Thread: 8 Billion Humans, and Counting..........

A new U.N. report tells us there are now 8 billion people on the planet. This is quite a lot. It is double the population since 1974. It seems unlikely we will see another doubling. More probably a massive decrease the way things are going. The planet is telling us that there are just too many of our species crowding out everything else, and causing massive pollution which is impacting all life on earth.

Beyond famines and wars, etc., there may be another process at work which could minimize the human population. Studies over a considerable period of time indicate that human sperm counts are crashing, decreasing fertility and thereby decreasing birth rates. Many attribute this to pollution and its results on male reproductive organs. It could provide a less brutal means of population control, but likely comes too late. One way or another, nature will determine the results.

For more on this aspect, see the link below:


"Humans could face reproductive crisis as sperm count declines, study finds"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...es-study-finds

I found it quite amusing when I saw in the news the 8 billionth newborn baby, as if we know the exact population of the planet down to the very last person.

Published in 1993 and revised since a book called Planetary Overload (Cambridge University Press).

"The human species faces many threats to its health - perhaps to its survival. Taking an interesting perspective, Planetary Overload forcefully points out the consequences to human health of ongoing degradation of Earth's ecosystems. In a broad-based, accessible analysis, A. J. McMichael examines ecological disruptions - land degradation, ozone depletion, temperature increases, and loss of genetic diversity through the extinction of species, among others - and compellingly demonstrates their potentially disastrous results, including food shortages, new and intensified disease patterns, rising seas, mass refugee problems, and cancers, blindness, and immune suppression from increased ultraviolet radiation. While other books on the subject analyse only the environmental impact of these problems, McMichael relates each of these insidious processes back to its ultimate impact on human health. He thoroughly considers these problems within a broad evolutionary, biological, social, and economic context, and also explores the underlying problems contributing to environmental breakdown, especially the relations between the world's rich and poor. This book will be of interest to environmentalists, public health professionals, policy makers, environmental studies and human ecology scholars, and anyone wishing a lucid, rational assessment of today's pressing ecological concerns.

Originally Posted by KJW

I found it quite amusing when I saw in the news the 8 billionth newborn baby, as if we know the exact population of the planet down to the very last person.

I know all 100 billion of them from this book:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Brief-Histo.../dp/0297609378

At the end of WW2 the population was 2 billion.
Now it's 8 billion 77 years later.
May I suggest we need a nuclear war this time to sustain the human species.
At least WW4 will only be fought with sticks and stones!

Life expectancy needs to fall like it does in Scotland.
Life expectancy continues to fall in Scotland | National Records of Scotland (nrscotland.gov.uk)

Originally Posted by ox

May I suggest we need a nuclear war this time to sustain the human species.

Clearly this would require a limited nuclear war, and that alone seems rather risky. There will always be a major chance that any nuclear exchange will escalate, for various reasons. Such a scenario would probably solve the human population problem, permanently. While that would also eliminate future speculation about the problem, it seems to be a less-than-desirable outcome.

The least disruptive approach might be to allow things to proceed as they are. Cruel as it is, starvation, disease and declining birth rates etc. will provide for a massive reduction in the human scourge. The remaining question - will it be enough to save what little is left after everything levels off. In any event, with all the destruction to the planet which has already occurred, it is difficult to find any solid ground on which to proceed.

Is that not what WMD's are for, to wipe out overpopulations?
Any war will do the same but not as effective as nukes.
Humans are good at not being limited by their food supply like animals are.
A nuclear war has to come. A war between genes.

Originally Posted by ox

A nuclear war has to come. A war between genes.

A curious observation. War between genes seems to be the nature of evolution, since those with the superior genes tend to win out, and propagate. Survival by natural selection is a form of gene warfare.

But if you have a nuclear war with fission and fusion based weapons, many mutations will result. Then the biological nuclear war gets very complicated, but still would rely on having the best genes. And some of those would be superior DNA repair mechanisms. Sounds like the basis for an unique science fiction story.

Originally Posted by ox

Is that not what WMD's are for, to wipe out overpopulations?
Any war will do the same but not as effective as nukes.
Humans are good at not being limited by their food supply like animals are.
A nuclear war has to come. A war between genes.

You assume that there is "overpopulation". There is no consensus this is true. Furthermore the human population is expected to reach a maximum of 11bn later this century, so it is expected to be self-limiting in any case, due to mainly to rise in standard of living eps. better access to means of control of family size, as women becomes more educated and independent.

You need to establish there is a problem before you propose such radical solutions.

Originally Posted by exchemist

You need to establish there is a problem before you propose such radical solutions.

And even if there is a problem, it needs to be established that the problem is worse than the proposed solution.

Originally Posted by exchemist

You assume that there is "overpopulation".

Human populations that do have to hunt and forage for food tend to be stable.
The human infestation of this planet can be largely attributed to modern humans not needing to do this, as they are unlikely to outgrow their food supply.
Drive your car to the supermarket to load up with instant cheap food.
Starvation was a big factor in the past to control human population.
No one need go hungry now, but at what cost to the health of the planet.

There is no consensus this is true. Furthermore the human population is expected to reach a maximum of 11bn later this century, so it is expected to be self-limiting in any case, due to mainly to rise in standard of living eps. better access to means of control of family size, as women becomes more educated and independent.

There is no reliable way to predict the future.

You need to establish there is a problem before you propose such radical solutions.

Sustainable global human population has been put as low as 2 billion.
Humans are animals but unlike the rest of them they have managed to find a better way to survive.
World trade, healthcare, diplomacy. There is always a price to pay.

Originally Posted by ox

The human infestation of this planet can be largely attributed to modern humans not needing to do this, as they are unlikely to outgrow their food supply.

Several billion people in east Asia rely largely on the oceans for protein. Due to climate change, over-fishing, acidification of the oceans, etc., it seems likely that the planet is well past its human saturation point. It is likely that current projections for continuing population growth may need to be revised as a result of loss in sustainable food supplies.

Floods and droughts of course add to the problem of depleting food sources. Unless wars have a major impact on populations, starvation and related aspects such as disease will be the biggest limitations.

Whoops, wrong thread