Room for one more? World population to reach 7 BILLION in next few days

reply to post by Vandettas


I did not post the stats but i knew what i was chatting about..... unlike you, you don't see with your eyes, you read articles and believe it or read other peoples opinions and agree with them...

reply to post by Domo1




alot of different population quotes out there, according to some we are already over 7 billion.. some say 6.9.. others 6.7..

im glad we can celebrate the idea though! 7 billion people, you think we could learn how to get along by now!

Originally posted by Gorman91

Population can literally be infinite, because you can just build up, down, or anywhere else.

No it can't, unless you are speaking in universal terms.We are for now limited to this planet.Are you suggesting we can build infinitely tall skyscrapers, or that you can build right down through the Earth's core and beyond with out ever coming out the other side ?.Really? Population can LITERALLY be INFINITE. So you have no trouble accepting the notion of say 9 x 10 the power of 99 people happily cohabitating on a planet with a surface area of 510,072,000 km2 of which only 29% or 148,940,000 km2 is land ? You have ZERO clue of what you are talking about.

Population is only a problem when people choose to withhold means to help it.

And i suppose you believe said means are infinite also. Infinite oil? Infinite coal. I'm half expecting you to try and argue this using the First Law of Thermodynamics. Don't waste your time.It won't cohabitate with the time factors involved as the FLOT as there no timescale for such.

Are you trolling here?That's a genuine question. If you are, well done, you got me, hook line and sinker, and troll dinner is on me.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Population can literally be infinite, because you can just build up, down, or anywhere else.

LOTS of land available Sahara Desert, Gobi Desert, Nevada Desert...



Now then... where will you get the fresh water from to grow food and have drinking water for this infinite population?

This is Lake Meade in Nevada...



Notice anything? That white area on the rocks is the previous level of water. The lake is dropping in level because of shortage of rain and snow falls and increased consumption in Nevada, Arizona and California. The great Colorado River that carved the Grand Canyon... by the time it gets to Mexico it is just a mere trickle because all the water has been redirected for irrigation

California had to build a huge aquaduct to bring water from the North... so they could produce the food. Calif produces a large percent of the produce for the entire USA. Most of that is grown in the San Joaquin Valley

Here is a picture


The rest of the area in that image is mountains and desert... little water to the east of that little food production and few people living in thousands of square miles of land stretching from Ca to Utah

Now lets look at San Joaquin water consumption. The WHOLE valley has subsided due to pumping the water out of the ground... how much longer before it is below sea level and floods the hole area with ocean? Look at the map above. You can see the entry for sea water at San Fransico. And now look at HOW FAR it has sunk..


Image from USGS, 1977
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This illustration shows how much the Valley sank from 1925 to 1977. The photograph above illustrates subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, California. In the photo, USGS scientist, Joe Poland shows subsidence between 1925 and 1977 due to fluid withdrawel and soil consolidation

If the US loses the San Joaquin Valley, there will be massive food shortages all across the nation and we only have approx 400 million people

Population is only a problem when people choose to withhold means to help it.

You are not looking at it rationally Population is based on RESOURCES not property. You can build huge sky scrapper cities... but you cannot magically produce fresh water to supply those cities, nor irrigate deserts to grow the food required

UAE is trying to irrigate the desert with Weather Modification
UAE announces Weather Control Technology - Amazing
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Monsanto is making Genetically Modified foods to increase production

But those two methods are heavily under fire and come with consequences. Weather manipulation will just mean moving the problem from one area to another, and can quickly become out of control as it dis in the UAE tests creating thunder and hail storms in the desert

GM foods are already killing off the bees and bats, the pollen is spreading to non GM plants, and in the end could wipe out mankind when those genes get into our food chain

And finally over crowding leads to violence. The gangs proliferate and pray on the people and with high populations it becomes literally impossible to police it

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

12 years to add 1billion yet the forecast is for it to take 14 years to add another 1billion.. how does that work? If there are more people producing babies then surely it wil take less time to add another billion not more!!

Maybe Bill Gates conducted the study... he's banking on curbing population growth by administering more vaccines to more people.. I know, 'wait, huhhh?'. Makes no sense, having better health care reducing population growth

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Originally posted by Vandettas
Over-population is a lie. Maybe 20 billion people is over-populated, but not 10 billion. Do you people have any idea how huge the Earth is? They're giving you the illusion of overpopulation (which you can't see anyway), and everybody is screaming over-population because they seen a couple youtube videos, and all of a sudden think there experts on the subject. Chill.

Obviously you dont live in the UK or specificaly 'ENGLAND' where it is over-populated!!

I'm not saying you're wrong.. but maybe you're perspective is a bit off. I was in a band that toured the entire UK last fall, from Brighton up to Glasgow and everywhere in between, and there sure looked to be a whole lot of open land, in my opinion.. but to counter my own argument, if we were to fill all the farm fields with people, then there'd be nowhere to grow the food for said people. I'm just saying the UK struck me as pretty wide open between the metropolitan areas

Originally posted by Vandettas

Great, because you definitely said this twice. You call my logic skewed based on the fact that I didn't read your post before you "posted" it? Or based on my reply to someone who didn't give me statistical facts in the first place? Shows whos logic is really "skewed".

What? What are you rambling on about?How could I expect anyone to read a post I never made? I've given a wag of information, sources and links from the moment I entered this thread.I've even started another thread on the matter.It matters not that someone else didn't provide the data, I did. It is there. Did you read Dr. Herns University of Colorado paper I linked? Did you watch the college lecture? If you did, they must have gone over your head.

Enough already with your homebaked fuzzy logic please

reply to post by Gorman91


I dont think importing resources from space will ever be realistic (in-situ utilisation may be, tough). And even the most desolated place on Earth is a paradise compared to other space bodies.

Space will not be a solution to overpopulation. Space will be an expensive gimmick for scientists to research and wealthy elite to spend holidays in.

Dont get me wrong, I am one of the biggest space enthusiasts around, but I like to keep it real.

Originally posted by bekod
so you will let an other 1billion starve? www.globalresearch.ca... from the link

The number of starving people in the world has exceeded one billion.

Every sixth earthling is underfed. This follows from a report made public by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO, Director-General Jacques Diouf.

The official pointed out that the situation owes to the economic crisis and high food prices.

The FAO Chief warned that unless urgent measures were taken, the number of those starving may have exceeded 9 billion the world over by the year 2050. The recent St. Petersburg international grain summit took up food security and urgent moves to be made amid the current world crisis.

so is this humane nature or is it human nature to let one starve?

It's the nature of those in charge, the ultra-rich, eugenicist elite. Like I posted before... the UN projected it would only cost $33 billion a year to SOLVE WORLD HUNGER. Bank of American got $30 in the bailout, and it went straight to their bonuses.

The sooner people realize this to its full understanding the better... those in charge of everything, from resources to money to government to information, are not like us. There is a fundamental difference between our conscious and theirs. Research "eugenics"

reply to post by Gorman91

Sources? Any? Mars in 40 days? And we can mine the crap out of it?And simply haul millions of tonnes of alien matter to Earth.Ya, that'll cost nothing.

Show me proof we can do all this. Don't just spit it on a page and expect us to be stupid enough to lap it up.

don't respond please until you can provide (I gettiing tired of having to ask) facts, figures and sources. You yourself are not a credible source.Nor am I, which is why I reference those who are.

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
reply to post by bacci0909

 

That interview was from how many years ago? Its a different era my friend, we are abusing our planet more than ever and the more of us, the less resources we'll have in the future. Hell, if you think famine is severe now, whats it going to be like in 10 years?

Our species is so wasteful and those who think we can just keep reproducing with no circumstances proves it.

Understood, but technical advancements to change this truth are being suppressed. We don't need oil, we can have endless clean water for even the most remote of tribal villages at a low price, etc.. Don't you think the human race should be capable of better resource technologies by now? Well, the truth is that we are, but all advancements are being suppressed by those who benefit from our current needs

reply to post by blah yada

Sources? Any? Mars in 40 days?

He probably means VASIMR engines, such a journey may be possible when these are powered by advanced nuclear power sources.

www.space.com...

reply to post by Maslo


Thanks for the link.Interesting though irrelevent in this context. I wonder does Gorman under stand the future conditional tense.

"New Rocket Engine Could Reach Mars in 40 Days"

reply to post by Domo1


There is plenty of space to live and food to eat for all ...if distributed and organised with thought. IMHO we should worry when we hit the first 100 billion.

If we all want to have the children we would like and enjoy wellfare and happiness on Earth we should invest in spaceprograms, (healthy) weather control and sound economic systems.

And above all develop a test for the sociopath gene. Anybody with the gene should be prohibited to enter politics, finance or be assigned with responsibillity over people.

"Yeah, but don't you see? If you just moved everybody away from the cities and onto their own bit of land there is plenty of room for everybody. Why, Siberia alone has hundreds of thousands of uninhabited square miles. Just spread people out! These people who want to control breeding are just a lot of New World Order Nazis!"

God, I hate that stupid argument.

reply to post by zatara

We're going off topic a bit but i was unaware that sociopathy was genetically transmitted. Can you fire me a link to some more info please. I have always assumed it was an acquired behaviour/ mindstate.

reply to post by blah yada


We actually aren't. If the airliner industry can have thousands of aircraft traveling all day and all night, I see no reason why we can't do the same with space.

Spatially on this planet, yes you can do all those things. Little research is needed for materiality, but you can. You are so closed minded that all humans must live in big large houses that take up so much space, made of wood and concrete. This is simply not true. There are, believe or not, literally infinite combinations of molecules, especially with carbon and carbon chains. You think I have no clue what I'm talking about. Who are you to say such things when you are confined by the way we live today?

Then you speak of coal and oil, when there's literally the solar system's largest moon, titan, swimming in hydrocarbons. The fact that the galaxy itself includes areas of high silicon density, high carbon density, etc etc, with some worlds in the carbon zone literally raining petroleum

www.universetoday.com...

www.astrobio.net...

By all means, live in your closed world, where we will forever live in little boxes with limited materials.

reply to post by Maslo


how is it not real? We already have biological entities that convert gases, materials, etc etc. Rachel armstrong gave a talk at TED talking about protocells that convert wood into carbon fossils, and in the lab, they have gotten them to do similar things.


We've gotten to the point were we are even learning how to program life that has no dna, but does simple tasks we want done:



I see no reason why we cannot simply do these things to get resources here and beyond. We are no longer in the last century.

reply to post by Blue Shift

Do you want to live in Siberia? Because I don't.Just as as some "depopulationists" are hipocrites proposing we all do as they say and not as they do, there are populationists who do like wise.

So who are you suggesting could live in Siberia?

Edit OOPs, I didn't see those quotation marks. Sorry

reply to post by Gorman91


Earlier you said that if we were really starting to overpopulate, we would simply scoot over to Mars in 40 days and obtain the reources we need from there.We would do this you claimed, because we have the technology. You are saying that the fact they haven't utilised this high technology disproves overpopulation.

Would it not be frugal to get a head start then. Where are all these hauliage space craft. Who owns them. Where and when were the launch tests and docking tests.

If we have this tech, why do we send up tiny unmanned Mars rovers , which take years to complete a trip, and produce a measley payload?This is archaic tech next to the tech you claim has already been realised. Are NASA really that backwards?

You are pulling your information from wildly optimistic speculative journalism based on high technology research that is being done, but which is far far from completion.

In the 1950's, this technological optimism was rife.Popular Science and others habitually pumped out stories like " By the Year 2000 everybody will own a flying car and all human nutrition will be provided by one tiny pill"..................... I'm still waiting.
Actually that glorious Hearst rag, Popular Mechanics predicted flying cars by 1967, in 1957. good ol' yellow journalism eh?

These publications print such articles not in the interest of furthering technology, however pure an author's intent with his article.They are meeting a market demand. some people love that stuff and want it to be true and done right now. Why disappoint them and lose sails. Give them what they want and what they are paying for, lest they go find a better storyteller.

The dots you are trying to connect are so far apart, there isn't enough led in your pencil to join them .Nowhere on NASA.gov do I see them claiming they have the tech you say they do. Perhaps you could link me to such a page?

I mean, why do you think Weekly World News prints things like "World War II Bomber found on Moon" or "Batchild discovered in cave". Because they are true???????Hell no.Because they sell.

All this exotic tech is a long way off and we will be far too busy fighting for survival on an infested Earth to ever make much of it happen.We will drown in our own excrement long before that.