Overpopulation, serious political and economical problems

[ikos9lives]

Can The Entire World Population Fit Within The Boundries of Texas?

LEGEND

1 Acre = 43,560 Square Feet

1 Square Mile = 640 Acres or 27,878,400 Square Feet (640 x 43,560)

——————–

World Population = 6,276,000,000 people

State of Texas = 268,601 Square Miles or 171,904,640 Acres (268,601 x 640) or 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet (268,601 x 640 x 43,560)

———————-

Average Size 2-Story Home with 3-4 Bedrooms = 1,500 to 2,400 Square Feet (Thus 750 - 1,200 Square Feet is Needed on the Ground Floor).

This home would fit 5-6 people per house comfortably!

Therefore 150-240 (750 to 1,200/ 5 people per household) Square Feet of Ground Space Per Person is needed to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas.

——————–

State of Texas = 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet/ 6,276,000,000 people in the world = 1,193 Square Feet Per Person is available for the entire world’s population to live in the state of Texas.

As noted above only 150-240 Square Feet of Ground Space is needed per person to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas!

——————

You can double check my math!

 

[Siv]

I am coming in real late to this discussion ... its a favourite topic of mine, so let me post anyway :)

Overpopulation is a problem ... in pockets. In many rural areas of third world countries for e.g. And it needs to be addressed there.

In the developed world and in most of the urban/educated class of developing countries, its not that much of a problem. Of course countries like India and China have a problem right now, but birth rates have dwindled. Women are getting educated and prefer to limit themselves to 2 children.

The problem is a new one - with dwindling birth rates and the fact that birth rates were higher in the past many generations, we have a lot of old people. Lifespans have increased, but many old people are also hanging on, despite multiple illnesses, because medical care keeps them hanging on. An exit policy sounds cruel (and I personally admit I will never be able to stomach one for my own parents) but needs to be thought of. Else we may have a world where there are mostly old people, esp when are children are older. Or when their children (if they decide to have children) grow up.

 

[John Galaor]

Let me see. I use metric system.
Well, the state of Texas is what I call a peri-desert; a near desert. Only on places not far from the sea there is enough rainfall in a year. En temperatures are horrible during the summer.
Well, a sq mile is about 2.56 million sq. meters.
And not going as far, as Texas, I don't like Texas, we have the seven billion people of the planet nearly can be put into a sq mile.
Let me see. 7,000 million/2,56 million= 2,734 persons per sq.meter, using a sq. mile.
This is a little crowded, but if you take as much as 2,734 sq miles, you have one person per sq. meter.
And this 2,734 sq miles are just (216914/2,734=0,01) you only need the 1% of the surface of Texas to put a person of this planet into a sq. meter.
That is, a person per 10 sq. foot. It is not that bad. You have the rest of planet empty.

The problem is that no many people would like to live in the desert of Texas.

Real state is not the real problem when we speak of actual overpopulation. The main problem is the energy. Not yet for us, not yet at present, but in the near future.
If you look into this link
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop_gro_rat-people-population-growth-rate
you will find that the most poor nations of the planet are growing at rate far higher than 2% a year.
# 1 Maldives: 5.566% 2008
# 2 United Arab Emirates: 3.833% 2008
# 3 Liberia: 3.661% 2008
# 4 Uganda: 3.603% 2008
# 5 Kuwait: 3.591% 2008
# 6 Mayotte: 3.465% 2008
# 7 Yemen: 3.46% 2008
# 8 Burundi: 3.443% 2008
# 9 Gaza Strip: 3.422% 2008
# 10 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 3.236% 2008
# 11 Ethiopia: 3.212% 2008
# 12 Oman: 3.19% 2008
# 13 Macau: 3.148% 2008
# 14 São Tomé and Príncipe: 3.116% 2008
# 15 Burkina Faso: 3.109% 2008
# 16 Benin: 3.01% 2008
# 17 Madagascar: 3.005% 2008
# 18 Niger: 2.878% 2008
# 19 Western Sahara: 2.868% 2008
# 20 Mauritania: 2.852% 2008
etc.

Then I am fed up of hearing that we are to blame for the hunger in the world.
John Galaor

 

[John Galaor]

Overpopulation is a problem, mostly in the most poor countries.
And it is also a problem, because we do not even dare to speak aloud of it.
John Galaor

 

[Hoku]

Many of you are saying that western civilizations don't have a population problem and that, once "developing" cultures industrialize, like us, their problems will dissappear, too. Think about this:

The only reason population becomes a problem is because Earth's resources are finite and it's sustainability fragile. If you don't think that the US, for example, has a problem towards this end, chew on this - "If the current population of all humans lived at US standards, we'd need another 4 Earths to sustain us". http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/nov/11/thisweekssciencequestions1

Fresh water is one of our greatest resources - and it's threatened. You may think Africa and Asia have the population problems, not us, but African's only use about 186 cubic meters of water annually. North Americans use 1,280.
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/how-much-human-life-can-planet-earth-sustain/

The first and simplest step in solving this problem is to stop fertility treatments. If a couple can't have a child of their own, they can adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of children needing a loving home in their country alone. In under 40 years, the number of births from fertility treatments exceeds the population of Nevada and Wyoming combined. That's nearing 4,000,000 people on this planet that nature did not intend to be here. Is this worthy of a nobel prize?

 

[John Galaor]

it looks as if we, at present, in developing countries, we have not a problem of overpopulation. But it is an illusion. We have at present problems in some parts of US, with the exhaustion of water. We had been pumping out water on wells till they are now dry. Some other wells, have their water levels deeper from year to year. I am not going to comment the exhaustion of soil, of some minerals.

But the most danger is ahead, when the oil would start to get scarcer and expansive. So far, all the cries of alarm had been premature, and the prediction failed to realized. It is the same concept, as the exhaustion of oil. Since XIX century, many people were crying wolf about oil-wells getting dry. And they were wrong. Then, I can be wrong again this time. But it is only logical that oil would end one day, if not in 40 years, in 60.
This would be dramatic for an economy so spendthrift. Then, we will see at last, that we even are too many mouths in this land. I am not counting on the millions of hungry people that would want to enter into the US and Europe. This it would be a scary moment.
John Galaor
.

 

[mheslep]

Fresh water is one of our greatest resources - and it's threatened. You may think Africa and Asia have the population problems, not us, but African's only use about 186 cubic meters of water annually. North Americans use 1,280.
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environ...earth-sustain/

Lets consider what 'threatened' means and where it applies. Fresh water is not threatened in developed countries in the life and death sense that it is in the developing world. The US has a lot of water resource to use, on average, so why not use it? In places where water is less plentiful, like Phoenix, people use much less, roughly 960 cubic meters annually (2151 Mgal/day / 3M people), Tuscon 500 cubic meters / yr / person. Water is not consumed like the energy in fossile fuels; we get it back with some attention to water treatment.

The first and simplest step in solving this problem is to stop fertility treatments.

I'm missing a step in your logic. You chose not to propose eliminating, say, golf courses due to water usage but instead the elimination of more developed world people. Even a brief scan of the thread above shows that the population of many developed countries is already declining, or would be if not for immigration. How do you go from there to saying the population in these countries needs to be decreased faster? Killing off everyone in Nevada won't provide any more water to Africa, though it would likely reduce innovative water treatment technology much needed in Africa with which Nevadans are very familiar.

If a couple can't have a child of their own, they can adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of children needing a loving home in their country alone. In under 40 years, the number of births from fertility treatments exceeds the population of Nevada and Wyoming combined. That's nearing 4,000,000 people on this planet that nature did not intend to be here.

Nature did not intend? By that same logic nature did not intend the modern infant mortality the developed world enjoys of 5-7 deaths in 1000 infants. http://www.faqs.org/childhood/In-Ke/Infant-Mortality.html" Then write off 1 in 6 women dying in childbirth. If the logic is to be coolly distilled down to only what is required to reduce the population without regard to any other sentiments, why not propose stripping all single parents of their infants and donating them to two parent families where statistics show they are more likely to be productive members of society?

Is this worthy of a nobel prize?

Were you referring to this year's prize in medicine?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2010/

 

[Hoku]

Fresh water is not threatened in developed countries in the life and death sense that it is in the developing world. The US has a lot of water resource to use, on average, so why not use it?]

By the time water is threatened for us in the life or death sense, it'll be to late. It may not be "life or death" in the US at the moment, but it is threatened and we need to take seriously where we're headed. Maybe you don't care about people in Africa or Asia, but you can at least look at their water problems as a sign of where we're headed. http://news.discovery.com/earth/groundwater-aquifers-agriculture-irrigation.html Even if no other part of the US is having drought conditions, which most of us are, then the conditions in the central US, where most of our food comes from, should be concerning enough. Loosing that single region would be devistating for the entire country. The point that you're missing here is that we are living unsustainably. It's a problem that's catching up with us.

I'm missing a step in your logic. You chose not to propose eliminating, say, golf courses due to water usage but instead the elimination of more developed world people.]

You seem to be fixated on the water problem. Water is only one example of the problems of overpopulation. Our population is overfishing the ocean. Our population needs more cows (thus more greenhouse gasses) than the atmosphere can digest. Our "developed world" is aggrivating climate change in many ways. Not every resource can be recycled but we keep pumping through them anyway and at the expense of deforestation and other habitat loss. Our population is a problem. Western countries may have more water but our overall environmental footprint is enormous - and we've got ugly shoes. There are plenty of innocent children born to "developed world people" that need compassion, love and a chance for a happy family. We don't need fertility interventions and we don't need more people than we are already pumping out.

Nature did not intend? By that same logic nature did not intend the modern infant mortality the developed world enjoys of 5-7 deaths in 1000 infants.

Nature intends life to die. There is a balance that must be maintained and there is something to be said for natural selection. Those that are strong enough to survive keep the evolution of our species strong. That's what we call "selection pressure". Our medical interventions are eliminating these selection pressures and the process of natural selection. Instead, we are breeding for relaxed selection. We are breeding ourselves dependant on technology and unfit for nature. What will this mean for us should anything happen to the technologies that keep our "devolving" species alive?

 

[hamster143]

Even if no other part of the US is having drought conditions, which most of us are, then the conditions in the central US, where most of our food comes from, should be concerning enough. Loosing that single region would be devistating for the entire country.

They are overpumping that aquifer because it's cheap and easy. Not because there's no other source of water available. Water is abundant, it's just not in the right place. Mississippi River dumps 300 million acre-feet of fresh water into the ocean every year. Combined with rainfall, one half of that amount would be sufficient to irrigate 75 million acres of corn fields. 75 million acres of corn fiels will produce 300 million tons of corn, which will meet caloric requirements of 1.5 billion people (with a 'b') for a year. Can we do that? Is it within the realm of feasibility to build a channel and some pumps that would take half of the water currently wasted in the ocean, route it to Texas and Iowa, and use it for irrigation? Sure it is. But why bother, when there's such a nice aquifer right here under our feet?

Water is only one example of the problems of overpopulation. Our population is overfishing the ocean. Our population needs more cows (thus more greenhouse gasses) than the atmosphere can digest. Our "developed world" is aggrivating climate change in many ways. Not every resource can be recycled but we keep pumping through them anyway and at the expense of deforestation and other habitat loss. Our population is a problem.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2578609&postcount=36

There is a balance that must be maintained and there is something to be said for natural selection. Those that are strong enough to survive keep the evolution of our species strong. That's what we call "selection pressure". Our medical interventions are eliminating these selection pressures and the process of natural selection. Instead, we are breeding for relaxed selection. We are breeding ourselves dependant on technology and unfit for nature.

You're contradicting yourself. We either need natural selection, in which case population controls be damned, let everyone survive and duke it out in a World War Three. Or we don't, in which case we can either impose population controls or try to figure out how to provide decent quality of life to all people.

 

[Evo]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2578609&postcount=36

Hamster, the deforestation of the rainforest is done to grow crops for exportation.

Extensive areas of the tropical rainforest have been cleared to grow pasture for cattle rearing and to cultivate crops for subsistence and commercial agriculture.

Cattle ranching is an important source of farming activity in many Amazonian countries like Brazil, Colombia and Peru just to name a few. The export to beef to developed countries such as USA, Canada and Japan is extremely profitable and brings in valuable revenue to poor South American countries. As a result, the Amazonian governments encourage cattle ranching by offering financial aid and tax rebates to cattle ranchers. This has resulted in extensive areas of the tropical rainforest being burnt and cut down so that grass and pasture can be grown for cattle.

Timber

The rising demand in Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the USA and Canada for hardwoods has contributed to the extensive damage.

http://library.thinkquest.org/26993/amazon.htm

There are more examples, but I'm busy.

 

[hamster143]

the deforestation of the rainforest is done to grow crops for exportation ... This has resulted in extensive areas of the tropical rainforest being burnt and cut down so that grass and pasture can be grown for cattle.

Key word: "pasture".

Pasture is an extremely inefficient way to raise cattle, in terms of land use. Corn fed animals require one tenth of the land area compared to pasture fed cattle. (In Brazil, even less, because they should be able to get two harvests a year consistently.) But when you have dirt cheap forests to cut down and the government does not give a damn about protecting the environment, of course it's easier to take the pasture route.

And, of course, eating beef is an inefficient way to nourish yourself, compared with vegetarian diet. (and even with eating chicken!) Some simple tariffs and taxes on beef would have solved this "problem" quite easily.

Once again, irresponsible development trumps overpopulation.

 

[Evo]

Key word: "pasture".

Pasture is an extremely inefficient way to raise cattle, in terms of land use. Corn fed animals require one tenth of the land area compared to pasture fed cattle. (In Brazil, even less, because they should be able to get two harvests a year consistently.) But when you have dirt cheap forests to cut down and the government does not give a damn about protecting the environment, of course it's easier to take the pasture route.

And, of course, eating beef is an inefficient way to nourish yourself, compared with vegetarian diet. (and even with eating chicken!) Some simple tariffs and taxes on beef would have solved this "problem" quite easily.

Once again, irresponsible development trumps overpopulation.

And where are they going to grow this corn in a tropical rainforest?

 

[hamster143]

And where are they going to grow this corn in a tropical rainforest?

They can cut down one tenth of the forest and use the land to grow corn (or something else more suited to their climate & soil), instead of cutting it all and turning it into grasslands.

Out of curiosity, try to calculate how much land is _really_ needed, using modern agricultural technologies, to allow all 7 billion people on the planet to eat as much beef as Americans. You can find important numbers on page 7 of this document

http://www.whybiotech.com/resources...ryProductionaResponsibleUseofOurResources.pdf

 

[Evo]

They can cut down one tenth of the forest and use the land to grow corn (or something else more suited to their climate & soil), instead of cutting it all and turning it into grasslands.

No, show me the research papers for growing corn the in amazon.

You don't know what the cattle in the amazon are fed do you? You think they are all grass fed, don't you? Come on hamster, you should know to look these things up first.

 

[hamster143]

No, show me the research papers for growing corn the in amazon.

Brazil grew 35 million tons of corn in 2005. Evidently they know how to do that. Also, see my edit above ...

You think they are all grass fed, don't you?

Yeah, they are ... https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/1860.pdf

"Brazil’s production system is based on grass with less than 3 percent in feedlots"

 

[Evo]

Brazil grew 35 million tons of corn in 2005. Evidently they know how to do that. Also, see my edit above ...

Ok, the answer is that they grow soybeans, the cattle are fed soybeans, and still the amount of rainforest being decimated is growing at alarming rates.

You never read the link I posted a couple of years ago to the UN paper "Livestock's long Shadow"? http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

 

[Evo]

Brazil grew 35 million tons of corn in 2005. Evidently they know how to do that. Also, see my edit above ...

And it's almost all planted in one place in the far south of Brazil, not in the Amazon, and it's mostly for ethanol, not for humans or livestock.

Yeah, they are ... https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/r...nload/1860.pdf

"Brazil’s production system is based on grass with less than 3 percent in feedlots"

That paper is about Cerrado - the Brazilian savannas, AGAIN, not the Amazon jungle.

From your link (you didn't read it or you don't have a map?)

Brazil has abundant grazing land for calf and grass-fed beef production in the Cerrados region.

I'm very serious hamster, stop making irrelevant posts.

 

[hamster143]

Ok, the answer is that they grow soybeans, the cattle are fed soybeans, and still the amount of rainforest being decimated is growing at alarming rates.

Nope, the rainforest is decimated precisely because the absolute majority of Brazilian cattle is grass fed. Their southern neighbors Argentina and Uruguay are 10-15% grain fed, Brazil is lower than that. Brazilian beef is famous among certain circles because it's all "organic" and "natural" and whatnot.

That paper is about Cerrado - the Brazilian savannas, AGAIN, not the Amazon jungle.

It does not matter what that paper is about. I reiterate, "less than 3 percent in feedlots".

Double checking here: http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html "A relatively small percentage of large landowners clear vast sections of the Amazon for cattle pastureland. Large tracts of forest are cleared and sometimes planted with African savanna grasses for cattle feeding."

And just in case you don't believe that corn grows in rain forests, here's a link from that page: http://travel.mongabay.com/pix/peru/tambopata-Tambopata_1030_5148.html entitled: "Rainforest cleared for maize"

 

[Evo]

hamster, did you miss this?

Hamster, the deforestation of the rainforest is done to grow crops for exportation.

Also, from now on when you post a link, you need to quote the exact piece you are referring to. A link to a large article, as you've done a number of times in not proper citation.


now let's get back to overpopulation

 

[Hoku]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2578609&postcount=36

The essential point of the above post is quoted here: "Much of [lost resources] is caused by uncontrolled development, rather than overpopulation, and there's no reason to think that simple population controls would eliminate these problems."

This is an entirely different issue. "Uncontrolled development", if you want to call it that, may have effects similar to overpopulation, but that doesn't mean overpopulation isn't also a threat. Earth's resources are finite and its ability to regenerate is regulated by natural processes. There are only so many humans that the Earth can sustain and overpopulation is a real threat.

You're contradicting yourself. We either need natural selection, in which case population controls be damned[...]

There is no contradiction. Natural selection IS population control. Disease is natures way of keeping our numbers in check. We keep finding more and more cures for things, keeping immense numbers of people alive and for much longer than before. Maybe we should stop finding cures for things and be grateful for the cures we've already found. Additionally, we each need to give serious consideration to whether or not we, as individuals and as families, should use those cures or whether it might simply be our time to go. That would be a very personal decision that should not/could not be regulated. However, we need to be educated and give ourselves the option to die. Remember Dr. Kevorkian, who humanely assisted those that were ready to die, was a worldwide image of evil and put in prison for his deeds. He was persecuted by many for trying to "play god". The ironic thing is that those same persecutors will be found getting fertility treatments.

As far as I know, there's only one state in the US that allows it's citizens to voluntarily die when diagnosed with a life threatening illness - Oregon.

 

[hamster143]

did you miss this?

Hamster, the deforestation of the rainforest is done to grow crops for exportation

Well, you claimed that deforestation is done to grow crops, and then followed up with a quotation that stated that deforestation is done to raise grass-fed cattle. I did not miss it, I simply chose to address the quotation (which is correct) rather than the claim (which is not). As per the article I linked in the previous post:
http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html
"Causes of deforestation in the Amazon: Cattle ranches 65-70%; Small-scale, subsistence agriculture 20-25%"

 

[Evo]

I had posted this before, it seems that overpopulation isn't a popular topic, but something needs to be done.

The Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences on Population Growth and Sustainability

World population is growing at the unprecedented rate of almost 100 million people every year, and human activities are producing major changes in the global environment. If current predictions of population growth prove accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet remain unchanged. science and technology may not be able to prevent either irreversible degradation of the environment or continued poverty
for much of the world.

The following joint statement, prepared by the Officers of the Royal Society of London and the United States National Academy of Sciences, reflects the judgement of a group of scientists knowledgeable about the historic contributions of science and technology to economic growth and environmental protection. It also reflects the shared view that sustainable development implies a future in which life is improved worldwide through economic development, where local environments and the biosphere are protected, and science is mobilized to create new opportunities for human progress.

Through this statement, the two academies wish to draw attention to these issues and to stimulate debate among scientists. decision makers. and the public. In addition. the two institutions, in cooperation with other academies, propose to organize a scientific conference in early 1993 to explore these issues in detail.

THE REALITY OF THE PROBLEM

Scientific and technological innovations, such as in agriculture, have been able to overcome many pessimistic predictions about resource constraints affecting human welfare. Never. the less, the present patterns of human activity accentuated by population growth should make
even those most optimistic about future scientific progress pause and reconsider the wisdom of ignoring these threats to our planet.

Unrestrained resource consumption for energy production and other uses, especially if the developing world strives to achieve living standards based on the same levels of consumption as the developed world, could lead to catastrophic outcomes for the global environment.

In places where resources are administered effectively, population growth does not inevitably imply deterioration in the quality of the environment. Nevertheless, each additional human being requires natural resources for sustenance, each produces by-products that become part of the ecosystem, and each pursues economic and other activities that affect the natural world. While the impact of population growth varies from place to place and from one environmental domain to another, the overall pace of environmental changes has unquestionably been accelerated by the recent expansion of the human population.

http://dieoff.org/page7.htm

Unfortunately there was a huge backlash against the UN by the Catholic church for stating that overpopulation was a problem and the UN was forced to drop it.

Well, you claimed that deforestation is done to grow crops, and then followed up with a quotation that stated that deforestation is done to raise grass-fed cattle.

No it cited crops and livestock at that link.

Extensive areas of the tropical rainforest have been cleared to grow pasture for cattle rearing and to cultivate crops for subsistence and commercial agriculture.

 

[Hoku]

Key word: "pasture".

Pasture is an extremely inefficient way to raise cattle, in terms of land use. Corn fed animals require one tenth of the land area compared to pasture fed cattle.

I'm not arguing that there is no irresponsible development independant of overpopulation but it seems a bit ignorant and short-sighted for you to not also recognize overpopulation as an issue.

About the cows... Grain fed animals may not need as much land area but isn't that largely because their food is imported from a different land area? Corn is a grain. Grain is grass. Grass is grown on pasture. So, with pasture raised cows, they live on their food source but, with grain fed cows, that food source is imported from another pasture. Does this really use less space? And what about the extra energy required to process the corn and transport it to the cows, vs, having the cows eat direct, without harvesting, packaging and transportation costs?

 

[Siv]

I'm not arguing that there is no irresponsible development independant of overpopulation but it seems a bit ignorant and short-sighted for you to not also recognize overpopulation as an issue.

About the cows... Grain fed animals may not need as much land area but isn't that largely because their food is imported from a different land area? Corn is a grain. Grain is grass. Grass is grown on pasture. So, with pasture raised cows, they live on their food source but, with grain fed cows, that food source is imported from another pasture. Does this really use less space? And what about the extra energy required to process the corn and transport it to the cows, vs, having the cows eat direct, without harvesting, packaging and transportation costs?

Valid point.

Plus the dairy and meat from corn fed cows is nutritionally much more inferior than pasture fed cows.

Grains as a whole, although they help feed lots more people, are actually nutritionally quite horrible. Has anyone read Jared Diamond's paper on agriculture being our biggest mistake ?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2100251/Jared-Diamond-The-Worst-Mistake-in-the-History-of-the-Human-Race

 

[hamster143]

So, with pasture raised cows, they live on their food source but, with grain fed cows, that food source is imported from another pasture. Does this really use less space? And what about the extra energy required to process the corn and transport it to the cows, vs, having the cows eat direct, without harvesting, packaging and transportation costs?

If you want, you can plant corn in the field, and then let cows eat the plants once they are fully grown. You don't even have to harvest it.

The reason why we like corn so much is that it is an order of magnitude superior to grass in converting sunlight into carbohydrates and starches. And it's not just corn, it's all cereals. Rice can yield about as much (but it requires a lot of water and that makes it harder to grow). Wheat yields somewhat less, but it can withstand harsher climates and you can manage two harvests (winter & summer). Soybeans are a good source of protein.

Plus the dairy and meat from corn fed cows is nutritionally much more inferior than pasture fed cows.

No, that's a myth. Sure, there may be some nutritional differences, but they are not significant enough. You'll still be able to survive on a combination of meat, grain and vitamins, and you'll still most likely suffer various nutritional deficiencies if you try to survive on a 100% meat diet, regardless whether that's a grass-fed or a grain-fed meat.

Grains as a whole, although they help feed lots more people, are actually nutritionally quite horrible.

Not horrible. Deficient. Doesn't mean that we can't have a balanced & healthy grain-based diet. And, with 7 billion of people on the planet, we obviously can't go back to hunter-gatherer lifestyle, since that lifestyle can't support much more than 50 million people on the whole planet. We have to do best with what we have.

 

[Siv]

No, that's a myth. Sure, there may be some nutritional differences, but they are not significant enough. You'll still be able to survive on a combination of meat, grain and vitamins, and you'll still most likely suffer various nutritional deficiencies if you try to survive on a 100% meat diet, regardless whether that's a grass-fed or a grain-fed meat.

Didn't Steffanson and co survive quite well on a 100% meat based diet ? There were no reported deficiencies.

Not horrible. Deficient. Doesn't mean that we can't have a balanced & healthy grain-based diet. And, with 7 billion of people on the planet, we obviously can't go back to hunter-gatherer lifestyle, since that lifestyle can't support much more than 50 million people on the whole planet. We have to do best with what we have.

I agree that we can't feed many people with the hunter gatherer lifestyle.
But I think people need a perspective before they go thinking grains are the greatest thing on earth. Quite the contrary. Same with agriculture. Being able to feed billions is about the only thing gooing for it. Grains are cheap and plentiful. Their overconsumption has led to tons of health problems.

 

[hamster143]

Didn't Steffanson and co survive quite well on a 100% meat based diet ? There were no reported deficiencies.

Were they on a 100% beef monodiet or did they mix different kinds of meat? And for how long? I'm not sure.

In any event, there seems to be evidence that a diet with more than 18 ounces of red meat per week increases the likelihood of gastrointestinal cancers. And 18 ounces aren't nearly enough to fill your caloric requirements. So, a 100% meat diet does not qualify as a satisfactory long-term solution (unless you're an Inuit and you're a product of 5,000 years of natural selection towards pure meat-eating).

Being able to feed billions is about the only thing gooing for it. Grains are cheap and plentiful. Their overconsumption has led to tons of health problems.

Of course, overconsumption of anyone source of nutrition is rarely the right way to go.

 

[Siv]

Were they on a 100% beef monodiet or did they mix different kinds of meat? And for how long? I'm not sure.

In any event, there seems to be evidence that a diet with more than 18 ounces of red meat per week increases the likelihood of gastrointestinal cancers. And 18 ounces aren't nearly enough to fill your caloric requirements. So, a 100% meat diet does not qualify as a satisfactory long-term solution (unless you're an Inuit and you're a product of 5,000 years of natural selection towards pure meat-eating).

We are talking of the Inuits here. Here's the wiki link for Steffanson - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson

Only meat and fish.

Of course, overconsumption of anyone source of nutrition is rarely the right way to go.

Thats too simplistic. Grains and other refined carbs are far more harmful than protein/fat.

We cannot undo millions of years of evolution with a few centuries of agriculture.

 

[cosmos 2.0]

We are talking of the Inuits here. Here's the wiki link for Steffanson - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson

Only meat and fish.
Thats too simplistic. Grains and other refined carbs are far more harmful than protein/fat.

We cannot undo millions of years of evolution with a few centuries of agriculture.

Equating grains and refined carbs is wrong. Remember that refined carbs are manufactured artificially.Besides grains are a staple diet in many countries.

Proteins and fats are equally if not more harmful than grains, we require a balance. A pure protein and fat diet are associated with a number of diseases.

 

[cosmos 2.0]

We are talking of the Inuits here. Here's the wiki link for Steffanson - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson

Only meat and fish.
Thats too simplistic. Grains and other refined carbs are far more harmful than protein/fat.

We cannot undo millions of years of evolution with a few centuries of agriculture.

Humans are said to evolve around 200,000 yrs ago.The reason for explosion of human civilization , culture , technology and population growth is attributed to agriculture , starting between 5000 to 10000 yrs ago. Before that humans were mainly nomadic.

 

[mheslep]

[...]Maybe you don't care about people in Africa or Asia,

The discussion is not advanced by throwing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Reasoning" around.

Even if no other part of the US is having drought conditions, which most of us are,

Most of who? Most of the US is in drought? Can you provide a source?

then the conditions in the central US, where most of our food comes from, should be concerning enough. Loosing that single region would be devistating for the entire country. The point that you're missing here is that we are living unsustainably. It's a problem that's catching up with us. You seem to be fixated on the water problem.

I think you're forgetting this is a science forum, not a broad hand waiving forum.

Water is only one example of the problems of overpopulation. Our population is overfishing the ocean. Our population needs more cows (thus more greenhouse gasses) than the atmosphere can digest. Our "developed world" is aggrivating climate change in many ways. Not every resource can be recycled but we keep pumping through them anyway and at the expense of deforestation and other habitat loss. Our population is a problem.

Who is we? All homo sapiens? Clearly 'we' in that sense don't all behave similarly.

Western countries may have more water

No, in general the West has more and better water treatment and recycling. The Amazon river for instance has the largest flow in the world.

but our overall environmental footprint is enormous - and we've got ugly shoes. There are plenty of innocent children born to "developed world people" that need compassion, love and a chance for a happy family. We don't need fertility interventions and we don't need more people than we are already pumping out. Nature intends life to die.

Speaking on behalf of nature also doesn't help the conversation. Please take the unsubstantiated world view about who needs to die / Eugenics and what not over to General Discussion or the like.

 

[Hoku]

"[...]Maybe you don't care about people in Africa or Asia,"

The discussion is not advanced by throwing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Reasoning" around.

Are you seriously going to fuss about this coment, when I made so many others that should be advancing the conversation? This sentence is a conversational segue from your coment that our water isn't threatened so let's live it up to the idea that we should be more vigilent about what's going on. I will chalk this objection of yours off as desperation and move forward.

Most of who? Most of the US is in drought? Can you provide a source?

2 points: 1) My original post (post 113 for those that missed it) said, "Even if no other part of the US is having drought conditions[...]then the conditions in the central US [should still be concerning]." THIS is the essential point that you should've picked out from that sentence. Instead, you picked out the insignificant side comment, "[...]which most of us are[...]" Again, a clear act of desperation.

I'm not here to argue about water and drought. This thread is about overpopulation. But since you continue to be fixated on it, I did a small amount of research for you. Researching drought is not of particular interest for me so if you have further objections, you can begin a new thread in the "Earth" section.

I readily found 2 US maps showing drought conditions. The first is 5-years old but has links to each state showing current drought conditions if you want to browse them. Note that this map is for the end of the rainy season - a time when we would expect minimal drought. http://www.drought.unl.edu/risk/us/usimpacts.htm You can see that the drought conditions cover a large area of the US.

The second map I found is more current. It shows significantly less area affected by drought but there are 2 things to remember about this map: 1) It is only anticipated drought for the season 2) It is for the rainiest time of the year - again, a time we would expect to find little drought. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/seasonal_drought.html What I didn't find was a US map for summer. This past summer, for example, Texas was one state that had severe drought. It was so bad that it made national news and the community swimming pools closed down. You notice, however, that the 2010 map shows no problems in Texas. Droughts are common and few states avoid them completely.

The point that your missing is that our water sources are finite and the more people and technologies we have, the more stress we put on those, and other resources. Our population is immense and growing larger everyday. Growth may have slowed but it's still on the upward slope. We need to anticipate for the future if we want to avoid major calamities.

I think you're forgetting this is a science forum, not a broad hand waiving forum.

Then approach it as a scientist and state your objection clearly. What exactly is your point here?

Who is we? All homo sapiens? Clearly 'we' in that sense don't all behave similarly.

This objection demonstrates that your point of view on the matter may be on the selfish or egocentric side. "We" are the ones responsible for the health of this planet. All homo sapiens. "We" all need to take responsibility and if you think that your actions on this planet don't contribute to the problems then you need an education. You are on the internet as we speak. Who is it, Google or somebody owns their own dam for all of the energy they need to be up and running.

No, in general the West has more and better water treatment and recycling. The Amazon river for instance has the largest flow in the world.

Yup. There's a lot of water in the Amazon. There's also a lot of water in the polar ice caps and the great lakes. Unfortunately, Water placement in one area isn't always helpful for water needs in another. The great lakes, in the US, has lots of water, but that doesn't help Texas or California when they are in drought.

Speaking on behalf of nature also doesn't help the conversation.

Should nature speak on behalf of itself then? Last I knew, nature doesn't have the skills for articulation that we do. Nature comunicates with us in more subtle ways. It's clear that you're not paying attention. Perhaps you just don't care. Maybe you'll finally get the message when we're all dead.

Please take the unsubstantiated world view about who needs to die / Eugenics and what not over to General Discussion or the like.

Like someone said, people don't like to be confronted with hard facts of life and death. I'm sorry this is a difficult subject for you, but it is appropriately placed where it needs to be, in Social Sciences.

 

[Siv]

Equating grains and refined carbs is wrong. Remember that refined carbs are manufactured artificially.Besides grains are a staple diet in many countries.

Proteins and fats are equally if not more harmful than grains, we require a balance. A pure protein and fat diet are associated with a number of diseases.

That is the establishment touted line, the "party line" if you will, which most of us have been misled about for so long, thanks to Ancel Keys.

Some of the more open minded folks have now begun questioning this.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.27725v1
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/5/1102

 

[Siv]

Humans are said to evolve around 200,000 yrs ago.The reason for explosion of human civilization , culture , technology and population growth is attributed to agriculture , starting between 5000 to 10000 yrs ago. Before that humans were mainly nomadic.

"2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,"
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

"12,000 BC – Neolithic Revolution, the first agricultural revolution, begins in the ancient Near East
12,000 BC – Natufians in the Levant begin harvesting wild grasses.
9800 BC – Earliest evidence for domesticated wheat at PPNA sites in the Levant."
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_agriculture_and_food_technology

 

[cosmos 2.0]

"2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,"
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

"12,000 BC – Neolithic Revolution, the first agricultural revolution, begins in the ancient Near East
12,000 BC – Natufians in the Levant begin harvesting wild grasses.
9800 BC – Earliest evidence for domesticated wheat at PPNA sites in the Levant."
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_agriculture_and_food_technology

I am talking abouthomo sapiens, though there is evidence that other species within the genus homo used weapons (Neanderthals, homo erectus etc ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human"