[ridecruz888]

POPULATION:

A people problem or a food problem?


Our teacher asked us this the other day, thought it was a good question. I almost feel like its neither, it makes sesnse that eventually we will reach a point where we can no longer support the population (we dont have enough food), and it will level off. I still dont get how people in Africa, Asia, and China can continue having more and more kids if they know they cant support them...f*cked up

 

[$tinkle]

"war is the great equalizer"

- me

 

[narlus]

technology will find an answer to support larger numbers of people, but open space can't be created.

 

[rpk1988]

technology will find an answer to support larger numbers of people, but open space can't be created.

Very Very well put. Sure America has its fare share of people, but China has what, 3.23 BILLION people. If you ask me thats alot of people too feed. That is way to many people. :nuts:

 

[$tinkle]

more like 1.3 b

 

[Westy]

The more people there are, and the tighter packed we are the faster diseases can spread and mutate. At some point mother nature will take care of her human problem. Read the Hot Zone.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

technology will find an answer to support larger numbers of people, but open space can't be created.

may i correct you sir.... its "technology will find an answer to support larger numbers of people WHO CAN AFFORD IT"

 

[JRogers]

It's not food. The amount of food (on a global and, many times, a national scale as well) has not been a problem in the last few, I dunno, centuries or millennia. If you ever take a course on population or a related topic, chances are you will learn about Malthus, if for no other reason to show you that technology increases yields, storage and transportability and the limits on population is not food. Well, food production in any case.

 

[SkaredShtles]

It's neither. Population is not currently a "problem."

Population increases and density increases. Food production continues to advance, feeding the growing numbers.

Look at the U.S. - most of the rural Midwest is losing population. The cities are getting denser. I know in our town, we could fit $hitloads more people in the available space. People currently don't want to.

People in 3rd world countries have lots of children because:

1) Absence of reliable, cheap, available birth control
2) When infant mortality is high, you have to have more to insure you have *any* to survive
3) The biological imperative is a *STRONG* force

It's probably a bit more complicated than this.

-S.S.-

 

[Zark]

Well its the lifestyle that population wants that will be the issue. If everyone wants to live like the west, forget about it, not enough resources to do it.

Ore and fuel are finite as well as many others. Sustainable Pop. figures that I've seen point to around 1.3 billion taking these resources into account.

Have fun overpopulating the world, mother nature has very ugly ways of evening the balance....

 

[$tinkle]

the end is nigh

New York City doctors have discovered a previously unseen strain of HIV, which appears to be resistant to three of the four types of anti-viral drugs that combat the disease, and progresses from infection to full-blown AIDS in two or three months, the health department said.

``We've identified this strain of HIV that is difficult or impossible to treat and which appears to progress rapidly to AIDS,'' said New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden.

Frieden said the case, diagnosed in a man in his mid-40s who reported multiple male sex partners and unprotected anal sex -- often while using the drug crystal methamphetamine -- was ``extremely concerning and a wake-up call.''

 

[narlus]

People in 3rd world countries have lots of children because

i thought it was because of that condom-hating pontiff.

 

[Westy]

the end is nigh

New York City doctors have discovered a previously unseen strain of HIV, which appears to be resistant to three of the four types of anti-viral drugs that combat the disease, and progresses from infection to full-blown AIDS in two or three months, the health department said.

``We've identified this strain of HIV that is difficult or impossible to treat and which appears to progress rapidly to AIDS,'' said New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden.

Frieden said the case, diagnosed in a man in his mid-40s who reported multiple male sex partners and unprotected anal sex -- often while using the drug crystal methamphetamine -- was ``extremely concerning and a wake-up call.''

A fine example of a simple mutation creating new problems. Few people realize that all it takes is the right mutation and viruses like HIV and Ebola can suddenly be transfered through the air like the flu. A little genetic engineering could find the right combination to really screw over mankind.

 

[bodycheck131]

We are currently at the high end of what you call a bell curve. The population of the world is bound to crash at somepoint.
I also second the book The Hot Zone.

 

[Silver]

i thought it was because of that condom-hating pontiff.

He doesn't help. Since he believes in natural birth control so much, maybe he can apologize to all the kids that died and starved in Catholic countries after he dies and goes to hell.

Natural birth control leads to natural methods of reducing competition for scarce food resources. It's called starvation. But I guess if you're starving and saving souls, it's all cool...

 

[ito]

1) Absence of reliable, cheap, available birth control
2) When infant mortality is high, you have to have more to insure you have *any* to survive
3) The biological imperative is a *STRONG* force

It's probably a bit more complicated than this.

-S.S.-

Well, it is a problem, just not in much of the First world. If it wasn't a problem we wouldn't be givng aid to 3rd world countries and we wouldn't have 500+ million undernourished people world wide(this was the UN's number in 1986, it has continued to rise).

Other issues that lead to high birth rates. Social structure values large families. Think of the good American families. Raise lots of kids and have them become good, hard-working citizens. It's the same in many 3rd world countries, people want large amounts of kids. Part of the reason they want them is it is a source of labor force. You can get the kids working for you at an early age and that brings in money. The other is status symbol. That birth control is readily unavailable and education is pretty scarce means that women stay home and have babies. Notice how the countries with larger female working populations have lower growth rates.

Ultimately opulation growth is not a problem in the First world. Our problem is over consumption of resources, which (un?)fortunately we can pay for. Several countries are even facing population declines(France and Australia have programs that promote child raising) or are at almost level(the United States has little growth other than immigrant numbers). The 3rd world has issues because they don't have the food to feed themselves(for a number of reasons).

Of course you have to wonder, if they have such an issue feeding themselves why is there a population boom? A big part of this is foreign aid. The First world tends to give without really considering the consequences. Sending tons of food to a starving nation is great, but it does nothing for the people in the long run. They go on living yes, and they have more children, but they have don't improve their ability to use local resources. There is a good amount of evidence that the population boom is caused by excessive aid giving that brings a short-term benefit of food, but no long-term benefits.

As for the population crash. Estimates put the Earth's realistic carrying capacity at well over 10 billion. This also assumes that there is a balance in how resources are distributed, which there isn't. A crash is not likely though, at least in the near future. With proper control methods we could level off population by 2050, but we are no where close to implementing those controls.

I'm not an expert, but I've studied the subject a fair bit and I don't think we will be heading to a population crash. It will continue to rise for the next century or so and as our use of resources becomes more excessive, due to the move by many countries to "western lifestyles", there will be a tapering off of the global growth rate. This will be accompanied by a large number of deaths in the 3rd world, especially the poorest of countries. The first world, if it continues on it's present path will have a population decline, but continue to exceed it's share of resource use(going by pop. numbers), keeping the poorer countries poor, but alive through aid. When the "crunch" comes the 1st world will be relatively fine and the poorer countries will be hardest hit.

The world can support a huge amount of people(I've heard 20 billion+), but it all comes down to quality of life. Only so many people can live so well.

The Ito

 

[ioscope]

The Hot Zone is a good book.
However, don't think that will kill off the humans. We made it this far thinking horse **** and turpentine heal wounds (middle aged medicines) and not even washing scalpels between uses.
With only a few problems in between (ice ages, the bubonic plague WWI and WWII).
I think the solution is the disintegration of the information age. It is just too apt to support people.

Some peeps gotta die soon.

I'm sorry, I know it's "WRONG" and all, but it's true.

 

[ioscope]

The bell curve doesn't apply here, the sine curve does.

Either that or the boom and bust cycle, and that's what it looks like to me.

 

[fluff]

Well, it is a problem, just not in much of the First world. If it wasn't a problem we wouldn't be givng aid to 3rd world countries and we wouldn't have 500+ million undernourished people world wide(this was the UN's number in 1986, it has continued to rise).

It is a problem in the first world, but with different effects. We have an aging and declining population which leads to social-security and retirement issues.

Notice how the countries with larger female working populations have lower growth rates.

Note also that education etc is higher in these countries. Don't confuse statistical correlation with cause and effect.

The 3rd world has issues because they don't have the food to feed themselves(for a number of reasons).
Of course you have to wonder, if they have such an issue feeding themselves why is there a population boom? A big part of this is foreign aid. The First world tends to give without really considering the consequences. Sending tons of food to a starving nation is great, but it does nothing for the people in the long run. They go on living yes, and they have more children, but they have don't improve their ability to use local resources. There is a good amount of evidence that the population boom is caused by excessive aid giving that brings a short-term benefit of food, but no long-term benefits.

Egad! Are you saying that foreign aid causes people to starve? Aid does need to be focused, teach a man to fish and all that, but a major cause?

 

[SkaredShtles]

<snip>
With only a few problems in between (ice ages, the bubonic plague WWI and WWII).

And let us not forget the big one: The Influenza Pandemic of 1918.

Killed more in *one* year than the entire 5-year run of Black Death......

-S.S.-

 

[narlus]

hey all you chicken littles. are you behind on yr Alvin Toffler reading?