World Population Clock - disturbing

[manas]

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

I note that there is also a steady trickle of 'deaths' along with the 'births', but overall, we seem to be a species who might still need to be restrained by Nature, rather than our own much-vaunted 'superior intelligence' and 'rationality', when it comes to not expanding in sheer numbers beyond what the available resources can sustainably provide. If we are really 'smarter than the animals' we will stop 'breeding like rabbits'!

[Alex123]

Unfortunately radiation from Fukushima, industrial pollutions and other similar events will change all that... I wouldn't be surprised if humans would die out in the next thousand years unless some extraordinary technological breakthrough...

[danieLion]

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

I note that there is also a steady trickle of 'deaths' along with the 'births', but overall, we seem to be a species who might still need to be restrained by Nature, rather than our own much-vaunted 'superior intelligence' and 'rationality', when it comes to not expanding in sheer numbers beyond what the available resources can sustainably provide. If we are really 'smarter than the animals' we will stop 'breeding like rabbits'!

Hi manas,
First, Nature will always win in the end. This planet (and universe) could care less about how many of us there are because no matter how much you multiply Nature could WIPE US ALL OUT IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT.

A good reason to be heedful.

Second, population growth studies need to be weighed against geographical data.
E.g. like this, Population Density, and computations of such data which lead to conclusions like, How much of the Earth's surface is inhabited by humans?:

According to Matt Rosenberg:

90% of the population occupies 3% of the land. Land covers 29% of the globe.

.03 x .29 = .0087 = .87% Let's call it 1%.

Therefore, if Mr. Rosenberg is correct with his data, I believe it's very safe to say that less than 2% of the Earth's surface is inhabited by humans.

Best,
Daniel

[tiltbillings]

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

I note that there is also a steady trickle of 'deaths' along with the 'births', but overall, we seem to be a species who might still need to be restrained by Nature, rather than our own much-vaunted 'superior intelligence' and 'rationality', when it comes to not expanding in sheer numbers beyond what the available resources can sustainably provide. If we are really 'smarter than the animals' we will stop 'breeding like rabbits'!

"'superior intelligence' and 'rationality'"

The emergence of intelligence, I am convinced, tends to unbalance the ecology. In other words, intelligence is the great polluter. It is not until a creature begins to manage its environment that nature is thrown into disorder. Until that occurs, there is a system of checks and balances operating in a logical and understandable manner. Intelligence destroys and modifies the checks and balances even as it tries very diligently to leave them as they were. There is no such thing as an intelligence living harmony with the biosphere. It may think and boast it is doing so, but its mentality gives it an advantage and the compulsion is always there to employ this advantage to its selfish benefit. Thus, while intelligence may be an outstanding survival factor, the factor is short-term, and intelligence turns out to be the great destroyer. -- written by a crazy character in SHAKESPEARE'S PLANET, a sci-fi novel by Clifford Simak, 1976.

[yawares]

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

I note that there is also a steady trickle of 'deaths' along with the 'births', but overall, we seem to be a species who might still need to be restrained by Nature, rather than our own much-vaunted 'superior intelligence' and 'rationality', when it comes to not expanding in sheer numbers beyond what the available resources can sustainably provide. If we are really 'smarter than the animals' we will stop 'breeding like rabbits'!

Dear Manas,
I remember 'Thera put' told me once that people who have many children...because of their karmas..if they have many good children who take care of old parents, then good karmas....if they have bad children, that's bad karmas...(parents/children did together in the past lives).

Lunag-Por Put : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ-Ge9L5 ... ure=relmfu

yawares

[Annapurna]

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

I note that there is also a steady trickle of 'deaths' along with the 'births', but overall, we seem to be a species who might still need to be restrained by Nature, rather than our own much-vaunted 'superior intelligence' and 'rationality', when it comes to not expanding in sheer numbers beyond what the available resources can sustainably provide. If we are really 'smarter than the animals' we will stop 'breeding like rabbits'!

Yes, the human species is exploding, but mostly in the socalled "third world", with no or few means of birth control, lack of education and poverty.

In highly civilised countries like Germany, we have the population pyramid upside down, with too little adults paying to the old, retired...

Wouldn't worry about what's in the future though. We'll be dead and if reborn, who knows what will be.

New set of cards to make the best of.

So, what matters now is getting this shit here worked out....!

[Dmytro]

Hi Daniel,

According to Matt Rosenberg:

90% of the population occupies 3% of the land.

According to Matt Rosenberg:

"About 90% of the earth's people live on 10% of the land."

Best, Dmytro

[plwk]

Singapore National Day: Baby Making, Civic Duty

[danieLion]

Hi Daniel,

According to Matt Rosenberg:

90% of the population occupies 3% of the land.

According to Matt Rosenberg:

"About 90% of the earth's people live on 10% of the land."

Best, Dmytro

Thanks, Dmytro.
That still wouldn't even be three percent.

(I'm also assuming they measured "right").

If 90% of the population occupies 10% of the land; and if land covers 29% of the globe, then:

0.1 x 0.29 = 0.029.

IOW, we occupy 2.9% of land.

That doesn't take into account inhabitability, which technological innovation confounds.

Best,
Daniel

[Ben]

Dear members:

Any further off-topic posts in this thread will be removed without warning. Posts primarily about climate change in this thread are OFF TOPIC and may result in disciplinary action.

[Alex123]

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
I note that there is also a steady trickle of 'deaths' along with the 'births', but overall, we seem to be a species who might still need to be restrained by Nature, rather than our own much-vaunted 'superior intelligence' and 'rationality', when it comes to not expanding in sheer numbers beyond what the available resources can sustainably provide. If we are really 'smarter than the animals' we will stop 'breeding like rabbits'!

Through the history of this planet, there have been various mass extinction events. Do you know that "Over 98% of documented species are now extinct"

So I don't think that we can linearly extrapolate current growth of human population to what it will be thousands of years from now.

There have been at least 5 major extinction events and many lesser ones

[manas]

Hi Alex, and everyone,

It just occurred to me, I think we might be able to expand the population further, with advances in technology and thus future food production, but at the cost of the rest of the Earth's environment, and other species; we could end up surviving, but on a relatively barren Earth, as compared with what we still have today.

I can think of two approaches that are proven to work. One is that, as poor people get educated, especially the womenfolk, they usually have less children. But (sadly) I don't think there is the political will to undertake that option, in which case there is also the 'Chinese govt solution' - pass laws worldwide, with the agreement of all the major governments, to provide incentives for people to have only one or two children, but no more. I don't like this solution, but if it is between that and ruining the Earth's ecosystems, I would choose govt interference. But a declining population could 'harm economic growth', the sacred cow of the current status quo. No wonder we are in such dire trouble!

[Ytrog]

If we are going to talk about how fast resources are spend on this world I have an excellent talk by dr. Albert Bartlett about the exponential function, it's effect on resources and why there is no such thing as sustainable growth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vII-GxsrR2c
I realize it is lengthy but it is also quite profound in it's message and I found it very interesting. I recommend watching it completely.

[Kim O'Hara]

Hi Alex, and everyone,
It just occurred to me, I think we might be able to expand the population further, with advances in technology and thus future food production, but at the cost of the rest of the Earth's environment, and other species; we could end up surviving, but on a relatively barren Earth, as compared with what we still have today.

Hi, manas,
If you have just begun to think about this, I suggest you read The Population Bomb and the 1960-70s SF that took it as a starting point - especially Make Room! Make Room! (filmed as Soylent Green).
What you suggest now was a very real fear back then but isn't now, largely because of ...

I can think of two approaches that are proven to work. One is that, as poor people get educated, especially the womenfolk, they usually have less children.

As you say, it is proven to work. Bill Gates has been known to say that the single best solution to third-world poverty is to educate girls, for just this reason.

But (sadly) I don't think there is the political will to undertake that option

Once it gets under way, it doesn't *need* any political will. Look at birthrates in the West! People - especially women - are just acting as best they know how to improve the quality of life of themselves and their children.
The Chinese solution was a desperation measure. I don't blame the leadership for it - managing a huge population that is always only one bad harvest from starvation is a huge ask - but I doubt that it will be needed again.


Kim

[danieLion]

Hi manas,

...we seem to be a species who might still need to be restrained by Nature,...

Nature always has, currently does, and always will restrain us.

The universe doesn't give a f**k how much we reproduce. When it's ready to explode again, we're ALL stardust.

As James Hutton, the great geologist, concluded in his Theory of the Earth:

We have now got to the end of our reasoning; we have no data further to conclude immediately from that which actually is: But we have got enough; we have the satisfaction to find, that in nature there is wisdom, system, and consistency. For having, in the natural history of this earth, seen a succession of worlds, we may from this conclude that there is a system in nature; in like manner as, from seeing revolutions of the planets, it is concluded, that there is a system by which they are intended to continue those revolutions. But if the succession of worlds is established in the system of nature, it is in vain to look for any thing higher in the origin of the earth. The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning,--no prospect of an end.

To which the palaeontologist and singer/lyricist for Bad Religion added in their song "No Control":

When we all disintegrate it will happen again.

Since we have no control over indifferent nature, the escape from samsara and not "population growth" should be our primary concern. Humans will never breed at a fast enough rate to outpace the will of nature and the reality of samsara.

There's plenty of room out there. You just got to know where to look.
Best,
Daniel

[danieLion]

Hi manas,

ruining the Earth's ecosystems.... No wonder we are in such dire trouble!

Even if we are ruining ecosystems (I'm not convinced), the earth doesn't care. She knows we or something else kill ourselves off before that. And if we don't, she also knows she'll probably recover from whatever we do; and even if she doesn't, she knows the universe will take care of her.

We are in very dire trouble, but not because of population growth.
Best,
Daniel

[danieLion]

Believing population growth is something to worry about is just sublimated self importance. It creates the illusion of control where there is little or none.

[Dan74]

Would it be better if assertions in all posts here were actually supported by facts referenced from reputable sources?

I mean we can all shout our opinions passionately past each other 'till the cows come home, but what are we actually trying to achieve with this?

[danieLion]

If we are going to talk about how fast resources are spend on this world I have an excellent talk by dr. Albert Bartlett about the exponential function, it's effect on resources and why there is no such thing as sustainable growth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vII-GxsrR2c
I realize it is lengthy but it is also quite profound in it's message and I found it very interesting. I recommend watching it completely.

From the video (12:55-14:55):

On July 7 1986 the new reports indicated that the world population had reached 5 billion people growing at a rate of 1.7% a year. Your reaction might be, "That's so small. Nothing could ever happen at that rate." So you calculate the doubling time...to find it's only 41 years. More recently, in 1999, we read that the world population had increased from 5 billion to 6 billion people. The good new is news is that the growth rate had dropped from 1.7% per year to 1.3% per year.

1986
World popluation 5 BIllion
Growth-1.7% per year
Doubling time-41 years

1999
World popluation 6 BIllion
Growth-1.3% per year
Doubling time-53 years

The bad news is that in spite of the drop in growth rate the world population today is increasing by approximately 80 million people every year! If this modest 1.3% per year could continue, the world population would reach a density of 1 person per square meter on the dry-land surface of the earth in just 780 years. And the mass of people would equal the mass of the earth in just 24,000 years! Now we can smile at those [figures]. We know they couldn't happen.... Zero population growth is going to happen. Now we can debate whether we like zero population growth or we don't like it, but it's going to happen--whether we debate it or not, whether like it or not--it's absolutely certain people could not live at that density on the dry-land surface of the earth. Therefore, today's high birth rates will drop, today's low death rates will rise, until they have exactly the same numerical value that will certainly be in a time short compared to 780 years.

Best,
Daniel

[danieLion]

Would it be better if assertions in all posts here were actually supported by facts referenced from reputable sources?

I mean we can all shout our opinions passionately past each other 'till the cows come home, but what are we actually trying to achieve with this?

Hi Dan,
I do not mean to be facetious, slippery, sophistical, cute or mischievous, but it depends on what you mean by "facts" and "reputable sources."

I've cited what I believe is a reputable geologist (James Hutton), a reputable (living) paleontologist (Greg Graffin, Ph.D), and a reputable physicist (Albert A. Bartlett, Ph.D).

Best,
Daniel