Over Population - Page 2 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Manmade and Natural Disasters Drought, Diseases, Earthquakes, Riots, Wars

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why the advice to pay off debts prior to a SHTF situation? yosh Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 124 03-27-2018 08:37 AM
tree stands and pillbox davej1138 Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 30 10-10-2017 04:17 AM
Let's talk political implications of changing population demographics cleversloth Political News and Discussion 114 02-07-2017 03:56 PM
Food in a population die off in UK Yorkshire Boy British Isles and ROI 8 12-26-2016 12:31 PM
Choosing a BOL with water and food resources in terms of population chuck duster Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 10 10-08-2016 06:45 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-04-2018, 11:02 PM
lasers lasers is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,871
Thanks: 12
Thanked 2,277 Times in 1,104 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyBlue View Post
China put the one child per couple restriction on, and most people murdered their newborn girls so they could have the "honourable" male heir. Now they don't have wives for all those boys and the next generation will be even smaller with no/few mothers for the next. They dug themselves a hole they didn't expect.

That is something that is true but I think it gets over exaggerated. When I hear about it I sounds like it is such a common practice that it makes me think the modern generation is 90 percent males and 10 percent females or some other way out of proportionate ratio like that. I just looked it it and for every 100 females born there are 115 males which can still cause large problems when all those males are looking for partners and they come up short but no where near what I thought the difference was.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to lasers For This Useful Post:
Old 02-04-2018, 11:23 PM
NY Min's Avatar
NY Min NY Min is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: New York
Posts: 3,904
Thanks: 2,808
Thanked 7,143 Times in 2,871 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lasers View Post
I just looked it it and for every 100 females born there are 115 males which can still cause large problems when all those males are looking for partners and they come up short but no where near what I thought the difference was.
You have to consider the size of their population. The current difference is about 30.5 million more males than females under the age of 24. That is a lot of extra men, and more than twice the excess 13 million men between the ages of 25 and 54, which are the ones who have been doing the most complaining about the shortage of wives in recent years. Put it against the male population of the US under the age of 24, and it would mean 57% of our young men would be looking at never marrying. That would not only be a lot of guys looking for a Saturday-night date, but a lot of frustrated wannabe grandparents. Not a recipe for societal peace.
https://www.indexmundi.com/china/dem...s_profile.html
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to NY Min For This Useful Post:
Old 02-04-2018, 11:40 PM
Metcalf's Avatar
Metcalf Metcalf is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southwest Comirado
Posts: 4,414
Thanks: 1,454
Thanked 7,076 Times in 2,800 Posts
Default

Why do you think we are overpopulated?

We can waste about 30% of the food calories we produce globally....

http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/

Also.

Stick every single person on the planet on their own one meter square. How much of the surface of the planet do you think that will take up? Go do the math, I'll wait.....
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Metcalf For This Useful Post:
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-04-2018, 11:48 PM
CORangefinder's Avatar
CORangefinder CORangefinder is offline
Master Rationalizer
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,715
Thanks: 1,405
Thanked 4,435 Times in 1,252 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf View Post
Stick everyone single person on the planet on a one meter square. How much of the surface of the planet do you think that will take up? Go do the math, I'll wait.....
One person per square mile is more my preference, but that isn't going to happen till "the big one" hits---whatever/whenever that happens to be...
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CORangefinder For This Useful Post:
Old 02-04-2018, 11:52 PM
Metcalf's Avatar
Metcalf Metcalf is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southwest Comirado
Posts: 4,414
Thanks: 1,454
Thanked 7,076 Times in 2,800 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CORangefinder View Post
One person per square mile is more my preference, but that isn't going to happen till "the big one" hits---whatever/whenever that happens to be...
I like space too, but people seem to think that people are flooding the planet or something. I hope someone does the math just to prove my point. A hint. They will ALL fit on one US state...and it isn't a big one.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Metcalf For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 12:13 AM
NY Min's Avatar
NY Min NY Min is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: New York
Posts: 3,904
Thanks: 2,808
Thanked 7,143 Times in 2,871 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metcalf View Post
I like space too, but people seem to think that people are flooding the planet or something. I hope someone does the math just to prove my point. A hint. They will ALL fit on one US state...and it isn't a big one.
So as soon as they can all live on what they can glean in their one square meter of standing room, we'll be golden. Well, we'll probably have to amputate everyone's beak as if they were chickens to keep the damages down, but other than that...
Quick reply to this message
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to NY Min For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 01:03 AM
Jerry D Young's Avatar
Jerry D Young Jerry D Young is offline
www.jerrydyoung.com

 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Age: 66
Posts: 12,059
Thanks: 15,103
Thanked 62,599 Times in 8,963 Posts
Awards Showcase
Outstanding Thread 
Total Awards: 1
Default

At least it is a self-correcting problem. Tough until the process has finished, but over population can only go on so long before something kills off enough, and usually more, to the point where supply meets, or even exceeds demand.

Pandemics, wars, starvation (though war usually precludes that on a large scale), genocide, and though not part of the self-correcting where humans do it to themselves, a natural disaster on a global scale, can each reduce the population to the point where those left can produce the food they need.

Staying alive and healthy until then is why I am a prepper.

Just my opinion.
__________________
Jerry D Young
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jerry D Young For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 01:11 AM
Metcalf's Avatar
Metcalf Metcalf is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southwest Comirado
Posts: 4,414
Thanks: 1,454
Thanked 7,076 Times in 2,800 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Min View Post
So as soon as they can all live on what they can glean in their one square meter of standing room, we'll be golden. Well, we'll probably have to amputate everyone's beak as if they were chickens to keep the damages down, but other than that...
Oh come on, It is just an exercise on how much space we generally have on this planet. A LOT of it goes unused, and yes some gets mis-used.

....and we didn't even figure in ANY vertical space yet

Run the numbers.

Another way to think about it. If you spread the current human population evenly out over the surface of the planet, you would barely be able to yell to the next person. Yes, some would have to be in a boat for this thought experiment to work....
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Metcalf For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 01:14 AM
Metcalf's Avatar
Metcalf Metcalf is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southwest Comirado
Posts: 4,414
Thanks: 1,454
Thanked 7,076 Times in 2,800 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry D Young View Post
At least it is a self-correcting problem. Tough until the process has finished, but over population can only go on so long before something kills off enough, and usually more, to the point where supply meets, or even exceeds demand.

Pandemics, wars, starvation (though war usually precludes that on a large scale), genocide, and though not part of the self-correcting where humans do it to themselves, a natural disaster on a global scale, can each reduce the population to the point where those left can produce the food they need.

Staying alive and healthy until then is why I am a prepper.

Just my opinion.
....or it could push us to expansion beyond this planet finally. Generally when population densities where on the rise historically, we found new lands to occupy. The population has never been as high or living as long as now, so we must be doing something not too wrong.When was the last time we had a significant decrease in human population?
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Metcalf For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 01:43 AM
Minozarkco Minozarkco is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 58
Thanks: 33
Thanked 97 Times in 38 Posts
Default

if i had to guess metcalf, Arizona ...
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Minozarkco For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 05:33 AM
Potawami II Potawami II is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,391
Thanks: 15,081
Thanked 4,534 Times in 1,576 Posts
Default

Yup we are overpopulated, but don't worry about it. If you look back through history I don't think you will find anywhere that nature didn't correct itself every 100-150 years. Sometimes it was human nature to see how many of each other we could kill over some land or a god, and sometimes it was mother nature with an epidemic or natural disaster.

This time the correction will be bigger, but it's ok we have set up perfectly for it. DDT eliminated maleria in the US long enough ago that I doubt my generation has any natural resistance to it. Very possible that some of the killers from the past will come back and nail us while we are fighting over how much salt should be in your diet or trying to decide if eggs are good for us this week.

We have used vast improvements in technology to build cities of millions of people in the middle of freaking deserts and we have built cities of millions of people right on top of fault lines. How much do those cities weigh? How much did the aquifiers around them help keep everything stable?

That's not even mentioning we have the weapons to kill each other by the tens of thousands in one shot.

Figure roughly 1915-1945 was a pretty good population drop. That means that we should be seeing the next one start in my lifetime. If not mine than in my children's for sure.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Potawami II For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 09:46 AM
Florida Jean Florida Jean is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,327
Thanks: 1,785
Thanked 3,108 Times in 1,002 Posts
Default

Another reason why the Chinese population imbalance isn't more is that some slightly brighter than normal PTB there added benefits to having a female child. Said female child was guaranteed a university education [well, I assume the mentally deficient didn't get the deal, but considering how hard it is to get a higher education because of the high number of applicants....], better housing and job perks for parents, etc.

Also, they can [and are] starting to practice serial monogamy. A [still fertile] woman no longer has to put up with a wife beater/pilander/etc. as she can now easily get anotherhusband. It also allows an easy out for a woman stuck in an arranged marriage.

Now, all those 30.5 million guys will not end up with a wife -short term or long term -- as a portion of them are probably unacceptable to any woman who now finally seems to have a choice/option.

Also, for years [and this includes back in the One Child period] ethnic Chinese North Korean women refugees have been essentially sexually trafficed as much as for their ability to bear boys as for sex. [Young woman would be 'sold', produce a male child, then sold again. This was/is in mostly rural areas which are also the areas with the greatest sex imbalance and let's face it; is some university educated city young woman going to marry a fellow who didn't finish 6th grade and works 12 hours a day in the fields? Assuming she even met him? No, city parents would arrange such a marriage either]. Should there be a serious issue down in NK -- contemplate how many fertile young females will be heading over the border.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Florida Jean For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 10:27 AM
Lugh MacArawn Lugh MacArawn is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,669
Thanks: 1,255
Thanked 3,569 Times in 1,226 Posts
Default

I am pleased to see the level of thought folks have put into this. It is a problem, but not on the level most perceive.

Yes, population levels are growing rapidly. But, as Metcalf pointed out - the planet has a lot of space. I believe it was the Fermy (?) project, a while back, which addressed this very question.

A tab bit under 5 acres of usable land per person on the planet - at that time. I do not recall when the thesis was presented: early 2000s?

That removes mountain sides, lakes, rivers, oceans and frozen zones. Basically included land which could be used for "production" of the basic needs of living.

The real problem with population is the percentage of people who rely on someone else for the basic needs of living. Modern practices have greatly increased the ability of humans to advance technology. Modern practices are also a double edged sword: as long as everything is going well, no worries. If something glitches (and is not fixed post-haste), worries.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lugh MacArawn For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 10:50 AM
orangenomad's Avatar
orangenomad orangenomad is offline
gagged
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 3,833
Thanks: 9,010
Thanked 9,597 Times in 2,736 Posts
Default

Someone said we would have to commit genocide to change the 3rd world. This is not true. There are several long term not permanent easily administered birth control options. The implantible ones last 5 to 7 years and are upwards of 90% effective. If we are giving aid to these countries it should come with education and injection of these implants. Just think 5 to 7 years of no pregnancy. Think what that would do for the women and their families for their health and wellness. More than powdered milk and rice.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to orangenomad For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 11:00 AM
soocom1's Avatar
soocom1 soocom1 is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 781
Thanks: 9
Thanked 1,558 Times in 492 Posts
Default

Over population.
OK.
First I am going to respectively disagree with the OP and the premise it is based on for a lot of reasons.
Now bear with me here. The image of overpopulated slums and the like is obviously not one that I personally would want to live in.
But the examples cited lacks real understanding of what is going on.
Now I would not personally disagree that population clusters and the like are showing a devastating condition on the human experience, but there is a lot more going on here than meets the eye.

The argument about caloric intake and water resources, etc, is more based on bad planning and poor resource utility.
But what most do not understand is that the world’s population as it currently stands could effectively and NICELY live in a combined area the size of Texas.
The amount of actual arable land is massive and the total utilization is miniscule.
Land has to be farmable (arable) to grow food. So this automatically removes cliff faces, ice sheets, certain desert regions and those areas where life in a tolerable area cannot grow.
But what most DON’T realize (simply fire up Google Earth some time) and look at is the total area of open land NOT farmed. This is arable land that is not worked.
Secondly is that much of the food already grown goes to waste. There is also a great deal of “fallow” land (land set to rest) that is not farmed, and other areas also not farmed. Total area where food is grown is actually not as large as some would think and is poorly managed. Especially in the US. ONE area of land the size of Oklahoma alone can grow enough food to feed MOST of the world’s population, but the land management practices are so inefficient and poorly constructed, that there is tremendous waste created.
“Third World over population” is a misnomer. Remember that in most countries that are classified as such also typically has despot governments. Roving bands of raiders and gangs, and there is a healthy dose of really bad land practices.
Even in some “First World” countries, land management is so bad that the production levels are miniscule yet the growth of crops is done in a means that is also a throwback to days of old, but with a lot of Roundup slapped in for good measure.
“Second World Countries” (communist/socialist) like California (pun intended) has a mixture. But its government policy that makes for much of the waste. (surprise… surprise).

I don’t disagree that overpopulation GROUPING is occurring (simply look at India) but the food and land management is in large part to blame. (For those wondering, the Indian Gov. by definition is socialist).
Venezuela is a prime example with recent history to compare with that shows a nation of prosperity to a nation of poverty in a VERY short period of time. Venezuela has literally thousands of square miles of land to farm yet the people are starving. Why? Marado and socialism.
China has a one child policy that is an abject failure. Why? Because Chinese culture pushes for large families (Mortality and disease are the common reason). Plus China has a large area of 1: National Parks and 2: two really really big deserts. The Gobi that we all know about and the Taklimakan Desert.
Additionally, much of the space between the two is very poor farmland. No one’s specific fault, just what is.
Russia en total has a population half the US and three times the land area. With about 4% total both farmed and developed. Trust me, there is A LOT of open space there.
Not to say there isn’t a problem, but much of it is based not on actual population NUMBERS, but on GROUPING of populations and public policies.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to soocom1 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 11:07 AM
ajole ajole is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,724
Thanks: 7,697
Thanked 21,934 Times in 6,969 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Im RIght View Post

Most of all of our problems can be pinned on having too many people living on this rock.
Totally in line with the popular science, and totally wrong.

We don't have too many people. We have too many people crowded into the wrong places. Urbanization is the problem.

We have more than enough resources on this planet for everyone, and then some, we just can't efficiently get them to the folks that are in those wrong places.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ajole For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 11:07 AM
NY Min's Avatar
NY Min NY Min is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: New York
Posts: 3,904
Thanks: 2,808
Thanked 7,143 Times in 2,871 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon Randal View Post
The world is long overdue for a killer plague that modern medicine cannot stop. In the mobile world something like that can spread across the globe in hours.
AIDS was our best shot, especially since it killed children infected at birth before reproductive age, and adults have never given up screwing around just because an STD showed up that was fatal (syphilis also used to be). However, we've turned that into just another huge societal medical cost. Well, except for Africa, where it's still going pretty strong, which is one reason I don't see Africans taking over the world just because they still have a high birth rate.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NY Min For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 04:31 PM
Jerry D Young's Avatar
Jerry D Young Jerry D Young is offline
www.jerrydyoung.com

 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Age: 66
Posts: 12,059
Thanks: 15,103
Thanked 62,599 Times in 8,963 Posts
Awards Showcase
Outstanding Thread 
Total Awards: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lugh MacArawn View Post
I am pleased to see the level of thought folks have put into this. It is a problem, but not on the level most perceive.

Yes, population levels are growing rapidly. But, as Metcalf pointed out - the planet has a lot of space. I believe it was the Fermy (?) project, a while back, which addressed this very question.

A tab bit under 5 acres of usable land per person on the planet - at that time. I do not recall when the thesis was presented: early 2000s?

That removes mountain sides, lakes, rivers, oceans and frozen zones. Basically included land which could be used for "production" of the basic needs of living.

The real problem with population is the percentage of people who rely on someone else for the basic needs of living. Modern practices have greatly increased the ability of humans to advance technology. Modern practices are also a double edged sword: as long as everything is going well, no worries. If something glitches (and is not fixed post-haste), worries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangenomad View Post
Someone said we would have to commit genocide to change the 3rd world. This is not true. There are several long term not permanent easily administered birth control options. The implantible ones last 5 to 7 years and are upwards of 90% effective. If we are giving aid to these countries it should come with education and injection of these implants. Just think 5 to 7 years of no pregnancy. Think what that would do for the women and their families for their health and wellness. More than powdered milk and rice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soocom1 View Post
Over population.
OK.
First I am going to respectively disagree with the OP and the premise it is based on for a lot of reasons.
Now bear with me here. The image of overpopulated slums and the like is obviously not one that I personally would want to live in.
But the examples cited lacks real understanding of what is going on.
Now I would not personally disagree that population clusters and the like are showing a devastating condition on the human experience, but there is a lot more going on here than meets the eye.

The argument about caloric intake and water resources, etc, is more based on bad planning and poor resource utility.
But what most do not understand is that the world’s population as it currently stands could effectively and NICELY live in a combined area the size of Texas.
The amount of actual arable land is massive and the total utilization is miniscule.
Land has to be farmable (arable) to grow food. So this automatically removes cliff faces, ice sheets, certain desert regions and those areas where life in a tolerable area cannot grow.
But what most DON’T realize (simply fire up Google Earth some time) and look at is the total area of open land NOT farmed. This is arable land that is not worked.
Secondly is that much of the food already grown goes to waste. There is also a great deal of “fallow” land (land set to rest) that is not farmed, and other areas also not farmed. Total area where food is grown is actually not as large as some would think and is poorly managed. Especially in the US. ONE area of land the size of Oklahoma alone can grow enough food to feed MOST of the world’s population, but the land management practices are so inefficient and poorly constructed, that there is tremendous waste created.
“Third World over population” is a misnomer. Remember that in most countries that are classified as such also typically has despot governments. Roving bands of raiders and gangs, and there is a healthy dose of really bad land practices.
Even in some “First World” countries, land management is so bad that the production levels are miniscule yet the growth of crops is done in a means that is also a throwback to days of old, but with a lot of Roundup slapped in for good measure.
“Second World Countries” (communist/socialist) like California (pun intended) has a mixture. But its government policy that makes for much of the waste. (surprise… surprise).

I don’t disagree that overpopulation GROUPING is occurring (simply look at India) but the food and land management is in large part to blame. (For those wondering, the Indian Gov. by definition is socialist).
Venezuela is a prime example with recent history to compare with that shows a nation of prosperity to a nation of poverty in a VERY short period of time. Venezuela has literally thousands of square miles of land to farm yet the people are starving. Why? Marado and socialism.
China has a one child policy that is an abject failure. Why? Because Chinese culture pushes for large families (Mortality and disease are the common reason). Plus China has a large area of 1: National Parks and 2: two really really big deserts. The Gobi that we all know about and the Taklimakan Desert.
Additionally, much of the space between the two is very poor farmland. No one’s specific fault, just what is.
Russia en total has a population half the US and three times the land area. With about 4% total both farmed and developed. Trust me, there is A LOT of open space there.
Not to say there isn’t a problem, but much of it is based not on actual population NUMBERS, but on GROUPING of populations and public policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajole View Post
Totally in line with the popular science, and totally wrong.

We don't have too many people. We have too many people crowded into the wrong places. Urbanization is the problem.

We have more than enough resources on this planet for everyone, and then some, we just can't efficiently get them to the folks that are in those wrong places.
I was going to address these issues in my first post in this thread, but wound up doing the self-correcting aspect instead.

While I believe that the earth could sustain not only the current population, but considerably more, if, as has been pointed out, land use, population location, food processing, and transportation issues were addressed and changes made to redistribute the population, and then maximize food production and distribution.

The problem is, it is just not going to happen. People will fight tooth an nail to stay were they are. And those that would wind up with neighbors they do not want will also fight it tooth and nail. And efficiency on a global scale is beyond current human ability simply because there are too many differences between people for them to even agree on what efficient means, much less what foods to grow.

The same goes to voluntary population growth control. "Fine for the other people. They should limit their population. But not us..." , among many other reasons and attitudes will preclude this happening. For the overwhelming majority of people, sex is not about having children, it is about the enjoyment of the act. People do not willing give up what they enjoy. And when it comes to artificial means of birth control, between religious objections, social objections, general distrust of science, superstition, and probably a dozen more reasons, not enough people would willingly submit to the programs.

And if you use force, then it enters the realm of genocide.

Simply not going to happen. So, while over population in the scientific sense, and the word accuracy sense, is not the problem, the reality is that the type of overpopulation we have now is the problem.

Therefore I still believe my first post applies.

Just my opinion.
__________________
Jerry D Young
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jerry D Young For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 04:38 PM
soocom1's Avatar
soocom1 soocom1 is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 781
Thanks: 9
Thanked 1,558 Times in 492 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry D Young View Post
I was going to address these issues in my first post in this thread, but wound up doing the self-correcting aspect instead.

While I believe that the earth could sustain not only the current population, but considerably more, if, as has been pointed out, land use, population location, food processing, and transportation issues were addressed and changes made to redistribute the population, and then maximize food production and distribution.

The problem is, it is just not going to happen. People will fight tooth an nail to stay were they are. And those that would wind up with neighbors they do not want will also fight it tooth and nail. And efficiency on a global scale is beyond current human ability simply because there are too many differences between people for them to even agree on what efficient means, much less what foods to grow.

The same goes to voluntary population growth control. "Fine for the other people. They should limit their population. But not us..." , among many other reasons and attitudes will preclude this happening. For the overwhelming majority of people, sex is not about having children, it is about the enjoyment of the act. People do not willing give up what they enjoy. And when it comes to artificial means of birth control, between religious objections, social objections, general distrust of science, superstition, and probably a dozen more reasons, not enough people would willingly submit to the programs.

And if you use force, then it enters the realm of genocide.

Simply not going to happen. So, while over population in the scientific sense, and the word accuracy sense, is not the problem, the reality is that the type of overpopulation we have now is the problem.

Therefore I still believe my first post applies.

Just my opinion.
This ties to what I posted previously, but Ill expand just a bit.
You hit the nail on the head about how resources are distributed. Also sex in general.
But the real crux is that the policies of government today is based on a 20th century model of continuous expansion with little if any regard to the consequences.
Instead like Capetown SA, they are running into a “reported” situation of little water left.
OK, but look at how they allowed unfettered growth of not only population but distribution of resources or the lack thereof.
Additionally, if you look at CT SA from a high level on Google Earth you’ll see where the concrete ends.

Zooming to the street level on the outskirts, it look ahellova lot like Las Crusis NM. A lot of agriculture in a desert.

Well, that looks a lot like a problem of poor management.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to soocom1 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2018, 04:47 PM
GG42 GG42 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,124
Thanks: 1,043
Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,899 Posts
Default

There is no overpopulation, but what we have is not sustainable, and for a host of reasons. Water consumption is totally absurd, for example: 99% of water used in agriculture is wasted, because no attempt is made to prevent evaporation. This is not end users' fault (or not mostly). This is the fault of the whole system. The greatest danger to all our lives is INCREASING fragility of the system. Our hospitals are cesspits of germs (hospitals 100 years ago were much much cleaner). Airplanes? Disaster waiting to happen, healthwise. A poster have mentioned a plague. Sure, especially if "people" create deadlier and deadlier plagues in labs.
And so on.
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net