Jump to content

A world of 7 billion people


PHCharls

Recommended Posts

nightwalker83

Not sure if this has been posted.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populat...by_the_billions

 

More specificly:

 

 

It is estimated that the population of the world reached one billion for the first time in 1805. It would be another 122 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to rise by another billion people, reaching three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, by some estimates, seven billion in October 2011.[2] It is projected to reach eight billion by 2025–2030. According to current projections, the world's population is likely to reach around nine billion by 2045–2050, with alternative scenarios ranging from a low of 7.4 billion to a high of more than 10.6 billion.[9][10][11][12][13] Projected figures vary depending on underlying statistical assumptions and which variables are manipulated in projection calculations, especially the fertility variable. Long-range predictions to 2150 range from a population decline to 3.2 billion in the 'low scenario', to 'high scenarios' of 24.8 billion. One scenario predicts a massive increase to 256 billion, assuming fertility remains at 1995 levels.[14]

 

 

Its taken about 206 years to reach the 7 billion mark! I'd hate to think where the population will be in another 206 years?

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.

The evidence is the existence of 7bn people and a growing population. It doesn't matter if some are hungry and dying, because people are not dying faster than people are being born.

 

When the point in time comes when either a) there isn't enough resources to support the population or b) the birth rate falls below the death rate, the we will see the population decrease.

 

Your view of the developing world is clouded by bigotry and xenophobia. You think the western world has all it's riches because it is better than the developing world, but you are wrong - the west is only living on borrowed time.

 

The amount of resources needed to keep the western world in the lifestyle it has become accustomed to - if repeated on a global scale - would mean we need an extra 10 planet Earths to sustain it. Take the UK for example, if you were to stop the import of food, fuel, and other raw materials, there is just no way a population of 60million could be sustained.

 

It is not the countries with rapidly growing populations that are the problem. It is the economic model they aspire to being like (namely the west) that are the problem. Only very recently, China became a net importer - it now imports more than it exports. Other countries are following as they become developed. This is unsustainable.

 

In short, the western economic model is not the solution but the problem when it comes to the worlds population.

 

 

 

 

9322068076_d79a001db2_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, we really need to sink a lot less money into stuff like war and defence and more into researching sustainable farming methods than can be used in some of the worlds more inhospitable enviro-

 

Actually, f*ck it, spend more on war, same end-goal really.

Edited by Robinski
user posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only very recently, China became a net importer - it now imports more than it exports. Other countries are following as they become developed. This is unsustainable.

Indeed it isn't sustainable. China is an internal sh*tstorm waiting to happen, but that is another kettle of fish. The middle class will disappear there as quickly as it came.

 

So let me wrap my head around what (I think) you're saying. There are in fact enough resources for 7billion people, yet people starve because they are disproportionately shared around? Like, for every person in the West who eats enough to nourish three people, two people somewhere in the world are starving?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence is the existence of 7bn people and a growing population. It doesn't matter if some are hungry and dying, because people are not dying faster than people are being born.

 

When the point in time comes when either a) there isn't enough resources to support the population or b) the birth rate falls below the death rate, the we will see the population decrease.

 

Your view of the developing world is clouded by bigotry and xenophobia. You think the western world has all it's riches because it is better than the developing world, but you are wrong - the west is only living on borrowed time.

 

The amount of resources needed to keep the western world in the lifestyle it has become accustomed to - if repeated on a global scale - would mean we need an extra 10 planet Earths to sustain it. Take the UK for example, if you were to stop the import of food, fuel, and other raw materials, there is just no way a population of 60million could be sustained.

 

It is not the countries with rapidly growing populations that are the problem. It is the economic model they aspire to being like (namely the west) that are the problem. Only very recently, China became a net importer - it now imports more than it exports. Other countries are following as they become developed. This is unsustainable.

 

In short, the western economic model is not the solution but the problem when it comes to the worlds population.

That's irrelevant. It doesn't address the issue of finite and reducing resources, and a population that is growing in no relation to the amount of resources available. The crux of your argument was "the population would not increase if there were not resources available to ensure that population growth remains sustainable" which is evidently a complete fallacy. I mean, your argument is going on the basic premise that when resources become scarce, either humans will stop reproducing or start dying in greater numbers. The latter is probably true but the former is the opposite of what's happened in cases similar to this in reality. A lack of natural resources caused by a variety of conditions- say, the drought in Somalia- hasn't resulted in a reduction in birth rate. Yes, the death rate has gone up, but the birth rate has increased even faster- simple Darwinian naturalism. When a population is faced by a threat, it will reproduce in greater numbers to ensure a larger distribution of genetic seed and therefore a higher likelihood of survival.

 

Which is all well and good when the existential threat comes externally to the humans, but sod all use when it's quite literally the size of the human population that causes the problem. Complex concepts such as these are quite alien to human nature- remember, our brains have probably changed little in their basic hard-wiring since the last Ice Age- and the concept that our continued and seemingly rational behavior is actually more likely to accelerate us towards a mass demise.

 

No, I made a simple, amoral and factually accurate statement- that the developing world lacks the raw materials to continue it's sustained growths in terms of population. This is a factual statement, no? There's no emotion in it. I'm not blaming developing-world agricultural policies any more than I'm blaming the lingering failures of Western imperialism, am I? I fear that rather than taking what I've written at face value, you are reading some kind of pro-Western, pro-Capitalist agenda into everything I say. That's all very well and good, letting you voice some misplaced moral indigence and feeling like your "fighting the power, man" but it's not very conducive or constructive to the debate at hand.

 

Yes, and your point is? It's not just the West that suffers with needless materialism- look at China, whose use of raw materials has out-stripped every other nation on the planet. They're the fastest growing consumer of literally everything, and whilst other nations seek energy security by investing in fourth-generation nuclear power and renewable electricity production, China is buying up pretty much every single remaining piece of land in Sub Saharan Africa which might be within one hundred miles of crude oil. Interdependence is part of the problem here- the Globalised community has become so dependent on the transfer of resources that they have long exhausted their own supply of that nations are forced into surplus over-production. I mean, look at China- as essentially the sole producer of Rare Earth Elements which are used in every kind of high technology industry, they're had to sell huge quantities on the open market to satisfy foreign demand. Now they've become aware that reserves are getting low, they've cut the amount they sell, increased the prices massively and started hoarding their own supplies. We're already seeing nations engaging in profiteering, rigging the markets and conducting semi-aggressive foreign policy such as funding rebel groups and insurgencies in the campaign for resource security. What more evidence to you need that human growth has outstripped the capability of the earth to provide for us?

 

No, it's everyone's problem. Blaming the West for everything isn't either intelligent or accurate, though they do need to bear some responsibility- particularly in relation to the over-encouragement of high-intensity farming which is destroying the soil's natural nutritional value and forcing food costs higher and higher. But if the population growth in the third world wasn't so high, cataclysmic events such as famine and failed harvests would have less of a socioeconomic and political impact. The "net importer versus net exporter" idea is flawed. Whilst you can reduce complicated geopolitical situations to such a juvenile and useless measure all you want, China has been a net importer of important products since the Communist revolution. I mean, they've got no oil reserves of their own, so how do they keep industry ticking over? Coal is useful, but can't be used for everything. You can't produce plastics from coal. My point is this- nations cannot operate independently of each other because their demand for resources is too great. There are very few examples of nations who are capable of self-sustaining in all areas of the economy. No political or economic model, Western, Eastern, interventionist or pacifist, gives a sustainable principal for what to do if one nation's existence is entirely dependent on another nation. Take Libya, as a perfect example. Huge oil reserves, fantastic mineral wealth, only enough arable land to support about 800,000 people. Do you use your own resources to encourage their growth and prosperity, therefore placing a greater strain on the resource system and depleting natural materials faster, or do you not?

 

Essentially, in the long term we're f*cked either way, and no amount of blaming the western economic model is going to change that. Similarly, no other economic model provides a viable combination of continued growth and increase in living standards, with ways of preserving our 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 read an article that only 50 years ago we were 3000000000 people, which is less than half than the current number. How is this possible? Humans have existed for about 2.5 million years and yet only this last century we have propagated from about 1 billion people to 7 billion. What the f*ck were we doing for almost 2.5 million years?

 

It feels like these last few generations really lives at the inception of everything. Thousand years from now people will talk about our generation as the ones who got everything started and created a modern society. I mean look at everything that has been invented this last century, things that everyone takes for granted now: cars, airplanes, computers, television, cell phones etc... These things aren't gonna go away away, they will be improved of course but thousand years from now people will probably talk about our generation as the ones who invented all this and set a new mark for a modern society.

user posted image

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arbotion is green! Sodomy is the way to go!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the report, oddly they missed the earlier companion piece on the WORLD HUNGER PROBLEM... Believe it. I saw some Nat Geo program stating the World's population could be condensed down to the size of Texas, so it's not about lack of room on the planet, it's not enough food to feed that many people. Expect world decimation (disease, rioting, etc, all that) Floods, Famine, Biblical plague....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I read an article that only 50 years ago we were 3000000000 people, which is less than half than the current number. How is this possible? Humans have existed for about 2.5 million years and yet only this last century we have propagated from about 1 billion people to 7 billion. What the f*ck were we doing for almost 2.5 million years?

As our intelligence and medicine have improved, it has helped us greatly to stay alive. There were also a good number of social reforms in the last century that helped people in poverty.

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.