Are there too many of us here (on Earth)?
-
@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?)
-
@alan fraser said:
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.
What a shame. Actually I'm really not that surprised (and I'm not surprised either that after all the time I've tried to make a point, it is actually you Alan, who is making the derogatory personal remarks at me; "Strawman arguments"??? Thanks a lot!
). It seems that time after time I come across people just like yourself, and there are hundreds, who simply don't want a debate about this. These people are always more prepared to claim "the earth is finite and there are too many people". But they never back it up consistently (despite evidence proving past predictions wrong time and time again). And then when the subject gets too awkward, or it doesn't fit in with their vision, they bow out. Why? I think I've put a very coherent argument across? Why don't you? I may not have a PhD in the English language, but I think I've tried to put my reasoning for reasonable debate across at least in "layman's terms"? -
Mike, I have to agree with you about education and the power of the internet having a great part to play in changing global attitudes. I'd hope that those attitudes would change in regards to both family size and the role and status of women; which I think is also part of the problem.
But I have to violently disagree with you about KFC.
-
No, no, no, Alan you are DEFINITELY WRONG and HAVE NO IDEA of what you are talking about !!!!!! KFC is the best food on earth, dressed up cardboard or not! You see, its the magic herbs that make the difference
Although I have to have the 'real thing' instead of the Pepsi rubbish!
-
Please refrain from shouting!!!!
...and Pepsi is infinitely preferable.
-
I WILL!
Alan, you mention 'family size' size in your last post. I'm going out on a limb on this one but I'll say what's on my mind anyway.
I must be old fashioned. I thought 36 years ago when I fell in love and wanted to have a family, I had to get married first. This was the same mind set all my friends had. However this sort of thinking has now been totally turned upside down in recent years.
I do not put partnerships (man / woman in steady relationship) in this category! In fact if I was 25 today, this is probably what Pauline and I would also be considering!
The idea of a 'family' as it used to be in the UK and Ireland and many parts of Europe no longer exists. In the UK it is estimated that in five years 50% of children will be in a single parent family! Its much the same situation here in Ireland.
I find this very worrying to say the least. There are very few things I can do in society without first having to get some sort of official and often prior permission, drive a car for example, or own a TV or even keep a dog! Licenses are required for all! Some as a matter of form and others by examine / test and if you don't pass the test you are not allowed to undertake the activity!
However, it seems okay and even encouraged to some extent by government (with the various subsidies from tax payers) for women to have children with no possibility of them being in a position to support these children. Its the tax payer that does it and I think this is wrong!
Now I can fully understand women being 'caught' and not wanting to terminate the pregnancy but when I see multiples of this I feel a line has to be drawn!
My wife and I decided we would have two children for a lot of reasons! The main one was World over-population. We also generally equated large families with the inability to rear / educate the kids well! Okay, this might sound hard but this was our thinking.
We did this, had two lovely girls, reared and educated them well and they are now self supporting citizens. However I now find myself (via taxation) supporting other 'gentlemen's' children that they do not support and this I resent!
My wife, being always practical, says she worries about half brothers and sisters inbreeding as they will have no idea they are related! I have to agree with her, a worrying thought indeed and possibly happening to a large extent at the moment!
I know this is probably a very touchy subject but I would like to hear opinions.
-
I came across this interesting table. It assumes a time when oil has effectively gone (at least as a fuel) and what is left is highly-priced and used for pharmaceuticals and plastics production. Obviously, alternate energy sources have been developed, otherwise the more technologically advanced options wouldn't be possible at all.
It also assumes that each such population would have an effective zero effect upon the biosphere.-
Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy [Pimentel, 1999].
2 billion -
Everyone at the same affluence level as in 1, but with few restrictions on commerce, pollution, land use, personal behavior (within current law), etc. Basically a libertarian, laissez faire economy, with only limited environmental restrictions. This points out that there is a population price to pay for the current American way of commerce.
0.5 billion -
Everyone at the same affluence as indicated in 1, but with many and onerous restrictions on freedoms relative to behaviors leading to environmental degradation. In order to accommodate population levels greater than 2 billion, restrictions such as the following would have to be instituted: Massive recycling. Driving restrictions (gasolene rationing, fuel rationing even to mass transit systems). Restrictions on the transport of food (food transported no more than 100 miles for example to its point of retail sales). Prohibitions against cutting of trees on one's property. Limitations on the burning of fossil fuels in order to save these complex molecules for more valuable or durable uses, such as in the manufacture of plastics and pharmaceuticals. Limitations on the areas of open spaces that can be converted to renewable energy power plants, such as solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind energy systems. This latter results from the need to preserve natural areas for atmospheric oxygen generation and food growing. Of course many rooftops can accept solar energy systems and this scenario basically assumes a nearly complete saturation of coverage of roof tops and covers over parking lots for solar energy production.
4 billion -
Only people in the U.S. and Europe at current level of affluence. Everyone else at the current prosperity level of Mexico.
6 billion -
Everyone in the world at Mexico's current prosperity level.
20 billion -
Everyone in the world at the current "prosperity" level of Northwest Africa.
40 billion
-
-
'what is left is highly-priced and used for pharmaceuticals and plastics production'
Have you noticed how a lot of products we buy have a huge amount of plastic wrapping. In a lot of cases the wrapping is more valuable than the actual product that is being wrapped!
Crisps for example! An expensive plastic oil based wrapper for a quarter of a fried spud!
Alan, have you the link to those stats?
-
I'm sorry Mike, but I'm on Alan's side this time. Pepsi is definitely better than Coca-Cola!
The only thing that's wrong with KFC, is that there is not enough meat on the thing!
And recently I have become a convert to MacDonalds, moving away from Burger King. "It's just nicer"!
Starbucks coffee? Can't get enough of it! And my daughter is fast becoming addicted to frappachino's
-
@mike lucey said:
Have you noticed how a lot of products we buy have a huge amount of plastic wrapping. In a lot of cases the wrapping is more valuable than the actual product that is being wrapped!
Oh here we go again......
What's wrong with wrapping?! It's how you dispose of if that is important. Throwing it out of your car window does not impress!
This is an interesting article;
-
@alan fraser said:
I came across this interesting table. It assumes a time when oil has effectively gone (at least as a fuel) and what is left is highly-priced and used for pharmaceuticals and plastics production. Obviously, alternate energy sources have been developed, otherwise the more technologically advanced options wouldn't be possible at all.
It also assumes that each such population would have an effective zero effect upon the biosphere.Yes, you are right. It is only a hypothesis. But say the demographic starts to take GM more seriously rather than just passing it off as a 'frankenstein' product, we could in theory grow plants that are much higher in oil content than before. Hemp or rape for example. I'm sure there are others which could be found, plants that could be processed to create a generation of new polymers?
I'm not at all against GM, but I don't approve of companies such as Monsanto owning all the patents. But perhaps that's something I'll/we'll just have to live with unless there is a complete overhaul of our present global capitalist system?
-
@alan fraser said:
Do you have any idea how long it takes to filter a mass of 5000 lego pieces, a similar number of statically-charged, clingy fragments of supermarket bag and a healthy coating of loft dust?
Yes I do. I did that as part of my degree in product design engineering.
UV is an excellent source to break down plastics too. Plastics manufacturers constantly strive to introduce chemicals that slow this process.
-
Here you go Mike. It's a little outdated now but a good source for discussion.
I have to admit that I don't quite understand scenario 2 with its lower population...unless it means extremely laissez-faire with not even the rather limited eco-restrictions we currently have in place.I also must admit plastic bags don't pose the 'eternal' threat that's claimed...although, I guess, improperly disposed of ones can cause great damage to wildlife before they degrade
I was up in the attic not long ago, tidying up the kids old toys including an enormous hoard of Lego in a couple of Tesco bags. The bags disintegrated into minute fragments, the moment I touched them. Do you have any idea how long it takes to filter a mass of 5000 lego pieces, a similar number of statically-charged, clingy fragments of supermarket bag and a healthy coating of loft dust? -
Plastic bags to batteries.
[flash=600,480:vq43lh0p]http://www.youtube.com/v/sw5WTO5i0Ag[/flash:vq43lh0p]
Oh, definately Coke, Pepsi is too sweet and artificial tasting.
Advertisement