With the ever decreasing resources and having to turn for alternative sources and increase the recyclability of products, increasing the population of the world can only be a hindrance.
As of 2008, the average world population growth was estimated at 1.17% [source]. The data suggests that the population growth has been steadily decreasing and stabilising. Now this may not seem like much but remember that population growth is compound, this means that after 10 years, the average world population would have grown to 101.17%^10, or 112.34%. That is to say that the world population would be 12.34% higher in 2018 compared to the population back in 2008.
The estimated world population as of 2008 is about 6.7 billion [source]. If that was to increase by 12%, ask yourself; can the world really sustain another 800 million people in 10 years time?
Another issue that I think adds to the problem is teenage pregnancy, if we were to assume that the average age of a mother at her first birth is 30 years (this may be inaccurate as average age of birth varies in different places). Now if we were to say that due to teenage pregnancy, this average was brought down by just a fifth of a year, down to 29.8 years; then the world population growth would be increased by 30/29.8, or 100.67%. That is to say that the world population would increase by an additional 0.67% per 30 years.
This means that the world population would increase by 0.02%. Remember that population growth is compound so taking into account the average population growth of 1.17%, the world population growth would be 101.17%*100.02%=101.19. The world population growth would then be 1.19% instead of 1.17%, not much of a difference you think? but after ten years, the population would be 1.19%^10=112.56%, that is to say the population in 2018 would be 12.56% higher than that of 2008, or 840 million. So just reducing the average first birth age by 0.2 years could increase the world population in 10 years time by an additional 40 million. Remember that this is just an estimate but it shows that reducing the first birth age does have an impact on population growth.
-----
Enough with the maths, the point I want to put across is that I don't think people fully understand the extent to which population growth impacts on our society. Because population growth is just over 1% per year doesn't mean that is insignificant as the numbers do pile up and will have an impact on everyones life during their lifetime.
Ofcourse there are factors that affect population growth, the following are some examples of increasing population growth;
The above listed all seem to be good things that governments could do, but at the same time adds to the population growth and has an negative impact on the future.
The following can reduce population growth;
Famine War Deseases Unhealthy diets Lack of excercise Poor healthcare
All these things appear to be terrible things but at the same time reduces the population growth.
My question to everyone is, do you think there is 'necessary evil' in order to reduce the population, such as promoting fast food, trifting healthcare funds, and going into wars? If you think those is not necessary, why? Do you think the world population will balance it self out somehow or maybe there are alternative ways to reduce the population without necessarily killing people off or reducing their lifespan?
Personaly I think the population will balance it self out as fast food are more commonly eaten and we are reaching a computerized age where we don't have to move much at all if we wanted to. But wether the balance will be reached before we run out of resources, I simply don't know.
Another thing I didn't add to the earlier list of reducing population is being gay. It's a little contraversial but gay people probably reduce population growth, and since gays are being more widely accepted as time goes on, maybe this is a way to reduce the population by making more people come out and live a gay life? I'm sorry if this is just going too far.
Better education and teaching safe sex practices such as using a condom will also have an effect on the numbers since those people will reproduce more responsibly.
I don't really see those things as necessary evils. A lot because of what I said above. If we are reaching such a critical mass maybe we really need to start cracking on finding way to comfortably live in space. If we could create sustainable environments in space overpopulation would almost become moot.
The population will continue to rise no matter how many "necessary evils" occur, it always does. If overpopulation is begining to become a major issue (which it really shouldn't, we probably just need to move our population around more, scatter it a bit in a way) then space is our best bet. With our current level of technology we could easily already be building colonies on the Moon, in orbit or even on Mars. With those colonies we could move millions, even billions of people into space while also seeing a massive rise in useful technology. We could also use some colonies for agriculture if built properly, making the Moon "green" so to speak with large greenhouse colonies or something similar. While we were up there we could mine resources such as Helium 3 which would provide us with the required energy, not to mention solar power.
The problem with that, however, if money. We have the technology to colonize the Moon and possibly Earth's orbit but the money is the real issue. Now, if we could find a few hundred billion dollars it'd be doable, but that would mean an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, cuts across the board as well as aid cuts. You'd also have to find people willing to go into space, but something tells me that wouldn't be a major issue. Where's there is work, people will go. But, one must find the money and get public opinion behind the idea, which is easier said than done.
Also, look to the ocean. Imagine massive ships, possibly with farming space on the top decks and living quarters beneath. Airships are already basically floating cities, we just make one about ten times the size of that and begin to fill it up. The idea has been floated around for a while now with some groups, but again, funding would be massive.
Also, look to the ocean. Imagine massive ships, possibly with farming space on the top decks and living quarters beneath. Airships are already basically floating cities, we just make one about ten times the size of that and begin to fill it up. The idea has been floated around for a while now with some groups, but again, funding would be massive.
The main problem there is energy to run them.
Now, if we could find a few hundred billion dollars it'd be doable, but that would mean an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, cuts across the board as well as aid cuts.
To fix Bush's stupidity we will have to take a few years and get it done slowly but correctly.
I speculate that the issue will finally reach critical mass not in the next few decades, but maybe later. Then after a big fat war, people will start really trying to ramp up the space colonisation program on a massive scale.
How about we actually make our poles habitable and farmable, along with the rest of the world.
Trust me, a little global warming will help open up larger areas than the ones that will close off. The ones that would close off are unfarmable anyways, so whatever.
I say we just kill off Africa and Asia. Minus 1/5 of China, South Africa, Russia, and Egypt.
Again moving to space can also help solve this problem Solar panels set in space can gather something like 5 times (I think, might be 10) more energy then the best solar panels on Earth.
Cured overpopulation problem.
Non of those would cure overpopulation, just stave it off for a while longer and the methods are quite destructive.
@ Darkhand666, That article is about space flight, not colonisation. The costs of colonisation would be huge and taking into account the capitalistic nature of the world's economy, I don't think any society would be willing to spend astronomical amounts of money for no short term return and besides, no one has a clue exactly how we are going to melt the ice caps and heat the atmosphere, or how exactly we are going to introduce vast amounts of microbes. We don't have the capacity to move around that much energy yet.
In my opinion it would be far more cost effective to terraform deserts and the antartic, perhaps we can solve global warming at the same time that way.
@ Strop, How long away is later? Because if you were to say 50 years, the world population would have increased by 79% by then since 2008 considering the population growth has been stabilising rather than progressively decreasing. If by some reason the population growth plummets so that the world population does not increase by that much, say starvation and desease, then I would have to say that the population has reached critical mass. Maybe you are saying that there is still plenty of space where people can live in?
From TexanProvo,
If overpopulation is begining to become a major issue (which it really shouldn't,
I want to enlighten you that it's not a small problem that is ignorable. Realise that the world population has doubled in the last 40 years and get the growth has not decreased by all that much.
From EnterOrion,
I say we just kill off Africa and Asia. Minus 1/5 of China, South Africa, Russia, and Egypt.
I would say that war and genocide is one of the quickest ways to reduce the population, it always has been. But I don't think thats a very humane approach. Then again, in the past, larger nations have many times exploited other nations to gain land. So it's in human nature to do that anyway.
Space colonization is the best answer to overpopulation. Such an undertaking would also be beneficial for corporations in a capatalist system as space colonization would create thousands if not millions of jobs.
First, we'd have to produce more spacecraft and spacesuits so production jobs incease greatly. Due to the cost of putting an object into space the government would probable offer a considerable amount of money to whoever could come up with a more efficiant method so researchers would desperatley look for a method for the money. Robot research would also find more money available as developers searched for ways to develop better robots for a 0g environment.
The first target of such a plan would be the Moon. The Moon has resources that could easily be used in the construction of space craft and colonies and this would lead to a great improvement in mining jobs. Larger spacecraft could be constructed in space and eventually the first major colony would be created in order to serve as a factory of sorts. Back on Earth factory jobs would spring up everywhere and the solar power market would explode. Granted, it would be a bad day for oil companies but I'm sure they'd find a way to adapt.
Now, mining on the Moon begins. As it takes place, colonies can be built into the Moon made from the very resources taken out of the Moon. Large "cities" built on several levels could be built and people would start to move in. Large portions of the colonies, or a level or two, could be turned into agricultural lands in the form of a large greenhouse deep below the Moon's surface. For example, say a colony is five level deep. The first (highest) level is a port of sorts and the second and third levels are lived in. The fourth level would basically be a giant greenhouse where crops of all sorts are grown alongside livestock. The fifth level could hold a lake of freshwater with a reserved fish population. The lake, probably the majority of the fifth level, could be around a mile deep (no one said how big the levels are) in some places and would hold a variety of fish and other aquatic life, the majority of which would be foodstock. It could range from catfish to lobster. The lake would also serve as water storage for the colony and a recreational facility.
Eventually there would be enough resources to build orbital colonies. These could be quite large and follow a model similar to the Luna colony or one of their very own. With colonies now on the Moon and in Earth orbit Mars would be the next target and with the technologies invented and perfected in Earth orbit and Luna colonization it would be an easier target. Soon enough, humanity would have two planets and the great strain we have put on Earth would be lessoned as more and more people move out into space. Eventually there would be entire generations who had never set foot on Earth, new nations hundreds of thousands or even millions of miles from Earth would spring up.
Now, at first this would be extremely expensive but the rewards would be brilliant. First of all the amount of jobs this would create would make a great dent in unemployment. Someone somewhere has to build all of the materials required for this, someone somewhere has to maintain the robots and someone somewhere has to be willing to venture into space. It would be expenisve, but the rewards, first of all, more room. More homes for real estate agents to sell. With the great population increase in the colonies there would be more consumers for every buisiness to sell their products too and the increases and perfections of technology would benefit everyone. This would also mean more jobs, more income, which all leads to more spending. Also, for whatever countries took part in this endevor their politcal influence would be increadible and their population would increase many times over making those countries guranteed world powers.
In conclusion, space colonization would basically take care of overpopulation by creating more room. The planet will, one day, run out of resources if our population continues growing, but when we learn how to colonize space if we run out of resources we can just extend further. Space colonization would also be insurance for the survival of the human race, even with the loss of the Earth we could go on. At first the colonies would be lightly populated, but the colonists would soon remedy that problem. With colony agriculture, there would be more food for our entire population so issues like world hunger would be eased. While expensive, the long term rewards of space colonization make it worth it.
I agree that space colonisation would be a big step forward, however I think you are jumping the gun a bit. Agriculture would play a big role since the start of colonisation, not just later on or after building on the moon. Simply providing more room isn't enough to cure the overpopulation, you need more sources of food. It would also be impractical to ship in oxygen continuously for entire colonies, so you would need carbon dioxide recycling systems, i.e. plants. Space colonies would need agricultural systems first and foremost. NASA is doing research in orbiting agriculture.
Again moving to space can also help solve this problem Solar panels set in space can gather something like 5 times (I think, might be 10) more energy then the best solar panels on Earth.
It's over 1000%, but the problem is the station they would have to build. Also they would need to make Solar panels more efficient because as of the last time i checked they worked at 30% efficiency.
In my opinion it would be far more cost effective to terraform deserts and the Anatanic, perhaps we can solve global warming at the same time that way.
Big problems there because we don't have the technology too. Also if we did we would endanger millions of animals and destroy many ecosystems. I think we should just kill off some of the population.
Space colonies would need agricultural systems first and foremost. NASA is doing research in orbiting agriculture.
Yep' and it's going slow they would need 1 large farm ,I forget how big, for 1 astronaut to be properly nourished.
