Crazy88s Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Too many people, competing for too many resources. Less people = affordable housing + better quality of life. World Population is too high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zorn Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Too many people, competing for too many resources. Less people = affordable housing + better quality of life. World Population is too high. Nah, just get them off the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 There's nothing like an old, discredited theory to get the morning going. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy88s Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 The 'theory' is not discredited. You dont need to understand logic to see this. Simply, if the world was expanding (i.e more room) to accomadate the growth rate then the theory would be discredited. Many of our problems today are a result of the 'rats in a cage' syndrome. Illness, crime, stress. If, as you seem to suggest, there is not a problem, then if you wished to share your wealth with all those that cant even afford to feed themselves in the developing world then prepare for a monumental drop in your standard of living, because there is no way these people can rise to our standard as there simply is not the resource to do so. Wether the therory is write or wrong I assert that the quality of life of all peoples of the world would increase if the human race population was reducing to a more sustainable level. Housing is a resource, and it is running out, sure there are empty properties and greedy BTL's are about to get burnt, but the majority of houses that will become available will be 5hitty ones in cramped neighbourhoods. How long did it take you to travel into work? Think about it - too many people running to get knowwhere... C88s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyDay Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 There was a nice article in The Economist (Dec 22 issue if I am not mistaken) called "Ears of plenty". In short, there is still a lot of potential in our agricultural products to support signifi****ly larger population. Growth in efficiency comes from new and better types of maize, wheat and rice which are not so very hard to mutate.So, Malthusians have to wait once more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediaTrash Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 There's nothing like an old, discredited theory to get the morning going. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus What's your point exactly? The global human population is already unsustainable. Do you have any concept of the scale of human impact on the world? Do these indicators look even vaguely sustainable to you? If so you must be an economist... http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/po...88217/img/1.jpg What the BBC article doesn't mention is that population growth is already slowing and global population is set to peak at an estimated 9.5 billion. The 64 million dollar question is whether the pressure of another person for every two on the planet will cause a.) a major drop in quality of life and/or b.) a major die off before a post peak population decline sets in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy88s Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 There was a nice article in The Economist (Dec 22 issue if I am not mistaken) called "Ears of plenty". In short, there is still a lot of potential in our agricultural products to support signifi****ly larger population. Growth in efficiency comes from new and better types of maize, wheat and rice which are not so very hard to mutate.So, Malthusians have to wait once more. Well the economist would not want to say growth is a bad thing would it? So called more efficient intensive farming methods are not sustainable, other species suffer. For those who know about control systems you should know that when the gain of a system increases it becomes unstable. In the middle ages there was plenty of scope for growth (still a great cost then to the enviroment). The world cannot take the strain of another 50% boost in population. This is the real issue, not housing, ideally we should all have an acre each. Thats what I would like to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediaTrash Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 There was a nice article in The Economist (Dec 22 issue if I am not mistaken) called "Ears of plenty". In short, there is still a lot of potential in our agricultural products to support signifi****ly larger population. Growth in efficiency comes from new and better types of maize, wheat and rice which are not so very hard to mutate.So, Malthusians have to wait once more. Wonderful, all 9.5 billion of us will have enough to eat... that's the future sorted then. It's not like there's any other problems on the horizon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodumsunreader Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Too many people, competing for too many resources. Less people = affordable housing + better quality of life. World Population is too high. Which is precisely why the HPC will not happen - first law of economics if Demand exceeds Supply prices rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ritters Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Too many INVESTORS, competing for too many resources. Less INVESTORS= affordable housing + better quality of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy88s Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 Not my quote, but I do agree Which is precisely why the HPC will not happen - first law of economics if Demand exceeds Supply prices rise. Not as simple as that. There are lots of empty properties, people cannot afford them - simple end of. Also, People cannot afford the rents greedy BTL's desperatly need, therefore BTL plonkers will either have to finance the debt out of their own pockets and risk (a big risk) that they will not lose their shirts or sell and invest elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattLG Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Nah, just get them off the planet. "if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster" That's just wrong on so many levels. I love science for the masses, very entertaining :-) MattLG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyDay Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 ideally we should all have an acre each. Thats what I would like to see. Agree with you on that So called more efficient intensive farming methods are not sustainable, other species suffer. Agree on that as well. However, an optimist's answer to that is that throughout the human history unsustainable methods are either improved/modified or discarded eventually (erm.. Feodalism, Socialism and so on). And since it’s virtually never possible to predict big technological breakthroughs in advance we never can actually reliably tell the upper limit for human population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
right_freds_dead Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 this is why bird flu was invented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zorn Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 This is the real issue, not housing, ideally we should all have an acre each. Thats what I would like to see. Excluding Antarctica, the world's land area is 135 million sq km. This is 33 billion acres, enough for everyone to have an acre with 80% of the planet left untouched for nature reserves. A lot of energy will be needed for irrigating and heating the acres that are desert or permafrost, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodumsunreader Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Not my quote, but I do agree Not as simple as that. There are lots of empty properties, people cannot afford them - simple end of. Also, People cannot afford the rents greedy BTL's desperatly need, therefore BTL plonkers will either have to finance the debt out of their own pockets and risk (a big risk) that they will not lose their shirts or sell and invest elsewhere. Back in 1979 the British in their wisdom voted for a society where the essentials for providing a basis in which society could survive in a stable manner were habded over to the market. This included social housing as well as electricity, gas, public transport, water etc etc. In 2006, the generation who did not benefit from selling off the family silver are suffering as a result of the wealth of those who gained from the one off boost to their wealth (buying council house at silly low price/ cheap shares in utilities etc etc) It was always going to end in tears for someone whilst some would have wealth beyond a level they ever dreamed. I am in the latter category - never voted Tory in my life and never would, but in a society where unbridled capitalism makes the rules and we are where we are it is a matter of survival. Long live the revolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geneer Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Except in scotland, where the population is falling year on year. Yet we have been hit by HP increases through speculative buying more than ever before (and will likely fall harder than ever before too). How do ya like them apples! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 The global human population is already unsustainable. No it's not. If we can find a viable source of lots of cheap energy (e.g. workable fusion reactors, if they ever come about), then the absolute upper limit on human population is in the trillions. Not that I'd want to live in a world that crowded, but there's nothing 'unsustainable' about it... except to the extent that all life on Earth will be wiped out a few billion years from now when the Sun dies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlzy Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 The birth-rate in all nations has been seen to decline in proportion to female literacy rates. Education (as well as infrastructure and opportunity) is the key to managing population. Western nations have a huge problem with falling populations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy88s Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 The birth-rate in all nations has been seen to decline in proportion to female literacy rates. Education (as well as infrastructure and opportunity) is the key to managing population. Western nations have a huge problem with falling populations. Good point - an intelligent woman is no longer just a breeding machine. However I would not call it a problem. Long may it continue. 60 to 30 mill would be good. Generally, more affluent better educated families have less children. One of the problems often seen on this forum that even relatively well educated and well paid indivuduals cant have them because they cant afford a nest. Perhaps high house prices reduces population? No it's not. If we can find a viable source of lots of cheap energy (e.g. workable fusion reactors, if they ever come about), then the absolute upper limit on human population is in the trillions. Not that I'd want to live in a world that crowded, but there's nothing 'unsustainable' about it... except to the extent that all life on Earth will be wiped out a few billion years from now when the Sun dies. Be practical, look at google earth the world is swamped with the scurge of humanity. Most habitable places are built up. The planets eco system is too complex to say it is unsustainable or not I suppose, I think what I am saying is that humanity is definately unsustainable in its present form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediaTrash Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 No it's not. If we can find a viable source of lots of cheap energy (e.g. workable fusion reactors, if they ever come about), then the absolute upper limit on human population is in the trillions. Not that I'd want to live in a world that crowded, but there's nothing 'unsustainable' about it... except to the extent that all life on Earth will be wiped out a few billion years from now when the Sun dies. Yes, and if we can unlock the power of dilithium crystals and build a warp drive we can colonise space... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?...! Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 (edited) The planets eco system is too complex to say it is unsustainable or not I suppose, I think what I am saying is that humanity is definately unsustainable in its present form. There's LOADS of land unused even in the UK, which is one of the most densely populated countries on earth. If I drive out of my small town I can drive for fifty miles through lanes in one general direction and encounter nothing but remote cottages and fields of grass. I can drive in another different direction towards the motorway and its very much the same mile after mile of dry stone walls and empty fields. If you're [edit]daft[edit] enough to live in the South East or an urban environment you deserve to think we are short of land and that it's over crowded, but the stark reality is that most of the UK is pasture, drive the length of the M6 if you need convincing. Edited January 6, 2006 by ?...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Yes, and if we can unlock the power of dilithium crystals and build a warp drive we can colonise space... Dilithium crystals don't exist: fusion does, so does space solar power and a number of other options for providing large amounts of cheap energy. None are viable right now, but any could be viable well before we could breed a trillion people. The reality is that the limit on population is energy, not land. You can ignore that and make jokes if you like, but that just makes you look silly. Be practical, look at google earth the world is swamped LOL! How can anyone look at Google Earth and not notice that the vast majority of the planet is empty space? Even most of the 'overpopulated' UK is empty and green. Most habitable places are built up. 93% of Britain is not built on. Are you really claiming that that 93% of the country is uninhabitable? In any case, we can easily build _UP_, rather than out: there would be no real problem fitting ten trillion people on the Earth if we really wanted to do so... nor does even 'habitability' matter if we have a plentiful supply of cheap energy. with the scurge of humanity. I take it you don't like people very much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy88s Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 There's LOADS of land unused even in the UK, which is one of the most densely populated countries on earth. If I drive out of my small town I can drive for fifty miles through lanes in one general direction and encounter nothing but remote cottages and fields of grass. I can drive in another different direction towards the motorway and its very much the same mile after mile of dry stone walls and empty fields. If you're [edit]daft[edit] enough to live in the South East or an Urban environment you deserve to think we are short of land and that it's over crowded, but the stark reality is that most of the UK is pasture, drive the length of the M6 if you need convincing. Like cancer, humanity has a nasty habit of growing out of control. It needs nipping on the bud. Bird flu, aids, BSE, HP inflation, these are symptoms of the disease. I dont live the in the SE (you need your head examining to live there), actually I live in a reasonable rural part of leicestershire, but in my short life time I have seen the once beautiful countrside desicrated by dormer towns. Coming to a rural location near YOU! I take it you don't like people very much? I love people, race, religion irrelevant, just not too many of them. Human diversity is one of our greatest strengths. But you need space to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy88s Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 LOL! How can anyone look at Google Earth and not notice that the vast majority of the planet is empty space? Ok, look at Brazil now and Brazil 50 years ago or the SE rain forests. Sometimes when I fly, I look down and think, there that doesnt look so bad but when you are penned in amonst it all it is daunting, and how much of this 'free space' is accessible. For humanity to live in the decadent resource flippant way it does the ratio of land to chavs needs to be extremly high to allow for the planet to absorb the crap that humanity emits, grow the food, (and probably bio diesel soon) Even if you are right about trillions, this is not desirable. Have you considered the social consequences? In controlled experiments rats when the populaiton is increased in controlled space the tendancy for infancide, murder and believe it or not homosexuality increases. In their normal environment this is not the case. (Ok I am not saying shirt lifters are rats, and each to their own) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.