Google Earth

[Estro Felino]

when I debate with people who claim that the world is not overpopulated, I always tell them to take a look at Google Earth, to figure out how many areas are livable and rich in resources.
the first thing one realizes is that there are immense geographical areas, which are completely yellow. That means, desert areas.

so...do you really think that the population can keep growing?
where will we get drinkable water and cultivable fields?

 

[Thruve]

Someone posted a link to an article yesterday that had something to do with scientists training fish to walk. At the bottom of that article there was a video link to technology of the future in regards to food. Based on the video, food = no issue for 1st world countries come 2100. I also heard it rumored.. that if the worlds population was split into families of 4, that every family could own and live on an acre of land in texas and one other state, but I forgot which.

Edit* Didn't someone make a similar post earlier this week.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Surely, with the earth existing billions of years and contained water-based lifeforms for quite a long time, we've gone through all 2% of our water. The thing is it's highly unlikely we'll run out of fresh water thanks to the water cycle. Not to mention we have the technology to make water fresh.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Surely, with the earth existing billions of years and contained water-based lifeforms for quite a long time, we've gone through all 2% of our water. The thing is it's highly unlikely we'll run out of fresh water thanks to the water cycle. Not to mention we have the technology to make water fresh.

Then why is water so expensive throughout Europe where the aquifers have been drying up? There many predictions that Indiana will run into a water shortage before too long. And the water cycle does not return water as fast as major cities go through it. Water may be very abundant (in some areas), but it's far from being a limitless resource that we don't have to conserve.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Then why is water so expensive throughout Europe where the aquifers have been drying up? There many predictions that Indiana will run into a water shortage before too long. And the water cycle does not return water as fast as major cities go through it. Water may be very abundant (in some areas), but it's far from being a limitless resource that we don't have to conserve.

Point made.

Overpopulation or not, though, there's no way in stopping it. Besides, the world's gotta end for us some way or another

 

[dgirl1986]

We are living longer, more people are able to to find ways around being infertile so of course our population is higher than it would be without medicine and science etc.

I want children not for the sake of breeding or to even keep the species going but to raise human beings who might be able to make a difference.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Attenborough made the controversial claim (below) that throwing money and food aid at famine-hit countries will only temporarily relieve it but not cure it, and that the root cause--overpopulation-- is the real problem, and he's got a point.
He also hints that the natural world will "do something about it", maybe he means a strain of virus or disease will appear to wipe out most humans on earth-

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Someone posted a link to an article yesterday that had something to do with scientists training fish to walk. At the bottom of that article there was a video link to technology of the future in regards to food. Based on the video, food = no issue for 1st world countries come 2100. I also heard it rumored.. that if the worlds population was split into families of 4, that every family could own and live on an acre of land in texas and one other state, but I forgot which.

Edit* Didn't someone make a similar post earlier this week.

Hmmm...

That was done by Thomas Sowell back in the eighties. Proved that the world (4.4 billion at the time) could be given 1000 sq feet each in Texas, or something similar.

It takes account of only direct living space, and ignores the fact that those people need to be supported by infrastructure, by food, by resources, etc.
Personally, the fact that the population of the planet has expanded from 4.4 billion to 7 billion since '84, and that population growth is accelerating simply means that AT SOME POINT the world population is unsupportable.

Dependent on the lifestyle lived by those 7 billion, you could argue it already is, but most of the world aren't as heavy consumers as the First World.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hmmm...

That was done by Thomas Sowell back in the eighties. Proved that the world (4.4 billion at the time) could be given 1000 sq feet each in Texas, or something similar.

It takes account of only direct living space, and ignores the fact that those people need to be supported by infrastructure, by food, by resources, etc.
Personally, the fact that the population of the planet has expanded from 4.4 billion to 7 billion since '84, and that population growth is accelerating simply means that AT SOME POINT the world population is unsupportable.

Dependent on the lifestyle lived by those 7 billion, you could argue it already is, but most of the world aren't as heavy consumers as the First World.

We have a ways to go before population exceeds sustainability. Much of what we see is the result of other peoples greed and lust for power denying many natural resources they themselves never owned in the first place, yet exert fanatical control over it's accessibility and distribution.

 

[oldbadger]

when I debate with people who claim that the world is not overpopulated, I always tell them to take a look at Google Earth, to figure out how many areas are livable and rich in resources.
the first thing one realizes is that there are immense geographical areas, which are completely yellow. That means, desert areas.

so...do you really think that the population can keep growing?
where will we get drinkable water and cultivable fields?

Nature will decide.......
If there are too many of us, Mother Nature will sort it all out.
We don't have a choice or initiative that will make any difference.

 

[illykitty]

Thing is, if we were applying all the technology we have, we could create abundance. We have desalination, taking moisture out of the air for water, hydroponics or aquaponics for food... Then we *can* have abundant clean energy all over the globe by placing each type of power generator strategically, where it is most suited. Those are only a few examples on top of my mind. All of these exist.

So technically we could have this amount of people (or more) living on the planet and everyone would be fed, but our current society is obsessed with over consumption, short-term gratification and isn't using the most efficient stuff we have. Also, in my opinion, have priorities in the wrong places, like the same spent on one week of war could eliminate world hunger. It is insane.

We would need to change our society for it to be sustainable with a high population. Either way though, it would be a good idea to stop being wasteful mindless consumers.

 

[Estro Felino]

We would need to change our society for it to be sustainable with a high population. Either way though, it would be a good idea to stop being wasteful mindless consumers.

There's one more problem: waste. Overconsumption implies a daily immense production of garbage.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Anybody remember the classic BBC TV series 'Survivors' from the 1970's which ran to 38 episodes?
A plague wipes out nearly everybody on earth and the few survivors set about surviving as best they can.
But there's a great twist in the final episode when some of them find they actually PREFER the new, quieter, peaceful, more spiritual world, and even though they've got a power station up and running, they switch off the electric lights (at 6:45 below) because they prefer candlelight..

'Survivors' Epi 12 Pt.6/6 'Power' Series 3 - YouTube

 

[Estro Felino]

Anybody remember the classic BBC TV series 'Survivors' from the 1970's which ran to 38 episodes?
A plague wipes out nearly everybody on earth and the few survivors set about surviving as best they can.
But there's a great twist in the final episode when some of them find they actually PREFER the new, quieter, peaceful, more spiritual world, and even though they've got a power station up and running, they switch off the electric lights (at 6:45 below) because they prefer candlelight..

'Survivors' Epi 12 Pt.6/6 'Power' Series 3 - YouTube

Talking about films, I could mention Soylent Green...which describes the devastating consequences of overpopulation

 

[illykitty]

There's one more problem: waste. Overconsumption implies a daily immense production of garbage.

Well that goes along using the best tech we have. For example, if you design objects from the start, to be of high quality, highly recyclable, easily upgradable and coupled with a society that shuns overconsumption... Then you get a society with a lot less less waste.

It requires a huge value shift from everyone though. Not sure if it'll happen in my lifetime... But I think it will be required at least to some degree if we want humanity to continue.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Talking about films, I could mention Soylent Green...which describes the devastating consequences of overpopulation

Yes, set in a hot dry, thirsty and hungry future world; here's the scene where Charlton Heston sees in old newsreels for the first time how green and lush the earth used to be before humans wrecked it-

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, set in a hot dry, thirsty and hungry future world; here's the scene where Charlton Heston sees in old newsreels for the first time how green and lush the earth used to be before humans wrecked it-

The problem is that people don't understand that biological disasters are almost always irreversible.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

The problem is that people don't understand that biological disasters are almost always irreversible.

Yes, unless humans mend their ways perhaps there'll come a time when a "tipping point" is reached after which we've all had it.
Perhaps this verse suggests it-
"The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your people who revere your name, both great and small— and for destroying those who destroy the earth” (Rev 11:18)

 

[Shuttlecraft]

The current Ebola outbreak in Africa might be mother nature flexing her wings by trying an experiment with a view to eventually producing a super-duper virus to get rid of the human race.
Perhaps she regards us as fleas on her back that have to be got rid of..

 

[Valjean]

If we're using resources faster than they can be replenished, we're overpopulated.

Our "technology able to feed the world" is marvelous, in theory, yet it's been unable to raise half the world's population out of squalor.
If we did manage to provide food and medicine to some large region, its population would just increase, as Attenborough points out, till the previous level of poverty is achieved.

Deserts are spreading, the climate's changing, the sea's rising, aquifers are being depleted, methane's bubbling out of the tundra, lakes and seas, topsoil is thinning, arable land is diminishing, the oceans are polluted and acidifying, fish stocks are reduced by >90%. Do we seriously think we can stop any of this without decreasing demand (population}?