Even World War III 'could not stop rising population'

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No population, including humans, can expand beyond the point at which it is no longer sustainable. Like empires they have a habit of collapsing.

a reply to: SLAYER69

The UN released a report in 2004 that involved 3 projected population growth patterns. They favoured a decline in population growth up until 2050 and then a manageable increase from then until 2100.

Just 10 years later and some of their predictions have come unstuck due to the political landscape changing so much. It’s less to do with increasing populations than with the movement of displaced populations. Western Europe and the USA have their share of economic migrants and Middle Eastern nations have conflict migrants in the shape of refugees.

The reason I bring this up is to show that crystal balls and computer simulations are hardly accurate in these contexts. Things are always changing. Sure, we’re looking at unprecedented numbers of people being alive today and yet there’s many an argument that such figures are sustainable. Politics and business interests keep holding us back from becoming more efficient.

The researchers appear to be circling a figure that they consider sustainable, but it’s subjective. There’s no name attached to the report; it’s ‘Press Association.’ Who authored it? Who released it on the wire? Why is the Telegraph publishing it?

I personally share the article’s fears that we’re on the wrong path towards overcrowding on the planet. We’d need a destructive World War and a multi-lateral series of pandemics arising from the ruins to make a dint in the progress. But! What would be worse, a twilight post-apocalypse or an overcrowded world?

I remember reading The Limits of Growth back in the 1970's, a study published by the Club of Rome. Sorry to disappoint but according to the calculations of their best scientists we should have all died in resource wars several decades ago.
In nature when the population of any species exceeds their available resources not only will starvation and war begin curtailing population growth but changes within our bodies will begin to make more of us infertile and incapable of conceiving children.
Given similar models the dinosaurs should not have lasted 10's of millions of years either but somehow they did until a worldwide catastrophe destroyed them all. We humans should worry less about too many people in the future and concentrate on making life worth living in the here and now. Nature will find a solution regardless of our plans and schemes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If the global obesity epidemic continues the life expectancy could actually start to decrease. Developed countries have decreasing birthrate, aging population and increasing obesity resulting in decreased health.

The global population growth is projected mainly in Asia and Africa.

Apparently the global birthrate has decreased by 40% since 1950. If it decreases another 40% by say 2050 things could change rapidly.

Birth rates down 40%: Birth rates have gone down in every country in the world. In 1950 birth rates were 37 per 1000, in 2000 they are 22 per 1000.(4)
Population growth rate slows to 1.18%: Human population grew at the rate of 0.04% from 1 AD to 1650 AD, rising with technological and medical advances to an all-time high of 2.1% between 1965 and 1970. In the early 1990s, the annual average dropped to 1.6%.(5) In 2002 the population growth rate dropped to 1.18— the lowest it has been since rates peaked.(6)
Average global fertility fell from 5.3 to 3.0 births per woman between 1960 and 2005.

www.earthdash.org...

a reply to: Indigent

Well the way I see it, unless we can stop or severely reduce aging, keeping old people alive longer and longer is going to be a bigger and bigger drain on world resources. As people age they need more and more health care and become more and more infirm.

I wish I had more time right now. But just a quick interjection without all the practically mandatory links (no time right now, sorry)

In the 1970's we were told that before the year 2000, the population would overrun the world and all the things the OP worries about would happen. It didn't.

In fact in nearly 100% of developed nations, the birth rate is below replacement rate. I.E. populations are in decline. As women in particular become educated, they end up having fewer and fewer children until they average well below replacement birth rates. Even Mexico is very very close to entering into a negative birth rate.

Overall the world population will continue to increase for a few more decades, then if current trends continue the worldwide population will start to decline and about 500 years later the depopulationist scientists say come close to extinction levels.

Which may happen if the trend in robotics continues, and humans take robotic lovers. Which is a goal of many robot manufacuturers, bots built specifically as companion lovers and basically household slaves. This is a real, not imagined or conspiracy type goal.

If we just let things continue on the path we are on the population will decline on its own. However, most of the overpopulation believers tend to be alarmist and over reactionary and refuse to look at the data that shows a steady decline in birth rates as country's enter into the 21st century.

Even a few Arab countries are having population problems, there is even a city being built just for the educated women where no men will be allowed to enter. This is happening in Muslim countries where fathers who love their daughters do not force them to marry and educated daughters refuse to marry. It is only where women are kept ignorant either through repressive male policies toward women or uneducated for whatever reason, that the birth rate is high.

The answer is simple. Educate the girls, over-educate the girls and the population will decline rapidly while at the same time improve it's standard of living.
Currently in the US, women are being educated at a more rapid rate than males and we are seeing a rapid decline in birth rates as a result. This is true of 2nd generation and longer of women in the US. Which is why we stole children from South America to stabilize the population before it becomes like Japan, too few young people to support the elderly and thus crashing the society and economy.

But the population alarmists would rather see it happen quickly through "other" means. If I remember correctly there was a prominent scientist who a few years ago recommended Ebola as a means to achieve it.

a reply to: JimTSpock

That is until science figures out a way for people to live long and be fat. And believe me when I say that scientists are working on such a feat.

a reply to: PuterMan

Well if that happens, expect a time of GREAT sadness and hardship as much of the world's population dies off. Though humans are becoming progressively more and more peaceful towards each other. It'll be interesting to see how such a die off would occur.

Take away the current largest source of protein on the planet, the Pacific ocean, and add the killing emissions from out of control nuclear meltdowns and you have more than enough lethality to reduce world population to 500,000,000.

Wipeout another reactor or two and the remaining population will be whatever fits on the ISS.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Yes I agree with that. I think it is in fact the beginning of the end for the human race and according to current data and trends will actually die out by about 2200 to 2500. Then the monkeys or whoever can take over. lol.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

But the population alarmists would rather see it happen quickly through "other" means. If I remember correctly there was a prominent scientist who a few years ago recommended Ebola as a means to achieve it.

No that's not what he said exactly. That was sensationalized.

Dr. Pianka's speech

In 2006, I was honored by the Texas Academy of Science, whose members bestowed upon me the title of "Distinguished Scientist". In accepting this fine award, I gave a keynote address on "The Vanishing Book of Life on Earth" (a pdf of the text of my speech is posted on line here). Most of my talk was an appeal for respect of endangered species and natural habitats, and I deplored the all too common anthropocentric attitude among many humans that we are above nature and that we can do whatever we want with natural habitats and other species. I compared the brainless runaway population growth of humans to bacteria growing exponentially on an agar plate. To underscore my point, I said that "we are no better than bacteria!" What this means, I pointed out, is that if we humans cannot find the will to control our own populations, microbes will do it for us. I concluded by discussing possible microbial agents and dismissed HIV as too slow, then suggested that something that killed fast like the Ebola virus might be our fate. I received a standing ovation by the audience of several hundred scientists after my talk, but a couple people with sour faces remained seated and did not applaud. These guys turned out to be creationists.

a reply to: nukedog

I read a copy of the transcript itself, not what he said, he said.

He actually did suggest Ebola as a way to reduce population, however, it may not have been what he intended to say, but it was what he said.

I thought about posting links to proofs of my previous post and a link to the actual transcript of what he said. However, the Mods have warned me not to copy and paste the same stuff I posted before, seems I tend to trot out the same proofs and quotations over and over. However, they are the best proofs and I have no desire to spend another hour and waste my time finding "new" proofs. So locate a transcript of the actual speech and you will see what he actually said (even if it was a Freudian slip on his part)

I believe what I think most others are alluding to here, nature has a way of balancing itself out.

originally posted by: Indigent

Current fertility rates:

Death er 1k people:

The above graphs show the area with the highest fertility also is the area with the highest mortality rate. I know in a nutshell this can be somewhat inconclusive but there have been studies of insects in restricted environments to mimic this trend and when external stimuli are introduced interesting things happen. I'd post it but it's been a few years and I don't remember who did it.

What I'm getting at is, if there is a shortage of meat we will either shed numbers to meet this issue(deaths) or find a solution to sustain it(maybe advanced cloning). The same is true for space requirements, when there is no more elbow room we spread out(super-cities, underwater, moon, mars) or deaths occur due to the effects of overcrowding. It always seems to maintain a balance of equilibrium.

Now if a world war, pandemic, asteroid/comet impact, super-volcano, solar flare, GRB, infertility, or alien invasion occurred and left us to the point of a few million left the human race would still climb back up the propagatory ladder until we reached the same problem again someday. That is unless something stepped in and continued to thin out our species consistently. It may take some time to grow to where we are today, but it is inevitable.

The only way for us to reduce our human numbers is to directly intervene indefinitely. Whether through fertility restrictions or mass murdering there is no other way. . . and just wait until they genetically increase our life-spans to 150%-1000% it's on the way right now, they have proven the science in rats already. Won't that be an interesting twist!

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: nukedog

I read a copy of the transcript itself, not what he said, he said.

He actually did suggest Ebola as a way to reduce population, however, it may not have been what he intended to say, but it was what he said.

I thought about posting links to proofs of my previous post and a link to the actual transcript of what he said. However, the Mods have warned me not to copy and paste the same stuff I posted before, seems I tend to trot out the same proofs and quotations over and over. However, they are the best proofs and I have no desire to spend another hour and waste my time finding "new" proofs. So locate a transcript of the actual speech and you will see what he actually said (even if it was a Freudian slip on his part)

In the context of what the remainder of his speech was, the way it was hyped by the sensationalist reporter and what his life work is I am highly dubious that he said, "it would be a great idea if we used Ebola to wipe us out."

However I will look for it if it's out there. I doubt it is unless they kept the recording.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
a reply to: grandmakdw

Yes I agree with that. I think it is in fact the beginning of the end for the human race and according to current data and trends will actually die out by about 2200 to 2500. Then the monkeys or whoever can take over. lol.

Yes, an environmentalists nocturnal emission for certain, no more humans on the planet.

However, I think it by that time the singularity will have happened and the next intelligent species will be robotic.

I can easily see Robots taking great care of inferior humans as they will be programmed to do, until humans become extinct. Once robotic "spouses" become common and humans are lulled into being totally spoiled pets of the robots to the point where to reproduce would be too much work and responsibility for the humans, then humanity will die out and a new species of "life" will emerge to take over the planet. I honestly don't see them as kinder to the earth either than humans are, since they will need to mine to survive.

Heck, I already have 2 robots in my home that do the floors for me. I'm not against them or afraid of them, but with the exponential growth in electronic innovation, the singularity is fast approaching and humans will probably be seen as pets that need to be managed or extinguished if they show aggressive tendencies. I honestly don't think my statements are too far fetched or Sy Fy at all.

Anyway, the overpopulation theory will shortly bust, after all they have been saying the same thing for 50 years and none of their models panned out the way they said it would.

a reply to: SLAYER69

. . . . . To snark or not to snark, that is the question. . . .

In reality, it's not our problem. If, and it is a big "if", our population increases to the point where considerations have to be made, then it will be future generations with their "future" tools at their disposal, to make that determination.

It's like someone from the Victorian Age, trying to solve an internet bandwidth issue.

By the time our population densities reach their peak, we may have space travel licked.
We may be harvesting the sea floors.
We may have places on the moon, Mars, or underground.

I say, have a beverage, smoke a cigarette, relax and watch a sunset with the love of your life.

a reply to: beezzer

By the time our population densities reach their peak, we may have space travel licked.

Is this interstellar viral marketing ?

Really is this not exactly the whole movie? damn it now i need to see it when it comes out next week to find out

a reply to: grandmakdw



P 23-26
Dr Dooms speech

Just sound like a hardcore conservationist to me. Doesn't sound like he even thinks we have to do it because earth will do it for us.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Skynet possibly. I think the ultra rich will genetically engineer themselves to live forever and that's who'll be left. Dick Cheney master of the universe types who see themselves as superior and don't want mortality to interfere with their lifestyle. And they will genetically engineer their offspring for genetic superiority.

The leading causes of death, heart disease, cancer, strokes and lung disease will all increase with the continuing meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi.

Why aren't America and Canada (the countries that supply the mechanism and fuel) doing ANYTHING to stop it?