Posted: 12/23/2016 9:08:24 AM EDT
Pretty interesting look at the cycle of population growth.
 Overpopulation – The Human Explosion Explained |
|
Quoted:
Pretty interesting look at the cycle of population growth.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 |
|
Quoted:
Yup, not buying it. And either way, an earth with a population of 12 billion is going to dry up every aquifer on the planet. Some estimates say we're already overpopulated, with accessible, potable water being the limiting factor. The population will continue to grow for while, but the population growth rate is the trend to look at, and they point that out. In developed countries, the growth rate declines and evens back out. As more countries become developed and educated, the same trend will continue. 
|
|
Quoted:
The population will continue to grow for while, but the population growth rate is the trend to look at, and they point that out. In developed countries, the growth rate declines and evens back out. As more countries become developed and educated, the same trend will continue. http://blogs.worldbank.org/futuredevelopment/futuredevelopment/futuredevelopment/files/futuredevelopment/Last%20pic%20for%20dramatic%20slowdown%20post.jpg Historically there has been room for expansion, both in terms of physical expansion and technological expansion. There was arable land available for farming, open areas for settling, countries open to hordes of immigrants during localized famines. All of these are becoming less available and more costly, or just outright unavailable. 
Additionally, available tech for improving medication, agriculture, and hygiene was able to keep pace with the population growth. All experts in those respective fields say they're up against it when it comes to further improvements. And finally, look at where growth is occurring: 
The countries that will experience growth do not and will never have the resources available to support the populations they even currently have, let alone the ones they are currently incubating. So effectively first world countries are shipping in resources, remotely "farming" future immigrants that they don't want or need. There will not be a peaceful resolution to population growth, because such a thing does not exist in nature. Humans are not above nature. We will grow beyond global carrying capacity, because no one truly knows what that number is until it is well into the past, and then there will be famine, conflict, and/or disease to take the population back below that number. Rinse and repeat. |
|
The video didn't mention the effect of welfare on developed countries. In the US, poor people are basically rewarded for having more children.
No medical bills to have them, and the more you have, the more food stamps, housing vouchers, wic, utility assistance, child support, phones, and even cash payment you get. Smart people have 1-2 kids, poor and dumb people have around 3-5. What do they think the long term effect on humanity is going to be. We are going to see a stall in innovation, less doctors, scientists, etc. and at the same time an explosion of unemployable people. If we don't cut this shit out soon, we are looking at another large famine, civil war, or a major event to cull the herd. |
|
Quoted:
The video didn't mention the effect of welfare on developed countries. In the US, poor people are basically rewarded for having more children. No medical bills to have them, and the more you have, the more food stamps, housing vouchers, wic, utility assistance, child support, phones, and even cash payment you get. Smart people have 1-2 kids, poor and dumb people have around 3-5. What do they think the long term effect on humanity is going to be. We are going to see a stall in innovation, less doctors, scientists, etc. and at the same time an explosion of unemployable people. If we don't cut this shit out soon, we are looking at another large famine, civil war, or a major event to cull the herd. We will see that eventually anyway as more processes become automated. Despite what GD likes to believe, at some point in our advancement UBI will become a reality, and large portions of the population won't have to work very much. |
|
Quoted:
The video didn't mention the effect of welfare on developed countries. In the US, poor people are basically rewarded for having more children. No medical bills to have them, and the more you have, the more food stamps, housing vouchers, wic, utility assistance, child support, phones, and even cash payment you get. Smart people have 1-2 kids, poor and dumb people have around 3-5. What do they think the long term effect on humanity is going to be. We are going to see a stall in innovation, less doctors, scientists, etc. and at the same time an explosion of unemployable people. If we don't cut this shit out soon, we are looking at another large famine, civil war, or a major event to cull the herd. It's true that as a population ages and matures its growth tends to decrease. Most developed countries are experiencing that. However, as the movie itself mention, it came as a parallel development with the country's technological and quality of life increase. The population adjusted accordingly. If you overfeed a population in the trail (underdeveloped countries) that population will not have "learned" or "adapted" by itself. So, why would they learn or adapt? Has anyone read about or remembers the rats experiment? Won't this become another "everyone gets a trophy" case? And, as mentioned before, many in those cultures will actually feel entitled to have many children just to benefit from the system, as we see happening here and other countries with a good welfare system? Add that that clip came from the bill and melinda foundation, its credibility and actual intentions are very suspicious and should he taken with a truckload of salt. ETA: and let's not forget that the liberal left actually does not promote improvement. They want to keep the general populate ignorant, mediocre and promiscuous. The developed countries also experienced a more educated and culturally evolved population. |
|
Quoted:
Historically there has been room for expansion, both in terms of physical expansion and technological expansion. There was arable land available for farming, open areas for settling, countries open to hordes of immigrants during localized famines. All of these are becoming less available and more costly, or just outright unavailable. http://everythingconnects.everythingconnec.netdna-cdn.com/uploads/7/0/3/5/7035190/custom_themes/152063185730251114/files/arablefinite.jpg?1358625678874 Additionally, available tech for improving medication, agriculture, and hygiene was able to keep pace with the population growth. All experts in those respective fields say they're up against it when it comes to further improvements. And finally, look at where growth is occurring: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/images/img_wwap_wwdr3_map_2.1_popgrowth.jpg The countries that will experience growth do not and will never have the resources available to support the populations they even currently have, let alone the ones they are currently incubating. So effectively first world countries are shipping in resources, remotely "farming" future immigrants that they don't want or need. There will not be a peaceful resolution to population growth, because such a thing does not exist in nature. Humans are not above nature. We will grow beyond global carrying capacity, because no one truly knows what that number is until it is well into the past, and then there will be famine, conflict, and/or disease to take the population back below that number. Rinse and repeat. We have no idea what we will be capable of in 250, 500, 1000 years. Historically our species has gotten better and molding the environment to our needs. We may have the tech to turn totally barren areas into areas that will easily sustain a population. A few small breakthroughs in energy or agriculture and the flood gates might open for very cheap food in almost any part of the world. |
|
Quoted:
Yup, not buying it. And either way, an earth with a population of 12 billion is going to dry up every aquifer on the planet. Some estimates say we're already overpopulated, with accessible, potable water being the limiting factor. You need to talk to Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and Obama. Equal Suffering™ can allow for nearly unlimited use of necessary resources. |
|
Quoted:
Yup, not buying it. And either way, an earth with a population of 12 billion is going to dry up every aquifer on the planet. Some estimates say we're already overpopulated, with accessible, potable water being the limiting factor. LOL... every other Malthusian prediction has been proven wrong, but somehow water is "different". Walk-away-safe 5th generation fission reactors could provide enough desalinated seawater to irrigate the entire Sahara desert, much less everywhere else. Any and all bottlenecks on human progress and an increase in standards of living are political or social in nature, none are actual technical or fundamental limits on everyone in the world eventually reaching a 1st world level of existence. |
|
Quoted:
The video didn't mention the effect of welfare on developed countries. In the US, poor people are basically rewarded for having more children. No medical bills to have them, and the more you have, the more food stamps, housing vouchers, wic, utility assistance, child support, phones, and even cash payment you get. Smart people have 1-2 kids, poor and dumb people have around 3-5. What do they think the long term effect on humanity is going to be. We are going to see a stall in innovation, less doctors, scientists, etc. and at the same time an explosion of unemployable people. If we don't cut this shit out soon, we are looking at another large famine, civil war, or a major event to cull the herd. It also ignores cultural trends inspired by religion. Mormons for example have a mandate to have large families and continue to do so even when living in a fully developed nation. Not that the world is going to become overpopulated by Mormons but there are things like Islam and observant Catholics to contend with. |
|
Quoted:
The video didn't mention the effect of welfare on developed countries. In the US, poor people are basically rewarded for having more children. No medical bills to have them, and the more you have, the more food stamps, housing vouchers, wic, utility assistance, child support, phones, and even cash payment you get. Smart people have 1-2 kids, poor and dumb people have around 3-5. What do they think the long term effect on humanity is going to be. We are going to see a stall in innovation, less doctors, scientists, etc. and at the same time an explosion of unemployable people. If we don't cut this shit out soon, we are looking at another large famine, civil war, or a major event to cull the herd. I saw a documentary film about this once. Brawndo's got electrolytes. It's what plants crave |
|
Quoted:
We have no idea what we will be capable of in 250, 500, 1000 years. Historically our species has gotten better and molding the environment to our needs. We may have the tech to turn totally barren areas into areas that will easily sustain a population. A few small breakthroughs in energy or agriculture and the flood gates might open for very cheap food in almost any part of the world. |
|
I always find it odd when people talk about over population and how there isn't enough land to grow food etc.
There is PLENTY of land to grow more food. Heck, the US already produces WAY more food than we eat. That's not even factoring in all the waste that occurs. Now, if you want to maintain every national park, every wildlife refuge, all the huge areas of land around the world that are not currently cultivated by people then you might be able to make that argument. Keeping in mind, that we already produce enough food to feed about 10 billion people RIGHT NOW. The reason people starve in other countries is NOT because we can't produce enough food. It's always political. |
|
Quoted:
I always find it odd when people talk about over population and how there isn't enough land to grow food etc. There is PLENTY of land to grow more food. Heck, the US already produces WAY more food than we eat. That's not even factoring in all the waste that occurs. Now, if you want to maintain every national park, every wildlife refuge, all the huge areas of land around the world that are not currently cultivated by people then you might be able to make that argument. Keeping in mind, that we already produce enough food to feed about 10 billion people RIGHT NOW. The reason people starve in other countries is NOT because we can't produce enough food. It's always political. You obviously have no clue how the world works ! I will not bother trying to explain "Airable Land" and what countries have minor percentages of that most needed real estate to sustain their populations. |
|
Quoted:
You obviously have no clue how the world works ! I will not bother trying to explain "Airable Land" and what countries have minor percentages of that most needed real estate to sustain their populations. It's not just that, like he said, we have the capacity right now to grow the food for much more than the total population, it's a logistics issue though to move that food from the countries that have it, to the countries that need it. It's super expensive to send shipping containers full of dried grains to various countries that need the food, they can't afford to pay for it at what it would cost to cover growing, processing, shipping and still get the grower a profit. The countries sending the food would be operating at a net loss, and we don't have the global cooperation, or the right economic model to support that, at least not until we have an energy breakthrough that allows productions costs to become only a fraction of what it is now. |
|
Quoted:
The video assumes a voluntary decline in child birth. Muslims are breeding for conquest. I also assumes the voluntary decline is done by countries as they enter the first world and become modernized, many hardcore Muslim countries are still down near 3rd world status. Look at Catholics, isn't it a sin for them to use birth control too? Logic with education tends to trump antiquated tradition usually, so smarter people make smarter choices. |
|
Quoted:
Pretty interesting look at the cycle of population growth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348It had to be Bill gates and with a british accent.. very maltusian. The world isnt overpopulated of course, its about to get very underpopulated actually. Thats why developed countries pay people to have kids. Its the same reason why they let in as many immigrants as they can witihn the political cost. As the fertility rate drops below 2.1 we simply wont replace the people that die any more and the population will: a) age b) go down Age alone is a disaster. it means that every year there will be less people supporting an ever older percentage of society. FerFAL |
|
Overpopulation isn't a problem... the way shitloads of people live is the problem.
Free-market, rule-of-law, representative societies could easily support twice the current population. Marxism, anarchy, and autocracy can barely feed their subjects in the best of circumstances. |
|
Quoted:
@VA-gunnut posted a better video a while back, but I can't find it now. Basically, the world will stabilize at around 10 billion.  Religions and babies | Hans Rosling |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
@VA-gunnut posted a better video a while back, but I can't find it now. Basically, the world will stabilize at around 10 billion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78Both good videos, but I agree - VA-gunnut's video is a bit better. |
|
Quoted:
Is homosexuality ever considered as a variable in studies of overpopulation? Two dudes and two chicks cant make a baby on their own, and with homosexuality rates seeming to increase globally, that should factor in. Or am I off in that thought process? In reality, there's probably the same amount of gays as there always have been. Too small of a percentage to even count, in the big picture of things. Unfortunately for today's times, part of that small percentage controls a large part of the US media, and they want to push it down our throats like its normal. |
|
Quoted:
Is homosexuality ever considered as a variable in studies of overpopulation? Two dudes and two chicks cant make a baby on their own, and with homosexuality rates seeming to increase globally, that should factor in. Or am I off in that thought process? Anecdotally I haven't seen any evidence that gays have significantly fewer kids than straight people do. I know about a dozen lesbian couples and all but one of them have kids, some of the gay guys have kids too. Procreation isn't that big a problem for people, most sexual activity is recreational. I think the right tends to underappreciate the population issue for a number of reasons, but the big one in the US is so many have a short time horizon, but we also have a culture that developed in an unexploited, resource rich environment the old world never experienced in the same way. Agriculture as we know it still depletes a number of resources, it isn't that we couldn't feed more people, it's that we can't do it for long and the longer we do it the more topsoils, aquifers, wilderness areas and so on are depleted. Technology will improve, but the population will continue to strain and deplete the resources, and the correlation between population density and collectivism won't go away. Conservatism has to embrace conservation at some point, it's an existential necessity. |
|
Quoted:
Yup, not buying it. And either way, an earth with a population of 12 billion is going to dry up every aquifer on the planet. Some estimates say we're already overpopulated, with accessible, potable water being the limiting factor. Then the price of water will rise to make the production of more fresh water an economically feasible solution. Or at least, it would if we had a free market in water. Instead, we'll get herky jerky centrally planned desalinization projects and only when the central planners think it's necessary, rather than as a natural reaction to market forces. |