First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Will we make it to the 22nd century?
8524 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/15
No. its best that everyones kills themselves and let animals live peacefully.
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/13/15

ILuvCats11 wrote:

No. its best that everyones kills themselves and let animals live peacefully.


You first
37230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/15
Probably. I think technology has reached the point that no matter what catastrophe happens, humans will be able to adapt. Heck, nations are already looking forward to the poles melting so that new trade routes can be opened.
28100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15

Dariamus wrote:
There is a difference between technological capability and economic will.

The societies with the technology will not expend the resources necessary to feed the world's poor.


Then why the heck are you worried about overpopulation? The problem is solving itself all on its own. Funny how that works. Also, in these "poorer" countries you go on and on about, they are not as bad off as you think. Life expectancy is getting higher and higher even in THOSE areas. India in the past 30 years has gained a 20 years in life expectancy. Can't do that if all the new people being born there are starving to death, now can you? Honestly, you sound like you support the sterilization of people you deem "inferior to handle the worlds problems." I hope I am wrong. :/
31878 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15

Orga777 wrote:
Then why the heck are you worried about overpopulation? The problem is solving itself all on its own. Funny how that works. Also, in these "poorer" countries you go on and on about, they are not as bad off as you think. Life expectancy is getting higher and higher even in THOSE areas. India in the past 30 years has gained a 20 years in life expectancy. Can't do that if all the new people being born there are starving to death, now can you?

Agree

The richer people are (in general) the less children they have. Its a proven fact. By bringing the world out of poverty, and improving infant and child health across the world as well as education, we will easily take care of our population problem. Indeed, we are already seeing it today. Health and Education are the key tools for bringing people out of poverty; not food aid.

Oh yes, and on topic, Humanity most certainly will exist in 85 years. Climate Change, Meteors, Nuclear Holocaust won't cause all of humanity to die off... there will still be stranglers....
1424 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / The Cosmos
Offline
Posted 7/13/15

JerThaBear wrote:

With so much weird and dangerous shit happening in the world, I've been wondering about whether or not we'll make it to 2100 (the 22nd century) recently.

So, tell me, what do you think?

I honestly have no idea. :3


Of course, look at all the other weird and dangerous stuff that's happened in the past. It's all led to great advancements, but sadly they were all at great costs. Maybe it's just a sacrifice that has to be made to evolve as humans
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15

Orga777 wrote:


Dariamus wrote:
There is a difference between technological capability and economic will.

The societies with the technology will not expend the resources necessary to feed the world's poor.


Then why the heck are you worried about overpopulation? The problem is solving itself all on its own. Funny how that works. Also, in these "poorer" countries you go on and on about, they are not as bad off as you think. Life expectancy is getting higher and higher even in THOSE areas. India in the past 30 years has gained a 20 years in life expectancy. Can't do that if all the new people being born there are starving to death, now can you? Honestly, you sound like you support the sterilization of people you deem "inferior to handle the worlds problems." I hope I am wrong. :/



Dariamus wrote:The population explosion is almost entirely confined to the areas least able to deal with the problem. We provide medicine to the worlds poor, while they lack the education/incentives for family planning.


I support education (in the general sense). Higher education is the one truly effective form of birth control.

Universal higher education is difficult in even the wealthiest countries, all but impossible in rural areas of India and Africa.
28100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/15

Dariamus wrote:



Dariamus wrote:The population explosion is almost entirely confined to the areas least able to deal with the problem. We provide medicine to the worlds poor, while they lack the education/incentives for family planning.



I didn't know medicine stopped people from starving to death, which is the WHOLE POINT of over population! :O

I wish I could have this magic medicine that stops people from starving to death. it will save me a ton on groceries...
42457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 7/13/15
See you guys in the year 3000.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15

Orga777 wrote:
I didn't know medicine stopped people from starving to death, which is the WHOLE POINT of over population! :O

I wish I could have this magic medicine that stops people from starving to death. it will save me a ton on groceries...


Medicine has drastically lowered infant mortality rates in even the most underdeveloped countries, increasing the percentage of children reaching child bearing age.

Widespread food crises are a separate issue, one exacerbated by increasing population. Other issues worsened by increasing population pressures include environmental damage, poverty, conflict, and disease (ebola? H5N1?). These issues in turn impact more developed societies as massive numbers of immigrants flee from problems beyond their cultures ability to solve.

28100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15

Dariamus wrote:
Medicine has drastically lowered infant mortality rates in even the most underdeveloped countries, increasing the percentage of children reaching child bearing age.
That is a good thing, bro. Also, child bearing age is 14 in most of these countries because of the lower life expectancy. Again. Unless magic medicine STOPS people from starving to death, than life expectancy is not going to go up 20+ years PER PERSON in only three decades.


Widespread food crises are a separate issue, one exacerbated by increasing population. Other issues worsened by increasing population pressures include environmental damage, poverty, conflict, and disease (ebola? H5N1?). These issues in turn impact more developed societies as massive numbers of immigrants flee from problems beyond their cultures ability to solve.


Conflict? Really dude? Are you really going the conflict route with expanded populations? When World War I happened the population was under 2 billion people. How many people died in World War I again? Or how about this. How many people did just the Mongols kill? Or how about Alexander the Great? How much war and conflict was there in these lower population days? A growing population usually equates to LESS CONFLICT, not more. There are less wars now than in any other point in history, despite the sensational news reports. A growing population means that resources are being used and developed that make life better for EVERYONE.

Diseases? Diseases are only a big deal in destitute countries like in Africa (which really don't have a serious growing birth rate OR high life expectancy.) Ebola is only a big deal in counties which have minimal resources, which is why the dumb Ebola scare was overblown to epic proportions. Just like every other "it is the new Flu Pandemic of 1918!!!1!!!!111" that we get every single year that continues to be wrong every single year. Speaking of which, what was the world population in 1918 again? Definitely not as high as it is now, and yet nobody is dying by the millions by disease even in African countries like when that happened.... weird...

Immigrants and refugees from torn up nations? You mean something that has happened since human civilization has began? Please try again.

And if a growing population and a food shortage coincided, why is there enough food to feed 10 Billion people on the planet? And the efficiency at food production gets better and better every couple of years?

Same thing about poverty. Growing population means that the country is growing and getting more rich in a work force and in resources. This always coincides with each other.

The only one you have a slight case for is environmental aspects. However, that can be solved when the economic growth stabilizes and technology advances in the once poor nations. Which is a good thing that third world and second world nations can get out of the doldrums. Again. You sound like an elitist sterilization supporter. Just like a certain infamous historical dictator you may know of... Who had red bands on his soldier's arms that rounded up all the people he deemed inferior and didn't deserve to live...

7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15

Orga777 wrote:


Dariamus wrote:
Medicine has drastically lowered infant mortality rates in even the most underdeveloped countries, increasing the percentage of children reaching child bearing age.
That is a good thing, bro. Also, child bearing age is 14 in most of these countries because of the lower life expectancy. Again. Unless magic medicine STOPS people from starving to death, than life expectancy is not going to go up 20+ years PER PERSON in only three decades.


Widespread food crises are a separate issue, one exacerbated by increasing population. Other issues worsened by increasing population pressures include environmental damage, poverty, conflict, and disease (ebola? H5N1?). These issues in turn impact more developed societies as massive numbers of immigrants flee from problems beyond their cultures ability to solve.


Conflict? Really dude? Are you really going the conflict route with expanded populations? When World War I happened the population was under 2 billion people. How many people died in World War I again? Or how about this. How many people did just the Mongols kill? Or how about Alexander the Great? How much war and conflict was there in these lower population days? A growing population usually equates to LESS CONFLICT, not more. There are less wars now than in any other point in history, despite the sensational news reports. A growing population means that resources are being used and developed that make life better for EVERYONE.

Conflicts are typically driven by limited resources. Population growth increases resource scarcity / technology increases resource availability. Which side of the equation you sit on generally depends on where you live, but the pressure has existed for as long as humans have.


Diseases? Diseases are only a big deal in destitute countries like in Africa (which really don't have a serious growing birth rate OR high life expectancy.) Ebola is only a big deal in counties which have minimal resources, which is why the dumb Ebola scare was overblown to epic proportions. Just like every other "it is the new Flu Pandemic of 1918!!!1!!!!111" that we get every single year that continues to be wrong every single year. Speaking of which, what was the world population in 1918 again? Definitely not as high as it is now, and yet nobody is dying by the millions by disease even in African countries like when that happened.... weird...

Increased population density results in both increased frequency of new viruses emerging and increased infection rates. This is not limited to destitute countries, H5N1 is Asian in origin, with new strains appearing annually. It is only a matter of time before new strains as virulent as the flu of 1918 appear, and god help all of us when it happens. With modern population densities and transportation networks, half the developed world could be exposed before a vaccine is mass produced.

This is why controls on Ebola infected areas were so important, if the disease reached a densely populated city it would have been impossible to contain. The dead would have totaled in the millions.


Immigrants and refugees from torn up nations? You mean something that has happened since human civilization has began? Please try again.

Turn the news on. The problem gets worse every year.


And if a growing population and a food shortage coincided, why is there enough food to feed 10 Billion people on the planet? And the efficiency at food production gets better and better every couple of years?

The technology exists to feed far more than 10 billion. The economic incentive does not.

Vertical farming and desalination plants could feed the world a dozen times over, but who's going to pay for it?


Same thing about poverty. Growing population means that the country is growing and getting more rich in a work force and in resources. This always coincides with each other.

Increasing the population in a society lacking infrastructure, education and resources does not increase wealth. It places a greater strain on the limited resources already available.


The only one you have a slight case for is environmental aspects. However, that can be solved when the economic growth stabilizes and technology advances in the once poor nations. Which is a good thing that third world and second world nations can get out of the doldrums. Again. You sound like an elitist sterilization supporter. Just like a certain infamous historical dictator you may know of... Who had red bands on his soldier's arms that rounded up all the people he deemed inferior and didn't deserve to live...


No, just someone who acknowledges we live in a society that is unwilling to deal with problems until well past the tipping point. The real solutions require long term commitment, economic sacrifice by the wealthiest nations and natural population decreases as a result of increased global education and changes in culture of many 3rd world nations. Long term solutions for long term problems.

As an aside: government restrictions on birth rates don't work. Just look as the issues caused by China's on child policy. Education does: educated women will, on average, choose to have fewer children. No coercion required. This is called a natural population decrease. No government supports a natural population decrease. It is an economic problem currently faced by Japan and many nations in Europe. America escapes the problem of a natural population decrease only due to immigration. Middle class America does have a birth rate below 2.1.

28100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15

Dariamus wrote:

Conflicts are typically driven by limited resources. Population growth increases resource scarcity / technology increases resource availability. Which side of the equation you sit on generally depends on where you live, but the pressure has existed for as long as humans have.


Right. And considering the whole world isn't warring with each other over resources proves that your comments in this area are completely unfounded.



Increased population density results in both increased frequency of new viruses emerging and increased infection rates. This is not limited to destitute countries, H5N1 is Asian in origin, with new strains appearing annually. It is only a matter of time before new strains as virulent as the flu of 1918 appear, and god help all of us when it happens. With modern population densities and transportation networks, half the developed world could be exposed before a vaccine is mass produced.

This is why controls on Ebola infected areas were so important, if the disease reached a densely populated city it would have been impossible to contain. The dead would have totaled in the millions.


Correction. It increases the frequency of new diseases that are eventually handled with limit issue. Your precious H5N1? A whole 608 cases... WORLD WIDE. I don't even want the Asian percentage of infected because the number is so hilariously small that it isn't even worth noting. The only people that think it is a problem are the fear mongering morons on the news that like to rile up uninformed masses that the crisis is a big deal. Also, sorry, dude, but world wide heath organizations are so good at what they do that another 1918 outbreak will not happen.

Also, keep over blowing Ebola, dude. One of the nurses that came back was on the plane. However, people that don't know how Ebola spreads keep perpetuating the myth that it is going to spread super easily. When it takes contact with bodily fluids to spread the disease. So, someone is sneezing and spitting or bleeding on people all over the place, and then all those people do that same to everyone and so on, then, yes. It would be in the millions.


Turn the news on. The problem gets worse every year.


Well, there is your problem. You are watching the rating hunting 24 Hours News Cycle. Instead of doing actual research. It isn't as widespread as you think it is. Yeah, countries are taking in more refugees, but you are over blowing the severity.


Vertical farming and desalination plants could feed the world a dozen times over, but who's going to pay for it?


I am not talking about that. I am talking about right now this second. Populations don't grow without food or resources. This is a fact.


Increasing the population in a society lacking infrastructure, education and resources does not increase wealth. It places a greater strain on the resources already available


Wrong. A growing population makes the infrastructure BETTER. Have you been keeping up with China in the past couple decades? I know that nation of 1 Billion people isn't starving or straining their infrastructure, which they continually build up. You don't seem to understand that in order to increase resources, they have to GROW UP and STABILIZE first.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15

Orga777 wrote:
Right. And considering the whole world isn't warring with each other over resources proves that your comments in this area are completely unfounded.

Which side of the equation you sit on depends on the country you are in. Developed countries can make more efficient usage of limited resources, such as land. Less developed countries are warring over resources: for example, much of Africa.



Also, keep over blowing Ebola, dude. One of the nurses that came back was on the plane. However, people that don't know how Ebola spreads keep perpetuating the myth that it is going to spread super easily. When it takes contact with bodily fluids to spread the disease. Unless someone is sneezing and spitting or bleeding on people all over the place, and then all those people do that same to everyone and so on, then, yes. It would be in the millions.

Ebola spreads through contact with bodily fluids. A relatively limited means of transmission until it hits the general population.H5N1 is highly contagious and airborn, but treatable. the low number of fatalities is a testament to how serious governments took the problem. It is only a matter of time before another virus appears that is airborn, highly communicable, and lethal. It's happened before, many times, it will happen again. Imagine something like smallpox or the 1918 flu strain hitting todays much larger population.


Well, there is your problem. You are watching the rating hunting 24 Hours News Cycle. Instead of doing actual research. It isn't as widespread as you think it is. Yeah, countries are taking in more refugees, but you are over blowing the severity.

There are countries in Europe that experienced up to a 70% increase in illegal immigrants over 2013. Mostly fleeing conflicts in Africa. The rate of illegal immigrants this year is already exceeding last years.


I am not talking about that. I am talking about right now this second. Populations don't grow without food or resources. This is a fact.



Malnourishment rates up to 33% in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet experiencing population growth.


Wrong. A growing population makes the infrastructure BETTER. Have you been keeping up with China in the past couple decades? I know that nation of 1 Billion people isn't starving or straining their infrastructure, which they continually build up. You don't seem to understand that in order to increase resources, they have to GROW UP and STABILIZE first.






Poor infrastructure prevents economic growth; poor economic growth prevents investment in infrastructure.

Meanwhile, an increasing population places increasing demands on existing infrastructure.



28100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15

Dariamus wrote:
Which side of the equation you sit on depends on the country you are in. Developed countries can make more efficient usage of limited resources, such as land. Less developed countries are warring over resources: for example, much of Africa.


That is only partly true. It is more about control and when it comes to some areas, militant Muslims that are the main problem. Not only that, even in Africa, where resources are all messed up, warring isn't as widespread. Which just proves my point even more. If the populations are growing and the whole world isn't fighting over resources, then everything you say in this area is completely unfounded.


Ebola spreads through contact with bodily fluids. A relatively limited means of transmission until it hits the general population.H5N1 is highly contagious and airborn, but treatable. the low number of fatalities is a testament to how serious governments took the problem. It is only a matter of time before another virus appears that is airborn, highly communicable, and lethal. It's happened before, many times, it will happen again. Imagine something like smallpox or the 1918 flu strain hitting todays much larger population.


People like you have been saying that since 1918 happened. Get out from under your bunker and join the real world. Again, the world health organizations across the globe are VERY good at what they do.



There are countries in Europe that experienced up to a 70% increase in illegal immigrants over 2013. Mostly fleeing conflicts in Africa. The rate of illegal immigrants this year is already exceeding last years.


And none of the countries are collapsing yet. And not only that, it is all easily fixed if they need to. NO need to run around like everything is on fire. :o


Malnourishment rates up to 33% in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet experiencing population growth.


And most of that "growing" population isn't going to survive long due to the current environment in those nations. If you think sub-Saharan Africans growing in population are going to pose a threat to the world population, I have to think you are over-reaching.



Poor infrastructure prevents economic growth; poor economic growth prevents investment in infrastructure.

Meanwhile, an increasing population places increasing demands on existing infrastructure.


Except in China... and when the US first started... and Japan... and every other successful nation in history. :/
Also, if you think the sustainability of that birth rate in Africa is going to continue, well, I can't see how it is even possible. An increased population in that area will be offset by lack of food. The fact that your lovely chart up there shows that 50% of the population is less than 16 years old is proof enough of that. That is due for a hard reset eventually, especially if aid is dried up or lowered which can happen easily between now and your 2050 estimates that don't account for... well... much of anything.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.