Since humans are at the top of the food chain and we are not subjected to the normal population controls of nature, are we going to get to a point where the Earth cannot sustain anymore humans?
More humans mean less trees, less space for other species, more pollution, more poverty, more crimes, etc.
Are we going to invent ways of making life more sustainable?
Message Board Archives
Overpopulation
2016-12-27 08:03:02
2016-12-27 08:06:10
In reply to black
All signs point that we will get to some point on Earth where we cannot sustain any more humans or run out of resources.
2016-12-27 08:30:12
In reply to djdrastic
Are genetically modified and lab grown foods, ways of averting future disasters?
2016-12-27 08:36:28
In reply to black
War has been, and will continue to be the answer.
The question now is how to be more efficient in the killing of humans. While nuclear war would at first look rise to the top of the list as most efficient, the side effects would undermine the desired efficacy.
Some sort of virus might work.
2016-12-27 08:45:36
In reply to Drapsey
War has been, and will continue to be the answer.
War has never got to the point of significantly reducing population.
The question now is how to be more efficient in the killing of humans. While nuclear war would at first look rise to the top of the list as most efficient, the side effects would undermine the desired efficacy.
That raises questions as to who is going to be targeted.
Some sort of virus might work.
We don't want to go down that road, although, I suspect we will find cures.
2016-12-27 09:06:49
In reply to black
So, the western authorities will adopt/adapt the Chinese population control method of limiting one 'family' to 2 offsprings. Actually, they'll improve upon the Orient's success my making selected unwitting males reproductively sterile.
Guess who the first "volunteers" will be.
2016-12-27 09:24:44
In reply to Drapsey
I know all about Tuskegee.
2016-12-27 09:31:32
In reply to black
Oh for sure I wouldn't bet against human ingenuity and inventions to help eek our time on this planet but regarding pop control I really only see one real somewhat humane solution and and that would be some sort of mass sterilization or limiting the amount of offspring you are allowed to have.
I think something you haven't addressed is , worldwide life expectancy just keeps going up and up due to better medical treatments/screenings and falling death tolls from major diseases.We've gotten too good at keeping people alive in 1st/2nd world economies !
It's slightly somber when looking at humanity and you start thinking about mass sterilization etc.
2016-12-27 09:44:38
In reply to djdrastic
I think something you haven't addressed is , worldwide life expectancy just keeps going up
Yep, it's all connected.
2016-12-27 09:52:26
why do we need robots if we got so many humans?
2016-12-27 09:57:49
In reply to ray
Money. Robots are cheaper to employ and they don't complain.
2016-12-27 10:15:33
In reply to black
And work 24/7, no unions, no healthcare, no pensions...
Robots in all industrial countries have replaced jobs. They are not coming back. Car plants that once employed 8K persons now have 3K.... and less.
Blue collar funeral
2016-12-27 10:22:37
In reply to black
Guess you haven't notice the not so subtle population control methods employed by the West in legalizing the alternative lifestyle! 
2016-12-27 10:32:22
They expect unemployed people to buy stuff that all these robots produce?
2016-12-27 10:51:20
In reply to black
We're already there,and already facing the challenges..we can continue to work on systems to counter it as we are in many sectors,or we can take Aynemol's advice and 'Spare no thought for the morrow'?? 
2016-12-27 11:28:03
In reply to ray
They expect unemployed people to buy stuff that all these robots produce?
Good question. Government expansion of welfare?
2016-12-27 11:36:44
In reply to djdrastic
It's slightly somber when looking at humanity and you start thinking about mass sterilization etc
Who will be candidates for sterilization, the poor?
2016-12-27 12:05:16
In reply to pelon
can Universal Basic Income (UBI) be a partial solution to the Robotization of Society?
2016-12-27 12:16:37
In reply to doosra
I think you or someone else brought this up before, it might be the only solution.
2016-12-27 12:51:23
2016-12-27 13:47:55
In reply to black
Reg candidates . I dunno , I wouldn't want to wager in on that.I don't think it's fair blaming the problem on the poor as the rich also contribute to the overpopulation problem eg The Donald has 5 kids etc
One of the biggest problems I see will be religion and culture clashes regarding reduction of offspring.
How do you tell a Mormom or Zulu to not have as many kids as their genitals/wives can produce ?
On the flip side of this is places like Japan , where they are having fewer children than replacement level which directly leads to depopulation, which is a problem in itself. The trick is to hover just around replacement level of around 2 kids / couple.
2016-12-27 14:17:01
In reply to djdrastic
does the average age factor kicks in and can it help to normalize things a bit
perhaps not
i read somewhere that by 2020 the average age of people in the west in general will be about 40ish while in India it will be 28 or something
many millions, with resources and security, better health, hmmm maybe they wouldn't fire wood as much as is theoretically possible 
2016-12-27 14:18:09
In reply to black
that UBI conversation is picking up... i am not sure how it might work but some of the more-learned folks seem to think it has some merit
2016-12-27 14:19:22
In reply to doosra
To this threads theme, Basic Income in under developed nations will cause a population explosion. It is a dangerous concept, yet with obvious benefits - but long term not sustainable. Consumption increase = earth resource pressure.
Side note: The BitCoin type currency will replace global USD based dollar. I am not saying Bitcoin per say, but the new currency will be 'virtualized' - about 20 years off though. Decentralization of a global currency is, in my opinion, key - that plus dissolution and forgiveness of any and all IMF debts.
@black: Less than 0.005% of Americans live in 'tiny houses' as seen on HGTV. Don't let HGTV tell you different. It's cool eye candy TV - but completely media driven. Seriously small number of homes fall into that category... and while trendy, I doubt in USA it will ever reach even 1%.... mobile homes (trailer parks) are the REAL "Tiny Houses" - just without the hipster cool factor. 
Europe is the opposite, most homes are under 2200 sq ft.
2016-12-27 14:56:14
In reply to pelon
Yes, it's a very small number but they are still doing their part to help the environment.
Search
Live Scores
- no matches