Canada 50C/120F
- Thread starter dannyr
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Strange that the people on a woodworking site can see that overpopulation is a massive issue for the survival of the race but governments either fail to see it or as per usual just see population as cattle to be farmed for taxes and support the economy so play osterich. The biggest threat that may prevent people taking action on climate change and such is actually the "economy" as it is held in such high esteem and the measure of a countries status. Remove materialism and greed then you may get further than using EV's.
There's some chance that we'll find primitive life somewhere in the solar system, and we may have the ability to travel to another planet and establish life. This is not remotely similar to traveling to the nearest star or observing something on the nearest star. Proxima centauri is about 110,000 times as far away as mars (several light years away). A group of habitable-zone planets exists about 30 times as far away as proxima centauri), or maybe it's 15.
I just googled to find out from educated people how long it would take to send something to proxima centauri - the google machine says 6300 years unless someone comes up with a better travel method. As many habitable planets as we've found nearby (rock planets in a temperate zone where there could be liquid water on the surface), it seems fairly good odds that something is living or has lived on some of them. If any were formed long in the past with fast burning stars, that's just bad luck.
Fairly sure if you destroy the economies (and ability to produce or innovate), you'll find yourself the subject of another group that didn't choose to do that. I wouldn't put the insight on this board above anything or anywhere else, nor is it necessarily true that short term suffering is a good trade for a longer-term goal (because the longer-term solution you're aiming for could easily change long before you get there).
Jacob
Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Fermi Paradox is really the Fermi lack of imagination. He takes an utterly anthropocentric view of life on earth - as he would he is one of them, but there are estimated to be 8.7 million species of life on earth, only one of which is "intelligent" in human terms.
Life we can assume exists elsewhere but we have no reason to assume that we have any special characteristics which would make us more probable on another planet, than say the duck billed platypus or any other of the 8.7 million.
Equally probably that there may be duck billed platypusses out there but no humanoid intelligence at all!
RobinBHM
Established Member
I believe current estimates are that population will flatten out when we get to 11 billion
currently its about 7.9 billion
Anthraquinone
Established Member
Artie
Of course we can but I assuem that by we you are thinking about thye small percentage of the population who live the "1st world " countries. However the majority of the worlds population will strive to have the live style we have and so they should except that there are not the recources on the planet to support. A simple example are ther rare earth elements that are used widely in modern electronics. There is not enough to go round. Perhaps new tech will get around this but that is only one problem. I suspect drinking water will be a major source of conflict in the future.
Of course we can but I assuem that by we you are thinking about thye small percentage of the population who live the "1st world " countries. However the majority of the worlds population will strive to have the live style we have and so they should except that there are not the recources on the planet to support. A simple example are ther rare earth elements that are used widely in modern electronics. There is not enough to go round. Perhaps new tech will get around this but that is only one problem. I suspect drinking water will be a major source of conflict in the future.
Anthraquinone
Established Member
I have seen that 11 billion estimate and it is only an estimate. Can the planet support that many ?? Perhaps if we make better use of the available land and all become vegetarians. But that of course implies there is enough fresh water for irrigation. Perhaps climate change will work in our favour for water but if the world heats up as predicted combined with the inevitable sea level rise a hi=ugh amount of arable land will be lost to production.
There won't be a shortage of caloric production. We're burning half of the corn crop for fuel in the US and most of the rest goes to feed cows (which probably have 1/8th of the caloric value of the corn when done and are food sensitive. Pigs and chickens, less so)
In places where you can't grow corn, you can grow wheat, milo, soy, oil seeds, etc. If push came to shove, you could still have meat and B12 production by changing over to chicken and even further, fish farming.
Not that we want to go to those things entirely. When I was a little kid, 5 -6 billion was posed as a maximum carrying capacity. Now, who knows. 15?
In places where you can't grow corn, you can grow wheat, milo, soy, oil seeds, etc. If push came to shove, you could still have meat and B12 production by changing over to chicken and even further, fish farming.
Not that we want to go to those things entirely. When I was a little kid, 5 -6 billion was posed as a maximum carrying capacity. Now, who knows. 15?
Inspector
Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck!
If you want to intensive farm we could probably feed 100 billion but you can kiss all the wild spaces everywhere goodbye.
Pete
Pete
Jacob
Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Over population is a species survival mechanism. It increases likelihood of survival of the species, but not of all the individuals. It's a sign of stress and common throughout the living world.
Good news in other words, but not for many of us individually!
Good news in other words, but not for many of us individually!
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
Anthraquinone.
I am indeed talking about the small percentage of the population, "we" who are doing the most damage to the planet.
You say the rest of the population strive to be like us, I think they are/will be brainwashed to be like us. Which I agree is unsustainable.
Is it necessary to live like us, buying a new, phone/laptop/tablet/car/house when there is absolutely nothing wrong with the one we have.
Is it necessary to bathe the entire planet in microwaves so that we can text inane videos to each other and download the latest drivel from hollywood in 30 secs.
The list goes on and on,
Do you really think it a good idea to reduce the population rather than live a more sensible life.
Given a suitable budget I bet Sachi and Sachi could convince the population to be more economical with our precious resources.
I am indeed talking about the small percentage of the population, "we" who are doing the most damage to the planet.
You say the rest of the population strive to be like us, I think they are/will be brainwashed to be like us. Which I agree is unsustainable.
Is it necessary to live like us, buying a new, phone/laptop/tablet/car/house when there is absolutely nothing wrong with the one we have.
Is it necessary to bathe the entire planet in microwaves so that we can text inane videos to each other and download the latest drivel from hollywood in 30 secs.
The list goes on and on,
Do you really think it a good idea to reduce the population rather than live a more sensible life.
Given a suitable budget I bet Sachi and Sachi could convince the population to be more economical with our precious resources.
Selwyn
Established Member
Ironic post!
That could be due to starvation as even intensive farming has it's limits or that climate change has caused so many droughts crops have failed.
That is what has started the problems, it was bad when we went through an industrial revolution but now everyone else wants a lifestyle like "ours" and because they have much larger populations the impact is that much greater, but how can you say you cannot do this if you yourself has. No one can really argue that we are using the worlds resources at an alarming rate and that maybe with a massive lifestyle change then the reduction in population could be less, Artie is so correct in saying " Is it necessary to live like us, buying a new, phone/laptop/tablet/car/house when there is absolutely nothing wrong with the one we have. " This is a lot of us, I have a perfectly good phone but want a new one because I have been told it is better, my car is perfectly ok but it is two years old so will buy another one because I prefer the color of the gearknob and yes lets not forget that great imaginary concept that supports so many sweatshops and child labour, fashion, what a total load of two dangly items. How can wearing something just once have become so accepted, it is taking the throwaway society to new levels of insanity. I suppose looking back the Essex girls had got it right in that " if I am only wearing my knickers for so little time then why waste money on buying them in the first place" so perhaps they should be given some credit for sustainability.
The speculation of agricultural droughts is fantasy, but it does seem to come often (it's a fun fear for everyone "what if we starve!!!!!!!!!"). What's more likely is yield per acre will continue to increase. Corn yield per acre at the turn of the century was about 50. 120 years later, it's 4 times as high, but on irrigated land, even higher. I think in England, you may not have seen pivots, but they're common here. How far can they be extended? I don't know, but if there was value in it, the water could be pumped quite a distance from waterways.
If the value of grain crops go up because we're using them more directly, there will be more irrigation to go along with it. The market for corn and the availability of cheap energy has converted a lot of US marginal acres to productive acres. It seems dopey to me in the US as we heavily subsidize corn production and then require it to be used as a blend in fuel (it's a political buyoff) - and that's coming from someone whose family owned a farm until about 14 months ago. It was good for us, I guess - not great for everyone (we were landowners, so the good to us part came in absurd rent value for land).
Cooper
Established Member
Because you found this Rorschach, does not make it true.
I have elderly friends in Vancouver who tell me people have been dying there because of the incredible heat and they are very worried. I believe them. I suspect that far more deaths would be attributed to climate change if you included the famine and wars for water that are blighting parts of Africa. The important thing is that those of us in a position to lighten our impact on the planet should make the effort.
Many of the respondents to this forum, like me, grew up in the post war years where so many of the things we should do were then the norm. Recycling everything from milk bottle tops, newspapers jumble sales, building materials, saving energy, the list goes on and on (like I do). The progress that technology has brought, which has immeasurably enriched our lives over the last 70 years, does not require consumption to return to pre-pandemic levels.
