On February 08 2011 17:33 jstar wrote: Overpopulation is a myth.
I double checked the math, it's true.
The population of the earth is going to peak in 30 years, then start declining. Then everyone would start freaking out.
Problems about poverty and world hunger is another issue, not due to "overpopulation".
Why would population magically start to decline in 30 years?
That vid just says "it's not true lol, just a myth guys" without providing any evidence whatsoever.
There are sources for everything.
Here's one of them:
According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).
So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.
As for why the population will decline in 30 years:
According to the U.N. Population Database, using the historically accurate low variant projection, the Earth's population will only add another billion people or so over the next thirty years, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline. Check their online database.
Ah, k thanks, I should have went to youtube and checked for more info lol.
Well that's interesting if it proves to hold true, I've wondered about this every now and then, hoping population wouldn't go ridiculously out of control.
The main reason in third world countries/less developed countries is that IMO based on what my parents experience was:
Rural setting/farming. More kids = more to feed but more hands working. As Mao Zedong put it, when asked how china would support that many people he replied "Every person has two hands" or something along those lines. It works well within a less developed nation's constraints but once technology comes into play, the cost to raise a child, essentially feeding them, clothing them, caring for them until they get their first job at I'll say age 15, is a long ways from having a 5 year old that helps water the plants in the farm or an 8 year old that'll take the farm animals to a grazing area.
Overpopulation is primarily tied to land rights. More children-> more laborers to work on farms; hence a preference for more children, preferably male.
China: China is currently having issues with a heavily aging population like a lot of first/second world countries. As China has advanced it's economy, birth rates have significantly decreased naturally- although the one child policy had a huge effect on birth rate as well. This is happening to the point where the Chinese government is relaxing the one child policy. The time when China's population began decreasing, was directly after land right's issues and other issues with the primary sector (mainly food availiablity, solved by the Household Responsibilities Act).
In the past food was a limiting factor for population growth, however the growth is punctured when people no longer find it in their economic interest to have more children. Because they are generally focusing more on their existing children and paying a lot of money to educate and ensure their health. The parents will also more likely be working in an office, where quality generally supersedes quality. (see this link for more info: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=174515¤tpage=12#230)
India: India is land locked, a lot of the land is owned by land barons, and because mechanical capital is expensive relative to human capital, laborers are preferred. India has huge amounts of arable land, so hypothetically if it were to get it's economy to focus on food, it could feed most of the world. India has a lot of outstanding issues in it's financial system, government and its secondary sector- however given time these issues will most likely cease given a chance.
Resources and food are different, food is renewable (while the climate is intact), to say the least. However a lot of goods such as housing materials are not. Because of my reasons above, I don't think overpopulation is a threat to natural resources. Overconsumption and waste would be the main issue for resources.
A lot of other changes would help; in America for example:
"Capitalist" intellectual property laws to free certain innovative technologies in America would stimulate technologies to reduce the resources require to provide goods, this would effectively reduce the amount of resources required per capita. And the trade of these products would help the world (other countries would import these technology and goods and use less resources themselves) as well America (through the exports) with it's travails in economic recovery.
But this is one example of many, if it becomes dire, it's very likely such laws would be forcibly rewritten. This is all opinion by the way, not fact ~tell me what you think ♪
"It takes two children per couple to keep a population growth rate of 0."
Really? Replacement fertility is 1.41 children per female.
2 people having 2 children is most often times 4, which can stay that way for 40 or more years and certainly leads to population growth.
What is the problem with Over Population? The Earth has a set "carrying capacity". That is determined by so many factors its impossible to quantify. How efficiently we farm, how sustainable our farming and water usage is, how fairly food and resources are distributed... but regardless of what is numerically, it is certainly exists.
We consume energy to sustain our society. Food. Petroleum. Coal. Water. Almost all of the energy originates with the sun. The question is, are we using up more than the biosphere is currently capturing and making available- and thus depleting the reserves? (aka... peak oil, soil erosion [less arable land], over fishing of the sea) ... or are we sustainable with the environment?
When we reach the actual "carrying capacity" of the planet... there will be a temporary overshot of population- that lives off the stored up energy and basically waits for the inevitable shrinkage. The real question is if we are already in the overshot zone, and how much the shrinkage will be when it comes.
The real danger, is the vast number of people, coupled with inevitable shrinkage, that may be multiplied many times by our cultures damaging of the Biosphere and resulting reduction in the carrying capacity. This, simply, means a lot of people could die in a short time from things like starvation, water wars, and famine.
Of course, we could just assume everything is fine and the earth can probably sustain 100 billion people and why worry.
On February 08 2011 17:38 Neivler wrote: To have economic growth you need population growth, in non industrial countries. The children are a resource, and it is only when they stop becoming a huge resource, then they will stop having a lot of children. Also no\expensive birth control, makes a lot of babies.
Kinda picking nits here but you can industrialise a country (provivded it's non-industrialised) to increase it's growth rate. Yes children are a huge reasource in that country so that is why people have so many children in those countries.
There was a theory (for lack of a better word more like a truth or an application of logic) made by some reverend in I think the 1800s who stated that (not exactly) ''A population will continue to grow until everyone is on the cusp of being able to breed'' basically if anyone has reasources allowing them to have extra children they will do so + Show Spoiler +
(this is economics it makes generalizitions like that because it is correct about 99% of the time and it's simpler to teach students it gets more complicated later)
So everone will have the exact amount of reasources to have just enough children to continue the status quo. This kinda got completely screwed over with the advent of birth control but it remains relevent in 3rd world countries. And for those who talk about running out of reasources, well not really, as demand increases there is an increase in the incentive to more efficiently use our reasources, like as petrol is going up in price fuel efficient cars are getting more popular, and ultimatly it will be better to switch to a renewable source, say hydrogen. Governments don't have to do anything about population it will take care of itself ultimately. That principle is something that few Governments take into account all they have to do is care for those that cannot care for themselves (welfare) and keep people honest (in economic terms like stopping fraud/ false advertising). As population rises then the free market will find ways to better allocate reasources as population gets higher and higher and people have less and less then the reverends theory gets screwed because of the advent of the condom, so population never gets to a horribly high level. And people will get access to that tech because a high population means cheap labout which means industrialisation which means better living standards which means condoms. EDIT: typo EDIT: btw the replacement rate is 2.1 children per female
On February 08 2011 18:27 cursor wrote: "It takes two children per couple to keep a population growth rate of 0."
Really? Replacement fertility is 1.41 children per female.
2 people having 2 children is most often times 4, which can stay that way for 40 or more years and certainly leads to population growth.
Wait, What, can you go over this one one more time please ? If an adult couple of two people make two children, and these children each set out as adults to pair up with another adult each and to make two other children, the initial two people die of old age, leaving four adults and four children, of whom two adults come from another set of two people who died of old age, giving an average of two adults and two children per family, which is the same as the initial position.
Summarizing the result, an adult couple with two children will keep cycling with the same number of population.
Let me make this even plainer: Two people meet, they make two people, and they die. How many people are left ? Two people. And if these two people make two more people and die, then ...... ?
Where on earth did you get that math of 1.41 children per female ? It's absolutely illogical.
On February 08 2011 18:33 Ethic wrote: Population only increases by multiples if each couple has 3 or more children. Most couples only have 1 or 2 children in this century...
Yes, and nonetheless population growth is known to be exponential at present, according to reliable statistics and data. What is your point in paraphrasing a part of what I said in the OP ?
Edit: What do you mean by "most couples" ? Are you taking a sample that leaves out most of the African continent, South Asia, and South America ?
Yes, it was exaggerated, but after looking around for a while i found it to be closer to the truth than i thought. For every sensible couple that decides on 0-2 children there are a lot more couples that have more children, either from accidents, because they want the child support money or because they don't believe in using protection.
The situation is far worse in less developed countries, especially since for example the US still has a lot of free, habitable land while in those third world countries the habitable land is too small and there isn't enough agriculturally useable land to feed the population.
It's time to build a moon station or off-world/space habitats and farms.
On February 08 2011 18:33 Ethic wrote: Population only increases by multiples if each couple has 3 or more children. Most couples only have 1 or 2 children in this century...
Yes, and nonetheless population growth is known to be exponential at present, according to reliable statistics and data. What is your point in paraphrasing a part of what I said in the OP ?
Edit: What do you mean by "most couples" ? Are you taking a sample that leaves out most of the African continent, South Asia, and South America ?
its because people dont just die right after they have 2 kids.
for example, my wifes grandma and grandpa had 2 kids, who each went and had 2 kids. There are now 2+2+4= 8 people. They are all still alive and counted as people. Basically, there is a piling up effect, because people usually have kids when they are 20-30 but live for 70+ years. Hence, the amount of time between people being created is much sorter than the amount of time that people live.
By the time people die, they are usually around the Great Grandparent age... and soon after, if another 2 come... you're already growing again. 2+4+8= 14. (this is assuming the original 2 have already died)
On February 08 2011 18:08 Kickboxer wrote: Just wait for World War III and things will even out in a couple of years ^___^
Half the world will be uninhabitable due to nuclear radiation , would not be a pleasant future , sadly i do see a major war on the horizon within the next 5-10 years.
I think it has a lot to do with the dramatically increased life expectancy of the average person over the past century. The world's population seems to be growing at an alarming rate because the overwhelming majority of people aren't dying fast enough (no major wars, health care too good, etc).
On February 08 2011 18:08 Kickboxer wrote: Just wait for World War III and things will even out in a couple of years ^___^
Half the world will be uninhabitable due to nuclear radiation , would not be a pleasant future , sadly i do see a major war on the horizon within the next 5-10 years.
Relax we're in Australia China and America will screw each other over and no-one gives a fuck about Australia because we have nothing any body wants in the middle of a war. EDIT: except vast reserves of iron ore, bauxite and uranium...shit.
On February 08 2011 17:35 Lokian wrote: As an asian, I know why we have many children. It's difficult to keep many children alive, but in the farmlands, children start working at an early age. The point is, the more children you can support, the better off you are when you're older. You have a lot of helping hands and support after you're too old to work.
Exactly. People don't want to die alone. Especially in countries without nursing homes.
For many third world countries, its more beneficial to have more kids. The more kids you have, the more kids you can have to do work for you. That was how it was hundreds of years ago and it is the same for countries not as developed as first world countries. Also, overpopulation is the result of lower mortality rates in infants as compared to the past. Not as many babies die in their first year. Also, people are living longer due to medicine and new technology.
On February 08 2011 18:02 teh_longinator wrote: I mean, look at the vegetables now... there's nowhere near the amount of nutrition in them that there used to be
India: India is land locked, a lot of the land is owned by land barons, and because mechanical capital is expensive relative to human capital, laborers are preferred.
Exponential population growth is the result of a lot of things, like lack of birth control, stigma on things like abortions, people living 70-100 years off medications, improved health practices, less deaths during child birth, and most of all, no huge repercussions on having a child.
People are even having children in the US just to gain citizenship :/
I would be all for a proposition that made it so that only 2 children in the US recieve free education and governmental benefits, and that any over 2 will be either taxed or will have to be 100% funded by the parents.
But that's too "intrusive on human rights herpity derpity". Get so mad when I see people with 5+ kids and they are supported on welfare and shit.
EPT
