First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply A brief history of mankind and his likely future.
7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 2/1/15

alicia-m wrote:

I envy all those who can just sit on their ass and talk about doomsday all day everyday. Must be nice to be able to waste all that time away.

Why haven't this thread been trolled to hell and back yet? This is like asking for epic trolls.


I'm guessing that happened in Desu's other thread covering covering the same topic. He must be trying for a fresh start.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 2/1/15 , edited 2/1/15
Image here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Population_growth_rate_world_2005-2010_UN.PNG

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf

Here's the thing, you're probably tripping up because you're getting cumulative growth confused with rate of growth. No matter what, cumulative growth will always have a big impact and even if people are aware of population overgrowth you will not see this reflected in cumulative change because it takes roughly 75 or so years for people to die off.

Therefore, if you wanna see if people are reacting, look at the growth rate; see how many babies are being born on a year-by-year basis. That's what graph does--most growth rates are between <2, and significantly more are <1 (a growth of rate less than 1 means the population is getting smaller; although, depending how close to 1, it may look like it's just stabilizing).

Again, go check CIA factbook. The growth rate for 2013 for China, India, and US is .44, 1.25, and .77 respectfully. Which means, among the three biggest countries, only India's population is actually growing. Again, a rate<1 means the country is shrinking; not growing.

And lastly, there are negative feedbacks to help with population growth. For example, as more people exists in the US, less vacant jobs are available; as less jobs are available, people are less likely to afford a kid; therefore they're less likely to have a kid. I'd imagine this sort of reason is why the 2013 growth rate for the US .77 according to the CIA factbook.

lastly, according to the CIA factbook, world population growth is about 1.064% right now. Which, yes, gives us a growth rate of 1.01064 which is greater than 1. It's no negligible, since it's exponential-like growth.

Lastly, using UN/US Census estimates, look at the growth here http://blog.dssresearch.com/?p=229:


Look at this image: http://blog.dssresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/world_population_1900_to_2050.jpg

First, the blue curve. That's the cumulative change; and one thing that is strking is the fact it's already showing logistic (as opposed to pure exponential) features. Granted, the logistic regression only appears in the extrapolation, so where is that extrapolation coming from?

So we turn the red curve, and in particular, notice from 1960 to present it's been dropping. That's probably where the logistic growth is coming from, even if it's only an extrapolation.

So where does that put us? What it means that is even if population growth is an issue, you're grossly exaggerating it. It's more of a "we need to plan for having more people" than the world's population is growing out of control. This isn't even bringing in possibilities like using space travel to mine for resources or similar scenarios.

anyway, I think I said enough.
4215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Waterloo, Ontario
Offline
Posted 2/1/15 , edited 2/1/15

serifsansserif wrote:

I don't think we'll die off completely to the last man. Species go extinct, yes, but most of the extinctions I know are the result of huge cataclysms or climate shifts, or, human interference. :P

The truth is, our population is outstripping our resources. Eventually, I do see a time where the industrialized and modern world simply says "GTFO" and abandons aide to developing or developed countries.

In most developed nations, population is on a slight decline. Enough that some worry about replacement rates. The biggest offenders of overpopulation are China and India, and quite frankly our biggest chance of decimating our population comes from disease ridden Africa. I honestly was rooting for Ebola to spread like wildfire east, hop from africa to the middle east, and then slowly flood into inda and china, massacring literally billions and giving us some breathing room. It sounds horrible, but honestly, I'd rather nature choose who lies or dies than my fellow man... Which may be the case if nature doesn't find a strong enough way to intervene...

Meanwhile, o the other end of the spectrum, our technology and awareness of our impact on the earth is slowly starting to change things. We've only recently in our history grasped the actual dimensions of our earth, having finally mapped it all out. only 525 years ago did we find out there were a whole 'nother three or four continents beyond europe, africa, and asia... (and they found out about us). We only just began to study world climate change in about the last 50 or so years....

And from then to now, we're starting to slowly (by our lifetime's standards anyhow) making changes... I wouldn't be surprised if in 125 years (of we make it 125 years without completely destroying the earth beyond human habitability and overpopulation) that we end up figuring out how to terraform our home planet to our needs. (meaning creating human serving ecosystems, ect). In 200 years time, we may, just MAY be finally able to start working on terraforming other planets.

We have alternative energy, we just haven't hit peak oil hard enough to be forced into using it. we have alternatives to plastic, we have biodegradables.. we have all the tools we need.. It's just not tangibly pressing upon us enough to use it yet.


I disagree. The biggest offender to population overshoot right now is Africa. Africa is experiencing the most population growth during this century. It is projected that Africa's population will grow from 1 billion to 4 billion in this century. This will result in the extinction of most of the species in Africa, I bet. There simply isn't enough room for all of the other species on Africa if the population in Africa keeps on growing.

Here's a population pyramid of Africa.



The largest age group in the population of Nigeria is 0-4 year olds. Meaning there are many, many children being born in Nigeria and the rest of Africa.

Most of Africa is experiencing a 2 to 3% growth rate per year in population, which is very fast growth rate. The population doubles every 35 and 23 years at a 2 and 3 percentage growth rate per year. Some countries in Africa are even experiencing 4% growth rate per year meaning doubling in population every 17.5 years. Clearly this is unsustainable. It can't go on forever because you will have trillions of people within a few centuries.

But as a whole, the world's population is increasing at around 1.2% per year, which might not sound like a lot. But that means a doubling time in under 70 years. So there will be twice as many people (or around 15 billion people) in another 70 years. I cannot imagine what the world would be like in another 70 years with TWICE the current population. Like Daniel Quinn said, "I can't imagine what the world would be like with 15 billion people. There is no way we can sustain a population that large for very long".

Of course, more optimistic estimates say that the world population will "only" be 10 to 11 billion by the end of this century, and then stabilize. That's optimistic. I don't believe in optimistic scenarios. It looks like what's happening is more catastrophic environmental damage in the future. Even with "only" 7.25 billion people, we are causing catastrophic environmental damage around the world. With another 3 to 4 billion people, the damage would only be worse.

Like David Goodstein said the documentary Crude Awakening: The Oilcrash (in 2006), " I do not believe we can sustain the current population of the globe, much less the population in 20 or 30 years, without the use of petrochemicals" Without petrochemicals, can we sustain 10 to 11 billion people? That's unlikely. And according to most realistic predictions, it is highly unlikely renewable energies will be able to power industrial civilization in the future. No combination of wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, or tidal energy will be able to sustain industrial civilization in the future. This has been made very clear by the peak oil and sustainability movement. Capitalist and industrial civilization is OVER.

And terraforming Mars and other planets is highly unlikely. That's within the realm of science-fiction. We can't even manage one planet sustainably, so what makes you think we can manage other planets sustainably? I am pretty sure mankind is stuck on this one planet called Earth forever. Unless we manage to live within the limits of this planet, we are screwed.

I'm being realistic. Leaving Earth and colonizing other planets is highly unlikely. Nobody has proposed ANYTHING that can allow us to leave this planet in large numbers. We can barely leave this planet in small numbers of a dozen or so people. So what makes you think it is possible to have a mass exodus of millions or billions of people leaving the Earth to another planet many light-years away?

First of all, it may be very likely that we will never develop the technology to ever reach stars and planets light-years away. Even if we did, the people left on Earth are screwed because most people will never be able to leave Earth.

So according to all realistic predictions, mankind will forever be stuck on this ball of rock called Earth. We better keep this planet habitable because no other planets will be habitable for us.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/1/15

DesuMaiden wrote:

I disagree. The biggest offender to population overshoot right now is Africa. Africa is experiencing the most population growth during this century. It is projected that Africa's population will grow from 1 billion to 4 billion in this century. This will result in the extinction of most of the species in Africa, I bet. There simply isn't enough room for all of the other species on Africa if the population in Africa keeps on growing.

The largest age group in the population of Nigeria is 0-4 year olds. Meaning there are many, many children being born in Nigeria and the rest of Africa.

Most of Africa is experiencing a 2 to 3% growth rate per year in population, which is very fast growth rate. The population doubles every 35 and 23 years at a 2 and 3 percentage growth rate per year. Some countries in Africa are even experiencing 4% growth rate per year meaning doubling in population every 17.5 years. Clearly this is unsustainable. It can't go on forever because you will have trillions of people within a few centuries.


I was hesitant to say such, but thank you. You forget though the prevalence of disease and the high mortality rate in Nigeria specifically though as well. Hopefully these will work to lower the populations, though, to be honest, industrializaton seems to be the ticket to reversing high birth rates.


DesuMaiden wrote:

But as a whole, the world's population is increasing at around 1.2% per year, which might not sound like a lot. But that means a doubling time in under 70 years. So there will be twice as many people (or around 15 billion people) in another 70 years. I cannot imagine what the world would be like in another 70 years with TWICE the current population. Like Daniel Quinn said, "I can't imagine what the world would be like with 15 billion people. There is no way we can sustain a population that large for very long".

Of course, more optimistic estimates say that the world population will "only" be 10 to 11 billion by the end of this century, and then stabilize. That's optimistic. I don't believe in optimistic scenarios. It looks like what's happening is more catastrophic environmental damage in the future. Even with "only" 7.25 billion people, we are causing catastrophic environmental damage around the world. With another 3 to 4 billion people, the damage would only be worse.


Yes, but a lot of the existing population is aging, unlike in Africa. Part of that is due to life extension policies. We really need to start letting people die of natural causes. Not saying disease isn't bad, and needs treatment, but we go through extensive means for curing cancer and old age illnesses that we might not necessarily be doing a lot of good for.


DesuMaiden wrote:
Like David Goodstein said the documentary Crude Awakening: The Oilcrash (in 2006), " I do not believe we can sustain the current population of the globe, much less the population in 20 or 30 years, without the use of petrochemicals" Without petrochemicals, can we sustain 10 to 11 billion people? That's unlikely. And according to most realistic predictions, it is highly unlikely renewable energies will be able to power industrial civilization in the future. No combination of wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, or tidal energy will be able to sustain industrial civilization in the future. This has been made very clear by the peak oil and sustainability movement. Capitalist and industrial civilization is OVER.


Trust me, a lot of technology exists,it's just not considered "profitable" because oil is ridiculously cheap. We have more growing space for food than we think. we have ways of getting fuel from our crops, from the sun and wind, etc. We have alternatives to petroleum based plastics. We have nuclear energy yet as well. Energy and food CAN be produced.. but yes....

The big problem is indeed population.

I do not disagree with you on that. I don't think our destiny is to run ourselves completely into the ground. This is the point upon which I argue. If we can cut our numbers, or if nature does it for us, and IF oil runs out relatively soon, we stand a chance.


DesuMaiden wrote:
And terraforming Mars and other planets is highly unlikely. That's within the realm of science-fiction. We can't even manage one planet sustainably, so what makes you think we can manage other planets sustainably? I am pretty sure mankind is stuck on this one planet called Earth forever. Unless we manage to live within the limits of this planet, we are screwed.


have you read what I said correctly?

I said that we are JUST beginning to grasp solutions for our own planet. I said we'll FIRST have to terraform earth to suit our needs....

And then, and only then, will we probably be able to conquer other planets AFTER we figure out how to mold our own to our needs.


DesuMaiden wrote:

I'm being realistic. Leaving Earth and colonizing other planets is highly unlikely. Nobody has proposed ANYTHING that can allow us to leave this planet in large numbers. We can barely leave this planet in small numbers of a dozen or so people. So what makes you think it is possible to have a mass exodus of millions or billions of people leaving the Earth to another planet many light-years away?


As I said. population needs management. I believe nature will take care of it for us, but we're probably not going to go back to the stone age, nor be driven to extinction.

Secondly, I was thinking either Mars or Venus. Mars might be trickier, due to it's thinner atmosphere. On the other hand, seeding Venus with some extremophilic bacteria that love heat and sulfur and readily digest CO and CO2 to turn the atmosphere into something more habitable? I dunno. I'm just saying that if we figure out how to use nature to deal with our current situation of global warming and change, a lot of that knowledge will be applicable outside of Earth.

but yeah.. it's a crap shoot. Still, i'd rather remain that there's some hope after the inevitable disaster.
4215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Waterloo, Ontario
Offline
Posted 2/1/15

MontyDono wrote:


DesuMaiden wrote:


MontyDono wrote:

Disregard Earth, Acquire Mars

On a serious note, Depopulation is almost certainly going to be a inevitably occurrence, weather be on purpose or by nature will yet be determined.





I think the use of "Humane" options is out of the question with today's attitudes on well, anything, thing's would have to be forced unto the population

The continuing existence of an lifeform is defined by it's ability to reproduce, When that process becomes threatened, which it is by resources the species dies out, in our case we're in a position to actually find a solution and stick to it without coming to a abrupt end

With land becoming more and more confined by overpopulation, and the demand for meat production to double within 15 years, it really is now or never, by 2036 we need to make some form of decision, the chances of it being pretty are rather slim.

To view it statistically by consumption of resources and waste/enviromental damage is completely pointless, due to the population being too high to adjust sensibly.

Extinction of man seems far fetched, but civilised survival while respecting the slowly diminishing resources we have left is fragile at best.

It is really now or never. Doubling food production is really unfeasible given that we are already at the maximum amount of arable land we can possibly muster. And there is no way we can double agricultural productivity per acre of land either. There isn't going to be a second Green Revolution. We've already used up all of the tricks for doubling food supply.

We were able to triple and even quadruple food supplies in the 1950s and 1960s with the Green Revolution. Of course, the Green Revolution is highly dependent on petrochemicals (that is oil and natural gas). Without oil and natural gas, food productivity will likely decline in the future, because the only reason we can produce enough food for the current population is with oil and natural gas. Oil and natural gas are finite and nonrenewable resources. You take the oil and natural gas away you take away the food. And if you take away the food, the population goes away. That's what Michael Ruppert said.

There is also the issue of peak phosphorous. We need phosphorous to grow enough food for industrial agriculture. But phosphorous comes from phosphate rock, which is a finite resource. What happens if phosphate rocks deplete and become too scarce a resource? Food production declines, and with declining food production, an ever-growing population is in big trouble. Phosphate rocks is one of the main reasons we can grow enough food to support our massive population. Without phosphate rock, it is likely we can't grow enough food to support our massive population.

And there is also water shortages. Fresh water is in short supply. It is estimated that by 2025, 2/3 of the world will experience water shortages. Without sufficient water, we can't grow enough food. And without enough food, the population goes away. Irrigation water is especially an issue with underground fresh water tables being drained at a faster rate than they replenish.

The combination of peak oil, peak natural gas, peak phosphorous/phosphate rock and peak water are a serious threat to the ever-growing global population. All of these issues are caused by the fact that there are too many people using up too much resources. They are using up everything too quickly, and the problem is the world population only knows how to grow.

Be fruitful and multiply. We certainly did that. But we have passed our limits already, and if we don't stop, we are screwed. And no amount of technology and ingenuity can save us unless we do something about population growth. We must stop population growth or we are doomed as a species.

It isn't hard to understand. No amount of technology and ingenuity can overturn the laws of nature. The laws that govern this Earth. Mankind's greatest arrogance is his belief that technology can allow him to transcend the laws of nature and become god. It isn't that way.

The belief that mankind can just colonize other planets to solve this resource depletion issue is just an example of how delusional some people have become. There is currently no technology that allows us to colonize other planets, and it is highly unlikely we will ever colonize other planets. Period.
14233 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/1/15 , edited 2/1/15
I laughed when I saw that it was 'one of those' threads. This guy is nuts.

6407 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Hotel California
Offline
Posted 2/1/15

DesuMaiden wrote:


MontyDono wrote:


DesuMaiden wrote:


MontyDono wrote:

Disregard Earth, Acquire Mars

On a serious note, Depopulation is almost certainly going to be a inevitably occurrence, weather be on purpose or by nature will yet be determined.





I think the use of "Humane" options is out of the question with today's attitudes on well, anything, thing's would have to be forced unto the population

The continuing existence of an lifeform is defined by it's ability to reproduce, When that process becomes threatened, which it is by resources the species dies out, in our case we're in a position to actually find a solution and stick to it without coming to a abrupt end

With land becoming more and more confined by overpopulation, and the demand for meat production to double within 15 years, it really is now or never, by 2036 we need to make some form of decision, the chances of it being pretty are rather slim.

To view it statistically by consumption of resources and waste/enviromental damage is completely pointless, due to the population being too high to adjust sensibly.

Extinction of man seems far fetched, but civilised survival while respecting the slowly diminishing resources we have left is fragile at best.

It is really now or never. Doubling food production is really unfeasible given that we are already at the maximum amount of arable land we can possibly muster. And there is no way we can double agricultural productivity per acre of land either. There isn't going to be a second Green Revolution. We've already used up all of the tricks for doubling food supply.

We were able to triple and even quadruple food supplies in the 1950s and 1960s with the Green Revolution. Of course, the Green Revolution is highly dependent on petrochemicals (that is oil and natural gas). Without oil and natural gas, food productivity will likely decline in the future, because the only reason we can produce enough food for the current population is with oil and natural gas. Oil and natural gas are finite and nonrenewable resources. You take the oil and natural gas away you take away the food. And if you take away the food, the population goes away. That's what Michael Ruppert said.

There is also the issue of peak phosphorous. We need phosphorous to grow enough food for industrial agriculture. But phosphorous comes from phosphate rock, which is a finite resource. What happens if phosphate rocks deplete and become too scarce a resource? Food production declines, and with declining food production, an ever-growing population is in big trouble. Phosphate rocks is one of the main reasons we can grow enough food to support our massive population. Without phosphate rock, it is likely we can't grow enough food to support our massive population.

And there is also water shortages. Fresh water is in short supply. It is estimated that by 2025, 2/3 of the world will experience water shortages. Without sufficient water, we can't grow enough food. And without enough food, the population goes away. Irrigation water is especially an issue with underground fresh water tables being drained at a faster rate than they replenish.

The combination of peak oil, peak natural gas, peak phosphorous/phosphate rock and peak water are a serious threat to the ever-growing global population. All of these issues are caused by the fact that there are too many people using up too much resources. They are using up everything too quickly, and the problem is the world population only knows how to grow.

Be fruitful and multiply. We certainly did that. But we have passed our limits already, and if we don't stop, we are screwed. And no amount of technology and ingenuity can save us unless we do something about population growth. We must stop population growth or we are doomed as a species.

It isn't hard to understand. No amount of technology and ingenuity can overturn the laws of nature. The laws that govern this Earth. Mankind's greatest arrogance is his belief that technology can allow him to transcend the laws of nature and become god. It isn't that way.

The belief that mankind can just colonize other planets to solve this resource depletion issue is just an example of how delusional some people have become. There is currently no technology that allows us to colonize other planets, and it is highly unlikely we will ever colonize other planets. Period.


I understand your reasoning, but the solution is just too unethical. You want to kill off family lines? Erase their lineage? Who decides who can reproduce? The rich? Any division of humans seems wrong and there is no one on this earth with enough ethos that could make the decision without a rebellion from billions of people. I get the issue, but the solution's brutality is equal is Hitler's Final Solution , just in a less direct approach.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/1/15

DesuMaiden wrote:


MontyDono wrote:


DesuMaiden wrote:


MontyDono wrote:

Disregard Earth, Acquire Mars

On a serious note, Depopulation is almost certainly going to be a inevitably occurrence, weather be on purpose or by nature will yet be determined.





I think the use of "Humane" options is out of the question with today's attitudes on well, anything, thing's would have to be forced unto the population

The continuing existence of an lifeform is defined by it's ability to reproduce, When that process becomes threatened, which it is by resources the species dies out, in our case we're in a position to actually find a solution and stick to it without coming to a abrupt end

With land becoming more and more confined by overpopulation, and the demand for meat production to double within 15 years, it really is now or never, by 2036 we need to make some form of decision, the chances of it being pretty are rather slim.

To view it statistically by consumption of resources and waste/enviromental damage is completely pointless, due to the population being too high to adjust sensibly.

Extinction of man seems far fetched, but civilised survival while respecting the slowly diminishing resources we have left is fragile at best.

It is really now or never. Doubling food production is really unfeasible given that we are already at the maximum amount of arable land we can possibly muster. And there is no way we can double agricultural productivity per acre of land either. There isn't going to be a second Green Revolution. We've already used up all of the tricks for doubling food supply.

We were able to triple and even quadruple food supplies in the 1950s and 1960s with the Green Revolution. Of course, the Green Revolution is highly dependent on petrochemicals (that is oil and natural gas). Without oil and natural gas, food productivity will likely decline in the future, because the only reason we can produce enough food for the current population is with oil and natural gas. Oil and natural gas are finite and nonrenewable resources. You take the oil and natural gas away you take away the food. And if you take away the food, the population goes away. That's what Michael Ruppert said.

There is also the issue of peak phosphorous. We need phosphorous to grow enough food for industrial agriculture. But phosphorous comes from phosphate rock, which is a finite resource. What happens if phosphate rocks deplete and become too scarce a resource? Food production declines, and with declining food production, an ever-growing population is in big trouble. Phosphate rocks is one of the main reasons we can grow enough food to support our massive population. Without phosphate rock, it is likely we can't grow enough food to support our massive population.

And there is also water shortages. Fresh water is in short supply. It is estimated that by 2025, 2/3 of the world will experience water shortages. Without sufficient water, we can't grow enough food. And without enough food, the population goes away. Irrigation water is especially an issue with underground fresh water tables being drained at a faster rate than they replenish.

The combination of peak oil, peak natural gas, peak phosphorous/phosphate rock and peak water are a serious threat to the ever-growing global population. All of these issues are caused by the fact that there are too many people using up too much resources. They are using up everything too quickly, and the problem is the world population only knows how to grow.

Be fruitful and multiply. We certainly did that. But we have passed our limits already, and if we don't stop, we are screwed. And no amount of technology and ingenuity can save us unless we do something about population growth. We must stop population growth or we are doomed as a species.

It isn't hard to understand. No amount of technology and ingenuity can overturn the laws of nature. The laws that govern this Earth. Mankind's greatest arrogance is his belief that technology can allow him to transcend the laws of nature and become god. It isn't that way.

The belief that mankind can just colonize other planets to solve this resource depletion issue is just an example of how delusional some people have become. There is currently no technology that allows us to colonize other planets, and it is highly unlikely we will ever colonize other planets. Period.


Phosphorus, like nitrogen, cycles. As a gardener who leans towards organic means, I can tell you my nitrogen tends to come from cover crops and legumes, and my phosphorus comes from bone meal. Potassium is actually harder to come by organically, and typically your ideal NPK ratios are 3-1-2 with phosphorus being the least needed of the three. In fact, the problem with algae blooms in the streams is too much damned phosphorus being used.

Also there's a trend towards more growing to be done in urban settings, including rooftop space, back yards, etc. Then there's vertical gardening, which DOES give you more growing space per square foot because you're going up, not out....

THEN , on top of that, traditional farming is very inefficient both in the fact that it doesn't use composted material (remember, it all cycles), and its usage of space tends to rely on 3 ft. between rows to allow giant machines to do all the work for us. You can easily interplant and use better geometries in figuring out spacing in order to maximize what you get out of your space... It's just machinery right now can't handle the work.

Finally, if you do like the chinese, you grow rice, then you keep ducks on the farm. The ducks eat insects that eat the rice, keeping the rice relatively pest free. Then when the rice is grown, you also have ducks that you raised that are ready to eat.

Then there's farm animals and what we can switch to that's less land intensive.. Like sheep instead of cows.(sheep don't eat as deeply into the fields as cows, leaving more plant to regrow, plus less shit per animal, and less space needed. Plus you get wool, milk, and meat.) And rabbits instead of chickens. (rabbits are leaner and healthier to eat, easier to slaughter and can be kept in urban environments. I think they can also handle certain vegetation better or something about their digestion fits better with eating our veggie scraps or something, and rabbit shit an be added directly to your garden unlike chicken shit which is too "hot" (nitrogen or phosphorus rich which in turns kills your plants when it's not aged). meaning your nutrients recycle faster).

Then there's mushrooms.... XD

Mushrooms can grow on compost and aid in breaking down organic matter into usable additives to your gardens, PLUS give you food. Some also live off of wood and paper mulch meaning other biproducts of your every day live can be turned into food. And, theoretically if you use compost instead of plastic mulches, you can grow mushrooms to retain moisture and nutrients while you are growing as well.

Trust me. We have ways. We're just really shitty about putting them into practice until we absolutely must.

Oh yeah. Mushrooms can grow in (mostly) darkness, so there's been plans about converting underground or basement areas into grow areas for fungi.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/1/15

ChaoticRuins wrote:

I understand your reasoning, but the solution is just too unethical. You want to kill off family lines? Erase their lineage? Who decides who can reproduce? The rich? Any division of humans seems wrong and there is no one on this earth with enough ethos that could make the decision without a rebellion from billions of people. I get the issue, but the solution's brutality is equal is Hitler's Final Solution , just in a less direct approach.


And that's precisely why I'm rooting for ebola. I'd rather nature be the hand of fate than allow humans to pick and choose.

It's HORRIBLE... and admit it, but it's true. we need populations to go down. I'd just rather not let that power rest in the hands of human beings.
6407 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Hotel California
Offline
Posted 2/1/15

serifsansserif wrote:


ChaoticRuins wrote:

I understand your reasoning, but the solution is just too unethical. You want to kill off family lines? Erase their lineage? Who decides who can reproduce? The rich? Any division of humans seems wrong and there is no one on this earth with enough ethos that could make the decision without a rebellion from billions of people. I get the issue, but the solution's brutality is equal is Hitler's Final Solution , just in a less direct approach.


And that's precisely why I'm rooting for ebola. I'd rather nature be the hand of fate than allow humans to pick and choose.

It's HORRIBLE... and admit it, but it's true. we need populations to go down. I'd just rather not let that power rest in the hands of human beings.

I guess your right, but it doesn't make me feel better at all about it.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/1/15

ChaoticRuins wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:


ChaoticRuins wrote:

I understand your reasoning, but the solution is just too unethical. You want to kill off family lines? Erase their lineage? Who decides who can reproduce? The rich? Any division of humans seems wrong and there is no one on this earth with enough ethos that could make the decision without a rebellion from billions of people. I get the issue, but the solution's brutality is equal is Hitler's Final Solution , just in a less direct approach.


And that's precisely why I'm rooting for ebola. I'd rather nature be the hand of fate than allow humans to pick and choose.

It's HORRIBLE... and admit it, but it's true. we need populations to go down. I'd just rather not let that power rest in the hands of human beings.

I guess your right, but it doesn't make me feel better at all about it.

Nor I.. Nor the OP, but I guess I kinda feel like I', in the middle ground between you two.. :P
4215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Waterloo, Ontario
Offline
Posted 2/1/15

ChaoticRuins wrote:


DesuMaiden wrote:


MontyDono wrote:


DesuMaiden wrote:


MontyDono wrote:

Disregard Earth, Acquire Mars

On a serious note, Depopulation is almost certainly going to be a inevitably occurrence, weather be on purpose or by nature will yet be determined.





I think the use of "Humane" options is out of the question with today's attitudes on well, anything, thing's would have to be forced unto the population

The continuing existence of an lifeform is defined by it's ability to reproduce, When that process becomes threatened, which it is by resources the species dies out, in our case we're in a position to actually find a solution and stick to it without coming to a abrupt end

With land becoming more and more confined by overpopulation, and the demand for meat production to double within 15 years, it really is now or never, by 2036 we need to make some form of decision, the chances of it being pretty are rather slim.

To view it statistically by consumption of resources and waste/enviromental damage is completely pointless, due to the population being too high to adjust sensibly.

Extinction of man seems far fetched, but civilised survival while respecting the slowly diminishing resources we have left is fragile at best.

It is really now or never. Doubling food production is really unfeasible given that we are already at the maximum amount of arable land we can possibly muster. And there is no way we can double agricultural productivity per acre of land either. There isn't going to be a second Green Revolution. We've already used up all of the tricks for doubling food supply.

We were able to triple and even quadruple food supplies in the 1950s and 1960s with the Green Revolution. Of course, the Green Revolution is highly dependent on petrochemicals (that is oil and natural gas). Without oil and natural gas, food productivity will likely decline in the future, because the only reason we can produce enough food for the current population is with oil and natural gas. Oil and natural gas are finite and nonrenewable resources. You take the oil and natural gas away you take away the food. And if you take away the food, the population goes away. That's what Michael Ruppert said.

There is also the issue of peak phosphorous. We need phosphorous to grow enough food for industrial agriculture. But phosphorous comes from phosphate rock, which is a finite resource. What happens if phosphate rocks deplete and become too scarce a resource? Food production declines, and with declining food production, an ever-growing population is in big trouble. Phosphate rocks is one of the main reasons we can grow enough food to support our massive population. Without phosphate rock, it is likely we can't grow enough food to support our massive population.

And there is also water shortages. Fresh water is in short supply. It is estimated that by 2025, 2/3 of the world will experience water shortages. Without sufficient water, we can't grow enough food. And without enough food, the population goes away. Irrigation water is especially an issue with underground fresh water tables being drained at a faster rate than they replenish.

The combination of peak oil, peak natural gas, peak phosphorous/phosphate rock and peak water are a serious threat to the ever-growing global population. All of these issues are caused by the fact that there are too many people using up too much resources. They are using up everything too quickly, and the problem is the world population only knows how to grow.

Be fruitful and multiply. We certainly did that. But we have passed our limits already, and if we don't stop, we are screwed. And no amount of technology and ingenuity can save us unless we do something about population growth. We must stop population growth or we are doomed as a species.

It isn't hard to understand. No amount of technology and ingenuity can overturn the laws of nature. The laws that govern this Earth. Mankind's greatest arrogance is his belief that technology can allow him to transcend the laws of nature and become god. It isn't that way.

The belief that mankind can just colonize other planets to solve this resource depletion issue is just an example of how delusional some people have become. There is currently no technology that allows us to colonize other planets, and it is highly unlikely we will ever colonize other planets. Period.


I understand your reasoning, but the solution is just too unethical. You want to kill off family lines? Erase their lineage? Who decides who can reproduce? The rich? Any division of humans seems wrong and there is no one on this earth with enough ethos that could make the decision without a rebellion from billions of people. I get the issue, but the solution's brutality is equal is Hitler's Final Solution , just in a less direct approach.

I never said to kill off entire family lines. I just said to reduce the fertility rate of people which is entirely voluntarily and painless. Nobody needs to force people to not reproduce. What I'm proposing is this. Just everyone realizes that further population growth is no longer possible. And then everyone reduces the fertility rate to below replacement level. Nobody is forcing you to not reproduce. If everyone decided to have just one or two children, then the fertility rate will naturally decrease, and the population will naturally decrease overtime.

You can do that. Or you can keep on increasing population until disease, famine and war reduces the population. I would rather have people voluntarily decide to have fewer children to decrease population than people being forced to reduce population through war, famine and disease. That's the issue we are facing. Imagine how painful a population reduction through war, famine and disease would be.

Nobody is forcing you to not reproduce. If people voluntarily chose to not have more than one or two kids, then the world population will naturally reduce over a few centuries, and the world would be a much better place as a result.

Realistically that's unlikely, and more realistically the population will probably only decrease as a result of war, famine and disease. Overshoot and die-off seems to be the only option for the population to be reduced back down to a level the Earth can handle. That's far worse than voluntarily choosing to only have 1 or 2 children and voluntarily decreasing the population through responsible reproduction. Rather than recklessly reproducing, continually increasing population, until the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the Earth, and then the population experiences a die-off.
6407 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Hotel California
Offline
Posted 2/1/15

DesuMaiden wrote:


ChaoticRuins wrote:


DesuMaiden wrote:


MontyDono wrote:


DesuMaiden wrote:


MontyDono wrote:

Disregard Earth, Acquire Mars

On a serious note, Depopulation is almost certainly going to be a inevitably occurrence, weather be on purpose or by nature will yet be determined.





I think the use of "Humane" options is out of the question with today's attitudes on well, anything, thing's would have to be forced unto the population

The continuing existence of an lifeform is defined by it's ability to reproduce, When that process becomes threatened, which it is by resources the species dies out, in our case we're in a position to actually find a solution and stick to it without coming to a abrupt end

With land becoming more and more confined by overpopulation, and the demand for meat production to double within 15 years, it really is now or never, by 2036 we need to make some form of decision, the chances of it being pretty are rather slim.

To view it statistically by consumption of resources and waste/enviromental damage is completely pointless, due to the population being too high to adjust sensibly.

Extinction of man seems far fetched, but civilised survival while respecting the slowly diminishing resources we have left is fragile at best.

It is really now or never. Doubling food production is really unfeasible given that we are already at the maximum amount of arable land we can possibly muster. And there is no way we can double agricultural productivity per acre of land either. There isn't going to be a second Green Revolution. We've already used up all of the tricks for doubling food supply.

We were able to triple and even quadruple food supplies in the 1950s and 1960s with the Green Revolution. Of course, the Green Revolution is highly dependent on petrochemicals (that is oil and natural gas). Without oil and natural gas, food productivity will likely decline in the future, because the only reason we can produce enough food for the current population is with oil and natural gas. Oil and natural gas are finite and nonrenewable resources. You take the oil and natural gas away you take away the food. And if you take away the food, the population goes away. That's what Michael Ruppert said.

There is also the issue of peak phosphorous. We need phosphorous to grow enough food for industrial agriculture. But phosphorous comes from phosphate rock, which is a finite resource. What happens if phosphate rocks deplete and become too scarce a resource? Food production declines, and with declining food production, an ever-growing population is in big trouble. Phosphate rocks is one of the main reasons we can grow enough food to support our massive population. Without phosphate rock, it is likely we can't grow enough food to support our massive population.

And there is also water shortages. Fresh water is in short supply. It is estimated that by 2025, 2/3 of the world will experience water shortages. Without sufficient water, we can't grow enough food. And without enough food, the population goes away. Irrigation water is especially an issue with underground fresh water tables being drained at a faster rate than they replenish.

The combination of peak oil, peak natural gas, peak phosphorous/phosphate rock and peak water are a serious threat to the ever-growing global population. All of these issues are caused by the fact that there are too many people using up too much resources. They are using up everything too quickly, and the problem is the world population only knows how to grow.

Be fruitful and multiply. We certainly did that. But we have passed our limits already, and if we don't stop, we are screwed. And no amount of technology and ingenuity can save us unless we do something about population growth. We must stop population growth or we are doomed as a species.

It isn't hard to understand. No amount of technology and ingenuity can overturn the laws of nature. The laws that govern this Earth. Mankind's greatest arrogance is his belief that technology can allow him to transcend the laws of nature and become god. It isn't that way.

The belief that mankind can just colonize other planets to solve this resource depletion issue is just an example of how delusional some people have become. There is currently no technology that allows us to colonize other planets, and it is highly unlikely we will ever colonize other planets. Period.


I understand your reasoning, but the solution is just too unethical. You want to kill off family lines? Erase their lineage? Who decides who can reproduce? The rich? Any division of humans seems wrong and there is no one on this earth with enough ethos that could make the decision without a rebellion from billions of people. I get the issue, but the solution's brutality is equal is Hitler's Final Solution , just in a less direct approach.

I never said to kill off entire family lines. I just said to reduce the fertility rate of people which is entirely voluntarily and painless. Nobody needs to force people to not reproduce. What I'm proposing is this. Just everyone realizes that further population growth is no longer possible. And then everyone reduces the fertility rate to below replacement level. Nobody is forcing you to not reproduce. If everyone decided to have just one or two children, then the fertility rate will naturally decrease, and the population will naturally decrease overtime.

You can do that. Or you can keep on increasing population until disease, famine and war reduces the population. I would rather have people voluntarily decide to have fewer children to decrease population than people being forced to reduce population through war, famine and disease. That's the issue we are facing. Imagine how painful a population reduction through war, famine and disease would be.

Nobody is forcing you to not reproduce. If people voluntarily chose to not have more than one or two kids, then the world population will naturally reduce over a few centuries, and the world would be a much better place as a result.

Realistically that's unlikely, and more realistically the population will probably only decrease as a result of war, famine and disease. Overshoot and die-off seems to be the only option for the population to be reduced back down to a level the Earth can handle. That's far worse than voluntarily choosing to only have 1 or 2 children and voluntarily decreasing the population through responsible reproduction. Rather than recklessly reproducing, continually increasing population, until the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the Earth, and then the population experiences a die-off.

Ah, I see. That's not so bad! I can definitely understand a 1-2 child limit!
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 2/1/15

DesuMaiden wrote:
I never said to kill off entire family lines. I just said to reduce the fertility rate of people which is entirely voluntarily and painless. Nobody needs to force people to not reproduce. What I'm proposing is this. Just everyone realizes that further population growth is no longer possible. And then everyone reduces the fertility rate to below replacement level. Nobody is forcing you to not reproduce. If everyone decided to have just one or two children, then the fertility rate will naturally decrease, and the population will naturally decrease overtime.

You can do that. Or you can keep on increasing population until disease, famine and war reduces the population. I would rather have people voluntarily decide to have fewer children to decrease population than people being forced to reduce population through war, famine and disease. That's the issue we are facing. Imagine how painful a population reduction through war, famine and disease would be.

Nobody is forcing you to not reproduce. If people voluntarily chose to not have more than one or two kids, then the world population will naturally reduce over a few centuries, and the world would be a much better place as a result.

Realistically that's unlikely, and more realistically the population will probably only decrease as a result of war, famine and disease. Overshoot and die-off seems to be the only option for the population to be reduced back down to a level the Earth can handle. That's far worse than voluntarily choosing to only have 1 or 2 children and voluntarily decreasing the population through responsible reproduction. Rather than recklessly reproducing, continually increasing population, until the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the Earth, and then the population experiences a die-off.


Seriously.. cut down on your quotes...

Anyway, if you're in front of a computer, chances are you aren't part of the problem. Birth rates aren't high in the developed world, and, in fact, are equal to or less than what you're proposing.

So........
4215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Waterloo, Ontario
Offline
Posted 2/1/15

CoffeeGodEddy wrote:

I laughed when I saw that it was 'one of those' threads. This guy is nuts.



I have already shown evidence that a doomsday level scenario is about to occur. It doesn't matter if you don't believe this. It is happening. You can either take the preparations to prepare for this event. Or you can continue your foolish ways and perish. It is that simple. Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it will never happen. Just because something never happened before to the human race doesn't mean it can't ever happen.

Many wise people have already seen the collapse of industrial civilization in the future. They warn the masses, but the masses choose to ignore the warning signs. The masses continue business as usual, which results in the collapse being worse than it needs to be. The collapse of industrial civilization will happen (because of fossil fuel depletion). And the best thing you can do is prepare for it. The worst thing you can do is ignore the collapse, and continue business as usual (continue increasing human population). And bam, you are screwed when there are too many people and not enough resources.

Doubling food supply is not feasible. So doubling population is not feasible and very unlikely. If you double population again, there will be less and less resources for everyone. Everyone will end up as poorer and poorer. And the gap between the rich and poor will only increase. Especially since it is mostly the poor that are reproducing, so the poor will only end up poorer. Having more children doesn't make you richer, but poorer because the Earth's finite resources need to be divided amongst even more people. It is simple math. The world isn't going to ever have more resources. Double the population means everyone only gets half as much as they used to have.

Nevertheless, I doubt we will double the population to 15 billion. It will be the end of humanity if we double the population. Or at least the end of civilized life as the world descends into chaos, anarchy, war,, famine, starvation and death.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.