U.S. per capita income was higher in 2008 than in 2007.
Is overpopulation cause for concern?
- Thread starter LucyDuke
- Start date
U.S. per capita income was higher in 2008 than in 2007.
Narz
keeping it real
pwned 
2008 levels I should have said.
2008 levels I should have said.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
And the civilization itself. What good would our survival as a species make if we descended into another dark age? Our modern technology-based society is incredibly complex, so if things go wrong, it might be impossible to save it.
And for those who believe that knowledge can't be lost, I suggest that you look at what happened in Europe between the 5th and 9th century. It never ceases to amaze me how much knowledge was lost/forgotten when Rome collapsed and how much more would be lost if there weren't other civilizations which stored and protected some of the knowledge (which then found its way back to Europe, after hundreds of years).
Now imagine that we lose the internet, computers that store most of our knowledge and means to create them - or do you think you can build CPUs without all the incredibly complicated stuff from Intel's hi-tech factories? Most people, including me, don't know a squat about electronics. I know how to maintain my computer, how to add/replace components, but I have no idea how these things work or how could I repair them. And this is just one field out of many - medicine, engineering etc. I am so reliant on modern civilization, that if I was thrown into a post-apocalyptic world, I'd lack most of the basic skills to survive. And even if I survived and was a genius in the field of genetics, I would lack the means to continue in my research. I'd spend most of my time searching for food or farming, so I'd hardly have any time to teach my now-useless knowledge to other people. Within few generations, most of the knowledge would be effectively lost and the society would revert to a pre-modern state (depending on how soon would the last remaining computers and other machines break down, on how soon would the stockpiles of drugs run out, and so on).
If Earth suffered a global collapse, the resulting dark age could last for centuries, maybe even longer considering that we've already depleated most of the readily accessible resources like coal, oil, metals etc. which are necessary for any civilization to progress. The successor civilizations would find it hard to advance, in fact they might get stuck - for example they'd have a vague idea of things like nuclear energy or gene therapy (referenced in the old scriptures
), but they'd have no means to build a nuclear power plant or a genetic laboratory.---
Therefore, sending a "lifeboat" to some other place, with all our knowledge and means to replicate our technology onboard might not be such a bad idea. It doesn't have to be the Alpha Centauri system, Mars would be OK.
PiMan
Deity
Coal and oil, I would agree, but we haven't really depleted metals. We have made them even easier to access by purifying them and sticking them above ground.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Iron corrodes, as well as many other metals. Plus, it might be hard to recycle them without proper technology. But true, the successor civilizations would surely utilize the remnants of the previous (our) civilization. The problem with this is that you can't do it forever, you need to develop a mining industry anyway - and it woul be hard since we've already depleted the best sources.
Generally speaking, I believe that any future civilization would find it extremelly difficult to recreate what was lost.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
That's what electrolysis is for. And it's no so complicated. Just apply electricity to metal lying in a vat of chemicals.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
How do you make the electricity? Hint: power plants are gone.
PiMan
Deity
They can figure something out. eg wind, solar thermal, even a simple Stirling Engine could work
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Sound to me like telling a caveman that he needs a lens to make fire. The glitch is that he needs fire and about million other things to make the lense
It's pretty hard to skip certain steps when you're trying to advance your technology.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
It's too crowded 
But, some buildings are making me happy
But, some buildings are making me happy
PiMan
Deity
Sound to me like telling a caveman that he needs a lens to make fire. The glitch is that he needs fire and about million other things to make the lense
It's pretty hard to skip certain steps when you're trying to advance your technology.
But there are alternate pathways.
Slightly off-topic, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who voted for population control and sustainable development are from Europe. Or, I should say, that's the option most European's are likely to pick.
But, anyway, like I said prior, there's no such thing as "overpopulation". Neither FAO, WHO or the UN is predicting any sort of cataclysmic change the result of population growth. It's just fear-mongering at it's worst (Or should I say finest?).
But, anyway, like I said prior, there's no such thing as "overpopulation". Neither FAO, WHO or the UN is predicting any sort of cataclysmic change the result of population growth. It's just fear-mongering at it's worst (Or should I say finest?).
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I suggest you look into a little concept called "carrying capacity".
Huayna Capac357
Deity
It's how many people consuming resources at what rate Earth can sustain.
The FAO, UN, and WHO are all promoting policies to reduce birthrates, though. They can't say 'overpopulation is a problem', because it's a political landmine.
They blame overpopulation for many local issues, though.
They blame overpopulation for many local issues, though.
I didn't ask what the definition of carrying capacity was. I asked what the earth's carrying capacity is (You know? As in a number?).
It's true that the earth's population isn't uniformly distributed across countries, and as a result some areas are densely populated while others are sparsely populated (Cities vs. rural areas is a prime example of this). No one denied this. Just the whole "the earth is overpopulated and we need to curb population growth or else there's going to be global cataclysm!" type sentiment to be immensely overblown and just plain wrong, as we have enough food and land to feed and house everyone on the earth, and then some. The "problem", which most people ignore, is that food isn't distributed proportionately between countries, so some countries get far more then they need (Most western countries) while others get too little (Most developing countries, especially in Africa). Of course, some countries produce too little food because of infighting and the like, but the point remains. For the most part, every region of the world can produce enough food to sustain itself (I think the exception is south-east Asia, but don't quote me on that).
Narz
keeping it real
Exactly.
Did anyone post this yet?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece
^And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Europe is becoming fast irrelevant.
What kind of an idiot is that guy? The only way to reduce a population by 50%+ in a generation or two is to institute a one-child policy (i.e., cut the replacement rate to 1.00). I mean, really. Someone needs to tell him that Europe has a population problem-- And it isn't a rapidly growing population.
What kind of an idiot is that guy? The only way to reduce a population by 50%+ in a generation or two is to institute a one-child policy (i.e., cut the replacement rate to 1.00). I mean, really. Someone needs to tell him that Europe has a population problem-- And it isn't a rapidly growing population.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
Narz said:
So you think that the US has peaked in terms of productive capacity? I'll take that bet, adjusted to 2008. In 2008, US GDP per capita was about $46,953.40, nominal. I'll bet that US GDP per capita will be higher than that number, inflation-adjusted, by 2012. What'll you put on the table?