Are there too many of us here (on Earth)?
-
@mike lucey said:
..... so the only way population can continue to grow is with some new mystical sources of energies that will replace oil energy and goods? Can't see that happening within the projected time-span for oil depletion. So, it looks like it will be down to Nature to sort it all out until such a source is found
Alan, we will be long gone when this comes about
Mike Like I just said, "What about thorium?"
...and then there is Shale gas too.
Here's a funny article about "Peak Wood", a crisis that happened in the Elizabethan period.
@unknownuser said:
The energy crisis which struck the British Isles was ‘peak wood’. The idea of peak wood may seem absurd from our vantage point in human history, but be assured it was taken seriously by the Elizabethans.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/debates/copenhagen_article/9202/ -
-
.... a totally 'natural' process!
-
Wow! What a revelation. There are the remains of ancient civilizations that have been since reclaimed by nature. Presumably the existence of Leptis Magna or many Egyptian sites now partly covered by desert sand means that the Sahara must be largely man-made too?
The plain fact is that tree cover is the natural clothing of the planet in all areas of the globe that have enough precipitation and sunlight to support it....and however much you care to extrapolate a few findings to complete absurdity.
Scientists may argue about the precise ratio, but it's generally agreed that as much O2 is produced onland as is produced by phytoplankton in the oceans...and it's the trees that are producing it.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what happens if you get rid of most if not all of the current tree cover and replace it by yet more people and livestock all breathing out CO2....especially when current levels of human activity are also seriously degrading plankton levels as well. LinkIt doesn't matter what new technologies are brought online...be it Thorium MSR, nuclear fusion or even Prof. Rossi's E-Cat cold fusion device, the result is exactly the same...just deferred.
The population is increasing. Other than a few setbacks like pandemics, it has been for the last 200,000 years. So even if such 'Star Trek' futures are attainable; and the population increases to 2 or 3 times its current level? What then?...it'll still continue to increase...or do you two imagine that it will simply and magically stop increasing for some mysterious reason?All you are arguing for is procrastination...dumping difficult decisions into the lap of some future generation. What decisions regarding population stabilization will they NOT have to face at some point in the future, that we are faced with at present? The only difference will be that we'll have raped the planet in the meantime.
-
@alan fraser said:
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.
Well since you asked (and initially I didn't really want to rise to the bait, but what the heck?) For the last couple of years I have been raising awareness and money for the Alzheimer's Association, as well as the Stroke Association. I've also worked with children with severe disabilities such as cerebral palsy and autism, raising public awareness through music related workshops (CBSO, LPO and Glyndebourne Opera). A while ago I worked closely with a UNICEF based charity, raising money from the west German government to help a small village better their water system and get the youngsters to train learning how to fix basic electrical items. Really they should have learn't how to design and program computers, but that's what I was hoping to do with my books- starting with the SketchUp one. I'm also a member the PTA at my kids school. We've already raised money through a series of summer events to provide a school projector for the hall. I teach kids about architectural as well as engineering principles- with an emphasis on those in state education, as depressingly our governments seem to neglect that not everyone can afford to go to public schools (both Cameron and Clegg are Etonians).
It's very nice to hear that you are doing work with the Rotary Club. I bet you like showing off to the people of Sierra Leone your modelling skills? I'd like to see your results too.
BTW, my website is here if you want to have a look at some of my work;
Do have a look. One or two of the pictures I took for some of the projects are in there. But much of my work is not up there, because of copyright reasons- as well as privacy.
-
@alan fraser said:
All you are arguing for is procrastination...dumping difficult decisions into the lap of some future generation. What decisions regarding population stabilization will they NOT have to face at some point in the future, that we are faced with at present? The only difference will be that we'll have raped the planet in the meantime.
"Raped"? That's a harsh word!
What do you think the sun will do to the planet when in several billion years it dies, becomes a supernova and engulfs the earth? As for procrastination, you are putting words into my mouth. You are obviously upset because I dare disagree with you. On the contrary I am not(note I'm not shouting using upper case lettering), "dumping difficult decisions on future generations", quite the opposite. But I oppose your notion of regressing. We should be drilling for Shale gas. We should also be pouring millions into nuclear, learning how to dissipate the waste produced through technology and looking for far more efficient alternatives to solar and wind options. We went to Iraq and killed thousands of innocent men women and children on the back of Tony Blair. We spent millions of dollars doing that in partnership with GWB. If we can spend millions on a pointless war effort, we can spend money on welcoming in the 7th Billionth baby (as well as the 14th and the 28th etc etc!) -
@unknownuser said:
I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we … are the cure.
Agent Smith, The Matrix.
-
Well, bully for you, Tom. This is just descending into pettiness. I only raised the subject of Rotary because of your initial post in which you seemed to think that you were the only one here that cared for his fellow man (bleating on about potential lost Einsteins...as if that doesn't happen every day amongst all the millions of sperm that DON'T win the race to the ovum) and that the rest of us were heartless bastards who wanted to solve the problem by Gestapo-like tacics such as a bullet in the brain.
If you are going to constantly nosedive into silliness, hyperbole and now dick-measuring, then this becomes a pointless discussion.No, rape isn't too harsh a word. Don't you think that there's a slight difference between what is going to happen later on this century to your immediate descendants and what is going to happen in 5 billion years? We've evolved from amoebae in less time than that. God knows what kind of creatures will be inhabiting the planet at that point.
This is just more desperate stuff...you even accuse me of shouting because I take one particular option off adding stress to a single word. I used caps instead of italics...big deal.
Sorry, but I'm not wasting any more of my time on this level of debate...especially when you are not prepared to address any of the real points. -
.... and I've unlocked it as I started the topic in the hope that we would see all sides!
This, I think, is what is happening. I only wish we were is a real corner bar with a pints in front of us having this 'row'!
I can see both sides to the Tom / Alan argument and feel that the real solution must lay in the middle ground. As to what the middle ground is! I have no idea?
I still feel that the World Population is out of kilter with Nature in her intended plan! We (humans) stumbled on oil and off we exploded! If there was no oil on the planet I strongly feel that we would be still at the sustainable levels of population, probably a couple of billion!
Just to through a spanner in the works! Has anyone read up on this New World stuff? I've been reading bits and pieces over that past couple of years and initially though it was a load of old cobblers BUT now I'm not so sure.
One thing that was mentioned in the New World 'plan' as seen by so called conspiracy theorists, was that the world population had to be brought back to 2 billion or so! The methods envisaged was some kind of an engineered virus! After seeing 'Contagion' I got worried!
I brought my missus to the film! I don't think she liked it that much but it put her thinking which probably was the general idea. I won't spill the beans on the plot but it showed a possible scenario that is very plausible! All I will say is that forced food production had a large part to play,
When I was a young lad, 50 years ago, I really enjoyed the Sunday chicken dinner! The chicken tasted great and I nearly eat the bones but the dog was always watching me and waiting for them. The chicken on my grandparents farm in Kerry was even better as the were running around the place the day before!
Today, I hate chicken. Its like eating cardboard, unless its KFC
But generally the chicken in the supermarkets is rubbish. I've been in a small industrial chicken farm and was shocked at the way the chickens are reared. Its no wonder they taste like cardboard. However to maintain current levels of population this is the way it has to be, unnatural!It should also be noted that chickens and pigs have been at the bottom of a number of the dangerous viruses that have erupted of late. I also think that they (chickens and pigs) will be at the bottom of a virus that could well do nature's work and bring the human population back to balance.
Mass world education may be the only way we will be able to gain some kind of equilibrium with Nature. And this I feel is slowly happen via the internet. All we have to do is look at the recent and current activities in the Arab World. IMO, Twitter played a more powerful role that the Kalashnikov! Chinese authorities spend a lot of resources controlling the Net! We would not be having this 'row' without the Net
-
I'm pleased you unlocked the thread Mike
(that'll learn ya Csaba! )I'm not offended at all by Alan's remarks. I'm pleased that he is venting his anger, because this is a serious topic and it needs debating!
I was about to address Jeff's comments (I actually PM'd him this link after the thread got locked). This is a response to the Fairtrade remark I made. It now being 2.45pm I'm going to have to pick up the kids soon- but I will be back- to quote Arnie
Let's hope this works (thanks Pilou and TIG)
There are other links available- but many of them require a lot of reading. I know some people prefer videos, so here you go. (It's nicer to watch a video with some popcorn!
)[flash=437,363:3rsvsgcm]http://www.viddler.com/player/4f13affc[/flash:3rsvsgcm]
-
Personally, Mike, I have trouble with the estimated 'stable' population in the article you posted. I don't think it needs to drop anything like as low as 1 billion.
I think we might even manage to maintain present numbers, without further ruining the environment, if it's tackled properly...and promptly. Given the past record of the world community, however, I'm just not holding my breath.
The article did mention improved technology since 1890; and I think this would play a very great part. It doesn't have to be space-age; it can be as simple as septic tanks for all the animal waste in each village in rural india, which can produce surprising amounts of methane for domestic cooking and lighting before such waste is finally used as fertilizer on the fields.
We may need to introduce this ourselves on a truly industrial scale for human waste once we really hit peak oil and the cost of fertilizer starts going through the roof.
Similarly, the introduction of supplies of safe drinking water to everyone isn't exactly a bank-buster either. These are small things but impact hugely on infant mortality ( a factor which both causes people to try for large families and which has kept population levels low throughout history)
In the end, however, it still comes back to mathematics...the number of people versus the overall standard of living. We simply can't accomodate countless billions, each one 'entitled' to a nice house with all mod cons, on a nice plot of land with a nice garden and a nice car parked on the driveway. There simply isn't the room or resources.
My preferences lie in doing the best we can for those that are here already and giving them the best quality of life we can.
As for Fair Trade, there is clearly a desire amongst average consumers here to be 'fair' in our dealings with the 3rd World. Now you can make statistics (and interviews) say whatever you like. I have no idea if Fair Trade is as fair as it claims to be, but if it's not, then it's up to its detractors...who claim to have recognised its failings...to use that knowledge to develop something even fairer....which I'm sure people would be even happier to embrace.
-
I'm sure people will find solutions to the energy shortage like when they found it for the shortage of whale oil. We still have a lot of natural gas that can be used as fuel so we're not in big doodoo just yet when it comes to fuels.
The problem is the way the world currently works,is shaped and the places where the number of people are actually increasing. The amount of space or technology are not the main issues here it's the uncontrollable population growth coupled with the political and economic situation.Think of it like this, population is like a runaway freight train running down on an increasingly steeper hill on a very dark night. Technological and space issues are rather small debris, cars and people on the track that can be cleared just in time before the train reaches them, while political and economic issues are pretty big wooden logs on the track that might get cleared in time or they might not. A few logs could be safely crushed or cleared by the train.
The point is that the train is accelerating and at some point in time it will become impossible for the obstructions on the track to be cleared or it will meet a large thick tree and the train will then derail, crash and burn. -
I agree with what you are saying Alan in the area of 'self help'. I small thing multiplied by several billion becomes a large thing!
However I have grave doubts that the clowns we have governing the World have the capability to achieve much apart from large pay packets and large pensions for themselves! My current signature says "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber" - Plato
I have not changed it for some time as I think its an important quote! I am becoming more and more disgusted with antics of the various politicians we have to the fore. Just look at those two clowns, Merkel and Sarkozy! As an EU citizen, I did not elect these two to do as the please! Would any sane person even trust them with their loose change, let alone the finances of the EU. Check out this link guys. Picture are definately worth thousands of words! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2059388/EU-Merkel-Sarkozys-club-UK-use-tradesmens-entrance.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Still, its not much use complaining. The saying 'We get what we deserve' rings so true but I can see the likes of the 'Occupy' movement achieving good things in time. There are even a few here in Ireland, a tiny spot with 4.5 million. I think this will properly grow and become a force to be reckoned with in time and rightly so! As long as it has no discernible 'head' it cannot be extinguished!
Even voicing our disgust at politicians actions is also a good thing! If there is one thing that ruffles their feathers, its bad press and fear of being out of power!
Again, I am coming back to idea of more participation by the citizens on an ongoing, week by week or month by month basis. Countries are just like companies as far as I am concerned. They should be run for the good of the citizens. The current situation is that we elect clowns based on their manifestos and they do as they please once in power.
Even their internal antiquated systems of governance in most cases is appalling! Its a joke watching politician 'debating' on TV in both Westminister and Leinster House. It would be funny if not so serious.
Maybe what we need IS a New World Order! But hopefully it would be one that allows grass root ongoing participation by its citizens. Collective wisdom is a very powerful thing!
Just as a matter of interest. I'm sure many have watched Who Wants to be a Millionaire on TV. In the TV show the participant has three help potions, Ask the Audience, 50/50 and Call a Friend. The best results always comes from the collective audience and they are rarely wrong. I think politicians should be required to 'Ask the Audience' far more often, not every 4 -5 years or at the occasional referendum but more like once a month. After all we have now got the technology to do this quite easily in the Western World at least as even most the 7 year-olds have mobile phones these days.
-
@unknownuser said:
Just as a matter of interest. I'm sure many have watched Who Wants to be a Millionaire on TV. In the TV show the participant has three help potions, Ask the Audience, 50/50 and Call a Friend. The best results always comes from the collective audience and they are rarely wrong.
Things must be different in the UK, because last week I had the TV on while working and twice in a row the audience got it collectively wrong.
-
...... aaaaahhhhhhh dare I say the obvious?
-
-
Pete, I did a quick search and got a 95% rate! I doubt politicians come anything close to that figure
Here is where I found the figure,
Ask the Audience: The contestant asks the studio audience which answer they believe is correct. Members of the studio audience indicate their choices using an audience response system (having 20 seconds to do so, though many televised versions edit out most of the time). The results are immediately displayed on the contestant's and host's screens. This is a popular lifeline, known for its near-perfect accuracy. Philbin once said that the audience's answer is correct 95% of the time.[citation needed]
-
@alan fraser said:
In the end, however, it still comes back to mathematics...the number of people versus the overall standard of living. We simply can't accomodate countless billions, each one 'entitled' to a nice house with all mod cons, on a nice plot of land with a nice garden and a nice car parked on the driveway. There simply isn't the room or resources.
Mathematics is mostly hypothesis and can always be proven wrong, as my 70-year old Cambridge university educated father continues to tell me. Why can't we all be entitled to a nice house with 'all mod cons'? 'On a nice plot of land', with 'a nice garden' and a 'nice car parked in the driveway?
Here in Birmingham, Cadbury's had exactly that idea! As Quakers they gave their workers all the nice houses and mod-cons they needed! Their legacy still lives on as Bournville is one of the most highly sought after places in Birmingham to live. And it paid off too. Workers had more rights and had better education for their kids and good libraries. Note there are no pubs in Bournville though! But then the latter has probably more to do with religious intolerance than anything else. (And not wanting workers to come in 'pissed'!
)It's well know that educated women have fewer children (argued by several including this book "Investing in all the People" by Lawrence H. Summers. (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s1dBsT7_pYsC&lpg=PP9&ots=CmZAeOIxj3&dq=educated%20women%20have%20less%20children&lr&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q&f=true). In the west we tend to have less children because we have a much more comfortable lifestyle. We are now, thanks mainly to the 17th and 18th century Enlightenment thinkers, are also better educated. A British degree, despite it being not as good as it used to be, is still highly respected in many parts of the developing world. Because disease is more rife, families in developing countries tend to have more children anyway simply because they know from experience that their children are more prone to childhood diseases such as Malaria. (Concerning Malaria, scientists have made a major breakthrough in the last few weeks it was announced on the 7 O'clock news this morning- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15624363).
We may look like we are about to suffer a 'population crisis', as numbers increase exponentially, but our concerns are mainly aimed squarely at developing countries. Here in Britain not that long ago women often died during pregnancy. We learnt through developments in medicine that what was killing them was bacteria on whoever's hands who were delivering the baby. We learnt that washing hands increased the success rate of cheating death after birth. Again British families became smaller for all the same reasons highlighted above.
I'm wondering if you are more biased Alan because you come from Formby in Lancs? Formby is an area of exceptional natural beauty with many parts of it managed by the National Trust, and I imagine you are also a member of the National Trust seeing that you are also a Rotarian? The NT are currently running a campaign getting members to sign up to a petition to protect greenbelt land around London (http://www.saveourgreenbelt.org.uk/), a city which is already overpopulated mainly because that's where the remainder of fairly well paid British jobs are, and yet available and affordable housing is virtually non existent, and what does exist, only the very rich can afford.
I've noticed a trend with people who live in rural areas or small towns, with a lot of land mass surrounding them, they don't want any of it built on! My father is continually complaining that he doesn't want a 'pickle factory' built in the surrounding fields behind him, despite his opposition to the "NIMBY's" in the Thatcher era (NIMBY= "Not In My Back Yard") My Father lives in Lewes- a similar town to Formby, Lewes being home to Greenpeace's international headquarters in the 1980's, and the town I grew up in. However we have a housing crisis in the UK and the average price of a small 3-bed house is £160,000! Demand far outstrips supply- and this is the real reason why. Too many people who oppose the development of new builds and private corporate charities such as the National Trust, who have strong environmentalist agendas who oppose any building or development in Britain.
-
The product of 10 x 10 isn't hypothesis. Similarly the exponential curve of population growth over the last several thousand years isn't remotely hypothetical.
There you go again...getting all personal again and now intimating that I can be dismissed as a mere biased, complacent NIMBY tree-hugger. What has the fact that your father was educated at Cambridge got to do with world demography? You earlier called my SU skills into question (which says far more about you than me). What does that have to do with world demography?
I'm simply not willing to enter into any further dialogue with someone who continually dives into strawman arguments, questioning the credentials of someone who disagrees with his viewpoint rather than putting forward a coherent counter argument. -
'Personal remarks'? I was referring to my father, not you! My father is a mathematician. Being at Cambridge is just an indication that it's something real, rather than simply boasting about something that may or may not be true.
And why do you continually belittle my efforts for debate? I didn't go to Cambridge, and my father almost didn't either- because he failed his 11+, in Maths!. Personally I think that alone speaks volumes about just how much the majority of the demographic don't really know much about maths- or maybe I should say 'economics'? (And I still believe that using uppercase letters is shouting, whereas italics is merely to emphasise a point- which is what my english teacher always told me... but then again perhaps she was wrong too?)
Advertisement