The Forum > Article Comments > The trend of destiny: The impossibility of population growth > Comments
The trend of destiny: The impossibility of population growth : Comments
By Michael Kile, published 31/10/2011Population growth is not the best outcome for society or the planet.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Page 7
- 8
-
- All
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 3 November 2011 4:33:40 PM
| |
thanks Atman for adding some sanity to a somewhat insane debate.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 3 November 2011 5:20:12 PM
| |
Atman,
Why aren't Malthusians worried about the use of resources by other species? Surely they are finite too? Its a dumb ignorant question. Because if other species eat into our resources (like rats and vermin) we class them as pests & hit 'em with the old Pea Bo er KILL 'em. Over history humans have done the same thing to other humans in tough times. See Conan The Barbarian for a very accurate description of this. I always hated the Barbarians and thought they were evil. But when I see the overcrowding of today and the power rush of women having babies I no longer think its evil. When economics get a bit tighter, we'll see that again. Count on it! When population reductions and technological consolidations ensue after protracted war the only question is who will be the winners? And no matter who that is, It will always be the GOOD GUYS. IE the ones left standing. The ones writing the HISTORY. Its just a pity that the human race cannot think past its sex hormone flows. I swear, 90% of this planet think they are the only ones who've got one and the other 10% evilly profit from that ignorance and stupidity by selling arms, drugs, i-pads and impossible dreams to a bunch of love starved, sex starved fools. At some point, based on the TRUE story of oil reserves and the carrying capacity of 2 billion people in the 1900, pre-OIL, COAL based economy, 5 or 6 billion people HAVE to twitter & die .. along with their i-pads. Do I wish this? No. Do The laws of Physics and the lessons of history say it will happen? Most certainly. Posted by KAEP, Friday, 4 November 2011 6:26:31 AM
| |
Population growth is indeed the (taboo) elephant in the global room.
Given its global rate is now so rapid (another one billion new folk added to the planet in the past 12 years), the paradigm embraced by cornucopians, international agencies and others - that an "ecologically rational and socially just world" is achievable - is surely another utopian fantasy? As Malthus argued in his 1798 Essay, the (potentially geometric/exponential) rate of human population growth ultimately would prevent real progress towards societal "perfectibility". Perhaps he was onto something? "Non quantitas, sed qualitas." Alice Posted by Alice Thermopolis, Friday, 4 November 2011 10:46:07 AM
| |
The problem with fertiliser is that the poorest people are having
difficulty affording the food produced with more expensive fertiliser. However there is a feedback loop in action. Less and poorer food means malnutrition and malnutrition means a fall in fertility. A fall in fertility means a fall in the birthrate. So it is quite possible the world may avoid the massive famines that have been predicted. Curmudeon, I find it hard to believe you have missed the reports that have shown how the oil finds in Brazil etc, while large, but will take 10 years or more to get into full production, will by that time not offset the depletion elsewhere. These factors have been well covered on the Oil Drum by Gail the Actuary and others; http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8551#more You must be aware that our world wide financial predicament is caused by the fundamental changes wrought on our economies by the cost of energy in whatever form it comes. Posted by Bazz, Monday, 7 November 2011 12:28:47 PM
| |
Dream on Bazz.
The world is adding 73million souls every year and american marketeers (Gates &Co) are for good or bad propping up women's rights to all the kids their hunger for POWER demands and in the process propping up fertility rates. It is well known that the 73 million people per year rate is going to increase till energy stocks are depleted. Then the Marketers will turn to guns and Rabbit Fever to make profits and walk into new lands unopposed when a simple decontamination is performed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tularemia it is easy to aerosolize, it is highly infective; 10-50 bacteria are required to infect, it is nonpersistent and easy to decontaminate (unlike anthrax), it is highly incapacitating to infected persons, and it has comparatively low lethality, which is useful where enemy soldiers are in proximity to noncombatants, e.g. civilians. All this stupid and arbitrary talk of 9 billion by 2050, when a simple calculation based on 1 billion in the last 12 years yields a projected population of at least 10.3 billion, leads me to believe 2050 is planned to be the TURNAROUND. However, information about the secrecy surrounding oil futures suggest that the free market TURNAROUND could be as early as a 9 billion population around 2030 when the OIL crunch has even been prdicted in Pentagon papers. Never underestimate the power of the FREE market. Can we change the system before its too late? Posted by KAEP, Monday, 7 November 2011 2:49:55 PM
|
The idea of nuclear power too cheap to meter was not coined by a science fiction writer, but by Lewis Strauss, the Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, in a speech in 1954, where he said,
"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter... It is not too much to expect that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age."
If we did have a breakthrough in terms of electrical energy too cheap to measure, there would not, of course, be biofuel crops displacing food crops and, among other factors, causing food riots around the world, as we saw in 2008. We could make all the liquid fuels we wanted using hydrogen from water and CO2.
Similarly, I doubt if President Nixon and his advisors envisaged such modest success as we have had when he launched the "War on Cancer".
Perhaps you ought to reconsider whether Cornucopian optimism is always justified, as it is in any case limited by the laws of physics.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/
I also note that you have nothing to say about ocean acidification or other environmental issues.