Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Fox Fire

Global Overpopulation

48 posts in this topic

Chrisford, how can you say that? Of course they are connected. I know much of the population boom is coming from under developed countries, but that just means they have higher birth rates for the size of they're current population. The vast majority of people being born are coming from everywhere except these under developed nations.

More people requires more oil nomatter where you are.

Shell, I don't think so. I think that may be one reason, but I certainly don't see anyone selling their own oil reserves. I see them using them in a time of dire need. Like when we start running out. IE: Saudi Arabia, (last time I checked) had the largest oil reserves. They really have no need for such vast reserves because they produce more than anyone except possibly in modern times, Russia.

Considering how dependant the world is on oil, it wouldn't make sense to sell oil that your nation desperately needs. And if you wouldn't desperately need it, there's no sense in stock piling it.

 

Cite your sources please. I want to hear evidence that the issues are directly related.

 

Also, can you post a picture of an oil consumption graph? You posted a picture of oil production, but not consumption.

 

 

For clarification: Evidence is not "oil consumption is up, population growth is up, so they have to be related."

Edited by chrisford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying that increased oil production = larger populace, rather, larger populace = more oil production/consumption.

Oil consumption graph for the top consuming nations. Keep in mind, although there seems to be an obvious fluctuation, the trend is clearly increasing for most nations and I imagine that would be more obvious for under developed nations.

Ill post a graph for those if I can one.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EIA_petroleum_consumption_of_selected_nations_1960-2008.png

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_consumption_per_day_by_region_from_1980_to_2006.svg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying that increased oil production = larger populace, rather, larger populace = more oil production/consumption.

Oil consumption graph for the top consuming nations. Keep in mind, although there seems to be an obvious fluctuation, the trend is clearly increasing for most nations and I imagine that would be more obvious for under developed nations.

Ill post a graph for those if I can one.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EIA_petroleum_consumption_of_selected_nations_1960-2008.png

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_consumption_per_day_by_region_from_1980_to_2006.svg

 

Okay, now we're saying something. I will agree that a larger population would lead to more oil being consumed, however, I don't believe that oil is a rare substance at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're never going to run out of oil. Rather, oil will become so expensive that other forms of energy sources will become cheaper to use than oil, thus they will be used.

Edited by chrisford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, now we're saying something. I will agree that a larger population would lead to more oil being consumed, however, I don't believe that oil is a rare substance at this point. 

Its a known fact that its getting harder to find, and global production seems to be headed into decline. I could be wrong and there may be a crap ton out there we don't know of, but all the data I can find about oil production and oil discovery says its not "rare" at this point, but certainly getting harder to come across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overpopulation is not something that needs to be worried about too much. As living conditions in third world countries improve, mothers will no longer need to have seven or eight children. Also, education reduces fertility rates drastically, and access to education is on the rise.

 

The real threat is the dangerous, misanthropic, neo-Luddite movement that rejects technologies like GMOs and nuclear power, that are needed for continued sustainable human presence on this planet.

 

EDIT: obviously it would be a problem if the population were actually going to keep increasing exponentially. But it's not. With the right technologies, the world can easily support two or even three times the current population.

Edited by Nuclear Powered Robots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NPR, so you're outright denying that population increases faster as it increases?

Here's an example:

Chinas population is growing, faster and faster.

The US population is growing, faster and faster.

The WORLD population is growing, faster and faster. I won't deny that education has led to women wanting less children. But that doesn't

stop the growth of global population.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg

This graph gives a good visual.

For further reading:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

I find it mind boggling how people can deny this obvious fact. But then again, humans naturally tend to ignore issues and discredit them until the issue is right in their face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NPR, so you're outright denying that population increases faster as it increases?

Here's an example:

Chinas population is growing, faster and faster.

The US population is growing, faster and faster.

The WORLD population is growing, faster and faster. I won't deny that education has led to women wanting less children. But that doesn't

stop the growth of global population.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg

This graph gives a good visual.

For further reading:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

I find it mind boggling how people can deny this obvious fact. But then again, humans naturally tend to ignore issues and discredit them until the issue is right in their face.

https://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/images/worldgr.pngThe growth rate is actually DECREASING.[/url]

Also, ever heard of GMOs? They have the potential to at least double or triple current crop yields (as well as doubling or tripling nutrient content, which is equally beneficial) and bring a complete end to world hunger. Unfortunately, rich privileged first-world activist yuppies keep traveling to test fields of nutrient-boosting, yield-boosting GMOs in hunger-stricken third world countries and burning or smashing the crops because they refuse to accept the existence of anything that is not "natural". They are happy to contribute to the suffering of millions, even billions, of people because it feeds their smug holier-than-thou "natural health" nonsense. Things like this give further credence to my belief that elements of society which deliberately act as roadblocks to progress must be suppressed, with force if it proves truly necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I call bullshit.

Give a real source or gtfo. Because I just showed you the wiki page, which disagrees.

By real source, I mean "Hey, I can make a graph too."

Get my drift?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I call bullshit.

Give a real source or gtfo. Because I just showed you the wiki page, which disagrees.

By real source, I mean "Hey, I can make a graph too."

Get my drift?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_rate_1950%E2%80%932050.svg

Here. If you scroll down to the "file usage" section, you can see that it is cited in several Wikipedia pages about human population.

A link to the source, which uses US census data, is also provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright.

Lets assume your right, the earth population is still ever growing.

Thats a fact. Clearly represented in both mine and your links.

Fact is, the world itself aknowledges my concern. The UN itself has even approached this exact issue.

So my question is, do you really think we won't overpopulate? Regardless of the rate of increase, its increasing. A factor I d say has alto to do with the 2 world wars.

What makes you think this doesn't need to be worried about? Many credible people suggest the earth has already surpassed its human carrying capacity. Which I agree with. I don't think the earth can replenish its resources faster than 7 billion people consume them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright.

Lets assume your right, the earth population is still ever growing.

Thats a fact. Clearly represented in both mine and your links.

Fact is, the world itself aknowledges my concern. The UN itself has even approached this exact issue.

So my question is, do you really think we won't overpopulate? Regardless of the rate of increase, its increasing. A factor I d say has alto to do with the 2 world wars.

What makes you think this doesn't need to be worried about? Many credible people suggest the earth has already surpassed its human carrying capacity. Which I agree with. I don't think the earth can replenish its resources faster than 7 billion people consume them.

Fortunately, we needn't limit ourselves to earth's resources. The fact of the matter is that there are well founded, serious endeavers looking to exploit extraplanetary resources. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately, we needn't limit ourselves to earth's resources. The fact of the matter is that there are well founded, serious endeavers looking to exploit extraplanetary resources.

Not to mention the fact that at this time we are using energy at only one-hundredth of one percent of the rate which makes up Earth's energy budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol yeah right.

How do you put something in space guys?

I don't think you realize, there will never be a replacement for oil. Keep telling yourself there will be. Bit there won't. You're under the impression that oil is used only for fuel or energy. Fact is, is used in just about everything you rely on. Including the computer your staring at. Another fact: there is a very limited supply that doesn't exist on any other known planet

Further more, please do tell.. What valuable resources can we extract from any planet in our solar system? Because anything outside our solar system is a fantasy.

Fact is, the US isn't sending anything into space by itself any more. We can't afford it.

We actually ARE limited to earths resources. Unless you plan on feeding people with moon rocks and powering your car with rust from mars, Id rethink your fantasies there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol yeah right.

How do you put something in space guys?

I don't think you realize, there will never be a replacement for oil. Keep telling yourself there will be. Bit there won't. You're under the impression that oil is used only for fuel or energy. Fact is, is used in just about everything you rely on. Including the computer your staring at. Another fact: there is a very limited supply that doesn't exist on any other known planet

Further more, please do tell.. What valuable resources can we extract from any planet in our solar system? Because anything outside our solar system is a fantasy.

Fact is, the US isn't sending anything into space by itself any more. We can't afford it.

We actually ARE limited to earths resources. Unless you plan on feeding people with moon rocks and powering your car with rust from mars, Id rethink your fantasies there.

We can literally just make more oil. I'm not even kidding. Literally.

We don't need to replace oil if we can just keep producing it and producing it. Theoretically we could extract water, minerals, and from asteroids we can get metals to feed our consumption of those.

It's a fantasy in the same way that near instantanious communication across the globe was a fantasy in the heydays of the carrier pigeon.

The US is only one country anyways. We totally could afford it too. It's such a small fraction of the budget it's not even funny. Less than a peny of every tax dollar goes into it. Tell me we couldn't take even a percent away from military spending and convert it to space research and exploration.

 

However, your arguement is fraught with even more problems. We can run cars without oil. We could use thorium instead. It's cheap, common, and could last the lifetime of the car itself without ever needing to be refueled. Not many people would be willing to drive the same car for a century! We could entirely cease using oil as a fuel with no long term problems if people would just move out of their comfort zone for a moment.

 

Further, farming is nowhere near as advanced as it could be. Besides advancements in genetic engineering to increase crop yields, reduce growing time, and increase propegation, we could also move farms into major cities and grow them there while taking up very little land. Behold, the vertical farm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Algae oil is a long ways off.

Even Exxon quit attempting that after realizing its not nearly as close to commercial viability as many assumed.

Also, that shits supposed to be commercially available this year.... Haven't seen it.

Although I admit, its a reasonable idea. My question is, can it be used to the same extent we use oil? (Like to make plastic.)

As for space exploration, nobody cares. The only reason we delve so deep into it to begin with was the cold war. It doesn't produce anything. If you ask most people, its a waste of money. And it is. I mean, what did landing on the moon really do to improve humanities condition? Nothing. It was chance for America to wave its dick around.

Again, your stuck on the fuel aspect of oil. You don't realize that fuel isnt even half of what oil is used for.

The keyboard your typing on was made from oil.

Vertical farms? Lol. OK cool. But what about the fact that plant life and animal life is interdependent on the thriving of both life forms? I don't think vertical farms can produce the amount of oxygen that the Siberian forest does.

In any case, were a long ways off from wiping out plant life.

As for asteroids, another cool idea, but the cost would be ridiculous, and for what? I really couldn't care less about more gold or precious metals. We have plenty here on earth. If anyone thinks were running out, Id advise you quit buying a new cellphones every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for space exploration, nobody cares. The only reason we delve so deep into it to begin with was the cold war. It doesn't produce anything. If you ask most people, its a waste of money. And it is. I mean, what did landing on the moon really do to improve humanities condition? Nothing. It was chance for America to wave its dick around.

Just going to address this one point, because it is so so wrong.

Space exploration has a 14 to 1 return on investment. That means for every $1 spent on NASA, $14 is put back into the American economy. Also, space exploration is about MUCH more than the moon landing. (which btw, the moon missions also gave us a very good opportunity to build and refine our orbital launch rockets and associated equipment) For example, do you ever use GPS?

NASA funding needs to be raised at the very least to $100 billion. The current budget is pitiful and pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space exploration has a 14 to 1 return on investment.

Says who?

Not disagreeing. Just curious. And is this a global stat, or only applicable to the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are an infection. Slowly kill the host and deplete it of life.

But in all honesty I think global population will level off soon. Many countries such as China have put strong reproduction limits on the general population. I think they limit families to one child. I forsee things like this in the future.

Limiting your population is counterproductive, The larger your population, the larger your economy, the larger army you can mobilise, although china will not be as modern as the united states by 2016 it will surpass the USA in GDP and by 2025 have a larger economic clout than the United States, economically China will rule the world, all because of its population.

Limiting your population as your neighbours grows their population is dangers, it will result with your neighbours gaining more scientist, more solders, more albert Einstein, more innovators, more business, while you have less scientist, less solders, less albert Einstein, less innovators, less business.

There is a reason why superpowers, great power always have larger population.

 

Also as we gain more people food, oil and other resources will become more scarce driving up the price making people think twice about bringing another mouth to feed.

As we progress, we can produce products like food in larger amounts in smaller areas,

We are finding massive reserves of oil in counties like Australia (Around 233 billion barrels of oil in Soulth Australia And by the looks of over recent discoveries in other Australia states we could have 3 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia) Also with technological advancements oil before unavailable in nations like the US for example will become accessible.

The globe population will start to stagnate and possibly decline because more nations are modernizing. As a nation develops the less children they have. For example compare first world counties to second and third world counties and you will see that as a nation develops woman go from having 5-9 children to 1-2 children.

China's population will begin declining in 2040, Every western counties and most developing counties there are what is called population bombs where when they go off in the next 40 years our population will stagnate and begin to decline, we can see this already happening in many counties, a great example is japan with a increasingly declining population. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, your mentioning of Japan is the most convincing argument I've seen. You're absolutely right. Thats a perfect example.

However, because of Japans steady drop in population, the nation is now facing equally destructive problems. The government is actually trying pretty hard to reverse this decline.

That earthquake made this issue worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Algae oil is a long ways off.

Even Exxon quit attempting that after realizing its not nearly as close to commercial viability as many assumed.

Also, that shits supposed to be commercially available this year.... Haven't seen it.

Although I admit, its a reasonable idea. My question is, can it be used to the same extent we use oil? (Like to make plastic.)

As for space exploration, nobody cares. The only reason we delve so deep into it to begin with was the cold war. It doesn't produce anything. If you ask most people, its a waste of money. And it is. I mean, what did landing on the moon really do to improve humanities condition? Nothing. It was chance for America to wave its dick around.

Again, your stuck on the fuel aspect of oil. You don't realize that fuel isnt even half of what oil is used for.

The keyboard your typing on was made from oil.

Vertical farms? Lol. OK cool. But what about the fact that plant life and animal life is interdependent on the thriving of both life forms? I don't think vertical farms can produce the amount of oxygen that the Siberian forest does.

In any case, were a long ways off from wiping out plant life.

As for asteroids, another cool idea, but the cost would be ridiculous, and for what? I really couldn't care less about more gold or precious metals. We have plenty here on earth. If anyone thinks were running out, Id advise you quit buying a new cellphones every year.

So what if it's a long way off, though? The point where we run out of oil is much further away than that. All we need to do is develop it before that point, which mind you is incredibly likely. The road of technology is always a little rocky. At first people will dismiss it as irrelevent, then once it starts becoming more popular it becomes a miracle that investers flood to, and then when it comepletely doesn't live up to all the expectations there's a little bit of a burst that doesn't affect it's long term viable. See the dot com bubble for example.

 

Saying that space exploration gives us nothing is not only figeratively wrong, it is very much literally wrong. This kind of stuff is really just a google away. Not only has NASA poured money into the economy, more importantly it has poured ideas.

 

Oil is not the only source of plastic, again, literally incorrect in your assumptions. Here's just a small sample. Before you try to say that it's limited in its versitility, of course it is. The technology is woefully underdeveloped because at the moment it's cheaper to use petroleum based. If we actually experience oil scarcity, the rising prices would immediately turn billions of dollars of investment into it. More realistically will be a gradual adoption of these bio plastics as the price of petroleum slowly rises eventually making it more profitable to use alternatives.

 

Personally, I don't care about the thriving of plant life or animal life (besides cats, those are cool in my book). Nature is only worth preserving to the extent that alternatives have not been developed. As for oxygen, well, alternatives to trees exist. Here's an early example. Unfortunately, the video has been made private but what's more important anyways is the text. Even if this forerunner doesn't work out, alternatives will in the future.

 

Of course the cost will be impractical: at first. Early technology is always expensive. Computers used to cost millions of dollars and take up the size of a house. Now they're literally thousands upon thousands of times more powerful yet they fit in the palm of your hand for maybe a couple hundred. This is especially true in terms of transportation type technologies. Let's use America for example. Early technological attempts to reach America took weeks or months by ship which was mostly powered by wind. Now we can make the trip in a couple days in luxery, or in even less time by flight. Asteroids can be a great source of rare metals and will become an increasingly viable source of materials. It's not just gold and silver, it's those rare metals we use for electronics, it could any number of elements that we need that could be harvested from them. It's not that we're running out right now either; it fascinates me that you go from claiming the entire earth is damned because our population is going to suck out every drop of usable resources from the planet to scoffing about how absurd it is that we would even consider exploiting new bodies in space.

 

I view this problem as being simmaler to the US national debt. Its an obvious problem that signals inevitable doom, yet everyone ignores it because nobody has a solution that doesn't involve total outrage.

to

 

I really couldn't care less about more gold or precious metals. We have plenty here on earth.

I mean, really? This isn't about "precious" metals, it's about necessary ones like iron and such. Besides, I don't even possess a cellphone, let alone multiple ones.

Edited by Unendingfear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0