Forum menu
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.
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
What about if we had an ageing population?
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
to stop you editing it !!!
Think about it
Graham you like Excel go on you know you want to 😀
He's right hainey.
If my grandparents were still alive then there would be more people in my family. Simples.
Graham you like Excel go on you know you wnat to
i thought about it. I did. But I'm lying in bed (off work with the shits) so I really can't be bothered 🙂
Ok, on the assumption that everyone lives forever then i admit population would increase.
The general concept that you are missing is that it does not matter how old someone lives for, if the population is not replacing itself then populations levels will decrease.
As graham said just imagine some people who are dead had lived longer and were alivve now ...are there more of us or less? They still die and the population would stioll stop rising eventually but increase in the short run 20 -30 years ish [at a guess]
Ps Get well soon - That is to Graham.... Hainey is beyond hope I fear 😉
Was that a back track Junkyard? So you are actually saying that population would decrease?
Ok, glad you got that one sorted out. 😉
Ok, on the assumption that everyone lives forever then i admit population would increase.
It doesn't need that qualifier for short term growth. If average lifespan increases from say 50 to 60 years then in 60 years time you'll have an extra ten years worth of people to feed.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/15/food.biofuels ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/15/food.biofuels[/url]
Some agree with George Monbiot, some don't, but he usually has a point.
hainey can you actually count?
If we are all living longer - which does seem to be the case IIRC- and parts of Africa have a current life expectancy of 40 at present [some parts of the west currently 80 and rising still].
What in terms of numbers will the effect be of people not dieing on poulation? INCREASE OR DECREASE? It is not particularily hard to work out.
Junkyard, you still not got it? Seriously? 🙄
If less people are being born than are dieing, then population decreases. Its not hard to figure out. It doesn't matter if people live longer or shorter, everyone still dies.