World Population Expected To Hit 7 Billion In Late October 522
kkleiner writes "A new report documents the prodigious rate at which the world's population is growing. It was just 1999 when we reached 6 billion. And now within the next month or two we will have surpassed 7 billion. What does the continued increase in world population mean for humanity and for the the planet?"
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
What does the continued increase in world population mean for humanity and for the the planet?"
War
Growth equals disaster (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone that has ever seen a photo of the Earth from orbit knows resources and even space on the Earth are limited. This idea of constant growth is inherently insane. Space travel isn't the solution to the population problem since it would require moving nearly a billion people a decade just to keep up with the current growth rate. Space is about long term survival not growth. Most of the fisheries have already collapsed and much of the world is facing water shortages. Civilization existed for thousands of years without gasoline but it can't survive without water. Either we limit population or mother nature will do it for us. We can't high tech our way through the mess since we are already running short of things as basic as copper. The two biggest critical shortages are water and land suitable for growing crops. Extracting water is expensive and they aren't making more land. We change or change gets forced on us.
Population Growth Areas.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately the areas that are experiencing the highest population growth are not first world countries. They are the countries which are unable to sustain their population, and depend on government (usually not available), or international hand-outs to survive.
If we want to solve this problem, we must cut aid to areas which cannot sustain itself. I realize that's harsh, but creating a life does not entitle it to live. There's a reason we fight to survive, and getting hand-outs (for the long term, not just some short-term disaster) due to unsustainable population areas means we're just making it worse.
Cut off the aid, and let the population re-balance itself on what can be sustained by these 3rd world areas. This will lower demand on resources as well, and allow the world to grow at a more moderate pace.
Re:Ehrlich was right, just a little early. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Alarmism (Score:5, Insightful)
Limits; the simple over pop models don't apply (Score:4, Insightful)
Humans are complex social creatures. When we over populate some people will not notice or care while others will suffer. Going even further, we will create methods by which more people can feel at ease and even some of the suffering people can create an incorrect context to feel better about it. We can lower statistical thresholds on just how bad poverty is... among other things.
We still have an influential amount of people who refuse to admit and another who refuse to adapt to the climate crisis we are in-- which is CAUSED by over population... sure, blame technology for it-- if there were fewer people wasting and polluting the climate could handle it better.
If you think a quality of life on par with the EU is a good goal, then you've already picked something impossible because the planet can only sustain about 2 billion people at those living standards; and possibly over the longer term the climate may not handle that either (but likely it would be slow enough we could adapt?)
JOBS: the big deal is jobs. there may be enough food to go around even today and we can ignore the fact it'll not keep up with population growth; because we don't have economically viable means to distribute the food / resources to WORKING peoples of the world who deserve equal right of access. We don't have enough gainful employment for the world; we have far far less meaningful jobs because we must create consumerism in order to prop up pointless jobs; this increases the resource consumption at a higher rate than population growth in order to maintain continual economic growth (which isn't sustainable either.) After we remove the cheap exploited labor and replace it with robotics there will be even more people unable to find work and we will have to invent even more meaningless jobs... something which seems unsustainable as well.
Re:7 Billion Zombies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:7 Billion Zombies (Score:3, Insightful)
Hush, you fool!! Killing off all the people stupid enough to believe that hippie claptrap before they can reproduce is a great way to chlorinate the gene pool.
Re:The Texas Myth (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I make the point that it doesn't. "Occupancy" doesn't begin to cover it. To quote:
Re:7 Billion Zombies (Score:5, Insightful)
Your message seems to be targeted to 1st world nations and I hate to break it to you, but the first world nations aren't the biggest, except maybe the US (who is 3rd in population) and Russia (who is 10th in population). The biggest nations in the world have an organic diet, basically whatever food they find. Swim only in non-chlorinated pools, or discharge channels whichever comes first. Exercise...Well that's not exactly top on their list when they are starving. Have never even heard the word chiropractor. Do not even have an option to "Big Pharma". (sarcasm) In fact look at how wonderful the people in India are doing.(/sarcasm)
When it comes down to it, if I had to choose between "clean" water and actual clean water. I'd choose the latter over crapping myself to death. [wikipedia.org] I don't know where this idea of, "we're making the Earth worst," came from but the underlying point is that the Earth came built with all kinds of stuff to make our lives horrible, very, very horrible. It is through burning fossils, radiating ourselves, hacking birds with forty foot grinders, and pumping our food supply full of wonderful artificial crap; that you actually have survived long enough to type your rant on the things that have kept you alive. (AKA, it's real hard to take that jog though the fresh country air when some animal is tracking you for food, or to swim in a non-chlorinated pool when you have Polio from swimming in non-chlorinated pools)
Everything in this world has a trade-off, nothing is perfect and that includes the ecosystem with or without us. Intelligence breeds destruction as you may see it. I, however, believe that we have within our grasp the ability to ensure our own survival either on or off of this lump of rock we call Earth. There will be things that we must give up and there will be things we must accept going forward. There will always be people who cannot stand change, who fight advancement; either because they fear it or poorly understand it. You, dear troll, have no idea, nor do you care to understand. It's just easier that way isn't it? By all means, move out to the *real* country of the African savannah or the the south-central regions of Utah. Let me know how you like it.
Re:Population Growth Areas.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that other people are competitors is not Politically Correct, even though competition is the norm in Nature.
Re:So let's make fossil fuels MORE expensive! (Score:4, Insightful)
Your argument boils down to the assertion that an exploited person and/or people is responsible for its exploitation because it doesn't rebell against the exploiters. In other words you assign guilt to the victim. Fortunately, the civilized world doesn't work that way. There is an obvious cost to any rebellion: it can go wrong or sideways and many more people die or suffer than would have under the status quo.
BTW, the American colonies were split on the whole independence thing. In retrospect, it is easy to say that the revolutionaries did the right thing. But when the colonies rebelled many Americans fought on the British side.
Actually, no, there aren't plenty of resources (Score:4, Insightful)
Not if everyone wants to live in the style to which Americans have become accustomed. As I note in the link, for that to happen (given current tech), "We're going to need three or four New Earths."
To change that, you need to either (greatly) improve the tech, or (drastically) change the living standard and policies. Or a combination of both.
Re:Population Growth Areas.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or perhaps we could regrow our hair, take off our jack boots, laser off our swastika tats and invest in population control?
I mean considering the amount of resources the average 1st worlder uses compared to said 3rd worlders here are some other equally harsh ideas:
- Stop eating so much meat/processed food and eat the raw ingredients instead since it is so much more efficient?
- Stop just wasting resources and completely retarded things that add no value to the world apart from cheap thrills and/or convenience for the lazy?
- Every first worlder to pay a "repair the world" tax which is managed internationally by the UN and goes towards fixing the world's global problems long term. (Member states of the "security council" are banned from having any influence over said fund at all, ever)
- Level all major cities and have the 1st worlders live like 3rd worlders?
- Drop nukes on all major cities causing an apocalyptic future that long term will be far more energy efficient for the world as a whole?
I assume of course that all these suggestions are far more abhorrent to most 1st worlders than letting children die of starvation by the million, right? Because after all they are little more than animals that should really just be culled like you would do with any other animal population that is out of control.
I realize what I am saying is harsh, but creating life in the 1st world does not entitle it to carrying on being a greedy, world destroying pig suggesting that the poorest nations in the world be left to die long, slow and painful deaths to enable us to carry on with business as usual for a few more decades.
Re:Population Growth Areas.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not the same AC, but you're really not getting their point.
If you take all that extra food that we're gorging ourselves on and send it to the 3rd world, you still won't be helping anyone. More children will survive, yes, but they'll become adults that think that condoms are a trick by the white man, HIV can be cured by raping virgins, and they'll hate the people from the neighboring tribe so much they'd rather fight their country into the ground than work together. If they were white, we would call them racist, misogynistic and violent.
That's the reality, and that's why we need to come up with a plan that doesn't involve sending them more food while their perpetually starving population continues to grow into even more unsustainable numbers due to the aid naive people like you keep sending.