If I’m reading some of you correctly you’re saying, don’t fret because a few natural disaters and wars will cure the population problem? I think if we curb population growth we can take care of the “war” problem.
Brille
“Wet Floor” sign does not mean do it.
Well, if those damned Arquettes and Baldwins would stop breeding like flies . . .
Falcon, I was joking. I guess I should have included the smiley face, though in another post even that did not work.
I think killing babies of any sex is wrong, I was just going off your post and stating in a joking manner that they were solving their own problem. I am not suggesting that this happen there or anywhere.
I love my daughter, she is one of the best things that has ever happened in my life. I would die before I would let anyone kill her.
Jeffery
JJ, I think their point is people and other stuff usually add to the death rates and that in the end it all ends up kind of balanced. Should we work towards controlling population? Maybe. Should we work toward using solar energy and other things? Sure. Can we make other countries do a dang thing? Nope. All we can affect is America and it does not seem to have that great a population growth.
Jeffery
I hate to be the bearer of good news, but the ecological horrors predicted by Malthus and Ehrlich are bogus.
The world is not running out of food. Global per capita food production is 40%higher today than in 1950. Many countries have surpluses; we even pay farmers not to grow crops. 20th century famines are a result of politics, not agriculture or population. Fewer than half as many people die of famine each year now than a century ago, despite a 4-fold increase in population.
Birth rates have been declining (developing countries: from over 6 children/couple in 1950 down to 3; developed countries: from 3.3 to 1.6).
Given declining birth rates, why then does the population go up?
increased life expectancy (from 47.3 in 1900 to 76.7 in 1998) I think this is a good thing.
decreased infant mortality (from 99.9/1000 in 1900 to 7.2/1000 in 1998) Again, I see this as a positive sign.
And what are just a couple of the underlying causes? Better agricultural practices; better medicine and technology leading to vaccines and better worldwide health. As society advances, people (in general)worldwide enjoy longer, healthier lives.
We should be celebrating!
(Figures from the CDC and the Cato Inst.)
From your ever-optimistic divemaster who is logging off from work until tomorrow.
The Royals do not have an heir to spare. Once George Brett retired, they’ve finished last or second to last almost every year.
Johnny Damon ain’t the heir he was supposed to be.
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
Jeffrey -
I apologize…about halfway through my post I realized you were probably kidding. I didn’t mean to say you were advocating female infanticide. Just flashing back to my debates in college, I guess…
Falcon, no problem. Just wanted to set the record straight.
Jeffery
The United States is roughly 9,629,091 km^2.
If all 6,000,000,000 residents of Earth decided to visit on the same day, we could all spread out at about 623 people per km^2.
This adds nothing to the topic at hand, but I thought you’d all be interested.
The OP asks, how many people can the Earth sustain before THE environment degrades. Well, it won’t ever happen. The environment might evolve and become unfriendly to humans, but big mamma Earth herself can take anything we could possibly throw at her without flinching.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask this question as if you were actually concerned for the wellbeing of the planet. She’ll be just fine no matter what we do. Rather, I think, we should concern ourselves with minor issues like food and water shortages among 6 billion bald monkeys.
We aren’t doing much about the problem now because there is not a large enough portion of the population threatened. Once we are truly threatened, simple things like centralization can be achieved. Turn all those bland suburbs back into farm land and take your kids to soccer practice on the roof of a skyscraper. The Mall of America and its parking lot hide how much fertile soil?
Take to the sky and tear up all those freeways. Play a real sport and turn over all the golf courses. People short on water can take a hint and relocate where there’s abundance.
We’re not going to suddenly die off when we hit 7B, 8B, or 10B. Our society will evolve with respect to the restrictions of our habitat or we will reach a ceiling. We don’t have to worry about maintaining a reasonable population density because it will be done for us. If we get out of hand, world wide food shortages will start killing us off until things are back under control.
All we have to do is keep rearranging the furniture until we’ve figured out how to build an addition. Once we’ve successfully annexed Mars, we can move all the sports arenas and toenail clipper factories there.
We’re going to be fine.
cmkeller;
I just knew someone would make a KC Royals joke! Thanks for doing your part in mainaining the levity 
“I think it would be a great idea” Mohandas Ghandi’s answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization
I remember reading that a huge percentage of the aborted fetuses in India are female, so if they did do anything to limit family size they would very soon find the male/female ratio skewed as well, if it isn’t already.
The OP asks, how many people can the Earth sustain before THE environment degrades. Well, it won’t ever happen. The environment might evolve and become unfriendly to humans, but big mamma Earth herself can take anything we could possibly throw at her without flinching.>tymp
That is irresponsible and just not true. It takes 6000 years, yes, 6000, for some radiocative waste to neutralize and some plastics take a few generations or more. Once polluted Aquifers can never be cleaned. It’s attitudes like this that make it hard to achieve change.
Brille
“Wet Floor” sign does not mean do it.
What do you care JJ, you will not be here in 6,000 years?
Jeffery
What do you care JJ, you will not be here in 6,000 years?
Jeffery>>>>>>>>>>>
Brille
“Wet Floor” sign does not mean do it.
This is looking at things from a human viewpoint - we might make the planet uninhabitable by humans and some other species, but Mother Nature will keep plugging along without us. Species that are resistant to radiation will survive and flourish. There are already naturally-evolved bacteria that clean up toxic dumps and eat some plastics. Ditto for species that can survive various kinds of water pollution. There are bacteria living miles below the ocean surfaces and deep within the earth’s crust - we’ll have to do an awful lot of damage to wipe those babies out.
Old Mother Nature has been around for billions of years, and survived worse disasters than anything humans have come close to causing. The world might be a lot different after we humans are gone, but it will still be going strong, with humans just a little hiccup in the time line.
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
This is looking at things from a human viewpoint ]]Ben
Well, yeah, that’s the point.
Brille
“Wet Floor” sign does not mean do it.
tymp wrote:
Not if we invent the Death Star, it can’t.
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
Not if we invent the Death Star, it can’t.
------------------}}}}}}]tracer
We wouldn’t need a Death Star to kill the planet. We’ll kill the planet with over-population, improper disposal of radioactive waste,depletion of ozone, strip mining and the destruction of wetlands and rain forests.
Brille
“Wet Floor” sign does not mean do it.
JJ, the point is that we WON’T kill off the planet, or even most of the life on it. We might kill off humans and lots of species that can’t tolerate, for example, high levels of UV radiation due to depletion of the ozone layer. But millions of other living creatures who CAN tolerate the environmental changes will merrily continue on their way, probably delighted that we messy humans are gone.
Heck, there have been several massive extinctions in the past, at least one where it appears that 90% of all living things were wiped out, but here we are, piling dirty diapers in landfills while we wait on the next asteroid to come bumbling along and wipe us out.
BTW, Mother Nature has a tendency to correct serious overpopulation problems with diseases - I’m more worried about something like the Ebola virus showing up in New York City than I am the ozone layer.
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
What exactly would be the problem with the world supporting let’s say… 100 billion? Lack of food is not a problem, we’re only using a small fraction of the land right now for farming. The Ukraine alone could probably feed all of Europe if it was organized.
There is no lack of potable water. Only a lack of equipment to make it potable.
We have heating. What’s to stop people from living in the Russian steppe? And even if they don’t want to, what’s the population density of the USA right now anyway?
Plenty of water, farmland and space, so what’s the problem?