The Population Problem

[DaveP]

I don't understand why no-one is taking this issue seriously, there is nothing in the news media.  Am I the only one who sees the world sleepwalking into an over population apocalypse?

Whether you believe in man made climate change or not, you don't need to be a genius to see that more people will mean that more food, water and resources will be required.

We can produce renewable energy and recycle resources to address the burden of a growing population on the world, but wouldn't it make more sense to address the underlying cause at the same time?

If we can  make agreements to limit CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, surely it makes sense to do something similar with the population.

DaveP

 

[emrr]

It's easily the number one problem, yet doing something about it goes against so many ingrained beliefs.  It doesn't look good to me.  So many parts of the world are barely out of the woods, if at all, wanting that which American advertising has promised. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't understand why no-one is taking this issue seriously, there is nothing in the news media.  Am I the only one who sees the world sleepwalking into an over population apocalypse?

There was a lot of arm waving back in the 60s about this. Maybe you read "The population bomb" by Paul Ehrlich published in '68, that predicted mass starvation by the 1970s-80s.

Whether you believe in man made climate change or not, you don't need to be a genius to see that more people will mean that more food, water and resources will be required.

Oceans cover 70% of the planet surface, we will not run out of water anytime soon. Perhaps if we were still living like hunter-gatherers we would starve, but industrial farming has met the challenge of feeding an increasing population.

As populations get wealthier, the birth rate slows, so increasing the wealth of the poor will also limit population growth.  Sorry if this sounds counter-intuitive.

We can produce renewable energy and recycle resources to address the burden of a growing population on the world, but wouldn't it make more sense to address the underlying cause at the same time?

If we can  make agreements to limit CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, surely it makes sense to do something similar with the population.

DaveP

Yup, just what we need, political elites telling us who can have children...  Even China relaxed their silly one child policy.  :

In case this isn't obvious. the world's larger problems are still rogue bellicose nations trying to kill each other (and some groups that don't even have their own nation but still behave very badly). 

The population growth will most likely limit itself without government "help".

JR

 

[Tubetec]

Yeah sure ,globally were heading for huge population increases ,but in the westernised societies  we have exactly the opposite problem ,too low a birth rate coupled with an aging population. On top of this were ingesting more and more noxious chemicals which are lowering the fertillity rate which compounds the problem further The dream were selling the rest of the world is ultimately going to lead to our own demise . The US population grows by around .75% per year, this is due to inward migration as average reproduction rates have slipped below whats required for population growth or even just to keep it level .

 

[warpie]

... surely it makes sense to do something similar with the population.

Like?

 

[Phrazemaster]

Studying natural population ecosystems in the wild, I recall that it's normally a self-limiting activity. The population grows until it has wiped out all resources, and then it starves and dies. Or natural disasters or illnesses wipe out the population.

Generally, populations of anything expand, until they can't.

That's what worries me - this global population is expanding like crazy (7.5billions now), and the definition of "expands until it can't" can be really, really ugly. It can look like people living 10 people to a room, squalid conditions, awful lifestyles for most.

It hurts to see land continually cleared, forests burned, and our earth polluted without any end in sight.

As Mr. Smith said in The Matrix, we humans are a like a virus, spreading until all resources are consumed, and then moving on. Only problem is, we are running out of new places to move on, to. Well there's SpaceX's Mars and other planets I suppose. We'll just outsource the problem to the moon...and so it continues unabated.

I am all for some kind of global discussion, and solution, to the population issue. It's patently crazy to me to ignore this. Doug's point that it goes against so many ingrained beliefs is right on - and it also goes against the biologic imperative to reproduce, so I get that.

But we WILL have severe consequences if we don't wise up and do something to limit this out-of-control expansion.

 

[ruffrecords]

I too am puzzled why this topic is never discussed by politicians. Even the climate  change alarmists make no mention of it yet surely man made CO2 is directly proportion to the number of people. No pint reducing CO2 output per head if the heads increase just as fast.

As I said in the other thread, fusion is the answer. We need cheap limitless energy so we can teach for the stars but nobody seems to have any vision any more.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Phrazemaster]

I too am puzzled why this topic is never discussed by politicians. Even the climate  change alarmists make no mention of it yet surely man made CO2 is directly proportion to the number of people. No pint reducing CO2 output per head if the heads increase just as fast.

As I said in the other thread, fusion is the answer. We need cheap limitless energy so we can teach for the stars but nobody seems to have any vision any more.

Cheers

Ian

Well, I think maybe the better answer is just to KILL EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET!! MUHAHAHA!!!

Seriously methane gas is far worse than CO2, which breeding all the cattle increases by a LOT. The problem is not simple - and how to explain the warming of the other planets too? Hmm?

Perhaps we are not THE drivers of climate change, as those who would charge you carbon taxes and find ways to profit off of all this would have you believe.

I believe in taking a balanced approach - there's no reason NOT to move towards clean green energies - who wants a polluted planet anyway? And on the off chance we are causing the warming, or contributing to it greatly, then this will also help there too.

Win-win. So easy. Ha!

 

[Tubetec]

One thing in relation to climate change that sticks out in my mind is that in the days after the twin towers went down and all flights were grounded ,a huge blip in the surface tempreature of the US was observed , I think Trumps attitude that we can simply continue to burn burn burn is nonsense. In relation to the point made by a previous poster about growth until all the resources are depleted , its happened on a more localised scale many times throughout history , the story of the Mauri people of New Zeland is worth a look at in this regard . Messing with the ecosystem and squabling over what was left was nearly the end of them .

Probably high time we in the west re-examined our relationship with the planet so as to show the rest who follow after were gone thats this whole consumerist existance is a total squandering of finite resources , nothing gives me greater pleasure than re-working a vintage piece of electronics or repurposing old bits where possible .As far as getting stuck into SMT reworking Im just not going to be arsed . Enquired lately about work in a local repair centre I worked at for a while about 25 years ago , its mostly paperwork and software updates to mobiles and tablets nowadays , at most the techs are their simply to pop the lids off and replace a battery or sub assembly , they rarely even need to heat up a soldering iron now .

 

[ruffrecords]

Well, I think maybe the better answer is just to KILL EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET!! MUHAHAHA!!!

Or move then to an empty one.

Seriously methane gas is far worse than CO2, which breeding all the cattle increases by a LOT. The problem is not simple - and how to explain the warming of the other planets too? Hmm?

It is not all about which gas is the worst because tiny amounts of a really bad gas still does little harm yet huge quantities of a much lesser gas can do a lot more harm. it is a bit like gain bandwidth product. Unfortunately most climate alarmists choose to ignore the biggest global warming gas, water vapour. it's those big white fluffy things that cover about a third of the earth's surface

Perhaps we are not THE drivers of climate change, as those who would charge you carbon taxes and find ways to profit off of all this would have you believe.

I believe in taking a balanced approach - there's no reason NOT to move towards clean green energies - who wants a polluted planet anyway? And on the off chance we are causing the warming, or contributing to it greatly, then this will also help there too.

Win-win. So easy. Ha!

Unfortunately, current 'green' technology is nowhere near able to supply all our energy needs. We'll be lucky if it achieves 20% by the end of this century. We need a disruptive technology like fusion for this to work.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Phrazemaster]

Or move then to an empty one.It is not all about which gas is the worst because tiny amounts of a really bad gas still does little harm yet huge quantities of a much lesser gas can do a lot more harm. it is a bit like gain bandwidth product. Unfortunately most climate alarmists choose to ignore the biggest global warming gas, water vapour. it's those big white fluffy things that cover about a third of the earth's surface
Unfortunately, current 'green' technology is nowhere near able to supply all our energy needs. We'll be lucky if it achieves 20% by the end of this century. We need a disruptive technology like fusion for this to work.

Cheers

Ian

You make great points.

My understanding is that Germany is entirely on clean energy, solar. A whole country.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I too am puzzled why this topic is never discussed by politicians.

Perhaps because they can't figure out how to make money off it.  Increasing populations generally mean increasing GDP which means increasing tax revenue (more money to spend).

Even the climate  change alarmists make no mention of it yet surely man made CO2 is directly proportion to the number of people. No pint reducing CO2 output per head if the heads increase just as fast.

a little simplistic, but more cows make more methane so outlaw milk and cheese.  :

As I said in the other thread, fusion is the answer. We need cheap limitless energy so we can teach for the stars but nobody seems to have any vision any more.

Cheers

Ian

Why do we want to corrupt space, when we don't even have our act together here?

I am in favor of space travel for discovery, but not to find new planets to consume after we exhaust this one.

As I already posted this is a fairly old topic and much discussed.  Many get more than a little squeamish when we start discussing "which" population to cull or limit.  Some fairly famous people were not squeamish at all, while they have been discredited when this topic is even discussed.  Lets just say it isn't PC for polite company to decide who should not be allowed to reproduce. I'm not going to go there.

In my judgement this will work itself out, and our effort now is better spent on not blowing the planet up before we get to those population capacity thresholds.

JR

PS: Not only do we have lots of water, but we have lots of dirt. Crowding in cities is because people are attracted to cities to find jobs or support services.  When I fly over the US it remarkable how much is undeveloped. Same is true for vast regions around the world. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

You make great points.

My understanding is that Germany is entirely on clean energy, solar. A whole country.

My understanding is different.

Germany has been very aggressive about adding wind and solar, and shutting down nuclear, but when the sun don't shine and wind don't blow, they still need to make electricity, so they still burn some coal here and there.

They are investing heavily in renewables, but this can't flip over night.

Not sure those two charts add up, but both from wiki

JR

 

[Phrazemaster]

I stand corrected, thank-you.

I found this...

"Germany has been called "the world's first major renewable energy economy".[1][2]

On Sunday 15 May 2016 at 14:00 hours, renewables supplied nearly all of domestic electricity demand.[3]"

Yet this is only 1 day and a far cry from being totally reliant on renewable energy supplies.

 

[Phrazemaster]

As far as the comment about outlawing milk and cheese, of course you're being sarcastic but the fact is with a burgeoning population we have also massive upped our cattle growing, not only for milk and cheese but for the abbatoir. This naturally leads to more methane.

The point being, just increasing the number of people isn't the problem either - it's what we are eating that's also contributing to the problem.

Many people feel they need to eat meat 2-3x/day, which is a bit overkill. Pun intended. Not recommending vegetarianism although I am one, but we can get by with less meat as a society.

In China, traditionally the meals were mostly vegetarian with a small portion of meat divided amongst family members. Much more sensible for the planet, and for our bodies.

A basic meat meal in Texas would help to feed an entire Chinese family for weeks.

 

[gltech]

Overpopulation is by far the root of all other problems on earth IMO. Thanks DaveP -- at least some people are talking. I think the cultural aspect of it is the worst, and probably the most disregarded.

One ever-increasing phenomenon during my lifetime has been seeing people I consider to be most intelligent/civilized having  less and less kids. And vice-versa.

 

[scott2000]

Overpopulation is by far the root of all other problems on earth IMO. Thanks DaveP -- at least some people are talking. I think the cultural aspect of it is the worst, and probably the most disregarded.

One ever-increasing phenomenon during my lifetime has been seeing people I consider to be most intelligent/civilized having  less and less kids. And vice-versa.

:-X

 

[zebra50]

I think we have to face up to the fact that it is time to start turning our older citizens into little green biscuits....

 

[Phrazemaster]

I think we have to face up to the fact that it is time to start turning our older citizens into little green biscuits....

Soylent Green anyone?

 

[DaveP]

Yes I remember that film, Charlton Heston.  It was stinking hot in that film too, I remember.  So that was 44 years ago when it was predicted and how much progress have we made since?

I did an Open University Module back in 82 that calculated that the population would peak around 2050, I wonder if that is still the case?

To avoid any question of eugenics I suggested something similar to the Paris Accord, where individual countries would agree their own programmes to limit populations to sustainable levels.

Where countries in the West have already self-limited their own populations, we should not allow politicians to open the door to mass immigration from countries with surplus populations as it only causes unnecessary social and cultural problems.  This was what the Brexit vote in the UK was all about.  There are places in the world that are basically full up and we need to acknowledge that fact.

The UK finally stopped generating electricity from coal this year, so we are making some progress, albeit painfully slowly.  I don't know whether it has been picked up in the US, but Europe has put a limit (2040) on the use of petrol and diesel cars and the switch to electric/hybrids is going on at a pace.  We will have to make enormous investments in electric recharging points and boosting power production to cope with this.

DaveP