overpopulation

[burns1de]

Before I scrolled down and saw your first post, I was thinking...."Hmmmmm, Bilderberg Group....." aranoid:

Woody Allen said it best - "paranoia is knowing all the facts". :smile:

I think it's common sense, burns1e.

You misunderstood my post - what struck me as odd wasn't the global warming side of your post, it was the call for a massive reduction of the world's population.... it echoes almost exactly (even to the percentage mentioned) the thought process and ideas of some members of the global elite... Hence the 'Bilderberg' comment. :smile:

 

[drumstyck]

SAVE THE PLANET.
KILL YOURSELF.

Church of Euthanasia

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

You misunderstood my post - what struck me as odd wasn't the global warming side of your post, it was the call for a massive reduction of the world's population.... it echoes almost exactly (even to the percentage mentioned) the thought process and ideas of some members of the global elite... Hence the 'Bilderberg' comment. :smile:

No, I understood the echoes you heard ... but my assumption was that you were also expressing scepticism about the point I was trying to make.
Were you?
So what is your view, burns1e?
I'm curious.
Can humanity raleigh?:tongue:
Will it make any difference?

 

[B_tallbig]

so we are doom because this population increase trend is very unlikely than can being stop.

 

[burns1de]

No, I understood the echoes you heard ... but my assumption was that you were also expressing scepticism about the point I was trying to make.
Were you?
So what is your view, burns1e?
I'm curious.
Can humanity raleigh?:tongue:
Will it make any difference?

Well, I tend to base my opinions on facts and scientific evidence, so I would say that yes, global warming is indeed mostly caused by humans (and cow farts), as was proven in several studies.

Until we start electing environment-friendly political parties to our parliaments and congresses, it's unlikely anything will be done regarding this. I mean, the CPC's Green Plan? An absolute joke.

FYI: In the next elections, I'm voting CAP.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I mean, the CPC's Green Plan? An absolute joke.

CPC? Help me, mon chum. (I have subtlely indicated my best guess.)

• Canadian Parachute Centre
• Children's Psychiatric Center, Monmouth County, NJ USA
• Crisis Pregnancy Center - non-profit organizations established by pro-life supporters that work to discourage pregnant women from obtaining abortion
• College Preparatory Center (Saudi Aramco)
• Congressional Progressive Caucus
• Cumberland Presbyterian Church

In companies and commercial organizations:

• Canada Post Corporation
• Chinese Petroleum Corporation (also CPC Corporation, Taiwan)
• Corn Products Company (later CPC International, acquired by Unilever)
• Caspian Pipeline Consortium

In political parties:

• Communist Party of China
• Conservative Party of Canada
• Communist Party of Canada
• Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
• Communist Party of Chile (also Partido Comunista de Chile, PCC)
• Communist Party of Cuba (also Partido Comunista de Cuba, PCC)
• Communist Party of Czechoslovakia

In science and engineering:

• Cetylpyridinium chloride
• Choroid plexus cyst
• Chronology protection conjecture
• Circuit Protective Conductor

In computer:

• Cartesian Perceptual Compression
• Custom PC, a magazine
• Cost Per Click
• the Amstrad CPC, a home computer of the 1980s

In other topics:

• College Puzzle Challenge
• Community Patent Convention
• Country of Particular Concern to the U.S.State Department
• the ICAO code for CP Air

FYI: In the next elections, I'm voting CAP.

Hmmm. I take it you ain't a mainstreamer. Right?:tongue:

 

[burns1de]

CPC? Help me, mon chum. (I have subtlely indicated my best guess.)

Your powers of deduction are amazing, Rubi. :wink:

Hmmm. I take it you ain't a mainstreamer. Right?:tongue:

"Mainstream media tend to just mouth the conventional wisdom, to see everything through the filter of right and left." - Arianna Huffington
​

When that filter is removed, the truth becomes self-evident. So, to answer your question... no. Another great guess. :biggrin1:

 

[2322]

The world is overpopulated in the current economic model. Capitalism promotes winners and losers; the winners get vast amounts of resources far exceeding their needs.

 

[SereneBlue]

I think we will overcome the current hurdles facing us eventually. From what I've been reading there are technologies and companies out there with solutions to several of our biggest problems as far as energy, global warming, increasing amounts of non-biodegradable trash etc.

It's just that economics tends to be the drag on widespread implementation. Until the cost of these technologies along with cheap means of distribution falls it's going to be hard to see them implemented widely.

Here's a nice article that may cheer up some of the more pessimistically inclined.

Making Plastic Out of Pollution: Scientific American

 

[agnslz]

I wonder how many people there've ever been? Hundreds of billions or even a trillion perhaps?

 

[DaveyR]

I wonder how many people there've ever been? Hundreds of billions or even a trillion perhaps?

Now if ever there was a philosophical question that is it :wink:

 

[burns1de]

I wonder how many people there've ever been? Hundreds of billions or even a trillion perhaps?

Estimates vary wildly:

Estimates of the number of human beings who have ever lived on Earth constitute an extremely large range, with low estimates around 45 billion, and the highest estimates topping out around 125 billion. Many of the more robust estimates fall into the range of 90 to 110 billion humans.​

 

[agnslz]

Now if ever there was a philosophical question that is it :wink:

Thanks Dave.:biggrin:

Estimates vary wildly:

Estimates of the number of human beings who have ever lived on Earth constitute an extremely large range, with low estimates around 45 billion, and the highest estimates topping out around 125 billion. Many of the more robust estimates fall into the range of 90 to 110 billion humans.​

Thanks. I once googled the question, but all I came up with was a conversation on Yahoo about it.

 

[DaveyR]

I read somewhere that the percentage of people alive today that have ever lived is estimated at between 6 and 10%. I can't find the link but will look for it tomorrow.

 

[Love-it]

So what if the earth could support more people? Why does that justify letting the population increase to the point that it will be an even larger problem than it is today?

I saw, and was part of the explosive growth of San Jose, California, where prime agricultural land was buried under homes, businesses and roads. Forty years ago downtown San Jose had subsided 25' due to groundwater withdrawal and rain was going into storm drains instead of percolating back into the soil of the vast orchards that used to comprise the worlds "fruit basket". Even the grass covered hills that supported cattle ranches in the 1950's are covered with houses in many areas. Big cities should build up instead of out.

I prefer having more than a few feet of distance between, people, houses and vehicles.

 

[Gillette]

Big cities should build up instead of out.

Okay...The only way to sustain a growing population is MIXED USE development. That is, residential and commercial and possibly industrial uses all within one site. Not a separate residential area, retail park etc.

Single use doesn't maximise land usage, and concentrates pollution (in industrial areas). You also have to drive to go from one single use site to another which is increasing carbon emissions.

On a mixed use site, all the services are within walking distance of each other. This promotes exercise and social interaction. It's all good.

There is not much land, there is only a finite amount. The only way to work with this is sustainable development; urban regenration; mixed use development.

The world is overpopulated. With humans. Which is encroaching upon and destroying the habitats of animals. :redface:

They paved paradise...

I think what both of you are talking about is Ekistics (habitation planning). One of the most interesting (and to me promising) concepts from this have been arcologies some of which are whole cities within a single superstructure. Working, living and entertainment enviroments would be self contained in highrise structures leaving the surrounding land free for cultivation.

Worth checking out.

 

[Male Bonding etc]

How much population the earth CAN sustain and how much it SHOULD sustain are two different things. Surely "quality of life" issues, global warming, pollution, longevity, health are all things that are impacted (most likely negatively) by population growth. However, we are combatting our MOST basic instinct when we propose cutting back on how many descendants we bring into the world.

NOTHING is more hardwired into our composition than making more of us. It takes intelligence, education, thoughtful discourse, social pressure, and available alternatives to combat something so primal and universal.

 

[B_tallbig]

How much population the earth CAN sustain and how much it SHOULD sustain are two different things. Surely "quality of life" issues, global warming, pollution, longevity, health are all things that are impacted (most likely negatively) by population growth. However, we are combatting our MOST basic instinct when we propose cutting back on how many descendants we bring into the world.

NOTHING is more hardwired into our composition than making more of us. It takes intelligence, education, thoughtful discourse, social pressure, and available alternatives to combat something so primal and universal.

I agree with what you said 100% .

 

[B_tallbig]

So what if the earth could support more people? Why does that justify letting the population increase to the point that it will be an even larger problem than it is today?

I saw, and was part of the explosive growth of San Jose, California, where prime agricultural land was buried under homes, businesses and roads. Forty years ago downtown San Jose had subsided 25' due to groundwater withdrawal and rain was going into storm drains instead of percolating back into the soil of the vast orchards that used to comprise the worlds "fruit basket". Even the grass covered hills that supported cattle ranches in the 1950's are covered with houses in many areas. Big cities should build up instead of out.

I prefer having more than a few feet of distance between, people, houses and vehicles.

Yep is better to live in a quality world with fewer people .

 

[holsty101]

I heard a comment for a sustainable global population as low a 500 million...