|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 04/03/2002 : 21:28:30
|
I wanted to try to expound a bit on this subject without hijacking the abortion thread.
I think the most important factor to consider in an assessment of the Earth's "human storage capacity" is what I will call accessory land. This includes all the space for farming, livestock raising, wetlands for water recycling, even undeveloped forest for oxygen production, among other things. Much of this land cannot be just any land. And the need for this land grows at a rate at least commensurate with the growth of the population. Because of this, I suspect the notion that we'll have plenty of space to put everyone in 50 years is shortsighted.
Comments?
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2002 : 21:44:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I suspect the notion that we'll have plenty of space to put everyone in 50 years is shortsighted.
Comments?
If you are saying what I think you are saying, my comment is:
Thank you.
Next I would like to ask:
Why can't some people understand that?
It's not just your 'accessory land', what about what I'll call wild places? Space to admire for it's beauty and to relax in. 'Man does not live by bread alone'
Not everything has to be practical, art IS important to Mans existence too.
Everyone said it couldn't be done. So no one tried. Execpt one old man who lived in a cave on the other side of the world. He hadn't heard it couldn't be done. So he tried. He couldn't do it either.
If you succeed, you sell, if you 'fail' you learn |
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2002 : 22:05:04 [Permalink]
|
I always thought that overpopulation was mostly a problem in the less tecnological advanced coutries. Most statistics I have seen indicate that industialised regions tend to have a negative population growth if you ignore migration. So it all just looked like a matter of money to me.
Of course there are factors like supestitions about birth control that some people seem to have, but even those are less of a problem in the first world.
The other thing is that if manged inteligently our planet can sustain a lot more humans than it might be thought. If we tried to feed the current population with the technolgy we had a century ago we would be faced with a catastrophy. It seems resonable to expect that with technolgical advances we will be able to feed more humans in the future.
I am not saying that overpopulation is not a problem, i just don't think that it is as big a concern as some people think.
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 03:43:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am not saying that overpopulation is not a problem, i just don't think that it is as big a concern as some people think.
I'd like to know where the hell all you people live who think it's not a problem. Here in Los Angeles more and wider freeways are being built and they are filled up with traffic before they are done! The skyline of LA has gotten taller the past 20 years and it's ugly! Parking is impossible and the lines in the stores are long. Just try calling downtown to city hall to get some information or service. I was calling my doctor today and put on hold for so long I hung up.
Is not all that do to over population? I blame that on too many people.
When LA was a 'smaller' town people weren't as rude either.
Not to mention going outside of LA, it used to be a nice drive 'out in the countryside'. There's no 'empty' space anymore, you never leave a city or some kind of buildings or see open land. Buildings and shopping malls fill the landscape, it's horrid. I want to see a mountian or two and cows grazzing not stucco and billboards.
Get those filty people out of my world.
Everyone said it couldn't be done. So no one tried. Execpt one old man who lived in a cave on the other side of the world. He hadn't heard it couldn't be done. So he tried. He couldn't do it either.
If you succeed, you sell, if you 'fail' you learn |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 05:34:56 [Permalink]
|
A big part of the reason why people refuse to see why overpopulation is a problem is our pro-natalistic bent which dismisses anyone who challenges the notion that more babies are an unmitigated blessing as a freak or worse. (I'm sorry about my unscientific language here--it is a bit of a personal issue with me).
I'm with you, Snake. It's funny how the people who gleefully pop out the sprogs as if there will never be any shortage of resources are the first to complain about crowded highways, restaurants and schools, long waiting lines, "bad service" from customer service providers who cannot possibly handle the volume of demands they receive, etc.
I think, however, that with regards to over-population, the US will characteristically ignore or downplay the problem until it is too late to deal with it adequately.
"What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?" --Ursula LeGuin |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 06:28:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A big part of the reason why people refuse to see why overpopulation is a problem is our pro-natalistic bent which dismisses anyone who challenges the notion that more babies are an unmitigated blessing as a freak or worse. (I'm sorry about my unscientific language here--it is a bit of a personal issue with me).
I'm with you, Snake. It's funny how the people who gleefully pop out the sprogs as if there will never be any shortage of resources are the first to complain about crowded highways, restaurants and schools, long waiting lines, "bad service" from customer service providers who cannot possibly handle the volume of demands they receive, etc.
I think, however, that with regards to over-population, the US will characteristically ignore or downplay the problem until it is too late to deal with it adequately.
So, IOW, the usual policy for the US.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 07:59:46 [Permalink]
|
I don't think that the problems that have been described above can be traced to overpopulation. LA may have problems with to many people trying to live in the same place, but that is only to a very small degree due to more people being born then dieing there. It is because of to many people moving there from other parts. And of course because of bad mangment.
Overall, ignoring migration, Northern America 'only' has a population growth of somewhere around .5 percent per annum. Europe has even a slight negative natural population growth.
The places where overpopulation really is becoming a problem are the ones that already have to few resorces.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 10:48:35 [Permalink]
|
I think the scope of the problem lies somewhere in between the two extremes: 1) 'There's no space at all, witness New York City, LA, etc.' and 2) 'Look around, there's plenty of undeveloped land on which to put people.' I am skeptical of our species' ability to fully or mostly mechanize the processes that currently only operate on undeveloped land but I also recognize that some of those processes can be mechanized, and in fact are being mechanized.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 11:10:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am skeptical of our species' ability to fully or mostly mechanize the processes that currently only operate on undeveloped land but I also recognize that some of those processes can be mechanized, and in fact are being mechanized.
Tell them....(gasp, weese) Soylent Green is....is.......................people.
THUD
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 12:30:03 [Permalink]
|
I think the most limiting factor to population growth is even simpler than "accessory land". It's WATER.
Fresh, clean, potable, WATER.
If you're a rich nation, your people can pipe the water to where it isn't and then have court fights with the people whose water you're taking. I'm thinking of the classic water usage battles between California and Arizona.
If you're a poor nation then your people migrate to where the water is and keep crowding in until the local water supply is overwhelmed.
Regardless of how crowded it is in New York or L.A., when you turn on the tap, clean water generally flows out. That is simply not the case in many cities in Africa, the Middle East or Asia. Assuming, of course, that the building you're in even HAS plumbing.
(:raig |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 12:44:13 [Permalink]
|
Yes, water has been the issue in my mind every time discussions like this come up. There is, of course, no shortage of water on Earth. The planet is covered by quite a lot of it but most of that is undrinkable. Rich nations can build expensive facilities to remove the salt but that option is not available to a good 75% of the world's population.
Yes, there is plenty of land to grow crops but not nearly enough water. let's not forget that much of the water in the poorest areas is also highly polluted.
Another issue in regards to all the space we have in the US is that we set aside large areas for cattle grazing. To feed the world as others have suggested we could easily do we would need to stop wasting resources this way and cut down on beef consumption significantly. This would actually be beneficial for everyone since beef is so unhealthy but I can imagine the whining in Texas about giving up steaks to feed those slackers in Bangladesh.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 14:26:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you're a rich nation, your people can pipe the water to where it isn't and then have court fights with the people whose water you're taking. I'm thinking of the classic water usage battles between California and Arizona.
It's not only state to state fighting, we've had that battle for years even within our own state of California for years and still a problem. (see the movie Chinatown)
quote:
Yes, water has been the issue in my mind every time discussions like this come up. There is, of course, no shortage of water on Earth. The planet is covered by quite a lot of it but most of that is undrinkable. Rich nations can build expensive facilities to remove the salt but that option is not available to a good 75% of the world's population.
California, is supposed to be the 7th (is it?) largest economy in the world! I think there was talk about building desalinization plants near the ocean, way too expensive for the results. We here in California are already being taxed higher then many other states from what I hear. What appears to be an easy solution involves many factors. We could have water I suppose, but at what cost? Better and easier to control population.
Everyone said it couldn't be done. So no one tried. Execpt one old man who lived in a cave on the other side of the world. He hadn't heard it couldn't be done. So he tried. He couldn't do it either.
If you succeed, you sell, if you 'fail' you learn |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 17:31:42 [Permalink]
|
PhDreamer> Good idea. I spend ages looking for the overpopulation talk yesterday, as I had completely forgot where it was :).
A comment first: When we talk overpopulation there are two topics. One relates to whether or not the Earth could/can support the amount of people living on it now. The other is if there is overpopulation due to the way society is run and done at present.
In the late 90's I stumbled across some UN or UN-organisation report saying that the Earth can inhabit some 10 billion people, if fishing, farming etc. was done with respect to the environment, without ruining the planet. So in principle the Earth is not overpopulated, the way we do things and distribute goods just isn't very smart. I think this is what Lars_H is referring to as well and answers Snakes question as to “where the hell all you people live who think it's not a problem”. It's not a question as where, but how things are managed.
In reality there are places that are overpopulated. People have a tendency to move to big cities in search of jobs and to pursue happiness. This creates massive slums like in Calcutta or Mexico City. Or LA for that matter.
But the overpopulation is not due to people, but to management of planet Earth. The amount of cars is going up steeply, why don't anyone consider public transportation instead?
The population is declining here in DK. The politicians talk about the “elderly-burden”, because there are fewer young people to support the old people, and the tendency is not really changing. And immigration can hardly make up for the “lack” of births.
Or what will happen to China? Will it end up as a male-only country with its one-child policy and everyone wanting a boy?
Certain areas can be overpopulated due to numbnut ideas about infrastructure, economic growth and the usual politicians talk.
I agree with Snake that humans need breathing spaces, beautiful scenery and woods to walk in in Springtime your partner. (I for one love spring wood-walks with my husband). But as far as I read the above report, these things were taken into consideration.
Mr. Spock> I don't think more babies are a blessing to humanity either. I'll point to the above.
But that doesn't mean there won't be overpopulation. When the number of people on the planet goes above 10 billion even changing our ways of farming, fishing and infrastructure won't help us.
(Looks at Slater) Okay, man, you need to eat… something! :)
Mespo_Man> Oh, yes. When we stop fighting over oil, it'll be over clean water. Scary. Didn't I hear last year about some trend with some water-companies: Go to Arctic or Greenland and buy the ice, take it back, melt it and sell it in bottles?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2002 : 18:08:31 [Permalink]
|
You all can relax. Nature has a way of evening things out.
When animal populations in the wild get too large, disease comes through and wipes out a swack of the population, leaving enough animals to run through the cycle again. With pheasants, grouse, rabbits, and coyotes, it's about 7 years. Deer is about 11 years. Humans, well, we're still on our first round, aren't we?
Years ago, I also read about studies done with rats. If they are kept disease free, and resource rich (enough food and water) they turn nasty on eachother, and kill the weak and the young. Population declines to reasonable levels and the cycle repeats.
Industrialized countries indeed are experiencing negative growth. Perhaps education and industrialization are the key for us to achieve sustainable population levels. If not, nature will take care of it for us.
So what will it matter in a million years?
I've been called worse things by better people. (Pierre E. Trudeau) |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2002 : 00:58:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When LA was a 'smaller' town people weren't as rude either.
Same here, (although we think crowded is a population of 4 million) people are a hell of a lot ruder. I have noticed this at the local shopping centre or mall as you would know it. People are so self absorbed in themselves they don't give a shit if the knock you or cut you off. Sorry is a word that does'nt get used much anymore.
Don't get me started about courtesy on the roads either.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2002 : 01:40:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
People have a tendency to move to big cities in search of jobs and to pursue happiness.
Yes, exactly that's a main reason to more anywhere. But when populations get bigger in the city itself, where do people go? The suburbs. The suburbs become cities, and they become over crowded. Do you see? It never ends. Did you see where I said, at one time a person could drive in California and see open spaces, it was pleasent. Now there is hardly a place to look on the highway that isn't taken up with a billboard or rooftop or shopping center. And THEN WHAT, after ALL the space/land is taken. THEN WHAT. At what point do we say, enough is enough. Ok, maybe, just maybe the reports you read are correct, do we wait until there are that many billions of people to say we have to do something? I will respond to the rat in a cage post later, see that comment.
quote:
The amount of cars is going up steeply, why don't anyone consider public transportation instead?
Because the polititions are ass holes and people are selfish.
Who in their right mind is going to take a subway(underground) in California, home of Earthquakes. The government spent millions, kept making mistakes that were costing more and more millions and last I heard no one rides the stupid thing anyway, plus, BIG JOKE, it doesn't even have a long route only covers a small area. So you tell me how is any problem going to be solved with idiots like that controlling things?quote:
Or what will happen to China? Will it end up as a male-only country with its one-child policy and everyone wanting a boy?
Hey, that's ok with me. Heh, he. Asian men are the handsomest things on Earth, I live with a Chinaman. And we have one child who's 1/2 Asian. A boy. I think I would have killed it had he been born a girl. Men are better.quote:
I agree with Snake that humans need breathing spaces, beautiful scenery and woods to walk in in Springtime your partner. (I for one love spring wood-walks with my husband).
Thank you for that.
quote:
But as far as I read the above report, these things were taken into consideration.
Then they didn't take enough into consideration. And by who's standards did they decide? Perhaps some people think an acre is enough but others might think a mile per person is not enough. I don't want anyone judging for me what they think is an average proportion per person of 'breathing room'. Another thought, if/when the population becomes so huge and land starts to become more valuable. The rich get richer? Or do people do the same thing that happened in Russia and China when the Communist took over? We own property in California and a some in Thailand, I don't want anyone telling me what I can do with them or that I'd have to give them up because someone else needs to use it. Those are MY 'wi |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
