Over Population.

[GHook93]

Yes, the bigger issue is under population for most developed nations.

The replacement birth rate (to just keep population stable), is 2.1 live births per woman. The U.S. at 2.05 is slightly under that rate due to immigrants. Our neighbor to the north is 1.58, a sign of serious trouble.

Japan is at 1.2 - which is a death spiral, literally for the country.

Much of Europe is below the replacement rate as well - which makes the Muslim immigrant problem worse. The immigrants are far more fertile, not assimilating, and intent on "reforming" those countries toward Sharia Law.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

I do believe Russia is at 0.9!!!

Russia 140,041,247 and growing.

I heard on the news that they have the lowest furtility rate in the world. That in 2000 they had 147 mil.

 

[Mr Natural]

Great, more people chasing fewer and fewer resources.

If you think oil wars are bad, wait until water wars start.

 

[froggy]

China 1,323,591,583
India 1,156,897,766
United States 307,212,123
Indonesia 240,271,522
Brazil 198,739,269
Pakistan 174,578,558
Bangladesh 156,050,883
Nigeria 149,229,090
Russia 140,041,247
Japan 127,078,679
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base

Ten Largest Countries in Population

Note: I believe China, Russia (forsure) and Japan have all decreased in the last 10 years

This was the census as of 2009.

 

[GHook93]

Great, more people chasing fewer and fewer resources.

If you think oil wars are bad, wait until water wars start.

The West is getting smaller, but their immigrant population is not.
The West is also reproducing at a small rate, but the 3rd world is reproducing like rabbits, which like it or not is fueled by Western aid and lax immigration and illegal immigration policies!

 

[PoliticalChic]

what has chicken little got to do with garrett hardin?

"A major focus of his career, and one to which he returned repeatedly, was the issue of human overpopulation."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

[youtube]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0RoxNpjIAkw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0RoxNpjIAkw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're a John Holdrin fan as well.

my college class held its 30th reunion two years ago. my degree is in marine science and i remember hardin's writing to be much less alarmist and seemingly more soundly based on ecological principles than people like ehrlich.

never even heard of john holdrin.

I think that it has been pretty soundly debunked that the planet is in any way overpopulated, or that the food supply isn't able to keep up with it.

There was a time when folks like hardin and ehrlich had a certain amount of cache... but no longer.

Holdren is an interesting, if wacky, case. He is the advisor to President Obama. Here is some background.


"Holdren's radicalism dates back to the late 1960s. In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.”

That same year, he and (the now largely discredited) professor of population studies Paul Ehrlich jointly predicted: “If … population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1971 Holdren and Ehrlich warned that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.”

Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren and Ehrlich in 1973 called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries."
'Science Czar' John P. Holdren's disturbing beliefs about America, capitalism and humanity

"Obama's Science Czar Wrote Book Advocating Forced Abortions, Sterilizing Americans By Poisoning Our Drinking Water "
Ehrlich, Paul R., Anne H. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren; Ecoscience:*... - White House

"He is also one of the main engineers of the Eugenics operation going on right now. A book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population. In this book he wrote that: Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not. The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food. Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise. People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force."

"Holdren claimed that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[10] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many"[11]. Currently, the U.S. population is 306,924,000[12]. In 1977 he co-authored (with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich) Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,[13] which discussed the possible role of a wide range of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning at one extreme, to a "planetary regime" of enforced population control at the other extreme."

John Holdren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor? Apparently not, judging by reports from DotEarth and ScienceInsider that Barack Obama will name John P. Holdren as his science advisor on Saturday. [UPDATE: Mr. Obama did indeed pick Dr. Holdren.] "

"In 1980 Dr. Holdren helped select five metals — chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten — and joined Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Harte in betting $1,000 that those metals would be more expensive ten years later. They turned out to be wrong on all five metals, and had to pay up when the bet came due in 1990. "

"Dr. Holdren’s resistance to dissenting views was also on display earlier this year in an article asserting that climate skeptics are “dangerous.” (You can read about the response to that article at DotEarth.)"

Flawed Science Advice for Obama? - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, the bigger issue is under population for most developed nations.

The replacement birth rate (to just keep population stable), is 2.1 live births per woman. The U.S. at 2.05 is slightly under that rate due to immigrants. Our neighbor to the north is 1.58, a sign of serious trouble.

Japan is at 1.2 - which is a death spiral, literally for the country.

Much of Europe is below the replacement rate as well - which makes the Muslim immigrant problem worse. The immigrants are far more fertile, not assimilating, and intent on "reforming" those countries toward Sharia Law.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

I do believe Russia is at 0.9!!!

Russia 140,041,247 and growing.

"The government is trying to head off the country’s severe population decline by luring back Russians who live abroad as well as their descendants. Mr. Reutov and several dozen other members of his religious community from Uruguay have become among the most striking examples of this policy.

Yet their return also points to Russia’s disquieting population drop. The United Nations predicts that the country will fall to 116 million people by 2050, from 141 million now, an 18 percent decline, largely because of a low birthrate and poor health habits. (The government is trying to increase the birthrate by paying families to have more children.)"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/world/europe/22believers.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

I agree with that. But look at the population growth in the last 58 years its insane. The growth the last 58 years is greater than the entire human history of growth! Soylent Green could be a a reality one day!

Year....Population......Increase
1750..............700 mil
1850..............1.2 Bil......................500 mil
1900..............1.65 Bil....................450 mil
1950..............2.5 Bil......................850 mil (note: This period saw the world 2 bloodest wars)
2008..............6.7 Bil......................4.2 Bil (That is an insane increase!)

World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note: I hate using just wikipedia, but in this case I got lazy!

Will the food supply be able to keep up?

World Birth/Death Rates (2009 est.)1

Birth Rate: Death Rate:
20 births/1,000 population 8 deaths/1,000 population
128.9 million births per year 53.4 million people die each year
353,015 births per day 146,357 people die each day
14,709 births each hour 6098 people die each hour
245 births each minute 102 people die each minute
4 births each second of every day almost 2 people die each second

MALTHUS WAS WRONG
In 1798, Thomas Malthus warned that the world's population growth would eventually outstrip the world's food supply, bringing about starvation, disease and wars. Despite continued warnings from Malthus' supporters, humanity still flourishes.

John Downen of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment argues that growth and managing the world's resources are not mutually exclusive, as evidenced by current population trends:

The United Nations estimates that the world's population will peak at about 9 billion by 2075, then begin declining thereafter.
In the poorest countries, where almost all population growth occurs, the average woman has only 2.9 children today, compared to 6.2 children in the 1950s.
Additionally, fertility rates in European countries are below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman.
As wealth increases and women become more educated, they tend to have fewer children. Furthermore, the world is not running out of resources, says Downen
According to Downen, human ingenuity and technological advances allow societies to find better, more efficient ways of using resources, and a free market is the best way to foster such innovation.
MALTHUS WAS WRONG

The problem is not with the souce that you used, but with the lack of coordination as to areas of habitation.

Consider population density of various areas, and how much room remain that can be used if necessary.

For example:

"The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of its total territory."
291 &#8211; Federal Lands in the US Strange Maps

 

[tommywho70x]

that holdren seems to be quite a piece of work.

my feeling has always been that the planet has the capacity to feed and shelter many billions of people provided we spread out more and utilized previously to technological solutions, uninhabitable environments.

we especially need to relieve some of the pressure on our inland waterways and the river deltas (over 80% of humanity is cluster-fucked into megalopolises built on or near those)

 

[xsited1]

Will the food supply be able to keep up?

World Birth/Death Rates (2009 est.)1

Birth Rate: Death Rate:
20 births/1,000 population 8 deaths/1,000 population
128.9 million births per year 53.4 million people die each year
353,015 births per day 146,357 people die each day
14,709 births each hour 6098 people die each hour
245 births each minute 102 people die each minute
4 births each second of every day almost 2 people die each second

Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth | POP101

 

[PoliticalChic]

that holdren seems to be quite a piece of work.

my feeling has always been that the planet has the capacity to feed and shelter many billions of people provided we spread out more and utilized previously to technological solutions, uninhabitable environments.

we especially need to relieve some of the pressure on our inland waterways and the river deltas (over 80% of humanity is cluster-fucked into megalopolises built on or near those)

If you would care to expound, I would be interested in the meaning of "we especially need to relieve some of the pressure on our..."

If I may insinuate that there is a political superintendence in this phrase, do you mean that government should order folks out of their habitation, and embark on some sort of modern 'trail of tears'...for the 'common good'?

(Beware: a trap has been laid.)

 

[tommywho70x]

that holdren seems to be quite a piece of work.

my feeling has always been that the planet has the capacity to feed and shelter many billions of people provided we spread out more and utilized previously to technological solutions, uninhabitable environments.

we especially need to relieve some of the pressure on our inland waterways and the river deltas (over 80% of humanity is cluster-fucked into megalopolises built on or near those)

If you would care to expound, I would be interested in the meaning of "we especially need to relieve some of the pressure on our..."

If I may insinuate that there is a political superintendence in this phrase, do you mean that government should order folks out of their habitation, and embark on some sort of modern 'trail of tears'...for the 'common good'?

(Beware: a trap has been laid.)

sure. i mean "we" as the members of the species homo sapienswho if we continue to build our population centers on and around ecosystems that are negatively impacted by the loading of our waste materials or even the trampling of our feet, we may just cause such ecological disasters as the ehrlichs and hardins claimed would occur.

mind you, according to most of their models, there were things that they felt had to change prior to 2020 or we are likely to precipitate an ecological catastrophe before 2100.

the politics of getting people to accept the need for such redistributions of population is a swamp i wouldn't want to speculate on.

i just know that if we do nothing and allow the status quo to continue without proper regard for the sheer energy of the natural world, the planet herself will do something that will force us to respond.

the icelandic volcano is a perfect case in point. that little geologic fart shut down air travel and cost billions. it produced only a tiny fraction of what would get spewed into the atmosphere when a major caldera like yellowstone blows.

 

[PoliticalChic]

that holdren seems to be quite a piece of work.

my feeling has always been that the planet has the capacity to feed and shelter many billions of people provided we spread out more and utilized previously to technological solutions, uninhabitable environments.

we especially need to relieve some of the pressure on our inland waterways and the river deltas (over 80% of humanity is cluster-fucked into megalopolises built on or near those)

If you would care to expound, I would be interested in the meaning of "we especially need to relieve some of the pressure on our..."

If I may insinuate that there is a political superintendence in this phrase, do you mean that government should order folks out of their habitation, and embark on some sort of modern 'trail of tears'...for the 'common good'?

(Beware: a trap has been laid.)

sure. i mean "we" as the members of the species homo sapienswho if we continue to build our population centers on and around ecosystems that are negatively impacted by the loading of our waste materials or even the trampling of our feet, we may just cause such ecological disasters as the ehrlichs and hardins claimed would occur.

mind you, according to most of their models, there were things that they felt had to change prior to 2020 or we are likely to precipitate an ecological catastrophe before 2100.

the politics of getting people to accept the need for such redistributions of population is a swamp i wouldn't want to speculate on.

i just know that if we do nothing and allow the status quo to continue without proper regard for the sheer energy of the natural world, the planet herself will do something that will force us to respond.

the icelandic volcano is a perfect case in point. that little geologic fart shut down air travel and cost billions. it produced only a tiny fraction of what would get spewed into the atmosphere when a major caldera like yellowstone blows.

Thank you.

You certainly sidestepped the 'trap' by "the politics of getting people to accept the need for such redistributions of population is a swamp i wouldn't want to speculate on. "

If you mean education as the motivator of getting folks behind the idea, I couldn't disagree.

It's when force, i.e. "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help..." then I have to dig in my heels.

I don't know enough about the waterways that you mention to take a position.

 

[Againsheila]

Will the food supply be able to keep up?

World Birth/Death Rates (2009 est.)1

Birth Rate: Death Rate:
20 births/1,000 population 8 deaths/1,000 population
128.9 million births per year 53.4 million people die each year
353,015 births per day 146,357 people die each day
14,709 births each hour 6098 people die each hour
245 births each minute 102 people die each minute
4 births each second of every day almost 2 people die each second

We were taught about over population in the 70's. Hence American's currently have less than replacement value when it comes to children which is the reason our government has increase immigration and given illegals a pass. Face it, if they hadn't, the lower paid workers would be in high demand right now and our income gap wouldn't be the biggest in the history of our nation.

Worse, immigrants, even next generation immigrants have an average of 7.5 children per family. So we are losing our country just by the numbers. The Mexicans will be able to take over simply by having more kids than we do.

 

[tommywho70x]

If you would care to expound, I would be interested in the meaning of "we especially need to relieve some of the pressure on our..."

If I may insinuate that there is a political superintendence in this phrase, do you mean that government should order folks out of their habitation, and embark on some sort of modern 'trail of tears'...for the 'common good'?

(Beware: a trap has been laid.)

sure. i mean "we" as the members of the species homo sapienswho if we continue to build our population centers on and around ecosystems that are negatively impacted by the loading of our waste materials or even the trampling of our feet, we may just cause such ecological disasters as the ehrlichs and hardins claimed would occur.

mind you, according to most of their models, there were things that they felt had to change prior to 2020 or we are likely to precipitate an ecological catastrophe before 2100.

the politics of getting people to accept the need for such redistributions of population is a swamp i wouldn't want to speculate on.

i just know that if we do nothing and allow the status quo to continue without proper regard for the sheer energy of the natural world, the planet herself will do something that will force us to respond.

the icelandic volcano is a perfect case in point. that little geologic fart shut down air travel and cost billions. it produced only a tiny fraction of what would get spewed into the atmosphere when a major caldera like yellowstone blows.

Thank you.

You certainly sidestepped the 'trap' by "the politics of getting people to accept the need for such redistributions of population is a swamp i wouldn't want to speculate on. "

If you mean education as the motivator of getting folks behind the idea, I couldn't disagree.

It's when force, i.e. "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help..." then I have to dig in my heels.

I don't know enough about the waterways that you mention to take a position.

throughout time, human society has grown along the inland waterways for numerous reasons, the most obvious being drinking water. not quite so obvious but considered more important by some investigators is their use to carry our waste products away from our habitats.

if you look at a world map that shows population density, you will find that the most densely populated regions are within 10 miles of seashore, most often on or near a river mouth or within 10 miles of an inland waterway.

the biggest concern to ecologists about this condition is that the ecosystems that are impacted by excessive human presence are also some of the most diverse and productive in terms of the number of species endemic and their overall biomass production.