Well, wata ya know!

[jc456]

It was caused by Communists who irrationally just diverted the river elsewhere. It is a classic example of lousy government decisionmaking.

It can be restored over time now that USSR (Socialist paradise) is a memory...

No, the river wasn't just irrationally diverted elsewhere. The water served their business interests they deemed more important than preserving the Aral Sea.

Oh, and in that other Socialist paradise:

List of drying lakes

A number of lakes throughout the world are drying or completely dry due to irrigation or urban use diverting inflow. Climate change is also a factor in drying some lakes.[1]

Salton Sea in California, U.S.[4]
Tulare Lake in California, U.S.[7]
Owens Lake in California, U.S.[9]
Walker Lake in Nevada, U.S.[10]
Mono Lake in California, U.S.[11]
White Bear Lake in Minnesota, U.S.[13][14]
Lake Meredith in Texas, U.S.[15]
Lake Mead in Nevada and Arizona, U.S.[23]​

well I live in Chicago area and we use Lake Michigan. it's increased it's level. so your argument is phony.

you are a stupid fk.

 

[Wuwei]

"The chicken littles shriek about "we have no more room on the planet!" until it is shown to them that we have 'room' to accommodate many, many times the current population. They shriek about "all natural resources will be depleted by 5 PM tomorrow!" until they are shown that we have more than enough natural resources for many times the current population and that more are being found all the time. Then they shriek about pollution, politics, religion, etc. until it is pointed out to them that those problems will arise with as many as 2 human beings locked in a room together and have existed at every level of population throughout human history."

When my dad was born world population was about 1.9 billion. Now it's 7.7 billion.

What number do you consider population limit? Whatever that is, it means

the birthrate = the death rate.​

What about birth rate. Are people going to self regulate procreation? Government regulations? Legal abortions? Sterilization? All the above?

What about death rate. Much shorter life spans? Death by plagues? War? Starvation? Murder? Suicide?

Fresh water below the ocean. Yea! ... Mineral resources will always be around, but the easy pickings are long gone. The energy cost to extract mineral ores will increase perhaps exponentially - at least linearly.

Minerals needed for the technology - batteries, motors, electronics - to support a huge population will be very expensive, and perhaps not viable.

Limits on birth rates; higher death rates; higher costs of technology ... To me that sounds like a dystopia. Have you or anyone thought this through?

.

 

[Olde Europe]

When my dad was born world population was about 1.9 billion. Now it's 7.7 billion.

What number do you consider population limit? Whatever that is, it means

the birthrate = the death rate.​

What about birth rate. Are people going to self regulate procreation? Government regulations? Legal abortions? Sterilization? All the above?

What about death rate. Much shorter life spans? Death by plagues? War? Starvation? Murder? Suicide?

Fresh water below the ocean. Yea! ... Mineral resources will always be around, but the easy pickings are long gone. The energy cost to extract mineral ores will increase perhaps exponentially - at least linearly.

Minerals needed for the technology - batteries, motors, electronics - to support a huge population will be very expensive, and perhaps not viable.

Limits on birth rates; higher death rates; higher costs of technology ... To me that sounds like a dystopia. Have you or anyone thought this through?

.

Well stated.

Moreover, we're losing arable land to erosion and climate change at a horrible clip while demand for arable land rises with population growth, which in turn puts pressure on the last remaining intact ecosystems that keep us alive. That alone should put all that nonsense to rest. But hey, we've found some finite supply of maybe usable freshwater, problem solved.

Has anyone thought that through, you ask? I thought that question was answered in the most conclusive fashion imaginable.

 

[jc456]

When my dad was born world population was about 1.9 billion. Now it's 7.7 billion.

What number do you consider population limit? Whatever that is, it means

the birthrate = the death rate.​

What about birth rate. Are people going to self regulate procreation? Government regulations? Legal abortions? Sterilization? All the above?

What about death rate. Much shorter life spans? Death by plagues? War? Starvation? Murder? Suicide?

Fresh water below the ocean. Yea! ... Mineral resources will always be around, but the easy pickings are long gone. The energy cost to extract mineral ores will increase perhaps exponentially - at least linearly.

Minerals needed for the technology - batteries, motors, electronics - to support a huge population will be very expensive, and perhaps not viable.

Limits on birth rates; higher death rates; higher costs of technology ... To me that sounds like a dystopia. Have you or anyone thought this through?

.

Well stated.

Moreover, we're losing arable land to erosion and climate change at a horrible clip while demand for arable land rises with population growth, which in turn puts pressure on the last remaining intact ecosystems that keep us alive. That alone should put all that nonsense to rest. But hey, we've found some finite supply of maybe usable freshwater, problem solved.

Has anyone thought that through, you ask? I thought that question was answered in the most conclusive fashion imaginable.

no we aren't. in fact, we grow food in cities now. fk I so dislike stupid fks like you.

 

[Unkotare]

"The chicken littles shriek about "we have no more room on the planet!" until it is shown to them that we have 'room' to accommodate many, many times the current population. They shriek about "all natural resources will be depleted by 5 PM tomorrow!" until they are shown that we have more than enough natural resources for many times the current population and that more are being found all the time. Then they shriek about pollution, politics, religion, etc. until it is pointed out to them that those problems will arise with as many as 2 human beings locked in a room together and have existed at every level of population throughout human history."

When my dad was born world population was about 1.9 billion. Now it's 7.7 billion.

What number do you consider population limit? Whatever that is, it means

the birthrate = the death rate.​

What about birth rate. Are people going to self regulate procreation? Government regulations? Legal abortions? Sterilization? All the above?

What about death rate. Much shorter life spans? Death by plagues? War? Starvation? Murder? Suicide?

Fresh water below the ocean. Yea! ... Mineral resources will always be around, but the easy pickings are long gone. The energy cost to extract mineral ores will increase perhaps exponentially - at least linearly.

Minerals needed for the technology - batteries, motors, electronics - to support a huge population will be very expensive, and perhaps not viable.

Limits on birth rates; higher death rates; higher costs of technology ... To me that sounds like a dystopia. Have you or anyone thought this through?

.

None of that is necessary.

 

[Wuwei]

Moreover, we're losing arable land to erosion and climate change at a horrible clip while demand for arable land rises with population growth, which in turn puts pressure on the last remaining intact ecosystems that keep us alive. That alone should put all that nonsense to rest. But hey, we've found some finite supply of maybe usable freshwater, problem solved.

Yes, arable land is another limiting factor.

A couple more issues when the population "stabilizes" :
The demographics would tend toward an aging population. What sort of problems will incur?

Macroeconomists agree that an increasing economy is tied to a moderate population growth. There will be unpredictable changes in the standard of living as far as housing, transportation, etc.

.

 

[Wuwei]

None of that is necessary.

That's it? Don't you think a bit of elaboration is in order?

 

[jc456]

Moreover, we're losing arable land to erosion and climate change at a horrible clip while demand for arable land rises with population growth, which in turn puts pressure on the last remaining intact ecosystems that keep us alive. That alone should put all that nonsense to rest. But hey, we've found some finite supply of maybe usable freshwater, problem solved.

Yes, arable land is another limiting factor.

A couple more issues when the population "stabilizes" :
The demographics would tend toward an aging population. What sort of problems will incur?

Macroeconomists agree that an increasing economy is tied to a moderate population growth. There will be unpredictable changes in the standard of living as far as housing, transportation, etc.

.

so you have the blueprints for how much land is needed for the population? post that link to it.

 

[Cosmos]

It all depends on what kind of quality of life we want.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Well, wata ya know! One more reason to dismiss the fools clinging to the false crisis of “overpopulation,” a massive reservoir of freshwater has been detected under the sea floor off the east coast of the United States.

Well stated by the english grade school teacher! Yep, just start pumping all this water out from under the sea floor until it causes some sort of unforeseen geologic event! Keep stripping the Earth of every last vestige of resources we can find rather than balance our population.

Overpopulation? What overpopulation? Now we have to pump water out from under the Atlantic ocean for them to drink, what next, the Moon? Never mind we have no idea what that water is doing there or what else might already be using or depending on it!

Look at the southwest. Thousands of new subdivisions built daily in the drought ridden deserts without even a care in the world where the water is coming from and how much of it is left in aquifers.

 

[jc456]

the left always goes silent when they have no facts.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

They created the same mess by pumping out underground water to feed California. I don't remember all the details but a similar thing happened with the Dead Sea: I think they cut off the flow of water into the Dead Sea for some alternate use and now the land all around the Dead Sea is in collapse. So now they are working to pump water into the Dead Sea from another nearby body what is very salty, but because the Dead Sea is so especially salty, this "fresh" water will be much less so, not only causing the water to cloud up in some sort of chemical reaction, but it will ruin the medicinal qualities the Dead Sea has long been know for.

Human Beings: Experts in unforeseen and unintended consequences. The fewer the better.

I seem to recall similar catastrophes. Oh, just look at Aral sea, for the probably biggest man-made ecological catastrophe (so far):

Now they're trying to revive at least part of it, at considerable cost, while most of it will remain a near-uninhabitable desert. But yeah, let's extract more water, and turn more of the earth into dead zones. What could possibly go wrong?

For a domestic example, check out Salton Sea.

 

[Unkotare]

None of that is necessary.

That's it? Don't you think a bit of elaboration is in order?

The world is not overpopulated, and in due time the global population will begin to contract on its own. So relax.

 

[Wuwei]

The world is not overpopulated, and in due time the global population will begin to contract on its own. So relax.

That is another non-response. If you read my original post again you will see that I'm not talking about the world being overpopulated right now. That's arguable

I am asking you how you think the global population will stabilize in the future when birth rate = death rate.
Do you have any idea what you think or are you just shooting from the gut .

.

 

[Olde Europe]

Yes, arable land is another limiting factor.

A couple more issues when the population "stabilizes" :
The demographics would tend toward an aging population. What sort of problems will incur?

Macroeconomists agree that an increasing economy is tied to a moderate population growth. There will be unpredictable changes in the standard of living as far as housing, transportation, etc.

.

Humankind lived, for centuries, with a pretty stable population size. I see no reason why that shouldn't be possible again. But that's far off, and for future generations to solve, and it'll be a cakewalk compared to what lies ahead. What we have at our hands is a still quickly growing population running up against limited and depleted and depleting resources, and Mother Earth hitting back with increasing force, and so far no one has even the beginnings of a clue how - realistically - to solve that. Moreover, every other global problem we will have to solve is more easily solved with a population of, say, ten, compared to twenty billion, and at ten billion things look desperate. And that's before we take account of the prevalence of the "What, me worry?" imbecility that stands in the way of even moderate proposals.

 

[Cosmos]

Yes, arable land is another limiting factor.

A couple more issues when the population "stabilizes" :
The demographics would tend toward an aging population. What sort of problems will incur?

Macroeconomists agree that an increasing economy is tied to a moderate population growth. There will be unpredictable changes in the standard of living as far as housing, transportation, etc.

.

Humankind lived, for centuries, with a pretty stable population size. I see no reason why that shouldn't be possible again. But that's far off, and for future generations to solve, and it'll be a cakewalk compared to what lies ahead. What we have at our hands is a still quickly growing population running up against limited and depleted and depleting resources, and Mother Earth hitting back with increasing force, and so far no one has even the beginnings of a clue how - realistically - to solve that. Moreover, every other global problem we will have to solve is more easily solved with a population of, say, ten, compared to twenty billion, and at ten billion things look desperate. And that's before we take account of the prevalence of the "What, me worry?" imbecility that stands in the way of even moderate proposals.

You already tried eugenics and outright genocide, OldeNaziBastard. What's you next great idea?

 

[Unkotare]

I am asking you how you think the global population will stabilize in the future ...
.

You haven't been paying attention.


Fertility Rates Keep Dropping, and it’s Going to Hit the Economy Hard

The Looming Population Implosion

World Population Implosion? - PRI

 

[jc456]

Yes, arable land is another limiting factor.

A couple more issues when the population "stabilizes" :
The demographics would tend toward an aging population. What sort of problems will incur?

Macroeconomists agree that an increasing economy is tied to a moderate population growth. There will be unpredictable changes in the standard of living as far as housing, transportation, etc.

.

Humankind lived, for centuries, with a pretty stable population size. I see no reason why that shouldn't be possible again. But that's far off, and for future generations to solve, and it'll be a cakewalk compared to what lies ahead. What we have at our hands is a still quickly growing population running up against limited and depleted and depleting resources, and Mother Earth hitting back with increasing force, and so far no one has even the beginnings of a clue how - realistically - to solve that. Moreover, every other global problem we will have to solve is more easily solved with a population of, say, ten, compared to twenty billion, and at ten billion things look desperate. And that's before we take account of the prevalence of the "What, me worry?" imbecility that stands in the way of even moderate proposals.

so all I need is your miracle map that explains all of the benchmarks concerning civilization. post it up!!

 

[Unkotare]

... running up against limited and depleted and depleting resources....

Ahem...

 

[toobfreak]

None of that is necessary.

That's it? Don't you think a bit of elaboration is in order?

The world is not overpopulated, and in due time the global population will begin to contract on its own. So relax.

793 million people are starving around the world, according to the U.N. That makes up about 11 percent of the population. Of the 793 million, more than 100 million suffer from severe malnutrition and risk starving to death.

How Many People Are Starving Around the World?

Sure, the population will begin to contract as people begin dying off. And that is WITHOUT severe drought and heat predicted by climate change. But don't listen to experts, listen to some hack who teaches foreign kids how to speak english.