Today, 12:12 PM
August
Forum Royalty Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 3,256


The population explosion: a challenging piece of knowledge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello

The most important *knowledge* you are going to gain on this forum will have to do with the fact that some people are worried about global warming while other people insist that the world is cooling. What you get is confusion and contradiction, and that is the way of the world. And hey: I'm telling you this as a person who graduated from university as an anthropologist whose only *real* knowledge contribution has to do with the population explosion. And that is a taboo topics of sorts. Unspeakable. Absolutely impossible for other social scientists to think too much about. It's a topic that has way too much to do with the human sex drive; not to forget that GOD CREATED US WITH THE ABILITY TO GIVE BIRTH TO ABOUT SEVENTEEN CHILDREN PER WOMAN. And you do not f*ck with God. You just don't! But fact is fact: the world population has doubled two times in less than one-hundred years, and it is going to rise by another 40 percent in the coming few decades. That amounts to about 2.5 - 3 billion people. And that amounts to the combined population of China and India, and then some. The world population will, according to the US Census Bureau, reach about 9.2 billion before it is hoped that it starts to stabilize. -

Now, because the population explosion is a natural condition caused by the creative powers of God, you can go ahead and forget about everything I just said. But please remember my first two keywords: CONFUSION and CONTRADICTION. - This forum is full of it, and you're going to *learn* a lot about it.

- ---

Radical Depopulation Of The Earth - The Solution To Mankind's Problems?

It is not easy to be too certain about too many things which pertains to the future. Population growth is not one of those things. We know that the world's population will reach 9 billion souls by the year 2050, and when it comes to the year 2050, that's just about the only thing we can be certain about.

We should be able to plan for the inevitable! - Which is that the world's population will keep exploding for quite a while. And it is the opposite of a collapse! Yes! It is not as if the world's population is about to die off! It's the opposite! It is a majestic increase of population we are talking about here! And it leaves us with a lot of problems which can never be solved unless politicians and other administrators start taking the issue seriously. Which they don't! In fact: the whole topic is taboo! It's hardly ever mentioned by anyone. Not by politicians. Not by UN diplomats. Not by any member of the press.

And it is not some doomsayer's warning we are dealing with here! Not at all! This is reality. These are facts. It's the truth! The whole truth! And nothing but the truth!

But we choose to close our eyes to the fact of a population explosion which is going to transform the world in the next 40 years, ignoring the issue deliberately. - Crazy.

Under RATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, there should have been social research programs aimed at covering all of the probable, possible, and inevitable consequences that are connected to the population explosion issue, and as seen both from local, national, regional, and global perspectives. Food issues. Water issues. Sanitation issues. Town planning issues. Security issues. Crime control isses. All sorts of issues that are going to rise from a most basic fact of reality: the population explosion. As it happens on a local level at the same time as it is, quite naturally, a global matter. But the truths that pertain to population dynamics have somehow become taboo. And it is just plain crazy. We just don't want to deal with the most basic fact as concerns the future of all! - How can this be explained?
__________________
~

This chaos is killing me
<<

source: http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/population-forum/12892-population-explosion-challenging-piece-knowledge.html

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd163/Deathridesahorse/aeyeaeyeaeye.gif

I think we need a readicla depopulation of the world.

It would immediatley ease the pressures on all our resources, help the globe, help all the animals facing extinction due to our "overabundance."

We are just a greedy child who continues on their willful destructive ways.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 8:31am:

I think we need a readicla depopulation of the world. It would immediatley ease the pressures on all our resources, help the globe, help all the animals facing extinction due to our "overabundance." We are just a greedy child who continues on their willful destructive ways.

Yes, but what was that interesting word you mispelled in your opening sentence sorry?!?

"Radical", perhaps????

That was one of my better typos.
Very astute of you to decypher it  !!!

What do you think, lose about 30 - 50% of the population of the globe to give it a fighting chance ??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 10:43am:

That was one of my better typos. Very astute of you to decypher it  !!! What do you think, lose about 30 - 50% of the population of the globe to give it a fighting chance ??

Yeh, basically that sounds like what is needed but I will stop short of suggesting how it should be done.

By drawing straws ?

Could have a huge world wide lottery ?

maybe by IQ ?

We could start by getting rid of the baby bonus. The local birth rate is well below replacement so that's about all that is needed. Overseas, we need to lift the ban on family planning as part of foreign aid. The catholic church has prevented the US and Australia from giving condoms to aids sufferers in Africa and other poor places. Women's rights are also very important. When women are granted self determination and given access to birth control and objective medical advice the birth rate drops.

f/d - enough of the namby pamby feelgood wishes.

We need a rapid reduction of billions right now.
"birth control" might have an effect on projections 20 years from now.
ie, they might not be 250% too many, only 150%


maybe can sort out the method of selection by money. ie, the richer ones are ok.

You go first sprint.  ;D

Yeh, sprint, you first....

   :P :P :P

You're always the gentleman f/d .   :)
very supportive deathrides

Population is only one of several factors. At the moment it is the least important. Sprint is effectively saying we should kill off a few billion people so he can continue with his profligate waste. There is no need for drastic action on population. That's the one aspect that is already solving itself in the west and could solve itself in many other places if the west were a bit more sensible with foreign aid etc.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/population-sustainability.html#IPAT

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 1:51pm:

You go first sprint.  ;D

I think (hope) that everybody is being tounge in cheek here as a result of the first post.

Hmmm - any takers? A 30% reduction in world population would take roughly 2,040,000,000 bullets.  

That's roughly 1.5 billion dollars worth of bullets plus travel expenses. How many bullets can you shoot from a gun before it wears out?

You'd also need a mass murderer with absolutely no sense of morality. I believe that one will be available after mid November in the US.

Assuming he shoots one person every 30 seconds, he should be able to dispatch one million every year. He has a good 18 years of life left, so he should be able to kill 18 million if nobody kills him before that time.  

Other alternatives include nuclear weapons. ::)

muso - good of you to do the calculations.

A 30 - 50% reduction.
Seems a lone gunman is not going to do it.
Nukes would rapidly ruin the planet, just what we are wanting to save.

hhhmm, is not that easy. Sarin ? has to be effective in wide areas, if not entire countries.
we could flood some low lying regions, and burn others - oh, we are doing that already.

What about the death-ray satellite ???

Actually there is another way. It involves burning oil and coal at a phenomenal rate so that the oceans gradually acidify.

It's probably the most imminent issue that faces us. Coccolithophorids are a key component of the biological pump mechanism that removes CO2 from the ocean. (They die and fall to the bottom). Together with pteropods and  foraminifera they provide roughly 40% of that capacity to remove bicarbonate from the top layer of ocean.

If you stop removing that, several things start to happen:

1. Currently the oceans absorb about 50% of the anthropogenic CO2 that's produced. Without the above organisms, more of the excess CO2 will remain in the atmosphere.  

2. Massive food chain implications. All marine organisms that rely on calcification (a process where organisms construct their exoskeletons from aragonite) will gradually decline and die out completely (One recent paper suggested that coccolithophorids will be gone by 2030. Another suggested a demise for shallow water ocean corals by about 2050). In terms of food chain, these organisms are associated with major fish stocks, whales etc...

3.  Implications for reduced oxygen content of the upper ocean layer. Anoxic events have been around in geological time (eg Mid Cretaceous), but have usually been associated with mass extinction events of one type or another.

4.  All this will cause an increase in hydrogen sulfide production with localised toxic effects. In conjunction with other effects of climate change, such as interruption of deep water circulation, this will result in increased emissions of hydrogen sulfide from the oceans. (Formation of localised Chemoclines)

So my strategy involves a combination of starvation, poisoning and death through heat exhaustion.

Not very humane, not very pretty, but it's simple to implement. Just same old same old.

very effective muso.

I do object on the grounds the marine animals are not part of the problem.
It is land animals (more specifically us humans) who are the cause.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 4:12pm:

very effective muso. I do object on the grounds the marine animals are not part of the problem. It is land animals (more specifically us humans) who are the cause.

Tell that to Kevin Rudd and other international leaders. Their current policies will ensure that all ocean life will become extinct by the end of the century.

The softly softly 'what about jobs in the coal industry' approach will be spectacularly unsuccessful. We're snoozing and procrastinating our way into Hades.

(Is that called hijacking a thread?)

muso - sort of. Was pretty well done though   :)

I can't believe what i'm reading,another bunch of indoctrinated slaves,you will do well when the Asian Union arises,what makes you think there is to many people?TV,radio the UN maybe,ha  or is it the fact that there is people starving maybe? ha,or is it the fact that China has a 1 child policy? There obligarchy has certainly done a good job on you people.But before you all poison your children with your ingnorance,make sure you all do your OWN research  this subject.Even though this won't work (because the west is actually dieing)but why is the gov paying people to have babies?huh.

Do you know why the government is paying people to have babies?

liko wrote on Aug 31^st, 2008 at 4:10pm:

I can't believe what i'm reading,another bunch of indoctrinated slaves,you will do well when the Asian Union arises,what makes you think there is to many people?TV,radio the UN maybe,ha  or is it the fact that there is people starving maybe? ha,or is it the fact that China has a 1 child policy? There obligarchy has certainly done a good job on you people.But before you all poison your children with your ingnorance,make sure you all do your OWN research  this subject.Even though this won't work (because the west is actually dieing)but why is the gov paying people to have babies?huh.

Listen mate. I'm sufficiently qualified not to get my information from media sources. I tend to check the data from first principles and read the original papers.

If you ever get beyond Playstation 2 and Internet conspiracy sites, I suggest you then get some medical attention for the severe case of FITH syndrome complicated by cerebrorectal inversion.

(Am I allowed to say that? - It felt good)

There many reasons for the overpopulation woes. Nations and religions competing for power. Businesses wanting ever increasing markets therefore greater wealth for the guys at the top. Everytime there is a story about Australia needing more people 40-100 million it is supported by the likes of the Murdochs etc. Nations are the greatest limiter to global vision.

Over-population is something we can try to take care of ourselves or nature will do it for us, through our own antibiotic resistant plague or some interspecies plague, you know the sort of poo that nature comes up with when you feed vegitarian livestock offal etc.

A toxic environment is another that we have to watch out for. So while I personally think that global warning is real, I don't have a solid opinion as to the degree that it will strike. Pollution however is a major issue that will multiply as less well off but hugely populated nations are hypnotised by material greed of the highly developed nations. The amount of estrogines in the environment is already having impacts on animal populations, effecting reproduction. Hello, we are animals as well.

Consumption of resourses, waste of resoures (do you know how much waste is created in building one car) and competition of resourses. Well that just leads to straight out war.

I think the worlds population for the sake of healthy ecosystems, biodiversity, quality of life and still enough to drive the human race forward with equal opportunity and sharing of resourses, as well as being able to take advantage of economies of scale in manufacturing; should be at about 10% of what it is today. Some ecosystems are richer than others and able to support larger biomasses.

A good starting point for populations that a system can support is to look at what subsistance populations were supported. Another would be to read Tim Flannery's " THe Future Eaters"

No one needs to be killed, euthanised etc. The world has to have a One-Child-Per-Couple policy. So have your kid then snip snip. Tough but ultimately neccessary I think.