Say...I am still waiting for a response to my first post in what seems to be the longest thread I have seen in this forum. I believe the original question was "The big picture: Over-popluation worse than y2k?" I guess you all had nothing in defense??? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

-- A young generation X-er (Just@young.un), September 02, 1999

Answers

Hi

Musta missed that one. Sounds interesting. Got a link?

Thanks

-- Yan (no@no.no), September 02, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001HeA

-- Sorry (nohot@link.com), September 02, 1999.

Sorry

The url you giva me, she no work. So now what I gonna do?

-- Yan (no@no.no), September 02, 1999.

Go to archives...General Awareness...and then Y2K the Big Picture, Is Overpopulation worse than Y2K

Dunno why URL didn't work, was copied and pasted from that link.

-- Sorry (Try@again.com), September 02, 1999.

Hi X-er:

I have read your statement (rant) carefully, but a true response generally requires a specific inquiry. Perhaps you would do well to clearly restate your question(s) and/or concerns here.

-- Yan (no@no.no), September 02, 1999.

Give it a rest. We WILL NOT solve the over-population problem until our society becomes willing to DIE. There is NO form of regulation that will work in the time estimated by some. Medical 'science' has distorted the 'natural' order of the system and we must now rely upon 'science' to feed everybody. We're stuck within the science/technology system and about to feel the rathe of it's creation.

Science worshippers. -sigh-

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), September 02, 1999.

Bullcrap!

The planet is fully capable of handling our current population and probably up to 20 billion people. We have plenty of food. It's just that we feed most of it to cattle. Yes, our current technology does enhance our population's ability to grow. I believe that we have enough time to work on space colonization as a reasonable solution to the population problem. That, and helping the third world develop, since poverty and overpopulation is directly related.

Tim

-- Tim the Y2K nut (tmiley@yakko.cs.wmich.edu), September 02, 1999.

Hey Will, are you volunteering to make room for others? You're armed, shouldnt be hard to accomplish. ;)

I hope science can feed us all, cause once when the fridge was empty I prayed really hard that it wasnt so, and I mean really hard. Didnt fill it.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 02, 1999.

All the people in the world can fit in Texas-FACT. There is NO overpopulation, the only problem is purely political. In the so called starving nations, the problem isn't overpop. it's warlords that prevent food from reaching the poor, or it's bad location on the part of the starving(get out of the frickin desert).

You see cities on tv that look like their bursting at the seems. That's right they are, it's called population concentration. If there is a problem with the number of people it's that. Spread them out and there is plenty of land and food and resources. Because people choose to or continue to live en masse in CITIES THAT ARE OVERPOPULATED does not mean the entire WORLD is overpopulated. It's a lie.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), September 02, 1999.

as i have allready stated in previous thread (the human cull) y2k is cover for reducing the population because of over population .tim 20 billion how big is the planet your living on because its a damn sight bigger than mine. we have at present a pop of just over 6 billion and the planets begining to show serious signs of wear and tear pollution level higher (asthma on the increase) fish level dropping all over the planet food production topped out global warming overpopulation wars (kosovo) y2k is the only sollution to save the planet because we are unable to expand in space faster than pop growth . any body with a serious arguement agianst all of this.

have a nice day because it will soon be your last. y2k or no y2k.

ps please excuse spelling lunch hour .

-- bob (g howard-oxley.@.demon .co.uk), September 02, 1999.

You know, I didn't want to go here.

I avoided the other thread because I knew this would make me upset.

Overpopulation is a theory which dates back to Robert Thomas Malthus in the late 18th century, although the last version of the treatise was published in the early 19th century. He stated that population could never grow (exponentially) faster than food production and predicted that food production was limited in how fast it could grow (linearly).

In two hundred years, the exact opposite has happened. Even in the last 40 years the same is true. We keep growing (although more slowly now than in the past), but our food supply is growing exponentially.

The population of the earth will never rise above 8 billion people because the opportunity cost of raising children continues to rise steadily. Kids are great, I love mine, but very few people want to have 10 kids anymore (even in underdeveloped countries).

People are the greatest resource on the planet, not oil, not gold, not even water.

I am a doomer, and the worst thing about Y2K will be the fact that we will lose so many people to infectious diseases because they didn't think ahead to prepare to live without modern sanitation.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.

Nothere: I believe Malthus stated that population would grow at a geometric rate and the food supply would grow at an arithmetic rate, resulting in the masses constantly experiencing the uree-erps(the sounds that come from an empty stomach).

-- John Henry (shotgun12@att.net), September 02, 1999.

over population will not happen,we are still part of nature even if we have separated ourselves from it(tao).If our numbers get too high nature will find a way to make the numbers die back,even if it's mankind's natural urge to destroy itself.Don't worry about the race,the race will continue(we're too agressive to not continue)The real worry is your personal subjective suffering.For us all,y2k will be worse.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahopo.com), September 02, 1999.

Note the connection between prosperity and population. In a poor third world country, having lots of children helps to provide farm labor and an old age safety net, especially if infant and child mortality is high.

Once the people raise their standard of living, birth rates go down. Couples have fewer children and support them better. This is why economic development is the best form of population control.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), September 02, 1999.

<< Note the connection between prosperity and population. In a poor third world country, having lots of children helps to provide farm labor and an old age safety net, especially if infant and child mortality is high. Once the people raise their standard of living, birth rates go down. Couples have fewer children and support them better. This is why economic development is the best form of population control. >>

Oh, outstanding Forrest!!!

The majority of the developed nations are now experiencing depopulation. In some of them (i.e. Japan) it is very, very serious. I predict that developed nations will soon be paying couples to have more children in order to pay have more tax payers available to continue burdensome social programs.

In developing nations they need their children because they do not have the ability to save for the future. How dare the population control advocates dictate to those people how many children they should have, without caring one damn bit how they will support themselves. It's just none of your business how many children somebody has, folks. If you don't walk in their shoes then butt out.

But Forrest hit the nail on the head. Economic development leads to declining population growth. This can be demonstrated by a mountain of empirical evidence. And declining population growth, in itself, is not antithetical even to Catholic teaching. Even Catholics are permitted to use natural family planning (and it works!) to limit their family size, at their own (not their government's!!!!) discretion.

I just find absolutely chilling this whole attitude that some group of social elites has the right to coerce people into contracepting or being sterilized or aborting against their wills. So much for reproductive rights, eh?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), September 02, 1999.

Cygnus and Tim: The earth may be able to hold 20 billion IF everything was managed OPTIMALLY. Guess what? It isn't. Expect a mass die off long before we reach 10 billion.

Forrest: Along with economic development comes accelerated depletion of natural resources. Its a zero sum game no matter how you look at the science.

The only logical solution is to control population until we can devise a means of creating large colonies in space.

-- a (a@a.a), September 02, 1999.

Veggie Tim: I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain just to become a vegetarian.

Vegetarian people's farts dump just as much methane into the atmosophere as the cows we eat.

Nothing better than runnin up alongside a cow on the prairie and taking a bite out of its flank.

How this applies to Y2K? If TSHTF, vegetarians are gonna be hog slop. (Meat has more energy than broccoli.)

Sign me as member of P.E.T.A. (People Eating Tasty Animals)

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 02, 1999.

On the previous links (and this one too) several statments have been made with regards to the declining birthrates. I have enclosed a link to a ABCNEWS Nightline story that focused on said issue:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/rk980424_babies.html

Additionally, ABCNews pitched a story (on or around Aug 1st) covering Japan's declining birthrate and the govnt's attempts to steady the population. Regards,

-- william holst (w_holst@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.

Here are some statistics that blow the "our growth rate is declining, so there's no problem" theory full of holes. Note these projections take into account a declining growth rate, from 1.22 now to 0.46 in 50 years:

                             Average         Average
                               annual          annual
                               growth      population
    Year        Population   rate (%)          change

    1965     3,345,403,096       2.07     70,127,783
    1970     3,706,561,338       2.07     77,388,931
    1975     4,086,291,229       1.75     72,044,154
    1980     4,453,777,634       1.69     76,123,370
    1985     4,850,574,623       1.68     82,406,206
    1990     5,276,992,209       1.55     82,450,957
    1995     5,682,365,088       1.37     78,566,560
    2000     6,073,098,801       1.25     76,318,084
    2005     6,452,783,444       1.16     75,488,026
    2010     6,831,693,525       1.11     76,016,106
    2015     7,207,203,600       1.00     72,789,490
    2020     7,561,958,853       0.90     68,174,549
    2025     7,895,785,281       0.82     64,711,394
    2030     8,214,551,677       0.76     62,388,961
    2035     8,521,568,522       0.70     59,651,156
    2040     8,810,446,611       0.62     54,545,937
    2050     9,298,212,304       0.46

From http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html

See also The Y6B Problem

-- a (a@a.a), September 02, 1999.

"Overpopulation" is an entirely relative term. It is relative to the ability of the surrounding environment to support it. The problem is, the population tends to rise and fall in long graceful arcs, while the ability of the environment to support it, can jerk spasmodically. The abundant rainfall and mellow temperatures of one year, can give way to scorching drought, the next.

You also have the problem of whether the abundant resources at a given time, are where there is an abundant poulation. There's no guarantee that mother nature will cooperate, on that score.

It also says little to say that all the people of the earth could fit in an area the size of Texas, since they wouldn't be able to grow their food in that same area, or obtain the other natural resources they need. This an old statistic from 1979 (I was an anthropology major at the time), but at that time it was estimated that to provide a low calorie, bare subsistence diet for every person on the face of the earth, it would require an area the size of everything in the U.S. west of the Mississippi. That does not include water and does not include raw materials for production. That is just food.

In a technology oriented society, the means of production, transportation and storage of food becomes an inextricable part of the environment's ability to sustain it's population burden. In other words, if the worst case, or even mid case, scenario happens, it will be the mother of all dips in the ability of the environment to support the population. Y2K and overpoulation become essentially the same issue.

If something happened, speaking hypothetically, to cause 3/4 of the earth's population to vanish on December 31, then for most, even a worst case scenario would probably be more of an irritant, than a catastrophe (That assumes you're not near a nuke plant that goes nova, or some other such disaster). Even the most unprepared could go to the homes of the vanished to obtain needed resources. It's all a question of the gap between what you need to live, and what you can actually get your hands on.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 02, 1999.

Imagine a world where steady state prevails, solar and hydrogen power decentralized clusters of self sufficient communities--recycle of material takes place underground---corporations have lost their human status and CEO's are held criminally liable for corporate actions--Family farms again prosper and most of all a real treasury provides REAL Monies sans interest---the united nations goes the way of the league of nations and Lobbying by special interests a capital crime----How may we accomplish all this? pull you monies out of the market and banks by December and sit back and watch the dragons death dance. vote only for independant candidates and turn off the tv's. Remember it's not overpopulation it's overconsumption. And Gen X can fight the good fight and regain a decent world.

-- Fatz Kissinger (draconion solutions@uselesseaters.com), September 03, 1999.

Fatz:

Some good points there, particularly about underground factories/recycling.

But lobbying a capital crime? Who makes the determination of that? Is the pinkie-ring type from the labor union exempt because he represents a union, whereas the wing-tipped CEO is not because he represents a big bad company.

Communities (and more importantly INDIVIDUALS) can and should do more to provide for their own needs, but where those things can be provided more efficiently from outside that community should be procured there.

Bryan

-- Bryan (BryanL@aol.com), September 03, 1999.

Fatz: Good point. The problem is not overpopulation. The problem is misuse of resources by the few at the top that control production. I agree with everything you said.

As for Y2k and it's impact, that's hard to predict, but I agree that if the food distribution and production system fails, there goes America. Our food production system needs radical improvements. First of all, we need to use fewer chemical fertilizers and more natural fertilizers. At home, for example, horse manure serves as our fertilizer. No need for chemicals which turn the soil into a dry powder.

Also, a fellow by the name of Jeavons helped pioneer a new method of planting which improves farm yield dramatically. This method of organic agriculture has been taught to subsistence farmers in poor nations with excellent results.

As for natural resource use, we need to stop wasting them. For example, using trees for paper is butt stupid. There's no need for it. Hemp, as well as a few other plants, have the capability to provide all of our paper needs, and can be used to develop building materials. Also, the internal combustion engine is basically obsolete. Technologies that can replace it need to be unsealed and used to advance our transportation technology, but that would hurt the oil interests.

A@a.a: you're such a meathead! *sneer*

Tim

-- Tim the Y2K nut (tmiley@yakko.cs.wmich.edu), September 03, 1999.

just a factoid in the name of debate,it takes 8 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef.mmmmmm beef.I love it.The ratio is pretty outrageous,though.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), September 03, 1999.

Brian,We have deeded our Government over to the Feds and corporate special interests!Fund all campaigns from state/federal coffers.I was being dramatic with ths "Capital offense" But how is this different from buying judges or jury tampering? Certin gross polluters Like Monsanto and Dow with their Poisons and terminator genetic tamperings must go----Follow the y2k political manuverings closely and keep a list----those who failed in their stewardship must be held accountable! A sobering afterthought, If every chinese family gets a refrigerator, Its all over for the ozone layer.

-- Fats Kissinger (draconion solutions@uselesseaters.com), September 03, 1999.