• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Many Need to Die For Earth to Live

Well ultimately, I think it is true. We're gonna keep pushing and pushing mother earth until she decides to push us off.

 
We're all gonna die, the question is how do you coordinate an economy so that it can be successful in the face of a falling population?
 
Bullshit in its utmost degree. Malthusian limits are artificial and stupid, and assume no improvements in efficiency. They've already been defeated a couple of times, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it won't happen again.
 
Originally posted by: Meuge
Bullshit in its utmost degree. Malthusian limits are artificial and stupid, and assume no improvements in efficiency. They've already been defeated a couple of times, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it won't happen again.
Click to expand...

except to be able to try to prepare of the worst
 
Originally posted by: azazyel
Originally posted by: Meuge
Bullshit in its utmost degree. Malthusian limits are artificial and stupid, and assume no improvements in efficiency. They've already been defeated a couple of times, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it won't happen again.
Click to expand...

except to be able to try to prepare of the worst
Click to expand...
If the entire world produced food with the efficiency of, say, Israel, we'd be able to feed about 2X the population, while simultaneously cutting the current arable land in half.
 
People need to figure out that you don't need to have 8 damn kids. 😉

I've personally believed in having maybe 2-3, to replace ourselves. We have 2.
 
Originally posted by: Meuge
Bullshit in its utmost degree. Malthusian limits are artificial and stupid, and assume no improvements in efficiency. They've already been defeated a couple of times, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it won't happen again.
Click to expand...

not arguing with you, asking for knowledge, what about a more simple angle.. space..and the happiness of people when they cant turn without being elbowed in the face by someone else? id rather die than live in a place like new york city etc..i cant stand that many people
 
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Well ultimately, I think it is true. We're gonna keep pushing and pushing mother earth until she decides to push us off.
Click to expand...

Well, step up and whack yourself
 
Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: azazyel
Originally posted by: Meuge
Bullshit in its utmost degree. Malthusian limits are artificial and stupid, and assume no improvements in efficiency. They've already been defeated a couple of times, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it won't happen again.
Click to expand...

except to be able to try to prepare of the worst
Click to expand...
If the entire world produced food with the efficiency of, say, Israel, we'd be able to feed about 2X the population, while simultaneously cutting the current arable land in half.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that.


Number of People worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million
Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced meat intake by 10%: 60 million
Human beings in America: 243 million
Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by US livestock: 1.3 billion
Percentage of corn grown in US eaten by people: 20%
Percentage of corn grown in US eaten by livestock: 80%
Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90%
Percentage of oats grown in US eaten by livestock: 95%
How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds
Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 20,000 lbs
Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 165 lbs
Percentage of US farmland devoted to beef production: 56%
Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce 1 pound of feedlot beef: 16 lbs


http://www.rawbalance.com/veggies.html
 
The entire U.S. population could move to Texas and each family of four would enjoy 2.9 acres of land. If the entire world's population moved to Texas, California, Colorado and Alaska, each family of four would enjoy nine-tenths of an acre of land.
Click to expand...

Retorted. Your move professor!
 
With western knowledge it is more than possible to supply all the food the starving people need. We waste loads of food in the west, but third world farming is pitifull. NGO's are trying, but i don't know why we're not doing more.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Uhmm.. why do we worry about the food.. it is the pollution and the water supply and the weather..
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, how long do you think we could live without food? 😉
 
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: dahunan
Uhmm.. why do we worry about the food.. it is the pollution and the water supply and the weather..
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, how long do you think we could live without food? 😉
Click to expand...

2 weeks 😀

How long without water?

 
Originally posted by: azazyel
Number of People worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million
Click to expand...

While this may or may not be true, it's not a 'lack of resources' problem; it's a political problem, wherein brutal governments and warlords use starvation as a weapon. We (the world) have been producing food since the 1960's at levels to feed the entire world, given perfect distribution (which is the only problem related to hunger).
 
Mims is an idiot Creationist. He holds a BA in English from Texas A&M and wrote for Radio Shack and was rejected by Scientific American. He's a Fellow at the Discovery Institute for crying out loud.

The key part of that article is this:
Pianka said he was only trying to warn his audience that disease epidemics have happened before and will happen again if the human population growth isn't contained.

He said he believes the Earth would be better off if the human population were smaller because fewer natural resources would be consumed and humans wouldn't continue to destroy animal habitats. But he said that doesn't mean he wants most humans to die.
Click to expand...

Ignore the rest for the ridiculous crap that it is.
 
Tehnology will allow us to survive. We would have run out of food for our populations if it wasnt for genetically enhanced foods. We will continue to innovate like this as need be.

Just wait until oil hits prices where windmills and solar cells become financially feasible...
Just wait until water is unsafe to drink watch how fast desalination facilities are opened...

Getting back to the original topic...the only thing that will curb population is wealth and income security. Look at the first world birth rate...it wasn't always like that. People with no retirement plans require their offsping to support them; this is how children are used in the 3rd world (labour/retirement plan). We must raise the standard of living and wealth through trade and economic stimulus; not killing people, putting up trade barriers, giving food aid.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Mims is an idiot Creationist. He holds a BA in English from Texas A&M and wrote for Radio Shack and was rejected by Scientific American. He's a Fellow at the Discovery Institute for crying out loud.

The key part of that article is this:
Pianka said he was only trying to warn his audience that disease epidemics have happened before and will happen again if the human population growth isn't contained.

He said he believes the Earth would be better off if the human population were smaller because fewer natural resources would be consumed and humans wouldn't continue to destroy animal habitats. But he said that doesn't mean he wants most humans to die.
Click to expand...

Ignore the rest for the ridiculous crap that it is.
Click to expand...



Really sounds like a tree hugging wacko to me?
Did he volunteer to go first?
 
sounded like the same doom and gloom of the 70s...so I'm going to have to agree with Meuge here.
One thing I WOULD like to see though is more EFFICIENT use of our resources, as well as increased recycling (actually stuff like paper mostly get recycled with somethng like 90%...only about 50%ish of plastics are recycled...depends on the specfic plastic).
 
Originally posted by: Meuge
Bullshit in its utmost degree. Malthusian limits are artificial and stupid, and assume no improvements in efficiency. They've already been defeated a couple of times, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it won't happen again.
Click to expand...

I'm very surprised to read you saying this. Others have alluded to but not specifically addressed the standard of living issue. Sure, given current technology & efficient application, the earth can sustain a lot more than it is currently if the average person is also much more efficient than those of us in the US. Do you honestly think the world can support 6.5 billion people with the same standard of living as the average American?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top