World population

tbaymusicman

Hi all this is just a random question thought why not let it be talked about in the after hours spot .

Okay so with there being so many people alive in the world today and life expectancy greatly improved do you think there should be some sort of cap on the amount of children people can have ??
I know in Europe it's not a major issue but in places like India and China and many other country's there is massive birth rates and slowing death rates so if the billion people in china were coupled and had a child each that would be another half billion and if the people in india were pared off and had a child that would be a few hundred million how does the world feed them :O:O

Im not a hippie or tree hugger just curious as to what will happen long after we have all died

bonerm

Personally I'd kill everyone, but on the other hand I can sort of see how we need more and more people at the bottom of the global social pyramid in order to keep the false economic model of ours self-perpetuating.

Biggins

tbaymusicman wrote: »

...just curious as to what will happen long after we have all died

Life and death will go on.
The frakin' cylon toasters will try to take over.
They will lose. The Chinese will come to our rescue!

Sea Sharp

If population keeps growing at the rate it has since the 70s there'd be 1 trillion people in 300 or so years:eek:

mike65

It'll become self correcting when the food runs out.

dlofnep

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

If population keeps growing at the rate it has since the 70s there'd be 1 trillion people in 300 or so years:eek:

You're not taking into account large scale war, and caps on children that might have to be created.

Mass starvation will soon kick in! The earth simply can't support such numbers!

bonerm

OP , there's a good documentary out atm called "Collapse". Whilst it deals primarily with energy issues, it does delve somewhat into what might happen to world population once the oil runs out.

TheZohanS

We have an ageing population, if a cap was to be put on the amount of children that you could have in Ireland there wouldn't be enough workers to fund the likes of pensions and State services in the future.

The World population increased from 1.65bn in 1900 to 6bn in 2000, it has leveled off now and is only expected to reach 9.5bn by 2100 from it's current 8bn mark today.

pablomakaveli

The birth rate has slowed in developed countries like Germany and Japan and China has imposed a one child per family rule so these things might compensate for places with high birth rates.

Sea Sharp

dlofnep wrote: »

You're not taking into account large scale war, and caps on children that might have to be created.

I seriously doubt the world will reach a human population of 1 trillion.
I'm just pointing out how unsustainable the population growth of the last 40 years has been.

bonerm

Theoretically with enough energy and food world population could reach whatever number you care to imagine.

Ddad

Most of global food production is based on fertilisers derived from fossil fuels. When the fossil fuels peter out so will global food production. In the meantime we'll continue to destroy vital environments in to fill plates in the short term which in the long term will lead to crucial shortages. As history shows us thois will lead to conflict on a global scale which will regulate the number of people to the available resources. If we continue to destroy those resources the planet will revert to a much lower global population and with that lowering in population our knowledge based society will collapse.

It's happened to the maya, aztecs, babylonians etc. This time though societys are no longer isolated from one another, globalisation has ensured a level of interdependence which will ensure we all share the pain.

I will now retreat to my cave!

the_dark_side

Have a look at this... its called Worldometers

http://www.worldometers.info/

puts things in perspective, for me anyway.....

tbaymusicman

At some point there will be a massive war or perhaps a new super disease that will mysteriously only kill poor people haha or if that American women get's her way mass sterilisation for the poor

CreepingDeath

tbaymusicman wrote: »

if the billion people in china were coupled and had a child each that would be another half billion

Yeah, but when those two parents eventually died, they would leave only 1 child behind. To increase the numbers in a population you have to have greater than 2 children on average, and that assumes a 0% mortality rate.

dsmythy

Nature always finds a way to sort out it's own population levels. Just one new virus necessary.

bnt

Well, you're hardly the first person to think of this. China has had a one-child policy for decades now. Of course, the "law of unintended consequences" is always a problem, and in this case it's led to a severe gender imbalance. By 2020 there will 30 million more men than women in China. What is going to happen to them? I don't know, but I've got a bad feeling about this.

Malthus famously predicted that the exponential growth of population would be a problem in the future. This is also known as the Malthusian Model of population growth. As a theoretical model, it's still solid. In practical terms, things haven't been that simple. Technology has allowed us to delay most of the problems we saw coming, such as the way "dwarf wheat" avoided famine in India and supported the massive population growth.

The part that bugs me is how some people say "disaster hasn't struck us, therefore the model is a crock". In addition to the delaying factors we have seen, I have two responses to that:

• there's a tendency, in these discussions, to treat life as a yes/no proposition. People either live or die, and that's all there is to it, right? Well, no. There are "quality of life" issues here, which leads ties in to point #2:
• there's also a tendency to see these questions as only global questions. We haven't seen a global Malthusian collapse, but we do see major problems on a local or regional scale. The question of "how many people can a country support" is not purely about numbers of people, it's also about the land, borders, politics, markets and all kinds of human concerns that go beyond mere "survival". Would I want my life to be like it is in, say Mumbai or Bangladesh?

In 1984-5 there was a major famine in Ethiopia that led to a massive aid effort from Western countries, despite which about a million people died. It wasn't the first famine in their history - far from it. Since then, Ethiopia's population has more-than-doubled, from 33.8 million in 1983 to an estimated 85.2 million today. The rate of increase is also increasing, from 2.8% p.a. in 2006 to about 3.2% p.a. today. (Source: CIA World Factbook.)

I know about the political origins of the 1984-5 famine, and I'm not making any kind of political point here: I'm only illustrating how people do not learn from the crises of the past or plan for the future. If Malthus was fundamentally correct - which I think he was - the things we do to forestall problems, such as improvements in technology and practices, only delay future problems and/or move the "weak link" around.

We've largely solved our food supply problems, but at a cost: increased intensive farming, with its diseases, heavy use of pesticides, and massive oil consumption. Now oil is a weak link: it won't simply "dry up", it will first become more and more expensive, a cost that will be passed on. What if we solve the oil crisis, somehow? Then something else will become the weak link. War? Flu epidemics? Mass hysteria? Massive casualties by shoddy building, as in Haiti? The soil might simply dry up and blow away, as is happening in China.

kowloon

The higher we go the harder we'll fall.
We've propped ourselves up with technology and artificially cheated the ind of natural events that control populations of other creatures.
The longer we get away with this the more catastrophic things will be when we finally get caught out.

I hope I'm not around to see it.

Tar.Aldarion

Maybe we should all adopt children. Oh what country shall I chooose, hmmmmm

Mike 1972

A cap on the number of children one can have would be unworkable. Financial incentives can be far more effective.

TheZohan wrote: »

We have an ageing population, if a cap was to be put on the amount of children that you could have in Ireland there wouldn't be enough workers to fund the likes of pensions and State services in the future..

Unless we import them.

mike65 wrote: »

It'll become self correcting when the food runs out.

Food (and space) are not the only constraints on what constitutes a sustainable population level

tbaymusicman wrote: »

I know in Europe it's not a major issue but in places like India and China and .......

A child born in Europe will (on average) live longer and consume a hell of a lot more resources than a child born in India or China so it is very much a major issue here too.

dsmythy wrote: »

Nature always finds a way to sort out it's own population levels.

Eventually It does. However it is a lot less messy if it doesnt come to that.

kowloon

kowloon wrote: »

The higher we go the harder we'll fall.
We've propped ourselves up with technology and artificially cheated the ind of natural events that control populations of other creatures.
The longer we get away with this the more catastrophic things will be when we finally get caught out.

I hope I'm not around to see it.

Less than 20 years according to some, eat or drive!

Ruu_Old

Mmmm soylent green.

domrush

Relax the green party will save us
http://misc.mortgagebrokers.ie/images/blogimages/2008/september/week3/john_gormley.jpg

rich1874

Overpopulation is hugely exaggerated, and is seen by many scientific sources as an excuse by the west to cover up there own over consumption of raw materials and resources. Suffice to say, there is enough food to go around, even if the pessimists correctly predict the population reaching 12 billion by 2050 or whatever else they spout.
Here are two decent articles downplaying the scare-mongering;

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/There-Is-No-Overpopulation-Problem-903

http://www.selfsufficiently.com/the-overpopulation-myth

galwayrush

Soylent Green.;)

galwayrush

Ruu wrote: »

Mmmm soylent green.

Dammit.Should have read your post first.:o

Min

Enough food is produced to feed 12 billion people, we currently choose to starve around 1 billion people.
Look at all the food waste in rich countries.

tbaymusicman

All good point's think il talk about the dying fishing trade next

Mike 1972

rich1874 wrote: »

Suffice to say, there is enough food to go around, even if the pessimists correctly predict the population reaching 12 billion by 2050 or whatever else they spout.

FFS does nobdy pay attention

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Food (and space) are not the only constraints on what constitutes a sustainable population level.

irishconvert

tbaymusicman wrote: »

Hi all this is just a random question thought why not let it be talked about in the after hours spot .

Okay so with there being so many people alive in the world today and life expectancy greatly improved do you think there should be some sort of cap on the amount of children people can have ??
I know in Europe it's not a major issue but in places like India and China and many other country's there is massive birth rates and slowing death rates so if the billion people in china were coupled and had a child each that would be another half billion and if the people in india were pared off and had a child that would be a few hundred million how does the world feed them :O:O

Im not a hippie or tree hugger just curious as to what will happen long after we have all died

If they put a cap on the wealth each person could accumulate it would solve a lot of problems in the world. I'm not talking about anything draconian, I know people who work hard deserve to have more rewards in life than layabouts, but some people just accumulate so much wealth they will never spend or need it.

BraziliaNZ

dont have kids or murder more kids than you have. Problem solved.

Cookie_Monster

don't put a cap as such on.

do a kind of reverse child benefit where the first kid is free, the 2nd means you have to pay 5% more tax, 3rd 15% more etc.

Financial pain is the only way people will go for it.

BraziliaNZ

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

don't put a cap as such on.

do a kind of reverse child benefit where the first kid is free, the 2nd means you have to pay 5% more tax, 3rd 15% more etc.

Financial pain is the only way people will go for it.

no government will introduce this, they are not interested in the long term, only the short term i.e. money and getting elected again. Plus, with a massive ageing population and not many young people to work and pay taxes to look after them, where will they get the money?

For these reasons the world is doomed, and no one is going to do anything about it

m@cc@

tbaymusicman wrote: »

Okay so with there being so many people alive in the world today and life expectancy greatly improved do you think there should be some sort of cap on the amount of children people can have ??

You mean like a diaphragm?

billymitchell

tbaymusicman wrote: »

Hi all this is just a random question thought why not let it be talked about in the after hours spot .

Okay so with there being so many people alive in the world today and life expectancy greatly improved do you think there should be some sort of cap on the amount of children people can have ??
I know in Europe it's not a major issue but in places like India and China and many other country's there is massive birth rates and slowing death rates so if the billion people in china were coupled and had a child each that would be another half billion and if the people in india were pared off and had a child that would be a few hundred million how does the world feed them :O:O

Im not a hippie or tree hugger just curious as to what will happen long after we have all died

46 :cool:

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

We are but a blink of an eye on this planet and in this universe even less than that. Amazing isn't it?

Min

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

don't put a cap as such on.

do a kind of reverse child benefit where the first kid is free, the 2nd means you have to pay 5% more tax, 3rd 15% more etc.

Financial pain is the only way people will go for it.

The Australian government told the nation to that couples should have three children, one for the mother, one for the father and one for their country.

m@cc@

Avalyn Substantial Cursor wrote: »

We are but a blink of an eye on this planet and in this universe even less than that. Amazing isn't it?

The most amazing question ever posed is what started it all? (Yes, the Big Bang, but what caused that?)

starbelgrade

m@cc@ wrote: »

(Yes, the Big Bang, but what caused that?)

God farted. Scientific fact.

Sea Sharp

(Yes, the Big Bang, but what caused that?)

The big imaginary friend?

Min

m@cc@ wrote: »

The most amazing question ever posed is what started it all? (Yes, the Big Bang, but what caused that?)

A Belgian priest who came up with the theory.

cleremy jarkson

m@cc@ wrote: »

(Yes, the Big Bang, but what caused that?)

Our brains probably can't comprehend the answer to a question like that, assuming absolute, objective reality even exists.

sock puppet

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

no government will introduce this, they are not interested in the long term, only the short term i.e. money and getting elected again. Plus, with a massive ageing population and not many young people to work and pay taxes to look after them, where will they get the money?

For these reasons the world is doomed, and no one is going to do anything about it

Hold on. Ireland are barely at the replacement fertitlity rate, and dozens more countries are well below it.

BraziliaNZ

sock puppet wrote: »

Hold on. Ireland are barely at the replacement fertitlity rate, and dozens more countries are well below it.

I thought we were leading the pack in Europe for population growth

AlmightyCushion

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I thought we were leading the pack in Europe for population growth

We are (or at least we were last time I checked) but we're really the best of a bad bunch. Our population growth still isn't high enough to replace our population though. I imagine our recent spurt of immigration has helped us though. If some of those foreigners stay and have families then it will be something we will be very thankful for in the future when every other EU country is being over run by old people.

BraziliaNZ

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

We are (or at least we were last time I checked) but we're really the best of a bad bunch. Our population growth still isn't high enough to replace our population though. I imagine our recent spurt of immigration has helped us though. If some of those foreigners stay and have families then it will be something we will be very thankful for in the future when every other EU country is being over run by old people.

so you want the population of the world to keep increasing?

sock puppet

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I thought we were leading the pack in Europe for population growth

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

To be honest I don't fully understand the differences between how the birth rate and fertility rates are calculated, but according to the CIA factbook, fertility rates have been in steady decline. High rates may be a problem for countries in which they exist, but from looking at that list not many of those countries would be considered major consumers of energy, so I'd guess any increase in their population would have a minimal impact on the environment.

Black Swan

tbaymusicman wrote: »

Okay so with there being so many people alive in the world today and life expectancy greatly improved do you think there should be some sort of cap on the amount of children people can have ??

Just be sure to wear your "cap" the next time you are with her?

bnt

Mike 1972 wrote: »

FFS does nobdy pay attention

No, I guess they don't. Back on pg. 2 I tried to point out the fallacies in seeing overpopulation as a global, yes/no, live/die issue. I'd hope for more from life than mere survival - otherwise, how are we any better than animals?

AlmightyCushion

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

so you want the population of the world to keep increasing?

It's a catch 22 situation. If it doesn't the age of the average person will increase more and more until we have a lot more pensioners than we do working people to support them. In the extreme this could eventually lead to us dying off.

Huge population growth isn't ideal. Steady population growth would be best. This lets us replace our old with out massively increasing the amount of resources needed.

I imagine the earth can support a lot more than what is currently on it. If we went vegetarian that would greatly increase the amount of food we can produce as animals use a lot of food over their lifetime and don't give anywhere near the amount they use back. Plus our farming techniques are much better than they were 100 years ago and in 100 years time they'll be better again no doubt. If genetically modified foods ever get off the ground then this should make a big difference as well.

As for energy requirements, same as above. We make more efficient use of oil than we did when we first started using it. Plus we have nuclear fission now as well which is also becoming more efficient. If we ever manage to contain the massive heats that nuclear fusion creates (which I'd say we will) then that will greatly increase our energy production.

Physical space isn't too bad either as all we have to do is start building up instead of out. Much more efficient use of land which will let us cram more people into the planet.

This is all just using technology that we have now or are relatively close to putting to use. In 50 years time we'll have technology vastly superior to what we can even imagine now which will enable earth to support a much larger population than it currently can. Hell we could even be colonising other planets by then for all we know.