War, famine and pestilence have been the traditional ones.
Karsten, Hans Rosling on TED is probably the most wonderful, provocative and stunning intellectual entertainment in the world for years to come!! The first 5 minutes of the first video gives you an answer to your question.Fun to watch.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html
War, famine and pestilence have been the traditional ones.
what about vaccines?
War, famine and pestilence have been the traditional ones.
what about vaccines?
Andriod Sex Bots / Media would be a powerful combination for effective population control ..
If we had robots that were "waay better in the sack" compared to any human, coupled with a Media Blitzkrieg Bombardment of notions in support of human to android contact. Humans would eventually fore-go human on human contact in lieu of the " way more awesomer" human to android contact.
If these robots were better, easier, cheaper and mass produced for everyone, population control would be more effective.
If we stopped fkn each other and started fkn androids, the chances of having a baby would be eliminated. Within a generation or two after implementing this type of paradigm we would notice considerable or drastic population reduction.
Feel free to check out a polka song I wrote about Robot sex bots on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=457622168484
Our net population would have fallen if it were not for immigration.What my engineer father called "ignoring the weight of the elephant...." Or to quote a balloonist friend: "We would have crossed the Atlantic if we hadn't run out of fuel before we got to Ireland."
It's a daunting concept, but we're likely going to need some sort of population control eventually.
What about the idea of offering people cash incentives to get sterilised? And perhaps charge parents who want to have large families to pay for the sterilisations of the others.
I guess that might increase the spread of std's from people thinking they no longer need condoms though.
Any other ideas?
We need 2.1 to provide sufficient resources for an ever more ageing population.this is a ridiculous myth. What matters is the "working fraction" of the population, i.e. the percentage between 20 and 60 years old. If the birthrate declines to below replacement level, the working fraction increases.
Many developed northern European populations are actually in decline and are causing considerable concern.Only to economists, who have no idea of how to model a decreasing population, politicians who preach "growth" with no concept of limits, and racists who make money out of the artificial fear that nonwhites will eventually outnmumber whites.
As a matter of fact, we already have a very efficient answer for the problem of overpopulation, it's called Nuclear War.
What, exactly, is evil about not making babies?
I have a deep loathing of all things religious, but I can't bring myself to criticise monks and nuns for their celibacy.
But it isn't a lie. We only survive because of artificial fertilisers, without which crop yields globally would be 30 - 50% less, and the production of artificial fertilisers depends on burning fossil fuels, of which we only have a finite amount. Most populations are now critically short of drinking water: not only in the third world but in places like California.
It is entirely possible that our great-grandchildren could eke out a pathetic living with a population of 10,000,000,000 or more, but only a very evil man would wish it on them. On the other hand, if we took steps to limit the population immediately, we and every successive generation would benefit from an increasingly good standard of indefinitely sustainable living.
Have you been to Mumbai or Kolkata? Witnessed a crop failure in Sudan? Life for many people on this planet is a miserable interlude before starvation. With no effort whatever, it could be made very comfortable indeed for everyone. What's your problem with that?
Population is the problem. Put simply, if we weren't here there wouldn't be any problem.
I really cannot understand why we relentlessly devote effort to discovering more and more ways to feed more and more mouths.
The energy cost of a human isn't confined just to the food that each eats; people need somewhere to live, heat and light to read by, clothes, blankets, entertainment.
Taken to the extreme, if we keep increasing the human population, it is unarguable that we will run out of space. At that point, measures would have to be taken to limit growth further.
So why are we waiting for the crisis, rather than making these points, intervening early and avoiding a catastrophe?
Indian tersely told the world at COP21 in Paris last autumn that it would be opening new power stations on a monthly basis to feed its population's hunger for energy. It challenged the West to solve the problem of climate change for it, because rich countries can afford to help out.
But the West didn't put a billion people in India. India did that itself. That's more than the population Europe and the US put together. And half of those people haven't got access to a toilet.
There is no practicle [sic] limit to poulation [sic]. The amount of resources and energy with which we can do stuff like build houses and green the desert is increased with more people.
I have no problem with the world getting better. I want nobody to die of hunger or hunger related diseases.Would that be the environmental lobby to revert East Anglia to a natural swamp? But where would you grow wheat, vegetables and turkeys? Farming is an assault on the environment. You can't have it both ways.
That's why I consider the enviromental movement evil beyond compare.
Soon, in the next few decades, humanity will start to capture asteriods and mine them. The resources floating around the solar system are practically infinate. The potential populations that can be accomodated in extreme luxury in artifical habitats will be beyond anything we will be able to fill in the next thousand years and beyond.
Soon, in the next few decades, humanity will start to capture asteriods and mine them. The resources floating around the solar system are practically infinate. The potential populations that can be accomodated in extreme luxury in artifical habitats will be beyond anything we will be able to fill in the next thousand years and beyond.[/color]
Why are you fantising about killing billions of people?
• 131.4 million births per year • 55.3 million people die each yearwhich does suggest something of an imbalance. The answer is simply to reduce the number of births.
Why are you fantising about killing billions of people?
To whom was this addressed?
According to the World Health OrganisationQuote• 131.4 million births per year • 55.3 million people die each yearwhich does suggest something of an imbalance. The answer is simply to reduce the number of births.
Since every birth involves a lot of effort (courtship, mating, pregnancy, birth, child raising..) and risk at each stage, it seems sensible to do less, reduce risks, and let everyone live a long and happy life.
But it isn't a lie. We only survive because of artificial fertilisers, without which crop yields globally would be 30 - 50% less, and the production of artificial fertilisers depends on burning fossil fuels, of which we only have a finite amount. Most populations are now critically short of drinking water: not only in the third world but in places like California.
It is entirely possible that our great-grandchildren could eke out a pathetic living with a population of 10,000,000,000 or more, but only a very evil man would wish it on them. On the other hand, if we took steps to limit the population immediately, we and every successive generation would benefit from an increasingly good standard of indefinitely sustainable living.
the west is devolving into a system that not only favors low brain activity people- but even more tragic- favors low brain activity in high brain activity people.. i believe it is largely the continued ego, narcissism and greed of previous generations to blame, along with the misguided attempt to replace racism with sexism disguised as 'feminism' or 'lgbt rights' which will undoubtedly backfire if it isnt already, particularly in diverse countries
social issues aside, our solar system is itself a 'spaceship'- we exist to redesign this entire ship and then drive it to search for a new one (a new solar system), in the meantime we should optimize the structure of this planet and eventually start building a new planet, this will require extremely efficient central planning via mass communication and merit-based government, unguided/misinformed capitalism is inevitably on its way out
its not presently and wont ever be one or the other, technology eliminates the false dichotomies of the past, technology is the fusion of capitalism with communism, communism is itself communication/commutication of- ideas, products, services, resources, strengths, weaknesses, people, genetics, diversity, as governments continue to merge with technology people will become the main capital, if the goal is to organize a cooperative/functional global community then its in everyones interest to spread their own wealth (whatever that wealth may be) as often, far, and wide as possible away from the billionare megacorporations that have become the modern equivalent of "stagnant communism" funded by a global national debt bubble and enabled by the unwillingness to either enforce a wealth cap/wealth tax or to educate people to stop giving their money away to these megacorporation-communes owned by billionares with literally more money than they know what to do with
California only has a water "shortage" because in a natural desert almost all the water availible is used for agriculture. Even then there is hardly a shortage of swiming pools.
California only has a water "shortage" because in a natural desert almost all the water availible is used for agriculture. Even then there is hardly a shortage of swiming pools.
In other words, the part of the world with the most desirable standard of living, is not capable of sustaining that standard for its present population. Pretty much what I've been saying all along.
There are only two solutions: make more water, or make fewer people. Only one of these is actually feasible on a large scale, in a short time, and indefinitely. If we can't do it by persuasion and reward, the time will come when Man or nature will do it the hard way.
Well Alan - undoubtably there is no argument against the undeniable necessity for population control - and... I think it is here that you have hit the nail on the head. Persuasion! Let's have a look at that...
Fact of the matter is that man is a pack animal. It is a psychological necessity within the physical make up of mankind to interact with his fellow man as part of a pack. Unfortunately the byproduct of such interaction incorporates the existence of alpha omega tendencies...
This is a natural form of hierarchy that is echoed throughout the animal kingdom, however the human is an inventive creature. Alpha personalities, in a bid to ensure their Alpa positions more lazily, quickly realised that to render ones people divided makes for a more peaceful dictatorship, consisting of a greater longevity.
It is clear to see that people living in clans of families is the natural orientation for man, but in that we 'are' divided and ruled, the bond of personal family psychologically replaces the bond of the clan. You yourself Alan have stated in a post elsewhere that you learnt, or was taught early on in your life to make the distinction between family members and 'others'...!
The point I make is it's all very well saying that we must in the future become one child only families - and with exceptionally good reason - but that we really cannot ignore the fact that this, under the current remit of divide and rule circumstances of smaller and smaller divisions, whereas older generations of family no longer live with the younger generations, constitutes an unnatural and damaging way of life for elders, parents, and children, alike. That divisions of distance between relatives becomes apparent in lack of local job opportunities, etc, etc.
We already are observing the break down of traditional family values within the remit of society today, and the social ramifications of such. What will happen if these bonds of family are further reduced by the event of even smaller family groups? Will children of the future become people who make the distinction between family and others as a singular family member? Are we opening a can of worms in that our future generations, in growing up as the singular point of focus and ambition within a family, will then view themselves as singularities, un-bonded to, and without empathy for their fellow man?
Any policy, as necessary as it may be, will always bear negative effects. This does not mean that such policies should not be adopted, but it is important that one consider what effects will be caused by a policy across the board, and that all perspectives are fully addressed.
People have an inherent psychological need within themselves to be part of something that is bigger than themselves. This inherent and hard wired need of the human, I believe, requires some very careful thought and consideration indeed...
Personally, I find that within the parameters of a capitalistic society, whereby the notion of community becomes a market place of opportunity to further one's own ends as the result of another's misfortune, that for me...neither politics, religion, nor football suffice!
What to do?
There is no problem with 10 billion productive people on the planet. There is space a plenty and if the resource that is human endevour is allowed to develope the deserts with good land management there will be more than enough food for all.The Oklahoma Dust Bowl, the Sahara Desert, and the gradual salinification of coastal Asia, are all testaments to human endeavor. Land management in a temperate, fertile country like England has led to increased frequency of flooding. Great swathes of the Amazon basin have been rendered sterile by all forms of agriculture, most of which resulted in the starvation of their practitioners.
There is no problem with 10 billion productive people on the planet. There is space a plenty and if the resource that is human endevour is allowed to develope the deserts with good land management there will be more than enough food for all.The Oklahoma Dust Bowl, the Sahara Desert, and the gradual salinification of coastal Asia, are all testaments to human endeavor. Land management in a temperate, fertile country like England has led to increased frequency of flooding. Great swathes of the Amazon basin have been rendered sterile by all forms of agriculture, most of which resulted in the starvation of their practitioners.
Interesting, but baffling! So herds of domestic animals cause desertification and reverse it. There must be some secret in that "planned grazing" concept that has escaped farmers for the last thousand years or so, and it looks as though the secret is actually "unplanned" grazing, as done by wild animals that just follow the grass.
In the UK there is a very effective form of birth control i.e An obsession with owning your own house and very high house prices.Interestingly, this is the flip side of a coin that was tossed in the 1960s when oral contraceptives became available and for the first time it was possible to get a mortgage based on full joint salaries. There being something of a shortage of houses, house prices rose to meet the available money, and almost doubled in 5 years. This led to the expectation that a house is a sound financial investment and as a result Brits now pay more for housing as a fraction of income than anyone else.
It is impossible for a married couple with only one person working to buy a house so both work and take great care not to conceive or have abortions if they do.
Interesting, but baffling! So herds of domestic animals cause desertification and reverse it. There must be some secret in that "planned grazing" concept that has escaped farmers for the last thousand years or so, and it looks as though the secret is actually "unplanned" grazing, as done by wild animals that just follow the grass.
Yeah, who would have thought it, the herd animals which live off grass are good at looking after it..... better than us humans..... oops!
There are loads of other videos about such stuff out there. Some of the ways desert can be greened by making little trenches horizontally across the land to get the water to soak into the ground and allow the first few plants to start thus providingthe wind cover for a decent soil and more plants are well worth a watch.
Interesting, but baffling! So herds of domestic animals cause desertification and reverse it. There must be some secret in that "planned grazing" concept that has escaped farmers for the last thousand years or so, and it looks as though the secret is actually "unplanned" grazing, as done by wild animals that just follow the grass.
Yeah, who would have thought it, the herd animals which live off grass are good at looking after it..... better than us humans..... oops!
There are loads of other videos about such stuff out there. Some of the ways desert can be greened by making little trenches horizontally across the land to get the water to soak into the ground and allow the first few plants to start thus providingthe wind cover for a decent soil and more plants are well worth a watch.
massive artificial lakes and rivers spanning entire continents will become common eventually and the goal should be to make them as natural and scenic looking as possible- artificial geography doesnt have to look artificial. we should keep in mind all continents are temporary anyway.. the earths crusts continually recycle/rearrange the surface of this planet so we may as well use it before we lose it