Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
brad89

Overpopulation

Recommended Posts

What is the world going to do when we run out of land to develop? We can't artificially make land! Even if that was done, we would eventually lose the oceans, and die of Oxygen loss. Where can we live when the world reaches its limits and we lose our elbow room? The single family homes will be replaced with towering skyscrapers to house all of the newly needed families. Eventually, we will exhaust all of our natural resources, meaning no more plastic, no more new cars, no more houses, buisness, maybe energy, what else could we lose? What can we do about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't worry, there are plenty of politicians taking care of that by waging wars and refusing to fight poverty. we must first get rid of them, so that the problem of overpopulation arises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't get to that point. If we're really lucky, a few natural mega-disasters will cull a few of us, and if not, we can always hope for global war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there isn't enough to go around then some people will die. This happens all the time during famines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the world going to do when we run out of land to develop?
Go off-planet.
We can't artificially make land!
... yet.
Even if that was done, we would eventually lose the oceans, and die of Oxygen loss.
If we did nothing about the oxygen loss.
Where can we live when the world reaches its limits and we lose our elbow room?
The single family homes will be replaced with towering skyscrapers to house all of the newly needed families.
You answer your own question here.
Eventually, we will exhaust all of our natural resources, meaning no more plastic, no more new cars, no more houses, buisness, maybe energy, what else could we lose?
This won't happen overnight.
What can we do about it?
Keep pioneering new ways of doing things, making things, always with an eye towards the future. I think the biggest obstacle to overcome is the tendency to milk the last drop of money out of certain processes before moving on to the next. We can easily miss the next new technology by not properly funding it's early research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go off-planet.... yet. If we did nothing about the oxygen loss. You answer your own question here. This won't happen overnight. Keep pioneering new ways of doing things, making things, always with an eye towards the future. I think the biggest obstacle to overcome is the tendency to milk the last drop of money out of certain processes before moving on to the next. We can easily miss the next new technology by not properly funding it's early research.

 

Good point, however, all of the resources needed to go off planet come from the earth. Sure, it won't happen overnight, but I have a wierd point of view, I am concerned about the future, and I don't mean twenty years from now, I mean three hundred years from now. Sure, it won't happen overnight, but it will happen. As for the skyscraper comment, I meant to impose that it is kind of a bad thing. Does everybody want to be three thousand feet from the earths surface? Slipping off the patio means death. I don't know about certain people, but I prefer ground level. I have always wondered if it were possible to 'harness' lava after an eruption, and perhaps create artificial land from it. The lava would continuously come at a constant rate, creating new jobs, and new hope towards colonizing space. Problem is, conduction would melt just about everything it touches. And, we are hoping for some steel or titanium walls to these modules, not dirt! Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, I once heard that if we were to triple the current amount of trees existing and about to be grown, and cut our consumption for fuel and paper, yet lost the oxygen producing bacteria of the ocean, we would probably not live. Yet if we lost most of our trees and increased our consumption, yet retained the oxygen producers from the ocean, we might just survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point, however, all of the resources needed to go off planet come from the earth.
Until we get to another planet or some asteroids to mine more resources.
Sure, it won't happen overnight, but I have a wierd point of view, I am concerned about the future, and I don't mean twenty years from now, I mean three hundred years from now.
I realize I sound pretty flip about this, but truly you're not alone. While I do think that corporate interests have more immediate needs to meet, I do believe there are enough forward thinkers to hopefully balance them out. It really isn't in a mega-corporattion's best interest to use eveything up. They usually just want to make it scarcer so they can charge more.
As for the skyscraper comment, I meant to impose that it is kind of a bad thing. Does everybody want to be three thousand feet from the earths surface? Slipping off the patio means death. I don't know about certain people, but I prefer ground level.
Fortunately enough, there are people who want to live high up and people like you who want to live at ground level. Diversity saves us in the long run. It is why we don't all wear the same clothing or drive the same car. Why am I glad some people drive Hummers? So I don't have to.
I have always wondered if it were possible to 'harness' lava after an eruption, and perhaps create artificial land from it. The lava would continuously come at a constant rate, creating new jobs, and new hope towards colonizing space. Problem is, conduction would melt just about everything it touches. And, we are hoping for some steel or titanium walls to these modules, not dirt! Any thoughts?
I think if you master geothermal technology to the point of harnessing lava, your energy concerns just got solved. Vent the heat into cities that float on the water or lie under the water. It may not be your cup of tea but with 10 or 15 billion people around it's bound to suit some.
Plus, I once heard that if we were to triple the current amount of trees existing and about to be grown, and cut our consumption for fuel and paper, yet lost the oxygen producing bacteria of the ocean, we would probably not live. Yet if we lost most of our trees and increased our consumption, yet retained the oxygen producers from the ocean, we might just survive.

I can sure believe that. Let's not let big corporate lobbyists prod politicians into relaxing environmental standards. Get out the vote and let them know that we need to stop crapping where we live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overpopulation is the only problem the human race has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our only REAL problem is Greed and Selfishness, everything else is just a Symptom :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd venture to say greed and selfishness are inhert to all life, from monkeys to bacteria.

 

What species, given nearly endless resources, won't grow out of control until the resources become a limiting factor?

 

None and humans are no exception, though you may say we should know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest fear is that there could be a cheap potential for independent energy (such as photovoltaic solar) that may never be researched because there is too little profit involved. How can companies make a hideous profit by selling you a product that runs off the sun?

 

These days it's all about monthly charges, or selling you an inexpensive system that costs a fortune to maintain (like water purification systems: $30 for the tank, $10/month for filters!). As the population grows the profit base grows. The powers-that-be are unlikely to want to let go of that to allow us independent energy sources on a wide basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever seen Logans Run? I haven't. But I know what the point of it was. To kill everyone turning thirty to match the population, and disguise it as a religion. When Phi for All said that we could mine asteroids for more resources, he had a pretty good point. I started thinking, and I also realized that if asteroids were to contain hydrocarbons, we could do more to conserve fossil fuels by having a bit more time to find a new source of energy. The thing is, I posted a thread about energy concerns in the politics section, yet all I heard was that it wasn't any kind of threat. I don't understand how it isn't any kind of threat! It's all about the corporations, just wanting to make more money by upping the prices. We are at peak oil situation, which means that we are at the highest point on the chart of oil production. What does that mean? When the prices of gas go up because fossil fuel is rapidly depleting, and the consumers of gas go up because the world population is only increasing as we sit here. They say there is no threat? Than why is it that we don't have a new fuel source yet? Because for all we know, we might not find one. The same reason that companies should pay attention to miles per gallon. The thing is, if overpopulation persists, then where will everybody live? As jobs increase, yet are rapidly taken, we will only increase in the unemployment population. Who knows, the point may come where the only people to have jobs are going to be the super-geniuses, the people who can solve all of these problems. Well guess what. The people who can solve all of these problems are all by themselves. Thier ideas are only thier own, they need other people to point out the problems of certain ideas. That could bring the world to peace, a world gathering of all of the worlds scientists, from every country. Everybody with degrees in certain fields of science and medicine. A UN of scientists, so to speak. Hell, with so many people working together like that, they could solve one world problem at the rate of one per day. And I mean problems like global warming, overpopulation, cancer, oxygen consumption, energy sources, and I have the hope of being the pioneer of it. That is the reason that I care about science so much, and also the reason I don't believe in god. If god existed, I wonder why we would be left in the dark about all of this. If the scientific revolution hadn't come around, we would all hope that god would solve these problems, or perhaps we wouldn't have all these problems. Science is the future, it is the present, and it is the only thing that will ever get us to last another thousand years. I make a prediction that the human race will only last another two hundred years, and that would be one sad fate. We are the ones with the power to stop this from happening, and with science as a tool, it is possible. That is why the UN of science would make such an impact on the world. That is why overpopulation is such a problem. That is the reason I joined this forum, to get the word out that this has to happen. It is the only way the human race will survive. Soon, I am going to write a letter to the president about this. Surely, somebody else has thought about this. But I think that I have the courage to say it to people. Hell, if I had two minutes on the floor of the UN, that is what I would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this thread completely fascinating from brad's opening statement to Ophiolite and YT2095 powerful one sentece statments.

 

Is Logan's Run the "final solution"...

 

Lets hope not...

 

By pure coincidence I am reading John Kelly's very readable book The Great Mortality : An Intimate History of the Black Death, The Most Devastating Plague of All Time.

 

The first 80 pages set up the scenerio of the Black Death, citing wars, climate, sanitary conditoins (in Paris you simply had to yell "look out below" three times, before throwing your human refuse from your third story window) and overpopulation. The Plague was bad enough, but when it morphed into being air borne...whole sale death.

 

600 a day in Venice die for example.

In some instances...14 hours after contact..dead.

 

Kelly cites 33 percent of Europe died, but feels this figure is not accurate stating that in overpopulated areas...60 percent would have been more correct.

 

at its arc you could walk thru miles of forest and hear nothing but the 'rustle of leaves"....cause everyone was...gone...

 

anyway, my point is..will nature grace with a another mega plague. We are way over due?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When bird flu links up with current human flu strains expect a global mortality rate of 30%. Any one who thinks humans are top dog on the planet will be rudely awakened: small is beautiful; brief generations=maximum evolutionary rate. And the little buggers aren't even properly alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
our only REAL problem is Greed and Selfishness, everything else is just a Symptom :(

 

This is true, sometimes it does not need science to solve everything.

 

Interestingly, overpopulation seems to play in the hands of conspiracy theorists.

For instance: Secret meetings in UN to solve overpopulation, in scientific ways, to decimate (certain group) of populations. For instance, AIDS is the work of human, not from green monkey, Spanish flu pandemic, perverted vaccination programs, etc. Okay, I am not saying these are facts. But it makes me wondering if there are people out there, presumably conjuring up these stories, if they ever get into governmental level, what would they do to the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we actually Lost 1 to 2 billion people today (thru pandemics, etc.), the world's infra-structure (such as highway upkeep, etc.) would suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this link out...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4607053.stm

 

It shows satelite pics of the development of cities over the past few decades. The spread of urban developments to cope with population rises is perfectly illustrated in a stark but undiscountable way.

 

I'm not convinced that this problem will have devastating effects globally, due to a mottled economy, which means the effects will be more localized.

 

A good example in history is Angkor Watt in Cambodia which grew to the size of New York, and the surrounding forest and it's resources could not keep up with the demand of the growing population. This gave no leeway for any enviromental changes and soon conflicts ensued over ownership of these resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When bird flu links up with current human flu strains expect a global mortality rate of 30%. Any one who thinks humans are top dog on the planet will be rudely awakened: small is beautiful; brief generations=maximum evolutionary rate. And the little buggers aren't even properly alive.

 

Thats not good.....thats not good at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When bird flu links up with current human flu strains expect a global mortality rate of 30%. Any one who thinks humans are top dog on the planet will be rudely awakened: small is beautiful; brief generations=maximum evolutionary rate. And the little buggers aren't even properly alive.

 

Thats not good.....thats not good at all.

 

suppose a genii appears and hands you a remote with a white button

"you get one chance at this, if you press the button a completely random 30 percent of humans on the planet will die instantly"

 

would you or would you not press the button?

 

here's another problem. we could make a SFN poll about it I guess.

 

a different genii appears and hands you a remote with a blue button

"you just get offered this choice once. if you press the button a completely random 30 percent of all the people on the planet will (without any painful sensation) become infertile"

 

you get two minutes to decide.

 

would you press the button or not?

 

[if it makes it any easier, include yourself---you would have a 30 percent chance of it occurring to you as well]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
suppose a genii appears and hands you a remote with a white button

"you get one chance at this' date=' if you press the button a completely random 30 percent of humans on the planet will die instantly"

 

would you or would you not press the button?

 

here's another problem. we could make a SFN poll about it I guess.

 

a different genii appears and hands you a remote with a blue button

"you just get offered this choice once. if you press the button a completely random 30 percent of all the people on the planet will (without any painful sensation) become infertile"

 

you get two minutes to decide.

 

would you press the button or not?

 

[if it makes it any easier, include yourself---you would have a 30 percent chance of it occurring to you as well']

 

 

Max: Man, you are tough..and what kind of genii is this...lol.

Actually I am reminded of Socrates mind game in the Republic. If given a ring that made you invisible, and with the guarantee of no punishment for any action taken. Would you still stay moral?

 

Tough question.

 

As to your question, I pick number two: 30 percent to go infertile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you are tough...

 

I believe you are the morally tough one here, for answering

 

BTW it was not meant as either/or

I thought of it as two separate problems and one could say no to both.

I think you understood that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd press both buttons without the slightest hesitation.

I'd do it so that the rest of the poor creatures who share our existence could all breathe a collective sigh of relief, no matter how temporary.

The key word in the proposal, I think, is "random".

Yeah, I might be one, but I'd do it.

And I think that little genie does exist, hidden somewhere. Anytime a population exceeds its sustainable limits, something always happens to bring it back in check. Just because luck and technology have helped us push our proverbial wall back, doesn't mean we can avoid the fall.

Bottom line, we have not been good stewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I cannot answer. that is, I put a question out there somewhat unfairly in that it looks like I'm challenging others to answer something I can't myself or am unwilling to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.