A third of a billion in the US, a billion and a third in China, another billion in India.
When will we reach a tipping point where no more people can be alive at the same time on Earth?
It seems to me we are headed for disaster, more and more people, more and more of Earth's resources used up, we are already at the halfway point there, using up 50 percent of the planet's resources right now.
How long can we keep that up without BILLIONS dying?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung10 billion. Like that'll be a victory. Nearly 50% more people than we have now. And even if population growth does stabilize, it won't mean anything if consumption rates keep rising. We'll have to bring both under control. But that's not too likely.
We're going to end up at a stable ten billion. Calm down.
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettThe real problem is that wealth beyond an upper middle class lifestyle requires owning property you don't use. What this means is that wealthy people can and do suppress supply of all kinds of resources in order to keep the checks coming in from people who need those resources.
10 billion. Like that'll be a victory. Nearly 50% more people than we have now. And even if population growth does stabilize, it won't mean anything if consumption rates keep rising. We'll have to bring both under control. But that's not too likely.
The wealthy create the lower classes and feed off of them. The middle class is not really part of the class conflict at all. Their consumption is not what is keeping the poor poor.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo 500 million in the US alone? 2 billion in China, 1.5 in India? 1 billion in South America? Another billion in Europe?
The real problem is that wealth beyond an upper middle class lifestyle requires owning property you don't use. What this means is that wealthy people can and do suppress supply of all kinds of resources in order to keep the checks coming in from people who need those resources.
The wealthy create the lower classes and feed off of them. The middle ...[text shortened]... lly part of the class conflict at all. Their consumption is not what is keeping the poor poor.
What happens when as you think the population does steady out at 10 bil? How do you keep it that way? Forced euthanasia of everyone over 60? Tie the tubes of 50% of all females?
Our present disastrous consumption economy can't continue without population growth.
What kind of world will we be left with? Our great grandkids, that is?
Robots doing all the work in all the factories and producing crap like they do today but with no workers, everyone on the dole?
Originally posted by sonhouseThe population will have two kids per woman like most populations do now and it will remain stable.
So 500 million in the US alone? 2 billion in China, 1.5 in India? 1 billion in South America? Another billion in Europe?
What happens when as you think the population does steady out at 10 bil? How do you keep it that way? Forced euthanasia of everyone over 60? Tie the tubes of 50% of all females?
Our present disastrous consumption economy can't con ...[text shortened]... the factories and producing crap like they do today but with no workers, everyone on the dole?
Originally posted by sonhouseIf the population stabilizes at 10 billion by itself, why it would need "keeping that way"?
So 500 million in the US alone? 2 billion in China, 1.5 in India? 1 billion in South America? Another billion in Europe?
What happens when as you think the population does steady out at 10 bil? How do you keep it that way? Forced euthanasia of everyone over 60? Tie the tubes of 50% of all females?
Our present disastrous consumption economy can't con ...[text shortened]... the factories and producing crap like they do today but with no workers, everyone on the dole?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou could support 10 billion people living at third world levels of consumption, but you can't support 10 billion at western levels of consumption. Increased levels of production may make more goods available, but it is unsustainable. Trying to produce your way toward equality is an undertaking that is doomed to failure.
The real problem is that wealth beyond an upper middle class lifestyle requires owning property you don't use. What this means is that wealthy people can and do suppress supply of all kinds of resources in order to keep the checks coming in from people who need those resources.
The wealthy create the lower classes and feed off of them. The middle ...[text shortened]... lly part of the class conflict at all. Their consumption is not what is keeping the poor poor.
Originally posted by rwingettWhy is it unsustainable?
You could support 10 billion people living at third world levels of consumption, but you can't support 10 billion at western levels of consumption. Increased levels of production may make more goods available, but it is unsustainable. Trying to produce your way toward equality is an undertaking that is doomed to failure.
Originally posted by rwingettI pasted a couple of links I thought were interesting. The first claims that socialism is the key to limiting population growth instead of environmentalism. Many 1st world countries don't have much population growth. Poverty is often blamed for high fertility rates.
You could support 10 billion people living at third world levels of consumption, but you can't support 10 billion at western levels of consumption. Increased levels of production may make more goods available, but it is unsustainable. Trying to produce your way toward equality is an undertaking that is doomed to failure.
http://pinkofreezone.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/how-to-stop-population-growth/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/06/world-population-country-un
Originally posted by Metal BrainMany third world and Asian/Latin American countires don't have much population growth either, yet very few of them could be considered "socialist" by any reasonable measure.
I pasted a couple of links I thought were interesting. The first claims that socialism is the key to limiting population growth instead of environmentalism. Many 1st world countries don't have much population growth. Poverty is often blamed for high fertility rates.
http://pinkofreezone.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/how-to-stop-population-growth/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/06/world-population-country-un