Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Does the human race-

  1. Dec 2, 2007 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Does the human race------

    Have a goal, other than an ever easier lifestyle, do you agree that we will never all be equally comfortable, do you agree that the Earth does not have the resources to make it so?
    In another thread the ideal population for Earth was guessed to be 2 billion, we are way over that.
    Eventually we will need more land than the Earth has, so should we be looking to populate other planets with some urgency?

    Edit.


    http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html

    When environmentalists say that the world is overpopulated, they mean that the environmental consequences of the excessively high human population are destroying the biosphere--the Earth's life-support system. This leads to the question of what these environmental consequences are, and the related question of how many people can the Earth really support. As we'll see in this article, the question cannot be answered without offering another-- "What kind of world do you want?"Finally, there's another, more fundamental, question--"What kind of worlds are possible?"
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 2, 2007 #2
    We dont need more than 2 billion people in the world. How about cutting that number down? It would solve a LOT of problems.
     
  4. Dec 2, 2007 #3
    I think space exploration may be a necessary next step to our continuing expansion.

    On the goals part of your question, I think that the ever present goal of humanity is to improve itself. It may seem that we've focused on improving quality of life, but I think that it is just a natural side benefit to our investment in expanding our knowledge. I think that population reduction is ultimately a stop gap and a futile effort. What we really need is to focus on expansion beyond the planet (moonbase anyone?) and ultimately beyond our solar system. It's a big universe, and decreasing our numbers as a long term means of sustaining the species is flawed. Oil is an issue, but is the solution to reduce the usage, or to find an alternative fuel?

    If scientific understanding and discovery leads to improvements in our living standards, is that a bad thing? Is that our overall driving goal? I don't think so. Curiosity drives us.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2007
  5. Dec 2, 2007 #4

    Mk

    User Avatar

    It would solve a lot of problems to have two people (who would of course, proceed to kill each other in all likelyhood, then humans would have 0 problems). The more people you've got the more problems, everybody knows that. But we as a race are prepared to have more than two people.
     
  6. Dec 2, 2007 #5
    .......................uh?
     
  7. Dec 2, 2007 #6
    How are you going to put people on the moon and sustain life there? You will have to make even more resources on earth and send it to the moon. I dont see the logic here.

    The simple and easy answer is people need to stop having kids. Mainly people in 3rd world countries that spread AIDS, have kids that end up working in factories, put an economic strain on their government, etc.

    Just stop having so many kids. What are most of the people in the world doing? Honestly, the majority of people in the world are poor - dirt poor. Thats not a life to live. The majority of the world are living hopeless live. Control the population and increase the standard of living for everyone in the process.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2007
  8. Dec 2, 2007 #7

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I am sure we are not going down the route of exterminating people, and population control
    is not in effect, so the population will keep growing.
     
  9. Dec 2, 2007 #8
    I would start with you, for not reading my post correctly. :smile:

    No seriously, I never said exterminate people. I said dont let them procreate. I dont need poor people giving birth to 10 kids in the hopes of making more income from more working hands.

    Hell, you could pay them NOT to have kids.

    And all those damn kids that run around in resturants and annoy you, we could get rid of them too and enjoy a meal in peace with your friends! - I should be in government.

    problem solver<---(points to self)
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2007
  10. Dec 2, 2007 #9

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The moon does not seem to be a good candidate for population, but a one way trip to an Earth like planet is possible, but even so sending thousands of people on this one way trip
    would be a massive undertaking, one that i can not for see.
     
  11. Dec 2, 2007 #10

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thank you, tongue, I will give you 1 point, but you need thousands to be elected to government.
     
  12. Dec 2, 2007 #11
    Does this mean I get your bikes after your gone? :devil:

    You dont need thousands if you get rid of all the people that vote against you!

    Seeee- Problem solver!

    There is only one answer to your question, STOP having so many people in the world. Literally half of them are doing nothing but wasting land, air, water,etc while living in poverty. They contribute nothing, they are just a burdon. If you can slowly decrease the populaton size these people will dissapear over time. Now you have more resources for a smaller amount of people, a government that can take care of a smaller amount of educated, productive, healthy people. Less spread of disease. -am I missing something here in this logic?
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2007
  13. Dec 2, 2007 #12

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I agree with you up to a point, and no my bikes go with me, add to the list for none procreation.
    Politicians, any one involved with the Eurovision song contest, hardened criminals.
     
  14. Dec 2, 2007 #13
    The dreamer in me says yes I have a Goal. World Peace and equality. Can we ever achieve it? Probably not, but it is a worthy goal so, let us start. If we would just start to utilize the resources that we have, wisely, we would be able to provide for a higher number of people without nearly as much affect on our environment. Technologies like Anaerobic Biogas Digesters combined with Solar, Wind, and other renewable energy sources are all existing and could be used right now. Should we be looking for another home? Definitely! Mankind is doomed as long as we are only on this one rock. Sooner or later something is going to hit us, or the Sun goes out, or we blow ourselves up. If we are on more than one rock the ones not here survive! Wow! To think that someone else should decide whether or not you should be allowed to have children! Who has the right to decide? Only the Rich can reproduce? Only the Sexy? Only the Smart? Only the productive? Is music or art Productive? I know only Good artists! Only Muslims? Only Christians? See how foolish this is. Many would have snuffed Hawkins before he ever taught us anything! Education appears to be the greatest birth control around. Look at how much lower birth rates are in developed countries. If you want to reduce birth rates just start educating everybody! Hey now that's a good idea. Maybe we could become smart enough to stop trying to solve our problems with Guns! Yeah Right!
     
  15. Dec 2, 2007 #14

    Lisa!

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yep, that's why we choose funniest members every year and then throw them in volcano:devil:
     
  16. Dec 2, 2007 #15

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Oddly one of our world's biggest problems, overpopulation, would be the easiest, if not most popular way to fix the problems on this planet.

    I'm with you Cyrus.

    It's aggravating right now, they have these "adopt a poor family for Christmas" things on the radio, and they describe the family "mother has 15 children to take care of so doesn't have time to work and the dad has the IQ of a turnip so can't hold a job, they want new school uniforms for their kids that are in parochial school" wait, they're paying for their kids to go to private church schools and then complaining they're poor? WTH???
     
  17. Dec 2, 2007 #16

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I would not want to bring any more kids into this world even though my IQ is slightly above a turnips, what is it worth to have no children a $100, 1000, 10,000? what happens if there is not enough candidates coming forward?
    When would we have the technology and the will to transport 1000s of people to another planet?
     
  18. Dec 2, 2007 #17

    Mk

    User Avatar

    Ok, let's get this one for me. How is it one of our world's biggest problems?
     
  19. Dec 2, 2007 #18

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think it comes down to lack of resources, and the resistance to redistribute what we have equally, and that is for todays population.

    But then what is the general population learning apart from how to make money, one may say that science is gaining knowledge but how does that equate to the population?
    In the grand scheme are humans an infestation or are we a worthy people that one day
    may survive to live on other planets?
     
  20. Dec 2, 2007 #19

    Mk

    User Avatar

    By that, you'd have to establish a universal worth.
     
  21. Dec 2, 2007 #20

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

     
  22. Dec 2, 2007 #21

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    According to environmentalists overpopulation lies at the heart of all problems, including Global Warming. It was actually for the "go Green" media push a couple of weeks ago, reducing the world's population was listed as one of the top ten ways to "go green" and fight AGW. They suggested one child per couple.

    I can't find that list, but here's an article discussing it. I'd think the problems caused by overpopulation would have been quite obvious just for the drain on resources.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/01/ethicalliving.g2
     
  23. Dec 2, 2007 #22

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thank you for that Evo, the choices are stark, but we have to make them.
     
  24. Dec 2, 2007 #23
    Let me get space exploration out of the way as a non-starter. If 2 billion is the right number for Earth then all we need to do is ship a few excess billions to outer space. Trivial. :rolleyes:

    So the next best idea is growth control. That can actually be worth trying. I would be curious to know some acceptable way to limit every woman on Earth to a maximum of 2 children.

    Why 2 instead of 1? Because it's easier to sell. It makes more "normal" families. It gives a better chance of balancing male/female offsprings. It doesn't force upon a single child the unreasonable burden of later caring for two elderly parents. It implements a somewhat stable population instead of one that is crashing downwards. Some women will chose to have only one or no child at all, so the long term trend will still be down. And some people die before becoming parent, which also contributes to negative growth.

    So, who's got a good idea in order to implement this? How do we install 3 billion birth counters, one on each female of the species? I'm the highfaluting idea man of course, so my work is done here. I would never lower myself to dabble with menial implementation details. :uhh:
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2007
  25. Dec 2, 2007 #24
    Environmentalists are not the only ones concerned with human population. Alot of political think tanks have certainly considered the idea of population reduction (the Club of Rome comes to mind). On a side note, when I read the opening post, I was instantly reminded of the Georgia guidestones. Some people may find this interseting (note the very first commandment):

    http://www.crystalinks.com/gaguidetablet.jpg
    http://www.crystalinks.com/gaguidestones.html
     
  26. Dec 2, 2007 #25

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just human nature to be selfish. :biggrin: People don't even have to stop having children, just stop having SO MANY children. A good start would be only one kid per parent. It won't reduce population sizes, but at least hold it steady. The problem is there are too many people who want to have 6 or 10 kids when there are only two parents (or heck, even if there are 3 or 4 parents involved, that's too many, especially if some of the multiple dads are also going off and having kids with multiple women). They obviously aren't thinking about what that would do to the world those kids will be growing up in if everyone did that.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook