• 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!

Eat well or Procreate?

Should we control the population?


  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
33,000
Reaction score
13,973
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
People keep saying the population growth is slowing and that the current trend says it will level off then decline. But resources like food, water and energy are being strained and we will continue to need renewable sources in the future.

It seems like one is possibly coming up for food. NASA awards grant for 3-D food printer; could it end world hunger?

NASA has given a six-month grant to a company developing what could be the world’s first 3-D food printer. And the project’s developer, reports Quartz, an online digital news site, believes the invention could be used to end world hunger.

Quartz explains that the printer is the brainchild of mechanical engineer Anjan Contractor. Being developed by Contractor’s company, Systems & Materials Research Corp., it will use proteins, carbohydrates and sugars to create edible food products.

Contractor says one of his primary motivations is a belief that food will become exponentially more expensive in the near future. The average consumer, he told Quartz, will need a more economically viable option.

Some alternative food source options that may be used with the printer include algae, duckweed, grass, lupine seeds, beet leaves and even insects, according to TNO Research, which is working with Contractor on the project.

“I think, and many economists think, that current food systems can’t supply 12 billion people sufficiently,” said Contractor. “So we eventually have to change our perception of what we see as food.”


Here's my question should we allow the population to grow to this point where we have to eat purely processed food made of bugs and byproduct stuff? We've already got "pink slime" and "soy grits" as meat fillers. Does that really sound like quantity of people, over quality of living is desirable?
 
Here's my question should we allow the population to grow to this point where we have to eat purely processed food made of bugs and byproduct stuff? We've already got "pink slime" and "soy grits" as meat fillers. Does that really sound like quantity of people, over quality of living is desirable?

Every year, 15 million children starve to death. The World Health Organization estimates that 1/3 of the world's population is starving. One out of every eight children under the age of 12 -- in the United States -- goes to bed hungry every night. "It is estimated that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, about 100 times as many as those who actually die from it each year."

I'd say we've already reached critical mass. Wouldn't you?

The world hunger problem: Facts, figures and statistics
 
People keep saying the population growth is slowing and that the current trend says it will level off then decline. But resources like food, water and energy are being strained and we will continue to need renewable sources in the future.

It seems like one is possibly coming up for food. NASA awards grant for 3-D food printer; could it end world hunger?

Here's my question should we allow the population to grow to this point where we have to eat purely processed food made of bugs and byproduct stuff? We've already got "pink slime" and "soy grits" as meat fillers. Does that really sound like quantity of people, over quality of living is desirable?

Procreation is for the survival of the species. If our population is such that natural resources are strained then clearly survival of the species is not a concern. Procreation should only be an issue when 1)a near extinction event occurs or 2)when/if colonization of other worlds begins.
 
As anyone who's studied elementary biology should know, nature has certain rules. If our population gets to the point where we're starving then the people that don't starve will either adapt to the new environment, less food, or they will die. Adapting can take many forms but that's the basics. The ones that are left standing afterward will be more adapted to an environment of less food, or they'll be stronger than the previous generations having procured limited resources for themselves and their progeny at the expense of those who died. Is it harsh and brutal? Yep! Take a look at a tornado or a flood, that's the way nature is.
 
Every year, 15 million children starve to death. The World Health Organization estimates that 1/3 of the world's population is starving. One out of every eight children under the age of 12 -- in the United States -- goes to bed hungry every night. "It is estimated that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, about 100 times as many as those who actually die from it each year."

I'd say we've already reached critical mass. Wouldn't you?

The world hunger problem: Facts, figures and statistics

No, not even close.
 
Untrue.

Read up on phosphorus, as just one example.

Peak phosphorus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am aware of the 75-200 year phosphorous supply issue. Man lived without mining it, and will survive not having a plentiful commercial supply. It is more of an issue for ADM than it is for somebody who is not a producer. People will have to grow their own food organically--how shocking. Critical mass will be around 20 Billion people.
 
Every year, 15 million children starve to death. The World Health Organization estimates that 1/3 of the world's population is starving. One out of every eight children under the age of 12 -- in the United States -- goes to bed hungry every night. "It is estimated that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, about 100 times as many as those who actually die from it each year."

I'd say we've already reached critical mass. Wouldn't you?

The world hunger problem: Facts, figures and statistics

The problem is not lack of food or resources it is almost always a facet of poverty, closed markets, and distribution problems. We do not have an over-population problem, and our capacity to exploit the planet and its resources is increasing not decreasing. As we look towards looming and developing technologies it isn't unreasonable to think we are in for another great production boom.
 
Soylent Green....it's what's for dinner. yum
 
I am aware of the 75-200 year phosphorous supply issue. Man lived without mining it, and will survive not having a plentiful commercial supply. It is more of an issue for ADM than it is for somebody who is not a producer. People will have to grow their own food organically--how shocking. Critical mass will be around 20 Billion people.

Well, and then there's fresh water and meeting the energy production needs of a growing population (and the effect that will have on the environment).

It really isn't wise to have a growing population that plans for future possible developments in energy, fertilizer and water needs (among god knows what else, it seems like everywhere I look some resource is just about on its way out). The truly responsible practice would be to plan our population around existing resources. Otherwise it's like blowing your life savings in Vegas on the possibility that you'll figure out how to make more money later.
 
We've been told that we're running out of resources since Ehrlich and his population bomb fanatics came about in the 1960's. Despite decades of predictions that we were facing peak production or supply/demand constraints in everything from copper, rubber, chromium, tin, tungsten, nickel, food, water, etc. Every time we've managed to not only avoid these dismal predictions but we exceed our ability to produce or extract them.

The Simon-Ehrlich wager is an infamous example of this. It was a wager between Paul Ehrlich who was part of the resource calamity/overpopulation school who predicted that the price of "Copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten" would increase in price from 1980 to the early 1990's. Simon who was a famous critic of the malthusian resource scarcity crowd took the opposite approach. The result was as we all know that all of these resources decreased in price from 1980.

The point is that every time we consider ourselves to be facing a resource crisis we create the means to extract more of that resource or fill it with a positive substitution.

When we talk about food or water the same is true. Every decade that people have predicted mass scarcity, die-offs, starvation, etc due to lack of food or water resources has always been proven untrue. Even today as we talk about water scarcity we are making enormous breakthroughs in the field of desalination. Will it be the panacea to our potential water troubles? I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to side with precedent in saying that where there is a need we will find a way. We always have before.
 
Every year, 15 million children starve to death. The World Health Organization estimates that 1/3 of the world's population is starving. One out of every eight children under the age of 12 -- in the United States -- goes to bed hungry every night. "It is estimated that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, about 100 times as many as those who actually die from it each year."

I'd say we've already reached critical mass. Wouldn't you?

The world hunger problem: Facts, figures and statistics

Depends. Is this a problem of not enough food, or a problem of access to the food?
 
That's interesting...I wonder if there might be a way to recover phosphorus from human sewage?

The Wiki article does cover multiple manners of recycling, such as the fact that currently known methods of recycling aren't geared well for large populations (such as ours, let alone 20 billion people).
 
Well, and then there's fresh water and meeting the energy production needs of a growing population (and the effect that will have on the environment).

It really isn't wise to have a growing population that plans for future possible developments in energy, fertilizer and water needs (among god knows what else, it seems like everywhere I look some resource is just about on its way out). The truly responsible practice would be to plan our population around existing resources. Otherwise it's like blowing your life savings in Vegas on the possibility that you'll figure out how to make more money later.

Perhaps, but given that the people most vulnerable are not planning their population at all, it is better we not either as might makes right. Besides, given the human ability to kill each other with impunity, we do a better job at population control than mother nature forces upon us.
 
I would rather not be born than live in a world where you can't hunt and fish for real food or where people are so crowded into urban areas that you can't raise your own veggies in your own garden. Having said that if that was the world you were born into you wouldn't know what you were missing so you would probably be perfectly happy or at least think you are. I'm just glad I won't live long enough to see that day.
 
Perhaps, but given that the people most vulnerable are not planning their population at all, it is better we not either as might makes right. Besides, given the human ability to kill each other with impunity, we do a better job at population control than mother nature forces upon us.

At lower, sustainable populations we won't have to resort to that option quite so frequently. 20 billion people is begging for frequent wars based on limited resources.
 
Well, and then there's fresh water and meeting the energy production needs of a growing population (and the effect that will have on the environment).

It really isn't wise to have a growing population that plans for future possible developments in energy, fertilizer and water needs (among god knows what else, it seems like everywhere I look some resource is just about on its way out). The truly responsible practice would be to plan our population around existing resources. Otherwise it's like blowing your life savings in Vegas on the possibility that you'll figure out how to make more money later.

If the past century has proven anything in demographics it is how unrealistic population planning actually is barring draconian methods, and even then you subject yourself to terrible unanticipated side effects since this generally creates massive imbalances between the elderly bulge and the youth workers. My biggest problem with population control advocates (aside from the deeply immoral ways it has been implemented) is that they tend to only see humans as mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, and nothing more. Every additional human is also a mind, which when confronting resource challenges is our greatest natural resource. One of the greatest things of the past twenty years as been the re-emergence of a billion human beings onto the modern stage in the form of China. The burgeoning scientific research and great contributions emanating from India, China, etc are a crucial boost to our efforts to advance the species over the course of 21st Century.
 
At lower, sustainable populations we won't have to resort to that option quite so frequently. 20 billion people is begging for frequent wars based on limited resources.

But limited resources is relative. Our resources have remained the same (and they are enormous), it is our ability to access them that has continually increased. We haven't even begun to tap the gargantuan reserves of our earth's crust or our oceans, we aren't anywhere close to running low on resources.
 
At lower, sustainable populations we won't have to resort to that option quite so frequently. 20 billion people is begging for frequent wars based on limited resources.

That is why it is the tipping point. Regardless, humans will adapt faster than civilization will even if civilization as we know it falls. I do not subscribe to the philosophy that everyone is entitled to as good of a life or a better life than today's first-world enjoys and that we somehow have a duty to deliver it to them. Humans lived without petroleum products before and will do it again if necessary---if that means my great great great grandkids have to farm and hunt instead of surf the web looking for the best deals on vacation trips to Bora Bora, then so be it.
 
If the past century has proven anything in demographics it is how unrealistic population planning actually is barring draconian methods, and even then you subject yourself to terrible unanticipated side effects since this generally creates massive imbalances between the elderly bulge and the youth workers. My biggest problem with population control advocates (aside from the deeply immoral ways it has been implemented) is that they tend to only see humans as mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, and nothing more. Every additional human is also a mind, which when confronting resource challenges is our greatest natural resource. One of the greatest things of the past twenty years as been the re-emergence of a billion human beings onto the modern stage in the form of China. The burgeoning scientific research and great contributions emanating from India, China, etc are a crucial boost to our efforts to advance the species over the course of 21st Century.

There's more than one way to control populations -- we need not resort to catapulting extraneous people into outer space. As populations become more educated and financially stable fewer children are born. That's a noble goal and it's good enough for me.

Anyway, if it turns out that a zillion billion people on the planet is what finally spurs us to develop the technology to go out and colonize the universe, and a year later a giant meteor comes and obliterates earth, I'll concede to your position. Until then seven billion people is enough. We are not in danger of going extinct.
 
But limited resources is relative. Our resources have remained the same (and they are enormous), it is our ability to access them that has continually increased. We haven't even begun to tap the gargantuan reserves of our earth's crust or our oceans, we aren't anywhere close to running low on resources.

I don't believe it's wise to account for future developments in resource extraction. I believe we should be focusing on conservation of current resources and lowering (or simply sustaining) the population (that doesn't involve catapulting extra people into outer space).
 
There's more than one way to control populations -- we need not resort to catapulting extraneous people into outer space. As populations become more educated and financially stable fewer children are born. That's a noble goal and it's good enough for me.

Anyway, if it turns out that a zillion billion people on the planet is what finally spurs us to develop the technology to go out and colonize the universe, and a year later a giant meteor comes and obliterates earth, I'll concede to your position. Until then seven billion people is enough. We are not in danger of going extinct.

Your opinion, while common, assumes there is no possibility of a boom and bust.

If we become too populated for the carrying capacity of our ecosystems, well that'll just motivate us to invent our way out of it! -- It doesn't work that way, actually.
 
People keep saying the population growth is slowing and that the current trend says it will level off then decline. But resources like food, water and energy are being strained and we will continue to need renewable sources in the future.

It seems like one is possibly coming up for food. NASA awards grant for 3-D food printer; could it end world hunger?

Here's my question should we allow the population to grow to this point where we have to eat purely processed food made of bugs and byproduct stuff? We've already got "pink slime" and "soy grits" as meat fillers. Does that really sound like quantity of people, over quality of living is desirable?


I think the vast majority of people could grow gardens and raise basic livestock in our back yards if we had to. As much as GMF scares me, I think rapid growth/larger harvest/larger produce engineered crops could play a role if we had to. The only thing I'm worried about with respect to starvation are environmental disasters (chemical and nuclear) that could make soil so contaminated it won't produce crops and freshwater supplies for both drinking and irrigation drying up in places. Interestingly, rapid advances in alternative energy could concurrently address fresh water shortage concerns namely hydrogen power, which has just one pollutant, distilled water.
 
Your opinion, while common, assumes there is no possibility of a boom and bust.

If we become too populated for the carrying capacity of our ecosystems, well that'll just motivate us to invent our way out of it! -- It doesn't work that way, actually.

Where did you get the idea I assumed either of those things?
 
Back
Top Bottom