Overpopulation, famine and the Malthusian catastrophe

Doom

Having read Dan Brown's Inferno, it got me thinking of the future of the world.
Are we interfering with mother nature too much, prolonging life when there is little hope of a good life or reasonable health...even food!
Take some African countries, we have been trying to sort these places out for decades and they are still no better, some are even worse because the Aid we send is stolen and used to buy arms/ keep warlords in power...
Do we chemically start to curb polulations in Africa and othe similar countries?.....It seems a bit cruel but these places could never and will never support their huge populations, so what do we do, keep paying to draw out their terrible famine and disease ridden lives...or do we use our modern medicine to start to curb populations?
Yes its a bit Hitler-like, but look at the alternative, children dying of awful and painful famine and disease and mindless wars, would it not be better to control and over the next 50 yrs, bring their population down to a size where we can integrate them into other parts of the world with are more suited to life, abandon these countries leave them back to mother nature, take the people out of them.

Hande hoche!

Matt Damon will save us.

Schwiiing

Apt username is apt.

It's not as insane an idea as I first thought, but let's give them more time to sort it out in Africa first

Karl Stein

Them Africans, eh? Why can't they sort out that country.

Doom

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Them Africans, eh? Why can't they sort out that country.

Simply put, never...this place cannot support a reasonable quality of life, its too hot, feck all food, full of disease and nut job leaders

DexyDrain

The birth rate is decreasing pretty much globally, once you reach two children per couple or less the population rate stabilises. Excellent talk on the subject, highly recommend watching it: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html

Doom

Doom wrote: »

Having read Dan Brown's Inferno, it got me thinking of the future of the world.
Are we interfering with mother nature too much, prolonging life when there is little hope of a good life or reasonable health...even food!
Take some African countries, we have been trying to sort these places out for decades and they are still no better, some are even worse because the Aid we send is stolen and used to buy arms/ keep warlords in power...
Do we chemically start to curb polulations in Africa and othe similar countries?.....It seems a bit cruel but these places could never and will never support their huge populations, so what do we do, keep paying to draw out their terrible famine and disease ridden lives...or do we use our modern medicine to start to curb populations?
Yes its a bit Hitler-like, but look at the alternative, children dying of awful and painful famine and disease and mindless wars, would it not be better to control and over the next 50 yrs, bring their population down to a size where we can integrate them into other parts of the world with are more suited to life, abandon these countries leave them back to mother nature, take the people out of them.

There's enough food in Africa overall, it's a political issue rather than scientific or agricultural.

As countries become more wealthy the population drops. So the answer is for poorer countries to become wealthy.

Its not clear if the world population is still rising.

I am an optimist.

diomed

OP have you been to Africa?

Pushtrak

DexyDrain wrote: »

The birth rate is decreasing pretty much globally, once you reach two children per couple or less the population rate stabilises. Excellent talk on the subject, highly recommend watching it: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html

That's a great one. As is this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg

Doom

DexyDrain wrote: »

The birth rate is decreasing pretty much globally, once you reach two children per couple or less the population rate stabilises. Excellent talk on the subject, highly recommend watching it: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html

Its decreasing for now, Iran and Turkey are on a big grow the population spin ATM, over all in the very long term we will out grow the planets ability to support us,
The dark ages, the plague wiped out 1/3 of the population, it didn't stop us for long....

Dr. Bre

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Matt Damon will save us.

more chance of meth damon

Doom

diomed wrote: »

OP have you been to Africa?

Do I need to? I know famine, deadly disease, war and child mortality are very common over there and like I said before there are other countries similar.

The Backwards Man

Doom wrote: »

Simply put, never...this place cannot support a reasonable quality of life, its too hot, feck all food, full of disease and nut job leaders

Could you be a bit more generalising? There's too many specifics and facts in this statement.

jackboy

People lived in Africa sustainably until Europeans got involved. We send them aid but at the same time keep them down by sending them weapons and controlling their resources.

Doom

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Could you be a bit more generalising? There's too many specifics and facts in this statement.

Are you saying I'm wrong?

The Backwards Man

Doom wrote: »

Are you saying I'm wrong?

I'm not saying you're right.

There's more to Africa than you think. Tis a big 'country'.

Karl Stein

Africa is awash with resources and has more than enough of everything to be a wealthy and developed place with a good standard of living.

Africa has been on the end of a lot of brutal imperialism right up WWII and thereafter many African nations were used as pawns in the cold war, now there is jostling between the west and China over the exploitation of Africa's resources.

Africa is rich in resources and potential but blighted by conflict and much of it is over those resources.

Celly Smunt

Ah Dan Brown.

Karl Stein

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Dan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwW3ytid4DA

Capt'n Midnight

Doom wrote: »

Having read Dan Brown's Inferno

Hang on I think I see your problem ...

Dan Factually Inaccurate Brown :rolleyes:

Africa is less densely populated than Europe so chill on the culling.
Large parts of the land there is owned by the government and isn't used for farming yet.


countries by consumption - if you want targeted depopulation
http://visualign.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/photo-2.png


There is no shortage of money or food. The only problem is the fairness of distribution.

Something like 1/3rd of all food is wasted. In rich countries this ends up in bins, in poor countries it's because they can't afford better preservation and packing. So with today's land no new developments in food production we could feed 11Bn.

...is brought to you by Soylent red and Soylent yellow, high energy vegetable concentrates, and new, delicious, Soylent green. The miracle food of high-energy plankton gathered from the oceans of the world.

EoghanIRL

^^ I think the problem is that he read a dan brown book in the first place.

Capt'n Midnight

LOL

Knowing Mr. Heston, the only special thing about Soylant Green is that it is white people

positron

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Africa is awash with resources and has more than enough of everything to be a wealthy and developed place with a good standard of living.

Africa has been on the end of a lot of brutal imperialism right up WWII and thereafter many African nations were used as pawns in the cold war, now there is jostling between the west and China over the exploitation of Africa's resources.

Africa is rich in resources and potential but blighted by conflict and much of it is over those resources.

This is the truth. Funny to think there are millions out there like OP here who thinks all they have been doing is donating to save the africans. He/she just doesn't realize they are contributing/supporting systems/regimes that exploit the same Africa and it's resources... and I am not talking just diamonds either - that's nothing in the bigger picture.

freedominacup

They've discovered the greatest contraceptive ever it's called urbanisation. I read an article lately about a report done by an economist/demographer on population growth/birth rates etc. The authors of the report believe based on latest statistics and trends that the 2050 date is now defunct. They believe birth rates will peak in around 2025 and population will peak shortly after, then a gradual decline for a short while then stabilisation. Population continues to grow for a while because of an increasing life expectancy which means that while birth rates stabilise fewer people will be dying per year as they have better access to health care as their incomes increase with education and industrialisation.

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-saft/2013/09/11/investing-for-peak-population/

Capt'n Midnight

freedominacup wrote: »

They've discovered the greatest contraceptive ever it's called urbanisation.

Educating / empowering women and providing better health care work even better.

It's less likely there will be "spare" children in case some of their siblings die.

Pushtrak

donegal__road wrote: »

500 million is a sustainable population

Yes, but only in so much as is 501 million, or 502, or 600 million, or the current population, or more than current population. So, while you are right, it is only in a trivial sense.

ravingitup

I always found it fascinating that it wasn't until around 1820 or so that the world reached the one billion milestone. Fast forward to 1987 where the world reached five billion. It took only another twelve years to reach six billion in 1999 and another twelve to reach seven billion in 2012.

So, how is is that people are saying that world population levels are stabilising? Take a country like Uganda, which in 1950 had a population of about 4.8 million (roughly equivalent to Ireland's population at present). The population in Uganda is now 36 million. That's a simply staggering increase. I accept the findings of the UN that world population in all likelihood will not double by the end of the century, but they also say that 3.7 billion people will be added this century, practically all from low-income countries with high fertility rates. Two fifths of the increase over the next century is projected to be from five countries - Pakistan, China, Ethiopia, Nigeria and India. Incredible, really.

It presents huge challenges that will be answered over time, challenges to the environment and relating to water shortages and famine, et cetera.

Population growth is the single biggest challenge facing human kind in the future, and you don't have to have read Dan Brown's novel to find this out - and even if the novel is fiction, that message can still be taken from it. So, I don't get why people are bashing Dan Brown when all the original poster said was that it got him thinking on the issue. It sure got me thinking, too.

D1stant

Pushtrak wrote: »

Yes, but only in so much as is 501 million, or 502, or 600 million, or the current population, or more than current population. So, while you are right, it is only in a trivial sense.

Daftest post I've read in a while. Congrats (in a trivial sense)

jill_valentine

Doom wrote: »

Simply put, never...this place cannot support a reasonable quality of life, its too hot, feck all food, full of disease and nut job leaders

It's also got too many foreign interests involved. Forever and ever, Africa has been a playground for other superpowers to behave in ways they never would in their own yards, and then you have "independent" operators on top of that.

One of the weirdest ways this was driven home was during the shopping mall massacre in Kenya a while back, when mercenaries from at least three different countries cropped up in the news coverage.

freedominacup

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Educating / empowering women and providing better health care work even better.

It's less likely there will be "spare" children in case some of their siblings die.

One follows the other with urbanisation but you are correct if women in more rural areas of the developing world had better access to healthcare and education doubtless it would have similar outcomes. Although the anonimity you get in urban areas quickly diminishes patriarchal powers esp in periods of rapid growth, this sort of control will remain in rural areas for quite a while longer. Capt'n Midnight can't be subject to the same influence if very few people know who he/she is and if the behaviour that people want to influence has become commonplace.

Pushtrak

D1stant wrote: »

Daftest post I've read in a while. Congrats (in a trivial sense)

What is your point? You agree with the 500 million figure? If so, you have your work cut out for you in demonstrating that.

Capt'n Midnight

We will need lots of peoples if we want to populate the galaxy.

Re comparing populations at different times.
Ireland used to have 8.4 million back in 1841
DRC lost half it's population under the Belgians.
Large parts of Tanzania and Namiba were depopulated under the Germans.

Doom

positron wrote: »

This is the truth. Funny to think there are millions out there like OP here who thinks all they have been doing is donating to save the africans. He/she just doesn't realize they are contributing/supporting systems/regimes that exploit the same Africa and it's resources... and I am not talking just diamonds either - that's nothing in the bigger picture.

You should really read the 1st post before making any comments, I do make a comment about the "Aid" been stolen or used to buy arms