What's new

With 7 billion on earth, a huge task before us

JayAtl

BANNED
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
8,812
Reaction score
-14
(CNN) -- Just 12 years after the arrival of the 6 billionth individual on the planet in 1999, humanity will greet the 7 billionth arrival this month. The world population continues its rapid ascent, with roughly 75 million more births than deaths each year. The consequences of a world crowded with 7 billion people are enormous. And unless the world population stabilizes during the 21st century, the consequences for humanity could be grim.

A rising population puts enormous pressures on a planet already plunging into environmental catastrophe. Providing food, clothing, shelter, and energy for 7 billion people is a task of startling complexity.

The world's agricultural systems are already dangerously overstretched. Rainforests are being cut down to make way for new farms; groundwater used for irrigation is being depleted; greenhouse gases emitted from agricultural activities are a major factor in global climate change; fertilizers are poisoning estuaries; and countless species are threatened with extinction as we grab their land and water and destroy their habitats.

The economic challenges are equally huge. Population is growing most rapidly in the world's poorest countries -- often the places with the most fragile ecological conditions. Poor people tend to have many more children, for several reasons. Many live on farms, where children can be engaged in farm chores.

Poor societies generally suffer from high rates of child mortality, leading parents to have more children as "insurance" against the possible deaths of children. Girls rarely make it to high school, and are often married at a very young age, leading to early childbearing. And modern methods of contraception may be unavailable or unaffordable.


Jeffrey D. SachsWhen poor families have six or eight children, many or most of them are virtually condemned to a lifetime of poverty. Too often, parents lack the wherewithal to provide decent nutrition, health care and education to most of them. Illiteracy and ill health end up being passed from generation to generation. Governments in poor countries are unable to keep up, their budgets overmatched by the need for new schools, roads and other infrastructure.

So the arrival of the 7 billionth person is cause for profound global concern. It carries a challenge: What will it take to maintain a planet in which each person has a chance for a full, productive and prosperous life, and in which the planet's resources are sustained for future generations? How, in short, can we enjoy "sustainable development" on a very crowded planet?

The answer has two parts, and each portends a difficult journey over several decades. The first part requires a change of technologies -- in farming, energy, industry, transport and building -- so that each of us on average is putting less environmental stress on the planet. We will have to make a worldwide transition, for example, from today's fossil-fuel era, dependent on coal, oil and gas, to an era powered by low-carbon energies such as the sun and wind. That will require an unprecedented degree of global cooperation.

The second key to sustainable development is the stabilization of the global population. This is already occurring in high-income and even some middle-income countries, as families choose to have one or two children on average. The reduction of fertility rates should be encouraged in the poorer countries as well. Rapid and wholly voluntary reductions of fertility have been and can be achieved in poor countries. Success at reducing high fertility rates depends on keeping girls in school, ensuring that children survive, and providing access to modern family planning and contraceptives.

Two centuries ago, the British thinker Thomas Robert Malthus famously warned that excessive population growth would cut short economic progress. That is a threat still with us today, but it is a warning, not an inevitable outcome.

We face an urgent task: to adopt more sustainable technologies and lifestyles, and work harder to achieve a stable population of some 8 billion or so by mid-century, rather than the current path, which could easily carry the world to more than 10 billion people by 2100.

With 7 billion on earth, a huge task before us - CNN.com
 
Easy answer... Find new Planet.. Colonize it...????...... Profit??
 
First, find two new separate habitable planets for China and India to expand to. China can have the Jupiter size or Saturn-size planets. As for India, meh, maybe Mars or Neptune size, smaller than China's as always. ^^
 
I don't think there's a big problem with population growth. When it gets too large, nature will lower it in its own way. I think charity type maintenance is a bad thing though. Question mark over famines. People should only have what they can afford.
 
what an odd avatar. atal vajpayee.

DE10-P2-COLS1_GH42S_654349e.jpg


_40154323_misatal.jpg
 
Nuke China I say. Biggest population, biggest pork producers of the world. Islamic world wouldn't mind that.:lol:

Nah, China is much much more valuable to the world economy than India. We can get by without India. ^^
 
The world also has a 25 Billion chicken population. I don't understand what all this fuss is about the human population being 7 billion.

They fund all these "awareness programmes" in over a hundred countries, but in the dozen 1st world countries they are desperately trying to increase their population. One of Europe's biggest problems is, they want foreign emigrants to come in to do all the dirty jobs their natives skirt from doing, but they also want to maintain "pure" national identities. France pays a year's salary to Mothers to have a third child(as most people only have one, max two children), but at the same time, they fund these population control programmes which even have slogans like "two kids are enough" in Pakistan and most of the world.

Back in the United States' younger days, Jefferson imagined that it'd take his country many generations to populate the territory he obtained in the Louisiana Purchase, imagining it'd take over a century to make the indigenous tribes the minority and establish control. But the high birth rates meant that the place was firmly colonized within a couple of decades. They teach selective history and apply selective rules.

And if they're concerned about a larger population consuming too many resources, the relatively smaller populations of these western 1st world countries consume MUCH more resources than the poverty-riddled folks living in the ~180 3rd world countries.
 
Well Mars could be colonized

Mars atmosphere has Carbon Di Oxide

Plants use this to generate Oxygen , so if Humans can spread spores of plant (genetically modified plant) that can live in extreme temperatures (freezing) , perhaps the plants can turn Mars into Green lush planet

The plants would create Oxygen , and the ozone would protect the planet from Ultraviolet rays and other harmful rays from Sun

Oxygen would enable Humans to live on Planet as they can get Oxygen as needed.

Mars surface has water , enough to supply country size of China plus there might be underground reservoirs

There is enough Win to run solar wind turbines on Mars

What we lack

a) Anti Gravity Ships that can land and take off with Nuclear reactor core
b) Constructing Habitable Human Zones on Mars (Colonies)

Current Human Technology , i.e Rockets and Fuel is not sufficient because , there is no refuel facility on Mars

What humans need is , propulsion system - to move Space crafts size of Aircraft carriers into Orbit and Space (Using Anti Gravity technology to cancel out effect of gravity)
 
Oh no! Those ****** uneducated third world trash are breeding like vermin! We need to stop them before they overrun the sparkling white developed world! Let's start carrying out vasectomies on all of them!

Seriously, this is what is in most Western academicians' minds when they start going crazy about overpopulation.

Edit: apparently "f i l t h y" is a swear word...
 

Back
Top Bottom