• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Earth's Population, Sustainable Limit.

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Trying to remember here ... I think when Clinton was President, he attended a G-5 (?) Summit in Rio, and though not much was said about it, it seems that they felt that the maximum population for Earth should be around 3.5 Billion people.

Well, we are twice that now ... Hmmm

Another source that I read tonight puts that figure around 19 Billion.

I feel it should be the lower figure, but how?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Trying to remember here ... I think when Clinton was President, he attended a G-5 (?) Summit in Rio, and though not much was said about it, it seems that they felt that the maximum population for Earth should be around 3.5 Billion people.

Well, we are twice that now ... Hmmm

Another source that I read tonight puts that figure around 19 Billion.

I feel it should be the lower figure, but how?

I'm sorry, this is cheap and unhelpful, but my first thought on population control was 'Keep Bill away from the interns'.

*hangs head in shame at sullying a serious thread*
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
How to reduce the world's population? First get rid of the oligarchs.

How about giving a nice retirement bonus to folks who have 0 or 1 children?
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The world fertility rate is already down to 2.6 children per couple and will soon be at a replacement level or less. Ignoring Africa it is already less than a replacement rate. The current population growth is due to the lag between achieving a replacement fertility rate (which will be within a few years) and average life expectancy. In other words, the population will increase for only about 78 more years. After that the population will stabilize or even decrease. This barring some major cataclysm.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, this is cheap and unhelpful, but my first thought on population control was 'Keep Bill away from the interns'.

*hangs head in shame at sullying a serious thread*

I think it likely that men with lots of power struggle with monogamy. As to Polygamy, as long as each wife is treated equally and cared for ...

I think that many of our Presidents struggled. Though Trump is like Jabba the Hut to me.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The world fertility rate is already down to 2.6 children per couple and will soon be at a replacement level or less. Ignoring Africa it is already less than a replacement rate. The current population growth is due to the lag between achieving a replacement fertility rate (which will be within a few years) and average life expectancy. In other words, the population will increase for only about 78 more years. After that the population will stabilize or even decrease. This barring some major cataclysm.
I wish I could trust those data, but I just can't. They just don't make any sense to me, either in practical or abstract terms.

If anything, it seems to me that we are already causing such a cataclysm with our failure to sustain our own consumption habits and political systems.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I wish I could trust those data, but I just can't. They just don't make any sense to me, either in practical or abstract terms.

If anything, it seems to me that we are already causing such a cataclysm with our failure to sustain our own consumption habits and political systems.
Can’t or refuse to? The fertility rates are reported by governments and compiled by the U.N. The data is out there hiding in plain sight.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Trying to remember here ... I think when Clinton was President, he attended a G-5 (?) Summit in Rio, and though not much was said about it, it seems that they felt that the maximum population for Earth should be around 3.5 Billion people.

Well, we are twice that now ... Hmmm

Another source that I read tonight puts that figure around 19 Billion.

I feel it should be the lower figure, but how?

There's no way to know how many people the Earth can sustain, because this depends partly on how much agricultural or mining and energy technologies advance. However, there seemingly isn't gonna be enough room eventually for everybody to live on Earth. Therefore, man-made biospheres will need to be constructed beyond Earth. Mars is likely the first place beyond Earth in our solar system to get a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere.

The first step towards the terraforming of Mars is the deployment of a magnetic shield that protects Mars against the solar wind stripping of its atmosphere. This magnetic shielding would subsequently allow the planet's atmosphere to reacquire its former density that'd be high enough to allow for sustainable surface liquid water.

gallery-1488399162-screen-shot-2017-03-01-at-31220-pm.png



Reference: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magne...phere.html

An effective artificial magnetosphere placed at Langrangian point 1 from Mars is very achievable with foreseeable technology. This magnetic shielding apparatus could weigh less than a few hundred tonnes which is within the load capacity of a big Falcon 9 rocket. I'm guessing the cost of protecting the Martian atmosphere with an artificial magnetosphere would probably be similar to the cost of a small nuclear reactor.

1*mPYNE8ApyVjSFKErEM2aGg@2x.jpeg



Some few billion tonnes of sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6) could increase Martian atmospheric surface temperatures by over 20 degrees Celsius. Sulfur hexafluoride - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SpaceX interplanetary transport system could deliver this super greenhouse gas to Mars at a cost of less than $2,000/kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mar...astructure

A few hundred thousand tonnes of SF6 delivered annually to Mars would cost just approximately $1/2 trillion yearly. This is less than a fraction of a percent of the global economic output value. An accumulation of a few billion tonnes of SF6 at an annual rate of a few hundred thousand tonnes would take less than ten thousand years. The annual cost of less than $100 per person per year on Earth would be totally worth transforming Mars into a world with triple its current atmospheric pressure and a warmer Mars with average surface temperatures greater than typical summer Antarctic temperatures.


 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Unfortunately we're going to breed ourselves into extinction but I don't know the answer.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Can’t or refuse to? The fertility rates are reported by governments and compiled by the U.N. The data is out there hiding in plain sight.
Either way.... it just doesn't make sense.

It is not like we have any reason to expect the current rates to be sustainable.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Unfortunately we're going to breed ourselves into extinction but I don't know the answer.
Current population growth is not because of “breeding” rates. It is due to people living longer. It will stabilize by the end of the century. Also we can support all the anticipated increase with already existing knowledge and techniques. There is no unmanageable population problem.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Either way.... it just doesn't make sense.

It is not like we have any reason to expect the current rates to be sustainable.
Current rates of what?? The birth rate is already at a sustainable rate. Population growth will end within the lifetime of today’s children and population will then decrease.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Mars is likely the first place beyond Earth in our solar system to get a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere.

Why Mars? Why not our Moon? Wouldn't its closer proximity cut transportation costs, thereby allowing for more money spent on overall terraforming of it?

What do you think?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I think it likely that men with lots of power struggle with monogamy.

Whilst true from what I have seen, my simple view is 'Don't make promises you can't keep'. Ultimately, that's what marriage is.

As to Polygamy, as long as each wife is treated equally and cared for ...

I've seen polygamy in operation when I lived in PNG. There was a clear heirarchy of wives, and only 'big-men' were really permitted multiple wives.
Whilst it was expected the man would look after the women, it was almost like you'd expect someone to look after their pets.

I understand that's not definitive, but it's a hard pass for me.

I think that many of our Presidents struggled. Though Trump is like Jabba the Hut to me.

Agree on both counts.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Whilst true from what I have seen, my simple view is 'Don't make promises you can't keep'. Ultimately, that's what marriage is.



I've seen polygamy in operation when I lived in PNG. There was a clear heirarchy of wives, and only 'big-men' were really permitted multiple wives.
Whilst it was expected the man would look after the women, it was almost like you'd expect someone to look after their pets.

I understand that's not definitive, but it's a hard pass for me.



Agree on both counts.
You lived in PNG?! Where? Port Moresby?

I have a friend who lived there for over 25 years. Not Port Moresby, but in the Highlands. He learned Tok Pisin.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Trying to remember here ... I think when Clinton was President, he attended a G-5 (?) Summit in Rio, and though not much was said about it, it seems that they felt that the maximum population for Earth should be around 3.5 Billion people.

Well, we are twice that now ... Hmmm

Another source that I read tonight puts that figure around 19 Billion.

I feel it should be the lower figure, but how?
500 million maybe.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Whilst true from what I have seen, my simple view is 'Don't make promises you can't keep'. Ultimately, that's what marriage is.



I've seen polygamy in operation when I lived in PNG. There was a clear heirarchy of wives, and only 'big-men' were really permitted multiple wives.
Whilst it was expected the man would look after the women, it was almost like you'd expect someone to look after their pets.

I understand that's not definitive, but it's a hard pass for me.



Agree on both counts.


I'm not officially affiliated with any religion, but mostly I feel Muslim in many ways. It is hard to shake. I don't have issue with Polygamy, done decently and in order. Sadly I have seen cases where the man is a plonker. Mormons are said to have done it, but the Federal Government made them stop around 1900. Some pseudo Mormons still do it but are dealing with a genetic inbreeding issue right now. Not moralizing because I think what we learn from all this may be useful when we colonize other planets.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The world fertility rate is already down to 2.6 children per couple and will soon be at a replacement level or less. Ignoring Africa it is already less than a replacement rate. The current population growth is due to the lag between achieving a replacement fertility rate (which will be within a few years) and average life expectancy. In other words, the population will increase for only about 78 more years. After that the population will stabilize or even decrease. This barring some major cataclysm.
Rainbow for suuuuure you betcha.. But if we do land at the end of the rainbow far far away, instant panic will set in and the headlines "stagnation of population dooms economies all over the world we need more hetrosexual dialog" or as current slang calls it ducking.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
You lived in PNG?! Where? Port Moresby?

Indeed I did, but no, not in Moresby. I lived in West New Britain, which is a large island off the north coast of the mainland.
I was working for a timber company, so was in a very remote location. Extremely so.

I have a friend who lived there for over 25 years. Not Port Moresby, but in the Highlands. He learned Tok Pisin.

Yep, to be honest people are generally better at learning Tok Pisin if they are outside Moresby. Too easy to travel from yacht club to work, etc, and only deal with other ex-pats or politicians, etc.

I was only up there for a bit over a year, but had a decent conversational grasp by the time I left. There were people in Moresby who could say ten words after ten years...lol
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
It's not really about the number of people, but how our lifetyles impact the environment. It's the rich, developed countries that are responsible for this mess.
 
Top