98 replies to this topic

[Bling]

Seeker79, on 10 November 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

but we get to decide if that's because we died off or evolved

How do we control such things? Are we more powerful that nature, the planet and all around us? We're just flesh and blood....with an arrogant mind, sometimes.

[Mr Right Wing]

Seeker79, on 10 November 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

But what you are failing to realize is that that clean water is not being used for drinking and washing. Most of it is going towards unsustainable agricultural practices. Create a localized, permaculture, sustainable food system, and the water issues dry up. All kinds of options including aqua culture, rhythm planting and diverse land use. The problem is not population. It is lak of understanding and profit driven agriculture. There is more than enough water and earth. The problem is that the land is not being cultivated properly. It's not even really more profitable. Look at the organic farmer on that documentary "fresh" he is producing $3000 an acre and his land looks lush and healthy while just over the fence it's dry and decaying. I use some of these same techniques in my garden. Between my chickens, veggies, and soon rabbits. I could pretty much feed myself. I have a whole family to feed, but we always have fresh veggies and fresh organic eggs.

I have often told them to go look at Google Earth and notice how much of the planet Earth is unpopulated green wilderness.

95% of the earths surface is not covered with towns, cities or farmlands. There is plenty of room for expansion and we are qutie capable of irrigating desert too.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 10 November 2012 - 09:41 PM.

[Bling]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 November 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

I have often told them to go look at Google Earth and notice how much of the planet Earth is unpopulated green wilderness.

95% of the earths surface is not covered with towns, cities or farmlands. There is plenty of room for expansion and we are qutie capable of irrigating desert too.

Yep, we're our own worst enemy....we reckon we're soooo clever, but we're not really.

[Mr Right Wing]

Bling, on 10 November 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

Yep, we're our own worst enemy....we reckon we're soooo clever, but we're not really.

Its popular culture driving the nonsense not science, chemistry or engineering.

[Seeker79]

Br Cornelius, on 10 November 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

You are advocating a complete redesign of society from the bottom to the top - that's fine by me, but it ain't going to happen before the systems on which we daily rely collapse around our ears. The world we live in has finite agricultural land and finite available water. It is organized in such a way that 80% of our populations live in cities which can only readily be supplied through conventional supply chains. Disband the cities and place people into sustainable units of population and the vision you suggest may (I emphasis may because there is very good evidence that current food production can only be achieved through artificial fossil fuel derived Nitrogen fertilizers) be achievable.

In the world in which we actually live we are already hitting various resource limits which are causing real hardship in the population of 7billion. With populations projected to increase towards 10billion in the next 40yrs, and oil based energy projected to be in decline from now onwards - thats just not very sustainable.

Br Cornelius

No argument there. It will collapse around our ears probably before we make the changes. But it's either change or create hell on earth. There really is no option. Nature is going to have the final say wether we like it or not.

it's just not a population issue. You could reduce the population but will only drag the problem out.  If things were done right  I don't think 20 billion would be a big issue, I actually don't even think it would get that high. I have flown over the west before.... There is so much productive land miles and miles and miles of it. Just California if it were a permaculture rythem based agriculture could probably produce enough food to feed two worlds. Of course locality is part of the solution, but we have the ability. its sitting right under our feet and our natural ecosystems will teach us if we listen. Unfortunately the powers that be will not give up their choke hold easily. It will take nothing short of a collapse, revolution, or a powerful movement. We will have to put as much effort or more into it as we did civil rights.

[Blood_Sacrifice]

Use and utilize resources more efficiently.
Use precautions when needed.
Family plan in advance.

It's no big surprise that overpopulation is a big issue in underdeveloped / developing countries.

Sorry! Can't be of any more help.

Edited by Blood_Sacrifice, 10 November 2012 - 10:29 PM.

[Bling]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 November 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

Its popular culture driving the nonsense not science, chemistry or engineering.

I wasn't referring to science, but mankinds superiority complex.

[Seeker79]

Bling, on 10 November 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

How do we control such things? Are we more powerful that nature, the planet and all around us? We're just flesh and blood....with an arrogant mind, sometimes.

We do not control it... We are apart of it. We must live in accordance with it.

[Bling]

Seeker79, on 10 November 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

We do not control it... We are apart of it. We must live in accordance with it.

Yes, that's the original point I made isn't it?!

[spud the mackem]

I think pehaps that people in educated Countries budget for children and only have as many as they can afford, I may be wrong,but most people I know have 1 or 2 children and no more. People in less educated Countries have a many as they can ,hoping that 1 or 2 will survive. However we have short memories as it wasn't unusual for people pre World War 1,to have 5,6,or maybe 7 or 8 children, maybe 1 or 2 wouldnt make it due to diseases like smallpox,typhoid fever,whooping cough etc. Today is vastly different as most killer diseases have been controlled or wiped out,but they still exist in poor Countries, the problem being that the Aid given to them doesnt actually reach them,but goes into the pockets of the Dictators and their cronies.I could name a few Countries where this happens but would probably be considered racist . The planets worst killer today is probably Cancer, which may soon have some bearing on the planets population. I would bet that everyone on this sight knows someone who has this disease or is fighting it.Population has nothing to do with Religeon.

[Orcseeker]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 November 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Over population is a myth but I'm no Bible basher.

Science and technology does not say we cant sustain ourselves the greens do. In reality we have the technology to support a far larger population than 6 billion.

Look around you, are we even managing to support our current population as it is? Let alone a proposed far greater number?

Even if what you say is somehow true, we certainly cannot withhold such a population now. Moreso how is it a good thing to have massive populations of people?

[Br Cornelius]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 November 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

I need to prove this, i need to prove that, how about for once you put your money where your mouth is.

Then go compare it to this - http://en.wikipedia....ki/Desalination - which tells you the world has 14,451 desalination plants in operation and even tells you its heavily used in Austrailia. Not just for drinking water but for irrigation. If you scroll down it will even tell you we have large scale desalination plants here in the UK.

I dont mind others offering opinions but you show yourself up when you dont check your facts yet insist everyone else is wrong in the way that you do.

Maybe you would like to address the actual issues now. maybe answer the questions asked.
Maybe you never intended to support your assertion anyway

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

Let us, in answer to the bogus assertions made, postulate a planet covered in city.
If we draw back from this impossible assertion, what percentage of the planet do we need to support all the cities that already exist.

Current best scientific evidence says about 200%.

Br Cornelius

[Likely Guy]

The problem is that the Earth is largely uninhabitable (oceans, swamps, permafrost, mountain ranges, deserts, etc.). There are huge tracts of my own western Canada, sprinkled with small cities. But the energy required to move the raw resources out, and to move the human resources in to extract them, are approaching unsustainable.

Long story short, it's all about fossil fuel. When that run's out, so does our lifestyle.

Edit to add: I'm sorry, that came off way more negative than I intended.

All I meant was, was that in the next few generations we are going to have to collectively address how we're going to deal with our problem. This is a warning from the hinterland.

Edited by Likely Guy, 11 November 2012 - 04:56 AM.

[Jinxdom]

I find it less of an overpopulation problem and more like over-consumption, crowding too small of an area problem. You put to many people in one area it's going to act just like having too many deer in one area except we'd get boned faster because it's hard to grow/find food in between pavement and apartment buildings. With the land I have I never go hungry or thirsty(I do feel bad for people who can't and worse for those who don't know how to grow their own things). Then again I don't eat until I'm full I eat enough to hit that I'm not hungry mark. (Unless it's good old turkey day then I'll eat until I can't move but that's only once a year). If I can make enough cash I can get off the electrical grid as well.

If we got away from city life things would balance out quite a bit. We would of course take a huge lifestyle hit but I'm ok with that. Likely Guy is right though it's just about fossil fuel. Once that runs out well there is going to be a crap load of death.