toldailytopic: Overpopulation. Is the world really over populated as some assert?

[lowerlevel]

I think that's a great point. Essentially what you are saying is that the people that promote the overpopulation myth are promoting laziness, i.e., control the population by reducing it instead of having faith in the human spirit and it's ability to adapt, invent, and be creative when it comes to growth.

exactly!

 

[drbrumley]

I certainly did. Perhaps you missed the piont of that.

LOL! Good call DJ. :rapture:

 

[drbrumley]

Or perhaps I'm suggesting that there's higher demand than ever before while the cost of production has increased?

Why would that be?

Maybe, just maybe, those crappy dollars in your wallet are woth much less then what is printed on them thereby raising the costs of these goods. So yes, the cost of producing said items are costing more, because it takes more of them worthless dollars. :rapture:

In other word, blame the government for the lousy money policy they inflict on everyone. INFLATION IS A TAX!!!!!!!

 

[DocJohnson]

Maybe, just maybe, those crappy dollars in your wallet are woth much less then what is printed on them thereby raising the costs of these goods. So yes, the cost of producing said items are costing more, because it takes more of them worthless dollars.

If Obama could get the Yen to bow down to the Dollar, I might be able to overlook his bowing down to the Emperor.

 

[drbrumley]

If Obama could get the Yen to bow down to the Dollar, I might be able to overlook his bowing down to the Emperor.

 

[Flipper]

Wait... are you suggesting that the earth's population explosion is a direct result of technology and industrialization?

Yup. A technological explosion that requires a lot of resources to keep in progress. Supply and demand will encourage inventiveness, but in the end there's only so much of any one non-renewable resource that can be economically extracted before that resource is no longer available.

If you want to get an idea of what a previously industrialized/mechanized economy without resources looks like, look at Zimbabwe. They ran out their resources because of really bad governance and are now relying largely on subsistence agriculture.


Hint; it's not going well.

 

[DocJohnson]

Yup. A technological explosion that requires a lot of resources to keep in progress. Supply and demand will encourage inventiveness, but in the end there's only so much of any one non-renewable resource that can be economically extracted before that resource is no longer available.

Is that how one explains the fact that a computer once used to take up an entire building and can now fit into the palm of one's hand?

If you want to get an idea of what a previously industrialized/mechanized economy without resources looks like, look at Zimbabwe. They ran out their resources because of really bad governance and are now relying largely on subsistence agriculture.

Ah, so bad governance is to blame. I knew it! It's all Bush's fault... again!

 

[Flipper]

Here are a few articles on urban farming.

Urban farming

NY Magazine article

Vertical Farm Project

And some ideas for future power generation.

Japan Eyes Space Solar Power

A Canadian company General Fusion is working on a revolutionary, and relatively cheap, nuclear fusion reactor.

Popular Science article on General Fusion.

Then there is the Lift Port project, a 23,000 mile long space elevator that may be ready by the early 2030's. Potentially much of mankind's "dirty" manufacturing could be moved off the Earth and onto orbiting space stations.

These are all awesome and I am aware of the newer fusion and space elevator technologies. However I am always cautious about what I call the Nazi Superweapon effect, i.e. placing an unreasonable faith in specific technologies to dig out from an untenable position.

I think fusion is theoretically viable but its an extremely challenging technology to master. I would like to see these technologies in industrial production (or even to achieve break-even) before counting on them.

 

[The Berean]

These are all awesome and I am aware of the newer fusion and space elevator technologies. However I am always cautious about what I call the Nazi Superweapon effect, i.e. placing an unreasonable faith in specific technologies to dig out from an untenable position.

I don't expect one specific technology to solve all the problems but a combination of many technologies across the board to be used together to move mankind beyond fossil fuels. It won't be easy and it could be a hundred years before we see a major shift.

I think fusion is theoretically viable but its an extremely challenging technology to master. I would like to see these technologies in industrial production (or even to achieve break-even) before counting on them.

The General Fusion concept seems interesting. At least they don't need to build a multi-billion dollar tokamak.

:

 

[Flipper]

Is that how one explains the fact that a computer once used to take up an entire building and can now fit into the palm of one's hand?

I guess you don't know much about the demands of the semiconductor industry then. Semiconductor plants waste incredible amounts of water.

Also, as you're apparently so interested, why don't you do the research and tell me what you come up with regarding the world supplies of gallium, tellurium and selenium?

Ah, so bad governance is to blame. I knew it! It's all Bush's fault... again!

Not got much to do with GW. These problems are 200 years in the making.

 

[Chalmer Wren]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for November 17th, 2009 10:36 AM

toldailytopic: Overpopulation. Is the world really over populated as some assert? And if so, what steps should be taken to unpopulate it?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Whether population has exceeded some limit must obviously be defined in terms of the limit, which I think is inherently defined by resource availability. Some resources are renewable, and some are not. For a non-renewable resource, running out could result in a mild or drastic decline in population, depending on the degree of dependency and prior availability. Nothing need be done to reduce population. If the resource that sustains life goes away, so does the life it sustains. For renewable resource I think their are several scenarios. First, we will reach an equilibrium for which the rate of increasing need (birth) matches the rate of decreasing need (death) and the rate of resource renewal. Secondly, the rate of need will increase so fast that the source of resource renewal is obliterated, which would have a similar result as the extinction of a renewable resource.

Ultimately, population is self limiting. Once the resources to support some maximum theoretical population are gone, so too is the maximum. However tragic that might be, it is as sure as gravity. No food, no people. Life is self limiting.

Whether or not steps be taken to limit population growth is a difficult problem to express assertive solutions for.

 

[Flipper]

I don't expect one specific technology to solve all the problems but a combination of many technologies across the board to be used together to move mankind beyond fossil fuels. It won't be easy and it could be a hundred years before we see a major shift.

:

Yes, shifting an economy is an expensive and time consuming proposition and I hope we have that long. The Peak Oil people will argue that we don't.

I agree with you in regards to there not being one solution. I hope that some of the other people on this thread will note that I'm not some neo-luddite.

I am all in favor of drill, baby, drill, also nuke, baby, nuke and fuse, baby, fuse. If we want to maintain a decent standard of living, we will need to start fully utilizing the resources we have - right now, today - and planning for the future.

 

[DocJohnson]

I guess you don't know much about the demands of the semiconductor industry then. Semiconductor plants waste incredible amounts of water.

Also, as you're apparently so interested, why don't you do the research and tell me what you come up with regarding the world supplies of gallium, tellurium and selenium?

Apparently you're deciding to skip the point and instead deflect to another topic.

The answer, by the way, is always advancements in technology. Smaller units require less material and resources. Running out of one material means finding a way to use another. Semiconductors, which have evolved throughout the years as different types of materials are tested and combined for their intrinsic qualities, are no different.

Not got much to do with GW. These problems are 200 years in the making.

What a relief! We found something that can't be blamed on Bush!

 

[Chalmer Wren]

What a relief! We found something that can't be blamed on Bush!

Well he didn't invent stupidity, he just improved upon it. Perhaps we can call him an advancement of ignorance? GW:Moron 3.0

 

[Flipper]

Apparently you're deciding to skip the point and instead deflect to another topic.

The answer, by the way, is always advancements in technology. Smaller units require less material and resources. Running out of one material means finding a way to use another. Semiconductors, which have evolved throughout the years as different types of materials are tested and combined for their intrinsic qualities, are no different.

I'm not aware of any changes to the semiconductor industry that were required through scarcity. You're blue-skying here. Also, our semiconductor industries are using more resources than ever before, not less. The very ubiquity of semicons in our electronics has stepped up global requirements for non-or-not-easily-renewable resources.

I can bluesky too - what if we get molecular or DNA processors in production? That would totally change the semiconductor industry, wouldn't it? Also, these jet planes will doubtlessly turn the tide of the war against the Americans, mein Fuhrer.

But until these things are in production, we need to be aware of what we have. What troubles me about our current situation is that there are so many things that play important roles in our industrialized way of life that are becoming scarce and are not easily renewable.

Obviously, I hope we can roll with the punches but it sure seems like there's a lot of them.

 

[DocJohnson]

Well he didn't invent stupidity, he just improved upon it. Perhaps we can call him an advancement of ignorance? GW:Moron 3.0

Ah, so Obama is the latest 3.1 version then.

 

[Chalmer Wren]

Ah, so Obama is the latest 3.1 version then.

Is he a politician? Upgrade, downgrade, its all stupid

 

[kmoney]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for November 17th, 2009 10:36 AM

toldailytopic: Overpopulation. Is the world really over populated as some assert? And if so, what steps should be taken to unpopulate it?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Yes.

 

[kmoney]

Yes.

I missed the 2nd part of the question...

I don't think depopulating the world is the answer, at least not the ethical one. We need to use resources more wisely, which could mean a lower standard of living. And of course if people would be more prudent when it comes to procreation, that wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[DocJohnson]

I don't think depopulating the world is the answer, at least not the ethical one. We need to use resources more wisely, which could mean a lower standard of living. And of course if people would be more prudent when it comes to procreation, that wouldn't be a bad idea.

Sex is the one resource no one is willing to live without. If you suggest people act more responsibly, you're likely to have someone invent a phobia just for you. :mmph: