No idea will work because total global implementation will never happen. What will happen is the first world countries will continue to consume with little regard to the consequences as our resources dwindle and the effort to find/use more cost more energy/money that basically price out the lowest classes of humanity. We'll be fine for a while as innovation and original thought are one of the human races strongest traits but without a hegemony of some sort to enforce world-wide doctrine then no measure will work effectively and even then there would be large patches of resistance (welcome to star wars on earth). Space colonization and exploration are pretty much our final option (hello star trek federation) as the raw resources are widely available in the cosmos and we have the rudimentary technology right now to combine them to our needs.
Overpopulation. Resources running out. What do we do about these things?
- Thread starter lucky_sharm
- Start date
Recommended Videos
First, really define "overpopulation". I don't see the world as overpopulated as of yet except in a few countries most of which are 3rd world or oppressive as hell.
Second, there is no solution except that nature has a way of running its own course. Biosphere's tend to adjust accordingly, so don't worry about that.
Second, there is no solution except that nature has a way of running its own course. Biosphere's tend to adjust accordingly, so don't worry about that.
I guess that if there was a logical yet draconian attempt to enforce no pregnancy for three years, the rate of dying people vs newborns would greatly reduce the population and space and resource issues. However, a thing called humanity is in the way because there is NO way you could stop people from breeding...there would be wars for sure. Places like Japan have upside down pyramids, with tons of old people and few younger people. Plus, we have two countries in line to be superpowers, and you cannot stop them from wanting the same level of satiety that Western countries have enjoyed for their time at the top.
I can entertain romantic ideas of living on another planet..but what about vitamins everyone..we are made of Earth and it is only earth, and perhaps the Vit D our sun creates that we thrive from. Oh, maybe with nanotech and stuff we can make vitamins and minerals that replicate those made by geologic processes and the complex evolution of plants and animals.
There have been times that on the smaller level, people's supply lines dried up and they either died or re created society...the myths that created the Arthurian myths grew out of the fall of Rome, and people who thrived in Greenland had something or other cut off their plenty.
So we can play Fallout, or other post catastrophic event genre game..and know that the system of raiders or bandits adapts to fill in lost power structures when social centers fall.
I can entertain romantic ideas of living on another planet..but what about vitamins everyone..we are made of Earth and it is only earth, and perhaps the Vit D our sun creates that we thrive from. Oh, maybe with nanotech and stuff we can make vitamins and minerals that replicate those made by geologic processes and the complex evolution of plants and animals.
There have been times that on the smaller level, people's supply lines dried up and they either died or re created society...the myths that created the Arthurian myths grew out of the fall of Rome, and people who thrived in Greenland had something or other cut off their plenty.
So we can play Fallout, or other post catastrophic event genre game..and know that the system of raiders or bandits adapts to fill in lost power structures when social centers fall.
More big wars? I'm sure, deep down, mankind's fascination with killing itself off is some sort of unconscious, genetic form of population control. "They don't agree with us/look different/have more resources/come from a different place, they must die" is pretty much how most conflicts start in the natural world. Conflicts often leads to deaths which keeps population down.
But that's the cynic in me talking.
Otherwise, the problem won't be likely to solve itself until the creation of a cheap/free, easily renewable energy source that everyone on Earth has access to. Without having to worry about energy, our petrol consumption would go down drastically, food would be easier to grow in truly epic quantities, transportation of this food around the world would be functionally be free. Wars would end, famine would cease and the world would start moving towards becoming a better place. Basically, when we have replicators, we'll be set to have a bright Star Trek-style utopian future. Not to mention, free energy would eventually render the concept of money moot since the only real cost is in time and not resources.
So.......WWIII or free energy? I don't see the later happening before the former, unfortunately.
But that's the cynic in me talking.
Otherwise, the problem won't be likely to solve itself until the creation of a cheap/free, easily renewable energy source that everyone on Earth has access to. Without having to worry about energy, our petrol consumption would go down drastically, food would be easier to grow in truly epic quantities, transportation of this food around the world would be functionally be free. Wars would end, famine would cease and the world would start moving towards becoming a better place. Basically, when we have replicators, we'll be set to have a bright Star Trek-style utopian future. Not to mention, free energy would eventually render the concept of money moot since the only real cost is in time and not resources.
So.......WWIII or free energy? I don't see the later happening before the former, unfortunately.
As resources grow scarcer prices rise, either A. driving technology advancement to accommodate expansion or B. it becomes prohibitively expensive to expand the population. IE i'm spending half my income on water I can't afford a kid. Either way malthus probably was far to cynical in his view.
Good plan bro. Thing is, no country is 100% capitalistic. Many countries have socialist aspects, IE Medicare and such. Over population can be an issue even if we colonize other planets. It would only set back the rate. With that model we'd constantly be having to find hospitable planets within a reasonable range constantly.Grell Sutcliff said:
I say we just kill 'em. You know, for the "lulz."
When resources get scarce wars will start and that will solve the problem. Yeah it sucks but it's a problem that resolves itself.
Screw just landing on Mars in your/our lifetime. I wanna see Mars terraformed to the point that it looks like the grand canyon and you don't have to wear a full suit to walk around comfortably outside. It's about as likely to happen as Silver Surfer flying by and putting us on Galactus's lunch menu but still. I want to see Mars terraformed and a full, civilian Lunar colony up and running before I die.Mike Richards said:
As for food and stuff...why not just take up indoor gardening? Potatoes are supposed to be easy as hell to grow for example.
Birth control. Conflict over reduced resources. As mentioned above, disease.
Nature balances things out.
Nature balances things out.
ioxles said:
Actually it doesn't, it's just a bunch of liberal propaganda... well contridictory liberal propaganda, one of the reasons why I have so little respect for the left wing.
Before you freak out at that, let me put it in these terms:
Let's look at wood and the whole "ZOMG, save the rainforests" push. The bottom line is that we're cutting down forests signifigantly faster than they can replentish themselves. Recycling of things like paper helps a little, but the thing is that the demand doesn't remain static where we can re-use what we have, the demand increases constantly.
See, people want to de-bunk the whole myth of overpopulation and such because it leads into things like what I'm talking about with the need to get rid of people, and of course that basically means that the people mostly being gotten rid of are unlikely to be those from the first world... and thus hence "elitist" attitude. Howeve when that same leftie is supporting people spiking trees in logging operations, or campaigning against people in the third world selling their forests to lumber interests, the whole issue with shortages changes. In general your typical left winger is someone who lives comfortably in the first world with all the benefits, but wants to oppose that society, usually out of guilt, but also with the understanding that by being part of that society they will never have to experience the hardship of being without it.
Wood, water, minerals... especially minerals, you should hear some of the screaming about strip mining, you turn the channel to another leftie site and you'll see people there argueing profusely against the assertations of that article. No, I won't do your research for you, in part because it's really easy to search for enviromental stuff.
The other thing to consider here is that it doesn't seem to give enough credit to the so called "developing world". See, part of the problem is that nations like China are huge. China itself represents about a third of the human population. These guys all want higher standards of living, and China is becoming more powerful. Bigger houses, the abillity to drive cars (a big one), and similar things. This means a higher demand for the wood being produced to build houses and things (and of course paperwork to fuel their bureaucracy, but we won't get into paper), metal to build those cars and machines, oil to power those cars and machines, and so on. We're already depleting those resources faster than they repopulate, increasing production just means we deplete them faster, but even so there is a limit to how fast resources cn be gathered, and as a result we see the price of everything currently rising, and contributing to a lot of the current problems with the global economy. Add India's development into the mix, and then look at the attempts to uplift Africa and South/Central America... and yeah, there is a crisis.
The issue of living space is a lollercaust. It's been argued in a lot of places "whaddya mean we're running out of space, look at all this unoccupied land" (pointing to swamps, jungles, deserts, and other things). Well the answer to that is of course a mixture of what occpying that land is going to do to the enviroment, and of course the issue of the land being unsuitable for human occupation to begin with. If people are going to live there you have to be able to be able to build and maintain permanant structures, run power and clean water in, and all kinds of other things. One of the reasons why cultures in a lot of parts of the world have stagnated is because of how hostile the enviroment is, and this is frequently one of the big arguements made about the arrogance of the current first world with people in other places argueing that it's not their fault that they were not blessed with such a nice enviroment to develop in (though arguements can be made back and forth about this, and I'm not going to get into it). Today if you want to drain a swamp, people freak out about it, but even getting past that if you look at all the problems with structures built in areas like that (say for example Foxwoods Resort/Casino) even with modern building techniques and millions upon millions of dollars in investment, you can't stop these structures from slowly sinking and rotting away. The hostile nature of these enviroments pretty much explains why nobody lives there, and why we don't see much development (when it happens, it's very rare). As we don't have enough resources to support building for the populations in habitable areas for the most part, the issue of colonizing hostile enviroments isn't even a valid arguement.
I've gotten a bit away from what that article said specifically, the point I'm getting at is that this is nothing new, such arguements have been being made for years, and are pretty much a method of trying to badmouth the first world, and bury one's head in the sand like an ostrich. On almost every point that article made, you can find people with the same political leanings saying exactly the opposite when the need arises.
The point here being is that people are very good at finding reasons to not take action, especially when it's unpleasant, but we're in a case where we need to get rid of people, and there no nice way of saying, or going about that. Refusing to acknowlege it, doesn't make the problem go away, and we've already spent a long time denying it a we're reaching a point where we might not make a differance if we do do it, because we'll have doomed ourselves. I'd love for a magical solution to present itself, but the 11th hour approaches, and alas no miracle. ZPG (Zero Population Growth) might have worked at one time, but we have gone well beyond that, the population is already too big and needs to be drastically reduced, then we'll have that option. Basically it's something we knew we needed to do, chose not to, and now we're dealing with the price of that desician. Any "humane" method of reducing the population, like limiting the number of children, and similar things is also off the table because it will take too long. We're looking at a situation where we're going to run out of stuff within a couple of decades, especially with countries like China trying to increase their standard of living. When your dealing with a lifeform that can live 80 years or more like we can, a slow process working over generations can take centuries. When everything is gone, it's too late for that.
I'm a romantic enough to believe that once we solve this problem once, we should be able to learn from this experience to stabilize the population, expand into space, and then even if we don't meet aliens or anything, we can work on using the technology we've been neglecting to do things like terraform mars, and create more habitable living space down the road. It would take centuries, of course, but with the population stabilized we'd have time, and then when we get to the point where we have space to expand we'll be able to gradually loosen up. Right now though, it's not a time for romantic dreams about the future, but cynical realists to solve the problem, and that means warfare and seeing a lot of innocent people die. I refuse to feel guilty simply for being part of one of the groups that is likely to wind up faring well. I might seem callous, but well, I long ago thought this through, looked at it from a lot of differant perspectives, and knew this is where we'd wind up.
If you want to blame anyone, personally I say blame the Baby Boomers (moms and dads for a lot of you, grandparents for others). After World War II the population was greatly reduced, a perfect time for ZPG, unfortunatly everyone decided to have a ton of kids to replentish their populations, and then those kids decided to come out an start all the crud that was the 1960s. A few good things came of it, but we basically saw the development of morality that was impractical and unable to deal with reality, which they brought with them when they replaced their parents, not to mention having scads of kids themselves despite being warned about there being a "lost generation"... and well, between "The Greatest Generation" and The Baby Boomers we went from a depleted and managable population, to the current mess where according to many estimates there are more people alive right now than have died throughout the rest of human history combined.