyone ever see "Soylent Green"? Nifty movie. That's one that did stick to my memory cells.
 
L Gilbert
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

As an anti-Malthusian, I believe that we can sustain continued population growth for several decades to come due to progress in food hydrization. What follows is an article on the subject:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
The University of Minnesota's School of Agriculture pioneered scientific advancement in rice hybridization and I sincerely feel we have only scratched the surface of such progress. As Charles Mann noted in his book 1491 hybridization is nothing new -- science has proven that it was Native American scientists who invented corn several thousand years ago. Today, it is an essential crop that feeds hundreds of millions of people world wide. New species of corn, rice, oats, and other precious commodities can be created without any harm to humans or animals. This can feed billions more if the population grows to such levels.
Scientific progress has also created water de-salinization which can be used to purify billions of gallons in potable water. This can be used for irrigation and for drinking water. All it takes is for governments to have the will to create and to utilize these resources.
Therefore, contrary to the beliefs of wrong thinking types or of...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Hmmmm. I wonder why California likes the idea of BC water then.
 
gopher
+1
#13
Yup, I remember - 'soylent green is people'! Something about recycled human bodies as artificial foods. Yuck!!!
 
darkbeaver
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by tamarinView Post

Right decisions are usally tough ones. They're seldom easy. First demand that all countries submit plans for habitat and species protection to a central bureau. Work out an expectation for all countries as to what proportion of their land and water mass must be protected. Put teeth into international conservation efforts. For example, as far as the IWC is concerned, guarantee it its own power of compliance. Blow the Japanese out of the water if they continue to whale. Get tough, set targets and have the wherewithall to enforce them.
That's a start.

There is no global infrastructure that could entertain any plan or even planning, the model in power now resists and have resisted any kind of universal activity like this that does not come from the free market. Look at Gore and the capitalist green machine being built up arround him, that's being sold as salvation by the people who brought us earth day. I'm afraid our intention is to eat every liveing thing on the planet.
 
Toro
#15
I don't know if any of you have actually ever been to Canada, but about 99.99999999999999999999999% of the country is uninhabited. If you filled the country up with Hong Kong's, you'd have, like 13 trillion people, or something.
 
Kreskin
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

I don't know if any of you have actually ever been to Canada, but about 99.99999999999999999999999% of the country is uninhabited. If you filled the country up with Hong Kong's, you'd have, like 13 trillion people, or something.

LOL, and they ALL better conform to grampa Jake's culture.
 
lena
#17
MYYYYY GAWD the sky is falling!!!!!!
 
gopher
+1
#18
```99.99999999999999999999999%```

There are multiples of millions of unused acreage that can be used for agricultural homesteading here in the USA's Midwest. Again, I refer to Charles Mann's 1491 where, among other things, he discusses how Native Americans used almost the entire Amazon basin as farmland before it became marshland.

Millions of acres in Canada, the Midwest, Amazon basin, the Sahara, Australia; billions of gallons of fresh water that can be purified; and an endless supply of medicines -- all prove that the human race can sustain a geometric population growth. All it takes is for the will to make it possible.
 
westmanguy
#19
Lets remember much of Canada is not inhabited, but alot of that is farm land and mining.

And unlivable mountain terrain.

It would be hard to manage a high population...

Ah suberben couples are only having 1-3 MAX kids these days.

Middle class only wants 1-2 children, so we may see things even out.
 
tamarin
#20
The earth needs a breather. But nature always tries to maintain a balance and we are a species totally out of whack. Big Mom is trying but she'll need more than she's thrown at us so far.
 
eh1eh
#21
We could solve the problem with Soylent Green.
 
tamarin
#22
Actually, I thought we were on the doorstep a few years ago. As extreme piercing sharpened its hold on much of the younger North American population, it was common to witness a new age of primitives prowling the street. Their heads festooned with bolts and beads. And I thought, these people might not only look the look they might practise it. Thankfully, it has only been the vigilance of town councils and community groups that has prevented a freefall into cannibalism.
 
gopher
+1
#23
unlivable mountain terrain.

It was thought that Utah was unsuitable for farming but the Mormons managed to convert it to agricultural land. Today, we have green houses and other forms of indoor agriculture that can be used for food production.
 
Zzarchov
#24
To solution is dreadfully simple. Don't give aid or ship food to nations with massive birthrates.

If they choose to keep murdering their own people by having more than they can feed that is their choice.
 
gopher
+1
#25
China has well over one billion people but manages to feed its population quite well. All it takes is for those other nations to develop the same technological advancements.
 
tamarin
#26
Gopher, that's the first time I've ever heard someone recommending that we should emulate China. Are you a former member of the Red Guard?
 
gopher
+1
#27
Who is/are "we"? I meant the underdeveloped world, not the USA or Canada.

LOL!
 
tamarin
#28
Smart response! I didn't think your first name was Mao.
 
gopher
+1
#29
mao = Chinese for "cat"

gophers and kitties usually aren't so friendly but some of my best friends are cats!
 
tamarin
#30
Tell me about it. I live in the country, the drop-off capital for kitties. I have 5 here at the moment. Great company but they're picky eaters.
 

Similar Threads

21
The Real Threat to Americans
by Twila | Aug 1st, 2007
35
Who is the real threat to America?
by zoofer | Jul 24th, 2006
37
Is the 'China threat' real?
by I think not | Jun 30th, 2005
67
North Korea is the Real Threat
by mrmom2 | May 16th, 2005
no new posts