Overpopulation
SovietDictator
Join Date: 2003-01-19 Member: 12461Members
Join Date: 2003-01-19 Member: 12461Members
in Discussions
Well, I was checking over some natural resource reports and I found it quite shocking that there are so few resources left on Earth, some nations only have 100-200 years worth of certain resources left (I know it's a long time, but in the grand scheme of things it isn't). Then, there was a section on the rate of consumption by humans. So, my question is: What will the world do about overpopulation, and also resources?
I believe that there might be birth limits worldwide in the near future. It would be difficult to enforce it on the entire world, and then comes the question; what to you do if someone break that law? Space exploration/colonization might be a possibility, but it is more fantasy then fact, although a century or more of technological advancements might make it possible.
As for resources, I assume deep surface mining would help for a time. Also, there could be the mining of materials on planets and asteroids in our solar system, though it would be very complicated. And theres the possibilty of synethsising (sp) needed resources.
Or will mankind in his infinite wisdom not do anything until it's too late?
I believe that there might be birth limits worldwide in the near future. It would be difficult to enforce it on the entire world, and then comes the question; what to you do if someone break that law? Space exploration/colonization might be a possibility, but it is more fantasy then fact, although a century or more of technological advancements might make it possible.
As for resources, I assume deep surface mining would help for a time. Also, there could be the mining of materials on planets and asteroids in our solar system, though it would be very complicated. And theres the possibilty of synethsising (sp) needed resources.
Or will mankind in his infinite wisdom not do anything until it's too late?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The most likely eventuality is that mankind will not do anything until it's financially viable to do it.
If someone were to discover a nearly unlimited supply of oil on the moon, you can be assured that just about every major government in the world will race to get a refinery up there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What will the world do about overpopulation, and also resources?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Waning resources is more of a problem than overpopulation is. There's a huge drain on natural resources simply because they've become such an integral part of life for many people. It all ties into the wasteful lifestyle of millions of people.
Are you saying that that's a possibility?
Cuz last I heard there ain't no moon oil.
If we upped our recycling efforts, we wouldnt need to consume as many resources as we do today. As it stands, the planet has room for billions more individuals, but the infrastructure to support them is simply not there. To equalise the distribution of food/resources would require a unified world government, which is about as likely to happen as the oil on the moon analogy above...
This would be the most efficient way to prolong our "stay" on this planet. We would use less resources (everyone lives close to everyone else, so no need for multiple instances of the same store), everyone could have access to a doctor, and SARS would wipe out MILLIONS. We'd all win.
Half of this was serious. I have to do some homework so I can't talk too much about the pros of arcologies. (I'm skipping out on the cons, like the fact that arcologies would be, ideally, communes)
One of the biggest problems right now is that as populations grow, they sprawl outwards like a spilled bucket of water, building no more than one or two stories high. This is because of the short-sighted concern that it is more expensive to build upwards- harder to coordinate transportation and parking, increasingly wasted elevator space as the building climbs, etc. So without blinking they pave over anything flat with factory warehouses and terriyaki joints, instead of engineering archologies a la Sim City. They won't be able to just "fix" this down the road, because they're already killing things off in droves, and not even catalogueing all the DNA even in the off chance they would be able to somehow clone what they needed later (which is unrealistic considering the lack of information about the proper mixes needed of different kinds of organisms.)
Another one of the sad things you see is people's refusal to give a $hit about the fact that wildlife has to move around. All those four-legged things don't just sit around like decorations when you're not looking at them. Many of them have complicated migratory patterns where they instinctually go to one place for one activity, and another for something else. And they get there by walking, and they don't understand the laws or dangers of humanity. When you build an Interstate highway across a continent, that cuts it in half. There is no getting around the reality that if a road crosses something completely, then something walking can't get from top to bottom without walking across that road. When you further consider the fact that there many highways going both east-west and north-south, you get a checkerboard where crossing the lines is a date with death. Complicate this further by the fact that urban areas sprawl for miles and miles without so much as a single roped off corridor for basic wildlife to cross through. So, they just bumble into a Taco Time parking lot and get chased off or run over.
We have the technology to address these issues now, but we don't have anywhere close the amount of human cooperation we need.
Its been known that there are going to be huge problems with population in a short period of time, but a larger population is more financially profitable for the government. More people = more taxes. The taxes outweigh the costs of maintaining the population.
Personally i respect china for their birth control laws, however with china, they too didnt do anything about the population till it was almost too late.
The pitty is, people dont look at things till it becomes a problem, and they ignore the things that 'may' be a problem. Things are always left to the next generation 'because it will be a problem then but not now'
Expect a world like madmax in 200 years!!
Here's the plan, we go underwater, hang with the dolphins...
Here's the plan, we go underwater, hang with the dolphins... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would so kick ****.. I wonder if we'd evolve to suit our new habitat... mermaids are kinda sexy <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Here's the plan, we go underwater, hang with the dolphins... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would so kick ****.. I wonder if we'd evolve to suit our new habitat... mermaids are kinda sexy <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You DO realize they're just manatees, right?
<img src='http://www.outoftheearth.com/manatee.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Anyway, this is assuming we make it the next 100-200 years.
I wouldn't put money on it.
Also ur guys talkin about food, but food isnt the problem here, water is.
Water is a major part in this problem, most ppl dont see that...
somehow figure out a way to get what we need from common, easily replaceable sources like... i dunno. well not neccessarily easily replaceable, but like rocks, etc. this is sort of like how theyre getting energy from the sun via solar panels instead of the painful [to the environment] other electrical shiznit.
go live under the water! this would entirely possible, and there are more untapped food resources than you could imagine. and lots more space for everyone! [well, i read this in a kids book, but it sounded sort of true ;P. like, they had dome houses, fastened to the ground. there was air inside them [put a cup full of air upside down -i.e opening facing downards- and put it in water. WATCH! ;P] and in the streets, where ppl would swim with air tanks to the shops other houses etc, there were fishes!] only problem would be the funding. but i reckon if you figured out how to farm the waters, etc [no, not farming to extinction] then you could balance out your money problem, maybe even make a profit
expand, to the moon/other places, and terrafarm it! this would take incredible amounts of funding and money and co-operation, something we dont have right now. best thing to do would be a mix of the two above <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> and most likely, im guessing.. dunno about the top one tho ;P
and finally, GET USED TO WALKING. ;P when the oil runs out, if we havent got a replacement source of energy like that, or wahtever, we should just give everybody a big fat farm somewhere and let them live like in the 1800's ;P
incidentally, realistically, i dont think letting everybody die off is an option. not only is it kind of selfish to say 'everybody else but me die' [i realise this would be in the future, but it still doesnt affect you so my point still remains] but how could we CONTROL the killing off? you could kill too few, or too many. and kill the ppl working out to save the enviromnent, i.e first two options <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> nope, human intelligence is the only way to get us out of this mess <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
"People thought for many years that we would breed ourselves out of existence," says Warren Sanderson, a professor of economics and history at State University of New York at Stonybrook and co-author of the study appearing in this week's Nature. "They thought we'd produce so many children, there would be no standing room left on the planet. But now it seems our population will peak.
"And that's an optimistic message."
The study is the first to pinpoint an end to the burgeoning population. The scientists estimate there is an 85 percent chance the species will taper to about 8.4 billion by the year 2100. The current world population is counted at 6.1 billion.
Previous demographic studies by the United Nations had projected higher populations of 9.32 billion by the year 2050, with no decline in growth. Part of the reason for the different predictions is the new study anticipates the number of children born per woman will go down.
Forecasts Never Certain
Like the weather, population is tricky to predict since it is dependent on so many independent factors, including disease, wars and social trends. Demographers in the 1930s, for example, never predicted the post-World War II baby boom that caused populations to spike in the United States. Later, they also missed that U.S. birth rates would drop significantly by the 1970s.
In order to reflect the uncertainty of population prediction, the researchers, based at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria, framed their findings in probabilities.
The team determined there is a 20 percent chance the population will peak by the year 2050, a 55 percent chance it will peak by 2075 and an 85 percent chance numbers will reach their limit in the next century. Sanderson says this method can provide policy makers with a more precise estimate of what to expect.
But others argue the predictions could be dangerously misleading even though they are framed in probabilities.
"It's a mistake to think we can stop worrying about population growth," says Robert Engelman, vice president for research for Population Action International, a Washington-based advocacy group. "The population growth problem isn't solved until we've solved it."
While most developed countries, particularly in Europe, have shown signs of declining, or soon-to-be declining populations, developing nations in sub-Saharan Africa and in western Asia still have high population growth. According to U.N. findings, Chad's population is growing by 3.3 percent every year, Yemen's population is expanding at the same rate and Madagascar is growing by 3 percent annually.
Part of the reason, says Engelmen, is women in these countries often have many children, starting at a young age. He argues it's important for the United States and other countries to promote family planning programs around the world in order to encourage lower global birth rates.
The Population Divide
In order to maintain a stable population, women must average 2.1 children each, a figure known as the replacement fertility rate. Two children replace the woman and her partner and the 0.1 figure reflects infant mortality rates.
Sanderson says the United States is now exactly at this fertility rate and so is maintaining a stable population. One possible reason for the United States' steady fertility rate, says Engelman, could be its high immigration rates and its high populations of people from cultures where families are traditionally large.
But the United States is the exception among developed countries. Sanderson and his team calculate that the European portion of the former Soviet Union has already peaked and is now declining. China, Japan and most western European countries have replacement fertility rates below 2.1 and are expected to decline in coming years.
The demographers point out that the increasing contrast between growing and shrinking nations is sure to pose global immigration tensions in the future. People from increasingly crowded and economically strained countries will be more and more likely to seek migration to developed countries where populations are shrinking.
"Migration is going to be a big battle," says Sanderson. "We've already begun to see the problems in countries like Germany and Austria where a lot of people want zero migration. This is only the tip of the iceberg."
More demand for health care for the elderly could be another consequence of changing populations. The study expects those 60 or older to increase in number from about 10 percent of the population to about 22 percent by the year 2050. In the next 100 years, they could make up 34 percent of the population.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont think we have much to worry about...
No rich countries have any problems at all with overpopulation.
Are you saying that that's a possibility?
Cuz last I heard there ain't no moon oil. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
umm oil is made from organic matter put under pressure for millions of years (simplistic view lots of other **** happens)
anyway, the moon has never supported life.
hence no oil.