maxmaximus Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Global-over-population-is-the-real-issue Depending on how fast you read, the population of the planet is growing with every word that skitters beneath your eyeball. There are more than 211,000 people being added every day, and a population the size of Germany every year. The world's population is now 6.7 billion, roughly double what it was when I was born. If I live to be in my mid-eighties, then it will have trebled in my lifetime. The UN last year revised its forecasts upwards, predicting that there will be 9.2 billion people by 2050, and I simply cannot understand why no one discusses this impending calamity, and why no world statesmen have the guts to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves. How the hell can we witter on about tackling global warming, and reducing consumption, when we are continuing to add so relentlessly to the number of consumers? The answer is politics, and political cowardice. The debate is surely now unavoidable. Look at food prices, driven ever higher by population growth in India and China. Look at the insatiable Chinese desire for meat, which has pushed the cost of feed so high that Vladimir Putin has been obliged to institute price controls in the doomed fashion of Diocletian or Edward Heath. Even in Britain, chicken farmers are finding that the cost of chickenfeed is no longer exactly chickenfeed, and, though the food crisis may once again be solved by the wit of man, the damage to the environment may be irreversible. It is time we had a grown-up discussion about the optimum quantity of human beings in this country and on this planet. Do we want the south-east of Britain, already the most densely populated major country in Europe, to resemble a giant suburbia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 It is time we had a grown-up discussion about the optimum quantity of human beings in this country and on this planet. The carrying capacity of the planet remained relatively stable at under a billion until we started exploiting oil as both a fuel and for the creation of artificial pesticides. Likewise natural gas was used to produce artificial fertilizers. Artificial fertilizers and pesticides formed part of the "Green Revolution" which allowed us to thumb our nose at Malthus (for the time being). Think there's no connection between oil usage and population growth? Look at this graph showing oil extraction and population growth [LINK]. Now even if you accept that Peak Oil can be delayed using such oil sources as Tar Sands and methods of extraction like Fracking, the era of cheap oil is clearly over. The easy to reach stuff (and thus cheap to extract) we've pretty much burned it away in a century. Since we rely on these finite and increasingly expensive commodities to fertilize the soil, protect and harvest and ultimately distribute the crops we grow, the more people there are around, using them up, the faster they will be depleted. It's not rocket science. 7 billion people use more of everything than 3 (the earth's population when I was born). These two observations (that oil has expanded the world's carrying capacity and oil use is unsustainable) combine to yield a further implication. While humanity has apparently not yet reached the carrying capacity of a world with oil, we are already in drastic overshoot when you consider a world without oil. In fact our population today is at least five times what it was before oil came on the scene, and it is still growing. If this sustaining resource were to be exhausted, our population would have no option but to decline to the level supportable by the world's lowered carrying capacity LINK Unfortunately there is no solution, at least not one that human beings can face or apply (we can hardly exterminate billions of people). But they will die in the coming decades and the culprits will be the usual suspects in any instance where population growth leads to what is called overshoot. War, famine and pestilence. Unless you're one of those who think that the problem will somehow "sort itself out". According to the United Nations, global population will peak in 2050 at 9.2 billion [LINK]. Hmmmm... now what could cause a slowing of population growth at that time? A rise in infertility? One child per family laws to be extended world wide? Or is sex just going to go out of fashion ("the desire to procreate was just a passing fad"). I'm kind of curious myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 left wing people speak with forked tongues , on one hand overpopulation is a nightmare , on the other hand mass immigration is a blessing that has enriched all our lives. ---------- Post added 24-01-2013 at 05:13 ---------- The UK was unable to feed 40millions during WWll (relied on convoys) and yet there is talk that we expect our population of 60 m. or ss to increase to 70 m. during the next 20-50 years. Bearing in mind the UK's falling spending power and the citizens anger now at rising food prices how on earth are we going to cope. One should be encouraged, through taxation at having a maximum 2 children, if not one should be penalized financially. In the worst scenarios where individuals just 'breed' (sorry to be vulgar) without any thought of the consequences then Society must examine the case for the unmentionable- forced sterilization. The earth's diiminishing resources are too precious to be squandered by uncaring selfish individuals and so the law must intervene. During a drought we ration water usage, we must now do the same for all resources btw will global warming make huge tracks of land productive and habitable in Canada and Siberia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 The UK was unable to feed 40millions during WWll (relied on convoys)...... Just to let you in on a little secret. The war ended 68 years ago and we've been able to feed ourselves okay since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Just to let you in on a little secret. The war ended 68 years ago and we've been able to feed ourselves okay since then. How would be the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 Just to let you in on a little secret. The war ended 68 years ago and we've been able to feed ourselves okay since then. Only because we can afford to pay more than the poor countries for the food that is grown abroad and because we don’t care that it leaves some people starving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Thread here http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528449 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 Thread here http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528449 Sorry Tony forgot about this one, if the mods want to merge them, I don't mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 no problem. Your call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Well the global antibiotic apocalypse should sort a few overcrowding problems out.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21178718 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.