Friday, February 3, 2023
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
You are viewing: Home > News > Science & Technology > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
Science & Technology

WW3 wouldn't affect world's population

By T.K. Randall
October 28, 2014 · Comment icon 90 comments



Our population is spiralling out of control. Image Credit: sxc.hu
A new study has revealed that our planet's population is even more out of control than we realize.
Researchers at the University of Adelaide in Australia looked at current population growth and then simulated what would happen to it under a number of common disaster scenarios.

Among these was the possibility of World War III with a death toll roughly equal to that of the previous two world wars combined.

Other catastrophes such as a global pandemic were also considered as part of the calculation.
No matter the scenario however the results of the study indicated that even in the event of mass casualties our planet's runaway population growth would continue unabated.

"We were surprised that a five-year WW3 scenario, mimicking the same proportion of people killed in the first and second world wars combined, barely registered a blip on the human population trajectory this century," said study co-author Professor Barry Brook.

Nothing, not even stringest child birth restrictions seemed to make any difference to the prediction of unmanageable population levels by the turn of the next century.

Instead, the researchers argued that the most beneficial course of action would be to cut consumption of natural resources and improve our efforts to recycle as much as possible.

Source: Irish Examiner | Comments (90)


Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #81 Posted by danielost 8 years ago
Daniel.... he is not wrong.... I rarely agree with Br Cornelius but...he is not wrong... We have problems coming and no one is even trying to addres them... It is the worst part of human capacity.....we see a problem and choose to ignore it....that is bad....very very bad we can be better than this but it is going to take a profound change in humans....I just don't see it at this moment in time....I can wish......I can wish in one hand and sh!t in the other....which hand do you tink is going to fill up first? it is true that capitalism is a bad way to do business. but it is the best that we ha... [More]
Comment icon #82 Posted by DieChecker 8 years ago
Well, I did say that ALL major cities would be gone anyway, so the US wouldn't be feeding 250 million people, it would be feeding about 20 million people.
Comment icon #83 Posted by DieChecker 8 years ago
Such notions of underground/space farms ignore the simple physics of energy conversion. The sun produces about 1.3kW/m2 which would have to be replaced by artificial light with a conversion ratio of electricity to light of about 20% that would need about 6kw/m2 of input energy, since the conversion of fossil fuels into electricity runs at about 30% efficiency that means we would need 18kw of fossil fuel energy for each square meter of agriculture. Given that we would need many thousands of hectares of agriculture with 1000m2/km I will leave you to calculate the vast quantities of fossil fuel n... [More]
Comment icon #84 Posted by DieChecker 8 years ago
he is not wrong.... I rarely agree with Br Cornelius but...he is not wrong... We have problems coming and no one is even trying to addres them... Wait. If BC is not wrong, and he says that no system works, then wouldn't there be problems coming regardless of what system we use? BC didn't say one was even better then the other. He said they all fail.
Comment icon #85 Posted by 8 years ago
Here is a real world example. https://energyfarms....vertical-farms/ So a 200,000 square foot site would require 6700 tons of coal. At about 1 pound coal = 1 kWh. And 200,000 ft2 = 18600m2. That means 720 kWh/m2 over a year. Or about 2 kWh/m2 per day, not the 18 you assumed. You didn't read the bit about conversion factors and losses of conversion. Even by your own figures such a system would be infeasible. Heres a hint, that article doesn't really support your position, it shows that it takes more coal by weight to to produce the weight of food output - an unsustainable system. The conclusion... [More]
Comment icon #86 Posted by 8 years ago
Wait. If BC is not wrong, and he says that no system works, then wouldn't there be problems coming regardless of what system we use? BC didn't say one was even better then the other. He said they all fail. Yes they do. The problem is to divine why they all fail and use that as the foundation of what might work. Easy to say but hard to do, but until we try any system proposed will likely be similarly doomed to fail. This is why people find the environmental message so hard to grasp, because it undermines their certainty in the economic system which they have been taught is the one and only inev... [More]
Comment icon #87 Posted by Doug1029 8 years ago
So a 200,000 square foot site would require 6700 tons of coal. At about 1 pound coal = 1 kWh. And 200,000 ft2 = 18600m2. That means 720 kWh/m2 over a year. Or about 2 kWh/m2 per day, not the 18 you assumed. So you have 4.5 acres under glass. That would grow enough to feed maybe a dozen people - enough to tend the farm. Now who is going to bring you all this coal? Doug
Comment icon #88 Posted by JinxDeMynx 8 years ago
Then let's skip it and have world war 4
Comment icon #89 Posted by DieChecker 8 years ago
You didn't read the bit about conversion factors and losses of conversion. Even by your own figures such a system would be infeasible. Heres a hint, that article doesn't really support your position, it shows that it takes more coal by weight to to produce the weight of food output - an unsustainable system. The conclusion of the linked article which supports my position - not yours (try reading to the end next time); Br Cornelius So you have 4.5 acres under glass. That would grow enough to feed maybe a dozen people - enough to tend the farm. Now who is going to bring you all this coal? Doug E... [More]
Comment icon #90 Posted by Doug1029 8 years ago
Here is a story about a guy feeding people with a warehouse garden. http://www.splendidt...res-in-the-city it says 10,000 people fed on the 3 acres, but I think that is 10,000 days of food, so that i about 9 people per acre. I suspect he grows enough to allow 10,000 people to get a few items, not enough to feed 10,000 people all the food they would need to live. And how long did it take to get this going? Remember, you've only got a few hours, a few days at best. Doug


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

 Total Posts: 7,397,670    Topics: 304,420    Members: 199,448

 Not a member yet ? Click here to join - registration is free and only takes a moment!
Recent news and articles