Stephen Hawking warning that our extinction is on the horizon

[Greg Bernhardt]

Stephen Hawking, one of the world's greatest physicists and cosmologists, is once again warning his fellow humans that our extinction is on the horizon unless we figure out a way to live in space.
Not known for conspiracy theories, Hawking's rationale is that the Earth is far too delicate a planet to continue to withstand the barrage of human battering.
"We must continue to go into space for humanity," Hawking said today, according to the Los Angeles Times. "We won't survive another 1,000 years without escaping our fragile planet."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57579003-76/stephen-hawking-predicts-end-of-earth-scenario/

 

[Astronuc]

For years, Hawking has advised people to begin the search for new planets to inhabit. In 2006, he iterated some of today's sentiment saying the survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe.

I wonder if he's pondered how much energy would be involved - and how much time.

There really isn't a practical alternative to the planet we currently inhabit.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think he might just be trying to get people to support funding NASA.
A lot of people don't think it's necessary. They don't understand how it affects their lives directly, so they don't care about it.

 

[Evo]

Wouldn't population control make more sense? Oh, I guess that would require common sense and responsilble actions by people and the groups they're ruled by.

Nevermind.

 

[encorp]

He's losing it at this stage in his life, making claims that seem down right dramatic.

 

[Mentalist]

Yes, nothing new. I've seen other "crackpots" spouting the same rhetoric.

 

[lisab]

I wish prominent scientists would do what they're good at: being extraordinary scientists, and not trying to be sages.

 

[Evo]

I wish prominent scientists would do what they're good at: being extraordinary scientists, and not trying to be sages.

I wonder if they are going to start screening what gets released to the media? It would be a shame for what he achieved to be replaced by memories of him losing it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Wouldn't population control make more sense? Oh, I guess that would require common sense and responsilble actions by people and the groups they're ruled by.

Nevermind.

He doesn't cite over-population as the problem, though.

Not known for conspiracy theories, Hawking's rationale is that the Earth is far too delicate a planet to continue to withstand the barrage of human battering.

"Human battering," I'm sure, refers to assaults on the environment: cutting down forests, pollution, human introduced non-native species, that sort of thing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In all fairness to the good doctor, he mentioned a thousand years. We've had a space program for a little over 60 years. The idea may seem a bit more practical in five hundred years.

With the drive towards life extension, ending hunger, and a more humane world, population control may never be a reality. So far our track record suggests that we will exploit every resource at our disposal until it's gone with little regard for the consequences. We are currently striving for sustainable technologies, but the jury is out on whether we can really achieve sustainable lifestyles or not.

 

[Mentalist]

"Over population" is another crackpottery notion.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/multimedia/2010/11/world_population

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

http://www.metla.fi/tiedotteet/2011/pdf/CPF-final-press-release-forests-human-health.pdf

The last link is about untapped forests that could be utilized for human advantage.

The other links are mainly about the human population birth rate decreasing not increasing (the birth rate is still rising, but when compared to previous years, it has decreased in number of children born to a single family), it is expected to plateau off at around 10 billion (I rounded up). 10 billion people is not "overpopulation" when taking in landmass, resources, etc...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"Over population" is another crackpottery notion.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/multimedia/2010/11/world_population

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

http://www.metla.fi/tiedotteet/2011/pdf/CPF-final-press-release-forests-human-health.pdf

The last link is about untapped forests that could be utilized for human advantage.

The other links are mainly about the human population birth rate decreasing not increasing (the birth rate is still rising, but when compared to previous years, it has decreased in number of children born to a single family), it is expected to plateau off at around 10 billion (I rounded up). 10 billion people is not "overpopulation" when taking in landmass, resources, etc...

That's all fine, but none of it takes into account continuing drops in the death rate. If we are looking out even 100 years, we might see dramatic increases in the average lifespan. And the current stresses on ecosystems and various resources, peak oil, and even the threat of severe shortages of clean water in some parts of the world, are no secret. We aren't talking about the next decade, so this isn't an alarmist argument, but unless we can achieve sustainable lifestyles, it is hard to see how we don't eventually reach a breaking point. So far, there is no evidence that our lifestyles are sustainable on a global basis. We may soon face many crises.

 

[WannabeNewton]

It would be bad news for Mother Nature if our species lasted even that long. The poor thing :[

 

[AlephZero]

Equating "current unsustainable lifestyle" with "human extinction" doesn't necessarily follow.

From studies of human genetics, it seems that the global human population crashed to only 3,000 - 10,000 survivors, about 70,000 years ago. And we are still here. The cause may have been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

 

[jim hardy]

Don't dismiss Evo lightly..

Asimov has been warning about overpopulation since the 1940's.

Try a search 'Asimov overpopulation'

we ought to do something about our energy habit.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2186

Last year[2006- jh], the world produced around 26.86 Gb of crude oil + condensate or 1.02 CMO. The figure below gives you an idea of the scale of a CMO compared to the Eiffel tower:

To obtain in one year the amount of energy contained in one cubic mile of oil, each year for 50 years we would need to have produced the numbers of dams, nuclear power plants, coal plants, windmills, or solar panels shown here.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/joules-btus-quadslets-call-the-whole-thing-off

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2186

And it's not just "Peak Oil" anymore:
https://www.crops.org/publications/cs/abstracts/50/5/1882

Relative grain yields of Great Plains hard winter wheats may have peaked in the early to mid-1990s, and further improvement in the genetic potential for grain yield awaits some new technological or biological advance.

 

[Evo]

"Over population" is another crackpottery notion.

The last link is about untapped forests that could be utilized for human advantage.

You can't seriously think that just because we can continue cramming humans into every remaining piece of land on Earth that there is no problem or that it would even be feasable. It's not that hard to find information on the destruction of the rain forests, pollution of the oceans, etc... to see how much damage we are doing.

It's about quality of life, jobs, healthcare, availability of food and water, and environmental impact.

http://www.colorado.edu/econ/courses/roper/sustainable-economics/pop/royal-society_92.html

A good example for you to study would be Ethiopia. They have a vast amount of arable land, yet the people suffer from hunger, lack of safe water, lack of sanitation, etc...

http://www.future-agricultures.org/pdf%20files/SG_paper_3.pdf

 

[Mentalist]

That's all fine, but none of it takes into account continuing drops in the death rate. If we are looking out even 100 years, we might see dramatic increases in the average lifespan. And the current stresses on ecosystems and various resources, peak oil, and even the threat of severe shortages of clean water in some parts of the world, are no secret. We aren't talking about the next decade, so this isn't an alarmist argument, but unless we can achieve sustainable lifestyles, it is hard to see how we don't eventually reach a breaking point. So far, there is no evidence that our lifestyles are sustainable on a global basis. We may soon face many crises.

I will have to take it in parts.

Part A: "If we are looking out even 100 years, we might see dramatic increases in the average lifespan."

The world bank, the U.N., both take into account of dropping death rates and longevity. There has been an increase in longevity and with that a decrease in the overall birth rates as compared to decade/centuries before.

The worldbank link takes the decline in the death rates for developing countries:

The decline in birth rates over the past few decades has lowered population growth rates in developing countries despite a continuing decline in death rates.

... for developed countries:

Population growth is even slower in developed countries (see Fig. 3.4). Stabilizing birth rates and increasing death rates (the latter being a result of aging populations, see Chapter 8) have already led to a natural population decrease in Italy and Germany. Japan and Spain are expected to follow soon.

The UN's link is based on models from prior years projection of population growth with a continual increase in longevity. If the population's replacement level isn't stabilized, to which the UN link and the world bank link state that the population replacement level is below the stabilizing factor of 1, then we won't see a dramatic increase in population growth rates. The UN link goes into further detail that this replacement level will begin to become more stabilized in the year 2175 based on their projection models. This is taking into account longevity and decrease in death rates. I'll post some excerpts:

Under the assumptions made in the medium scenario projection, world population will not vary greatly after reaching 8.92 billion in 2050 (figure 6). In another 25 years, by 2075, it is pro- jected to peak at 9.22 billion, only 3.4 per cent above the 2050 estimate. It will then dip slightly to 8.43 billion by 2175 and rise gradually to 8.97 billion, very close to the initial 2050 figure, by 2300. Therefore, world population growth beyond 2050, at least for the following 250 years, is ex- pected to be minimal.

(UN-link, Section B: World Population)

They base this off two different possibilities ranging from where the population spikes to 36B or drops to 2B. They take these two models and place them around the expected medium value of 9B-10B. This section later goes over different possibilities between a deviation from the medium to the high-end possibility, to the low-end possibility.

Part B: (Ivan) "And the current stresses on ecosystems and various resources, peak oil, and even the threat of severe shortages of clean water in some parts of the world, are no secret." & (Evo) "It's not that hard to find information on the destruction of the rain forests, pollution of the oceans, etc... to see how much damage we are doing."Clean Water:

These aren't solely related to population increase, rather malpractice of corporations. I'd put it under, "complex issue". Thus, I believe to link a decrease in clean water to population increase to be unreasonable. I have yet to see, in my research, a positive correlation between increase population and decrease in clean water. I have seen research into the transfer of pollutants though that undermines the CWA.

The quality of the nation's waters depends on the ability to regulate the introduction and movement of pollutants to those waters. In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Water Transfers Rule, which allows the introduction of pollutants from one body of water to another without a permit. 1 The Eleventh Circuit recently reviewed the validity of the new rule as applied to polluted agricultural runoff being pumped into Lake Okeechobee. 2 Though the court recognized that the rule is not consistent with the Clean Water Act's (CWA) broad purpose of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters, it determined that the rule is permissible. 3 Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit found that because the NPDES program fails to regulate every significant source of pollution, the court will not prevent the creation of further permitting exceptions. 4 This decision, which endorses a "unitary waters" approach to the CWA, undermines the strength of the NPDES permitting program.

(Bolded = interesting). This source is in the article of litigation from, "The Water Transfers Rule: Weakening the Clean Water Act One Reasonable Interpretation at a Time."

^ Is in the U.S.

Part C: Ethiopia and Landmass

The developing world... Specifically, "A good example for you to study would be Ethiopia. They have a vast amount of arable land, yet the people suffer from hunger, lack of safe water, lack of sanitation, etc..."

The link you told me to study doesn't even show a direct correlation between population growth and lack of resources. If any thing it showed that insufficient farm practices, although producing more grains per hectare, were stifled by acquirable land and technologies to effectively capitalize on such benefits. Also, the farmers that were able to produce increasing gains did not follow Ethiopia's government recommendation which was based of the recommendations of reputable agriculturalists.

Not only that Ethiopia's practice of farming agriculture is below the standard of Africa.

Given the above, I fail to see how this supports your argument. In fact, it takes away from your argument given your link. I will post some excerpts from your link that I found particularly interesting though to give credence to what I have said.

From your link:

Apart from fertilizers and improved seeds, irrigation and the use of modern farm machinery – other components of the modernization package - is almost non-existent.

Moreover, the use of different complementary inputs to the package recommended by agricultural experts is low. A recent evaluation of the smallholder intensification programme showed that only 22% of the households used complete package of crop production, i.e., improved seeds, fertilizer and improved cultural practices in the recommended amounts. Most of the households (78% who were participating in the extension package programme) used an incomplete package of crop production, lacking one or more of the major components (see EEA forthcoming Report on Extension Study).

In your favor, Ethiopia does have a higher population rate compared to the grain production rate, but this grain production rate isn't stifled by higher populations. Given that, it wouldn't be sound to draw the conclusion that population rates (increasing) result in a lower amount of resources. This is the case as the link specifically states that it is much ado to, as I stated above, insufficient farming methods:

These drops in productivity may thus act to counterbalance gains from higher potential areas. Fertilizer use might also be below the level recommended by agricultural scientists for one or another reason and not accompanied by improved seeds, a key technology upon which all other technologies including fertilizer display their full potential, although as discussed above, the difference between total fertilizer use and nutrient uptake to growing plants (the critical variable) is highly dependent on application method and setting. The third potential explanation could be the mono-cropping production pattern which can act to reduce soil fertility and deplete soil micro or secondary nutrients as well as organic structure essential for plant growth nutrients which can not be replaced by the two types of inorganic fertilizers (DAP and Urea) promoted for decades in Ethiopia.

In drawing to such conclusions, nowhere is there an indication of population increase causes lack of resources. The conclusions that are drawn primarily stem from farming methods that I have stated way too many times now.

You can't seriously think that just because we can continue cramming humans into every remaining piece of land on Earth that there is no problem or that it would even be feasable

You base this off of your first link you posted which had some questionable statements, that the population based on the link I posted of the U.N. to be around 10B in 2050. This is the world population we are talking about.

Again, the onus is on you to prove that the area of landmass is insufficient to support 10B people. Also, we aren't cramming even 7B people into the world as it is now.

It's not that hard to find information on the destruction of the rain forests, pollution of the oceans, etc... to see how much damage we are doing.

You're oversimplifying a complex issue. Just like the clean water position above, this is more complicated than what you are trying to purport here. I need to see your citations and the two you've given me thus far do nothing to support such statements.

Part D: Jim Hardy

That is interesting and true. But this practice of wheat growing is based on an old model that was for a lesser population. Given that populations increase with better quality of health and longevity, using an older model for a much smaller population in terms of grain production, is rather backward and lazy. But I couldn't read more than the abstract so I went scouring the net for some more information in the link and found...

Still, wheat production isn't going to slow down or drop off, says Graybosch, whose team reports its findings in an upcoming issue of Crop Science. The study only shows that the rate of improvement is going down, not yield itself. But as the fourth largest producer of wheat (behind the European Union, China, and India), American farmers will likely have to turn to nongenetic means of raising their yields, such as increasing irrigation and planting more land in order to keep up with a growing world population. "The only way to make more wheat as a nation is to have better production practices," Graybosch says.

^ Based on your link.

Source: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/08/has-wheat-peaked.html

I will search into oil and energy production later. So the rest is just my opinion now.

Energy needs can be changed given that their are proper intiatives in place. I remember reading about how a certain popular use of hair spray was destroying the ozone in Australia and the Australian government took measures to tackle the problem, and they did as much. I also remember reading that in the past, I forgot the decade it was, but when a person went to pump gas the abscence of the nozzle to keep in the toxins (as much as possible I believe) were contributing to poor air quality. After the U.S. government noticed this (the EPA brought it to their attention) the government issued the nozzle on the gas hose, and by doing as such this helped air quality.

I said all of this because in cases such as oil or clean water as I addressed above, you cannot say, "more people = worse environments." I think it intellectual dishonesty to immediately have that knee jerk reaction. With a combination of efforts by scientists and the government, these sorts of problems can be reduced and the population can remain at the numbers projected in the U.N. model of 10B.

What you're are doing is looking at the issues and immediately drawing population growth as the problem, and this neglects what is actually causing it. Sort of like going into the bar and seeing two men fight and immediately drawing the conclusion that the knuckles are the problem. Sure, the knuckles are present but is that the actual problem?EDIT: I forgot to support my statement of malpractice of corporations polluting water:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/12/epa-water-aquifer-drilling-fracking-waste

 

[Evo]

Mental, I'm not talking about if there is hypothetically enough land mass to keep x number of humans alive, go back and read what I said. Also, the problem in Ethiopia demonstrates the types of *real* problems that exist. The following paper seems to address the type of thinking you follow, IMO.

In 1992 the National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society issued a joint statement urging world leaders to brake population growth before it is too late (Royal Society, 1992). That same year, 1,600 scientists (including 99 Nobel laureates) issued a statement warning all humanity that it must soon stabilize population and halt environmental destruction (Detjen, 1992). That same year, a Gallup poll showed that Americans were less concerned about population than they had been 20 years before (Newport & Saad, 1992). That same year, world leaders ignored population growth at the largest environmental summit in history, the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro.

Why are the American public and political leaders so indifferent about this issue that so concerns the world's leading scientists and environmentalists? Not because Americans are anti-environment: another recent Gallup Poll (Hueber, 1991), showed that 78% of Americans considered themselves environmentalists and 71 % favored strong environmental protection, even at the expense of economic growth. How can Americans express strong concern about the environment, yet a diminishing concern about population growth, which many environmental experts consider the ultimate environmental problem?

It seems likely that Americans are not connecting population growth to environmental problems.

But why is the American public not making the connection? This paper explores the possibility that news stories, from which Americans may infer causality of environmental problems, may keep them from making the connection between population growth and the problems it causes.

http://www.jayhanson.us/page118.htm

And as I said, environmental problems are just one of many issues such as quality of life, jobs, healthcare, etc...

When the UN came out with it's recommendation for population control, the Catholic church had a fit and forced the UN to back off.

 

[OmCheeto]

... you cannot say, "more people = worse environments." ...

I can.

more people = worse environment

And for the record, I don't have a problem with Hawking's statement, as it seems that c|net kind of pulled it out of context.

I prefer the L.A. Times version:

Your universe is a great triumph, I want to share my enthusiasm and excitement about this great quest. So remember to look up at the stars and not at your feet. ... Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at.

(ref)
​

Walking along, looking at your feet, you will find random pennies. (or in Zoob's case, random dollars)

Look up, and you will find...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIwvLJX-Olg​

It's quite possible that only Hooper would understand what I'm trying to convey.

 

[Mentalist]

I will read that link you gave later as I have to get back to work in a bit, but I wanted to respond to something in particular that I found surprising because you posted it.

When the UN came out with it's recommendation for population control, the Catholic church had a fit and forced the UN to back off.

This is the same church that would rather see people die in Africa of aides because of a holy book. The same people that instead of concerning the teachings of Jesus Christ, their lord, whom Pope stands in place of, whom God had instructed, "no-one can stand in place of me(paraphrased)", instead of following the teachings of justice, would rather "relocate" pedophiles. The same people that believe a human in some expensive regalia talks to a being outside of this world and, therefore, we must follow their teachings because this person in expensive regalia holds the voice of God in his head. The same people that exclude other types of individuals because only God can talk to European males. God doesn't talk to Asian, African, or any other race of individuals, or women, because God apparently made women to be lesser, only western, white, European males does God talk to. So, I don't really care for what this church has to say and this means little to me. This is a cult, not a credible organization.

I've been following your posts for quite some time and would have never thought you'd post something like this. It seems out of character to me. But I don't know why, it just kind of irritated me that yet again the Catholic church stifles progress with regressive thinking. They are a cult, a huge cult. I don't care for them or their little teachings they get while humming to themselves hearing their own voices giving speeches in the tongue of the Angels. These people need to be written off as loons because that is essentially what they are, loons.

Every time this happens. "Oh! Don't you begin cloning because it is against the natural order of what God wills" These peoples thoughts are a poison to society, a sickness. They have no place, or should have no place or authority in a civilized world because their belief is a barbaric nuisance to progress.

Work shouldn't be influenced by notions of delusion. The Catholic church makes it their moral imperative to remain in a state of delusion.

And as I said, environmental problems are just one of many issues such as quality of life, jobs, healthcare, etc...

Yes, these are problems we both agree on this. I am essentially saying that we can have a population size in the numbers of 9B-12B and still live relatively comfortable. This assumption rests on governments of the world actually making progress and reforms in technology, etc... As for our health, the link I posted in the first post, specifically the last talks about this particular topic.

I can.

Technically, you didn't say it, rather typed it. My previous statement holds.

 

[OmCheeto]

Technically, you didn't say it, rather typed it. My previous statement holds.

I just said it seven times out loud.

Your statement is now FALSE!

And I just now, shouted it out, in a British accent.

Take that!

ps. I take it you've never lived next to a crazy cat lady... Always room for more... There's room enough... There's no over population problem...

Rubbish.

 

[H2Bro]

only western, white, European males does God talk to.

I think the latest pope is from South America.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Mental, I'm not talking about if there is hypothetically enough land mass to keep x number of humans alive, go back and read what I said.

I have to agree with Mentalist that: the paper you linked to was about poor farm management, not over population.

Your point seemed to be that over-population causes poor quality of life, but you linked to a paper that is saying poor farm management causes poor quality of life.

 

[Evo]

I have to agree with Mentalist that: the paper you linked to was about poor farm management, not over population.

Yes, I know. Like I said, twice now, I was pointing out that Ethiopia has plenty of arable land, but they can't support the people they have there now. Just because you have land, there are many obstacles that have to be overcome to support them, so saying "here is X amount of land, so we can stick Y number of people there successfully" is not true.

Don't make me repeat that a third time.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Just because you have land, there are many obstacles that have to be overcome to support them, so saying "here is X amount of land, so we can stick Y number of people there successfully" is not true.

This point is clear, and I understood it the first time you posted it, but what isn't clear is why poor farm management = over population.

The problem could be solved by reducing the population there, yes, but it could also be solved by proper agricultural practices. The fact their current manner of farming can't support the current population doesn't automatically mean they have an over population problem. One individual trying to live off a farm could starve to death if s/he didn't know how to grow food plants. You'd have a case where you couldn't even stick one individual there successfully because that particular individual was not up to the task of overcoming the many obstacles that have to be overcome to support them. I would not call that an over population problem, even though, technically, you'd be correct in saying you have one person too many under the circumstances.

 

[Evo]

This point is clear, and I understood it the first time you posted it, but what isn't clear is why poor farm management = over population.

No, you don't understand at all. It doesn't, I never said it did. The purpose of the paper is TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT DICTATE HOW MANY HUMANS CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY SUPPORTED. You just can't say "oh look there's some land, so we can say we can place x number of humans there. No, not unless you can overcome the problems that don't even allow for the current population to be adequately supported.

BANGS HEAD ON DESK.

You can't just ignore the obstacles that currently stand in the way of supporting existing populations.

The fact their current manner of farming can't support the current population doesn't automatically mean they have an over population problem.

Of course not! Never said they did. You have to be getting this idea from mental's mistake where he didn't understand and thought it was about overpopulation.

IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE RESOLVED, before you can just stick more people in places.

OY!

Read my post and point out where I said the Ethiopian example was about overpopulation. Please do post where I said that.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4346905&postcount=16

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

This is the same church that would rather see people die in Africa of aides because of a holy book. The same people that instead of concerning the teachings of Jesus Christ, their lord, whom Pope stands in place of, whom God had instructed, "no-one can stand in place of me(paraphrased)", instead of following the teachings of justice, would rather "relocate" pedophiles. The same people that believe a human in some expensive regalia talks to a being outside of this world and, therefore, we must follow their teachings because this person in expensive regalia holds the voice of God in his head. The same people that exclude other types of individuals because only God can talk to European males. God doesn't talk to Asian, African, or any other race of individuals, or women, because God apparently made women to be lesser, only western, white, European males does God talk to. So, I don't really care for what this church has to say and this means little to me. This is a cult, not a credible organization.

I've been following your posts for quite some time and would have never thought you'd post something like this. It seems out of character to me. But I don't know why, it just kind of irritated me that yet again the Catholic church stifles progress with regressive thinking. They are a cult, a huge cult. I don't care for them or their little teachings they get while humming to themselves hearing their own voices giving speeches in the tongue of the Angels. These people need to be written off as loons because that is essentially what they are, loons.

Every time this happens. "Oh! Don't you begin cloning because it is against the natural order of what God wills" These peoples thoughts are a poison to society, a sickness. They have no place, or should have no place or authority in a civilized world because their belief is a barbaric nuisance to progress.

Work shouldn't be influenced by notions of delusion. The Catholic church makes it their moral imperative to remain in a state of delusion.

Your behavior and logic resembles that of a person displaying the behavior of your name, sans the "ist."

Your rant about the church was cute, but entirely pointless, because you entirely misunderstood what Evo was saying; even when we try to fix solutions, there will often be parties with something to gain from stopping those solutions from being produced. Obviously the church has issues, but that doesn't detract from the truth of what Evo said. No matter how much you think the organization lacks credibility, it still possesses a large amount of power, and can use that power and influence to halt progress, should it so choose.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, you don't understand at all. It doesn't, I never said it did. The purpose of the paper is TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT DICTATE HOW MANY HUMANS CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY SUPPORTED. You just can't say "oh look there's some land, so we can say we can place x number of humans there. No, not unless you can overcome the problems that don't even allow for the current population to be adequately supported.

BANGS HEAD ON DESK.

You can't just ignore the obstacles that currently stand in the way of supporting existing populations.

Of course not! Never said they did. You have to be getting this idea from mental's mistake where he didn't understand and thought it was about overpopulation.

IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE RESOLVED, before you can just stick more people in places.

OY!

I don't know why you're banging your head. Your first post in this thread creates the clear picture you think the problem that needs to be addressed is over population:

Wouldn't population control make more sense? Oh, I guess that would require common sense and responsilble actions by people and the groups they're ruled by.

Then you went on to assert that solving the problem of accommodating more people was not even feasible:

You can't seriously think that just because we can continue cramming humans into every remaining piece of land on Earth that there is no problem or that it would even be feasable.

Then, though, you link to a paper that says a perfectly feasible solution to the Ethiopian situation has, for various reasons, infeasibility not being one of them, not been successfully implemented.

That's why your point in linking to it is not at all clear.

 

[Evo]

I don't know why you're banging your head. Your first post in this thread creates the clear picture you think the problem that needs to be addressed is over population:

I originally posted that overpopulation was a problem that could be addressed here instead of leaving the planet.

mental then tried to make a case that overpopulation wouldn't be a problem because the Earth has a lot of land.

Then in response to mental's post, I moved on to explaining why his claims were not feasable. To highlight the reasons why, I offered the paper on Ethiopia showing that a country that should be able to accommodate more people currently can't. Nothing to do with overpopulation.

Why you can't understand that is beyond me.

I then provided sources addressing the problems with his line of thinking and offered a paper showing why in a country that should be able to sufficiently support their people, they have hurdles preventing it, this is to show what "REAL" problems exist with trying to sustain even a small population in a third world country.

You, for some reason, are still stuck with my first post before mental posted and for some unknown reason you keep trying to combine my first post with a later unassociated post. They are different subjects. Ethiopia is not about overpopulation, I never said it was, but you seem to be blind to that fact. Are you just trolling me? Or are you really not able to see that there are two different topics?

 

[zoobyshoe]

mental then tried to make a case that overpopulation wouldn't be a problem because the Earth has a lot of land.

http://www.metla.fi/tiedotteet/2011/pdf/CPF-final-press-release-forests-human-health.pdf

The last link is about untapped forests that could be utilized for human advantage.

This may be where the problem lies. I don't read that link as saying the Earth has plenty of land. It seems to be saying let's preserve as much forest as possible because of its value as a pharmacopeia.

Medical treasures waiting to be discovered
Currently only less than one per cent of all known plants are thoroughly analyzed for pharmaceuticals and with microbes, fungi and animals the percentage is even smaller. Only a small fraction of all existing species of organisms have been discovered and described so far. Moreover, all higher plants are hosts to one or more endophytic microbes, organisms residing in tissues between or among living plant cells. Of the estimated 500,000 plant species living on the planet, only a handful has had their endophytic microflora thoroughly studied.
“There are medical treasures waiting to be discovered in forest plants literally everywhere. For example, we recently began a study on the microflora of the root system of the common Scots Pine, Pinus sylvestris”, informed Professor Raitio: “We wanted to see what kind of chemical substances can be found in the microscopic fungi that are living symbiotically with the tree, and test them against the age‐related eye disease (AREDS), which is a major cause of vision loss in people of advanced age all over the world. We thought that in a few years we may find a substance that could be of potential use, but only after a few months of research we already had our first candidate. We are now cooperating with medical doctors to develop a medicine of it.”
Traditional medicine also greatly relies on forest resources, for example in the treatment of malaria. Most of the hundreds of millions of cases of malaria each year are in sub‐Saharan Africa, where it is the second highest cause of death from infectious disease. Poor communities have limited access to modern drugs, with the majority relying on traditional medicine in treating malaria. The World Agroforestry Centre recently published a guide entitled ‘Common Antimalarial Trees and Shrubs of East Africa’, which describes 22 species of trees and shrubs that are used as antimalarial treatments in East Africa by traditional medical practitioners and rural communities. “These species have great potential for further study and development as readily available alternative treatments for the curse of malaria,” said Najma Dharani, the main author of the book.

I don't see where Mentalist's argument seems to be we have plenty of land. Aside from this one, the other links seemed to be about population growth stabilizing on its own, eventually.

 

[BobG]

I think Evo's point is clear.

A mathematical model showing how many people we should be able to support will give you overly optimistic numbers.

Real world politics, civil wars, sanctions, economic interests, religious beliefs, etc. will prevent the world from ever coming close to the ideal models. You can say it's the fault of this group of people or that group of people that we don't reach some optimal model, but it's almost inevitable that something will prevent the optimal model from being reached.

But that doesn't mean the models are meaningless. It just means the actual result will usually be somewhat less.

 

[BobG]

"We must continue to go into space for humanity," Hawking said today, according to the Los Angeles Times. "We won't survive another 1,000 years without escaping our fragile planet."

I don't know about the timeline, but it's pretty much the natural order of things that they'll eventually meet some demise.

Everyone dies. Every species eventually goes extinct when their environment undergoes radical changes. And, if you project out far enough, the Sun will turn into a red giant, eliminating all life on Earth (a very extreme change in the environment)?

Is there some particular reason that humanity should last for eternity? Especially in a universe that won't last for eternity?

 

[DiracPool]

Is there some particular reason that humanity should last for eternity? Especially in a universe that won't last for eternity?

Yes, because we're human. That's our job. IDK about eternity, but our duty is continue the species until the next manifestation of our germ line appears and takes it from there.

 

[DiracPool]

You can't seriously think that just because we can continue cramming humans into every remaining piece of land on Earth that there is no problem or that it would even be feasable. It's not that hard to find information on the destruction of the rain forests, pollution of the oceans, etc... to see how much damage we are doing.

It's about quality of life, jobs, healthcare, availability of food and water, and environmental impact.

http://www.colorado.edu/econ/courses/roper/sustainable-economics/pop/royal-society_92.html

A good example for you to study would be Ethiopia. They have a vast amount of arable land, yet the people suffer from hunger, lack of safe water, lack of sanitation, etc...

http://www.future-agricultures.org/pdf%20files/SG_paper_3.pdf

Right, there needs to be a balance between producers and consumers. There are industrial advantages of having a larger human population, but those advantages from a life-sustaining perspective end there. The problem isn't as simple as "how many people can the Earth support." If you live to eat Caviar, and everyone eats Caviar, then we have way too many people already, and the population will dwindle signifiantly due to overfishing. Most humans don't have diets that consist of only eating caviar, but if they did, there would be be a big problem right now.

So what's your chosen limiting factor on population growth? If there were 1 billion people rather than 7 billion people, the price of gold would likely be 1/7 the price it is now, to use a simple model. Or looking at it another way, each human could have 7 times more gold to possesses for themselves. To frame the question as to what population of humans the Earth can sustain is completely missing the point. It is about a quality of life, as Evo points out. Getting back to the overfishing problem, we are artificailly selecting the oceans vertebrate species in a manner that we're likely to regret even a 100 years from now. This is another problem of overpopulation, the unbalanced effects it has on natural selection.

 

[DiracPool]

I wish prominent scientists would do what they're good at: being extraordinary scientists, and not trying to be sages.

Sorry for the triple post here. I'm trying to keep a low profile as I seem to get banned from the site for a week on every third post. However, my conscience tells me I have to weigh in on this thread.

So, in this post, I have to say I disagree with Lisab, which is rare, because I usually am on the same page with her. I think that the general population needs to hear the political views of our great scientists. In fact, I may even go so far as to say it is a responsibilty of them to do so, as most shy away from the limelight. What if Einstein hadn't waxed his pacifist manifestos during both the great wars? Would it have changed anything THEN? Probably not, but his words have been ringing in the ears of the learned and erudite, and even many politicians over the last century, and I would argue that it HAS made a difference.

 

[AlephZero]

Traditional medicine also greatly relies on forest resources, for example in the treatment of malaria. Most of the hundreds of millions of cases of malaria each year are in sub‐Saharan Africa, where it is the second highest cause of death from infectious disease. Poor communities have limited access to modern drugs, with the majority relying on traditional medicine in treating malaria. The World Agroforestry Centre recently published a guide entitled ‘Common Antimalarial Trees and Shrubs of East Africa’, which describes 22 species of trees and shrubs that are used as antimalarial treatments in East Africa by traditional medical practitioners and rural communities. “These species have great potential for further study and development as readily available alternative treatments for the curse of malaria,” said Najma Dharani, the main author of the book.

(No idea whose post that originally came from).

That's a nice argument for getting a research grant to study traditional medicine, but a poor way to attack malaria.

Providing mosquito nets in the short term, and draining swamps in the long term, is 100% effective, but unfortunately for research scientists, it doesn't require any more research.

 

[zoobyshoe]

(No idea whose post that originally came from).

That's a nice argument for getting a research grant to study traditional medicine, but a poor way to attack malaria.

I'll take your word for it. My only point in quoting that was to show the link in question is not about cutting down rainforest to make room for people to live on. The "human benefit" alluded to is primarily medicinal, not a matter of making more living space.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I'm trying to keep a low profile as I seem to get banned from the site for a week on every third post.

I'm sorry but this comment is just brilliant. I laughed so hard lol, thank you good sir.

 

[Mentalist]

Mental, I'm not talking about if there is hypothetically enough land mass to keep x number of humans alive, go back and read what I said.

True. Scroll down for short version, or read the rest of the post.

mental then tried to make a case that overpopulation wouldn't be a problem because the Earth has a lot of land.

My first post does take into account land and resources.

The Ethiopian case offers a case analysis to what you are claiming that there seems to be problems that exist before a population can grow. Sure, but while you didn't necessarily miss the point of my post entirely, however, you disregarded what I was trying to say.

My original posts intent was to show that there isn't an overpopulation problem. The U.N. paper specifically states that even though the population is growing it will soon plateau off towards 10B.

But, OF COURSE, we have to be able to deal with problems that currently exist. However, those problems will exist even if the population were held at 7B. Pollutants in water by corporations, droughts, lack of capitalization on resources as in your Ethiopian case. But making strides in these areas, like the rest of the world is, and Africa in general (Ethiopia is below the standard of African agriculture as stated within your paper), larger populations are sustainable.

Like I said in my 3rd post, problems do exist that need to be addressed, but population growth isn't one of those problems. You believe that we ought to address the problems before a population can grow, my point is, population is a non-issue and will grow regardless of what you think because this is the reality of life, so let's just tackle the problems to sustain the population of humans.

To frame the question as to what population of humans the Earth can sustain is completely missing the point. It is about a quality of life, as Evo points out

Your comfort level is irrelevant. I am talking about sustainability. I disregarded that as I didn't care for it and felt it irrelevant to my post.

Real world politics, civil wars, sanctions, economic interests, religious beliefs, etc. will prevent the world from ever coming close to the ideal models. You can say it's the fault of this group of people or that group of people that we don't reach some optimal model, but it's almost inevitable that something will prevent the optimal model from being reached.

This will happen regardless of population size. But the models in my post merely point to humans having sex, thus having babies. Religions, economic interests, are irrelevant to this reality.

Sure, given that these sorts of organizations exist and have a hand in the dealings of the world as Evo points will ultimately influence how we go about dealing with the problems we currently face, a larger population will have more difficulties. I understand that. However, like my post clearly outlines in the first and foremost post, I don't care for that, I am purely talking about the notion that overpopulation is a problem. This is not a problem, the problems are what you listed organizations, etc..., and these will continue to be problems regardless of population size if they aren't dealt with.

Overpopulation = no problem

Problem = All of what you said and Evo said (population-based posts not-with-standing).

The population will keep growing, we've achieved escape velocity in terms of that. Deal with the actual problem and not the knuckles like I said in the 3rd post.

Obviously the church has issues, but that doesn't detract from the truth of what Evo said. No matter how much you think the organization lacks credibility, it still possesses a large amount of power, and can use that power and influence to halt progress, should it so choose.

Sure, my original post cares not for this. This is irrelevant. These problems exist despite any population size. Taking a brief stroll down memory lane (i.e., history) will show you as such. These are problems that must be dealt with, population size? You try to "deal" with that, you automatically are on a losing end and completely miss the point of what actually needs to be dealt with.

Humans will have sex. You can, "get out the word" on the street corners and yell about, "WE NEED TO CONTROL THE POPULATION" but the chances of it working are slim. Even so, it is quite inane to do it in the first world though as people in the West and some Asian countries see a decline in fertility rates, so you'd ultimately have to venture out to the developing world spouting such rhetoric. To which I say, "good luck! You won't accomplish anything and the problems will still exist."

In other words,

Fighting population = losing battle.
Fighting problems = a feasible winning battle.

Given that, population isn't much a problem that needs to be addressed.

Short Version:

We all agree that these problems need to be addressed. But pouring resources to quell the population size is not a good plan in my opinion, and it will divert attention away from the problems that do exist. You cannot fight two ends of a battle with the same amount of concentration and energy, one of the battles will ultimately take more strength.

Thus, to say that the population needs to remain stagnant or be reduced means that you would have to divert attention towards that end (to keep it stagnant or reduced), and that ultimately won't deal with the actual problems that exist, or will minimize the concentration and energy towards the problems that do exist, i.e. corporation pollution, religious influence, etc...

I think we can agree now to some extent.

 

[Evo]

I think we can agree now to some extent.

No, population control is a necessity as agreed upon by over 1,700 scientists and specialists in this area.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'll take the word of people that know what they're talking about.

 

[chiro]

You can't seriously think that just because we can continue cramming humans into every remaining piece of land on Earth that there is no problem or that it would even be feasable. It's not that hard to find information on the destruction of the rain forests, pollution of the oceans, etc... to see how much damage we are doing.

It's about quality of life, jobs, healthcare, availability of food and water, and environmental impact.

http://www.colorado.edu/econ/courses/roper/sustainable-economics/pop/royal-society_92.html

A good example for you to study would be Ethiopia. They have a vast amount of arable land, yet the people suffer from hunger, lack of safe water, lack of sanitation, etc...

http://www.future-agricultures.org/pdf%20files/SG_paper_3.pdf

The resource allocation that goes on today (think "waste" as opposed to allocation) is absolutely ridiculous.

Lots of resources are squandered when they don't have to be and our economic models all over the planet reward this kind of behaviour through the generation of profit.

I'm not a Marxist by any stretch, but unfortunately the incentives are geared to waste resources instead of using them wisely.

It is not good business to create something that is built to last and only needs to be purchased once.

If you want a real good look at waste you should look at how much the private defence companies have wasted in the Iraq war (namely: Halliburton) because this kind of activity is the norm in many areas.

As long as economic models thrive on creating waste and excess, you will never even get close to a proper solution for resource sustainability no matter what kind or class of resource you are talking about.

The economic models are really a misnomer: there is nothing "economic" about them (the meaning is completely inverted and diluted).

 

[chiro]

With regards to over population, I'd like to see these people talk about real effective resource allocation that benefits everyone equally before I hear them decide who gets to live and who gets to die.

It really comes down to one thing: one group wants too much of the pie and you'll always hear that someone else is to blame for all the problems and never one's own actions.

We all support companies that abuse resource allocation, and they continue to do what they need to do for their share-holders and their own pockets.

One of the hardest things for us to do will be to sit down and say "I think SHTF so we need a way to allocate resources in a way that is the least wasteful and the most economic".

To do this you would have to change nearly every single system on our entire planet including our banking system, economic system, trade and business systems, legal system and the systems of governance that have a direct link to the system of resources.

Doing this requires either a revolution of the highest order, or real co-operation between everyone for everyone's benefit.

There are some out there that have too much to lose with such a massive change and they will do whatever they can to keep themselves and their lifestyle in tact.

How do you think Walmart or China would react if they had to follow resource allocation laws that didn't make them create as much useless crap as they do now?

It would be more observational purposes very interesting to see (for scientific purposes), the reactions from the PR firms, lobbying groups, CEO mouthpieces, government mouthpieces, and all the other slick suited sharks when a real resource allocation project was discussed that ultimately hit their bottom line.

For me it would be a good laugh at least (almost like hearing a addict that they are going to quit tomorrow).

 

[DiracPool]

The resource allocation that goes on today (think "waste" as opposed to allocation) is absolutely ridiculous.

Lots of resources are squandered when they don't have to be and our economic models all over the planet reward this kind of behaviour through the generation of profit.

I'm not a Marxist by any stretch, but unfortunately the incentives are geared to waste resources instead of using them wisely.

It is not good business to create something that is built to last and only needs to be purchased once.

If you want a real good look at waste you should look at how much the private defence companies have wasted in the Iraq war (namely: Halliburton) because this kind of activity is the norm in many areas.

As long as economic models thrive on creating waste and excess, you will never even get close to a proper solution for resource sustainability no matter what kind or class of resource you are talking about.

The economic models are really a misnomer: there is nothing "economic" about them (the meaning is completely inverted and diluted).

Here here! This is more of a conservation issue not directly related to overpopulation per se, but it highlights how bad management can get amplified severely if you increase the number of bad managers. I'm afraid the goose that is laying the golden eggs on planet Earth needs to watch her back...

 

[mheslep]

No, population control is a necessity as agreed upon by over 1,700 scientists and specialists in this area.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'll take the word of people that know what they're talking about.

The summary you provided earlier of a statement by a group of scientists not call for population control, it called for population stability. Global population is stabilizing.

 

[Evo]

The summary you provided earlier of a statement by a group of scientists not call for population control, it called for population stability. Global population is stabilizing.

Call it what you want but the population is increasing. Another 3 billion is not stabilizing when we can't sufficiently cope with the numbers now.

It's this burying heads in the sand and refusing to be unpopular and call it what it is. Ten billion, oh that's great! Uhm, no. Don't tell me that because we may have the ability to get everyone a daily bowl of rice that overpopulation isn't a concern.

Overpopulation isn't about food. It's about sustaining quality of life, making life worth living.

How many PF members can't find jobs? Can't get into college, can't get into Phd programs? May never be able to own a decent house or car. Over population, or if you don't like that term "Carrying capacity".

Most of the world's 5.5 billion people are becoming poorer as they compete against each other for jobs. Most lose purchasing power on a yearly basis. Increasing numbers drop out of the consumer market altogether, exerting no effective demand. Thus; it was a fact that December, 1990, oat and wheat prices sank to their lowest levels since 1972 while more people than before starved or lived on the edge of famine. The multitudes do not bid up prices. Quality of life and environmental health, not commodity prices, are clues that the carrying capacity is being exceeded.

POPULATION SIZE AND THE STANDARD OF LIVING

Now for the bad news. Depletion of soil, water, and fuel at a much faster rate than any of these can be replenished suggests that the carrying capacity of the United States already has been exceeded. David and Marcia Pimentel (1991) of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, take these three factors into account to estimate that, at a standard of living only slightly lower than is enjoyed today, the sustainable population size for the United States is less than half its present number. Beyond this, we abuse the carrying capacity and should expect sudden shocks that will massively drive down the standard of living.

http://www.jayhanson.us/page58.htm

I have seen in my own lifetime how the ability for someone to earn a living, get an education, have hopes even of bettering their position in life have become dreams. And through no fault of their own. There are simply too many people competing for those things now. Doing well in school and the willingness to work hard no longer guarantee you anything.

So don't tell me, if we had the means, we could somehow manage to keep 10 billion people alive. That's not living.

 

[OmCheeto]

I do believe that we have gone off topic.

Whatever happened to Stephen Hawking?

 

[chiro]

Here here! This is more of a conservation issue not directly related to overpopulation per se, but it highlights how bad management can get amplified severely if you increase the number of bad managers. I'm afraid the goose that is laying the golden eggs on planet Earth needs to watch her back...

One of the main claims of overpopulation and eugenics movements is that overpopulation causes pressure on resources and as a result, population reduction measures are needed.

The situation is that the economic framework of the world is geared to waste resources because it is profitable to do so.

There is no incentive to create only what is required: you would go out of business.

You have to understand that the whole system from the credit creation all the way to the final market place has been engineered to rape resources and benefit a few.

If you told all producers at all levels (raw materials, manufacturing, etc) that they had production cap requirements and had to produce things that were superior quality, then it would mean that to maintain existing profit margins, they would have to charge a bucket-load or lose profits.

The above situation would mean that Walmart wouldn't exist and the Chinese Model would be illegal. It would mean that Halliburton would be prosecuted and that people wouldn't have to put up with cheap crap that breaks the minute you get it in the house. It would be socially responsible, save resources, but ultimately stop a select few from having skewed inequities.

If you brought this issue up with a corporation in a debate, the response would be something like "we create jobs and grow the economy: are you against jobs and economic growth?". The whole point though is that the economic model is the problem.

The economic activity is just little 1's and 0's going over communication lines that is designed to transfer wealth from one section to another and to eventually give resources to people that already have too much to know what to do with. Its almost like a high score to a computer game addict where people are willing to do anything to get their high score up for power, bragging rights, and everything else.

Personally I'd love to hear these PR shills and lobbying groups argue their case for the current economic system (and its been done quite a bit) from the benefits of capitalism (you know the whole spiel: someone gets rich, they employ people and create jobs and suddenly everybody is doing well and everyone can spend money blah blah blah) and how somehow the only alternative is some pure Marxist state (i.e. complete central planning).

Its also not like there aren't such measures: for example the fisheries industry is meant to give out licenses so that you can only catch so much fish so that they repopulate (not sure about Japan though), so it's not like what I am saying is pure theory across the board.

The problem is that it's not completely across the board and if production limits are capped, it's usually not to preserve resources but rather for "economic" means (to drive prices higher, or maybe for some entity to cripple a competitor or foreign government).

To give you an idea of how crazy things are: you have places like China building new structures and then demolishing them for the effect on GDP. This is just absolutely crazy.

You also governments around the world blow money because they don't value it. Unlike the majority of people who have to spend their time to obtain it, governments just get it through a monopoly on force.

People that don't value something will always waste it and governments are no exception.

There are a million other examples but I think the point has been made.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
making life worth living.
...
So don't tell me, if we had the means, we could somehow manage to keep 10 billion people alive. That's not living.

Bingo!

 

[DiracPool]

So don't tell me, if we had the means, we could somehow manage to keep 10 billion people alive. That's not living.

I think that may be the issue right there. A balance between Evo's point and Chiro's point. We actually just may, in fact, be able to support 10 billion people on this planet, if everyone was acting responsibly. You know, like everyone was recycling properly, and, as Chiro said, we make things to last and NOT to decay at the 3 year limit so we have to buy the next model. Hell, we wouldn't even need people to act responsibly on their own accord; if governments instituted sane conversation policies we could deal with the outliers. People could get together and build the "windmills" of sustainable energy and a caring concern for the biosphere, and then perhaps we could accommodate 20 billion people. I don't know.

However, this isn't the case. With the arrogance and selfishness of governments and human peoples in general these days I think we should keep the population as low as possible until we figure this out.

 

[Evo]

Ok, so back to Hawking sending people off into space. Sorry for the sidetrack.

No more side discussions. Only about Hawking's proposal. All side posts will be deleted.