98 replies to this topic

[Bling]

Shall we just stop shagging without contraception, would that solve everything?

[Briggstan]

Bling, on 11 November 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

Shall we just stop shagging without contraception, would that solve everything?

I believe in the future sex without reproduction will be looked at as unproductive, the same way the OP posting about the myth of overpopulation will be looked. Why not have him on a farm or farming in his background farming or something?

[Br Cornelius]

Just to show I am not blowing hot air on the 200% figure, here is the report I got it from;

http://image.guardia....pdf?intcmp=239

Br Cornelius

[Bluefinger]

TrueBeliever, on 10 November 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

I certainly think overpopulation is a real problem and affects everything in our life, from jobs availability to appropriation of natural resources........I am interested in hearing from the fundamentalist christians who believe overpopulation is a myth.......I just do not understand how they do not see the issues involved. Science and math are not their strong point but come on.......it is so obvious!

Overpopulation is a myth to us Christians because all life is precious, even the life of a criminal (for we are commanded to visit the criminals in prison.)  How, then, could we say that more life is a bad thing?

If the world lived like Jesus did, they'd never work for themselves and would have no problem sharing their homes, food, cars, etc.

It is because people seek things for themselves that overpopulation is a problem.  The poor, homeless, orphans, widows, elderly, and unemployed are a burden to society because people are trying to build a life for themselves here and get what they worked for.  That is how these societies operate and that is why overpopulation is a problem.  

Add the few wealthy individuals that buy up so much land and wealth and distribute it to very few and you have an even bigger problem.

[Artaxerxes]

"Paul Ehrlich features in this short trailer on human overpopulation and the current mass extinction of other species. Richard Leakey also makes an appearance."  - Redhen

When I was a kid my mom used to have a saying, "when it's gone, it's gone!"  At the time she was talking about money but the same applies to oil, food, arable land, water, etc.   I suppose it all depends on how menial one is willing to go when it comes to living.   Should we all be living in Soviet era type concrete & cinder block housing and eating beans and rice to survive? Owning only one pair of shoes and wearing the same clothes every day?  

What are willing to give up?   I'm just glad I've all ready lived 3/4's of my life.   I was born not too long after WWII and enjoyed a lot of things that many kids these days won't get to do.  I traveled quite a bit, hunted and fished and spearfished, snorkeled and dived in rivers, lakes, and oceans surrounding the United States, owned a couple of boats, trucks, vans, cars, 2 houses, and have tasted & eaten some pretty expensive foods like filete Mignon and lobster.

We chose not to have children.   We are both college educated, me with a couple of Bachlors degrees and my wife even has a PhD.   When we are gone that will be it.   We are not leaving any offspring and I doubt we'll care once we are gone what happens but for now I am empathetic for the children and what they will inherit.   I suppose there will always be rich and poor and some people will have access to the good life, owning cars, boats, houses, etc.   I've probably only got 10 - 15 years left so after that I won't care.

Edited by Artaxerxes, 14 November 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[The Id3al Experience]

It is a myth, the earth can have more, its greed - UK alone consume 3 time the food needed, I wouldnt even want to read a report about americans (not sure if they would be worse, but i assume - could be wrong)

So it comes down to over use, one family eats and wastes more food in western and eastern. I know for me, I use to be a big waster of food, never finish my plate and throw it away... pounds of food a year in the bin.

I now learn to put less on my plate, if i still hungry i will get more... or I will use the waste to feed the birds, my dog. I do not like waste.

I really think greed and education is the problem, not the amount of people.

[Br Cornelius]

The Id3al Experience, on 14 November 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

It is a myth, the earth can have more, its greed - UK alone consume 3 time the food needed, I wouldnt even want to read a report about americans (not sure if they would be worse, but i assume - could be wrong)

So it comes down to over use, one family eats and wastes more food in western and eastern. I know for me, I use to be a big waster of food, never finish my plate and throw it away... pounds of food a year in the bin.

I now learn to put less on my plate, if i still hungry i will get more... or I will use the waste to feed the birds, my dog. I do not like waste.

I really think greed and education is the problem, not the amount of people.

It is part of the problem - but even if we used less as individuals we would still be living beyond the sustainable carring capacity of the planet.
Man has degraded his environment since the beginning of civilization.

Br Cornelius

[spud the mackem]

Maybe Nature will decide when enough is enough,we've had famine ,plagues tsunami's, earthquakes,taking out a few thousand humans at a time,so the more people there are,the more will be killed when the next big disaster happens,maybe an asteroid strike,or a new Ice age,or some maniac using a nuke or two.I dont reckon Humans will last as long as Dinosaurs did.

[Bling]

spud the mackem, on 15 November 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Maybe Nature will decide when enough is enough,we've had famine ,plagues tsunami's, earthquakes,taking out a few thousand humans at a time,so the more people there are,the more will be killed when the next big disaster happens,maybe an asteroid strike,or a new Ice age,or some maniac using a nuke or two.I dont reckon Humans will last as long as Dinosaurs did.

I agree, similar thoughts I posted. I do hope there's not a potato famine though, cos we'd miss you!

[spud the mackem]

Bling, on 15 November 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

I agree, similar thoughts I posted. I do hope there's not a potato famine though, cos we'd miss you!

  I like it ha ha ,I would probably become a chip,or end up mashed hee hee.

[Mr Walker]

TrueBeliever, on 10 November 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

I certainly think overpopulation is a real problem and affects everything in our life, from jobs availability to appropriation of natural resources........I am interested in hearing from the fundamentalist christians who believe overpopulation is a myth.......I just do not understand how they do not see the issues involved. Science and math are not their strong point but come on.......it is so obvious!

Dont worry The current  problem is not really one of overpopulation, but of underpopulation.

At present almost every developed country is not having enough children to replace their parents. Each woman must have 2.2 approx children to do this. In australia it is about 1.7 and in parts of the world getting down to about 1. (Japan was 1.39 in 2011)

In japan and parts of europe this is already having serious effects. In australia the gvt is paying parents $6000 dollars for each child born to try and replace our population. In the third world birthrates are  also dropping rapidly. By about 2050 the world pop will peak and begin to decine. That decline wil be slow at first but if current trends continue it will become rapid as the older and larger generations die off.. It is not just the total pop which is a problem, but the age sex pyramid. For example western countries wil have large aged populations and tiny youth populations. this affects everything from taxes/labour force to health provisions and care for the elderly. In japan the govt is already working on using robots to care for the elderly, because there are not enough young people to do this.

[Br Cornelius]

Mr Walker, on 16 November 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Dont worry The current  problem is not really one of overpopulation, but of underpopulation.

At present almost every developed country is not having enough children to replace their parents. Each woman must have 2.2 approx children to do this. In australia it is about 1.7 and in parts of the world getting down to about 1. (Japan was 1.39 in 2011)

In japan and parts of europe this is already having serious effects. In australia the gvt is paying parents $6000 dollars for each child born to try and replace our population. In the third world birthrates are  also dropping rapidly. By about 2050 the world pop will peak and begin to decine. That decline wil be slow at first but if current trends continue it will become rapid as the older and larger generations die off.. It is not just the total pop which is a problem, but the age sex pyramid. For example western countries wil have large aged populations and tiny youth populations. this affects everything from taxes/labour force to health provisions and care for the elderly. In japan the govt is already working on using robots to care for the elderly, because there are not enough young people to do this.

All maybe entirely true - but it ignores the massive negative consequences of current population levels. Environmental degradation accelerated massively between the 1970's and now - when populations went from 3billion to 7billion. World populations will continue to rise to 10billion by 2050 which inevitably will accelerate the massive environmental crisis we currently face. We can make the planet all but uninhabitable for humans in the time in which natural demographics brings populations under control.

Br Cornelius

[Mr Walker]

Br Cornelius, on 17 November 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

All maybe entirely true - but it ignores the massive negative consequences of current population levels. Environmental degradation accelerated massively between the 1970's and now - when populations went from 3billion to 7billion. World populations will continue to rise to 10billion by 2050 which inevitably will accelerate the massive environmental crisis we currently face. We can make the planet all but uninhabitable for humans in the time in which natural demographics brings populations under control.

Br Cornelius

The world can sustain that level temporarily without doing irreversible harm, and it will be very temporary in historical terms. We can feed 10 billion people.The underlying problem is the massive and unsustainable over consumption by western societies (meaning individual people) That can't be sustained. It is a growth/greed based economic system which will eventually have to change or else collapse.

The resources of the planet can probably only sustain a couple of billion people given  western consumption and even that would require creative sustainable use of resources like renewable energies  For example, one day last month about 85% of my states power was provided by wind energy and we have base load wind generation of about 25-30 % of all our electric power.
Once we have population and resource use under control, humans have the abilty and technology to restore  earth to a balanced and sustainable ecosystem and habitat.

We will have to do this if it is to be our home world for more millenia, even if we also colonise other planets and solar systems

[Br Cornelius]

We are currently undergoing the 7th great extinction. This is the first anthropogenic extinction. Once a species goes extinct - it never comes back and will take millions of years to be replaced through evolution. Most of the damage is occuring in the poor countries where population is still growing, but even in the developed world biodiversity has declined by 40% in the last 30years. We depend on biodiversity for our air, water and soil. We cannot ignore the consequences of population and it would take centuries/millenia to drop back to sustainable levels of population.

Br Cornelius

[Mr Walker]

Br Cornelius, on 17 November 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

We are currently undergoing the 7th great extinction. This is the first anthropogenic extinction. Once a species goes extinct - it never comes back and will take millions of years to be replaced through evolution. Most of the damage is occuring in the poor countries where population is still growing, but even in the developed world biodiversity has declined by 40% in the last 30years. We depend on biodiversity for our air, water and soil. We cannot ignore the consequences of population and it would take centuries/millenia to drop back to sustainable levels of population.

Br Cornelius

Why do you think this? The earth's population could be reduced by half in two generations, if current  falls in fertility rates continue. If every woman has only one child, then the next generation will be half the numbers of its parent's generation, and the next generation will be only a quarter of its grandparents. That figure is  already being approached in parts of the world.

Given present trends and numbers, once fertility levels fall below replacement levels, it will only take two generations for numbers to  fall very dramatically, once the older generation dies off. So, by the end of this century, the worlds pop could well be less than it is now and in rapid decline.

However, it is not about the numbers but about the resource use and  ecological footprint of individuals. I 'consume", or require for my sustenance as an australian, 2 and a half hectares of the earth's surface. In the third world it is a few square metres per person. It is this inequality which is unsustainable. We can't afford the throw away, wasteful, consumer society of the west.

Humans have the technological abilty to restore both biodiversity and habitat to the earth, once we control population and consumption to sustainable levels. However, while we could reintroduce wooly mamoths dodos and tasmanian tigers to the earth, I am not sure that would be a wise move. Probably halting decline in, and mimimallly improving,  the biodiversity might be safer and more feasible, at least to begin with.

Edited by Mr Walker, 17 November 2012 - 10:35 AM.