FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

For Diamonds : Population Control

Jump to newest
 

By *ushroom7 OP   Man
over a year ago

Bradford

Is world population control a good thing and if so, how should it be achieved?

With a current population of some 7bn, estimated to rise to some 10bn by 2050 and with limited world resources, not least energy and clean water is it time for such as the UN to make this a priority before the shit hits the fan?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

Yes, and we can start by exterminating everyone with the first name mushroom and the parents who gave the child the name

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

Actually i will give you a serious answer but need time to write it out

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ushroom7 OP   Man
over a year ago

Bradford


"Yes, and we can start by exterminating everyone with the first name mushroom and the parents who gave the child the name"

A little harsh.

And too late on the parents.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

With the worlds population only covering 1.5% of the earths landmass... Where is the problem...?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

Well we can start of by giving contraception to third world contries. Yes i know we do it now, but it has to be done properly. I believe every woman who is able to carry a child (arguements for and against those with certain levels of learning difficulties) she be able to have a baby. People dont need more, yes again there is the argument for children not having siblings, but more children are becoming only children. We should address the countries that need it to start with and then move on to other countries. If we limited it to two children per family it would make the hell of a lot of difference

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heekygeordieguyMan
over a year ago

Newcastle

More houseboats, More jobs for those who build them.....Sorted whats the problem.!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think that the next big supereruption will sort this out anyway..

Its over due... and tends to naturally sort out the planet anyway.

isn't that a nice thought lol

Cali

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"With the worlds population only covering 1.5% of the earths landmass... Where is the problem...?"

I think it's more to do with how the population is rapidly using the planets resources that is the problem..

There are enough to go around but we must redress our waste of energy and how 5% of the population use 90% of the resources..

That and rapid research into viable alternative methods for fueling our current and future energy requirements.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ushroom7 OP   Man
over a year ago

Bradford


"Well we can start of by giving contraception to third world contries. Yes i know we do it now, but it has to be done properly. I believe every woman who is able to carry a child (arguements for and against those with certain levels of learning difficulties) she be able to have a baby. People dont need more, yes again there is the argument for children not having siblings, but more children are becoming only children. We should address the countries that need it to start with and then move on to other countries. If we limited it to two children per family it would make the hell of a lot of difference"

Good start.

Does a single mother count as a family?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well we can start of by giving contraception to third world contries. Yes i know we do it now, but it has to be done properly. I believe every woman who is able to carry a child (arguements for and against those with certain levels of learning difficulties) she be able to have a baby. People dont need more, yes again there is the argument for children not having siblings, but more children are becoming only children. We should address the countries that need it to start with and then move on to other countries. If we limited it to two children per family it would make the hell of a lot of difference"

Does that include giving contraception to people in non third world countries too??? How many ppl are there in this country that have more children than they can afford???

Hence why they are proposing capping child benefit after 3 in the uk

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire


"Well we can start of by giving contraception to third world contries. Yes i know we do it now, but it has to be done properly. I believe every woman who is able to carry a child (arguements for and against those with certain levels of learning difficulties) she be able to have a baby. People dont need more, yes again there is the argument for children not having siblings, but more children are becoming only children. We should address the countries that need it to start with and then move on to other countries. If we limited it to two children per family it would make the hell of a lot of difference

Good start.

Does a single mother count as a family?"

There would have to be appropriate paper work as to what constitutes a "family", what if a child dies? What if divorce and they have a second wife, all sorts, i cant sort it all out in half a night unfortunatly

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I believe, rightly or wrongly, that mother nature had it's own way of culling people! Earthquakes and such like!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire


"Well we can start of by giving contraception to third world contries. Yes i know we do it now, but it has to be done properly. I believe every woman who is able to carry a child (arguements for and against those with certain levels of learning difficulties) she be able to have a baby. People dont need more, yes again there is the argument for children not having siblings, but more children are becoming only children. We should address the countries that need it to start with and then move on to other countries. If we limited it to two children per family it would make the hell of a lot of difference

Does that include giving contraception to people in non third world countries too??? How many ppl are there in this country that have more children than they can afford???

Hence why they are proposing capping child benefit after 3 in the uk"

Did you miss reading this bit of my post "We should address the countries that need it to start with and then move on to other countries. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

If we used our current resources more widely, and if the elite 1% weren't so selfish, then there's likely not to be an actual problem now. If we project forward, from a false problem, we're likely to get an enlarged still false projected problem. Perhaps the alternative is to think outside of the box, and re-evaluate how we do things now, and what would be a more ethical model etc.

Population control, I'm not so sure about, as it borders on eugenics etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I believe, rightly or wrongly, that mother nature had it's own way of culling people! Earthquakes and such like!! "

I am with this.. and would never have anyone tell me that having as many kids as I wanted was wrong.. I have 6... may have a 7th at some point.. depends on finances... but I would not be told I couldnt have.. because for as many people that have 2 or more kids.. these days there are a lot of women choosing NOT to have kids..

In fact a few years ago they were starting to try and make these women feel guilty as there was a real worry that career women would upset the balance.

Cali

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ustyAngelWoman
over a year ago

gloucester


"I believe, rightly or wrongly, that mother nature had it's own way of culling people! Earthquakes and such like!! "

I think she did, but modern medicine has messed that balance up

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran


"Well we can start of by giving contraception to third world contries. Yes i know we do it now, but it has to be done properly. I believe every woman who is able to carry a child (arguements for and against those with certain levels of learning difficulties) she be able to have a baby. People dont need more, yes again there is the argument for children not having siblings, but more children are becoming only children. We should address the countries that need it to start with and then move on to other countries. If we limited it to two children per family it would make the hell of a lot of difference"

This goes hand in hand with the welfare discussion. People in these countries have large families as there is often a high mortality and they rely on their families to support eachother particularly when they are disabled or old. So unless someone can come up with a worldwide welfare system then they will continue to have large families.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

This goes hand in hand with the welfare discussion. People in these countries have large families as there is often a high mortality and they rely on their families to support eachother particularly when they are disabled or old. So unless someone can come up with a worldwide welfare system then they will continue to have large families."

That's a bit of a chicken and egg debate tho. Do they have high mortality rates because they have so many children an therefore canny afford to feed them all? Would having only 2 healthy and educated children not be better than having 6 in the hope that at least 3 make it into adulthood?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Did you miss reading this bit of my post "We should address the countries that need it to start with and then move on to other countries. ""

No I didn't miss what u said, I just failed to explain myself properly.

Bearing in mind that 1 child born into a first world country will throughout their lifetime use countless more resources than a child born in a third world country you can flip the argument and say that for the good of the planet family sizes need to be restricted in first world nations first to slow the harm being done... In my opinion, Education is the primary key for reducing birth rates in third world nations rather than legalisation

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire


"I believe, rightly or wrongly, that mother nature had it's own way of culling people! Earthquakes and such like!!

I am with this.. and would never have anyone tell me that having as many kids as I wanted was wrong.. I have 6... may have a 7th at some point.. depends on finances... but I would not be told I couldnt have.. because for as many people that have 2 or more kids.. these days there are a lot of women choosing NOT to have kids..

In fact a few years ago they were starting to try and make these women feel guilty as there was a real worry that career women would upset the balance.

Cali "

But what if you lived in a world where you and your husband had hiv, your children all had hiv, if starvation didnt kill them then aids would? Would you think the same then

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes, and we can start by exterminating everyone with the first name mushroom and the parents who gave the child the name"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire


"

Did you miss reading this bit of my post "We should address the countries that need it to start with and then move on to other countries. "

No I didn't miss what u said, I just failed to explain myself properly.

Bearing in mind that 1 child born into a first world country will throughout their lifetime use countless more resources than a child born in a third world country you can flip the argument and say that for the good of the planet family sizes need to be restricted in first world nations first to slow the harm being done... In my opinion, Education is the primary key for reducing birth rates in third world nations rather than legalisation "

Ok, if you take the average child in a 1st world country, they will get educated and grow up to have some purpose in life. For everyone of those children at least 6 will be born in a 3rd world country and die before they are 3 (thats just plucked out the air) now every woman who is able to be a mother is able to feel pain, can you imagine what it must be like to loose one child let alone 4/5/6/ that have not had a purpose in life

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ushroom7 OP   Man
over a year ago

Bradford

Just a thought.

What's gonna happen when every child is educated?

Who studies the media studiers?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran


"

This goes hand in hand with the welfare discussion. People in these countries have large families as there is often a high mortality and they rely on their families to support eachother particularly when they are disabled or old. So unless someone can come up with a worldwide welfare system then they will continue to have large families.

That's a bit of a chicken and egg debate tho. Do they have high mortality rates because they have so many children an therefore canny afford to feed them all? Would having only 2 healthy and educated children not be better than having 6 in the hope that at least 3 make it into adulthood?"

I think most of them knows what is good for them - and yes if they were all bought upto our standards they would not have so many children but ubtil they have guarentees that they are not going to starve they will carry on as they are

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire


"

This goes hand in hand with the welfare discussion. People in these countries have large families as there is often a high mortality and they rely on their families to support eachother particularly when they are disabled or old. So unless someone can come up with a worldwide welfare system then they will continue to have large families.

That's a bit of a chicken and egg debate tho. Do they have high mortality rates because they have so many children an therefore canny afford to feed them all? Would having only 2 healthy and educated children not be better than having 6 in the hope that at least 3 make it into adulthood?

I think most of them knows what is good for them - and yes if they were all bought upto our standards they would not have so many children but ubtil they have guarentees that they are not going to starve they will carry on as they are "

so how would you address the situation

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I think most of them knows what is good for them - and yes if they were all bought upto our standards they would not have so many children but ubtil they have guarentees that they are not going to starve they will carry on as they are "

I would def disagree on this. I've travelled to many central African countries, and I don't mean I've done a safari in Kenya, I've spent time in the orphanages and rural communities where people live in the horrid mud huts u see every couple of years on comic relief and can honestly say that they do not know what is best for them. Many of the adults have an education inferior to an equivalent primary school child from the uk at best. They cannot read, count or write and have no proper understanding of agriculture methods or procurement. They live from hand to mouth and simply do not grasp the economics of one child v six... Many of the men are not fit to be called a father to their children... once again I'll say education is the solution to this. But they cannot afford to educate all 6 children.. If we give them more food to guarantee they won't starve they will not cut back on having kids, they will have more!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire


"

I think most of them knows what is good for them - and yes if they were all bought upto our standards they would not have so many children but ubtil they have guarentees that they are not going to starve they will carry on as they are

I would def disagree on this. I've travelled to many central African countries, and I don't mean I've done a safari in Kenya, I've spent time in the orphanages and rural communities where people live in the horrid mud huts u see every couple of years on comic relief and can honestly say that they do not know what is best for them. Many of the adults have an education inferior to an equivalent primary school child from the uk at best. They cannot read, count or write and have no proper understanding of agriculture methods or procurement. They live from hand to mouth and simply do not grasp the economics of one child v six... Many of the men are not fit to be called a father to their children... once again I'll say education is the solution to this. But they cannot afford to educate all 6 children.. If we give them more food to guarantee they won't starve they will not cut back on having kids, they will have more! "

so what would you do

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

But what if you lived in a world where you and your husband had hiv, your children all had hiv, if starvation didnt kill them then aids would? Would you think the same then"

I don't know what I would think as I don't... I don't think if you can't provide or manage then you Shouldn't have lots of kids.. But I could... So therefore surely it was my choice.

That is my argument.... I could afford it and manage so why not.

Ironically I never wanted any children.. But life has a funny way of working out..

I'm from a very big family... One of 8 myself.. mum is one of 14, dad one of 10. One sister has 7 kids... But the others have only 5 between them...

I do think It's cruel to have a child if you know you can't feed them but then again I live in a privileged society, where reality is my children should never go hungry... So I can't say what I would think in that situation as I'm not in it.

Cali

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran


"

This goes hand in hand with the welfare discussion. People in these countries have large families as there is often a high mortality and they rely on their families to support eachother particularly when they are disabled or old. So unless someone can come up with a worldwide welfare system then they will continue to have large families.

That's a bit of a chicken and egg debate tho. Do they have high mortality rates because they have so many children an therefore canny afford to feed them all? Would having only 2 healthy and educated children not be better than having 6 in the hope that at least 3 make it into adulthood?

I think most of them knows what is good for them - and yes if they were all bought upto our standards they would not have so many children but ubtil they have guarentees that they are not going to starve they will carry on as they are

so how would you address the situation"

Lol if I had the answers I wouldnt be sitting here - We are all doomed lol - but seriously the idea of bringing everyone up to our standards ie educating them and improving their standard of living makes things worse. The reason a lotof commodities are scarce and expensive (oil metals etc) is because the chinese and Indians have followed that model and moved along way fro rural farming and so demand what we have in the west and therefore the worlds resources are used up even quicker. Add Africa (as a continent)to the mix and other parts of the globe and things are really going to get worse

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

so what would you do"

Extreme economic sanctions and stop the generic international development fund payments that only prop up a top heavy and usually corrupt ruling elite.

Nearly Sub saharan african country has leaders living in luxury while there populations starve due to embezzlement and diversion of government funds. They know that the west will step in in case of famines etc and they see themselves as being in power to primarily help rise themselves and friends/family out of poverty and into power, not to better the country as a whole.

Aid should only be paid in methods directly to communities via NGOs etc and not a penny to the governments until they have opened their accounts to international auditors to show legitimacy.

They claim that that smacks of harking back to imperialisim but if I'm David Cameron and I'm giving u £20million of my countries money I have a damn right to know exactly what u are doing with it!!???

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sam... U are 100% correct there.

That is why the future lies in developing new energies and moving away from the industrial age that china and India are now embracing.

We have the natural resources in plenty but they are being wasted and squandered at far too great a rate.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire


"

so what would you do

Extreme economic sanctions and stop the generic international development fund payments that only prop up a top heavy and usually corrupt ruling elite.

Nearly Sub saharan african country has leaders living in luxury while there populations starve due to embezzlement and diversion of government funds. They know that the west will step in in case of famines etc and they see themselves as being in power to primarily help rise themselves and friends/family out of poverty and into power, not to better the country as a whole.

Aid should only be paid in methods directly to communities via NGOs etc and not a penny to the governments until they have opened their accounts to international auditors to show legitimacy.

They claim that that smacks of harking back to imperialisim but if I'm David Cameron and I'm giving u £20million of my countries money I have a damn right to know exactly what u are doing with it!!??? "

irish for prime minister

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ushroom7 OP   Man
over a year ago

Bradford


"With the worlds population only covering 1.5% of the earths landmass... Where is the problem...?"

As over 99.99% of the landmass lies below ground, are you advocating that we, the general population, revert back to living in caves?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran


"With the worlds population only covering 1.5% of the earths landmass... Where is the problem...?

As over 99.99% of the landmass lies below ground, are you advocating that we, the general population, revert back to living in caves?

"

Did see something once to suugest that the world's population could stand side by side on the Isle of Wight

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have a rather expansive view on the world and what it can sustain. It's hard to explain when writing it down but I'll give it a go.

This planet weighs a certain amount, and it's finite. It always weighs this precise amount regardless of how the mass making up that weight distributes and redistributes itself. The planet cannot obtain more mass from anywhere else as everywhere else is too far away to gain it in a significant amount to make a difference. The odd comet now and then adds nothing to the planet apart from a few atoms of carbon, iron, and various other compounds in miniscule amounts, so it has to make do with what it's got (economists take note lol).

So how does that affect population control?

How much does an additional 3bn people weigh? Where is that mass going to come from? Remember the Earth's mass is finite so it has to come from somwhere.

Add to that all the food a single person consumes in his/her lifetime of which only a small % of it is recycled back into the planet as mass, the rest is converted into energy and spent, which doesn't mean it's gone completely, it simply exists in a different chemical form, protons, neutrons etc, and is recycled that way.

Extra people means less of other types of mass, simple maths there.

Increasingly more people need increasingly more food from increasing less resources, so it doesn't take a genius to realise that a tipping point will be reached where there won't be enough food to feed everyone.

Bear in mind that the planet has to retain enough mass in the form of hard rocks, water and air to keep the thing rolling around the Sun and capable of supporting life.

We can't farm every available inch of land mass as we need to exist somewhere on the planet ourselves.

10bn people and the planet will still amble along ok but some things will become more scarce than before.

20bn people and we're approaching that tipping point of which I spoke.

30bn and humanity will turn on itself, but the planet will survive. The total mass hasn't changed you see.

More people = less food. That's my theory on it anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ushroom7 OP   Man
over a year ago

Bradford


"With the worlds population only covering 1.5% of the earths landmass... Where is the problem...?

As over 99.99% of the landmass lies below ground, are you advocating that we, the general population, revert back to living in caves?

Did see something once to suugest that the world's population could stand side by side on the Isle of Wight"

Did you not catch the news about the chaos at the music festival?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Temporary sterilisation at birth until the age of 19 when a couple or single mother would need to apply for a parenting license .

Anyone with a history of violence and abuse should automatically be perminantly sterilised.

This is my vision of the future

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Temporary sterilisation at birth until the age of 19 when a couple or single mother would need to apply for a parenting license .

Anyone with a history of violence and abuse should automatically be perminantly sterilised.

This is my vision of the future "

Apply for a license?? So u'll have to take a test?? To become a parent... The one thing that nature gifted us all u want to restrict by taking a gvmt exam??? Will never happen outside a country the likes of china/Korea and what if I decide I'm gonna have a kid without passing the test?? Will we have hit squads to cull these unnecessary children???

Why ban just violent ppl?? WHat about those who have committed fraud too?? Stolen millions from trust funds? Surely we couldn't let these people breed in ur new world too??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire


"Temporary sterilisation at birth until the age of 19 when a couple or single mother would need to apply for a parenting license .

Anyone with a history of violence and abuse should automatically be perminantly sterilised.

This is my vision of the future "

Thats good in theory (well not really). We here the word violence and although im not trying to trivialize it, violence can mean alot of things. "History" of violence.

So for example if an 18 year old lad/girl was in a pub and got into a brawl, and got cautioned by the police then go on to become pillars of society should they be penalized for one error. What about all the people who abuse, neglect and are violent to children that dont have a history of violence. Obviously there are some types of crime where i personally think people should never come on the same planet as children but certain words are banded about aimlessly by people who think there doing/saying good

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Indeed, anything in this day and age could be twisted to sound like assault or intimidation... Technically swearing is a form of violent intimidation... Physically touching someone is a form of assault whether of not u caused pain... Mental abuse is one of the hardest things to prove but the easiest to commit accidentally as its all judged from the perspective of the offended (and many times overly sensitive) person...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"With the worlds population only covering 1.5% of the earths landmass... Where is the problem...?"

And what percentage of the earth's landmass can support life? The entire continent of Anarctica has to be ruled out, most of the lands above the Arctic Circle the Saharan regions of Africa which cover most of Africa north of the Tropic of Cancer, other deserts in Africa such as the Kalahari and the Namib, the deserts which cover much of Australia and western China such as the Takla Makan and the Gobi, the deserts in the Americas such as the Mohave and the Atacama, the massive high arid plateaus of the Chang Tang in Tibet and the Altiplano in Bolivia, the mountain ranges such as the Himalaya and the Andes , most of Siberia etc etc etc.

The problem of overpopulation in the world is a major problem-we're even seeing it in this tiny island in the North Atlantic.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran


"I have a rather expansive view on the world and what it can sustain. It's hard to explain when writing it down but I'll give it a go.

This planet weighs a certain amount, and it's finite. It always weighs this precise amount regardless of how the mass making up that weight distributes and redistributes itself. The planet cannot obtain more mass from anywhere else as everywhere else is too far away to gain it in a significant amount to make a difference. The odd comet now and then adds nothing to the planet apart from a few atoms of carbon, iron, and various other compounds in miniscule amounts, so it has to make do with what it's got (economists take note lol).

So how does that affect population control?

How much does an additional 3bn people weigh? Where is that mass going to come from? Remember the Earth's mass is finite so it has to come from somwhere.

Add to that all the food a single person consumes in his/her lifetime of which only a small % of it is recycled back into the planet as mass, the rest is converted into energy and spent, which doesn't mean it's gone completely, it simply exists in a different chemical form, protons, neutrons etc, and is recycled that way.

Extra people means less of other types of mass, simple maths there.

Increasingly more people need increasingly more food from increasing less resources, so it doesn't take a genius to realise that a tipping point will be reached where there won't be enough food to feed everyone.

Bear in mind that the planet has to retain enough mass in the form of hard rocks, water and air to keep the thing rolling around the Sun and capable of supporting life.

We can't farm every available inch of land mass as we need to exist somewhere on the planet ourselves.

10bn people and the planet will still amble along ok but some things will become more scarce than before.

20bn people and we're approaching that tipping point of which I spoke.

30bn and humanity will turn on itself, but the planet will survive. The total mass hasn't changed you see.

More people = less food. That's my theory on it anyway. "

If I understand you correctly - mass will increase because the energy we recieve from the sun will be converted into mass - primarily from animal and plant growth but Im sure some scientist can explain other forms of mass generation - but as you say popultaion growth will make resources scarce and unless everyone works together we are doomed

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire


"I have a rather expansive view on the world and what it can sustain. It's hard to explain when writing it down but I'll give it a go.

This planet weighs a certain amount, and it's finite. It always weighs this precise amount regardless of how the mass making up that weight distributes and redistributes itself. The planet cannot obtain more mass from anywhere else as everywhere else is too far away to gain it in a significant amount to make a difference. The odd comet now and then adds nothing to the planet apart from a few atoms of carbon, iron, and various other compounds in miniscule amounts, so it has to make do with what it's got (economists take note lol).

So how does that affect population control?

How much does an additional 3bn people weigh? Where is that mass going to come from? Remember the Earth's mass is finite so it has to come from somwhere.

Add to that all the food a single person consumes in his/her lifetime of which only a small % of it is recycled back into the planet as mass, the rest is converted into energy and spent, which doesn't mean it's gone completely, it simply exists in a different chemical form, protons, neutrons etc, and is recycled that way.

Extra people means less of other types of mass, simple maths there.

Increasingly more people need increasingly more food from increasing less resources, so it doesn't take a genius to realise that a tipping point will be reached where there won't be enough food to feed everyone.

Bear in mind that the planet has to retain enough mass in the form of hard rocks, water and air to keep the thing rolling around the Sun and capable of supporting life.

We can't farm every available inch of land mass as we need to exist somewhere on the planet ourselves.

10bn people and the planet will still amble along ok but some things will become more scarce than before.

20bn people and we're approaching that tipping point of which I spoke.

30bn and humanity will turn on itself, but the planet will survive. The total mass hasn't changed you see.

More people = less food. That's my theory on it anyway.

If I understand you correctly - mass will increase because the energy we recieve from the sun will be converted into mass - primarily from animal and plant growth but Im sure some scientist can explain other forms of mass generation - but as you say popultaion growth will make resources scarce and unless everyone works together we are doomed "

We could just kill a few fat people

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

who knows..maybe one day antibiotics will stop working and people will die on a large scale from once preventable illnesses...

oh hang on a minute...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

fuck u lot, I'm living in a cyber reality..infinite space and infinite resources and all the cyberfanny u can eat

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This hideous cancer, may spread to another cell" chapter 4 page 58

come read my book(google it)

Humanities triumph

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"With the worlds population only covering 1.5% of the earths landmass... Where is the problem...?

As over 99.99% of the landmass lies below ground, are you advocating that we, the general population, revert back to living in caves?

Did see something once to suugest that the world's population could stand side by side on the Isle of Wight"

That used to be the case. But that ceased to be so a year or two ago.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran


"With the worlds population only covering 1.5% of the earths landmass... Where is the problem...?

And what percentage of the earth's landmass can support life? The entire continent of Anarctica has to be ruled out, most of the lands above the Arctic Circle the Saharan regions of Africa which cover most of Africa north of the Tropic of Cancer, other deserts in Africa such as the Kalahari and the Namib, the deserts which cover much of Australia and western China such as the Takla Makan and the Gobi, the deserts in the Americas such as the Mohave and the Atacama, the massive high arid plateaus of the Chang Tang in Tibet and the Altiplano in Bolivia, the mountain ranges such as the Himalaya and the Andes , most of Siberia etc etc etc.

The problem of overpopulation in the world is a major problem-we're even seeing it in this tiny island in the North Atlantic."

This is only the situation now - with the right infrastructure resources all these areas could be used to grow food - it has been done before on a small scale

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran


"

Did see something once to suugest that the world's population could stand side by side on the Isle of Wight

That used to be the case. But that ceased to be so a year or two ago."

probably a couple of years since I saw it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""This hideous cancer, may spread to another cell" chapter 4 page 58

come read my book(google it)

Humanities triumph

"

Googled it and it came up with Triumph of the Humanities, that's not it is it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""This hideous cancer, may spread to another cell" chapter 4 page 58

come read my book(google it)

Humanities triumph

Googled it and it came up with Triumph of the Humanities, that's not it is it?"

nah I made it up....sounded great tho eh?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

More people = less food. That's my theory on it anyway. "

Makes you wonder why they keep putting fruit in shampoo and stuff

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

More people = less food. That's my theory on it anyway.

Makes you wonder why they keep putting fruit in shampoo and stuff "

its recycled food....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

dont know what your all worried about the way things are going in syria there will be world war 3 starting on or about the 12th of december

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"dont know what your all worried about the way things are going in syria there will be world war 3 starting on or about the 12th of december"

giving rise to mutants with vaginas or cocks for mouths(maybe both)...cant wait!!!(I prefer the vaginamouth mutants tho)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

More people = less food. That's my theory on it anyway.

Makes you wonder why they keep putting fruit in shampoo and stuff

its recycled food...."

recycled from what?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

More people = less food. That's my theory on it anyway.

Makes you wonder why they keep putting fruit in shampoo and stuff

its recycled food....

recycled from what?

"

shite!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"dont know what your all worried about the way things are going in syria there will be world war 3 starting on or about the 12th of december"

I don't know why it's such a big deal that the Mayan calendar suddenly ended.

You know what else suddenly ended?

The Mayans.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"dont know what your all worried about the way things are going in syria there will be world war 3 starting on or about the 12th of december

I don't know why it's such a big deal that the Mayan calendar suddenly ended.

You know what else suddenly ended?

The Mayans."

or did they???

see my book(google it)

Mayans in space

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran

just did a quick calculation to put some perspective on the worlds food requirement - using the calorific value and yields for rice - the land required to feed the world' current population is approx the same size as australia - just got a little bored waiting for footy to start

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"dont know what your all worried about the way things are going in syria there will be world war 3 starting on or about the 12th of december

I don't know why it's such a big deal that the Mayan calendar suddenly ended.

You know what else suddenly ended?

The Mayans."

When Mr Calendar the Painted One stopped writing 5,000 years ago somewhere in Deepest Peru his boss (that would Mr Boss Calendar the Tattooed One) said, "Why December 12th 2012?"

The Painted One replied, "Ran out of ink."

The Tattoed One then said, "Is't that going to unnerve a few people in 5,000 years time?"

The Painted One: "Yeah, MUUUUHAAAHAAAA!"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Maybe they just ran out of sexy firemen and kittens

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"just did a quick calculation to put some perspective on the worlds food requirement - using the calorific value and yields for rice - the land required to feed the world' current population is approx the same size as australia - just got a little bored waiting for footy to start "

Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Annually? We'll soon get through the food if it's daily and I don't think Australia will fit into the Earth's land mass 365 times.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think he means to sustain the world with food if the population were to remain the same. That is if the whole land surface area of Australia were used to grow rice, in continuous cycles.

I also think its a very strange coincidence that the date when things will all kick off and therefore end happens to be 12/12/12. Early imperial system perhaps?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran


"just did a quick calculation to put some perspective on the worlds food requirement - using the calorific value and yields for rice - the land required to feed the world' current population is approx the same size as australia - just got a little bored waiting for footy to start

Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Annually? We'll soon get through the food if it's daily and I don't think Australia will fit into the Earth's land mass 365 times."

Annual and Australia is 5.5% of the earths land mass - 11% of the earths land mass is used for arable crops and according to the UN world population is predicted to peak at around 10 billion so in theory it is possible to produce enough food well into the future - drinking water is arguebly renewable - so it is just energy which could cause us problems

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top