Overpopulation. Do you fear it?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by science man, Oct 10, 2009.

?

Do you fear overpopulation?

  1. yes

    20 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. no

    20 vote(s)
    50.0%
  1. kira Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579

    I typed my birth date there as 29.10.2011 (which means, I wasn't born yet/ I'd be born tomorrow

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ), and I got:

    When you were born, you were the: 6,996,867,315th person alive on Earth

    83,214,560,807th person to have lived since history began


    Then I typed again, I was born on the day after tomorrow (30.10.2011), and I got:

    When you were born, you were the: 6,997,077,254th person alive on Earth

    83,214,931,527th person to have lived since history began.

    So, between 29 and 30th of October, there will be about 210,000 new born babies...............!!!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, there are many more new babies born between October 29 and October 30.
    The result you got is population growth, which equals babies born minus people died.
    The number you got sounds about right by the way.

    Edit: The number of new babies born is equal to 83,214,931,527 - 83,214,560,807 = 370,720
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160
    The problem isnt the over-population, the real problem, is the economy, the unfair share of wealth, of earth's goods, if resources were used correctly, and environement had a big importance in all the economies, there will be no hungry people.
    Earth can feed us all, but the world greed doesnt allow that.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Get serious - stop fucking around
     
  8. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    The best cure for this is prosperity. When most areas of the world are able to live without a fear of basic survival..population will flatline...maybe even go back.

    Either that or we are in for a global threshold moment.
     
  9. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    I have looked before and can't seem to find a good link on this, but it's giving women the right to earn money and to control their own fertility that really makes the difference. Women faced with working and being the primary caretaker of kids...which, that's usually how it works out, generally will have a lot fewer kids. Those kids will be healthier in third-world countries though, as when mom gets earnings, the whole family eats better...when dad does this may or may not happen.

    I'll try to come back later when I have time and try to find a decent link or two for the above assertions, ok?
     
  10. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    That sure makes sense. It's a good path to prosperity too.
     
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Problem is, I think, 7 billion people is already well beyond the point where only 5 billion could have even half the energy and raw material to use that even Europeans, much less Americans, would associate with "prosperity" - There simply is not enough fuel, copper, meat food, etc.
     
  12. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Well, personally I live very spartan...so fine by me.
     
  13. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/28/opinion/pearce-population-fertility/index.html

    So, give women the power to choose, and the assurance that their children are likely to survive, and you get small families.
    Then the author of the article goes on to say...
    Oops...us again.
     
  14. Sock puppet path GRRRRRRRRRRRR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,112
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2011
  15. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Welcome back, SPP.

    Bah, my sound's decided not to work again!
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That is what Pogo, sage of the swamp, stated well more than 40 years ago: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
     
  17. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    In theory we could feed everyone by spending twice the effort it's worth, cultivating deserts, hydrophonics.... etc. Or we could trim the population, spend a tiny amount of effort feeding everyone, and then spend the rest of our time doing stuff that's fun and/or cool.

    Our collective standard of living is going to perpetually erode until we're all working 16 hour shifts, 7 days a week, just to eat.
     
  18. Pacifist Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Space Colonization and Terraforming of planets

    I guess the solution is simple, why not just live outside of earth? If you have not heard of planetary engineering, space colonization or terraforming, I suggest you look them up.

    "The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever."
    - Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Because getting there (assuming a place even exist or at great expense could, like Mars, be made habital) would require huge use of Earth's limited resources - or in dollar terms cost more than a million dollars for each person moved "there."
     
  20. Pacifist Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Yeah I agree with, the downside to it is that it is very resource intensive given the limited resources we have currently. Probably not a plausible option at present, but hopefully technological advancement would have made it way cheaper by then.
     
  21. 420Joey SF's Incontestable Pimp Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,189
    I dont fear overpopulation more than I do overpopulation control.

    Actually I fear technology the most. What happens when we advance so much in nanotechnology, bioengineering, etc. that we can live way longer even forever or stay healthier alot longer??

    Watch that movie "In Time" to find out what would most likely happen.
     
  22. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Well sitting here is an even bigger waste of it's resources...to what...wait for our extinction event?

    Fun fact:

    We cannot even put a single person in every single Galaxy CLUSTER in the universe. We need more people.
     
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Well not is one sense - most every iron atom (or atom of X) is still here - just more spread out, or shared by all, more uniformly and for quite a long time (8 or so billion years as I recall) we will have energy that can be used to re-concentrate them.
     

Share This Page