Population BOOM!

For discussions pertaining to science and engineering and science-related topics.
User avatar
bigbadberry3
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: USA

Post

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/22/p ... they-want/

The pessimist and optimist in me agree, our population has surpassed the natural carrying capacity of this planet.
Last edited by bigbadberry3 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Ace2cool
Posts: 12672
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Car: 1991 Nissan 300ZX TT
1966 Datsun Fairlady 1600
2005 Suzuki GSX-R 600
1974 Honda CB550 Four
2009 Ford F150 Lariat
Location: Murfreesboro, TN

Post

Page not found.

But I remember seeing stuff about this. Also about massive population decreases in order to sustain life.

User avatar
bigbadberry3
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: USA

Post

Ace2cool wrote:Page not found.

But I remember seeing stuff about this. Also about massive population decreases in order to sustain life.
You're right. Weird, I went to the page and it loaded but the link won't, same address.

Artificially, I wonder how long we can sustain this. I still think the next real world resource fight will be for water.

User avatar
Ace2cool
Posts: 12672
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Car: 1991 Nissan 300ZX TT
1966 Datsun Fairlady 1600
2005 Suzuki GSX-R 600
1974 Honda CB550 Four
2009 Ford F150 Lariat
Location: Murfreesboro, TN

Post

I don't know, because desalination techniques are making great advances. Anywhere with a coastline will be all right, but arid places will probably have a hard time. Realistically, I think an energy crisis will be an issue at some point down the road, but as always, I believe technology will advance just in time to "save the day."

User avatar
bigbadberry3
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: USA

Post

Ace2cool wrote:I don't know, because desalination techniques are making great advances. Anywhere with a coastline will be all right, but arid places will probably have a hard time. Realistically, I think an energy crisis will be an issue at some point down the road, but as always, I believe technology will advance just in time to "save the day."
One can live without energy, we did for many years. Think back 100 years ago. It may not be as comfortable but it can be done.

Living without water is death.

Desalination has made progress but the logistics of moving water would be PITA (which would probably lead to an energy crisis ;))

User avatar
Ace2cool
Posts: 12672
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Car: 1991 Nissan 300ZX TT
1966 Datsun Fairlady 1600
2005 Suzuki GSX-R 600
1974 Honda CB550 Four
2009 Ford F150 Lariat
Location: Murfreesboro, TN

Post

Very true. Regardless, I see the population cliff a very plausible theory. If a species outstretches its means of sustainability, it would make sense for it to shrink to a more sustainable level.

EDIT: Either that, or we'll make a sudden and dramatic switch from conventional power to "eco-power" (solar, wind, thermal, ect) and to combat the need for water, people will migrate to the coast or find other means of producing water.

I read an article today that the average American uses 100 Gal of water a day, between cooking, washing, bathing, toilets, and other various around-the-house stuff. It said that was enough to completely empty lake Huron in 40 years. That's pretty significant.

User avatar
szh
Posts: 18857
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:54 pm
Car: 2018 Tesla Model 3.

Unfortunately, no longer a Nissan or Infiniti, but continuing here at NICO!
Location: San Jose, CA

Post

We have been seeing population explosion problem theories for a long time now. Read Malthus's work for example, of why these theories are not necessarily accurate at all times (which is not to say that they will never be accurate, of course)!

Here is a reference to who he was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

My point being that we need careful study of the topic ... not be too hasty to write off sustainability.

But, of course, I like the idea of keeping population low ... Which is why both my wife and I (in our fifties) only had 2 sibling apiece in our generation (six total people). And, we only have 1 child and one of the sisters only has 1 child. Both of my wife's siblings are childless, so, only two total people in the next generation.

We are doing our part! :yesnod

Z

User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 18383
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

bigbadberry3 wrote:
The pessimist and optimist in me agree, our population has surpassed the natural carrying capacity of this planet.
Agreed.

What does this mean? Famine and war will deplete the population.

Even though the strawfire of shale oil makes ppl think fossil fuel loss is no danger, but actually those tend to burn out much faster than conventional sources and in 15 yrs we'll be back where we started before the so called "shale revolution".

Many so called- "Major shale plays" have given only 2-3% of their predicted yield.

Since fossil fuel is EVERYTHING, food, transport, refrigeration, clothes EVERYTHING,.... even if water where not an issue at all (and we know it is) , even if the planets arable land were were stable ( and we know its in rapid decline) just the absence of cheap fossil fuel by itself can and will kill billions.

One more reason to fortify your own blood line by having as many children as possible so if 2/3rds of them die there are still some left to carry on the blood line.

Limiting your children is counter productive and will make the struggle for survival for your offspring so much more difficult.

Non feminism poisoned populations have it much easier as their normal birthrates allow them to lose much higher percentatages of offspring in survival struggles and still have viable communities left.


Return to “Science!”