mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
It's a Vast World After All Options
Daemon
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:00:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/7/2009
Posts: 32,436
Neurons: 96,486
Location: Inside Farlex computers
It's a Vast World After All

The world's population currently stands at 7.2 billion and is projected to rise to between 9.6 and 12.3 billion by the end of this century. Earlier estimates had forecast a leveling off of world population around 2050, but higher-than-expected birth rates in sub-Saharan Africa mean the number of people on the planet will likely continue to rise instead. In Africa alone, the population is expected to rise from the current 1 billion to between 3.5 and 5.1 billion by 2100. More...
MechPebbles
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:28:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2014
Posts: 463
Neurons: 226,313
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
The fall of human civilisation and probably a near extinction event.
TheParser
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2014 6:06:34 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,668
Neurons: 22,062
Next to birth control, abortion is the only answer.

Dialectrum
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2014 9:06:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2012
Posts: 179
Neurons: 17,968
Location: Aurora, Colorado, United States
As long as Africa can create a sustainable infrastructure - and the rest of the world starts eating more insects - increased populations can be appropriately managed.
Apexcreativity
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:17:43 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 1/14/2014
Posts: 34
Neurons: 13,907
Location: Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
I imagine how much the world would have changed with this forecasted population explosion. Any chance of world peace?
striker
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:23:07 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/30/2014
Posts: 1,698
Neurons: 4,972,229
Location: Boston, Massachusetts, United States
the world can not take that many people
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2014 1:07:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,641
Neurons: 69,796
striker wrote:
the world can not take that many people


That's what was being said 50 years ago. By now, we were all to be living in a wasteland of starvation.

Still, whenever a species over-populates, Nature has a way of thinning the herd. AIDS and Ebola appear to be Nature's current effort, but we humans are crafty, and making progress on both fronts. Nature will have to come up with a really serious effort on the deadly disease front to get us, but I've no doubt it will. It's just a matter of time — or, asteroids, if we don't do it to ourselves first.
Gary98
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2014 4:03:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/23/2014
Posts: 1,687
Neurons: 5,609,568
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Education is the better way.
monamagda
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2014 5:04:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/4/2014
Posts: 8,241
Neurons: 6,704,770
Location: Bogotá, Bogota D.C., Colombia


[image not available]

The scientist James Lovelock warns that climate change, as a result of overpopulation, could result in the planet getting ‘revenge’ on us.


The scientist James Lovelock argues in "The Revenge of Gaia" that if humans carry on abusing the planet in this way, Gaia (or Earth) will have to react by making conditions unfavourable to our existence. Lovelock sees the planet as a self-regulating system that works to make conditions favourable for life in general, but not necessarily for humans. Therefore, if humans are destroying rainforests (and sources of oxygen), creating waste and pollution (which is unfavourable for life in general), then the planet will naturally decrease our numbers.


http://thebackbencher.co.uk/overpopulation-issues-and-resolutions/
nkelsey
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2014 9:01:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/9/2014
Posts: 491
Neurons: 192,145
Location: Apóstoles, Misiones, Argentina
Applause
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, September 27, 2014 10:07:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 14,641
Neurons: 69,796
Re: James Lovelock

He did say that in his book, but now he is saying he was just a bit too certain of what he said in the book:

Quote:
Environmentalism has "become a religion" and does not pay enough attention to facts, according to James Lovelock.

The 94 year-old scientist, famous for his Gaia hypothesis that Earth is a self-regulating, single organism, also said that he had been too certain about the rate of global warming in his past book, that "it’s just as silly to be a [climate] denier as it is to be a believer” and that fracking and nuclear power should power the UK, not renewable sources such as windfarms. [End Quote]

Read the full interview Here
burneggroll
Posted: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 5:32:24 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 9/14/2014
Posts: 2
Neurons: 125
TheParser wrote:
Next to birth control, abortion is the only answer.

You are leaving out the other forms of attrition (war, genocide, euthanasia, ect.) Boo hoo! It is all killing. Eventually we will have to legalize the one true freedom, suicide. More food = more rats. Less food = less rats. The discussion is about quality of life in the middle?
TheParser
Posted: Thursday, October 2, 2014 6:08:34 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,668
Neurons: 22,062
burneggroll wrote:
Eventually we will have to legalize the one true freedom, suicide.



I have read that Switzerland has legalized it.

People from all around the world go there to end their lives in a peaceful manner.

Of course, I do not think that many Swiss people themselves use that service, for -- according to what I have read -- Switzerland is incredibly beautiful, clean, and orderly. I hope that they can keep it that way. I have read that they, too, are starting to have the same problem that is seriously impacting other Western European countries.
pedro
Posted: Thursday, October 2, 2014 6:34:39 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,057
Neurons: 63,022
'The Gaia hypothesis that Earth is a self-regulating, single organism'


Once lifeless, then supporting anaerobic creatures, then, eventually, us. I don't see that as seamless and self-regulating and I don't see how a single organism can evolve in any sense. With respect to what? He had some useful observations on what the atmosphere on life supporting planets might look like, but some aspects of the theory look distinctly shaky to me. A self-sustaining life system would have 'evolved' to handle ice ages a lot better than it seems to have done for one.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.