Overpopulation
Offline I often think that overpopulation of the earth is like the elephant in the room politically, and socially speaking. If you look into population growth estimates, and recent growth it is scary. Almost unfathomable to me that we as a planet don't address this issue soon. When I was a kid there were 5+ billion people, then 6 billion, now there's already 6.76 billion people in the world! I'm only 32 years old, so this is an alarming rate to me. That number could be more than 10 billion before 2050 and accelerating.
This just brings a ton of questions to mind.
Do we need to tax the planet's resources like that?
How many people can the planet actually sustain?
How can we go on growing without driving out all the species that we have left?
What should we do about it?
Why is it such a taboo subject that the media ignores it?
What would the Humanist/Atheist approach to this problem be?
Personally I think restrictions should be put in place according to population density/ resource use/ overall pop. Thus The US, and India, and china would be among the first to have restrictions imposed on birth per family. I'm not sure what exactly China has in place but something like that would have to be put in place globally. Exceptions would need to be made on moral grounds in situations like loss of a child, and others. Go beyond the imposed limit, and be taxed. Possibly other measures as well. All taxes, penalties could be adjusted up for higher income levels. Upon starting the measures all current children would not count against the family, but any additional births could result in more taxes/ penalties if it took you beyond the limit of your country/ area. No matter where in the world you are, making a Duggar style family or anything approaching it would be prohibitively expensive!
What are every ones thoughts on this?
"They always say the same thing; 'But evolution is only a theory!!' Which is true, I guess, and it's good they say that I think, it gives you hope that they feel the same about the theory of Gravity and they might just float the f**k away."
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm going to interject now and say that Jormungander is the only one who came close to convincing me that there is a problem here and now, though that line ended before I was convinced. Noone else came close. Either their arguments were not understandable(ie: I'm not a mathematician, and simply having an argument is not sufficient to convince someone who doesn't understand it DG), or they were based in fiction. The vast untapped resources and space on Earth are more than sufficient to supply the current population as long as we manage those resources properly. They are more than sufficient to supply a larger population as well. I will retract the "hundreds of billions" and "trillions" comments I made as exaggerations, however.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Vastet, I know you get testy when people say things like this to you, but sometimes you would do well to step back from your own position when you know you're ignorant of other people's arguments. I don't understand math as well as DG, but I apparently understand it significantly better than you because I get his arguments, and they're quite mathematically sound. I also know biology well enough to understand the implications of population growth in a K-selected species, and you apparently do not. I also know ecology well enough to know the effects of many of the changes we are causing to our environment, and you apparently do not.
Look, I'm not telling you that you have to change your mind. As you've accurately stated, you can't very well change your mind if you can't understand the argument. However, the only epistemologically sound position for you when you know you are ignorant of scientific or mathematical principles is to remain neutral. You don't understand why your own arguments have been refuted, but they have. I'm not asking you to trust me, deludedgod, Jorg, and the host of other people who have demonstrated knowledge of the subject, but I would ask you to consider that you are ill-prepared to make a decision, and you are even less prepared to try to defend or even make public your own leanings in the opposite direction.
In other words, until you can demonstrate that you understand the other side well enough to discuss it, you're just making yourself look ignorant. One cannot argue one's own position unless he understands the opposition at least as well as his opponent. Less talk, more learn. That's a good policy for you right now.
Sorry if I'm coming off as harsh, but you're making yourself look a little silly, and I like you and would prefer that you didn't do so.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline The vast untapped resources and space on Earth are more than sufficient to supply the current population as long as we manage those resources properly. They are more than sufficient to supply a larger population as well. I will retract the "hundreds of billions" and "trillions" comments I made as exaggerations, however.
Let's assume that what you said is entirely true. What makes you think we will manage our resources properly? Every year is another example of how we do not properly manage our resources. I believe when it gets to that point our resources will manage us.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
- Login to post comments
Offline Vastet, I know you get testy when people say things like this to you, but sometimes you would do well to step back from your own position when you know you're ignorant of other people's arguments. I don't understand math as well as DG, but I apparently understand it significantly better than you because I get his arguments, and they're quite mathematically sound. I also know biology well enough to understand the implications of population growth in a K-selected species, and you apparently do not. I also know ecology well enough to know the effects of many of the changes we are causing to our environment, and you apparently do not.
Look, I'm not telling you that you have to change your mind. As you've accurately stated, you can't very well change your mind if you can't understand the argument. However, the only epistemologically sound position for you when you know you are ignorant of scientific or mathematical principles is to remain neutral. You don't understand why your own arguments have been refuted, but they have. I'm not asking you to trust me, deludedgod, Jorg, and the host of other people who have demonstrated knowledge of the subject, but I would ask you to consider that you are ill-prepared to make a decision, and you are even less prepared to try to defend or even make public your own leanings in the opposite direction.
In other words, until you can demonstrate that you understand the other side well enough to discuss it, you're just making yourself look ignorant. One cannot argue one's own position unless he understands the opposition at least as well as his opponent. Less talk, more learn. That's a good policy for you right now.
Sorry if I'm coming off as harsh, but you're making yourself look a little silly, and I like you and would prefer that you didn't do so.
No, you aren't coming off harsh. Or if you are, I can see through it for your actual intentions. I came back to challenge all of you to properly explain these arguments. I am not going to sit on the sidelines simply because I do not understand something. I will challenge that lack of understanding until either it is made clear to me, or my opponent concedes defeat. I don't have an embarrassment factor to be concerned with. I know very well that sometimes the best education is one that stems from humiliation. So I again challenge the suggestion that I'm wrong.
Vastet wrote:The vast untapped resources and space on Earth are more than sufficient to supply the current population as long as we manage those resources properly. They are more than sufficient to supply a larger population as well. I will retract the "hundreds of billions" and "trillions" comments I made as exaggerations, however.
Let's assume that what you said is entirely true. What makes you think we will manage our resources properly? Every year is another example of how we do not properly manage our resources. I believe when it gets to that point our resources will manage us.
Pressures against us will force us to adapt or die. They always have, they always will, they always do.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline No, you aren't coming off harsh. Or if you are, I can see through it for your actual intentions. I came back to challenge all of you to properly explain these arguments. I am not going to sit on the sidelines simply because I do not understand something. I will challenge that lack of understanding until either it is made clear to me, or my opponent concedes defeat. I don't have an embarrassment factor to be concerned with. I know very well that sometimes the best education is one that stems from humiliation. So I again challenge the suggestion that I'm wrong.
To begin with, do you understand the difference between a K and r selected species? Do you understand the dynamics of each reproductive strategy with regard to the environment and population density?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:No, you aren't coming off harsh. Or if you are, I can see through it for your actual intentions. I came back to challenge all of you to properly explain these arguments. I am not going to sit on the sidelines simply because I do not understand something. I will challenge that lack of understanding until either it is made clear to me, or my opponent concedes defeat. I don't have an embarrassment factor to be concerned with. I know very well that sometimes the best education is one that stems from humiliation. So I again challenge the suggestion that I'm wrong.To begin with, do you understand the difference between a K and r selected species? Do you understand the dynamics of each reproductive strategy with regard to the environment and population density?
1: No. I am not familiar with the terminology or K or r selected species, and in fact I'm just assuming the r was not capitalized in my response. I took a brief look at the images/post you'd posted earlier, but it seemed too disorganized for me to make much sense of where it was going. However, that is at least in part due to the pc I'm using cutting off a portion of the page. I was too eager to respond to other posts to look at it closer at the time. I'll do so now.
2: Answer is in 1.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Upon further review, I recognize some of the terminology used there. I believe I can thank Chricton for that. Whether or not that is a good thing is obviously beyond my experience.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Well, it's K and r, with capitals as read.
I don't always recommend wiki, but their entry on the subject is decent enough. Don't let the disclaimers fool you. The theory is still somewhat controversial, but not because there's no difference between K and r. It's more about the fringes of the definition, not the general spirit.
The basic idea is that by nature of their parental strategies, some species will create an J curve graph of population growth, where they keep reproducing until the resources run out and everybody starves, at which point, the whole process starts again. Other species experience rapid growth which levels off, not so much because of lack of resources, but because of internal negative reinforcement.
Humans are undoubtedly a K-selected species, and there's no compelling reason I'm familiar with to suggest that we will defy the standard model. While this sounds like a good thing, it's not as good as it sounds. The human population ought to level out, and in fact, current trends suggest that it will, and not too far in the future. The population should level out before starvation from depleted resouces. As deludedgod tried to explain to you, simple space limitations will halt population growth. Unfortunately, the population will stabilize at a level that is depleting resources faster than they can be replaced. In other words, the population will crash shortly after stabilizing. Starvation won't be the cause of the population levelling, but it will not stop mass starvation.
The energy crisis is probably worse than the food crisis. I echo the sentiment of others in this thread. Many people really have no idea how dependent humans are on fossil fuels, and just how limited are our practical alternate energy sources.
So basically, there are two issues at work. Our population will stabilize, but it will do so at an unsustainable level. Unless you can absorb the K/r hypothesis and successfully refute it (and there are lots of biologists who've tried and failed), you're going to have to hold your position despite its extreme disagreement with established ecology and evolutionary biology. Our population will almost certainly stabilize, and if we are similar to other K-selected species, it shouldn't be too far in the future.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Pressures against us will force us to adapt or die. They always have, they always will, they always do.
Exactly, but I think we might adapt and die, possibly in very large numbers. The ones who survive will be the ones to adapt.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
- Login to post comments
Offline You can believe that if you want. I happen to believe that there are vast amounts of untapped or unexploited sources of energy.
Then, in this regard, you're a delusional imbecile.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline Well, it's K and r, with capitals as read.
I don't always recommend wiki, but their entry on the subject is decent enough. Don't let the disclaimers fool you. The theory is still somewhat controversial, but not because there's no difference between K and r. It's more about the fringes of the definition, not the general spirit.
The basic idea is that by nature of their parental strategies, some species will create an J curve graph of population growth, where they keep reproducing until the resources run out and everybody starves, at which point, the whole process starts again. Other species experience rapid growth which levels off, not so much because of lack of resources, but because of internal negative reinforcement.
Humans are undoubtedly a K-selected species, and there's no compelling reason I'm familiar with to suggest that we will defy the standard model. While this sounds like a good thing, it's not as good as it sounds. The human population ought to level out, and in fact, current trends suggest that it will, and not too far in the future. The population should level out before starvation from depleted resouces. As deludedgod tried to explain to you, simple space limitations will halt population growth. Unfortunately, the population will stabilize at a level that is depleting resources faster than they can be replaced. In other words, the population will crash shortly after stabilizing. Starvation won't be the cause of the population levelling, but it will not stop mass starvation.
The energy crisis is probably worse than the food crisis. I echo the sentiment of others in this thread. Many people really have no idea how dependent humans are on fossil fuels, and just how limited are our practical alternate energy sources.
So basically, there are two issues at work. Our population will stabilize, but it will do so at an unsustainable level. Unless you can absorb the K/r hypothesis and successfully refute it (and there are lots of biologists who've tried and failed), you're going to have to hold your position despite its extreme disagreement with established ecology and evolutionary biology. Our population will almost certainly stabilize, and if we are similar to other K-selected species, it shouldn't be too far in the future.
Thanks. I'll look at wiki.
Incidentally, the fossil fuel issue is not something I ever tried to deny here, and if I gave the impression that I didn't believe it a problem, that wasn't my intention. I'm aware of the limitations of oil, and the length of time it takes to form naturally. It was in fact the only thing that I've found gives the argument of overpopulation credibility before this topic. I am just optimistic in my hopes that we'll shift away from fossil fuels before it's too late.
I don't suppose you'd care to take a stab at the space restriction? I didn't know the equation DG was starting with, so I couldn't follow anything he said thereafter. Which was pretty well everything he said. I'm having a hard time understanding why we can't just build up and down to increase available space. Also a hard time seeing where we're lacking it in the first place, except in certain areas; China, India, parts or all of Africa, etc.
Maybe it's just because I'm in and have always resided in Canada, where we have more than enough resources to sustain us with a much larger population than we have. Perhaps my knowledge of Canada is too great compared to my knowledge of the Earth itself, and has lead to some faulty conclusions.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline I think that the population will level itself out.
Plague or war look to be very likely for 1st world nations, and famine and war likely for the rest.
It is just too easy for humans to die, for us to push a sustainable population boundry without it pushing back.
We are only animals after all.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline
I don't suppose you'd care to take a stab at the space restriction? I didn't know the equation DG was starting with, so I couldn't follow anything he said thereafter. Which was pretty well everything he said. I'm having a hard time understanding why we can't just build up and down to increase available space. Also a hard time seeing where we're lacking it in the first place, except in certain areas; China, India, parts or all of Africa, etc.Maybe it's just because I'm in and have always resided in Canada, where we have more than enough resources to sustain us with a much larger population than we have. Perhaps my knowledge of Canada is too great compared to my knowledge of the Earth itself, and has lead to some faulty conclusions.
Yeah, I'll give it a shot, but I gotta tell you, I think you've hit the nail on the head with the Canada thing. If you've never been to a place like Hong Kong, it might be difficult for you to understand the real limitations of space. Anyway, I'm going to try to explain this as a matter of principle, not math. The first thing you want to think about is that of the available land mass on the earth, a significant portion is unsuitable for human habitation. Of course, there's significantly more water than land -- I think there's about 28-30% of the earth that's land.
Now, before you start doing any figures, you have to take out all the mountain ranges, most of the swamps and lowlands, deserts, and a host of other terrain types that are simply not suitable for significant upward expansion. (Consider that where I grew up, along the U.S. Gulf Coast, the tallest building was only about 20 stories tall. That was a limitation of physics, not population. You simply can't build enormous buildings on certain kinds of land.)
So, of the 30% of the earth that's land, let's just guestimate that 80% of it is suitable for significant human settlement, and another half of that isn't geographically suitable for significant upward expansion. That leaves you with 40% of 30%, or 12% of the earth's surface, on which you have the capability for significant upward expansion.
By the way, I'm totally making up these numbers (except for the percentage of land on earth), but I want you to see that even if you tweak these numbers significantly in your favor, you're still going to come up with a pretty small part of the earth's surface on which to carry out your scheme.
Ok, so now, you want to build upward when the population density gets too high. Right now, Dhaka (Bangladesh) has a population density of almost 44,000 per square kilometer. That's including some significant upward mobility already, by the way. Don't forget that in our most populous cities, we already have built upwards, sometimes as much as physics allows with our current building methods. Sure, we can eventually build upwards with every building in Manhattan, but if you've never been there, you can rest assured there are plenty of people living on the 58th floor already.
Unless there's a part of your plan that you haven't divulged, you still have the problem of life happening on basically one plane. If you built every building in Manhattan to 100 stories, and crammed three people into every apartment, sure you'd have increased the population by a few hundred percent, but what are they going to do when they have to go to work? They're going to go down the elevator and get on the street, just like everybody else. Traffic is already insane in New York City, and it's not even one of the most crowded cities on earth. Sure, you can put diners on the top floor and tailors on the tenth floor, but people still have to get from building to building, and they still have to literally have their feet on the ground from time to time. Human life doesn't happen in apartments. It happens on the street. Overcrowding happens on one plane. Consider that if you increase NY's population by tenfold, you've increased the traffic by tenfold, unless you've got a plan to force people to stay in their homes.
So, what DG was trying to explain to you is that even if your math was technically correct (which it's not because you didn't account for the usable surface of the earth and the geography necessary for upward mobility) you would still be in error because you also have to account for people living on a single plane, regardless of where they go to sleep at night. Cars still all need to drive on the ground, and the physics of 100 story buildings all connected across a curving earth surface, with high altitude wind, earth tremors, etc, etc... well... as I've often said, physics has real limitations that science fiction sometimes glosses over.
Now, take into consideration that a city is not, and cannot be (given current understanding of physics) self sustaining. Cities make a LOT of trash, and if you exponentially increase the number of people, you're going to exponentially increase the trash output. People need to eat, and growing food takes space. (Remember, not much of the earth is actually suitable for upward mobility.) Supposing a best case scenario, where you could build entire 100 story complexes of hydroponic labs, you'd still need a huge part of the earth's surface dedicated to growing things for the population centers to eat, and you would necessarily have to have small population densities there, else there would be no room for the food to grow.
(Incidentally, I know someone who's growing food on her land. There are about two acres farmed with sustainable techniques, and it's enough food for a few people, assuming the weather's good. Tomato plants simply won't grow if you put them too close together.)
Then of course, you must bear in mind that the earth's atmospheric oxygen is maintained by plants. Lots of them. In forests. Big ones. As the earth's population grows, humans -- which are very big critters -- will be demanding lots of oxygen, but as they expand and cover more and more of the habitable land on earth, they must, by definition, take away most of the biggest plants. You can't have sprawling skyscraper megalopoli in forests.
Yeah, I know, we'll be growing food for ourselves, but ask an ecologist sometime about the oxygen conversion of a cultivated swath of corn vs a comparable area of rainforest. Go ahead. I dare you.
Then of course, there's the problem of the other animals. Are you also going to build skyscrapers for cows, pigs, and chickens? At present, it is estimated that there are 1.3 billion cattle on the earth, for a population of about 7 billion humans. Let's suppose there are 21 billion people. That means there will be 3.9 billion cows. A Holstein cow weighs between 1200 and 1500 pounds. Let's split the difference and call it 1350 pounds. Just for shits and giggles, let's suppose an average human weighs 150 pounds. That means a cow is equivalent to 9 people. (Cows gotta eat, too, so we might as well figure this into our food production equation.) 3.9 billion cows times 9 = the equivalent of another 35.1 billion people, added to 21 billion people... that's 56.1 billion people worth of flesh and bone that needs to eat and breath and drink.
Then there's the chickens... In the U.S. (I couldn't find world numbers) there are 8.9 billion chickens slaughtered per year. Just to do some guesswork, there's 300 million people in the U.S. So... that's roughly 30 chickens per person... times 7 billion = 210 billion chickens in the world. (And remember, we have to keep plenty alive, so there are significantly more.) At 21 billion people, that would be 630 billion chickens. Let's say the average chicken weighs 2 pounds (they're not all as big as our super hormone chickens). That means there are 75 chickens to one person, so our chicken population is the equivalent of another 8.4 billion people at a population of 21 billion... so... we're up to 56.1 billion plus 8.4 billion, or 64.5 billion.
Of course... we eat a lot of pigs...
And remember, we're already having water shortages and problems with finding clean water to drink -- all over the world. Pigs, cows, and chickens gotta drink, too...
You see what I'm getting at? Human population growth doesn't happen in a vacuum. We consume a lot, and production of our consumables takes space. As your population increases, your space for production also increases, so your rather haphazard number based simply on available space misses quite a few variables that significantly reduce the total number.
So, in short, working against you, you have several established facts:
1. Regardless of upward mobility, human life happens on a single plane.
2. You severely overestimated the amount of usable space on earth, and didn't consider the very limited number of places where your scale of upward mobility is even possible.
3. You failed to consider the increased demand for food, as well as the available fresh water on earth, as well as the trash output of increased populations. (Trash output, after all, negatively impacts the amount of fresh water available.)
And none of that even takes into account the fact that we're a K-selected species, and we simply won't continue to reproduce at the same rate...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline I started off with the intent of not offering any arguments, but I find I must in order to understand how some of the things I've researched and thought about are countered. So I'll ask you not to think of them as actual arguments, but attempts to understand the actual basis behind your own. Despite the appearance to the contrary, you have successfully moved me into the neutral camp. But I can't understand many arguments offered without offering up the objections I've come across in my experience, so I'll offer them when I see places to. Please don't take them as attempts by myself to be obtuse or stubbornly ignorant. I simply have conflicting arguments in my head that need resolution. As the only side of the argument present is one that advocates a problem, I must therefore frame most or all of my responses as if I were in the position that there isn't one.
Yeah, I'll give it a shot, but I gotta tell you, I think you've hit the nail on the head with the Canada thing. If you've never been to a place like Hong Kong, it might be difficult for you to understand the real limitations of space. Anyway, I'm going to try to explain this as a matter of principle, not math. The first thing you want to think about is that of the available land mass on the earth, a significant portion is unsuitable for human habitation. Of course, there's significantly more water than land -- I think there's about 28-30% of the earth that's land.Now, before you start doing any figures, you have to take out all the mountain ranges, most of the swamps and lowlands, deserts, and a host of other terrain types that are simply not suitable for significant upward expansion. (Consider that where I grew up, along the U.S. Gulf Coast, the tallest building was only about 20 stories tall. That was a limitation of physics, not population. You simply can't build enormous buildings on certain kinds of land.)
So, of the 30% of the earth that's land, let's just guestimate that 80% of it is suitable for significant human settlement, and another half of that isn't geographically suitable for significant upward expansion. That leaves you with 40% of 30%, or 12% of the earth's surface, on which you have the capability for significant upward expansion.
By the way, I'm totally making up these numbers (except for the percentage of land on earth), but I want you to see that even if you tweak these numbers significantly in your favor, you're still going to come up with a pretty small part of the earth's surface on which to carry out your scheme.
Agreed. This part I have no issue with at all.
Ok, so now, you want to build upward when the population density gets too high. Right now, Dhaka (Bangladesh) has a population density of almost 44,000 per square kilometer. That's including some significant upward mobility already, by the way. Don't forget that in our most populous cities, we already have built upwards, sometimes as much as physics allows with our current building methods. Sure, we can eventually build upwards with every building in Manhattan, but if you've never been there, you can rest assured there are plenty of people living on the 58th floor already.
Also agreed. I lived in Toronto for a year. While Toronto isn't quite as populous as New York, it is easily close enough for an adequate comparison.
Unless there's a part of your plan that you haven't divulged, you still have the problem of life happening on basically one plane.
You got me, I did. Sorry. I was thinking of multiple planes. At least 4. Possibly as many as 10+. Actually I think we need to expand on the plane we use anyway, but that's another topic.
Granted your comment elsewhere that I'm a sci-fi freak(quite accurate, though that is hardly the only subject I am interested in), I tend to look at construction in terms outside the box. If you have say thirty 30 storie buildings in an area, walkways or other forms of transport could be suspended. Or, barring that, buildings could be meshed to provide multiple planes to travel within. This has the added affect of increased stability, though it drives up maintenence and structural costs, and requires significantly sound bedrock to build upon.
If you built every building in Manhattan to 100 stories, and crammed three people into every apartment, sure you'd have increased the population by a few hundred percent, but what are they going to do when they have to go to work? They're going to go down the elevator and get on the street, just like everybody else. Traffic is already insane in New York City, and it's not even one of the most crowded cities on earth. Sure, you can put diners on the top floor and tailors on the tenth floor, but people still have to get from building to building, and they still have to literally have their feet on the ground from time to time. Human life doesn't happen in apartments. It happens on the street. Overcrowding happens on one plane. Consider that if you increase NY's population by tenfold, you've increased the traffic by tenfold, unless you've got a plan to force people to stay in their homes.
My plan was, in part, to increase the number of planes to work with by changing general city design. From the examples above to projected new technologies like the "air car" or whatever the hell they're calling it. I know NASA has been tasked with drawing up air lanes for the traffic, so it's a projectable technology. Even if it is still many years away from the average consumers capability to purchase.
So, what DG was trying to explain to you is that even if your math was technically correct (which it's not because you didn't account for the usable surface of the earth and the geography necessary for upward mobility) you would still be in error because you also have to account for people living on a single plane, regardless of where they go to sleep at night. Cars still all need to drive on the ground, and the physics of 100 story buildings all connected across a curving earth surface, with high altitude wind, earth tremors, etc, etc... well... as I've often said, physics has real limitations that science fiction sometimes glosses over.
It was never my intention to promote a sci-fi solution, ie: Coruscant from Star Wars. I think I specifically pointed that out somewhere, but I can't remember for sure.
My math was taken from scientists who had projected the entire human population could be at 7 billion, centred in Texas, and still have an average distance of 100 ft between each person. Even though all the structures were built on ground level, and did not exceed one storie.
Granted, this calculation does not take into consideration industry, transport, services, commerce, or agriculture. But it is inherrantly obvious that many of these concerns would be mitigated into obscurity simply by doubling the height, not to mention spreading over a larger area.
This is why DG's calculations make absolutely no sense to me.
Now, take into consideration that a city is not, and cannot be (given current understanding of physics) self sustaining. Cities make a LOT of trash, and if you exponentially increase the number of people, you're going to exponentially increase the trash output.
Granted. Although, considering that I'm advocating a mass shift into proper management of resources, a significant amount of the garbage problem could be defeated. We can significantly reduce garbage by reducing the materials we use that are garbage prone, and increasing the materials we use that are recyclable.
Of course this can only reduce, never destroy, the production of garbage.
People need to eat, and growing food takes space. (Remember, not much of the earth is actually suitable for upward mobility.) Supposing a best case scenario, where you could build entire 100 story complexes of hydroponic labs, you'd still need a huge part of the earth's surface dedicated to growing things for the population centers to eat, and you would necessarily have to have small population densities there, else there would be no room for the food to grow.
Ok, but I've seen scientific projections that 30 storie vertical farming would be a complete solution to food for the foreseeable future.
(Incidentally, I know someone who's growing food on her land. There are about two acres farmed with sustainable techniques, and it's enough food for a few people, assuming the weather's good. Tomato plants simply won't grow if you put them too close together.)
Indoor growing removes the weather as a factor, significantly increasing production. It also allows for easier quarantines in case of infection, fungus, or other crop disasters. It also completely removes insect infestations as a threat. I see nothing but pure benefit in vertical farming.
Then of course, you must bear in mind that the earth's atmospheric oxygen is maintained by plants. Lots of them. In forests. Big ones. As the earth's population grows, humans -- which are very big critters -- will be demanding lots of oxygen, but as they expand and cover more and more of the habitable land on earth, they must, by definition, take away most of the biggest plants. You can't have sprawling skyscraper megalopoli in forests.
True, but we can produce oxygen. And if you confine humans to multistorie structures, there's plenty of room for plant life. Also, algae can survive on structures made by humans, increasing oxygen output. That would be at least 3 different methods to utilize that negate the oxygen problem, that we have the capacity to utilize today.
Yeah, I know, we'll be growing food for ourselves, but ask an ecologist sometime about the oxygen conversion of a cultivated swath of corn vs a comparable area of rainforest. Go ahead. I dare you.
No argument here, but food is grown in vertical farms. Rainforests are left alone.
Then of course, there's the problem of the other animals. Are you also going to build skyscrapers for cows, pigs, and chickens?
Actually, yeah. For structural purposes, the heaviest animals would be on the lowest or ground floors. Lighter animals for higher elevations. We can grow the crops they depend on in the same area they occupy, or near enough to it to make transport costs negligble.
At present, it is estimated that there are 1.3 billion cattle on the earth, for a population of about 7 billion humans. Let's suppose there are 21 billion people. That means there will be 3.9 billion cows. A Holstein cow weighs between 1200 and 1500 pounds. Let's split the difference and call it 1350 pounds. Just for shits and giggles, let's suppose an average human weighs 150 pounds. That means a cow is equivalent to 9 people. (Cows gotta eat, too, so we might as well figure this into our food production equation.) 3.9 billion cows times 9 = the equivalent of another 35.1 billion people, added to 21 billion people... that's 56.1 billion people worth of flesh and bone that needs to eat and breath and drink.Then there's the chickens... In the U.S. (I couldn't find world numbers) there are 8.9 billion chickens slaughtered per year. Just to do some guesswork, there's 300 million people in the U.S. So... that's roughly 30 chickens per person... times 7 billion = 210 billion chickens in the world. (And remember, we have to keep plenty alive, so there are significantly more.) At 21 billion people, that would be 630 billion chickens. Let's say the average chicken weighs 2 pounds (they're not all as big as our super hormone chickens). That means there are 75 chickens to one person, so our chicken population is the equivalent of another 8.4 billion people at a population of 21 billion... so... we're up to 56.1 billion plus 8.4 billion, or 64.5 billion.
Of course... we eat a lot of pigs...
I have no further objections.
And remember, we're already having water shortages and problems with finding clean water to drink -- all over the world. Pigs, cows, and chickens gotta drink, too...
Water shortage problems are confined to inland and elevated areas, so move out of them and closer to oceans and other sustainable aquifers. Noone can convince me that water shortage is a threat. Unless you're too stubborn to move. In which case, bye.
You see what I'm getting at? Human population growth doesn't happen in a vacuum. We consume a lot, and production of our consumables takes space. As your population increases, your space for production also increases, so your rather haphazard number based simply on available space misses quite a few variables that significantly reduce the total number.
I am understanding a few of your arguments, but I obviously still have some concerns with some of them.
So, in short, working against you, you have several established facts:1. Regardless of upward mobility, human life happens on a single plane.
Seems managable simply by increasing the number of planes we use.
2. You severely overestimated the amount of usable space on earth, and didn't consider the very limited number of places where your scale of upward mobility is even possible.
My revisions may or may not prove otherwise. It is for you to say, and me to interpret.
3. You failed to consider the increased demand for food, as well as the available fresh water on earth, as well as the trash output of increased populations. (Trash output, after all, negatively impacts the amount of fresh water available.)
I agree that dumping generally reduces the amount of fresh water available. Unless you're at the ocean, which was a foundational segment of my argument.
And none of that even takes into account the fact that we're a K-selected species, and we simply won't continue to reproduce at the same rate...
But if we aren't reproducing at the same rate, does that not solve the problem itself? Part of my original argument was founded in the idea that as developing countries develop, they will approach a similar fertility rate as first world nations do. And as education increases, awareness will allow for an easier transition to less wastefull methods. The combination of these factors will reduce stress on the environment and our species, mitigating the problem before it becomes a problem.
Ugh. That really did sound like an argument, but I've spent the last 2 hours on this, and I can't make it any less adversarial without sacrificing a potential education.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Granted your comment elsewhere that I'm a sci-fi freak(quite accurate, though that is hardly the only subject I am interested in), I tend to look at construction in terms outside the box. If you have say thirty 30 storie buildings in an area, walkways or other forms of transport could be suspended. Or, barring that, buildings could be meshed to provide multiple planes to travel within. This has the added affect of increased stability, though it drives up maintenence and structural costs, and requires significantly sound bedrock to build upon.
...And requires TONS of energy!
Think about it. Every pound of concrete and steel that you decide to suspend in the air requires LOTS of energy to set in place.
My plan was, in part, to increase the number of planes to work with by changing general city design. From the examples above to projected new technologies like the "air car" or whatever the hell they're calling it. I know NASA has been tasked with drawing up air lanes for the traffic, so it's a projectable technology. Even if it is still many years away from the average consumers capability to purchase.
Crazy.
Come back to the dicussion after reading-up on how much more fuel an aircraft consumes (even an ultralight) than a car, and realize how foolish it is to think that we'll all have air cars one day.
Ok, but I've seen scientific projections that 30 storie vertical farming would be a complete solution to food for the foreseeable future.
'Scientific projections'? From who? Source, much?
I mean, from almost any standpoint, this proposal seems just patently ridiculous. How are your crops going to get sunlight to photosynthesize? How much area can you devote to the crops per floor, and how much material do you have to essentially waste so that each floor can handle the load of the agricultural machinery required for harvesting the crops? How much energy do you waste every growing seasoning cycling-out topsoil?
Call me entirely dubious that anyone could propose a stable structure with a seasonal yield equivalent to a standard field, much less superior to it.
Indoor growing removes the weather as a factor, significantly increasing production. It also allows for easier quarantines in case of infection, fungus, or other crop disasters. It also completely removes insect infestations as a threat. I see nothing but pure benefit in vertical farming.
LOL!!!
Yeah, it's 'completely superior'. You have no viable means giving your crop access to to sunlight, you're wasting tons of energy and materials constructing your absurd structure in the first place, you burden yourself with the task of manually switching-out topsoil every growing season as the nutrients are lost due to being in a sterile environment, the whole thing has to somehow be strong enough to hold-up all of the crops, water, and agricultural machinery while also having sufficient space on each floor for an appreciable yield of crops to be grown...
Yeah. Sounds 'superior' to me. Have you ever even seen a farm, Vastet?
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline Kevin, you have been coming far too close to pissing me off the last couple of weeks for me to consider a serious debate with you. It will go nowhere. I will not waste my time.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:You can believe that if you want. I happen to believe that there are vast amounts of untapped or unexploited sources of energy.Then, in this regard, you're a delusional imbecile.
So be it.
Here's one example of what I am referring to:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/nat_gas.html
Bottom paragraph:
"The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) periodically assesses the long-term production potential of worldwide petroleum resources (oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids). According to the most recent USGS estimates, released in the World Petroleum Assessment 2000 and adjusted to reflect current proved reserves, a significant volume of natural gas remains to be discovered. Worldwide undiscovered natural gas is estimated at 4,133 trillion cubic feet (Figure 45). Of the new natural gas resources expected to be added through 2025, reserve growth accounts for 2,347 trillion cubic feet."
Cynics are delusional imbeciles.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- Login to post comments
Offline Kevin R Brown wrote:Quote:You can believe that if you want. I happen to believe that there are vast amounts of untapped or unexploited sources of energy.Then, in this regard, you're a delusional imbecile.
So be it.
...
Cynics are delusional imbeciles.
Self pwnage?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
- Login to post comments
Offline The problem with calling on more education to solve the alarming rate of reproduction is that as we continue to make more and more Walmart shopping, God fearing dullards, the median education level will become lower...The uphill battle will become increasingly steep.
Our best and brightest aren't the one pumping out life wrecking tax write offs that they can't afford to clothe or educate...it is the fast food eating, reality TV watching masses walking around our suburban malls...and their barely eductaed counterparts from 3rd world nations everywhere.
How much education does it take to understand the concept of "Pulling out"??
- Login to post comments
Offline I still think war, famine, and disease will take care of the job in poorer areas. In the richer ones, war and disease are still good enough for the job.
As population density increases, risk of any kind of outbreak killing a massive amount of people increases dramatically. As resources dwindle, war is inevitable over it.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline darth_josh wrote:Kevin R Brown wrote:Quote:You can believe that if you want. I happen to believe that there are vast amounts of untapped or unexploited sources of energy.Then, in this regard, you're a delusional imbecile.
So be it.
...
Cynics are delusional imbeciles.
Self pwnage?
I am no cynic.
Kevin has chosen to refer to me as a "delusional imbecile" with regard to the prospect of humankind's ability to find sources of energy for the future.
In my opinion, those who fit definitions 1 and 2 on answers.com's entry for 'cynic' fit the mold of delusional imbecile in a much more confluent fashion.
In other words, I'm rubber; you're glue...
Another link to drop:
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- Login to post comments
Offline spike.barnett wrote:Self pwnage?
I am no cynic.
It appears as though I was not clear enough. What I meant was that it looks like you have exposed the self pwnage of another.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
- Login to post comments
Maybe we could just focus the waves on very religious areas like the bible belt and the middle east...
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
The planet would have to turn European
Seriously. Despite an unmatched period of wealth the population in most european countries is either stagnating or on decline. So if you want to avoid overpopulation you have to teach women about contraceptives, teach your young girls that having a career is a very rewarding thing and propagate hedonism in your society + the sublimally taught knowledge that children will be like a millstone around your neck that will keep you from having fun.
-----------------------------------------------------
Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.
Really?
Not according to the Central Intelligence Agency
...But why let facts get in the way of bald assertions, right?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Yeah, the boom in the elderly population is merely part of the equation. I agree that holding on to the life of an elderly family member beyond a point gets absurd, but "do no resusitate" orders used more often would merely make a dent in the population. My wife is a nurse in an assisted living facility, so I've seen first hand the product of people clinging on to their parents who have little to no quality of life, mental capacity etc. I also worked in the medical field with elderly for a while.
Clearly there is no single solution to the problem. If there is a solution would require a massive shift in thinking (ie. the kind that would happen if religion were to lose it's strangle hold) It would also require action on a global scale in the form of birth restrictions, education (lots of it), a change in attitude reguarding elderly that are mentally, or physically too far gone, etc etc.
"They always say the same thing; 'But evolution is only a theory!!' Which is true, I guess, and it's good they say that I think, it gives you hope that they feel the same about the theory of Gravity and they might just float the f**k away."
This response from me is probably getting tired, but resources have always limited population, and always will. Please read up on the Green Revolution and its resulting effect on the population of the world.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Boy, you are going to learn one of these days.
Page 25 China faces the aging work force scenario
Page 53 (it says 33 at the bottom) Japan's birth rate is declining. The population is getting older.
Developed countries' birth rates are declining, but their population has a greater lifespan.
If you had bothered to read the rest of my post then you would have seen this sentence:
BUT since you cited the source, I decided to ACTUALLY READ IT.
Page 40 of the .pdf(at the bottom of the page it says 20)
Here is the pretty dismal picture illustrating my point FROM YOUR CITED SOURCE:
Now, I won't make you say anything like "I'm your bitch, darth." But I do expect you to give me the same courtesy that you give to other posters and not attack my every fucking post! Especially when I have shown restraint on some of your other stuff.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
You decreed anyone suggesting that population levels were a problem as 'overpopulationists' and that the only 'real problem' was demographics. Yes, there is also a problem with demographics - but the document very plainly states that, despite an overally decrease in birth rates across the board, the world population is continuing to increase and will see another billion and a half people added by 2025 and that this is likely to be a problem:
(The graph on pg. 22 shows that China and Africa will be the principle contributors to the population, while industrialized nations have levelled-off and some - Japan and Russia, most notably, are projected to have a brow-wiping decrease in population. This is a rather good sign, as it perhaps indicates as many suspect that education can/does play a key role with regards to the issue of population)
So Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen do not have an 'old people' problem; they currently are facing the opposite problem, and are still experiencing rapid (if diminished) population growth.
So, again, the CIA confirm what the 'overpopulationists' like myself stated earlier in tis thread about diminishing food, hydrocarbon and water supplies due to the growing world population. You said that we were wrong, did you not?
In fact, the entirety of Chapter 4 (as you must know; you said you read the document) deals with this issue. Do you simply disagree with this chapter while agreeing with the Chapter 2, or what?
For the love of Obama; I have not been attacking every post you've made. I'm pretty sure I've agreed with you (and then you got pissed-off at me anyway) on your recent post regarding the Daily Show, and the vast majority of your posts I don't think I usually get around to replying to (whether I agree with them or not).
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
The countries still experiencing high birth rates are 'trending' down in the 20 years in this projection. In 2045, what will the graph look like?
In 2043, demographic analysts have said the population of the United States will finally reach 400,000,000 with 50% mixed ethnicity, 24% black, 24% white, 2% other. (2007 study that ran in the paper and I can't find now) That's NOT a bald assertion; I just can't find it right now.
That's also WAY less than doubling.
Given that we are the most highly developed region on Earth(I'm including Canadians here) I make the assumption that other countries want to be where we are AND that we want them to be there so we have people to sell our 'junk' to in order to maintain our status quo as big chief empire.
Countries that have little wealth or internal strife won't always remain as broke and violent 'breeders'. The peoples of those nations are already 'advancing' their respective societies. Their next step is a baby boom after the strife and in 60 years you have tribal chieftains wearing goofy pants with fat asses on a golf course overlooking Victoria Falls waiting for their retirement checks to pay for Viagra. [/Facetious Hyperbole]
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
In 2050 there will be about 9 billion people on the planet. Is that more people or less people than the current 7 billion, Josh?
And this is the problem, Josh. Of course they would want to emulate us in the same way China and India are starting to - and why shouldn't they want to?
Do you believe that there is a magical spring, garden and oil pump that we can get resources from to treat the entire planet's population with the same abundance as the Western world experiences currently? No? Then where are we supposed to get all of these resources from?
The truth is that we've squandered our limited resources and now the world is strained just to keep the small percentage of us that live amidst abundance, well, living amidst abundance. We've essentially robbed the 3rd world of any chance of industrializing; there's simply not nearly enough hydrocarbons to go around.
I can't believe that people will still try and make believe that the Earth is some kind of bottomless vault, the bowels from whence the water that comes out of their taps and the bread they just bought at the grocer is surely conjured.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
That is more.
Is that number unsustainable, Kevin? You've answered "Yes" to that question before.
And this is the problem, Josh. Of course they would want to emulate us in the same way China and India are starting to - and why shouldn't they want to?
Emulating us socially as well.
The fad right now is to vilify octomom and John and Kate. It will be that way in those countries as well in the future if the trend continues.
Years ago, a family was 'blessed' to have so many children. We have changed. It's a good thing except when we start talking about birth rate 0.
Is the western world going to keep using as much resources as in the past?
Some of the smartest people on the planet are working with some of the dumbest to develop alternate energy.
The truth? Really?
You can believe that if you want. I happen to believe that there are vast amounts of untapped or unexploited sources of energy.
The systematic destruction of demand for oil is in its infancy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090325-712917.html
This one is a long one. Just the top few paragraphs illustrate what I'm talking about.
Oil Inventories week ending 3-20-09
I can't believe there are people who think that the caretakers of the world (smartest people on the planet) would let the dumb people suck the life out of Earth in their lifetimes.
Too much Road Warrior. The future isn't as bleak as you've been taught.
There are a lot of hypotheses thrown around right now. I think it's rather cynical to think we're even approaching the end.
[obnoxious jab]Unless I've missed the canadian atheist version of the book of Revelations. [/obnoxious jab]
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.