Even limiting fertility or catastrophe not enough to control population explosion

[faisal6309]

Even limiting fertility or catastrophe not enough to control population explosion

Scientists have found that even stern restrictions over fertility or a catastrophic event would not be able to reduce the world population.

Ecologists Professor Corey Bradshaw and Professor Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute said that the "virtually locked-in" population growth meant the world must focus on policies and technologies that reverse rising consumption of natural resources and enhance recycling, for more immediate sustainability gains.

Professor Bradshaw said that the global population had risen so fast over the past century that roughly 14 percent of all the human beings that had ever existed were still alive today. This was unsustainable for a range of reasons, not least being able to feed everyone as well as the impact on the climate and environment.

They examined various scenarios for global human population change to the year 2100 by adjusting fertility and mortality rates to determine the plausible range of population sizes at the end of this century. Even a world-wide one-child policy like China's, implemented over the coming century, or catastrophic mortality events like global conflict or a disease pandemic, would still likely result in 5-10 billion people by 2100, he said.

Professor Brook added that a five-year WWIII scenario mimicking the same proportion of people killed in the First and Second World Wars combined, barely registered a blip on the human population trajectory this century.

Their models show clearly, while there was a need to be more policy discussion on this issue, the current inexorable momentum of the global human population precludes any demographic "quick fixes" to our sustainability problems.

The study revealed that effective family planning and reproduction education worldwide have great potential to constrain the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the longer term.

The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

Even limiting fertility or catastrophe not enough to control population explosion | Business Standard News

 

[gambit]

We have gone thru this population explosion alarmist shit before. It was predicted that at near the end of the 20th century, there would be worldwide famine, diseases, and warfare of biblical proportions throughout the world.

To give some perspective, the entire global population would fit inside the Grand Canyon in the US with room for each person to walk around.

What it would look like if 7.2bn population were dumped into Grand Canyon | Daily Mail Online

If you took all the world's population and dumped them into the Grand Canyon they wouldn't fill a fraction of it.

In fact the 7.2 billion people would only form a comparatively tiny pile - as shown in this fascinating mock-up image.

The graphic was put together by respected YouTube presenter Michael Stevens on his Vsauce channel, which juxtaposes the population of the world alongside the famous deep canyon by the Colorado River - situated in Arizona.

 

[Khalid Newazi]

Don't worry we humans know a very good way to control World Population, mass genocide.

 

[faisal6309]

Don't worry we humans know a very good way to control World Population, mass genocide.

Or legal regional wars...

 

[atatwolf]

Population growth is slowing on average.

Around 2030 it will stagnate and then decrease proportionally.

If you look at Europe and China, they will be in a crises, population is getting old at lightening speed. There won't be enough young to pay for the old.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

We have gone thru this population explosion alarmist shit before. It was predicted that at near the end of the 20th century, there would be worldwide famine, diseases, and warfare of biblical proportions throughout the world.

To give some perspective, the entire global population would fit inside the Grand Canyon in the US with room for each person to walk around.

What it would look like if 7.2bn population were dumped into Grand Canyon | Daily Mail Online

How much arable land, water, resources, education, etc. does a person need?

Even a person living in a slum shack needs several acres worth of water resources, farmland, multiple barrels of oil, coal to produce electricity, etc. to produce/transport the water and food needed to support their life, other than the slum shack itself. To support the farmland and even the extraction of coal and oil, you need more food, coal and oil.

 

[gambit]

How much arable land, water, resources, education, etc. does a person need?

Even a person living in a slum shack needs several acres worth of water resources, farmland, multiple barrels of oil, coal to produce electricity, etc. to produce/transport the water and food needed to support their life, other than the slum shack itself. To support the farmland and even the extraction of coal and oil, you need more food, coal and oil.

You did not raised any new issues/questions here. All of what you brought up, was brought up back in the 1960s-70s as alarmists' reasons for global regression. Many of the movement's leaders openly advocate allowing people to die from/of diseases and famines. Oddly enough, many of the dead would have been Africans.

 

[Schutz]

You did not raised any new issues/questions here. All of what you brought up, was brought up back in the 1960s-70s as alarmists' reasons for global regression. Many of the movement's leaders openly advocate allowing people to die from/of diseases and famines. Oddly enough, many of the dead would have been Africans.

Its still a worry, some countries populate to an extent where they have to live 10 in a room, it might not be something that brings about the demise of humanity but over population hurts individual family units life quality more than our species. Who wants to live in a country where the average family has 5-7 children, a prosperous country should have a fertility rate of between 1.8-2.5. Anything drastically more than that and life starts to get a bit crowded, which in turn usually means more diseases, less jobs, more cirime, more social unrest, less space for people to live and a higher demand for resources.

All you have to do is look at the nations with birth rates higher than 2.5 and with the exception of a few they are all basically areas which you would avoid for a multitude of reasons, most of them being poverty, crime, wars, religious nuts.

 

[gambit]

Its still a worry, some countries populate to an extent where they have to live 10 in a room, it might not be something that brings about the demise of humanity but over population hurts individual family units life quality more than our species. Who wants to live in a country where the average family has 5-7 children, a prosperous country should have a fertility rate of between 1.8-2.5. Anything drastically more than that and life starts to get a bit crowded, which in turn usually means more diseases, less jobs, more cirime, more social unrest, less space for people to live and a higher demand for resources.

All you have to do is look at the nations with birth rates higher than 2.5 and with the exception of a few they are all basically areas which you would avoid for a multitude of reasons, most of them being poverty, crime, wars, religious nuts.

That is not because there are geographical boundaries. Families stays together for many reasons, chief of them is mutual support in physical and emotional aspects of life. The alarmists' gross simplicity in scaring us is in using sheer numbers of the population then dishonestly implying that resources are currently finite. The operative word here is -- currently. Back when I was growing up, the book 'The Population Bomb' was a best seller and its author, Paul Ehrlich, predicted global famine because of his false belief in the current limit of resources. It turned out that even if oil, coal, or energy resources in general may be finite, its quantity is so vast that it might as well be infinite. There is a hypothesis now that the Earth may be creating oil as we currently lives, in other words, oil did not came from, or did not solely came from, past biological lifeforms.

Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring - US News

It turned out that 'abiotic' origins of oil may not be as kooky as originally believed. There are still plenty of skeptics, of course, but so were there skeptics of hydraulic fracturing, aka 'fracking', to get oil.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

What it would look like if 7.2bn population were dumped into Grand Canyon | Daily Mail Online

We can get WALL-E to build the pile after the big war.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

It turned out that 'abiotic' origins of oil may not be as kooky as originally believed. There are still plenty of skeptics, of course, but so were there skeptics of hydraulic fracturing, aka 'fracking', to get oil.

Fracking was well known in the 70's I believe, but simply too expensive. The cost has gone down now, but so has the price of oil/gas gone up to meet it.

You did not raised any new issues/questions here. All of what you brought up, was brought up back in the 1960s-70s as alarmists' reasons for global regression. Many of the movement's leaders openly advocate allowing people to die from/of diseases and famines. Oddly enough, many of the dead would have been Africans.

Even if humanity is not reaching its global carrying capacity, there are local places where carrying capacity has already been reached or exceeded. It is irrelevant to the African that the Canada could support double their current population, since the African can't go there.

Without imports of food/water/oil, those places would go down within months. See Egypt - a country utterly dependent on imports of literally all 3 imports, whereas a century ago, it was one of the breadbaskets of the world. Egypt now has no resources to pay for those imports. Did it not coincide with Mubarak's ouster that food prices went up and Egypt was facing a financial crisis that year?

The problem is this - the places that have reached, or exceeded carrying capacity - have alot of people in them. They can't all emigrate, and how long can imports support them?

 

[scholseys]

Governments should resort to Purge Anarchy.

 

[livingdead]

Generally poorer and uneducated families have bigger family.. but the growth is slowing down.. in most countries it will stop growing..

 

[gambit]

Even if humanity is not reaching its global carrying capacity, there are local places where carrying capacity has already been reached or exceeded. It is irrelevant to the African that the Canada could support double their current population, since the African can't go there.

Without imports of food/water/oil, those places would go down within months. See Egypt - a country utterly dependent on imports of literally all 3 imports, whereas a century ago, it was one of the breadbaskets of the world. Egypt now has no resources to pay for those imports. Did it not coincide with Mubarak's ouster that food prices went up and Egypt was facing a financial crisis that year?

The problem is this - the places that have reached, or exceeded carrying capacity - have alot of people in them. They can't all emigrate, and how long can imports support them?

Sorry, but I place the blame entirely on the local governments and their styles of governance. Japan is a resource scarce island country, but look at them then and today. There are no shortage of peoples and countries that overcame geography and geology then prospered.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Sorry, but I place the blame entirely on the local governments and their styles of governance. Japan is a resource scarce island country, but look at them then and today. There are no shortage of peoples and countries that overcame geography and geology then prospered.

Uh, they pillaged resources from all of Asia and enslaved other Asians to build up most of their national infrastructure. Then they were given aid from the US program to build industry, to trade things for food and oil. I don't get your point?