Moderator: Nicole Marie
shostakovich wrote:Once in a while there will be a letter or article regarding overpopulation. It's the problem no elected official will take on. The standard methods of population control are war, starvation, disease. Surely we can find a better way. Consumption of natural resources and pollution are directly related to human population. If a group of historians, scientists, and philosophers from all nations would study the problem and come up with recommendations, it would help remove the fear of facing this problem. Until some method of population control is implemented the human race will rush toward annihilating itself --- well before life is extinguished by some natural disaster. Just airing out a thought.
Shos
Shapley wrote:If we took all 6,000,000,000 people in the world, and relocated them to Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, the population density would be less than half that of New York City.

jamiebk wrote:Which is why I don't live in NYC....
And...you'd still have to suck resources from the rest of the world to support them
Shapley wrote:jamiebk wrote:Which is why I don't live in NYC....
And...you'd still have to suck resources from the rest of the world to support them
True. However, they say we need approximately 10 acres/person to feed the world. If I did my math correctly, if you take the land area of the world, and multiply that by the 13% that is arable, you'll find that we have a little over 20 acres of arable land per person available, so we're not in trouble yet....
As I said at the beginning of the 'Healthy economy" thread, we've literally only scratched the surface of the Earth in mining natural resources. Our problem does not lie in the numbers. We have an access problem.
I hope you see a world in which mankind has decided to be sane. But I must say in all honesty that I figure that the chances are against it.
- Isaac Asimov, November 8, 1974
jamiebk wrote:
Not all the land is usable or bears resources
Shapley wrote:jamiebk wrote:
Not all the land is usable or bears resources
No, but all of the arable land is arable. I used the figure of 13%, which is the percentage of the worlds' total land surface that is identified as arable.
TOKYO, May 5 -- Japan celebrated a national holiday on Monday in honor of its children. But Children's Day might just as easily have been a national day of mourning.
For this is the land of disappearing children and a slow-motion demographic catastrophe that is without precedent in the developed world.
The number of children has declined for 27 consecutive years, a government report said over the weekend. Japan now has fewer children who are 14 or younger than at any time since 1908.
The proportion of children in the population fell to an all-time low of 13.5 percent. That number has been falling for 34 straight years and is the lowest among 31 major countries, according to the report. In the United States, children account for about 20 percent of the population.
” In the so-called "New Europe", the situation is even gloomier. According to UN projections, Latvia will lose 44 percent of its population by 2050 as a result of demographic trends. In Estonia, the population is expected to shrink by 52 percent, in Bulgaria 36 percent, in Ukraine 35 percent, and in Russia 30 percent. In comparison with these figures, the projected population decline in Italy (22 percent), the Czech Republic (17 percent), Poland (15 percent) or Slovakia (8 percent) looks like a small decrease. France and Germany will lose relatively little population, and the population of the United Kingdom will even see a slight growth -- thanks to immigrants.”
BigJon@Work wrote:Prosperity brings population control. Nothing else has worked so far.
Shapley wrote:If we took all 6,000,000,000 people in the world, and relocated them to Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, the population density would be less than half that of New York City.
GreatCarouser wrote:So where is that 'light' from centuries past to tell us something like "Remember 'be fruitful and multiply'? We need to modify that..." ?
shostakovich wrote:I find statistics fascinating, too. ZPG, NPG, MPG, PGA ----------- really are beside the point. The earth is finite. There will be a time when the earth can not sustain the population it has now or even a billion people. Natural resources will run low. Food sources will run low. Of course, cannibalism could go a long way to solving that problem as well as the population problem. Climate change may reduce the amount of land on which people can live. Nuclear power, which many people extoll now, will DEFINITELY reduce the amount of land and water on/in which anything can live. Human history goes back less than 10 thousand years. It will not last another 10 thousand without a change in attitude about population. We, meaning our distant descendents, will have to learn again how to live with (and within) nature in order to survive. Thinking "green" is a possible start.
Shos
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]