- Jesus Salazar
- Df
- Mexico
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why is everybody concerned about "how to solve the problems of 10 billion humans" instead of "how NOT TO REACH that amount of people"?
We know human overpopulation is the base of practicaly all the problems our planet faces today, how it comes nobody seems to care about it, instead of how to satisfy the needs of more and more people?
Topics:
global affairs overpopulation
Solidus Sharp
Terry Harman
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html
I think the main problem is one of over-consumption rather than over population. It's all about the impact we have on our surroundings, if every human had as little impact on the environment as we did before our industrial period then our current problems would be a lot less pressing. Of course without this industrial period we wouldn't have 7 billion on the planet as we wouldn't have the machinery and infrastructure to grow for and supply that many people, which we just about do even though it's done rather badly and un-equally...
I remember hearing an interesting fact recently that over the last 30 years energy efficiency had increased in Germany by 50%. However the savings this could have had in terms of energy consumption had been wiped out by economic growth. I would argue that the current economic contraction we're seeing in Europe and other areas is actually a good thing for the planet provided technology innovates to keep making things more energy efficient and products become more durable and repairable.
Matthew Healey
The key i think would be to think about what it is that causes population growth. For example:
A woman and a man have a single child, the child grows up, the parents pass away, we are now net -1 person on the planet.
Add a second child and we break even, add a 3rd and we are net +1 person, and so on (I'm excluding the people who do not have children for whatever reason).
I recall reading somewhere that based on statistics those from lower income backgrounds are more likely to have more children. An example given was a farming family, whereby having more children meant there was more free labour (also linked to low education levels). You would also have to look at maternal and infant health issues, religious beliefs etc.
Ehis Odijie 10+
Ken brown 30+
Is Africa's education level rising? Is Africa's development being stunted by outside influence and it's own resources being siphoned off?
Ehis Odijie 10+
British colonization of the Americas was conducted by ground officials, directly, through the use of imported officials and military force. Americans revolted because it was so glaring - so when they came into Africa 100 years later, they learned from that experience. They applied indirect rule through cultural structures. In my country they have only a handful of officials dealing with traditional rulers. This way the ordinary man did not know that he was been colonized by the British.
Now, if you are from a different planet and I put forward the following explanation, surely you can infer that in another 100 years’ time colonization will take a different form – possibly, one with the appearance of freedom.
That is exactly what we have in Africa. If you study the economic calendar of Sub-Saharan Africa, as I have done, you’d realize that most countries did well in the 60s and 70s. It was the decade of adjustment (80s), when World Bank and IMF took over the affairs, that everything went bad. IMF and World bank are the causes of the problems we have in sub-Saharan Africa - nothing else.
Ken brown 30+
Erudite Explorer
Simple concept; let's say every human on earth had equal rights and equal access to resources. Without new restrictions the population will continue to swell and eventually there will be a shortage of something; let's say water. If distributed equally we'd all run out of water at the same time, die at the same time, and the entire species would be extinct. In order to preserve our species we would need a repository of chosen members to be preserved and protected by the un-chosen. The Elite are a necessary evil.
The Inevitability of Eugenics
Our current societal institutions and organizations are structured to maximize quantity of human life by preserving it universally (Human Rights). We are quickly reaching an impasse for this policy as the planet may already be overpopulated. When you have an excess in quantity of anything tangible it would be wise to assess the quality of your stock before deciding what to keep and what to discard. When applied to humans this shift from quantity to quality is called eugenics.
Ken brown 30+
Original gene stocks are a must in picking for this rather than an educated elite based on,well,education.The western nations are sadly a bad clean gene system as they head more into the processed diet system and the false notion of old mother syndrome,having babies late rather than earlier when their genes are more pristine for both partners.I'm discounting genetic research as it won't apply to everyone that hasn't got deep pockets and it probably won't come in time.
What do you think? any modification? or totally unrealistic as it is total speculation.
Erudite Explorer
I think that the larger and more diverse the stockpile, the better. Beyond that things like IQ, family medical history, and overall vitality would be prudent areas of consideration. Also arranging them in mating pairs based on HLA compatibility wouldn't be a bad idea.
Ken brown 30+
I don't know much about compatibility but i do know that you need original mastercopy stock as well as a good majority of mongrelized humans to ensure 9 out of10 survival rates,i'm with you on all races genes being saved but i discount everything technological and try and see it through the "Marooned" scenario,something to think about while i'm on the job.I see things through the eye's of the geographically isolated as that is what my country is,nz,we can't just roll over to a refugee camp across a border,we have to make do with what we got and at the moment we're at the mercy of nature and it's unpredictable moods.I wonder if she will kill a lot of us off giving the rest of us a breather.
Ken brown 30+
george lockwood 20+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html
Jesus Salazar
Now, what time is it? Do we have another bottle?
PS: I did not know you could do that (to revoke other people's rights)...
Krisztián Pintér 200+
no, i can not revoke such rights. pity.
Matthew Healey
That said, distribution is only the culprit at present. If humanities population continues to grow I believe we will eventually hit a ceiling whereby we start to cause extinction on a more noticeable scale (not only the cute animals but also essential habitats too). As well an inability to produce enough food for the population due to these decreasing biodiversity levels, soil quality, and not to mention that old foe, climate change.
Areas that currently act as breadbaskets (e.g. the USA, which produces about 40% of the worlds maize) are suffering from increasing levels of desertification, which in turn decreases agriculture yield = less food. All problems that would be exacerbated if you imagine another 3 billion people.
Jesus Salazar
Besides, my argument is not about wether it is possible or not, but about switching the way we think: If we know for certain that overpopulation is the ground for several problems facing the world today (may be all of them), then why are we not thinking on solving that core issue?
Barry Palmer 50+
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/melinda_gates_let_s_put_birth_control_back_on_the_agenda.html
However, "Because we failed to do so with 4, 5, 6, and 7 billions... and counting"
we need a backup plan.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Jesus Salazar
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Jessica Mae