angelo
Deleted
Today's population is already two to three times what the planet can comfortably sustain.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
European nations have huge incomes from manufacturing, resources like gas and coal and the know how to exploit these resources. Countries like Nigeria or most Sub Sahara nations depend on the First world for aid and technology etc.
Desalination plants are fine but most depend on fossil fuels to create fresh drinking water and it's nowhere near the price of rain water which is free. The cost comes later in building the storage facilities.
By the way, at least one desalination plant was built because the idiot Tim Flannery stated and was believed by politicians that South Eastern Australia would never see rain in the amounts needed to fill existing dams again because of "Global Warming" which now has reverter to "climate change" so as to be more credible.
The following 24 months the whole of South Eastern Australia was flooded. And so far this year has had more than the average rainfall.
Royal Dutch Shell.Out of the present world pop of roughly 7 billion, only 3 of those 7 billions are well fed or well housed. The situation can only get much worse by uncontrolled population explosion. It's estimated that by 2050 the population will be 10 billion, with the lions share of that explosion in the third world, or in developing countries. Will those countries be able to support all these extra mouths to feed or house? OK, Nigeria has extensive oil reserves, so who's benefiting from this oil wealth.
Today's population is already two to three times what the planet can comfortably sustain.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
When the "Earth is Overpopulated!1!!1!" crowd starts killing themselves in order to help alleviate the perceived problem I'll start taking them seriously.
When the "Earth is Overpopulated!1!!1!" crowd starts killing themselves in order to help alleviate the perceived problem I'll start taking them seriously.
No, suicide would be a poor strategy for helping to alleviate the perceived a problem, as it only removes one person for each member of the aforementioned crowd. This would not only make an insignificant dent in the population, but it would also limit the propagation of the overpopulation meme by killing off its proponents. If overpopulation proponents were to kill themselves, it would be easy to dismiss them as mentally ill cultists. I doubt you would take mentally ill cultists seriously.
Contrast with a scenario wherein they start killing non-proponents (especially those who attempt to refute the notion of overpopulation). Like suicide, homicide is a "hard-to-fake sign of commitment" to the cause, but homicide, in addition to commitment, would indicate a greater degree of long-term thinking(not as great as other strategies, of course), and if each proponent committed multiple homicides, it would make a bigger dent in the population.
I think that what I'm referring to would say something more along the lines of "I'm a terrorist, not a mentally ill cultist". Now I don't know, maybe you're under the impression that those are the same thing, but the bottom line is I'm sure you'll be more likely to take them more seriously if they're killing other people and not just themselves.
Good thinking 99. Lets euthanase every soul the moment they reach what, 40-50?How so?
And is the welfare of society your 1ry consideration? What about the welfare of the ecosystem? Doesn't our society depend on a healthy biosphere, regardless of all other factors?
People that are old tend not to be productive workers, and usually need to lean on society. People that are younger are productive and can support themselves. If you have less young people and more old people there are more people to support with less doing the supporting, where if you have more young people and less old people the opposite is true.
Need more people to populate the universe. Just have to get them off the earth.
All those who think the planet is far from reaching a maximum population sustainability. What according to you would be a sustainable population, 15 billion, 20 billion, what about the extraordinary figure of say...40 billion??
If the population doubles in say, 100 years and with the present agriculture methods, an area the size of Canada would be needed to feed them all.
I don't see the point in an ever increasing population...is it an experiment to see how many people we can cram onto, into and around a planet? If our population stabilizes at 10 billion or 20 billion, whatever is deemed to be sustainable, is that it? Nobody is going to cry 'stagnation!' 'stagnation!' and demand a return to growth? Given human nature, I doubt it.