• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's an acceptable world population? [W:48]

What's an acceptable world population?

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
D

Dooble

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
311
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What's an acceptable world population?
 
500 million sounds about right. Getting rid of the surplus will be a challenge though.
 
specklebang said:
500 million sounds about right. Getting rid of the surplus will be a challenge though.
Click to expand...
Would you be part of the 500 Million? If so, why?
 
specklebang said:
500 million sounds about right. Getting rid of the surplus will be a challenge though.
Click to expand...

Machetes are cheap.

Poll is fail. Highest population option is less than half of current world population while population is continuing to grow and is projected to plateau anyway at ten billion-- more than three times the highest poll option, and a number that our planet is more than capable of supporting comfortably. I'm more worried about the economic effects of stagnant population growth than any kind of serious worry about overpopulation.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Poll is fail. Highest population option is less than half of current world population.
Click to expand...
The "We're pushing our limits now" response reflects the current population. I guess I could've added a 6 Billion+, but figured the "I'm just happy to be here" allows for accepting any amount of people that are brought into the world.
 
Dooble said:
The "We're pushing our limits now" response reflects the current population. I guess I could've added a 6 Billion+, but figured the "I'm just happy to be here" allows for accepting any amount of people that are brought into the world.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. My response was harsher than it should have been.

My point was, we're at less than 70% of the projected maximum population-- which is still considerably less than what would constitute dangerous overpopulation. We're not even pushing the limits now. I suppose that I could answer "I'm just happy to be here", but there is a point at which the planet can't support the population; that point just isn't likely to ever be achieved.
 
my guess is we're pushing the limits of current technology. projections I heard being toted at my last R&D gig were that food for a population growing past where we are at now would be 70 percent filled through food tech and reduction in waste in the supply chain. granted, there is a source bias there, but they definitely have skin in the game, and I don't have any reason to believe that the figure is grossly skewed.

my own personal observation is that there is a lot of unoccupied land out there, but much of it is being used to grow crops and trees that help filter the waste. I routinely grow bacterial cultures, and they eventually hit stationary phase as nutrients get used up and waste increases. if we're not there now, we're getting close.
 
Maybe the threat of over population forces our hand for advancing space exploration possibilities.

Or we could keep focusing on the plight of crack whores and marijuana legalization.
 
When I was in school (college) the scientific community estimated that the carrying capacity of the earth for humas was around 1.75 billion people. So my answer is two billion.

Exactly how they came up with this number I do not remember
 
The panet could support double the current population easily... with technology. If technology fails then the population will decline anyway...
 
wolfman24 said:
When I was in school (college) the scientific community estimated that the carrying capacity of the earth for humas was around 1.75 billion people. So my answer is two billion.

Exactly how they came up with this number I do not remember
Click to expand...

You were in college in the 1800's?
 
Its whatever we can have on a sustained yield basis.

but if you really want to know, you would have to ask "mother" nature.
 
mike2810 said:
Its whatever we can have on a sustained yield basis.

but if you really want to know, you would have to ask "mother" nature.
Click to expand...

She doesnt like us so she wont talk to us anymore, I just visited with her yesterday. SHe said "I'm as mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore".

Sounds like a lot of trouble comin our way.
 
If we were going to abruptly adjust to 500 million, by Darwinian strategies, I would be gone in sixty seconds. Who needs old, retired people gobbling up the Earths resources? However, 500 million as an objective would be more logical. Some kind of testing system to assign reproductive rights might be a good strategy.

I felt I was being generous at 500 million. Look at the ****ty quality of most peoples lives. With only 500 million, we could all live like Kings. Gas would be 3¢ a gallon.




Dooble said:
Would you be part of the 500 Million? If so, why?
Click to expand...

Viktyr Gehrig said:
Machetes are cheap.

Poll is fail. Highest population option is less than half of current world population while population is continuing to grow and is projected to plateau anyway at ten billion-- more than three times the highest poll option, and a number that our planet is more than capable of supporting comfortably. I'm more worried about the economic effects of stagnant population growth than any kind of serious worry about overpopulation.
Click to expand...
 
Dooble said:
What's an acceptable world population?
Click to expand...


Your poll does not include options such as 10 billion, or 15 billion, or 40 billion.

With sufficiently advanced technology we could support that many, especially since most people live in cities these days anyway.

Personally I don't think we'll ever get much above 10 billion. Trends show population stablizing if not going into decline in most advanced nations.
As other nations reach a certain level of development their pop growth will go into decline also.

The alleged "population problem" will almost certainly fix itself.
 
Helix said:
my guess is we're pushing the limits of current technology. projections I heard being toted at my last R&D gig were that food for a population growing past where we are at now would be 70 percent filled through food tech and reduction in waste in the supply chain. granted, there is a source bias there, but they definitely have skin in the game, and I don't have any reason to believe that the figure is grossly skewed.

my own personal observation is that there is a lot of unoccupied land out there, but much of it is being used to grow crops and trees that help filter the waste. I routinely grow bacterial cultures, and they eventually hit stationary phase as nutrients get used up and waste increases. if we're not there now, we're getting close.
Click to expand...

No we're not remotely close.
There is plenty of freely usable agriculture land across the world.

New growing techniques have reduced the amount of land needed and increased the yield per plant.
We're fine, Malthusian collapse, at this point, is junk science.
 
Goshin said:
Your poll does not include options such as 10 billion, or 15 billion, or 40 billion.

With sufficiently advanced technology we could support that many, especially since most people live in cities these days anyway.

Personally I don't think we'll ever get much above 10 billion. Trends show population stablizing if not going into decline in most advanced nations.
As other nations reach a certain level of development their pop growth will go into decline also.

The alleged "population problem" will almost certainly fix itself.
Click to expand...

It's all tied to fossil fuels. We'll fade away as they do.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Gm crops are being developed to reduce the amount of fertilizer needed, plus bacterial oil is being developed on fallow, generally unused land spaces. We're not gonna run out anytime soon.
Click to expand...

GM crops won't save us, much less support 8, 9, 10+ billion people, if we don't have oil. There's just no caloric equation that works out. You can't get something from nothing.
 
Neomalthusian said:
GM crops won't save us, much less support 8, 9, 10+ billion people, if we don't have oil. There's just no caloric equation that works out. You can't get something from nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the primary reason that Malthusian predictions fail, is that they never factor in scientific innovation.
How long ago, were we supposed to experience the first catastrophe that never happened?

GM crops are saving us, they've been saving us.
That's why farmers can get more product, per acre than before and that's why they'll get even more later.
 
The estimates I have seen has the tipping point around 20 billion before we start having widespread problems with food/water/sanitation resulting in war, plagues, starvation.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm sorry, but the primary reason that Malthusian predictions fail, is that they never factor in scientific innovation.
How long ago, were we supposed to experience the first catastrophe that never happened?
Click to expand...

It probably would have if we hadn't harnessed oil. Malthus didn't know about oil, and oil was there in the ground waiting for us to use it. We didn't scientifically innovate oil. The resource existed on its own. If there's another such resource, then we may have a lot more time ahead of us, but as it stands though there is no such other resource that returns such a great deal more energy than we have to invest to access it.

GM crops are saving us, they've been saving us. That's why farmers can get more product, per acre than before and that's why they'll get even more later.
Click to expand...

That's thanks to fossil fuels. Take away their fuel and their yields will drop by 95%. Modern agriculture is utterly fossil fuel-dependent.
 
Neomalthusian said:
It probably would have if we hadn't harnessed oil. Malthus didn't know about oil, and oil was there in the ground waiting for us to use it. We didn't scientifically innovate oil. The resource existed on its own. If there's another such resource, then we may have a lot more time ahead of us, but as it stands though there is no such other resource that returns such a great deal more energy than we have to invest to access it.



That's thanks to fossil fuels. Take away their fuel and their yields will drop by 95%. Modern agriculture is utterly fossil fuel-dependent.
Click to expand...

And we don't need oil reserves to make oil.
That start up Bill Gates invested in, the creates oil from GM bacteria, well they've expanded their operation to the next phase.
They're producing oil.

By 2017, they plan to be producing approximately 10k barrels a day.
Which doesn't seem like much, but this is just one facility.

Science is catching up to the oil catastrophe people.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
And we don't need oil reserves to make oil.
That start up Bill Gates invested in, the creates oil from GM bacteria, well they've expanded their operation to the next phase.
They're producing oil.

By 2017, they plan to be producing approximately 10k barrels a day.
Which doesn't seem like much, but this is just one facility.
Click to expand...

What's the EROEI?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom