Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

What would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

Posted May 2, '13 at 7:36am

partydevil

partydevil

5,119 posts

eventually there's too many

depends on the balance.
we already have these problems if we all live like the western world.

if we all live like in africa then we could take maybe another 100 billion befor the gets to much for the planet to sustain us.

it's the balance not the space.

With growth comes an increase in taxes, more to invest in infrastructure, education, medical services and the like.

i agree whit everything you said nicho. except for this. well. it is true but growth is not needed as long you can maintain what you have.
the problems arise when it shrinks (like whit greece, japan, china and many more atm.)
 

Posted May 2, '13 at 7:51am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,238 posts

Knight

i agree whit everything you said nicho. except for this. well. it is true but growth is not needed as long you can maintain what you have.
the problems arise when it shrinks (like whit greece, japan, china and many more atm.)


Yes, but to maintain, you need to grow. The US can't maintain itself, simply because 2% growth is too little. China can't too, because a growth rate below double digits is simply far too little to cover itself.
 

Posted May 2, '13 at 11:58am

partydevil

partydevil

5,119 posts

to maintain, you need to grow.

to a certain end, yes.
i'm going to have problems explaining this. and it will be very nitpicking.
so yea, your right.
 

Posted May 2, '13 at 12:18pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

We don't have overpopulation. The world actually has enough arable land to support more people, just that we aren't using it eventually.


I'm aware of that. Hence I said eventual more dire problem. The world can support seven billion people. It cannot support four times that. Currently, the doubling rate is somewhere around what, 45 years? In a century's time we'll have that magical, absurd number at the pace we're going.

Secondly, 2.1 is the magical replacement level, that is, the basic amount needed just to sustain our population.


I'm aware of that. However, what we need is less, not more.

God....try telling people they have to work more and more. They're already protesting when they raised it by a couple of years; and try telling that to people who have worked for close to half a century.


Yes, well, ignoring the problem because we don't like what has to be done to fix it is how things go to ruin. This is only going to get worse and require more drastic measures the longer it's put off.

This also does not take into account the fact that old people simply can't do the job as efficiently, or do all kinds of job.


True, but that does not mean there are not ways they can still contribute to the economy.

We won't be able to maintain our economic, social and political systems with lesser and lesser people


So change them.

With growth comes an increase in taxes, more to invest in infrastructure, education, medical services and the like.


And then we eventually run out of room, because we have no more space to grow inside of. Which results in the mass die off of hundreds of millions due to lack of resources.

We cannot grow forever, and the larger the population, the faster it grows. I've said this 3-4 times now. We're not overpopulated yet, but we're quickly approaching there and it's going to be a million times harder to deal with if we shove it off until the actual crisis comes, and a lot more painful.
 

Posted May 2, '13 at 12:51pm

crazyape

crazyape

1,800 posts

Eventually some wiseass is going to make people pay to live on the moon. Then orbital habitats, then mars, and so-on. It's about expansion, not reduction.

 

Posted May 2, '13 at 1:47pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

It's about expansion, not reduction.


That's an option, though we do not have the technology currently to make this feasible on a large scale. If we could forever expand, growth would not be a problem. It's only when we're stuck with a cap that this problem becomes very ... problematic.
 

Posted May 2, '13 at 1:53pm

wontgetmycatnip

wontgetmycatnip

95 posts

That's an option, though we do not have the technology currently to make this feasible on a large scale. If we could forever expand, growth would not be a problem. It's only when we're stuck with a cap that this problem becomes very ... problematic.


Space...the final frontier...endless...silent...waiting. This is the story of the United Space Ship Enterprise...its mission...a five year patrol of the galaxy where no man has gone before...a STAR TREK.
 

Posted May 2, '13 at 2:16pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,119 posts

am i the only getting annoyed by these comments that we have to go into space. while that does not solve any of the actual problems that we face?

 

Posted May 2, '13 at 2:24pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,776 posts

Knight

if we all live like in africa then we could take maybe another 100 billion befor the gets to much for the planet to sustain us.


A 2001 estimate made by the Department of Economic an Social Affairs had a maximum estimate at 16 billion.as the carrying capacity for the planet. More recent estimates put it at around 12 billion at most due to depletion of resources over the years. Though it has been proposed if we were to all go on strict rations and maximize all sustainable land for food production we could sustain a carrying capacity of around 33 billion. If we were to all live in excess of prosperity the carrying capacity would be around 2 billion.
 

Posted May 2, '13 at 2:36pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,776 posts

Knight

am i the only getting annoyed by these comments that we have to go into space. while that does not solve any of the actual problems that we face?


Not sure I entirely agree. While an initial set up would require bringing the resources from earth up there, there is the possibility to develop self sustaining space colonies. This would allow us to produce sustainable "land" for food and the required plant life for sustaining a breathable environment, energy for the machines required would be abundant, space for expansion would be more than abundant, waste material would just be a matter of efficient recycling methods, we could even break away from the Earth's mineral and water resources by harvesting them from other solar bodies.

Though I don't think we currently have the technology to create such sustainability.
 
Reply to What would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

You must be logged in to post a reply!