Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Over Population Is A Hoak.

  1. #1 Over Population Is A Hoak. 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    4
    China alone has 4 billion people in that little area of land, multiple that by just the land on the earth alone and your looking at our earth supporting over 200 billion people. Food production alone is multiple times what is needed for every person on earth *we just cant distrubute the food to them*. This doesn't even include 3/4ths of the rest of the earth or the top and bottom cont. You could possible even have over a trillion people leaving on earth *doesn't even include building upwards either or downwards* technically you could dig under the ground and build caves with artifical light which could produce untolds amount of food. With technology increasing as well and as long as no major outbreaks/wars etc take place we should be able to get to 100 billion with 100 years or so.


    Last edited by kwaff; January 9th, 2018 at 07:51 PM. Reason: Extra
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,778
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaff View Post
    China alone has 4 billion people in that little area of land
    No. Your figure is approximately 3x the correct value.

    ...multiple that by just the land on the earth alone and your looking at our earth supporting over 200 billion people.
    That naive calculation assumes that all land is equal in food-generating capability. It is not.

    To show how overly simplistic your calculation method is, suppose I have an earth-sized planet that is nearly all water. One person inhabits the sole patch of land, which is 1sq. meter in area, and survives by fishing. By your calculation method, the planet could support 500 trillion people.

    Food production alone is multiple times what is needed for every person on eart
    Source, please. Also, have you considered that food production may not be the only population-limiting factor?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaff View Post
    ...we should be able to get to 100 billion with 100 years or so.
    How do you reconcile this with the global drop in fertility rates?
    Fertility Rates Keep Dropping, and it's Going to Hit the Economy Hard

    Don't drink and post because too much quaffing produces hoaxes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,510
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaff View Post
    ...we should be able to get to 100 billion with 100 years or so.
    How do you reconcile this with the global drop in fertility rates?
    Fertility Rates Keep Dropping, and it's Going to Hit the Economy Hard

    Don't drink and post because too much quaffing produces hoaxes.
    That's hoaxus poaxus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    4
    I'm not talking about what the current or projected population is, what Im saying is what the planet can support. I understand that not all land can produce the same types of food,most climates support different types- but it does still support the local populations.

    The earth is habital for up to 2 miles beneath the ground. If you can imagine wherever food is grown now it can be grown underneath (or above for that matter) with unused soil to grow additional food. 4000 people per square mile without growing down or up is possible. That would equal 400 billion people and that is only 1/4th of the earth being used (the other 3/4ths being water) which can be reclaimed. Just the u.s, canada, greenland, africa, south america can support 300 billion easily. Like I mentioned earlier- food is not the problem *just the distro.of it*. Im sure food is not the only needed thing to keep a population like that however food and water are the only things needed to sustain life. Bottom line is im sick of people saying the world is overpopulated. It is not! Maybe when we have 1/2 a trillion people we could start that conversation...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,778
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaff View Post
    I'm not talking about what the current or projected population is, what Im saying is what the planet can support. I understand that not all land can produce the same types of food,most climates support different types- but it does still support the local populations.

    The earth is habital for up to 2 miles beneath the ground. If you can imagine wherever food is grown now it can be grown underneath (or above for that matter) with unused soil to grow additional food. 4000 people per square mile without growing down or up is possible. That would equal 400 billion people and that is only 1/4th of the earth being used (the other 3/4ths being water) which can be reclaimed. Just the u.s, canada, greenland, africa, south america can support 300 billion easily. Like I mentioned earlier- food is not the problem *just the distro.of it*. Im sure food is not the only needed thing to keep a population like that however food and water are the only things needed to sustain life. Bottom line is im sick of people saying the world is overpopulated. It is not! Maybe when we have 1/2 a trillion people we could start that conversation...
    You are making assertions with no support. Declaring things is easy, so unless you provide some scientific backup for your claims, there is no reason to take them seriously.

    So I ask again: what references can you cite? I don't mean YouTube vids or the like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    4
    References: I can show you numerous stats. showing food supplies far outweighing current population projections, here are just a couple I googled really fast. The figure I saw was in a sociology book however.

    "The general trend in the last several hundred years has been that the speed of growth in the food supply exceeds the speed of the population growth" -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    "
    The root causes of food insecurity and malnutrition are poverty and inequity rather than shortages. FAO statistics confirm that the world produces enough food to feed the 8 billion people living today, and even the estimated 9-15 billion population in 2050.Feb 19, 2015" -https://www.theguardian.com

    Again everything im saying can be backed up by facts but the FACT is we can produce enough food to keep hundreds of billions of people alive just by using the ideas I mentioned earlier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,778
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaff View Post
    References: I can show you numerous stats. showing food supplies far outweighing current population projections, here are just a couple I googled really fast. The figure I saw was in a sociology book however.

    "The general trend in the last several hundred years has been that the speed of growth in the food supply exceeds the speed of the population growth" -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    "
    The root causes of food insecurity and malnutrition are poverty and inequity rather than shortages. FAO statistics confirm that the world produces enough food to feed the 8 billion people living today, and even the estimated 9-15 billion population in 2050.Feb 19, 2015" -https://www.theguardian.com

    Again everything im saying can be backed up by facts but the FACT is we can produce enough food to keep hundreds of billions of people alive just by using the ideas I mentioned earlier.
    So, in other words, you have no references whatsoever to support your numerical claims. The NIH statement says nothing about the sustainability of that trend, and the Guardian is a newspaper, not a scientific reference.

    That's pretty much what I expected, though, from a guy who couldn't spell "hoax" properly. Long on claims, short on support. Just another random guy on the internet with an opinion.

    Yawn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,151
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaff View Post


    Again everything im saying can be backed up by facts but the FACT is we can produce enough food to keep hundreds of billions of people alive just by using the ideas I mentioned earlier.
    What if, as the population explodes and food gets scarcer, evolution sees to it that those who adapt by turning to cannibalism survive. If there's ever hundreds of billions of people and food resources are stretched thin, then they become the food. Is that too far fetched. I'm only throwing that in there as a possibility. I'm thinking of Stalingrad during WWII, their food supplies cut off and starvation very real, where some people survived by preying on and consuming others. IMHO....Life tends to go on at whatever the cost, it doesn't care about what form it takes be it human or otherwise, and that life form will adapt or face extinction.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    4
    I posted those two in like 20 seconds... if you really want references I can give you 100+ of legit as they come. Frankly Im not spending enough time to repsond as I should be which is why spelling etc. is off. BUT the next post tomorrow i'll be sure to give you plenty of them since I'll have time then but actually all YOU have to do is google world food supplies vs food needed and you should find all the refrences you want... The food shortages during ww2 were mainly severe distro. problems as well. It really doesn't matter what I think or say 50-100 years from now when the population is around 100 billion i'll be proved right anyways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,990
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaff View Post
    but actually all YOU have to do is google world food supplies vs food needed
    No. If YOU make a claim it's up to YOU to provide supporting information.

    It really doesn't matter what I think or say 50-100 years from now when the population is around 100 billion i'll be proved right anyways.
    Another unsupported claim or two?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,778
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaff View Post
    I posted those two in like 20 seconds... if you really want references I can give you 100+ of legit as they come.
    That's a weak response. When I am asked to cite references to back up an assertion, I provide them. You haven't, but you continue to bluster. That just makes you look like an empty blowhard.

    Frankly Im not spending enough time to repsond as I should be which is why spelling etc. is off.
    Yet you have ample time to repeat your claims of knowledge in multiple postings. I wonder why that is.

    BUT the next post tomorrow i'll be sure to give you plenty of them since I'll have time then but actually all YOU have to do is google world food supplies vs food needed
    As our resident genius duck noted, YOU made the claim, so it's YOUR job to do the work to convince us that you aren't just one of an endless string of nincompoops with big mouths and small testes.

    It really doesn't matter what I think or say 50-100 years from now when the population is around 100 billion i'll be proved right anyways.
    Apparently it matters enough to you that you've bothered to post multiple times here. Now, when challenged to put up or shut up, you push off the proof to some distant future.

    Nanoscopic testes, apparently. Even state-of-the-art AFMs would have difficulty resolving them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    China is the biggest importer of food in the world. Furthermore, like many industrial countries, it's a technology race between unsustainable practices and increasing technology.

    It should also concern us that China is one of the least environmentally friendly nations in the world-- fair to say their local and vast international efforts to accumulate resource is leading what most scientists agree is the start of the next mass extinction.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaff View Post
    I'm not talking about what the current or projected population is, what Im saying is what the planet can support. I understand that not all land can produce the same types of food,most climates support different types- but it does still support the local populations.
    In a great many cases - not, it does not.
    The earth is habital for up to 2 miles beneath the ground. If you can imagine wherever food is grown now it can be grown underneath (or above for that matter) with unused soil to grow additional food.
    If you go underground you will lack:
    light
    dirt
    water
    fertilizer
    pesticides/herbicides

    Those things are energy and materials intensive to obtain. Where does the energy and material come from?

    4000 people per square mile without growing down or up is possible.
    A square mile is 640 acres. An acre can support 4 people with a mostly vegetarian diet. So if you are in 1) a fertile area, 2) go to a vegetarian diet, 3) go to high density housing and 4) get them clean water and sewage services somehow you could support about 2560 people per square mile. However, most areas of the world are not that fertile and/or are unsuitable for farming. We also tend to demand things like parks, roads, dumps, mines etc which means even less area for farming.

    Just the u.s, canada, greenland, africa, south america can support 300 billion easily.
    The US has about 300 million acres of arable land. That can support 1.2 billion people - again, assuming the other issues (water, fertilizer, diet change, high density housing etc.) Your claim of 300 billion in about 10x the area is laughable.
    Like I mentioned earlier- food is not the problem *just the distro.of it*. Im sure food is not the only needed thing to keep a population like that however food and water are the only things needed to sustain life. Bottom line is im sick of people saying the world is overpopulated. It is not!
    The world is overpopulated. This overpopulation leads to things like wars over land, global warming, pollution issues, food shortages, overfishing and hunting and the like. Fortunately population growth is slowing down, and may get to the point where it reverses (which would be a good thing overall.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,057
    Appears you could fit the entire world's population on South Georgia in the southern Atlantic Ocean. At 3.7bn square metres, there might even be a little room to spare.
    But they might get tired of eating penguins.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...st-cr-che.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,057
    dup
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,151
    Just a brain cramp but is not population driven by evolutionary adaptation? One of the reasons some species have a large number of offspring is because most of them don't reach adulthood and/or are subject to heavy predation. As our ability to affect cataclysmic calamity upon our fellow humans increases is it not beneficial to the species' (us) survival to have a large population if only for some to carry on should man made disaster occur globally?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Just a brain cramp but is not population driven by evolutionary adaptation? One of the reasons some species have a large number of offspring is because most of them don't reach adulthood and/or are subject to heavy predation.


    I guess I’m nitpicking here, but is it not rather that the species subject to these are the ones still around because of their fecundity? (Maybe some posters well versed in evolutionary biology can pipe in here —Zwirko comes to mind). Aren’t we talking here about fecundity being "driven by adaptation" rather than population?


    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    As our ability to affect cataclysmic calamity upon our fellow humans increases is it not beneficial to the species' (us) survival to have a large population if only for some to carry on should man made disaster occur globally?
    I suppose; but having a large population is not the same has being overpopulated, is it? An environment that is not deteriorated (one within which there is a decent quality of life) can persist with a large population, but one that is over populated cannot.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,151
    I think in large part overpopulation is a product of no predation and/or the obvious resultant birthrate higher than the death rate. Humans fit the bill there. Generally speaking I hold evolution accountable for just about everything concerning living organisms. Philosophically speaking I see life as an all encompassing thing with the forms taken relevant only if they're good at surviving. As they say, 'Life goes on'
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,642
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaff View Post
    I understand that not all land can produce the same types of food,most climates support different types- but it does still support the local populations.
    This is nonsense on multiple levels. Take Japan for example. Something like 90% of the land is uninhabitable and unsuitable for agriculture. Japan (famously) cannot produce enough rice to feed the country, never mind all the other resources the country needs.

    Maybe when we have 1/2 a trillion people we could start that conversation...
    As population growth has already levelled off (the average fertility rate has already dropped below that required to maintain the population at the current level) there is no reason to think population will (or should) grow to that level.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,642
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Appears you could fit the entire world's population on South Georgia in the southern Atlantic Ocean.
    Or Rhode Island. But it won't end well...
    https://what-if.xkcd.com/8/
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,642
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaff View Post
    BUT the next post tomorrow...
    Of course you will...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    China is the biggest importer of food in the world. Furthermore, like many industrial countries, it's a technology race between unsustainable practices and increasing technology.

    It should also concern us that China is one of the least environmentally friendly nations in the world-- fair to say their local and vast international efforts to accumulate resource is leading what most scientists agree is the start of the next mass extinction.
    Just a note, this is wrong. In china, so much has changed in the last 20 years, and especially in terms of quality of life, and the environment. China is a great concern because if their 1,4 billion people increase their standard of living even by a little bit, their total ecological footprint increases by a lot. Right now, Canadian/Australian citizens have the biggest eco footprint per capita. China isn't even top 20 in the world. Check this

    If Canada had the population of China, the world would be doomed already.

    Now for the rest of this

    References: I can show you numerous stats. showing food supplies far outweighing current population projections, here are just a couple I googled really fast. The figure I saw was in a sociology book however.

    "The general trend in the last several hundred years has been that the speed of growth in the food supply exceeds the speed of the population growth" -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    "
    The root causes of food insecurity and malnutrition are poverty and inequity rather than shortages. FAO statistics confirm that the world produces enough food to feed the 8 billion people living today, and even the estimated 9-15 billion population in 2050.Feb 19, 2015" -https://www.theguardian.com

    Again everything im saying can be backed up by facts but the FACT is we can produce enough food to keep hundreds of billions of people alive just by using the ideas I mentioned earlier.
    You are missing a few things.

    - Food isn't the most important factor, clean water, energy, waste and lastly quality of life is. A small part of the quality of life, is food.
    - More people, means bigger cities, means more traffic, means more energy required for shipping.
    - More people, means more roads, means less room for people, means less room for farming, less food in general.
    - More people, means more waste, means less space for people, less space for farming, longer shipping lanes, more energy required to ship goods etc.
    - This in turn makes cities bigger, more traffic, more energy required for shipping, which leads to more roads, less room for people, etc.
    - Each step makes clean water less accessible, makes the quality of life worse, waste more a problem, and energy more of a problem.

    I hope you understand what i am going for here. In physics, there is a thing called critical mass. A mass at which point an object will collapse in on itself. You are looking for a point of critical mass with people right now. But i am telling you, you cannot live on the sun either, even though it hasn't reached critical mass yet.

    Imagine simply multiplying the amount of people, 7 billion roughly, to an amount of 400 billion. You need to do the same with the CO2 emission/amount in the atmosphere.. Say 57 times higher CO2 than it is now (it won't happen like this, as rock will absorb, plants will absorb, etc, but say that it would happen.

    It is at 407.97 ppm, now. For sake of argument, say it's 400ppm. That means with 400 billion people its about 22800ppm. Which is about 2,3%.

    2,3% CO2 in air means that you will be short of breath more easily. (i believe lack of concentration and being more irritable wouldn't help people get along any better. But, this would a stupid estimate. It could be higher or lower. I believe higher.

    And this said by Billvon
    The world is overpopulated.
    I don't agree. Overpopulation is something that cannot be measured like this. Overpopulated by whoose standards. You mean, unable to sustain us on a long term. Then yes, we are overpopulated. But if you mean. Unable to exist right now, we aren't. But then, we are if you look at growth prospects, if wealth would go down globally and everyone would start thinking it is good to have 12 kids again.

    This is just my dime in the bucket
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    You mean, unable to sustain us on a long term.
    That is the most common and certainly the biology/ecology meaning.


    But then, we are if you look at growth prospects, if wealth would go down globally and everyone would start thinking it is good to have 12 kids again.
    There's an inference that matches a common perception that wealth lowers our footprint when the evidence says something different. Oftentimes folks from wealthy nations will condemn and blame those from poor nations for their greater number of children, while completely ignoring that their one or two "rich" children are probably doing far more ecological damage than that entire poor family.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    The world is overpopulated.
    I don't agree. Overpopulation is something that cannot be measured like this. Overpopulated by whoose standards. You mean, unable to sustain us on a long term. Then yes, we are overpopulated.
    Of course.
    But if you mean. Unable to exist right now, we aren't.
    That's true, but is an odd thing to say. The Earth could physically fit about 600 trillion people (about 24 million inhabitable miles of dry land, about 26 million people can stand in a square mile.) We would run out of water and food immediately, but humans can live for about four days without water and thirty days without food. If you could solve those problems, we'd use up all the earth's oxygen in about 75 days.

    Just having physical space for people doesn't mean much.
    But then, we are if you look at growth prospects, if wealth would go down globally and everyone would start thinking it is good to have 12 kids again.
    I think if wealth went down but educational levels increased you'd see smaller families. From studies, the biggest factor in reducing family sizes is education of women.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You mean, unable to sustain us on a long term.
    That is the most common and certainly the biology/ecology meaning.

    I wanted to point out what some people mean by overpopulation. They simply do not see it the way most people do. They think, overpopulation means, having no space to live. Or not enough food possible for everyone on the planet in theory.

    There usually is, in theory, but they forget about people. People are horrible, and when stacked together they will use violence and intimidation to oppress others. Doing this, farmers cant farm, cattle will be slaughtered, and healthy males who would be able to work, are given guns to shoot other healthy males holding guns.

    Or... Pollution, and 1/5th to 1/3rd of farmland in China is in reality too polluted to safely eat from.... I believe this is true for many western countries, in lower amounts, but i have no data about this.

    Or... The simple fact that climate change will make growing food more difficult on most places in the world.

    Oftentimes folks from wealthy nations will condemn and blame those from poor nations for their greater number of children, while completely ignoring that their one or two "rich" children are probably doing far more ecological damage than that entire poor family.

    Poor families are (affected by);
    - Single parent households.
    - More than 2 kids.
    - Kids from multiple partners.
    - Unemployed.
    - Having a criminal record.
    - Living off the state/welfare.
    - Coping with addictions (drugs/alcohol/tobacco)
    - Domestic abuse and violence.
    - Low level of education, or dropout.
    - Low interest of ever finding a job, because it pays less than welfare.
    - Living in areas coping with more criminality.
    - Divorced.

    Like you see, having more that fit this bracket is the last thing we need. These people don't contribute to society, usually their kids end up the same way as they do.

    I rather have fewer people, but living a good life, than many people, and having a shit life, and no chance for climate to get better.

    But no, i have no solution to this.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I wanted to point out what some people mean by overpopulation. They simply do not see it the way most people do. They think, overpopulation means, having no space to live. Or not enough food possible for everyone on the planet in theory.

    Sure. But considering this is the hard science part of a science forum, I honestly have little interest in people's pet definitions for science-related things...

    Poor families are (affected by);

    That's quite a stack of stereotypes there...and seemingly doesn't apply an international view either and several are just plain wrong.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Poor families are (affected by);

    That's quite a stack of stereotypes there...and seemingly doesn't apply an international view either and several are just plain wrong.
    The only one i can think of that works on both ends of the spectrum is divorce. For the rest they may be stereotypes, but for a group, they do hold up.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Addiction spans the entire socio-economic spectrum, tending to be highest for alcohol and cocaine among the middle class and wealthy. Opiates is higher for medium poor groups, but even among the wealthy there are pretty high numbers because roughly half of the opiate addicts started with a prescribed opiate for pain.

    Many other relationships might be true but are vastly overstated... such as this one between often heard or infered about employment and crime:
    https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/sites/defau...z_figure_2.png
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Addiction spans the entire socio-economic spectrum, tending to be highest for alcohol and cocaine among the middle class and wealthy. Opiates is higher for medium poor groups, but even among the wealthy there are pretty high numbers because roughly half of the opiate addicts started with a prescribed opiate for pain.

    Many other relationships might be true but are vastly overstated... such as this one between often heard or infered about employment and crime:
    https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/sites/defau...z_figure_2.png
    I was mainly going for the alcohol/tobacco addiction. I looked into the alcohol addiction, and it seems you are correct. Wealthy single men seem to drink more than poor single men. This is something that surprised me. But if you look at BMI and alcoholism, the higher the BMI, the less alcoholism.

    But i would say, the higher the BMI, the more prone to addiction a person is. But in this case a food addiction. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15256347

    But then i don't understand why poor people are poor. To me, spending your money on tobacco and alcohol, was to me a poor investment of less wealthy people. So, just a thought experiment.

    What would happen if you would look at the IQ, of poor people vs rich people, taken away all other variables. Only look at able bodied men, no addiction, no criminal record, and all Caucasian with the same level of education. Would you see significant difference between IQ? If not, lets look at dopamine receptor levels, difference between the same two groups.. What would you expect to see?

    Thanks Lynx_Fox, you did get me thinking.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    532
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    But then i don't understand why poor people are poor. To me, spending your money on tobacco and alcohol, was to me a poor investment of less wealthy people. So, just a thought experiment.
    For a lot of poor people that spend money on alcohol or tobacco, its a purchase that helps take the edge off their otherwise miserable lives. It makes their existence just a degree more bearable. Being able to get drunk and just release for a little bit, forget about all the problems that make it feel like the world is closing in on them.

    A lot of poor adults here were born into poverty, they then grew up poor, with little access to resources to better themselves, they end up losing hope of a better life. They build up the attitude of "the world is going to fuck me over, so why bother try anymore," or they learn to settle "well it could be worse, at least I have [family, love, friends, alcohol, etc], I'm not as bad off as so and so." The latter seems prevalent in the group of poor people who don't really realize how poor they are. They're so accustomed to their limited way of life that they cannot fully comprehend that they are living in below average standards.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    What would happen if you would look at the IQ, of poor people vs rich people, taken away all other variables. Only look at able bodied men, no addiction, no criminal record, and all Caucasian with the same level of education. Would you see significant difference between IQ? If not, lets look at dopamine receptor levels, difference between the same two groups.. What would you expect to see?
    You'd expect to see a distribution in each group, with the distribution of the rich being centered higher than the distribution of the poor - since intelligence is one predictor of financial success.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    What would happen if you would look at the IQ, of poor people vs rich people, taken away all other variables. Only look at able bodied men, no addiction, no criminal record, and all Caucasian with the same level of education. Would you see significant difference between IQ? If not, lets look at dopamine receptor levels, difference between the same two groups.. What would you expect to see?
    You'd expect to see a distribution in each group, with the distribution of the rich being centered higher than the distribution of the poor - since intelligence is one predictor of financial success.
    I thought that a countries average intelligence would be a predictor to the level of wealth. I didn't know it also counted for the individuals in these countries.

    I always figured that charisma, and connections in the country themselves were a bigger indicator for individual success. Intelligent people make fewer connections to people, less friendships, and show overall less charisma.

    I myself had trouble growing up, because i had nothing to do in class, it didn't challenge me, and i didn't want to stomp knowledge in my head, i wanted to study what i thought was interesting. Got tested for autism, but the problem was that i had a high IQ. This coupled with eventually being lazy for not getting the proper stimulation when growing up, i always thought both high and low IQ is halted. Only average and slightly above average will do good in terms of wealth.

    Added: However this last bit is my own observation, so not likely very good evidence.
    Last edited by Zwolver; February 19th, 2018 at 07:56 AM. Reason: typos
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    I always figured that charisma, and connections in the country themselves were a bigger indicator for individual success.
    Those are also factors, of course.

    I would note that while there is a strong correlation between IQ and income, there is only a weak correlation between IQ and _wealth_ which makes sense - since inherited wealth is not strongly affected by intelligence.

    Intelligent people make fewer connections to people, less friendships, and show overall less charisma.
    Why do you think that? Do you have any data to support that? I haven't seen any.
    I myself had trouble growing up, because i had nothing to do in class, it didn't challenge me, and i didn't want to stomp knowledge in my head, i wanted to study what i thought was interesting. Got tested for autism, but the problem was that i had a high IQ. This coupled with eventually being lazy for not getting the proper stimulation when growing up, i always thought both high and low IQ is halted. Only average and slightly above average will do good in terms of wealth.
    Well, again, there's income vs wealth. IQ is strongly correlated to income, not wealth.

    However, again, IQ is only one factor. Motivation is another one. A smart motivated guy who wants to get a PhD at Stanford - and gets it - will do very well. Take away either the intelligence or the motivation and he won't be able to do that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    124
    [QUOTE=billvon;613394]
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    correlated to income, not wealth.
    However, again, IQ is only one factor. Motivation is another one. A smart motivated guy who wants to get a PhD at Stanford - and gets it - will do very well. Take away either the intelligence or the motivation and he won't be able to do that.
    Tru dat.

    Potential without action is much like lack of potential.

    And intelligence can actually be a hindrance.
    I was advanced enough to coast through school and still get good grades. Now I struggle with the discipline required to advance in real life.
    This space for rent
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Intelligent people make fewer connections to people, less friendships, and show overall less charisma.
    Why do you think that? Do you have any data to support that? I haven't seen any.
    [/QUOTE]

    I have heard many people talk about the link between the amount of friends, and intelligence. But when looking for it, i cannot find it anywhere. It seems there were no studies done where it was directly linked to intelligence. But it is researched that groups of friends usually have a similar intelligence. To be high in the scale would propose having fewer peers. But i believe the facts to be deeper. If people don't understand you, and especially kids, they treat you with ridicule.

    I remember my story about reading an article about a flying car. My story about microorganisms. And my story about evolution in the classroom. I was ridiculed for believing in evolution, for thinking bacteria could make you sick, or for believing that 4 turbines could make a car to fly/hover like a helicopter. But i was only 8 back then. I had few friends because of my "weird" ideas. These experiences made me a lot less inspired to work hard . Which makes me into a lazy ass.

    I wish i could blame the difference in intelligence. But deep down i know it probably has more of a link to me not being able to talk about complex ideas very well.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Population control
    By Jeaunse23 in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: March 14th, 2014, 01:22 AM
  2. A different look at population
    By adelady in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2014, 04:40 PM
  3. Population genetics
    By Naemoekey in forum Biology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 11th, 2013, 02:32 PM
  4. Population and the Economy
    By TuiHayes in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 28th, 2009, 05:09 AM
  5. Technology and population
    By NeptuneCircle in forum History
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2008, 11:25 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •