Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

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 08:51 PM. Reason: Extra
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,689
    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 Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    976
    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 Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,117
    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
    2,689
    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
    2,689
    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
    3,944
    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
    10,857
    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
    2,689
    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
    8,343
    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
    2,031
    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 Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    976
    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 Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    976
    dup
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Population control
    By Jeaunse23 in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: March 14th, 2014, 02:22 AM
  2. A different look at population
    By adelady in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2014, 05:40 PM
  3. Population genetics
    By Naemoekey in forum Biology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 11th, 2013, 03:32 PM
  4. Population and the Economy
    By TuiHayes in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 28th, 2009, 06:09 AM
  5. Technology and population
    By NeptuneCircle in forum History
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 24th, 2008, 12:25 AM
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
  •