over population

Proton Soup

so what is the op's question? what population can the planet maintain? or what population can the planet maintain at a certain measure of quality of life? if so, what yardstick to use for quality of life?

Evo

Since they don't set any parameters, I am assuming they mean realistically, considering lifestyles today would be maintained.

If they meant what the bare minimum to sustain human life would be, without thought to employment, health, well being, environment, or other realistic scenarios, then this thread would be meaningless.

Ken Natton

Once again, I sleep one night and it is astonishing to find how far behind I am on this thread. But reading through it, I confess I am surprised to find that the main line of argument appears to be that the extent of the problem is overstated. I can only say that Evo has made a very tenacious and excellent job of standing up the real issues in the face of what seems to me like unwarranted complacency. It is worth making the point that the current population explosion is traced to about 1750. Understand, I am pointing out just how recent that is. In less than 300 years the world population has gone from fewer than one billion to over seven billion. To me, it is like watching a balloon slowly expanding as it fills with air. You are not sure exactly when it is going to go bang but there is nothing more certain than that it is going to go bang sooner or later. And in case anyone feels that a population collapse might only affect other parts of the world, it should be clear that some cataclysmic event – I shall not speculate on what form it might take – that led to a massive reduction in the world population would lead to political destabilisation that could take decades to settle down. The cold, hard reality is that the lifestyle that we enjoy and take for granted today is far more fragile than some appear to realise. My point is not actually to be a prophet of doom, but it is clear to me that real and tangible action is required, today, but that such a thing is highly unlikely while the underlying attitude remains so complacent.

drankin

Ok, let's assume the world is over-populated and unsustainable. Solutions?

Ken Natton

Okay, I don’t pretend that the solution is easy, and unfortunately it might sound like airy-fairy moralising, but it seems to me that the heart and soul of the real solution is the education and empowerment of women. All the evidence indicates that when a woman has a real choice, has real options, very few choose to spend their adulthood in an endless cycle of pregnancy and childbirth. The practical implementation of such an idea would require a fundamental shift in the balance of the world economy. Hopeless to think that such a thing could happen? The prospective consequences mean that sooner or later it has to.

drankin

Education only goes so far. For example, how many of us are overweight but know exactly how not to be? How many people know smoking will most likely be the thing that kills them but smoke anyway?

Cultures would need to change. Many cultures live to have large healthy families. Regardless of their wealth. Give them condoms and they will make balloons for their kids with them.

WhoWee

Why do we assume that in the future we will be restricted to living and farming on land only?

Evo

My personal opinion is that something needs to be done now, that the means to stop the population explosion (enforcement of limiting the number of children born per person) is not popular with politicians or religions, so it's not going to happen.

IMO, we're doomed until we become engaged in another world war or there is a massive epidemic we can't control, or we breed ourselves out of existence by destroying the planet with our numbers. I don't see a bright future for our great grand children.

Evo

If you are talking about living over water, where would this be that would not be quickly wiped out by storms or large waves?

davidj89

Honestly I think it may be colonizing other planets. I'm under the impression that in a fairly short amount of time (40-50 yrs) people will be able to choose to live for a much longer amount of time and people will still want to be popping out baby's. This means that we will either force people to die or shoot them into space haha

edpell

It has not been the case for homo sapiens for the last 2 million years so I do not see that "it has to". I know of no top predator in the world that self limits its population.

Evo

We've been lucky that the last ice age, the Black Plague, genocide and constant wars, lack of medicine, etc... managed to keep the human population down and in some cases nearly wiped out. We don't have that any more. Many species will control population naturally. A duck, for example, will lay more or less eggs depending on the amount of food available. Many animals are part of the food chain, so that limits their population. Humans on the other hand have invented ways to protect themselves from predators, to vaccinate themselves against disease, change our environment to the detriment of wildlife and the ecosystem, and successfully save and prolong lives through medical means. Even worse, (I never claimed to have popular opinions) we now artificially create life where it naturally would not have happened.

WhoWee

I'm not certain how many years into the future we're projecting? However, in 100 to 200 years, it might be possible to live below the surface - or perhaps even design surface oriented structures to submerge (full or partial) during periods of extreme weather?

Evo

I don't know how feasable that is, how much energy would it take to operate a large scale operation? Where would the waste from a small city go? And wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to just put reasonable population controls in place now rather than try to find places to stick more humans and displace more of our ecosystem?

WhoWee

Real estate has a limited supply. As prices increase and choice locations diminish and given the attraction to the water - it seems reasonable people will want to live on the water. I'm thinking luxury living - not public housing.

drankin

I think we are a long way off from this. We are talking about denying a free people from being able to reproduce as they see fit. China does this but they are not a free society. Convincing a free people to adopt such a social control that limits their reproductive liberty just doesn't seem possible. At least not in the US.

Here, at least, I would be in favor of some sort of restriction dependent on a persons ability to provide for their children and not be relient on government assistance. But, how would it be enforceable?

Evo

Like that World boat. It advertises capacity for 200 residents. Two hundred very rich people. With all of the imported luxury foods, I wonder how sustainable that is. Oh look at the maid looking out the window. I guess perhaps the extrremely wealthy will take to these kind of boats, although they might be afraid to debark for ritzy outings amongst the overpopulated starving masses at the ports.

http://www.aboardtheworld.com/reside