"7 Billion: How did we get so big so fast?"

[orcel]

There's nothing on the horizon even remotely capable of replacing the current energy usage we get from fossil fuels.

Tick tock.

After crude, in the short term we've got schale oil, natural gas and coal. And as these resources fade the motovation to find a new option becomes increasingly strong. You appear to have too few faith in your common man. Or perhaps I'm just an optimist

 

[Noaidi]

It doesn't, however to misuse our energies, efforts, monies and focus to support population controls is wasteful.

What, allowing women more choice in controlling their fertility and recognising that our ecological impact will only worsen is a misuse of our energy and effort??

Can I ask what your views are based on? Are they, as Father Heathen intimated above, religiously motivated? I don't want to turn this thread into a religious debate - I'm just curious.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Or perhaps I'm just an optimist

No, probably just uneducated on the realities of energy usage, dependence, resouces, and costs. Humankind is far more short-sighted than most people realize. Primarily, because we've never had to be very long-sighted.

 

[orcel]

I bet it'll take far more energy, effort, money & focus to deal with overpopulation than to limit it.

First its not overpopulation, merely resource sharing.

I'm not sure that's true. Population control is a sticky, ugly mess that leads to rules and perhaps government intervention, (think infanticide in china). Plus attacking the problem at the supply side aids everyone without government deceiding if, how and when we procreate.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If people don't decide to control their population, nature will end up doing it.

 

[orcel]

No, probably just uneducated on the realities of energy usage, dependence, resouces, and costs. Humankind is far more short-sighted than most people realize. Primarily, because we've never had to be very long-sighted.

So your theory is that one day the oil will run out and we'll look around and say bummer, sit down and die?

I suggest we have the ability to prevent that day.

 

[Noaidi]

First its not overpopulation, merely resource sharing.

I'm not sure that's true. Population control is a sticky, ugly mess that leads to rules and perhaps government intervention, (think infanticide in china). Plus attacking the problem at the supply side aids everyone without government deceiding if, how and when we procreate.

Population control doesn't have to be like that, though. I agree that coercion and regulation can be ugly when it comes to matters such as this. I've stated earlier the link between education and fertility rates - hardly an offensive method, and it works. Voluntary decisions not to have kids can be another option - I had a vasectomy a few years back due to my concern about population issues.

Population control should be based on choice, and on sound advice about the reasons for undertaking it coupled with the consequences of not addressing the issue of reducing fertility.

 

[Father Heathen]

So your theory is that one day the oil will run out and we'll look around and say bummer, sit down and die?

I suggest we have the ability to prevent that day.

We do have the ability, by conserving resources and focusing on developing technology, not by squeezing out litters and filling trailers like sardine cans.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So your theory is that one day the oil will run out and we'll look around and say bummer, sit down and die?

That we'll run out of oil is not a theory. Nor, is it a theory that we have nothing to replace it. Nor, are these my theories.

I suggest we have the ability to prevent that day.

Indeed, many people seem to not understand the difference between suggestions and solutions.

 

[orcel]

We do have the ability, by conserving resources and focusing on developing technology, not by squeezing out litters and filling trailers like sardine cans.

Just reading back I noticed that my argument thus far has been one of proper resource controls and developing newer technologies. Who's calling for "squeezing out litters" ???

 

[orcel]

That we'll run out of oil is not a theory. Nor, is it a theory that we have nothing to replace it. Nor, are these my theories.

Perhaps you misread my post.... I'll restate. Once the oil runs out you seems to be theorizing that we'll suddenly realize our errors, colapse to the ground cursing humanity much like Charlton Heston ah la Planet of the Apes, then fall over dead?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Perhaps you misread my post.... I'll restate. Once the oil runs out you seems to be theorizing that we'll suddenly realize our errors, colapse to the ground cursing humanity much like Charlton Heston ah la Planet of the Apes, then fall over dead?

Perhaps you misread mine. Maybe you could take time out of your busy putting silly words into other peoples' mouths schedule to actually read it.

 

[Father Heathen]

Perhaps you misread my post.... I'll restate. Once the oil runs out you seems to be theorizing that we'll suddenly realize our errors, colapse to the ground cursing humanity much like Charlton Heston ah la Planet of the Apes, then fall over dead?

You realize that both the farming and transportation of food to feed the worlds bloated population would heavily rely on fuel, right?

 

[orcel]

Perhaps you misread mine. Maybe you could take time out of your busy putting silly words into other peoples' mouths schedule to actually read it.

Wow, pot-kettle dude. Seriously?

You argued that we are too short sited to plan for the future. And that i was to ignorent to notice.

I asked if you think that once oil runs out we'll just give up and die.

You appeareed to miss my point and a argued that oil was running out.

I reitereated the point a bit more cafefully.

You responded by calling me silly.

(excuse me i havn't figured out how to multi quote)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Wow, pot-kettle dude. Seriously?

You argued that we are too short sited to plan for the future. And that i was to ignorent to notice.

I asked if you think that once oil runs out we'll just give up and die.

You appeareed to miss my point and a argued that oil was running out.

I reitereated the point a bit more cafefully.

You responded by calling me silly.

(excuse me i havn't figured out how to multi quote)

I fail to see what part isn't silly.

 

[orcel]

You realize that both the farming and transportation of food to feed the worlds bloated population would heavily rely on fuel, right?

IE the call for newer technologies. I haven't argued that i have all the solutions merely that we need a more socally and enviromentally conscience resource managment system.

 

[orcel]

I fail to see what part isn't silly.

Well, I'll agree that this entire tangent is silly. Our disagreement appears to be where the blame falls.

 

[Alceste]

NPR had a report about 7 billion people. They said all 7 billion can fit within the city of London (with enough room to dance). Back when there was 6 billion I did the math and "fit" the entire population of the planet inside Texas with everyone grouped into families of 4 and each family given 1/8 of an acer of land.

Of course neither of these measures account to roads, schools and other infastructure, but it demonstrates how underpopulated the planet is. Lets expand from texas and we'd fit everbody within north America with plenty of rooom to spare, then we'd have the entire rest of the planet for farming and industry. While this may not be practical we find that we do not have population problem, rather a resourse distrobution problem.

I think you need to rethink your calculations.

 

[Father Heathen]

IE the call for newer technologies. I haven't argued that i have all the solutions merely that we need a more socally and enviromentally conscience resource managment system.

But population growth is rapidly outpacing technological development. Not only is population growth a huge strain on environment, society, resources and infrastructure, it's undesirable and unnecessary. Is it really worth jeopardizing the state of the world just to humor what some ancient primitives wrote in some book? Humanity isn't an insect colony.

 

[Alceste]

[/INDENT][/INDENT]So, what do you think could likely stabilize the population by the end of the century

In order of significance: famine, general social disorder (war and crime), and disease.

I think we could have chosen to stabilize the world's population by gentler means (birth control, for example) if humans were not such stupid, short-sighted, careless and gluttonous creatures. It is much too late for us to collectively choose anything now, although I've done my part and fended off the biological urge to make more humans. That was a tough call. I love kids but I am pretty sure I would not enjoy watching my kids starve to death or get killed in a war.