• Overpopulation
    85 replies, posted
[QUOTE=XazoTak;33081490]The world became overpopulated enough to become highly unstable at 1 billion. We have reach 7 billion, and that instability is getting worse as a consequence. I'd say that the world can only be stable with about 500 million. (When I say highly unstable, I mean changing at a rate that means it will become severe before a few centuries have passed) Looking at a geological timescale, 7 billion people do massive amounts of damage in a tiny amounts of time. The solution is not to force people to not have too many children, but to discourage them by showing the effects on peoples lives if they have 3+ children. Stress and decreased wealth. Evolution tricks people into believing that having lots of children makes them happy. They could also advertise the fact that the way food is being produced may create massive amounts, but diseases evolving resistance to the antibiotics required and rapidly lowering fertility of the soil, a side effect of speed growing crops, will soon cause the amount of food to plummet, and those production methods to become obsolete due to the fact nothing can grow in the conditions created by that method, and reversion to older, more sustainable growing methods will be required, but the land/person ratio will be far lower than it was when those methods were last used, so sustaining high populations will become impossible.[/QUOTE] Provide evidence of instability. Provide evidence of 500 million being the golden number. Provide evidence of evolution tricking people in the manner you describe. Provide evidence of problems with current agricultural methods. Provide evidence of us rendering land unusable to crop growing. You make a lot of claims but don't have any support for any of it and all of it is really far fetched. Is anyone actually supposed to believe this? None of this is based in any logic. [editline]1st November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Super_Noodle;33081554]Just kill everyone who watches Fox news. Problem solved. :>[/QUOTE] Hi all the above is a prime example of a shit post.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;33081408]There is not even an overpopulation problem so what is your point. [editline]1st November 2011[/editline] That is not why oil prices are rising. [editline]1st November 2011[/editline] Ok yea take away someone's child from birth and put them into the adoption system which is actually overcrowded and famously bad. [editline]1st November 2011[/editline] Also stop changing the debate and actually refute the points that people are making. You have provided no evidence, no sources, no proof to back all of the claims you have made so far and have only backpedaled every time you're proven wrong.[/QUOTE] Yes it is why oil prices are rising. People are using more, and more oil with the ever growing population so it's getting harder to find. Plus with that law, familys could indeed have more children with adoption, so more people would be doing it SO in turn, it would be much less crowded. You also seem to be showing no proof to your opinion either.
[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;33081805]Yes it is why oil prices are rising. People are using more, and more oil with the ever growing population so it's getting harder to find.[/QUOTE] This is really inaccurate to the reality of the situation. Think, if we just found 2.5 billion barrels of oil in Norway, why didn't prices go down? You're simplifying a complex situation down to one of the least contributing factors in actual price changes. If you look at the controlling of oil and inflation, the affect of the population using oil is worthless to mention. [QUOTE=TheSporeGA;33081805]Plus with that law, familys could indeed have more children with adoption, so more people would be doing it SO in turn, it would be much less crowded.[/QUOTE] I don't understand what you're suggesting here but I'll tell you this. Adoption doesn't work the way you think it does. Have you ever done any work at an adoption home? Have you ever learned about what it's actually like? Unlike the Earth, adoption homes are actually overcrowded and they aren't a valid solution to the nonexistent problem you're asserting. [QUOTE=TheSporeGA;33081805]You also seem to be showing no proof to your opinion either.[/QUOTE] I haven't stated anything. You are asserting that something is true, therefore you are the one who provides evidence of it. So far you have done nothing except endlessly, baselessly restate your stance, change the subject, add irrelevant arguments, and backpedal. [B]Provide evidence.[/B]
My only concern is that we stop fishing to meet the demand of the ever increasing population. Eventually we will fish the waters dry and there will be a huge problem. We use fish meal to feed farm animals. As people increase demand for food increases, meaning farm animals increase, resulting in an increase in animal feed, which would fuel an increasing fish market in an already hurting system. When the fish stocks collapse. Another idea is to eat easily farmable fish like Tiapia, and eat predatory fish like lionfish and asian carp. Not to mention the run-off from larger farms causing dead zones in coastal regions. Whats the most toxic to the Gulf of Mexico? Oil? Shipping? Neither. It's the Midwest. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_%28ecology%29#Gulf_of_Mexico[/url] We need to farm grains in stackable hydroponic towers that can yield crops all year round and keep the fertilizer in a closed water system. We can use the crops to make natural grain animal feeds so we don't waste valuable fish on animals. Then we need to strictly regulate all fishing. Earth will eventually hit a human carrying capacity, and the question is not whether we can continue to grow, it's can we maintain a population. We can. We just need to work out some current kinks to maximize food production that has no risk of running out.
@DOG-GY The earth has never changed as fast as it is changing now, 500 million was a random guess, if a branch of humans didn't evolve to think that having lots of children would make them happy, then that branch would be replaced by ones that thought the opposite, creating a line of humans with the instinct of children = happiness, and naturally growing plants generally don't take much from the soil or give all nutrition back to the soil, or even increase nutrition in it, while rapidly adding seeds which take from the soil, harvesting the resulting plants, repeat, means that the amount of nutrition in the soil is quickly depleted. Though doing a planting of other types of plants which regenerate the soil on the same soil should stop the last problem. However, that is not done.
[QUOTE=XazoTak;33081997]@DOG-GY The earth has never changed as fast as it is changing now, 500 million was a random guess, if a branch of humans didn't evolve to think that having lots of children would make them happy, then that branch would be replaced by ones that thought the opposite, creating a line of humans with the instinct of children = happiness, and naturally growing plants generally don't take much from the soil or give all nutrition back to the soil, or even increase nutrition in it, while rapidly adding seeds which take from the soil, harvesting the resulting plants, repeat, means that the amount of nutrition in the soil is quickly depleted. Though doing a planting of other types of plants which regenerate the soil on the same soil should stop the last problem. However, that is not done.[/QUOTE] Let's take soil out of the equation and grow entire farms in hydroponics. They stick seeds in a floating object then stick them in water that has all the essential nutrients added into it. Works like a charm. Then the water can be filtered, recycled and returned to the system. With the addition of solar powered, high intensity lights, you could be growing tons of food at maximum efficiency with no ecological damage from destroying the land or nutrient runoff into the sea.
[QUOTE=XazoTak;33081997]@DOG-GY The earth has never changed as fast as it is changing now, 500 million was a random guess, if a branch of humans didn't evolve to think that having lots of children would make them happy, then that branch would be replaced by ones that thought the opposite, creating a line of humans with the instinct of children = happiness, and naturally growing plants generally don't take much from the soil or give all nutrition back to the soil, or even increase nutrition in it, while rapidly adding seeds which take from the soil, harvesting the resulting plants, repeat, means that the amount of nutrition in the soil is quickly depleted. Though doing a planting of other types of plants which regenerate the soil on the same soil should stop the last problem. However, that is not done.[/QUOTE] If you're guessing based on nothing, why guess at all? I'm saying: provide evidence of 1. people believing children equaling happiness and 2. evolutionary evidence of this phenomenon. So far you have not. Again, you haven't provided evidence that we are rendering our soil unusable. Yes, plants take out nutrients, but those are easily replaced. We have methods of farming that do this very well, and you're suggesting that we are failing based on... ? Also, you were talking about going back to old methods of farming that, according to you, could not support our population. I'll ask these questions: How do you know that farming without the use of technology to streamline the process could not support a population of 7 billion? How is this method of farming better than how we currently run the agriculture industry and why? For the second question, I'm looking for something better than just suggesting it depletes the soil less quickly, because that doesn't really answer anything.
[QUOTE=OvB;33082055]Let's take soil out of the equation and grow entire farms in hydroponics. They stick seeds in a floating object then stick them in water that has all the essential nutrients added into it. Works like a charm. Then the water can be filtered, recycled and returned to the system. With the addition of solar powered, high intensity lights, you could be growing tons of food at maximum efficiency with no ecological damage from destroying the land or nutrient runoff into the sea.[/QUOTE] Great idea, but do you realize how much that would cost to build? Probably getting enough area of that constructed to yield enough to feed 100 people would cost well over 20x more than getting a piece of land and speedfarming it to feed 100 people. Though the latter will end in disaster eventually, think like you own the company. Will you speedfarm land for the rest of your life, or will you use a new extremely expensive system, with the only benefit being that it will last longer than you? The fact is, nobody will live to benefit personally from such a system unless they are 20-30 and own a massive food company. Both together are unlikely. [editline]2nd November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DOG-GY;33082101]If you're guessing based on nothing, why guess at all? I'm saying: provide evidence of 1. people believing children equaling happiness and 2. evolutionary evidence of this phenomenon. So far you have not. Again, you haven't provided evidence that we are rendering our soil unusable. Yes, plants take out nutrients, but those are easily replaced. We have methods of farming that do this very well, and you're suggesting that we are failing based on... ? Also, you were talking about going back to old methods of farming that, according to you, could not support our population. I'll ask these questions: How do you know that farming without the use of technology to streamline the process could not support a population of 7 billion? How is this method of farming better than how we currently run the agriculture industry and why? For the second question, I'm looking for something better than just suggesting it depletes the soil less quickly, because that doesn't really answer anything.[/QUOTE] Sorry, my explanations generally assume you have a good understanding of general science. And I have to make dinner now, I don't have the time to explain evolution and its effects on the way people think.
[QUOTE=XazoTak;33082178]Great idea, but do you realize how much that would cost to build? Probably getting enough area of that constructed to yield enough to feed 100 people would cost well over 20x more than getting a piece of land and speedfarming it to feed 100 people. Though the latter will end in disaster eventually, think like you own the company. Will you speedfarm land for the rest of your life, or will you use a new extremely expensive system, with the only benefit being that it will last longer than you? The fact is, nobody will live to benefit personally from such a system unless they are 20-30 and own a massive food company. Both together are unlikely.[/QUOTE] Cost all depends on the materials used and the yield created. If you made a tower, or a block of towers that grew wheat at its maximum growth rate achievable, higher than a normal farm because you could precisely control the exact amount of fertilizer down to the specific element your crops are getting, not to mention the specific wavelength of light for a longer duration of time. You could potentially make a decent profit because your crops would be cheap, healthy, and mass produced. Not to mention the ability to grow seasonal crops anywhere. Though that would cost more for climate control. In theory you could grow bananas in Antarctica.
[QUOTE=XazoTak;33082178]Sorry, my explanations generally assume you have a good understanding of general science. And I have to make dinner now, I don't have the time to explain evolution and its effects on the way people think.[/QUOTE] assuming i dont but ok
People would have tons of children back in the day because contraception was non-existent (or contradicted religious beliefs) and survival rate was shit. That's generally why families usually have 2-3 kids these days, rather than the 7-10+ you'd see a few hundred years ago. Having children die was common back then. They grew up hard and fast and had their own families at a young age. With advances in medical science we don't need to have a litter of kids to make sure the bloodline survives.
I have a solution we should get of are asses and start to convert a planets atmosphere that then it will be able to substane life tadaaa that easy Example we could make mars just a planet with farms on it venus a livestock planet ect ect. Thats what i think we should do because i am not up for the dieing because of over population on earth .
Overpopulation solves itself, by war or natural disasters.
Over population will probably only be a problem in certain parts of Asia in a distant future, but i bet the governments will control it kinda like China with restrictions.
colonize another planet. I don't see that happening since we're still involved in secular violence, we still have religions that hold back human progress (ie all of them). I don't see anything that could possibly fix overpopulation without killing anyone happening in my lifetime
[QUOTE=OvB;33081957]Another idea is to eat easily farmable fish like Tiapia, and eat predatory fish like lionfish and asian carp.[/QUOTE]That can happen naturally as tilapia is already the cheaper substitute. Couldn't it?
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;33090265]That can happen naturally as tilapia is already the cheaper substitute. Couldn't it?[/QUOTE] From what I hear, Tilapia is delicious, and quickly becoming more popular. Because of that, it's cheap too. Delicious. Cheap. Guilt free. We could make it the beef of the sea. I'd much rather see Tilapa mass produced in farms than see us fish unstable populations at sea of other fish. Next time you go eat fish and can't decide what to get, go for the Tilapia. [editline]2nd November 2011[/editline] It's actually easy enough that people farm their own Tilapia in those above ground pools.
If you wanna get away from overpopulation go to the Swedish Norrland, lives like one family every 10km.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;33088155]Over population will probably only be a problem in certain parts of Asia in a distant future, but i bet the governments will control it kinda like China with restrictions.[/QUOTE] China's one child policy really did the trick. The problem with modernized nations is that morals should not be taken in consideration if efficiency is the crucial matter. Maybe something back from the early days of said policy would help. Encourage one or less children with something like lower taxes.
[QUOTE=XazoTak;33081490]Oh, and that second video there is true, but the way they grow the food on less land only works short term, as I said above, it will work for perhaps a number of decades and then food can no longer be grown on that land.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=XazoTak;33081997]@DOG-GY The earth has never changed as fast as it is changing now, 500 million was a random guess, if a branch of humans didn't evolve to think that having lots of children would make them happy, then that branch would be replaced by ones that thought the opposite, creating a line of humans with the instinct of children = happiness, and naturally growing plants generally don't take much from the soil or give all nutrition back to the soil, or even increase nutrition in it, while rapidly adding seeds which take from the soil, harvesting the resulting plants, repeat, means that the amount of nutrition in the soil is quickly depleted. Though doing a planting of other types of plants which regenerate the soil on the same soil should stop the last problem. However, that is not done.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=XazoTak;33082178]Sorry, my explanations generally assume you have a good understanding of general science. And I have to make dinner now, I don't have the time to explain evolution and its effects on the way people think.[/QUOTE] Totally untrue. Did you miss the "Agricultural Revolution" lesson in history class? A little thing called crop rotation was discovered and revolutionized in the 1800's. And it is in fact used on most every farm you'll ever see. In a nutshell, it works like this - A farmer will split his land in to halves or thirds or smaller denominations (let's say thirds). Every year, on two thirds of his land, he'll grow what ever crops he wants. These plants suck nutrients out of the ground. On the other one third of his land, he'll grow a crop that actually replaces the nutrients in the ground, such as turnips. This way, that one third of his land is replenished (it takes several years to totally suck all the nutrients out of the ground). Each year, he'll simply rotate the spots he plants his crops in, thus continually replenishing his land [b]and[/b] producing food at the same time. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation[/url] Food production is not a problem, however food distribution [i]is[/i]. You clearly do not have a general understanding of science [i]or[/i] history.
reduce consumption, make fewer retardedly large houses, kill people
[QUOTE=fox '09;33089653]colonize another planet. I don't see that happening since we're still involved in secular violence, we still have religions that hold back human progress (ie all of them). I don't see anything that could possibly fix overpopulation without killing anyone happening in my lifetime[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Badboyuk;33086217]I have a solution we should get of are asses and start to convert a planets atmosphere that then it will be able to substane life tadaaa that easy Example we could make mars just a planet with farms on it venus a livestock planet ect ect. Thats what i think we should do because i am not up for the dieing because of over population on earth .[/QUOTE] Dumb. It'd take centuries to convert the atmosphere on Mars, likely decades to get any sort of permanent settlement that supports more than a handful of people. And Mars is the closest inhabitable planet, which human beings have never even set foot on yet. Other planets/moons with already (somewhat) sustainable atmospheres are very far away (closest would likely be one of Jupiter's moons), and often pose other dangers such as freezing cold, erratic weather, and unstable conditions. And then there is the problem of getting supplies to those planets for long term survival. It would cost a fuck ton just to get there, let alone ship supplies there every few months. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization[/url]
i originally mentioned agriculture lessons in high school and crop rotation but edited it out before i posted because i didn't really think it was necessary to disprove an argument that goes against commonly known things with no sources.
And if any of you had bothered to look at a [url=http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=31]birth rate map[/url] you'd see a majority of nations are between 1 & 3 children are born per person. It takes two children per person to replace the last generation of people (One to replace the mother, two to replace the father who obviously cannot give birth to children). About 65% of the world's nations are under three per person, meaning they are barely replacing the last generation. Or if they're having less than two, they are actually having less children than were born in the last generation. As stated with the map - [quote]This entry gives a figure for the average number of children that would be born per woman if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years and bore children according to a given fertility rate at each age. The total fertility rate (TFR) is a more direct measure of the level of fertility than the crude birth rate, since it refers to births per woman. This indicator shows the potential for population change in the country. A rate of two children per woman is considered the replacement rate for a population, resulting in relative stability in terms of total numbers. Rates above two children indicate populations growing in size and whose median age is declining. Higher rates may also indicate difficulties for families, in some situations, to feed and educate their children and for women to enter the labor force. Rates below two children indicate populations decreasing in size and growing older. [b]Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.[/b][/quote] [editline]today[/editline] [QUOTE=DOG-GY;33096923]i originally mentioned agriculture lessons in high school and crop rotation but edited it out before i posted because i didn't really think it was necessary to disprove an argument that goes against commonly known things with no sources.[/QUOTE] Eh, might as well educate at least one more person on the subject.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;33081178]Give evidence that the population rising will cause such a huge issue. We have enough resources and you've provided nothing to the contrary. Decreasing or limiting a population does not increase resources. It wouldn't even change. Your mentioning of other planets is completely irrelevant to the debate.[/QUOTE] Wrong on all counts. We are and have been using more resources than the earth has the ability to replenish. If you haven't noticed, you haven't been looking very hard. [QUOTE]born per person[/QUOTE] You mean synthetic benchmark that ignores immigration and population shift. [QUOTE]crop rotation[/QUOTE] Top soil erosion and mineral depletion don't exist then? Interesting take.
[QUOTE=27X;33097088]Wrong on all counts. We are and have been using more resources than the earth has the ability to replenish. If you haven't noticed, you haven't been looking very hard. You mean synthetic benchmark that ignores immigration and population shift.[/QUOTE] A synthetic benchmark is much more to go on than assumptions with no backing. And again, food production is not a problem, food distribution is. I can go buy out all the food in a grocery store here, and dump it in the trash. No one who wasn't already going to starve will suffer because of it, they'll simply go to a different grocery store. We have a surplus of food in civilized nations.
[QUOTE=27X;33097088]Wrong on all counts. We are and have been using more resources than the earth has the ability to replenish. If you haven't noticed, you haven't been looking very hard.[/QUOTE] Um you're entirely missing the point AND this is not a reliable statement.
[QUOTE=27X;33097088]Top soil erosion and mineral depletion don't exist then? Interesting take.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_conservation#Erosion_prevention]Farming techniques counter soil erosion too.[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer]Fertilizer is used for mineral depletion.[/url] We have plenty of pooping animals around.
[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;33080943]Well this is debate, you made me change my mind which is the point. I still stand strong on the 2 kids law idea.[/QUOTE] Then I wouldn't be born..... Anyhow, I think it's a terrible idea. There is not a overpopulation problem. Even if there was, like we have and always will do, we will adapt upon need.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;33097173]A synthetic benchmark is much more to go on than assumptions with no backing. And again, food production is not a problem, food distribution is. I can go buy out all the food in a grocery store here, and dump it in the trash. No one who wasn't already going to starve will suffer because of it, they'll simply go to a different grocery store. We have a surplus of food in civilized nations.[/QUOTE] We have a finite surplus that is being partially converted into fuel and building supply material, that doesn't account for pestilence, natural catastrophes or plain old fashioned politics, all of which cut into surplus. [quote]Fertilizer [/quote] You know rather little about the subject if you think excess methane and nitrogen equals healthy soil, much less phenolics and the other things necessary for continual per-cycle mineral repatriation. Might wanna do some research. [quote]rotation[/quote] Windbreaks and turning over fallow fields [i]slow[/i] mineral depletion, they do not and have never "fixed" it, as the Dust Bowl showed rather handily.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.