hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2011 07:55 am
@djjd62,
Quote:
don't blame me, i don't have any kids


Bloody hell deej - are you my spiritual doppelganger or what?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 09:29 am
http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/da43a4a0e6e5012e2fb300163e41dd5b
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:04 pm
@snood,
The problem is not resouces, but how they are held and distributed. When the rice crisis hit a few years ago, there was enough rice (although it would have meant in some cases dipping into reserves), but it was not evenly distibuted throughout the world, and most of it was held by corporations whose only interest was the bottom line. So what rice was released into the system from held stores came at a very high price. Many nations were forced to buy rice to distribute to their people because their populations could not have afforded the inflated prices caused by what is, essentially, an artificially generated shortage.

The biggest problem of the planet's carrying capacity is water. Not just potable water for people to drink and cook with, but water for agriculture, too--and the latter is the serious problem. China "mines" ground water in order to make crop land of marginal terrains. This is part of an obsessive attitude toward food production which impels them to reject the purchase of foreign grain (the Chinese rely primarily on wheat and rice, with millet consumption being negligible). In fact, their access to naturally available water is sufficiently limited, that their vacuuming up of ground water puts them in future water debt, and costs them far more than it would to just buy grain from foreign sources. China certainly has the foreign exchange reserves to buy that grain.

That would mean buying it from those who can produce a surplus. This would be Canada and the United States, and to a lesser extent Russia/the Ukraine (wheat) and southeast Asia (rice). Not only has China been obsessive about producing all their food within her own borders since 1949, but the leadership would have serious political objections to purchasing grain from the United States, Canada and Russia/the Ukraine. The rice available from southeast Asia is not sufficient to meet market demands in the world, let alone if China adopted a more sensible policy and bought imported grains. The United States produces about $2 billion worth of rice annually, slightly more than half of which is used for direct human consumption. The capacity for rice production in the United States is under-utilized, and rice production can be done in terrains which are otherwise agriculturally marginal. Rice production also has the lowest environental impact of any major cash crop. The rice produced in California, for example, is done in marginal terrains which are heavily used by migrating birds along the Pacific flyway, and the rice wetlands do no violence to the ecology of the flyway. So long, however, as China and Japan remain obsessed with producing their own rice (and China her own wheat), American rice production will remain an under-utilized agricultural resource.

In 1913, the Russian empire was the largest single producer of grain for export. The Great War, followed by the two Russian revolutions, and Stalin's manufactured "Kulak" crisis destroyed large-scale agricultural production in Russia. Most of the grain production in the old Russian empire was within what are now the borders of the Ukraine. Careful management of that resource (don't hold your breath) could make the Ukraine a major player in global grain production.

Potable water will likely be the first crisis area of a burgeoning human population. The Great Lakes hold just more than 20% of the world's surface fresh water, and neither the United States nor Canada need that resource to produce potable water for drinking and cooking. Lake Baikal in eastern Russia contains almost as much fresh water, or slightly more fresh water, depending upon whose estimates one refers to. Between them--the Great Lakes and the lake system of eastern Russia, nearly 45% of the world's unfrozen, surface fresh water is within the teritory of three nations--the United States, Canada and Russia.

Once again, none of these water problems are a product of insufficient resources--they are the product of the distribution of the resources, combined with the issue of by whom the resources are held. Politics enter into it, too. It's highly unlikely that the United States and Canada (who cooperate very well in the management of the Great Lakes as a resource) are going to be interested in selling off any significant proportion of the fresh water contained in the Lakes. In fact, it is unlikely that any export of water in North America will be, in the foreseeable future, an important global resource. As it stands now, about the only water sales of any financial importance is the sale of Canadian water to feed the voracious American bottled water market. Neither nation is selling water in any significant amount outside their borders, and i don't see it happening any time soon.

Political considerations and capitalism determine, more than any other factors, the carrying capacity of the planet as it now stands.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:25 pm
@Setanta,
You miss the forest for the trees....because of a lack of restraint humans will continue to produce offspring for as long as we can get away with it. At some point the number of humans is going to be contrained by a combination of lack of resources and pestilence. Maybe we can get distribution better and get gluttony ended so that we can get a few billion more humans on this planet, but eventually we are going to run into the wall. Seven billion is plenty, I dont have any interest in pushing back the wall to 10 billion or even more. Eventually we need to regulate baby making, and we may as well start now. What we have now is the best and the brightest of humans having the least number of kids, and the dumbest most backwards people on the Earth having the most.....that has to stop, we are polluting the human gene pool with inferior stock.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:28 pm
@hawkeye10,
yeah, that was Hitler's basic premise as well...
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:30 pm
I'm curious, and maybe I've missed it. How will the population level off at 10 billion? What is the timeframe?
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:31 pm
And yet, you decided to have kids...
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:32 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

yeah, that was Hitler's basic premise as well...
He was not wrong about many things, the strength of the human gene pool is a important aspect of the survival of the species. Darwin had this right.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:32 pm
@Ceili,
3 of them, if I'm not mistaken.

but wait, that would make him part of the problem, no...?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:33 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:

And yet, you decided to have kids...
It was a thought process, and I decided that we would be promoting some great genetics. People like me and my wife are the ones who should be having the most babies. Still I only wanted 2, by wife however wanted 6, so we compromised on 3 kids.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
yeah, we need more internet crybabies that live off their wives...
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:40 pm
@thack45,
It has been pretty well established now that the fertility of people in industrialized nations with constant, reliable food sources falls off. So, in the industrial world, population is static or falling. The ten billion plateau assumes that increasing prosperity will reduce the birth rate to a level equal to or less than the death rate. If this occurs, it will have occured by 2100.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:41 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

yeah, we need more internet crybabies that live off their wives...


OMG! A stab to the heart, that hurts! *sarcasm*

When was the last time a woman though you bring enough to the table that she wanted you?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
You're a fuckin' idiot, but everyone already knows that. You're obsessed with claiming that you understand this better than do i. However, you never provide any support for your claims. Everything in my post about water resources and grain production can be verified at Wikipedia and other sources, notably UN agencies. Sure, i look up the facts, but the difference between you and i is that i know what to look for and where. You, on the other hand, just make **** up as you go along.

Idiot

Clown
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:42 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
The ten billion plateau assumes that increasing prosperity will reduce the birth rate to a level equal to or less than the death rate. If this occurs, it will have occured by 2100.
He says as economic activity per capita has been falling for years with no sign of let up, and as efforts to preserve the Earth will cause even more fall off. Pure fantasy it is.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
Once again, you're a fuckin' idiot. Darwin had nothing to say about "the gene pool." Genes were not even known to exist in Darwin's lifetime. Darwin had absolutely nothing to say about "the stength of the human gene pool."

Given that you are such an idiot, i'm not surprised to learn that you are also a crypto-Nazi.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:46 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You're a fuckin' idiot, but everyone already knows that. You're obsessed with claiming that you understand this better than do i. However, you never provide any support for your claims. Everything in my post about water resources and grain production can be verified at Wikipedia and other sources, notably UN agencies. Sure, i look up the facts, but the difference between you and i is that i know what to look for and where. You, on the other hand, just make **** up as you go along.

Idiot

Clown
You have documented nothing, and I dont accept your assertion that I or anyone else should assume that you know the facts better than I do.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
Once again, you show what an idiotic asshole you are. I don't make that claim, nor do i deny it. I'm just reporting to Thack the population plateau premise. It can easily be found online. But you're hysterically obsessed with proving that you know all about this--yet just about everything you post shows that you don't know ****.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:48 pm
Thack, this post by Engineer on page one explains population growth in simple terms by a link to an NPR video.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Nov, 2011 12:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
I don't give a rat's ass what you do or don't assume. I have had enough of your "i'm not your research assistant" bullshit in the past. If you think you can prove me wrong, come up with some sources--something you never do. The last time you made that effort, in the homecoming "king" thread, absolutely no source you posted supported your claims. Mayve you'll have better luck this time.


Fool
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Overpopulation Hysteria - Question by ZarathustraReborn
Population - Question by karikari Anthony
Demography - Question by gollum
demographics spreadsheet - Question by futurenets
More Whites Died Than Were Born - Discussion by snood
Survival rates - Question by emnoun
Demography - Trends in the U.S. - Question by gollum
Overproduction - Discussion by Deckard
 
  1. Forums
  2. » SEVEN BILLION
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 01:24:51