world population

Originally posted by apathist
Think of earth as a star-ship. We need to manage our resources and our population. We need a long view.

You are being so vague that you are not really saying anything meaningful.
Give an example of a resource that we need to manage.
Give a suggestion as to how to manage our population.
Explain why the 'star-ship' analogy makes any kind of sense. Its not like there are many resources that we need that are finite as they would be on a star-ship.
If we were to 'manage' the population, what would be the ideal population?

Originally posted by apathist
We need a long view.

The first step in having a long view, is understanding the problem. It appears you do not.

The movies Soylent Green and Logan's Run are both very informative on this topic.

Originally posted by divegeester
The movies Soylent Green and Logan's Run are both very informative on this topic.

Perhaps you could tell us one thing that you found informative from each movie?

Originally posted by apathist
Think of earth as a star-ship. We need to [b]manage our resources and our population. We need a long view.[/b]

A problem is that large-scale human enterprises tend to become corrupted. Also, the current dominant economic model is boom-and-bust. How can it prevent the big bust?

It may be that the optimal strategy is to be found in something like the serenity prayer.

Originally posted by divegeester
The movies Soylent Green and Logan's Run are both very informative on this topic.

I haven't watched either movie, but my understanding is that both deal with the concept of killing people to control population. This seems unnecessarily immoral. The easiest way to control population (if you decide it is desirable), is to use contraception. This can be done forcibly (as has been done in many parts of the world) or voluntarily. The reality is that there is no need to force contraception on anyone. The evidence is abundantly clear that if you empower women, provide them with contraception and instructions on how to use it, and provide basic child healthcare to reduce child mortality, then people will naturally switch to having less than replacement level numbers of children.
The reality is that most economies believe that they benefit from a gradually growing population - especially a greater proportion of young working age people. In addition, many people have an innate desire for their own genes and their own race / country to keep growing relative to other countries. As a result, most countries would like to see greater population growth in their own country and less elsewhere. The obvious solution is to allow immigration, but the don't want that.
China, India and Bangladesh did make efforts to reduce population growth and it has been very beneficial to all of them.

The message of Logan's run is if you want to live, go outside.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Perhaps you could tell us one thing that you found informative from each movie?

Soylent Green is about managing food shortages in an over populated world by reconstituting the dead into green food wafers. Logan's Run is set in a futuristic post apocalyptic domed city where population is controlled by people being killed on their 30th birthday.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I haven't watched either movie, but my understanding is that both deal with the concept of killing people to control population. This seems unnecessarily immoral. The easiest way to control population (if you decide it is desirable), is to use contraception. This can be done forcibly (as has been done in many parts of the world) or voluntarily. The realit ...[text shortened]... esh did make efforts to reduce population growth and it has been very beneficial to all of them.

Well I was being just a little tongue-in-cheek.

Originally posted by divegeester
Well I was being just a little tongue-in-cheek.

Fair enough.

What are your thoughts on population? Is there a problem? What should we do if there is?

Given that developed countries have below replacement reproduction, if we were all to get to that stage and not make any other changes such as significant improvements to how long we live, then the worlds population will start to fall, and fall quite dramatically. At some point we will start worrying about how to keep the human race going.
Then there could be other developments such as highly realistic sex dolls, which would result in many people never even having real relationships, or dramatic increases to life expectancy (300 -400 years for example) which would quadruple populations without reproduction. I foresee dramatic changes in the times ahead but have no idea which way it will go.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Given that developed countries have below replacement reproduction, if we were all to get to that stage and not make any other changes such as significant improvements to how long we live, then the worlds population will start to fall, and fall quite dramatically. At some point we will start worrying about how to keep the human race going.
Then there cou ...[text shortened]... production. I foresee dramatic changes in the times ahead but have no idea which way it will go.

Interesting ideas and insight.
I am not sure I trust the data on population, although I have no corroborative evidence for not doing so. It just seems counter-intuitive. If I'm right then we will end up eating each other or more likely engaging in serious warfare and atrocity.

Originally posted by josephw
There's plenty of room and resources available from the earth. It's the people on it that is the problem.

The problems man has isn't due to over population. It's the overlords, and the greedy, and the murderers and rapists and liars and thieves etc. etc. etc.

Agreed, but I reckon only for 14 billion. What happens after that?
Remember there is another 2 billion on the way by 2050

Originally posted by Eladar
Those who are concerned about too many people on earth seem to want to see other people dead, especially the very young.

Hypocritical if you ask me for the living to cheer the deaths of others due to over population.

No that's not it at all.
I just want to make sure the Earth is fine for the people we already have. I have a family to look after, like a lot of people
There's no point in populating the Earth when there's not enough rescources for the ones already here

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are watching the wrong documentaries. They are flat out wrong.

Firstly, the world population is going to top out at about 11 billion then start to decline.
Secondly the Earth is more than capable of feeding those 11 billion, so no, we will not need to eat each other.

There are places (West Africa mostly) where population growth is, and will con ...[text shortened]... dary based on where they were born. Other parts of the world have an excess of unused resources.

Wrong documentaries? really? have you seen the population curve currently?
Which countries do you think will get there populations down enough to make that curve dip to 11 bil instead of 13 or 14?