Again, it's not acreage or population density, it's the aggregate effect our species has on the biosphere.
-
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!
World population
- Thread starter England my lionheart
- Start date
You are wildly overestimating the possible impact of my advice, however. For some reason I can't guess you see it as destructive when it can't possibly actually reduce population levels in any significantly harmful way.
Maybe I am mistaken about the existence of so many poor, uneducated people worldwide?
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi Warren,
Actually yes. Ehlrich said the population was growing so much the earth didn't have the resources to sustain the population. The very same things being said here.
Actually yes. Ehlrich said the population was growing so much the earth didn't have the resources to sustain the population. The very same things being said here.
But not on the same basis of Ehlrich's arguments necessarily.
Besides, if you simplify his statement so much it is rather difficult to deny it anyway.
Besides, if you simplify his statement so much it is rather difficult to deny it anyway.
Exactly,its not only having enough resources to feed and fuel the population its the **** that comes out after its been consumed.
Do both.....killing people curtails fertility.
Vendetta
"Oscar the grouch"
True but the problem is ethics for the former. Is it ethical to kill people for the greater good?
Warren Clark
Informer
But nobody is "hailing" the author of the book.
We aren't saying the devastation will manifest today or this generation.
We are only saying it is bound to happen.
Sure, why not.
War is a terrible thing but i wonder how many more people there would be now if wars hadn't occured.
I think with a decrease in population that more products would be left to the next generation instead of striping resources and creating jobs. I think people would be in better positions if less people had kids. I think people are having kids often when they are between 20-35 and living till 70, so i think people are increasing the population fast and faster than improvements are coming. I think houses last long time and i think if fewer people had children that kids could be born with rights to a old house that not any person is using. I think there would be other resources that would have larger supplies.
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
I think us humans are capable of sustainable life. Money and profit hinder it.
I think we can move towards a resource based economy as envisioned by Jacque Fresco.
rojse
RF Addict
Yes, but are you going to be able to live your entire life in the space of those nine square feet?
rojse
RF Addict
Some thoughts on what might need to be done in order to sustain a population of 7.5 billion or more:
- Much of the world's population will have to live in skyscrapers or arcologies, which are the only sort of buildings capable of housing extremely high population densities in small areas. Cities won't be spread out, but reach into the sky instead, and a smaller percentage of the population will live in regional and rural areas.
- Recycling and reuse of materials will become far more widespread as there is less land available
- We'll have to grow food both above and below ground. We'll need lots of cheap, emission-free power to provide artificial light, and I don't see nuclear power being part of that solution.
- Low and no-emission technologies will be vital in order for an increased and more affluent population not to increase pollution over today's current total emissions.
- We'll be mining asteroids in order for future generations to be able to live a lifestyle similar to ours, since the general population cannot conceive living a simpler and less asset-rich society as the one which we have now.
- I don't really see a large off-earth population solving the problems that we face here - the technological hurdles are too great and I don't see how we would have the capacity to transport and house large swathes of the population on another planet without the resources that would be required.
It would be quite difficult for most governments to enact forced population control measures, since I don't see any way for this to be a measure that would be popular with the voting population that these measures would be forced upon.
- Much of the world's population will have to live in skyscrapers or arcologies, which are the only sort of buildings capable of housing extremely high population densities in small areas. Cities won't be spread out, but reach into the sky instead, and a smaller percentage of the population will live in regional and rural areas.
- Recycling and reuse of materials will become far more widespread as there is less land available
- We'll have to grow food both above and below ground. We'll need lots of cheap, emission-free power to provide artificial light, and I don't see nuclear power being part of that solution.
- Low and no-emission technologies will be vital in order for an increased and more affluent population not to increase pollution over today's current total emissions.
- We'll be mining asteroids in order for future generations to be able to live a lifestyle similar to ours, since the general population cannot conceive living a simpler and less asset-rich society as the one which we have now.
- I don't really see a large off-earth population solving the problems that we face here - the technological hurdles are too great and I don't see how we would have the capacity to transport and house large swathes of the population on another planet without the resources that would be required.
It would be quite difficult for most governments to enact forced population control measures, since I don't see any way for this to be a measure that would be popular with the voting population that these measures would be forced upon.
Last edited:
I think space travel of that magnitude is a very long way off,maybe we'll never get that capability,the last Shuttle flight was today BBC News - Space shuttle Atlantis makes historic last launch and it seems like a massive leap that needs to be taken in order to branch out onto other planets but if there is money in it like Mining Asteroids,who knows,the corpormations are becoming ever more powerful and greedy.
We would literally have to grow/produce it ourselves without taking more than we can produce. Food would likely be processed from corn with our current technology and more water distillation industries would need to be out there so we can use more water from the ocean. Also recycling just about everything would be a huge must.
I agree recycling is a must,in the UK we are slowly getting there,i think Plastic is our greatest enemy though
The Wizard
Active Member
Oh please, get it over with.. which people shall be exterminated first? Who has earned the status of being a subhuman disease so far, anyone? The family unit? A third world country? Religious people? Who is disposable? Gee let me think.. hmmm... Eugenisists should lead by example...