if everyone lived like you, how many planets would we need?

[Eli]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
try 7 billion in a decadeor less. the growth is exponential.

Of course. But it can't be exponential forever. Just as in the past, pressures will keep this down. Oddly enough, capitalism provides the best system for this. As population pressures increase the cost of resources, it discourages people from having more children because of the prohibitive financial burden. We've already seen this effect in the past 50-60 years. Once very large families of 8-10 children were common, now they are not. The net effect is a reduction of the growth rate. Remember that every couple with 2 or less children leads to what is effectively a negative growth rate.

But does it really matter exactly how many there are of us? Once the world had only 100 million, and famines were commonplace, and now we have 6 billion and famines are rare.

Right, but there must be a breaking point. Technology will let the population exceed that point, and there will be a very difficult road ahead of us from then on. America throws away more food than the rest of the world eats. This is because we have both the resources and the tech to produce food like it's going out of style. However, this can't be sustained with current tech. Pesticides, fertilizers, energy production, etc. will come back to bite us on the @ss. I don't mind having plenty of food, but I recognize the fact that new ways are needed.

My thoughts exactly....

 

[Chompman]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
try 7 billion in a decadeor less. the growth is exponential.

Of course. But it can't be exponential forever. Just as in the past, pressures will keep this down. Oddly enough, capitalism provides the best system for this. As population pressures increase the cost of resources, it discourages people from having more children because of the prohibitive financial burden. We've already seen this effect in the past 50-60 years. Once very large families of 8-10 children were common, now they are not. The net effect is a reduction of the growth rate. Remember that every couple with 2 or less children leads to what is effectively a negative growth rate.

But does it really matter exactly how many there are of us? Once the world had only 100 million, and famines were commonplace, and now we have 6 billion and famines are rare.

Right, but there must be a breaking point. Technology will let the population exceed that point, and there will be a very difficult road ahead of us from then on. America throws away more food than the rest of the world eats. This is because we have both the resources and the tech to produce food like it's going out of style. However, this can't be sustained with current tech. Pesticides, fertilizers, energy production, etc. will come back to bite us on the @ss. I don't mind having plenty of food, but I recognize the fact that new ways are needed.

This is my response to that:

Simple solution.

 

[Cobalt]

2.5 for me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
Right, but there must be a breaking point. Technology will let the population exceed that point, and there will be a very difficult road ahead of us from then on. America throws away more food than the rest of the world eats. This is because we have both the resources and the tech to produce food like it's going out of style. However, this can't be sustained with current tech. Pesticides, fertilizers, energy production, etc. will come back to bite us on the @ss. I don't mind having plenty of food, but I recognize the fact that new ways are needed.

My thoughts exactly....

So... what exactly will happen if the population exceeds this breaking point of yours? There is a scientifically definite answer to this, I'm just checking to see if either of you know.
We can use a neutral person to double-check by PM if you wish.

edit: nm, I pm'ed the answer to Eli.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

I have no idea what the "breaking point" exactly is, but I'm smart enough to know it's there.

Have you ever heard the term "Don't sh!t where you sleep"?

 

[oogabooga]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 6.9
MOBILITY 2.2
SHELTER 3.2
GOODS/SERVICES 4.9
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 17



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.



IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.9 PLANETS.

hrmm... this can't be good.... ;P

 

[DaTT]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 3.4
MOBILITY 1.9
SHELTER 2.2
GOODS/SERVICES 4.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 11.7



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.



IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 6.5 PLANETS.

 

[sciwizam]

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES
FOOD 0.3
MOBILITY 0
SHELTER 0.4
GOODS/SERVICES 0.1
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 0.8



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 0.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.



IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 1.0 PLANETS.

 

[miketheidiot]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.4
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 1.7
GOODS/SERVICES 1.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 9



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.



IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.1 PLANETS.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
try 7 billion in a decadeor less. the growth is exponential.

Of course. But it can't be exponential forever. Just as in the past, pressures will keep this down. Oddly enough, capitalism provides the best system for this. As population pressures increase the cost of resources, it discourages people from having more children because of the prohibitive financial burden. We've already seen this effect in the past 50-60 years. Once very large families of 8-10 children were common, now they are not. The net effect is a reduction of the growth rate. Remember that every couple with 2 or less children leads to what is effectively a negative growth rate.

But does it really matter exactly how many there are of us? Once the world had only 100 million, and famines were commonplace, and now we have 6 billion and famines are rare.

That's not exactly true. History has shown that scarcity of resources does not result in lower birth rate. Look at the poorest places in the world, Africa and Asia. Those are the regions with the highest birthrates and the most mal nutrition and starvation.
My geology prof had a theory, with good evidence to back it up, that fertility is inversely related to energy availability. The poorest people have many children to work for them, whereas they would not with better technology.

Also, more children only become a liability in a consumer society.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Also, people in Ethiopia (natural and artificial famine) had as many children as possible in order to increase the likelyhood of someone surviving. And I thought I had it tough.

 

[psiu]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.4
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 4.2
GOODS/SERVICES 4
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 14

IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.

IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.1 PLANETS.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
That's not exactly true. History has shown that scarcity of resources does not result in lower birth rate. Look at the poorest places in the world, Africa and Asia. Those are the regions with the highest birthrates and the most mal nutrition and starvation.
My geology prof had a theory, with good evidence to back it up, that fertility is inversely related to energy availability. The poorest people have many children to work for them, whereas they would not with better technology.

Also, more children only become a liability in a consumer society.

I was going to discuss how socialism gives the lower classes incentive to breed, but decided that I didn't want to start a political discussion.
That's why I mentioned the benefits of capitalism on this subject, and didn't bring up the disadvantages of other political systems in this regard.

 

[grrl]

That's a rather suspicious questionnaire. I changed countries, kept the same information and my 'needs' nearly doubled?

 

[bluestrobe]

FOOD 4.9
MOBILITY 3.5
SHELTER 5.2
GOODS/SERVICES 7.9
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 22

 

[glorygunk]

wtf i didn't know we could do this in english units! stupid liters and kilometers

thank goodness for google unit conversions!


anyway...4.5 planets for me

 

[aatf510]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 6.9
MOBILITY 23.5
SHELTER 30.4
GOODS/SERVICES 61
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 122

27.4 Planets.

 

[aatf510]

Originally posted by: glorygunk
wtf i didn't know we could do this in english units! stupid liters and kilometers

thank goodness for google unit conversions!


anyway...4.5 planets for me

English units are more stupid.
Almost the entire world has changed from English to Metric already.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 3.2
MOBILITY 0.2
SHELTER 3.5
GOODS/SERVICES 4.2
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 11



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.



IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.5 PLANETS.

bullshit.

seriously.

that or there need to be alot more dead chinamen.

 

[Lifted]

Originally posted by: Amused
One can be anti-liberal/pro capitalist without being a religious right wacko. Think about that the next time you feel the urge to bleat political slogans like a mindless sheep.

Heh. He spouts of "anti-liberal" as if the whole meaning of liberal hasn't been mangled by right-wing newspeak, then talks about somebody else using "bleat political slogans like a mindless sheep."

:roll:

From webster.com

liberal: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

If being against the above defines what you stand for, I feel quite sad for you.

 

[Psyber]

4.5 Earths for me!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Lifted

Originally posted by: Amused
One can be anti-liberal/pro capitalist without being a religious right wacko. Think about that the next time you feel the urge to bleat political slogans like a mindless sheep.

Heh. He spouts of "anti-liberal" as if the whole meaning of liberal hasn't been mangled by right-wing newspeak, then talks about somebody else using "bleat political slogans like a mindless sheep."

:roll:

From webster.com

liberal: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

If being against the above defines what you stand for, I feel quite sad for you.

Actually, in American politics "liberal" has come to mean leftist, socialist, nanny-stater and in some cases, authoritarian socialist.

But then, the "true meaning of liberal vs the political meaning" has been debated to death already.

 

[Aquila76]

Just doing my part. I work close to home (5mi) and bike to work in the summer. My apartment is a postage stamp stacked on top of other postage stamps. I try to get local grown veggies and meats, too.

----------------------------------
CATEGORY ACRES
FOOD 5.7
MOBILITY 0.5
SHELTER 1.5
GOODS/SERVICES 1.7
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 9



IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON.

WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.



IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.1 PLANETS.

 

[Lifted]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Lifted

Originally posted by: Amused
One can be anti-liberal/pro capitalist without being a religious right wacko. Think about that the next time you feel the urge to bleat political slogans like a mindless sheep.

Heh. He spouts of "anti-liberal" as if the whole meaning of liberal hasn't been mangled by right-wing newspeak, then talks about somebody else using "bleat political slogans like a mindless sheep."

:roll:

From webster.com

liberal: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

If being against the above defines what you stand for, I feel quite sad for you.

Actually, in American politics "liberal" has come to mean leftist, socialist, nanny-stater and in some cases, authoritarian socialist.

But then, the "true meaning of liberal vs the political meaning" has been debated to death already.

Thank you, that is exactly my point. You used the political slogan form of liberal, but in the very same sentence chastized somebody else for using "bleat political slogans like a mindless sheep."

Hi pot. You're black too.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Lifted

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Lifted

Originally posted by: Amused
One can be anti-liberal/pro capitalist without being a religious right wacko. Think about that the next time you feel the urge to bleat political slogans like a mindless sheep.

Heh. He spouts of "anti-liberal" as if the whole meaning of liberal hasn't been mangled by right-wing newspeak, then talks about somebody else using "bleat political slogans like a mindless sheep."

:roll:

From webster.com

liberal: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

If being against the above defines what you stand for, I feel quite sad for you.

Actually, in American politics "liberal" has come to mean leftist, socialist, nanny-stater and in some cases, authoritarian socialist.

But then, the "true meaning of liberal vs the political meaning" has been debated to death already.

Thank you, that is exactly my point. You used the political slogan form of liberal, but in the very same sentence chastized somebody else for using "bleat political slogans like a mindless sheep."

Hi pot. You're black too.

Um, no. I used the commonly accepted term to describe a political ideology.

You have no point.

Go find another nit to pick, OK?