Overpopulation

Hogmeister B

jackncoke wrote: »

Our population is 4.6 million or something...
We had a population of over 8 million people in the 1840's.

Yes, and remember what happened next? Nature stepped in with a nice cull to keep everything under control. (Hint: it involved potatoes.)

Caoimhín

Hogmeister B wrote: »

Yes, and remember what happened next? Nature stepped in with a nice cull to keep everything under control. (Hint: it involved potatoes.)

Nature stepped in to control the potato population? That's the only logic of your statement.

Jigsaw

Overpopulation is of no concern to me whilst my personal wealth ensures that I am in no way affected by it.

Sherifu

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I dont love them, its just I hate those attacking them. If they were attacking mars then id stand up for mars!!

Roman war God eh. Interesting. When are they planning to attack? Tell me the truth!

Andy-Pandy

What the world needs is a good plague, brink back the black death i say. Theres far to many of us and we are making a balls of it. A good culling of lets say 4/5's of the worlds population and that will start to bring nature and wildlife back to the fore.

Loomis

caoibhin wrote: »

Re the over population. Maybe we need a massive global cull. A flu epidemic or nuclear war would do the trick.
I'll get working on that.

Not being funny but we're actually over due a pandemic

dsmythy

jackncoke wrote: »

Our population is 4.6 million or something...
We had a population of over 8 million people in the 1840's.
And we have one of the lowest population densitys in Europe..IMO,there's still plenty of open space

The island of Ireland was around 8 million back then. Right now the Island has just under 6 million or so living in it. There is plenty of open space but is that not what Ireland is all about? Wide open countryside and a breath of fresh air?

We could fill that space but do we really want to?

ojewriej

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

China has a 1 child policy so lets not attack them.

Plus they already actively combat overpopulation, don't they? What with all the executions.

Resources is more of the issue than space.

Caoimhín

Yis know, this brings me to another of my half baked theories....
In past generations, a lot of the young men were shipped off to war where they fought with each other and got the fighting/killing thing out of their systems.. This is not the case in Ireland 2008 and has resulted in the pent up aggression and violence we see from this age group on an average Saturday night.

Lets start a war.

bleg

2 words why governments aren't doing anything about it: pandemic influenza.

why would people try to keep tabs on people when nature will do the job.

Wertz

IMO a much bigger problem than predicted climate change and one that has and has had, a direct bearing on that change.
Sea level rises leading to coastal flooding (where population densities are highest around the globe), changes in rainfall patterns and the desertification of once habitable land will lead to a huge surge in migration as people move to where there is more available water and thus agricultural land.
The world isn't overpopulated in terms of land area...it's overpopulated WRT availability of essential resources. That's resulting in rising prices for now....give it a decade or two and we'll see it resulting in death through war and famine.
But climate change will result in a cut in the world populace in the long run...an adjustment in the natural balance. Obviously those in poorer countries closer to the equator will feel the pinch most, but it will filter upwards.

As for what can we do about it? Nothing...nature will take it's course.

SimpleSam06

Wertz wrote: »

The world isn't overpopulated in terms of land area...it's overpopulated WRT availability of essential resources.

Not especially. There is energy to burn, so to speak - what nuclear can't cover geothermal handily does. Moving from petrofuels to purely electrical machines would be quite a step, but doable. Food shortages have much more to do with political situations than any particular shortage of food.

For example the Philippines used to be a net exporter of rice, now due to decades of crappy government and poorly managed corporate deals, they are the largest importer in southeast asia. Which means, of course, in the current situation they are humped. They could if they wanted to go back to their previous situation however. India did just that, became a net rice exporter in under a generation.

Wertz

I'm not too sure on the initial set-up costs of geothermal energy, but nuclear is very expensive to get going and to maintain/service...which puts it beyond use in many poorer nations. Those same nations are developing a thirst for energy which they didn't require even a decade or two ago...the energy will come from the cheapest and most readily available source, which is usually finite fossil fuel reserves....China and it's reliance on coal being the obvious example.

Food shortages as they stand now, are of course political and economic. The reliance of poorer nations on the sale and export of cash crops to richer, western nations also hampers the production of food locally and leads to a rise in prices...however that's not my point on food shortage; my point is on the actual shortage of food crops that could be caused by predicted changes in weather patterns in major growing areas. One of the most likely to be affected is rice, the staple of almost a third of the world's peoples...the incursion of sea water onto plains where rice grows could hamper production on a wide scale, as could any change in the rainfall totals in those areas.
Our favourite, wheat is due to be similarly affected, either by drought in current 'bread basket' regions or by a possible rise in rainfall in those same regions. The dust bowl is a good example of that, and it's long before anyone ever mentioned human influenced climate change...
A lot of this growing land is also subject to competition between food crops and the new demand for biofuels.
We're currently clearing rainforests for shortlived grazing pasture...a lot of the time that same land is desertified in a matter of decades.

I'm not saying we can't change our habits as a race...but we're no longer operating within the status quo...climate change means we're now playing on an undulating playing field, where old ways and rules don't necessarily apply. The candle is being burned at both ends and we still want more light...unfortunately we only have one candle...

SimpleSam06

Wertz wrote: »

I'm not too sure on the initial set-up costs of geothermal energy, but nuclear is very expensive to get going and to maintain/service...which puts it beyond use in many poorer nations.

Surprisingly enough, nuclear isn't that expensive. 90% of the cost is regulation and inspection (government response to environmentalist hysteria imho), and servicing the loans required to pay for this, historically. France is a good example of a country that gets most of its energy from nuclear power.

Wertz wrote: »

my point is on the actual shortage of food crops that could be caused by predicted changes in weather patterns in major growing areas.

Well you're taking a hypothetical (radical weather and climate change) and superimposing it on the actual reality as it stands today. If there were to be large scale flooding of inland areas, the knock on effects would be considerably more drastic than food shortages. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that if it was to happen, getting a dinner on the table would be the least of the worries of the general population.

In any case, I'm confident in the ability of humanity to turn increased sea levels into a food resource, especially given that we would have no choice in the matter, and it would extend over a period of decades.

Overheal

caoibhin wrote: »

Re the over population. Maybe we need a massive global cull. A flu epidemic or nuclear war would do the trick.
I'll get working on that.

Sure thats why we launched AIDS

but then those god damned hippies showed up with their ideals and other people invented the condom :mad:

Wertz

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Surprisingly enough, nuclear isn't that expensive. 90% of the cost is regulation and inspection (government response to environmentalist hysteria imho), and servicing the loans required to pay for this, historically. France is a good example of a country that gets most of its energy from nuclear power.

Hmm, I was under the impression that building actual reactors and waste management facilities, and to a lesser extent importing nuclear fuel (assuming no domestic supply) was the main cost factors.
WRT to France, it's a first world country and had the resources from former colonies (mainly Canada) to enable it's nuclear ambitions. It also had a lot of money poured into it after WWII to help with funding. I think they're still paying off those loans...but at least they're self sufficient when it comes to power supplies...

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well you're taking a hypothetical (radical weather and climate change) and superimposing it on the actual reality as it stands today. If there were to be large scale flooding of inland areas, the knock on effects would be considerably more drastic than food shortages. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that if it was to happen, getting a dinner on the table would be the least of the worries of the general population.

In any case, I'm confident in the ability of humanity to turn increased sea levels into a food resource, especially given that we would have no choice in the matter, and it would extend over a period of decades.

Thankfully yes, it's all sci-fi for now....but it's predicted in many studies and is more a case of when not if. The weather changes don't have to be that radical...I believe around 3 degrees is where the real trouble starts.
Large scale flooding comes at a later stage...for now, shifting patterns of rainfall and dry seasons are the thing that we have to worrry about...as far as putting the next meal on the table goes, nothing else really matters when it comes down to basics...an empty belly and a dry mouth are motivation enough for just about anything, be it social unrest, conflict, mass migration...we're only 3 meals away from anarachy as the saying goes. None of this ahppens overnight...it's a gradual change but it's only 3-4 generations away if you believe some pundits.

I'd be confident of that too, if it wasn't for our track record on not acting until it's too late.
I'm being the naysayer here, without having that intention.
We've kind of wandered OT...my whole motive to bringing up climate change was just to make the point that it's our whole population's reliance on the planet's shrinking resources, one is feeding the other...the more of us there are, the more pressure is placed on the resources and the more the planet bites back. Jame's Lovelock's "Gaia" series of books, especially the last one, makes these points far better than I ever could.
The Earh was never meant to sustain so many top level predators...it is only our use of technology that allows us to continue, but it's that technology which is in turn destroying the very thing that brought us into existence...

rossie1977

over-population doesn't make headlines simply because most western countries are very under-populated.

Flying over ireland on monday from knock to london with no clouds gives one a clear view of how underpopulated this country truly is; looking down from above all one can see is green or brown fields with a tiny scattering of houses, even dublin city looks small from 37,000 feet up, i could see dun laoghaire harbour all the way to the north dublin coast and from my seat it was hard to believe over 1 million people live there, especially after flying over places like chicago, new york, los angeles, paris and london in the past.

Nobody lives in Canada or Australia if truth be told, 30 million in those gigantic countries; The USA is really underpopulated too despite its huge cities at 31 people per square km, if the USA had the same population density as england there would be 4 billion people living there.....

there are more cattle in ireland than people i believe and there is 3 times as many sheep in New Zealand than people :eek:

bleg

well in fairness, people don't want to live in the bogs in ireland, the frozen wasteland of canada or the desert of australia

RoyalMarine

caoibhin wrote: »

Re the over population. Maybe we need a massive global cull. A flu epidemic or nuclear war would do the trick.
I'll get working on that.

nah. flu or nuclear is too easy. lets just say the last 50million alive win.

rossie1977

bleg wrote: »

well in fairness, people don't want to live in the bogs in ireland, the frozen wasteland of canada or the desert of australia

people will make their home anywhere; las vegas and phoenix are the two biggest growing cities in america located in the hottest desert in the world; some 19 million people live in Cairo metro area smack bang in the middle of the sahara; ditto Riyadh; most of amsterdam and new orleans is below sea-level, Winnipeg one of the largest cities in canada has an average day-time winter temperature of -16C

california is america's most populated state despite the risk of earthquakes, people live in the Caribbean despite the risk of hurricanes for 6 months of the year and 5 million live in the shadow of mount vesuvius knowing another eruption is long overdue

BraziliaNZ

rossie1977 wrote: »

over-population doesn't make headlines simply because most western countries are very under-populated.

Flying over ireland on monday from knock to london with no clouds gives one a clear view of how underpopulated this country truly is;

So you're saying Ireland is underpopulated, that makes it sound like you think we need even more people? What's your definition of underpopulated?

rossie1977

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

So you're saying Ireland is underpopulated, that makes it sound like you think we need even more people? What's your definition of underpopulated?

in global terms ireland is very underpopulated, there is no city on this island over 1 million and our 3rd biggest metro doesn't even hit 200,000 (cork is no more than a village in global terms, galway and limerick not even that)

as someone mentioned ireland had over 8 million pre 1840, that in itself tells us how much we have lost.

comparing ireland to countries in europe like belgium (population 11 million 2.5 times smaller than rep.ireland) and netherlands (17 million and half the size of the republic)

my advice is to visit malta where i spent a few days in february, thats over-population, 1/3 of the main island is built up

we are 146th in global terms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

rossie1977

to show how underpopulated we are here is a comparison

if republic of ireland had the same population density as:
Malta there would be 87 million living in the republic
Bangladesh there would be 72 million in the 26 counties
South Korea 36 million
Netherlands 28 million
England 28 million
Belgium 25 million
Japan 25 million
India 25 million
Israel 23 million

now imagine 87 million living just in the republic............

Wertz

Jaysus, imagine the queues in A&E then... :pac:

BraziliaNZ

yes but I think underpopulated is a strong word. Look around Ireland, near all of the land is developed, and we're supposed to be a low population country. Sure, other countries are even worse, but that doesn't mean anything. If we can keep it the way it is that's ok, although I think we need more woodlands created in Ireland, we don't have any trees anymore, apparently ireland used to be full of wild oak and other trees.

rossie1977

we are badly managing the few people that are living on this island and thats where the problems lay and why more than likely we could never be like belgium or south korea

when a country has twice as many sheep and twice as many cows as people you know you are underpopulated

yes ireland was once all forests but now we are nothing but fields for the best part of 95% of the 26 counties, you can take the train from galway or limerick to dublin and all you see are fields (as my aunt from new york once pointed out on a train journey), drive from the tip of donegal to the tip of cork and its the same thing, passing through a few small towns on the way. Parts of the USA are just like here, i have driven through montana, wyoming and idaho and its just like here (masses of empty fields and a few scattered small towns, nevada, arizona and new mexico are similiar but instead of fields you have desert

SimpleSam06

Wertz wrote: »

it is only our use of technology that allows us to continue, but it's that technology which is in turn destroying the very thing that brought us into existence...

Heh. We brought us into existence, against all odds, I might add. The endgame for biological life forms on earth is as featureless grey dust floating around a dead cinder for eternity. If our intelligence and technology enable any of the life forms on this mud ball to escape that pointless fate, I call it a win.

Pherekydes

Wertz wrote: »

Jaysus, imagine the queues in A&E then... :pac:

Imagine the traffic! :eek:

What would Dublin's population be? 20 million? :eek:

Wertz

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Heh. We brought us into existence, against all odds, I might add. The endgame for biological life forms on earth is as featureless grey dust floating around a dead cinder for eternity. If our intelligence and technology enable any of the life forms on this mud ball to escape that pointless fate, I call it a win.

I'd argue that it was the Earth itself which brought us into existence, against extremely high odds. Certainly we as a species and the other forms of life on the planet are ultimately doomed way on down the line...but we are hastening that timeline by our continued existence, especially in our habits of the recent past.
As regards the continuation of life away from this birthplace, it is probably the ultimate goal of intelligent life (although not the goal of evolution)...I just doubt that it'll be humankind's destiny; the intelligence and technology are there, but I feel (to get back to climate change and global upheaval) that our efforts for survival on this planet are going to become an increasing focal point for all our brains, tech and resources and the (by then seemingly) superfluous stuff like interplanetary travel will fall by the wayside in the future.
The argument exists that our ability for such levels of technology as space flight and extra-planetary survival coexists alongside an ability for us to be the causal factor for cessation of intelligent life on the planet. It's a horserace...

SimpleSam06

Wertz wrote: »

I'd argue that it was the Earth itself which brought us into existence, against extremely high odds.

Well if you're going to take that road, you can also say that it was the earth itself that almost completely wiped out all life on the planet four or five times already. The Universe Is Not Your Friend, or to put it another way, nature is a mother, alright.

Wertz wrote: »

Certainly we as a species and the other forms of life on the planet are ultimately doomed way on down the line...but we are hastening that timeline by our continued existence, especially in our habits of the recent past.

I disagree that we are ultimately doomed in any sense of the word, and to be honest I couldn't give a damn about the rocky mudball we're standing on, so long as our species survives. If other species can pull through as well, good for them.

Wertz wrote: »

As regards the continuation of life away from this birthplace, it is probably the ultimate goal of intelligent life (although not the goal of evolution)...I just doubt that it'll be humankind's destiny;

Evolution has no goals, and I don't believe in destiny.

Wertz wrote: »

the intelligence and technology are there, but I feel (to get back to climate change and global upheaval) that our efforts for survival on this planet are going to become an increasing focal point for all our brains, tech and resources and the (by then seemingly) superfluous stuff like interplanetary travel will fall by the wayside in the future.

Actually the tighter resources get on earth, the more attractive interplanetary travel gets. Do you have any idea of the gargantuan, mad wealth just floating around up there? One single rock that was analysed out of the countless billions in our system alone contained around five tons of high quality iron for every man, woman and child on earth.

And don't think that fact has escaped the attention of large corporations either.