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

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?

Originally posted by zorgon

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!![

You forgot to factor in all the baby boomers kicking the bucket in the next 20 or so years

Actually that is factored in when considering population growth. Population growth happens exponentially and any + % whether it's .001 or 3% will double after a certain amount time(considering resource availability). The way to know "doubling time" is by simply dividing 70 by the % of growth. For example if population growth is stated as 1.1% (actual 2009 estimate) then 70/1.1% = 63.3 years. So if population growth remains steady that means that our population will double in 63 years (within one lifetime).

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.

reply to post by bekod


Nations stopped stockpiling food - to deal with drought, floods and famine - under the terms of "Free" trade agreements stipulating that "market forces" handled the situation better. Now, with crazy weather causing droughts and floods and ruining crops, we have no backup plan or stores.

And now, people are starving. Good job. ...And great depopulation argument and strategy. Not.

reply to post by bacci0909

I used to have pretty much the exact same opinion as John and Yoko. But all it was was an opinion. Now that I have researched it, I realise that math doesn't lie.
People choose to believe it's a myth. Just look at Lennons answer when challenged on it. He goes straight for a quick cheap laugh to get the audience on side. Why? because he has nothing else, no facts, no figures just his opinion.Don't forget that this is the guy who told you to 'imagine there's no posessions" from behind a white steinway in a fine country house.
I liked the guy, but he wasn't the most educated guy despite being very clever and he had a habit of using his popularity as a tool to contradict decent intelligent educated men who are trying to save us from ourselves.
The argument from the populationists in here is much like Lennons. No facts, no figures, instead something like "Ya well if you're so smart why don't you kill yourself?" This is pathetic.
I have listed plenty of facts and figures with links and sources. Maybe the populationists could confront that and prove it wrong.

As for Ted Turner, well he's pulling the old "do as I say not as I do" stunt. I think he's a smart guy within his sphere of business, which the last time I checked was the business of pumping mindjunk into cathode ray tubes. So I don't see how he has any authority on the issue, especially if he has 5 kids (how many grandkids?).

People with large families will, if not being hipocrites like Ted Turner, take up in impassioned pro populationist argument becuase they feel like they are being accused here. Most of their responses show their hurt. The empirical evidence says we need to change our ways, not that your kids must die. You are not being blamed. We cannot however continue with exponentialised growth. That is an incontrovertible fact and the proof is all around us.

reply to post by EvanB


The less suspicious side of me hopes that a lot of disappeared money down the years has been diverted to something like this. I doubt it has though.

Can you imagine if TPTB were actually all over the situation and announced to the world that the bulk of funds would have to be invested. What reaction then from the populationists? They'd still fight it with their opinions and drown us all in a glut of human biomass.

Time to find another rock , maybe leave this one to the breeders.

One thing is for certain, nature will balance things out in the end, if we don't.

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.

Facts, figures, sources? Any?

Originally posted by Vandettas
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

 

So basically your saying just you because you live in a small area thats populated by a lot of people, the entire UK is populated? You can't say "You obviously don't live in the UK" because of that. You can't live in 100 different places at the same time.

Wouldn't it be foolish if I said Chicago is over-populated because my neighborhood has 4 kids in each house? Yes, because that doesn't mean the next neighborhood is going to be the same.

edit on 17-10-2011 by Vandettas because: (no reason given)

Your logic here is skewed. I have previously lived in the UK. 62 million people live on 244,000 sq km which translates to a population density of 255.6/km2 or 661.9/sq mi.

Britain is at the moment 61% self sufficient ( Hickman, The independent)

World food supplies need to rise by 40 per cent by 2030, and by 70 per cent by 2050 to feed a forecasted global population of 9bn in 2050. (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation ) Note. This 2050/ 9 biliion figure is under shot by about 5 billion, but even working off a lowball figure like this, we can see the writing on the wall.


The UK population projection for 2050 is 77 million, a rise of almost 24% from today's figure.(Population Reference Bureau )

Anyone who can extrapolate a rosey picture from the above facts is deluded.

Originally posted by karen61057
Ladies, my Mother told me that if you place an asprin between your knees and firmly hold it in place you will not get pregnant.

That's too funny. Thanks for the bit of humour

Originally posted by blah yada

Your logic here is skewed. I have previously lived in the UK. 62 million people live on 244,000 sq km which translates to a population density of 255.6/km2 or 661.9/sq mi.

Britain is at the moment 61% self sufficient ( Hickman, The independent)

World food supplies need to rise by 40 per cent by 2030, and by 70 per cent by 2050 to feed a forecasted global population of 9bn in 2050. (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation )


The UK population projection for 2050 is 77 million, a rise of almost 24% from today's figure.(Population Reference Bureau )

Anyone who can extrapolate a rosey picture from the above facts is deluded.

Unfortunately, you are the only one deluded.

The error statisticians often make is in the belief that they can predict the future, and based their projections linearly upon the past.

But the truth is that the future is never predictable, more so when you have to take into account advances in science, tech and social governance of nations, not to mention similar factors that may evolve or regress in other nations as well, which are interwined into the social threads of Earthlings. There is NO KNOWN mortal math formula that can figure out such complex realities.

We can only attempt to plan ahead, knowing full well that most plans will fail once it is executed, but at least a plan, better than nothing at all, and at least with better foresight and understanding of advances of societies.

For example, if many choose to live in cities, probably because of its social amenities - work, play, homes, etc, then they can be encourage to live there, BUT ONLY if we use tech means to avoid overcrowding, such as highrise buildings, elevated motorways, rapid rail transportation systems, etc, etc.

No doubt we share our planet with other lifeforms such as animals, but humans must come first, but at the same time, considerations be made for animals and their natural habitats, simply by better planning of land use and improvement of environment by other means - such as replanting trees in zoned sidewalks, rooftops, etc.

There is much to do, to discuss, debate and follow up actions by concerned mankind.

But do rest assured that Planet Earth can hold several billions more and not run out of resources for the next million years, so long as we improve on our knowledge - science, tech and environment, as well as the proper management of our planet and NEVER to let the greedy elite few run our planet to the ground.

Originally posted by EvanB
Maybe its about that time that the human race started to invest in tech for space travel, colonising other planets etc before our numbers really do become an issue?

You live in England so I don't doubt what you say as you're living it but I ask this question. Is this observation or statistics? See over population can also be a matter of perception. I'm in Australia and my idea of space and distance is different to yours which is true as a person in Australia or the U.S will drive a distance to get to work that a Brit or European would drive and think it warrents an overnight stay. I think the place where I live is getting over populated but someone from England who visits might thinks there's alot of room.

The personal space of an Aussie is on average 45 cm but for a Brit it's 30 cm.

Just a thought.

[ Hell just look at the country I live in Canada, second largest in the world, yet empty. 33 Million people live here, and it's bloody empty.

It's fine folks, we just need to learn how to build proper cities and not put them in places that are prone to natural disasters and space limitations.

~Keeper

Antarctica is virtually uninhabited. it's still a frozen wasteland.If it ablates we are in big trouble.

How much of Canada is arable? Winters are harsh in much of Canada. If you populated these parts of Canada, how would you sustain the population. They would cut into the plains production, reducing Canadian grain exports, which are huge.How many population centers in the world rely on Canadian grain right now? Where will they get it from in future when canada needs all it's grain, and the US needs it's grain etc etc.?

People can't seem to identify the link between population and ecosystems and food chains, let alone global economics.

I'm stunned by the sheer lack of data from the populationists." bloody empty" does not tell me anything about Canadas area, population density, consumption and production rates.The prevailing sentiment seems to be predicated on opinions , "feelings" and acritical vague observation devoid of empiricism and deductive reasoning.Instead, very weak inductive reasoning is employed. Why? Because it's the lazy way out for the self suiting and the non thinkiners.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
This is certainly a topic that really needs to be discussed more often. I put it right up there with environmental destruction, and resource depletion.

All three are inextricably intertwined.

Actually that is factored in when considering population growth. Population growth happens exponentially and any + % whether it's .001 or 3% will double after a certain amount time(considering resource availability). The way to know "doubling time" is by simply dividing 70 by the % of growth. For example if population growth is stated as 1.1% (actual 2009 estimate) then 70/1.1% = 63.3 years. So if population growth remains steady that means that our population will double in 63 years (within one lifetime).

edit on 17-10-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-10-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-10-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

How come one of the only people who seems to get it, has been chewing shrooms? The populationists will have stopped reading your post at the first mention of %.

reply to post by Wolfenz


The guidstones, they now think, were produced by corporate Ted Turner.

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

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

reply to post by Gorman91

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

But simple space is not considered a problem by anyone. Available resources and our ability to utilize them are.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Oh I see.All the numbers are wrong, is that it.But you are right by way of feeble inductive reasoning?They have been predicting population growth for well over half a century now, with very impressive accuracy, given the variables involved. They have been well within acceptable error margins. Are you saying this is untrue? Is it all a bit too Malthusian for you? I'm not presenting the Malthusian outlook here.I have presented, the projections and subsequent results after all variables have taken effect.You present your self derived loose implications, with no facts, figures and sources.

Please refute, with counterdata , the data I have presented.

Originally posted by blah yada

Originally posted by Vandettas
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

 

So basically your saying just you because you live in a small area thats populated by a lot of people, the entire UK is populated? You can't say "You obviously don't live in the UK" because of that. You can't live in 100 different places at the same time.

Wouldn't it be foolish if I said Chicago is over-populated because my neighborhood has 4 kids in each house? Yes, because that doesn't mean the next neighborhood is going to be the same.

edit on 17-10-2011 by Vandettas because: (no reason given)

Your logic here is skewed. I have previously lived in the UK. 62 million people live on 244,000 sq km which translates to a population density of 255.6/km2 or 661.9/sq mi.

Britain is at the moment 61% self sufficient ( Hickman, The independent)

World food supplies need to rise by 40 per cent by 2030, and by 70 per cent by 2050 to feed a forecasted global population of 9bn in 2050. (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation ) Note. This 2050/ 9 biliion figure is under shot by about 5 billion, but even working off a lowball figure like this, we can see the writing on the wall.


The UK population projection for 2050 is 77 million, a rise of almost 24% from today's figure.(Population Reference Bureau )

Anyone who can extrapolate a rosey picture from the above facts is deluded.

edit on 17-10-2011 by blah yada because: (no reason given)

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".

That growth rate is EXTREME. We now have 7 billion? We only have that many due to advances in energy production. The reason why the population grew is because of oil... and now that we've just passed peak, it will be time for that number to fall.

Shame really, I was looking forward to a long, happy, prosperous life.

reply to post by Maslo


Mars in 40 days. The technology exists now. If it really were that big a problem, they would be going to get fertile dirt from mars and mine her ice caps. They would be going to Jupiter and Saturn to mine hydrogen and the hydrocarbons of Titan. year journey all around. We did it 400 years ago, we can do it again.

Unless these things, which we can do now, are happening, then it is not a problem yet.