Jump to content

A world of 7 billion people


PHCharls

Recommended Posts

The key to reducing the birth rate is the education of women. Countries with the most highly educated women have the smallest birth rates. There's no need to impose limits or create laws to limit population, just educate women.

Yep, That's a brilliant Idea except that maybe educating women in a country like Sudan isn't as easy as it sounds. Do you think they can just get the money and resources to do all this just within a click of a finger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There are too many mouths to feed" - this cannot be true. 7bn people alive must mean there's enough food to keep 7bn alive.

Why must that be the case? Population growth happens entirely separately to agricultural production and other economic factors that affect it's long-term feasibility. There are only finite natural resources, and their quantity declines at an increasing rate as population increases. So, I ask you again, why must the number of people alive bear any relation to the amount of food their is in existence? It may do in the Western world, but outside that with undeveloped economic and agricultural structures, why should that imperative apply. When one sub-Saharan tribal group cultivates food for themselves, do they cultivate enough to feed those in the neighbouring tribe, who live on less fertile land? No. There's no concept of agricultural overproduction outside of the developed world- ergo, organisations that can produce enough to get by do that, and no more, and those who cannot often just starve.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There are too many mouths to feed" - this cannot be true. 7bn people alive must mean there's enough food to keep 7bn alive.

Why must that be the case? Population growth happens entirely separately to agricultural production and other economic factors that affect it's long-term feasibility. There are only finite natural resources, and their quantity declines at an increasing rate as population increases. So, I ask you again, why must the number of people alive bear any relation to the amount of food their is in existence? It may do in the Western world, but outside that with undeveloped economic and agricultural structures, why should that imperative apply. When one sub-Saharan tribal group cultivates food for themselves, do they cultivate enough to feed those in the neighbouring tribe, who live on less fertile land? No. There's no concept of agricultural overproduction outside of the developed world- ergo, organisations that can produce enough to get by do that, and no more, and those who cannot often just starve.

Slow down there Malthus, your point ignores the fact that there is indeed enough food for everyone, technically. Most starvation in the world has political roots. I also wouldn't say that population growth is entirely separate from agricultural production, in Modern Western society maybe, because we produce more than we need and aren't having a ridiculous amount of children to compensate. It is often the case however that agricultural booms or innovations greatly increased the birth rate in the past and elsewhere in the world.

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slow down there Malthus, your point ignores the fact that there is indeed enough food for everyone, technically. Most starvation in the world has political roots. I also wouldn't say that population growth is entirely separate from agricultural production, in Modern Western society maybe, because we produce more than we need and aren't having a ridiculous amount of children to compensate. It is often the case however that agricultural booms or innovations greatly increased the birth rate in the past and elsewhere in the world.

I agree that in many cases starvation has political roots, but do we really have enough food to feed everyone? I mean, I hear people say that we do all the time, but I've never seen any statistics to support it. There are lots of other contributory factors too- nutrients in soil are variable, as are weather conditions. Even if, in a good year, the earth was capable of producing enough food to feed the earth as it currently stands, that doesn't mean that we can continue to do so as population grows and as other factors such as unpredictable weather alterations, "off seasons", insects and parasites that can decimate crops and the suchlike occur. And then there's the matter of other finite natural resources.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still amazed that even after all of the recent disasters we've seen happen in the last years, the worlds population still continues to grow.

 

And with a larger world population comes the great problems: homes, food, resources, jobs, education and the one that we all dread, diseases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, if new technology isn't invented to save us and the population increases too dramatically, then we will have a population crash. Some people will simply die and then the cycle continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-

Edited by Marwin

L71cGcK.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I don't understand is the poor people in Africa. Why do they have 10 + kids? Firstly, they're too poor to support even 1, they all have AIDS, they're not very civilized, and they end up dying of hunger. I feel sorry for the kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I don't understand is the poor people in Africa. Why do they have 10 + kids? Firstly, they're too poor to support even 1, they all have AIDS, they're not very civilized, and they end up dying of hunger. I feel sorry for the kids.

They have no education, they don't know safe sex. And sex must be the only good thing in their lifes.

Yl8KS.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I don't understand is the poor people in Africa. Why do they have 10 + kids? Firstly, they're too poor to support even 1, they all have AIDS, they're not very civilized, and they end up dying of hunger. I feel sorry for the kids.

Species don't want to go extinct, so when one is about to die our nature tells us to reproduce, so that humans can live.




tumblr_mk683ddOTs1rkv9cvo1_250.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I don't understand is the poor people in Africa. Why do they have 10 + kids? Firstly, they're too poor to support even 1, they all have AIDS, they're not very civilized, and they end up dying of hunger. I feel sorry for the kids.

The reasons why they have so many kids are: In Africa, kids still work, so more kids working in a family the more money they get. They also have many kids due to the fact that many of them do die at a young age and finally, they don't practice safe sex, either due to religious reasons or not being able to afford the condoms.

DVf9mQs.png

Formerly known as The General

Link to comment
Share on other sites

leik oh em jeez!
One thing I don't understand is the poor people in Africa. Why do they have 10 + kids? Firstly, they're too poor to support even 1, they all have AIDS, they're not very civilized, and they end up dying of hunger. I feel sorry for the kids.

Species don't want to go extinct, so when one is about to die our nature tells us to reproduce, so that humans can live.

I really hate to be this much of a dick head, but the natural control for overpopulation is disease. You take a away as much of it as possible disease, the population increases, the disease spreads faster. And you've got even more people than before, but with the same food. So even in saving a life you could be helping to further worsen the lives of thousands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Vegeta what does your population scanner say

It's over 7 BILLION!!!

G1T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I don't understand is the poor people in Africa. Why do they have 10 + kids? Firstly, they're too poor to support even 1, they all have AIDS, they're not very civilized, and they end up dying of hunger. I feel sorry for the kids.

The reasons why they have so many kids are: In Africa, kids still work, so more kids working in a family the more money they get. They also have many kids due to the fact that many of them do die at a young age and finally, they don't practice safe sex, either due to religious reasons or not being able to afford the condoms.

Yeah, they are subsistence farmers, it's pretty much the way they live to grow food for themselves, In Africa it is very common and in other LEDC's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finn 7 five 11
No, we really should start worrying about the numbers.

We need firm policies designed to limit of children people can have. With resources such as oil already running low, it stands to reason that depopulation would be a positive thing for the world, right? There are simply too many mouths to feed, we have to step back and make sure that valuable resources aren't gobbled up by an out-of-control populace.

It's unpleasant and I don't like it, but I have always believed that government edicts on human breeding are the way forward.

To me it seems like common sense.

Yep we need to worry big time.

 

Policies in place to limit children, cut down on immigration and help people in their own country.

Letting people breed is not humane, not in the end, in the end more suffer,and more die.

 

If we don't cut down we are absolutely f*cked, there is no way in hell we survive, then globa warming comes in and give the kick in the teeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

free euthanasia for people 60 and above? book a lethal injection get a funeral free? we need some government propaganda to make euthanasia sounds fun and rewarding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of critical thinking is needed here. If there wasn't enough resources for 7bn people to live on Earth, there wouldn't be 7bn people on Earth.

 

It's all about consumption - 7bn people can't live like your average European/American, they consume far too much of the earths resources.

9322068076_d79a001db2_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea reading the posts above about spreading diseases and killing thousands sounds pretty messed up, but that truth hurts

 

I personally do not support that kind of thing, I doubt anyone (except those who want power and cruel hearts) would want that kind of thing happening, but maybe that might be a solution.

 

Ofcourse the other one people already suggest: stop having so much sex. I support in free choice, but come on! How can 2 parents decide to have 11 children and think feeding everyone of them is not a problem. I cannot help to imagine how much chaos goes on in the house and everyone gobbling up all the food and so many other problems that come with having that many children.

 

On another note, with medical treatments and advancing in medicine, technology, science..(etc) It is going to be hard to knock those numbers down. Just 9 hours ago, I was looking at the oldest people to ever live, which is 115 right now, but there is a possibility that there is someone in this century that will live up to 150. The point is, that is going to make it hell of a lot harder to shrink the numbers if people are living longer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature has a way, eventually our population would grow so large that we won't have enough food, water, or energy to support all of us and a large portion of us will simply die off.

Humans aren't really known for their foresight, more like hindsight.

 

So nothing is going to get changed until the next human mass extinction event sometime in the future.

That or an asteroid would do us in.

 

Either way nature ends up winning, nature will always win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

free euthanasia for people 60 and above? book a lethal injection get a funeral free? we need some government propaganda to make euthanasia sounds fun and rewarding

As morally repugnant as that sounds, it actually cures two problems- one, the issue of overpopulation, and two, the steady ageing of populations in most developed economies and Western societies.

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of critical thinking is needed here.

You really need to take heed of your own words.

 

Will everyone in the world go to bed with a full stomach tonight?

In winter months, does every person stay warm?

Is everyone able to access clean drinking water?

 

The answer is no. There isn't enough water as it stands, there isn't enough food as it stands, and other 'luxuries' such as heat, transportation, medicine, etc are not enough as it stands.

 

Thinking that 7billion people are alive today means that there's enough going around to sustain them is shaky logic at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A bit of critical thinking is needed here. If there wasn't enough resources for 7bn people to live on Earth, there wouldn't be 7bn people on Earth.

That's not "critical thinking", it's a relatively infantile and wholly inaccurate deduction based on faulty or non-existent evidence. You are trying to imply that population and resources are mutually inclusive of each other- that is, population wouldn't grow if there were no resources to support it. But population is growing, and resources are known to be finite, which immediately destroys every ounce of logic in your entire argument. Population growth is only very loosely based on raw materials available to support a population- if there was a proper relationship between the two, then explain to me why population growth is in negative figures in the West, which is resource-rich, and highest in the most resource-poor parts of the developing world? If anything, I would argue that population grows more the less resources there are- it's a basic survival mechanism to ensure that an individual carries on their genetic seed, but it's unintended consequence is to place yet more pressure on dwindling resource supplies.

Edited by sivispacem

Untitled-1.jpg
AMD Ryzen 5900X (4.7GHz All-Core PBO2) | Gigabye X570S Pro | 32GB G-Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz CL16

EK-Quantum Reflection D5 | XSPC D5 PWM | TechN CPU Blocks | HardwareLabs GTS & GTX 360 Radiators
Corsair AX750 | Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic XL | ASUS RTX 4080 TUF @2970MHz | Sabrant Rocket Plus 1TB
Sabrant Rocket 2TB | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB | 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q | Q Acoustics 2010i | Sabaj A4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I weren't so busy I would be on a quest to find the right statistics to back up the fact that there is quite enough food for everyone on the planet, in theory. The failure lies in distribution, most famines are entirely political. Even if it weren't true, which it is, in Western Society by most standards we produce way more food than we could possibly consume, to the point that we artificially restrict the amount of food produced and sold (quotas). If the same agricultural techniques were applied in less developed parts of the world (easier said than done) there would be enough food to support many billions more than we have today.

 

Agriculture will improve with time, and we should expect that it will continue to support most of the population well into 9-10 billion range, where population projections predict there will be a stabilization. I'd like to source of all of this but I really don't have time, I've done it before though, these topics have been around in the past.

 

Overpopulation panic seems to bring out the worst in people, as I can see from everyone here proposing illiberal population control policies. For those proposing restrictions on having kids, you should know that in most of the West the birth rate is below replacement rate and you'll be dooming yourselves to extinction.

 

*Edit - The quotas obviously have to do with controlling the price, not just because we're "making too much" or something.

user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The increase is fine, we can deal with it - we have the land, resources and technology to overcome any kind of issue. The whole reason we're top of the food chain is because we can adapt so well. Any kind of bad reaction to the 7 billion mark is over the top and frankly, stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The increase is fine, we can deal with it - we have the land, resources and technology to overcome any kind of issue. The whole reason we're top of the food chain is because we can adapt so well. Any kind of bad reaction to the 7 billion mark is over the top and frankly, stupid.

It's not like the whole of the human race is going to become extinct because of this matter, it's just the fact that some people may very well have to die or if problem solvers and solutions aren't found, they will die off. So yes humans that have resources and good supplies will "Adapt" because they have these things, others who don't have these resources will die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The increase is fine, we can deal with it - we have the land, resources and technology to overcome any kind of issue.

How about fertilising crops? Once we start to run out of certain chemicals used in commercial farming, food prices will rise out of the grasp of even more people around the world.

 

One of the only reasons it is viable on such an enormous scale to date is the reliance on things such as phosphorus, which again is plagued by scarcity (like everything, as sivi keeps saying and everyone ITT keeps ignoring) which means that in the future, food production may not just magically keep up with population increases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all fertilisers use phosphurous. That's just one example of many. The idea is comparible to the energy question.

 

What I'm saying is that there's alternatives out there and probably more that we're yet to discover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.