7 Billion People: Is there really a problem? - Page 9 - Historum

fascinating · December 29th, 2011, 12:50 PM

PHP Code:

  I am not quite sure what you are getting at here, one hand you are agreeing with me and the next you are claiming I am lying.... a bit confusing.

You said that people won't change - that is wrong, althoug biologically we are the same, we have changed massively in terms of science, technology, health, wellbeing and respect for each other.

PHP Code:

  Psychic are we?

No, the UN has already produced a projection of what will happen to world population numbers in 2050 and beyond. That is why I used the words "is projected".

PHP Code:

  Not relevant?

No, because,as I explained, the issue is WORLD population, not LOCAL population.

Don't mention Malthus he has been proved wrong time and time again.

PHP Code:

  Sounds a little hypocritical to me, sounds like you also agree with me, but then try to over shadow your agreement with your disagreement - are you unsure about how you feel about this?

I just wonder, you feel that policies to reduce the people are needed for countries with over population, yet you say that over population is not a problem???

Hopefully I will at some time get through to you that the issue of whether the world as a whole has a problem if there are 7 billion, is a DIFFERENT ISSUE to whether individual LOCAL areas have too many people.

Suppose a man runs a fish farm. The fish breed successfully, so successfully that their numbers become too big for the pond. The farmer concludes that there are too many fish in his pond. Does that mean there are too many fish in the world? NO.

Suppose somebody lives in Frieburg, a city in Germany with excellent public transport and good quality of life. There is a big rock concert and it is sold out, and then some gatecrashers make their way in so that people are really pressing against each other. They think that there are too many people in the concert hall. Does that mean there are too many people in Frieburg? NO.

In Russia the birth rate is really low, below replacement level. One family in Moscow, however, has 10 children. The parents have a talk and agree that they have more than enough children already so they decide to use contraception. Does this mean that there are too many children in Russia? NO.

fascinating · December 29th, 2011, 12:57 PM

PHP Code:

  That would destroy ecosystems that balances the life in earth. It may shift the trade winds, unexpected droughts or it may produce typhoons that passes through the ITCZ. Another thing, waste materials we produce and consume are filling the earth which is very harmful for all organisms.

What is the ITCZ? What is it that would destroy ecosystems?

If you are talking about pollution, I agree that it must be tackled. But let us not take our eyes off the ball, population is not the problem, pollution is the problem. You can have a relatively limited population with a large amount of pollutioin (eg USA), or a large population with relatively small pollution (eg India). Population IN ITSELF does not cause damaging pollution.

**Brisieis** · December 29th, 2011, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fascinating

Don't mention Malthus he has been proved wrong time and time again.

I never said I supported Malthus or not, I said that the OP mentioned Malthus.

Local population has everything to do with world population, local population combined is how we conclude world population. Comparing a rock concert to a fish pond is not the same as a world that is running out of resources, highly polluted and if it carries on, will be far too over populated without some dire consequences occuring.

fascinating · December 29th, 2011, 01:00 PM

PHP Code:

   world that is running out of resources, highly polluted and if it carries on, will be far too over populated without some dire consequences occuring.

What resources are running out? What does "highly" polluted mean? Why do you say that the world will be far too over-populated?

Thechristianphilosopher · December 31st, 2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brisieis

And most of it is ocean, with much desert, mountains, jungles on land...

Im afraid you cannot argue in favour of the overpopulation theory based on the idea that we are going to run out of space. food experts and dermatolagists have figured out that the whole worlds population in averagely sized family's could all have a house, with a garden and live on a land mass the size of Texas, which is really just a small corner of the planet. They also say that if africa is cultivated by modern farming methods, it could feed the world all by itself.

Thechristianphilosopher · December 31st, 2011, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fascinating

[
Don't mention Malthus he has been proved wrong time and time again.

Agreed. He said we'd all be dead by 1890... (polite cough)

**Brisieis** · December 31st, 2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thechristianphilosopher

Im afraid you cannot argue in favour of the overpopulation theory based on the idea that we are going to run out of space. food experts and dermatolagists have figured out that the whole worlds population in averagely sized family's could all have a house, with a garden and live on a land mass the size of Texas, which is really just a small corner of the planet. They also say that if africa is cultivated by modern farming methods, it could feed the world all by itself.

I was not arguing the point you mention. I was making a statement, which is a fact.

I am aware there is plenty of land space for humans to live, in theory, sharing it out is another question all together.

fascinating · December 31st, 2011, 11:26 AM

PHP Code:

  I am aware there is plenty of land space for humans to live, in theory, sharing it out is another question all together

Yes, there is plenty of land space for 7 billion humans to live, even allowing for all the deserts, mountains and jungles. And you are also correct that the sharing out of land resources is another question altogether, not strictly relevant to the issue we are discussing here.