Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 238 of 238
Like Tree39Likes

Thread: The Human Overpopulation Of This Planet.

  1. #201  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Science belongs to everyone, but not everyone belongs to science. One cannot claim to be a scientist and have a close mind, it is like trying to get behind the door and not realising that the door has to be opened first. Some people are not only confined to a box, they are confined to a coffin. Who the cap fits should wear it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    One cannot claim to be a scientist and have a close mind
    An excellent description of you.
    You persist in claiming you "love science" while consistently refusing to use, apply or heed it.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    One cannot claim to be a scientist and have a close mind
    An excellent description of you.
    You persist in claiming you "love science" while consistently refusing to use, apply or heed it.
    If you represent science, no thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    twists and turns
    different subjects and different times,
    the pattern evolves and directs the path
    into patterned redundancies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    However there has to be space for me, and a space for you. ...
    ...The main thing I cannot allow myself to do is to close my mind to new ideas no matter where it comes from although it sounds strange to my ear.
    Give us a break. This is the same kind of "logic" that journalists use to justify "balance" in science reporting. Ideas aren't just different from each other and you can put this kind on one side and another kind on the other and finish up with a nice neat balance. Ideas have different weight and value, and some of them are not worth serious consideration, if any at all.

    Another chance for a favourite video. Dara O'Briain with home truths about quackery - YouTube
    I have no problems with that, there will always some ideas that are more valuable than others depending on what you want. In that case you disregard what is not relivant and move on. People will always see thing from different angles, I know of no way to stop that, do you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    twists and turns
    different subjects and different times,
    the pattern evolves and directs the path
    into patterned redundancies
    The path is determinded by the involment of the higher and lower self. Silence is sometimes more constructive than sound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Stargate, this sub-forum is in the hard science parts of the forum. Either add science to your discussion, or move to one of the lighter sub-forum such as general, pseu, or new hypo.
    Consider this a warning.
    Lynx
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Stargate, this sub-forum is in the hard science parts of the forum. Either add science to your discussion, or move to one of the lighter sub-forum such as general, pseu, or new hypo.
    Consider this a warning.
    Lynx
    OK Lynx, I was expecting it, I agree with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Just a comment about being open minded. There is an old skeptic axiom.

    "Be open minded, but not so open that your brains fall out."

    Science as a subject is not open minded. It is rule bound. If you break the rules of science, then what you are professing is not science, but speculation.

    Now, there is nothing wrong with speculation, as long as you are honest with yourself, and others, and admit it is speculation. I speculate often. A favorite topic of mine is the future development of humanity, and I have been in a number of arguments with others on this topic. My speculations on the future are speculations, and I admit it.

    Your view that the world is sentient is unsupported speculation, and you will gain credit here by admitting that fact. It is also good for you personally and for your development as a person, to be honest about that.
    adelady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    [
    Last edited by babe; November 3rd, 2013 at 01:10 AM. Reason: double post!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,445
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Just goes to show someone will publish any old bollocks
    It was actually a good movie, based on St. Francis of Assisi.......I saw it upteen years ago!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    25
    Actually, there are many ways to prevent the overpopulation of our planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by HeartBreaker View Post
    Actually, there are many ways to prevent the overpopulation of our planet.
    Lets hear it HB.
    HeartBreaker likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    There is one overwhelmngly effective method of reducing over-population. If you look at wealthier nations without massive immigration, you will see that fertility has dropped to the point of substantial depopulation. Countries such as most of western Europe, including Scandinavia, and italy, and several nations in Asia that have achieved wealth, like Japan and Singapore.. Also NZ and Australia and Canada.

    So the best way, by far, to tackle overpopulation is to raise the wealth and welfare of all nations to the point where they are no longer breeding like rabbits. This method is proven.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Education could help overcome our tendency to overwhelm our population capacities at local levels;

    Meisenberg, G. (2009). "Wealth, Intelligence, Politics and Global Fertility Differentials".Journal of Biosocial Science 41 (4): 519–535. doi:10.1017/S0021932009003344.PMID 19323856
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    There is one overwhelmngly effective method of reducing over-population. If you look at wealthier nations without massive immigration, you will see that fertility has dropped to the point of substantial depopulation. Countries such as most of western Europe, including Scandinavia, and italy, and several nations in Asia that have achieved wealth, like Japan and Singapore.. Also NZ and Australia and Canada.

    So the best way, by far, to tackle overpopulation is to raise the wealth and welfare of all nations to the point where they are no longer breeding like rabbits. This method is proven.
    You might have a valid point however, I do not think we are there yet, and what we are calling over population is not natures definition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Education could help overcome our tendency to overwhelm our population capacities at local levels;

    Meisenberg, G. (2009). "Wealth, Intelligence, Politics and Global Fertility Differentials".Journal of Biosocial Science 41 (4): 519–535. doi:10.1017/S0021932009003344.PMID 19323856
    Flick, I am not sure what we are defining as overpopulation is not about power. If the power is in the hands of a minority, and they feel the population growth is going too fast, it will have political consequences. This fact would lead the minority in power declaring overpopulation as a problem. I would think if nature allowed such a thing to happen, it would eradicate and cleanse itself in some dramatic way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To stargate

    I understand what you are saying. Good old Ma Nature has a habit of doing dramatic things to species that overpopulate. But it is worth noting that humans are not just any old animal. We cheat!

    In other words, humans are very good at evading nature's rules. What happens to others tends not to happen to us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To stargate

    I understand what you are saying. Good old Ma Nature has a habit of doing dramatic things to species that overpopulate. But it is worth noting that humans are not just any old animal. We cheat!

    In other words, humans are very good at evading nature's rules. What happens to others tends not to happen to us.
    There is always a heavy price to pay when humans cheat though, Ma don't play that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    A heavy price??

    Maybe. But often it is nature that pays the price - not humans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    A heavy price??

    Maybe. But often it is nature that pays the price - not humans.
    If you consider we are a part of nature then yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To stargate

    Just for the purposes of discussion, I will give you a f'rinstance.

    Singapore and Hong Kong both were left in a total mess after Japan left at the end of WWII. Both received good government in the sense of being progressive and growth oriented, if not so much in terms of human rights. Both grew their economies to the point that, after 50 years, the people were quite wealthy and lived in high rise and air conditioned apartments. This is what can happen if people are governed well and given the chance to lift themselves out of poverty.

    Now, we all know that, due to human actions, the world is warming. In 100 years, we can expect there will be more turbulent weather, higher sea levels, and frequent heat waves. Nature is being hurt. Will this translate into harm to humans?

    I think there is every chance that the average person in 100 years will be living a better life than they are today. 100 years is enough ( Singapore and Hong Kong took only 50) to lift everyone out of poverty and get them into weather tight, strong, air conditioned apartments, with mod cons that we do not even dream of today. My personal opinion is that things will get better, not worse, for most people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Adelady posted this on another thread. I think it is relevant here as well. (And if Stargate if posting, we need something to inject a little rationality.)

    Hans Rosling: Religions and babies | Video on TED.com
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HeartBreaker View Post
    Actually, there are many ways to prevent the overpopulation of our planet.
    Lets hear it HB.
    We can use other methods to prevent overpopulation. Don't tell me you don't have any idea about what I've been saying Stargate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by HeartBreaker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HeartBreaker View Post
    Actually, there are many ways to prevent the overpopulation of our planet.
    Lets hear it HB.
    We can use other methods to prevent overpopulation. Don't tell me you don't have any idea about what I've been saying Stargate?
    I am understanding what you are saying, I wanted to hear about the other methods of preventing population over growth. I think Ascended mentioned removing poverty as one way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    "We can use other methods to prevent overpopulation."
    IMo There's no "over"population, just population, with a primitive social-economic system that is wasteful (and virtually based on infinite growth), on a planet that is both not-infinite and whose mass makes it hard for primitive cultures to leave/expand out of.


    Education, Women's freedom (from archaic sexist social models), access to contraception, etc can, from what we observe, greatly reduce natality to a level where population decreases.

    And we can also work on the other side of the coin. We should have already most of the technology and develop/improve the technology to make a space colony on Mars. Eventually humans could colonise Mars by the thousands and hundreds of thousands, thats eventually, according Elon Musk a Mars colony should be technically acheivable in our or our childrens lifetime. But, then if humans can survive in a deadly environment with extremely limited resources, mostly by recycling everything and producing locally (3d printers, hydroponics, etc), then it should become blatant that the earth can sustain outlandish numbers of humans given access to the technology that would be used by colonists on Mars, given colonial tech, massive sectors Earths oceans, deserts, tundras, Antarctica, etc, become accessible and much easier to colonize than Mars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_roslin...rowth.htmluman 'over-population' is a problem already being fixed.

    As I have pointed out before, the key statistic is average global fertility. That is the number of cildren produced per woman. Since there is a level of child mortality, break even is 2.1 children per woman. Current fertility is 2.4 globally.

    This may sound bad until you realise that global fertility was 5.5 only 50 years ago, and has been dropping ever since, and is still dropping. By 2050, the United Nations say it will be 2.0, which is less than break even. Since average life span is still increasing, the population will continue to grow till some time before 2100. However, at that point, there is an excellent chance it may be dropping. The United Nations predict that, by 2100, the population of the world will most likely be 9 to 10 billion, but with outside chances of being as low as 6 billion, or as high as 16 billion. Whatever it is, the growth should be roughly zero, or even be falling.

    Demographic studies have shown clearly that population growth is most effectively reduced by improving the lot of the poor. This includes food security, education for women, and a general raising of standard of living. The richest nations have the lowest population growth, and most of Europe now has falling populations.

    If you want to learn more, check out the lectures by Hans Rosling on TED. One is shown at the top of this post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Hans Rosling: Global population growth, box by box | Video on TED.com 'over-population' is a problem already being fixed.

    As I have pointed out before, the key statistic is average global fertility. That is the number of cildren produced per woman. Since there is a level of child mortality, break even is 2.1 children per woman. Current fertility is 2.4 globally.

    This may sound bad until you realise that global fertility was 5.5 only 50 years ago, and has been dropping ever since, and is still dropping. By 2050, the United Nations say it will be 2.0, which is less than break even. Since average life span is still increasing, the population will continue to grow till some time before 2100. However, at that point, there is an excellent chance it may be dropping. The United Nations predict that, by 2100, the population of the world will most likely be 9 to 10 billion, but with outside chances of being as low as 6 billion, or as high as 16 billion. Whatever it is, the growth should be roughly zero, or even be falling.

    Demographic studies have shown clearly that population growth is most effectively reduced by improving the lot of the poor. This includes food security, education for women, and a general raising of standard of living. The richest nations have the lowest population growth, and most of Europe now has falling populations.

    If you want to learn more, check out the lectures by Hans Rosling on TED. One is shown at the top of this post.
    Skeptic, my question is this, can we say that at least for this point in time, do we have a population growth that represents overpopulation for the planet? Is this over population defined by politics and will not be curbed by nature, but by political means? As you have stated the population growth is not rising equally, although the growth globally is rising. If the group that is falling continually is in political power, will it not at some point observe the rest of the world as over populating in a political sense?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Skeptic, my question is this
    Did you watch the Hans Rosling video?

    can we say that at least for this point in time, do we have a population growth that represents overpopulation for the planet?
    No. The planet is obviously not overpopulated as we can produce enough food, etc. to feed everyone. (The reasons people go hungry are to do with education, bad government, etc.)

    If the group that is falling continually is in political power, will it not at some point observe the rest of the world as over populating in a political sense?
    There is not a single political power, so I don't really understand this question. The countries who populations have stabilised will give help and resources to provide education and a better standard of living to the developing countries; this will cause their population growth rates to fall as well.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Skeptic, my question is this
    Did you watch the Hans Rosling video?

    can we say that at least for this point in time, do we have a population growth that represents overpopulation for the planet?
    No. The planet is obviously not overpopulated as we can produce enough food, etc. to feed everyone. (The reasons people go hungry are to do with education, bad government, etc.)

    If the group that is falling continually is in political power, will it not at some point observe the rest of the world as over populating in a political sense?
    There is not a single political power, so I don't really understand this question. The countries who populations have stabilised will give help and resources to provide education and a better standard of living to the developing countries; this will cause their population growth rates to fall as well.
    If for example a political party is in a minority ruling position, and every newborn was registered in the opposing party, could that be seen as over population in a political sense? Is it possible for the planet to be naturally overpopulated?

    yes I did look at the link, I am asking questions that I need to clear up for myself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    If for example a political party is in a minority ruling position, and every newborn was registered in the opposing party, could that be seen as over population in a political sense? Is it possible for the planet to be naturally overpopulated?

    yes I did look at the link, I am asking questions that I need to clear up for myself.


    Huh?
    babe likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I agree with strange, with the slight proviso that the term 'overpopulated' is going to have variable definition. Everyone will have his/her idea of what overpopulated is. Thus the question of what number represents 'overpopulated' cannot be answered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    If for example a political party is in a minority ruling position, and every newborn was registered in the opposing party, could that be seen as over population in a political sense?
    That is not overpopulation, it is electoral fraud. (Admittedly, that sort of political corruption will lead to poverty, poor education and hence population growth.)

    Is it possible for the planet to be naturally overpopulated?
    It is possible, I suppose. There is no evidence it will happen.
    babe likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,538
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I agree with strange, with the slight proviso that the term 'overpopulated' is going to have variable definition. Everyone will have his/her idea of what overpopulated is. Thus the question of what number represents 'overpopulated' cannot be answered.
    Good point.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I agree with strange, with the slight proviso that the term 'overpopulated' is going to have variable definition. Everyone will have his/her idea of what overpopulated is. Thus the question of what number represents 'overpopulated' cannot be answered.
    Thanks Skeptic, that sounds right and makes sense to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    73
    When earth had 1 billion people, overpop was already a worry.

    I stumbled on hans rosling 2 days ago, and clearly, he shows overpop is not an issue we need to work on all that much anymore since we reached peak child. Unless you re ready to consider extremes, like killing half of humanity...
    Now the issue is how to deal with our 7-10bn pop. And there is definately room to work on it. Btw, gapminder.org is kickass to check out some facts, like a stat wiki, i believe it should be shared a lot to help fight bias in the world.
    If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
    A.E
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    Mankind ? Man Kind we seem to take every resorce from the planet to make it easy for Mankind
    The Fish from the sea The trees from the forrest, and turn land into deserts
    The Oil, The Gas and when its gone we find somthing else to plunder Fracking ?
    It makes a few very rich. And the rest keep breeding It all seems to me that it will end in Tears
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    Mankind ? Man Kind we seem to take every resorce from the planet to make it easy for Mankind
    The Fish from the sea The trees from the forrest, and turn land into deserts
    The Oil, The Gas and when its gone we find somthing else to plunder Fracking ?
    It makes a few very rich. And the rest keep breeding It all seems to me that it will end in Tears
    Turn the clock back. At what point should human evolution have stopped? What was the ultimate situation?
    It would have to be pre-tool making otherwise we are using up an irreplaceable resource.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Overpopulation is a myth
    By redhaven in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: April 11th, 2012, 07:49 AM
  2. Overpopulation (again).
    By Raziell in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: February 16th, 2012, 01:56 AM
  3. The Solution to Overpopulation
    By The Finger Prince in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: August 11th, 2011, 11:44 PM
  4. Overpopulation... again
    By marcusclayman in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: January 15th, 2010, 04:41 AM
  5. Overpopulation
    By God in forum Biology
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: October 17th, 2006, 06:18 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
  •