[Closed] Horizon: Attenborough on Population Growth

sobering stuff.

the human population will stabilize somehow.

it'll be disease, famine, or war that does it. or a nasty combination of all 3.

he has wonky specs

The real cause of any problems with climate is the concept of the scientific paradigm. Just because the vast majority of people think that something is correct doesnt make it so.

1960/70 - global cooling,
1980/90 - global warming,
2000 - present - climate change.
So in my book it's all bollocks.

WTF does Attenborough know about climate change anyway - he's a film maker.

Yes the zoo fighting trolling gob sh1te is far more qualified to pass judgement on this ..praise be he is here with his facts again 🙄

Back OT yes the population is highly unlikely to be sustainable for the long run.

Goan: take it you didn't see it then? It had **** all to do with global warming. If you want to debate that then go join hainey on the [URL= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/global-warming-see-for-yourself ]global warming thread[/URL].

Of course all the long haul flights and lighting effects in his productions are as green as possible aren't they. hypocrite.

David' CO2 emitting' Attenborough

There is no problem. If the earth heats up, people will die - lots of them. This will lead to less resource depletion and release of greenhouse gases - equilibrium will be restored - problem sorted itself out.

Increased energy and food efficiency are the only way forward.

People need to remember that the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones...

thanks for that so we still have stones then - another great insight

What exactly do you mean by the statement

Increased energy and food efficiency are the only way forward.

We all going vegan and switching the lights off?

We could try eating less and switching the lights off - that would be a start.

Any problem that there may be is caused by wasteful consumption of finite resources.

eat less cheese

Can we maybe limit the discussion to folk that at least watched the programme and have some idea what all the words meant??

ok then - why would a tripling of the population in the next 50 years be bad? It's not as if we'd run out of room and there would be plenty food and fuel to go around if people didn't waste so much...

Population in developed countries is already declining. Its kind of self-controlling, if people grow up in crowded conditions, there less likely to have lots of kids.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327271.400-the-population-delusion.html?full=true

i quite like the quote:
"We are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate for us... already nature does not sustain us." So wrote Tertullian, an early Christian, back in the 3rd century. At that time, the world population stood at some 200 million.

People need to remember that the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones...

Sorry to jump on your back JUnkyard, but I'm hoping for an explanation of that one too - in terms of how it relates to David Attenborough's opinions on population growth.

Not jumping to his defence but, Attenborough has long held that population growth is the big "elephant in the room" (sorry for the use of that cliche but couldn't think of anything else right now) that nobody in the world is prepared to discuss.

Goan, I'd debate it with you if you weren't being so glib.

ok then - why would a tripling of the population in the next 50 years be bad? It's not as if we'd run out of room and there would be plenty food and fuel to go around if people didn't waste so much....

Yup, in fact according to the programme, if we persuade the entire world to live like the poorest in India then we can just about manage a population of 20 billion.

Though if we continue at our current growth rate we could be at that level in our lifetimes.

Will watch it on catch up and get back to you
DD feel free I cant be arsed

Isn't it all part of god's great plan, anyway? 😯

DD - it's a line form Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentaist - it means that new technology replaces old long before the situation becomes critical. To relate it to population growth - new energy generation and use techniques will be developed as will those for food.

GrahamS - The programme wouldn't really be much cope if it said that everything would be fine now would it. Wouldn't really get many people talking about it.... Taking Attenborough's word on this subject is like taking the Sun newspaper as being gospel on Neuroscience.

DD feel free I cant be arsed

You know what, neither can I JY. A discussion on population growth/control might be interesting.

It's the weight of science on the side of the massive proportion of scientists who are sceptical about the tiny amount of manipulated evidence from the government funded climate changeologists who are like basically starting a like religion so that the government, who are so gay like, can tax our arses off.

So, as you were everyone.

[url= http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-mad-smileys-107.gi f" target="_blank">http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-mad-smileys-107.gi f"/> [/img][/url]

yes well with his latest news I wll be busy. Now I dont need to worry as something will come along I am off to turn the heating up and breed like a catholic rabbit.

A very clear and non sensational programme.
As he started with, the human race is not very good at understanding the scale of it's own population

Goan: okay so which bits are shaky then? Are the population figures wrong? Do we actually have much more fresh water and food hidden away somewhere?

The UK population is on target to be 77 million by 2050. That's around another 16 million people added to our tiny island.

Goan, the points you make just display the kind of arrogance that caused the recession.

1 Billion people don't have access to clean, safe water, if technology is going to ensure the ever growing population is going to thrive please tell me why 15% of the world's population has to suffer that?

Goan - do you think he did all the research, spoke to all of the experts in the program and made it all up himself, or do you think it was independantly researched and produced with him as a presenter?

If we are to continue to "progress" and "grow" we are going to have to get used to living with a lot less consumption, or find a miracle new way of generating power to help provide us with fuel and water. Space is not the issue, resources are, and we are seriously pushing them. As stated in the programme, if you watched it, nearly 40% of land mass is being used for food production and theres not a whole lot more we can use, and countries are currently buying farming land and using more power and water to try to make them farmable and get fresh water to the population. If the number of people grows as expected and even if we don't increase energy use at all from now we're stuffed.

Yet again, people need to watch:

CK - no, nor do I think that he had a crack team of academics either.

I agree with the next bit, but don't see that being a real problem to be honest. The planet will be fine - couldn't really care less whether the species survives or not.

I suspect he had a decent set of researchers behind him assessing the latest data presented BY academics though.

Really you don't care about the continuation of the species, millions of other other species, or the world as we currently have it? You don't feel any obligation to future generations to try to minimise the unpleasantries and leave them a legacy as good as you've had? I find that a bit odd.

It's mutual Goan

Couldn't care less about the species. Life moves on. There were things here before us and there will be other shit here after us - its the way the planet works. Humans are not important in the bigger picture.

Humans are the only species capable of understanding its effect on other species and limiting it, it has a responsibility to minimise that effect. To completely disregard everything in a "not my problem" way is ridiculous.

CK - no, nor do I think that he had a crack team of academics either.

True, I mean they were talking to folk at the Population Division at the UN and guys from NASA. They'd have been much better off asking driving instructors.

The planet will be fine - couldn't really care less whether the species survives or not.

No children Goan? No one under the age of 30 that you remotely care about?

You're factually, rationally correct Goan.

But, you're also selfish, arrogant and amoral.

What we do now affects the quality of life for the future of this planet, whilst it might not 'matter' in the grand scheme of things, you try telling that to a dying, starving miserable future population that will look back on our time and see us as greedy foul ignorant idiots who chose to squander the achievements of mankind because we wanted to drive to the shops for a pint of milk.

GrahamS - Did either of those two institutions edit the programme - no i doubt it. 2 kids and a 3rd on the way - they'll be fine.

People spend way too much time worrying about things they have no control over. Instead of thinking up the next scary fairy story the scientists could actually do something to fix the problems that are here now....

Life is too short to worry about the bollocks that they come out with.

Nick - if you read my points above I say that the only way to prevent this type of problem is to stop wasting everything that we have. I'm far from being selfish arrogant and amoral - refusing to take my point onboard is al of those things though.

Instead of thinking up the next scary fairy story the scientists could actually do something to fix the problems that are here now....

With respect, we are. The predictions you dislike are borne out of assessing what needs to be done to fix existing and future problems, you can't just fix existing issues blindly ignoring the future, that would be stupid and wreckless. Believe it or not, scientists and engineers don't just sit around making predictions for the sake of getting their name in the media. While Id be the last person to suggest academics are ego-free, their ego is USUALLY fed by the success of their research in solving problems (because that's how it's judged), not by the publicity of it.

that would be stupid and wreckless.

he probably can quite easily then I think you may have misuderestimated him 😆

You contradict yourself, either the species matter (to us, right now) or it doesn't.

I would say that spending more time thinking up what might go wrong is way more wreckless than fixing the problems that are here now. Malaria and AIDS anyone?

nick - where do i contradict myself?

CK - having spent a lot of time around academics I would say that the vast majority of them want to be published at all costs - whether their work is factually correct or not.

sticks head in..oh another miserable goan thread 🙄
closes door behind him.

GrahamS - Did either of those two institutions edit the programme - no i doubt it.

No but they do edit their own websites and the data there agrees.

You can play with the UN Population Division data here:
http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp

World Population (in thousands)
1950: 2,529,346
2000: 6,115,367
2050: 7,958,779 - 11,030,273 (projected obviously)

World Population (month by month)

07/01/09 6,768,167,712
08/01/09 6,774,705,647
09/01/09 6,781,243,583
10/01/09 6,787,570,618
11/01/09 6,794,108,554
12/01/09 6,800,435,588
01/01/10 6,806,973,524
02/01/10 6,813,511,460
03/01/10 6,819,416,692
04/01/10 6,825,954,628
05/01/10 6,832,281,663
06/01/10 6,838,819,599
07/01/10 6,845,146,634
.
From [URL= http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html ]US Census Bureau[/URL]

I'm told that there are more people alive today, than have ever died in the past.
Sobering thought.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus ]Thomas Malthus[/url] worried about popn growth long before D.A.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boserup ]Ester Boserup [/url] was a bit more optimistic

Classic A level Geography:

Malthus’ theory says that the size and growth of the population depends on the food supply and agricultural methods. But on the other hand Boserup’s theory opposes this by saying that the agricultural methods depend on the size of the population. Malthus states that in times when food is not sufficient for everyone, the extra people will have to die. However, Boserup states that in those times of pressure people will find ways to increase the production of food by increasing workforce, machinery, fertilizers, etc.

@Goan - weren't you on here moaning about university a couple of weeks back? Perhaps if you spent less time moaning on here, and more time listening, you might learn something, eh?

[EDIT] seeing as you don't care about which species survive, perhaps you could lead by example on the human extinction front? Now fall on your sword gacefully, and don't make too much of a mess... [/EDIT]

@boxelder - it is indeed classical A-level geog. However neither are right...

Malthus' doom was indeed tempered by the green revolution in agriculture, but despite the optimism of Boserup's theory, there really is only a finite resource of fresh water and fertile soil, so we can't go on improving agriculture efficiency forever. Either there are less of us, or we eat less...

[URL= http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe ]The world population has increased by around 21,000[/URL] since I started this thread, two and a half hours ago!

That's a lot of new mouths to feed!

That Horizon episode was certainly one that made one think a little, and it presents an interesting dilemma:

[b]Should one have children or not?[/b]

I suspect that our children, in the "privileged West", will have far less to worry about than children being born into rapidly expanding population centres in Asia: kids in the UK will be far more comfortable and have it much easier than in most parts of the world. Even if the UK population does increase by 20-30% in the next 40 years, will it really affect the country THAT much?

My 'carbon footprint' is pretty tiny, [i]for this country[/i]: I don't have a car, I don't consume anything that comes from animals, I cycle everywhere and my job is to repair items that allow the most efficient way to travel around (I do, before the accusations of "hippie!" come flying out, wash). Would having children undo all this and make me a bigger part of the downfall of the world?

My understanding is that children have the 'footprint' of the environment they are born into - so a US child will use 5* the 'suggested allowable' amount and a child UK 2.5*. On those grounds it appears that we should be reducing the birth rate in the 'civilised' (*word used loosely) world.

We could always have a worldwide ban on the Catholic Church and their archaic contraception teachings - that would go someway to reducing population growth.

Just point out the irony of banning contraception to ensure the survival of their "species", whilst denying that evolution exists. Then watch them disappear in a puff of logic. 😀

but yeah, worldwide easy/free access to contraception would at least help to ensure that the folk having kids are those that want them.

gusamc - It could be said that children in the western world have a greater chance of growing up to be the next scientist/eng that solves our problems though, so you can't subscribe to that thought process unless you want to shoot yourself in the foot. As it is that population is already the slowest expanding in the world (due to education).

or we eat less...

Which is why we're veggies. Don't mind killing things if needed, but meat production has to slow down, a lot.

The world population has increased by around 21,000 since I started this thread, two and a half hours ago!

That's a lot of new mouths to feed!

Is there a worldwide food shortage then? And are famines the result of there simply being too many people, or are there invariably other social and political factors at play?

if you took away meat and dairy the food situation would be MUCH better.
i think its seven kg of grain to make 1kg of meat.then there is the water.
global meat and dairy crisis?

Is there a worldwide food shortage then?

Not yet, though we're already at the stage where rich countries are buying up farmland in poor countries, because they can no longer produce enough food for their population on their own country's land.

i think its seven kg of grain to make 1kg of meat

Yes, though I'd wonder how much of the 7kg of grain is edible by humans, what calories and nutrients each provides and whether we could do without it entirely.

This is worth a read

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/cheap-food/bourne-text

It really is a wake up call to what is happening to humanity.

Whether global warming exists or not, the world needs to change to protect ourselves and everything around us.

sorry for joining the debate late, its been an interesting read.

the majority of people in the most affluent countries don't give a shit. the decision makers give even less of a shit. nothing will change peacefully. the next major war will most likely be over water.

Fair point coffeeking. Cows turn inedible grass into edible (and delicious) meat. 🙂

I'm told that there are more people alive today, than have ever died in the past.

Now you know not to believe all you're told right?

Yes, though I'd wonder how much of the 7kg of grain is edible by humans, what calories and nutrients each provides and whether we could do without it entirely.

Misses the point entirely we could grow food we could eat instead of feed for cows and yes we can eat all grains once cooked.
. We could certainly feed more if we all went vegan and reduce CO2 as well* – I doubt that many governments /greens/agencies will start promoting this though.

* 16 % of C02 is from Animal production and 30% of land mass used for them IIRC

I don't see population increase as an issue. If we get too big and destroy all our natural resources then we will build big spaceships and move from planet to planet consuming all we find in our path. Have you not seen Independence Day?

Now you know not to believe all you're told right?

Can't be bothered doing the sums, but it doesn't seem [i]that[/i] impossible if you look at the world population figures.

FAIL

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/dead.asp

hainey I think you have not seen Independence Day with your description ...you getting something factually wrong ...what a surprise 😯

Junkyard, as far as i see it you have 2 options open to you.

1 - Personality Transplant
2 - Sense of humour Transplant.

I would start with number 2 and see how you get on.

With respect, the idea that there are as many people alive today as have died since the pyramids were built is a pretty staggering one.

Ah cheers hainey. Glad someone has done the sums.

The documentary "Home" by Yann Arthus-Bertrand is an excellent and fantastically filmed insight into how Planet Earth is changing.

[url= http://quickrelease.tv/?p=901 ]Take a look here[/url]

Population prediction needs to be taken in good measure. If anyone read "The population Bomb" by Ehrlich will know, he had predicted that by 1995 the world would have reached critical population and billions would be starving and dieing as a result.

Now whilst some people judge this as an extremist / alarmist point of view, and although his predition was wrong, the fundamental teachings and theories he had are still applicable and his 1995 model will more than likely be a 2050 model.

won't this problem sort itself out if we all only have at most 2 children.

We could only have 1 child per couple i guess, but its nice to have 2 as you've got a 'backup' if something happens to the 1st one.

If every couple in the world had 2 children then the population would actually decline due to natural causes, accidental death, disease, war etc

...which is what's needed really.

Agreed

If every couple in the world had 2 children then the population would actually decline due to natural causes, accidental death, disease, war etc

Everyone dies eventually!! - Just avoid Bournemouth!

Great insight but I think you missed the point of my post - though I could have expressed it better tbf.
If the population is living to an older age then there will still be a growth in poulation if we all have two kids.

What about eating children thus solving two problems at the same time.

If the population is living to an older age then there will still be a growth in poulation if we all have two kids.

I think you will find you are wrong.

If everyone still dies, and every couple has 2 kids (i.e replaces themselves, then you have a population stability. If out of those 2 kids for every couple some are killed due to accident, disease, war, natural disaster etc etc, then population will decrease.

An aging population will just mean a shift in average age.

I will let you do the Maths!

Yes, an ageing population would still grow in the short term, but not nearly as quickly as a population that is ageing AND having more than two kids per couple.

And it wouldn't grow forever as long as there is still a maximum age.

think you better had 🙄

EDIT: Yes I agree GrahamS just saying that 2 people only would still be a population increase but yes it will stabalise at some point.
I assume the third wolrd average age is way below the west.
About 45 ish for Africa so imagine they live another 20 -30 years.

Agreed clearely number of births is still best method but it would not stabilise immediately due to us living longer [unless you use Hainey maths that is]

Still not got it?

If there are less people being born, and everyone still dies, how can the population increase long term?

Don't worry, it will click at some point today and you will realise i was right!

hainey - Member
Still not got it?

If there are less people being born, and everyone still dies, how can the population increase long term?

Don't worry, it will click at some point today and you will realise i was right

Think about it
Graham you like Excel go on you know you want to 😀