Are there too many of us here (on Earth)?
-
Yes.
People count on science to feed, clothe and transport the world more efficiently with the same or less investment. Science's abilities are finite. Resources are finite (anybody see that History Channel show that posits we've already passed peak oil production?). Arable land is finite. Add the decreasing job market due to technology automating production and the like, there is trouble ahead.
Population control is a touchy subject. Beliefs, perceived rights, religions, education, economics and more all get in the way of reason when it comes to this subject. There are too many of us. Resources are being exhausted. No, the answer is not, "Drill baby, drill..." What is the answer?
-
I suspect it will all end in tears....worldwide famines in many nations simultaneously, that aid supplies can't even begin to address. There were only 3 billion of us 50 years ago. I've seen plenty of reports from the 3rd world where families still comprise half a dozen...or even more kids.
Now, you can make all kinds of arguments...that people there need large families to support them in their old age, because of lack of state provision for the aged etc....but that only explains the problem, it doesn't do anything to address it.
I'm also beginning to think that foreign aid sometimes merely extends this problem; and maybe even that people in the 1st world may grow weary of funding nations with uncontrolled population growth (that such nations clearly cannot afford), when they, themselves, have deliberately limited their own families because they can't afford to do otherwise.
I forsee a Malthusian catastrophe of both biblical and global proportions unless emerging nations get a grip on the problem...with or without our help. Preferably with. It sounds terribly hard-hearted but the simple truth is that the richer nations (with largely static populations) can't indefinitely help emerging nations with exploding populations, any more than we have the capacity to welcome the rest of the world to our own shores. The mathematics is simply against it. A situation in which the numbers of those able to give food aid remain static, whilst those in need of such aid increase exponentially, is not a sustainable position.
Plus, of course, the rift is not simply one between rich and poor nations; it's also one of the often vast disparity within those poorer nations. The civil unrest when desperation really begins to bite is not going to be pretty...Somalias all over the globe...with a proportional impact on global trade and development (ergo international lawlessness, piracy and hi-jackings).
-
Crikey Mike! You don't half bring up some controversial subjects!!
No. Is my answer.
There aren't enough people on the planet!
There is more than plenty water, as well as food- we just need to build and invest in far better infrastructures of industry, and stop obsessing over 'saving the planet' (whatever that means). Laws about land ownership also need to change, and architects should have the powers to build far better affordable housing that can be mass produced and manufactured on a grand scale.
If you took the entire population of our planet, you would be able to fit all of them into the size of Los Angeles (bumper to bumper of course!). But we don't live like that, and there are still vast areas of land that are totally untouched. We do have the technology to live there, as well as the technology to build! And in deserts, where the sun is constant, technologies such as solar energy would be in their element!
It was the late reverend Thomas Malthus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus (hence the term 'Malthusian' thinking) who stated in the mid 19th Century that we would within the next 50 years have runaway population, and a world that wouldn't be abl to feed us. He was wrong. That never happened. !n the 1960's Paul R. Ehrlich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich) thought the same, and published a similar essay; Ehrlich wrote in The Population Bomb that, "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980 and he was also wrong.
I fear this is more routed deep in the west's fear of the 3rd world, who still owe the west vast amounts of money, debt which we in the rich west should have written off by now. I also fear that a lot of this thinking comes from those who fear the 3rd world, nations such as China, Africa and India becoming the new superpowers, as we in the west "bite the dust" so to speak, though our refusal to invest in new industries.
What I personally find interesting is those who shout the loudest when it comes to Malthusian thought often come from big families, have many children, but worst of all are already well off and comfortable. The latter makes me feel very queasy, as it simply highlights how much hatred we hold for fellow human beings, and what human beings could be capable of if we all lived in peace with one another. Just think of all those extra Ghandi's and Albert Einstein's? If we controlled the population we'd never see them would we?
On one last note (although I'll probably be back on this debate later), Lionel Shriver, the author of "We need to talk about Kevin", appeared on the BBC's Newsnight programme the other night, to talk about the 7th Billion baby, she spoke about many possibilities of birth control, the most disturbing being one that she though was very successful in modern day Iran, where if you do have more than 2 children, you are disowned by the Islamic state. Now I don't know about you, but I find this philosophy extremely disturbing, but what was even more disturbing is that Lionel turned up on the programme wearing a pair of gloves. For what reason she was wearing gloves is unknown, and although pretty damn weird I must admit, isn't the thing that was most disturbing.... the thing that was most disturbing was that majority of tweets made by feminists and liberals via Twitter after the programmed was aired, were more concerned by Shriver's gloves than her views on Iranian-style Islamic birth & mind control!
So on one hand we can shoot people in the head "gestapo-style", to control population, or we can disown them from society, Islamic style. You choose. Perhaps we should just shoot malthusians instead, or more humanely, offer malthusians voluntary euthanasia? Because there's an awful lot of them.
-
Space wise there is plenty of room for many more billions of people on the planet. At some point in the future technology will allow us to live in all the environments in large numbers, even in space or deep under the ocean.
But would we like to be living on such a planet where almost all the surface of the planet would be covered with human habitation? Being able to do that does not mean we should.
Today's solutions for limiting population may not be the best but I'm sure better and more humane ones will be thought of if we give this problem the attention it deserves. -
[ot]
Nice hat, Tom!
(We should soon start thinking of getting 100K hats though)
[/ot]
-
I agree with you Tom - tfdesign..
"Kill yourself to save the Earth!"
Surface area: 510,072,000 km²
148,940,000 km² land (29.2 %) 361,132,000 km² water (70.8 %)
It's about 20,000m2 land per person...not enough? -
@gaieus said:
[ot]
Nice hat, Tom!
(We should soon start thinking of getting 100K hats though)
[/ot]
What a brilliant idea! Can it include animated emoticons on either side too? Like these;
:heart_eyes: -
Saw these this morning...
-
I saw, or heard something the other day, comparing the world population to available land surface. Turns out, if you took all 7B people and could stand them shoulder to shoulder, they could be completely contained on the island of Zanzibar.---I bet that would piss off the residents. And I bet a few would fall in the water, knowing how people will fidget.
-
That's actually a little scary. When I started college they could all stand on the Isle of Man (221 sq miles). Now it takes Zanzibar (600 sq miles). That doesn't leave very long for people to continue making excuses and saying "It'll be fine. The world is plenty big enough"
And it would really suck if you were one of those standing in the middle and needed to pee. -
@unknownuser said:
Saw these this morning...
Does anyone notice that the majority of overpopulation images (if not ALL?), comprise mostly images of Chinese, black or brown babies/people?
That observation makes me feel uneasy. Just how rightwing have the west become?
-
I agree with you, Alan. The method of charity by rich nations to poor ones is controversial and it does not solve the problem. In fact, it possibly perpetuates or makes it worse. Food alleviates the needs of the "now", death and illness by starvation or malnutrition - but much less is done about the needs later - education, infrastructure, health, jobs, domicile. All of the things we take for granted in the Western world. Food alone only allows the poor child we save to become a poor adult with no better prospects than before, and will have more children to perpetuate the problem. It's difficult to change the way a nation works when the may suffer from decades of war, corruption, lack of resources or any combination thereof.
I disagree with the "plenty of space and resources" argument. One can compress humanity into whatever limited space desired, but that only allows for disease and strife to spread more quickly. We have some ability to live more efficiently, but that costs money. The amount of arable land can be increased but it will be at considerable expense, both financially and environmentally. It will cost water which IS in shorter supply (that also can be changed, again at great expense of money and energy), land/forest (innumerable reasons why it is a terrible idea to cut them down) and the use of fertilizers which poison our waterways and oceans. There is also the Vertical Farm Project, but again, big expense of energy and money for the return a civilization gets and simply not available to poorer countries that need it most.
Energy and money are necessities poor nations do not have access to; and when the do have access to it they want to be just like us, massive consumers of oil, resources and energy. Who can blame them?
If there was a better way to do things, we'd be doing it. The energy and money aren't there to compensate for the projected exponential increases in population. We won't give up our luxuries without a fight. Change will come any number of less desirable unfortunate ways.
-
I'm quite disheartened that you both are labeled as "Top SketchUcators". You are supposed to be architects! Architects are people who hope to design a better place for people to live, work and play. Think "The Living City" by Frank Lloyd-Wright, yet here you are being nothing more than "miserabilists".
"All of the things we take for granted in the Western world.". Well yes, but why can't the same be applied to those in the '3rd world'? It is a nonsense about "not enough money". There's plenty of money. What's wrong is our current capitalist system, where shareholders simply cream profits from companies they've invested in, and lock the rest away in banks or property. The government does nothing, because we, the voter are too miserable and too passive to realise that we have the power to do anything about it.
"disease and strife to spread more quickly"? Is this statement really true? What curable disease do you know which cannot be treated by pharmaceutical treatment?
"If there was a better way to do things, we'd be doing it." So we give up now do we? There are already plenty of "better ways" of doing things, but they are frowned upon so much comments such as this. Take Fairtrade for example. The affluent west demands 'organic' coffee, and you know how difficult coffee is to produce? If South American coffee farms could automate their businesses, they would create a far bigger yield, and have enough profit left to run hospitals, schools, libraries, all the things in the west we take for granted. But no. Too modern. We want organic! And of course, automation will just lead to more carbon going into the atmosphere.
I wrote "Let's SketchUp" because I wanted children (and adults) to help themselves visualise the wonderful future on this wonderful planet that lay ahead. Not a doom laden hell-hole where nothing changes. Perhaps I should be the "Top Sketchucator" instead??
-
"Kill yourself to save the Earth" is a message for depopulation advocates...If you think there is too much of US on this planet,
and want to contribute to solving this problem, than start from yourself...
Poor colonies were good for West countries and they kept them so... They had cheap resources, human is one..It was not good for west to let them progress...
Now, thet people are colonizing the West ....) At the end, nobody can escape from the BALANCE. And the global balance is the only solution for this problem. -
Tom, frankly I couldn't care less whether you're disheartened with Jeff and myself or not....and we are not supposed to be architects; you're assumptions in that are as faulty as in anything else.
So you're dismayed that there are no 'Whiteys' in cartoons like the ones Eric posted? Maybe if you bothered to check out the facts instead of spewing pseudo politically correct nonsense, you'd realise why.
Europe doesn't have a population explosion...nor does the rest of the developed world. Some W. European nations have a very slight population increase, almost entirely due to economic migration within the EU; an increase which is balanced in E. Europe where almost every nation is winessing a slight population DECLINE. But hey! don't let facts get in the way of a self-righteous political rant.
Liberia, on the other hand, has a population increase 10x that of the UK and 20x that of the Netherlands or Belgium. It's closely followed by other nations equally able to cope...NOT...like Eritrea and Somalia.
Fantasies about how we can make the planet more productive base that claim on the supposition that we can introduce western high-intensity farming methods everywhere. Or failing that, invest heavily in every village and hamlet in the 3rd World.
We cant. We can't even maintain those practices ourselves for much longer. They consume a disproportionate amount of petroleum, not only to fuel and power the agri-industry, but also for the production of nitrates and pesticides...and then to transport all that produce to market, rather than growing it locally.Yes, we could do all kinds of things...chop down more of Amazonia and what's left of the jungles in S.E Asia....cover the Sahara in solar cells to power desalination plants on the coast, then grow vegies in the shade of the panels; cover our coasts and the flanks of all our mountain ranges in wind turbines.
But the loss of habitat would be catastrophic and would lead to mass extinctions on a scale not seen for millions of years. For every one of your hypothetical new Einsteins we'd lose dozens of plants and animals that may hold untold riches in terms of what they may may provide us with in pharmaceuticals or other technological advances. All this quite apart from the morality of driving many of our fellow creatures to extinction simply to make breeding room for even more of us.The world population has doubled in little more than a generation and is set to double again in another generation. We just don't have the time or resources for your fantasies of a Brave New World. This is the real world, not Extreme Makeover Home Edition.
I'm heavily involved in the Rotary organisation. My own club is funding projects in Goa, Sierra Leone and several other parts of the developing world. What are you doing O saviour of Mankind? Because there's all the difference in the world between giving practical help...yet realising what is practically possible; and just spouting stuff you think sounds good but which is firmly planted in cloud-cuckoo land.Get of your high horse.
-
There's no need to swing to extremes in an attempt to dispute opinions presented. If the discussion can be kept on a logical, lucid it would be nice.
Kill yourself and save the Earth...
Why? Nobody suggested this. Why can't pragmatism and forethought create a plan that avoids draconian measures and misery and stabilizes world population? Why the prejudice against balance and the drive toward consumption acceptable? Why the resistance to seeing the results of past civilization's collapse applied to modern times and seeking to avoid the same fate?
We, the voter...
...and? One can observe that the voters have the power, but why has the desired change not been effected already? There's absolutely nothing wrong with capitalism, I'm all for it - in a well regulated fashion. I am against capitalism that makes it's profits on the backs of the common man, i.e.: The company does poorly but bonuses are given. Payroll cuts boost profitability, bonuses taken. Benefits slashed to boost profitability, bonuses taken. Company folds, golden parachute taken and the workers get nothing. Layoffs to boost profitability, bonuses again. Outsourcing (insert anything here) and laying off local employees, again - more bonuses. All of these fat bonuses are taken because the company has pushed more of the expenses of the employees off onto you and me, the taxpayer, because we pay for their unemployment, ER or medical visits they can't pay for, their defaults on loans. It's a Scam, and I'm tired of paying for their profitability.
Disease and Strife...
Where should I start? MRSA. AIDS. Malaria. Tuberculosis. Go here and get educated: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/DiseasesConnectedAR.html
Organic Coffee keeps the farmers poor...
Really? You mean that $20/lb Coffee we buy keeps them poor? You mean the exorbitant markups and cuts taken by the middle men have nothing to do with it? Corrupt governments don't either I suppose. Show me the logic. I'm interested.
Doom laden...
Let's not get petty. Extremes get you nowhere. I don't base my idea of the future on "Star Trek", all rosy and technologically perfect. History has taught us that civilizations fall. Ours will too. How rapidly and in what manner it happens in is based on our decisions and actions today; doom is not certain, but if we continue down this path the fall will certainly hurt.
-
Alas yes for the moment!
By Michael Wolf (no photo montage)
Absolutly freaking! Is this the way you want to live?
Architecture of density
-
Nuff said:
-
.....and a graph showing the population rise over the last 12 000 years. Yeah it's not scary at all.
-
Yep Marian, graphs show things very clearly indeed. Is it just a co-incidence that this graph is identical to the oil production graph? I think not.
I have just read Paul Chefurka's article, Population The Elephant in the Room He makes a case for an sustainable World population after 'The Age of Oil' for no more than 1 Billion humans! He also makes an analogy using Wile E. Coyote, which I am sure will appeal to Alan F
This is the first article I've read where someone is actually willing to put a figure on a World Population for humans, all be it, without oil and no 'magic' alternative!
The article was written in 2007, some 4 years ago, and he was projecting current World population at approx. 8.2 or 8.3 Billion! As we know its now at 7 Billion. So maybe slowing!
I've also learned a new term in relation to this topic,'overshoot'! And it looks like we might well be in this phase.
If anyone is interested, its a good read, 20 minutes or so, with some quality graphs and stats to view. Check it out here, http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
EDIT: In my post above I got my figures wrong with regard to current World population. I have now corrected it.
Advertisement