There will be a time, probably in our lifetimes, when overpopulation and lack of resources to sustain the population will become an issue.

Colonizing Mars would take a long time and the resources would have to come from Earth. Terraforming Mars also would take a long time, plus we do not yet know how to nor do we have the technology to do it yet, plus the cost to do it would be astronomical.

Every year the world population increases. There is roughly 6.8 billion people on this planet.
We reached 1 billion in 1804
We reached 2 billion in 1927
It took 123 years to reach another billion people
We reached 3 billion in 1960
It took 33 years to reach another billion
We reached 4 billion in 1975
It took 15 years to reach another billion people
We reached 5 billion in around 1988
It took 13 years to reach another billion
We reached 6 billion in 1999
It took 11 years to reach another billion

By 2012 we will reach 7 billion.

By 2027 we will reach 8 billion

By 2044 we will reach 9 billion

We are dependent on resources that are limited. Fossil fuels, coal, and nuclear are the 3 main resources for power that runs our world. There is only a limited amount of fossil fuels and coal in the world.

We need to start thinking about creating a world where even 10 billion people is not a problem.

We need to start really working on utilizing abundant resources like water, the sun, or even wind. We already use it, but it is only a fraction of the power that we use. Most of the power we use is from fossil fuels or coal.

We are going to be entering a turning point soon. On one hand we utilize abundant resources. We start preparing for the vast population of the future.

However, if we keep on the road we are now, we will not survive. We will be fighting wars for resources. America and China will be the big 2 that are fighting each other. It will be world war 3.
The chances of our species surviving is not good if we keep doing what we are doing.

Where I got the info about the population is here
population of the world

Human population growth is roughly exponential, but so is growth of technology. Before cars came along, people predicted that cities would collapse into massive health hazards because of all the horse shit on the roads.

Solar is already a viable alternative; people just aren't adopting it yet. What we need there is, as usual, adoption of the principle of subsidiarity: no large institution should do what a smaller institution can do at least as well. In this case, no large power company should supply power to someone who can have solar panels installed and supply their own power.

At 1/28/11 03:50 PM, frigi wrote: Colonizing Mars would take a long time and the resources would have to come from Earth.

Yes, but the point of colonizing Mars isn't be to solve overpopulation, it's to colonize another world.

We need to start thinking about creating a world where even 10 billion people is not a problem.

How about making sure it doesn't get to ten billion people?

We need to start really working on utilizing abundant resources like water, the sun, or even wind. We already use it, but it is only a fraction of the power that we use. Most of the power we use is from fossil fuels or coal.

First of all, if you want to get a realistic estimate as to how much energy we will be using, keep in mind that not only is population increasing, but so are energy and resource consumption rates.

However, if we keep on the road we are now, we will not survive. We will be fighting wars for resources. America and China will be the big 2 that are fighting each other. It will be world war 3.
The chances of our species surviving is not good if we keep doing what we are doing.

Somehow I think it would be better if most of civilization collapses -- maybe something may emerge from the ruins. The majority of the ten billion people alive by then will be useless anyway. In any case, a world with ten billion people would not be a good thing, whether we have the resources to maintain it or not.

At 1/28/11 05:22 PM, LordZeebmork wrote: Human population growth is roughly exponential, but so is growth of technology.

Which is because the rate at which new technology is invented is dependent upon the amount of existing technology, etc. However, that doesn't mean that this progress is guaranteed.

Solar is already a viable alternative; people just aren't adopting it yet.

Of course not, but solar power still doesn't replace our need for oil.

In this case, no large power company should supply power to someone who can have solar panels installed and supply their own power.

There is, of course, the issue of economy of scale -- larger plants would be more efficient than smaller ones.

An interesting rant, OP, but you missed something: overpopulation isn't going to become an issue. It already is an issue. Half the world is starving, deforestation is moving faster than ever, and there's already more carbon in the air than there was preceding the last ice age. If current predictions about climate change hold true, our supply of drinking water is the next thing to go, and in many less developed countries this seems to be the case already.

These are things we have all heard before; another rant isn't going to change what people already think. The only surefire way to change the course of our actions is to lead by example. We need to take the ideas already in circulation and implement them ourselves: solar and wind power, biofuels, recycling raw materials, etc. And this is a struggle thanks to a combination of economics and bureaucracy, to the point that many of us are in no position to make these kinds of changes. Hence why it is important to elect officials who advocate such changes, or run for office ourselves. Proactivity is the key here.

We need to go with china's law were everyone only can have 1 child. If you want more you can go adopt the tons that are looking for a home.

At 1/28/11 07:23 PM, darkrchaos wrote: We need to go with china's law were everyone only can have 1 child. If you want more you can go adopt the tons that are looking for a home.

The problem is not developed countries. The U.S> is high on the lsit of child birth rate at the low 2s per family. That creates barely a zero population. Most developed countries are actually losing population via births. The third world is where we have the overpopulation problems. In those locations diseases are prevalent enough to create a need for many kids without the power to keep the population down, as was the case in and before the 19th Century. Also, these countries also tend to have very poor access to and knowledge about sexual protection.

At 1/28/11 08:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Also, these countries also tend to have very poor access to and knowledge about sexual protection.

You can thank christianity's ''morals'' for that bullshit, they keep sexually repressing children when they should be educated about sexual protection.

It's always been a problem or at least a predicted problem, the thing is is that technology advances which proves the prediction wrong.

But anyway population biology pretty much states that once a population reaches carrying capacity it will reach homeostasis meaning it will continue in a up down rate until something happens. We're already finding alternative energy sources as well as transporting the food to places without it.

Humanity won't stop advancing until there is no need too i.e. they can pretty much just relax and have everything taken care of by their inventions.

At 1/28/11 03:50 PM, frigi wrote:
We are dependent on resources that are limited. Fossil fuels, coal, and nuclear are the 3 main resources for power that runs our world. There is only a limited amount of fossil fuels and coal in the world.

This is true, but unfortunately it has been calculated that we will have enough oil for the world for at least 50 years and enough coal to last us over 150 years. Coal and oil companies will definitely continue their grip on the world for a long time. Any person with an ounce common sense would invest in a resource that is unlimited (e.g. solar, tidal, hydroelectric, wind, gaseous (hydrogen), magnetic, and geothermal), with the exception of a few applications that require a limited resource, such as submarines, jet-craft, space-craft, etc.Otherwise there is no excuse to not expanded to these sources of unlimited power, upfront costs are minor when compared to the result of UNLIMITED energy.

The problem with "green energy" is selling it as "green technology" instead of unlimited or inexhaustible energy. The vast majority of the global population heavily prefers economic power and stability over environmental conservation. We are not appealing to the consumers' senses, therefore the lack of progress!

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on _global_population_growth.html?utm_sourc e=newsletter_weekly_2010-07-12&utm_campa ign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email

You can close the topic now.

here guys eat some relevant Hawking copy pasta:

"But the present exponential growth can not continue for the next millennium. By the year 2600 the world's population would be standing shoulder to shoulder and the electricity consumption would make the Earth glow red hot." http://clinton4.nara.gov/Initiatives/Mil lennium/shawking.html
kind of interesting, even though we all already know about this. I guess it's just the fact that there's a number placed on it.

At 1/28/11 03:50 PM, frigi wrote: We need to start thinking about creating a world where even 10 billion people is not a problem.
We need to start really working on utilizing abundant resources like water, the sun, or even wind. We already use it, but it is only a fraction of the power that we use. Most of the power we use is from fossil fuels or coal.

Sigh..no we don't. We just need a free market.

Batshit insane individuals like yourself act like one day we'll run out of coal and then there will be complete chaos.
In reality, as these resources become increasingly scarce, they'll gradually become more and more expensive.
This will make alternative energy sources far more profitable and so everyone will be rushing to satisfy this new demand.

Without today's massive welfare statism and extremely regulated markets, overpopulation wouldn't be a problem.

However, if we keep on the road we are now, we will not survive. We will be fighting wars for resources. America and China will be the big 2 that are fighting each other. It will be world war 3.

By the time things get so bad, America will be so shit and poor that they won't be capable of war with China, other than making nuclear threats.
Heck, America can only afford its current wars because they're being funded by China. What happens when they try and take on their creditors?

At 1/28/11 07:14 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: An interesting rant, OP, but you missed something: overpopulation isn't going to become an issue. It already is an issue. Half the world is starving

Note that starvation has nothing to do with overpopulation. There's enough food for everyone in the world, with quite a large margin, the issue is that a lot of the food is thrown away. A LOT. Both in the US and Sweden, IIRC, about 25% of all food is thrown away. That's enough to feed a fair bunch of millions just there.

And if we reduced reliance on meat, which is very energy inefficient (with the exception of fish) we could easily feed two worlds of this size.

At 1/29/11 03:57 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: And if we reduced reliance on meat, which is very energy inefficient (with the exception of fish) we could easily feed two worlds of this size.

This is a dumb way of looking at things (your whole point, not just the meat thing). The reason the poor places don't have food is not because the rich places have too much. Were it not for the rich places, there never would have been so much food in existence to begin with.

What we should be doing is examining what makes the rich places capable of growing/buying so much food, and makes the the poor place unable to (obvs talking more fundamentally than "because they're poor").

At 1/29/11 05:07 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/29/11 03:57 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: And if we reduced reliance on meat, which is very energy inefficient (with the exception of fish) we could easily feed two worlds of this size.

This is a dumb way of looking at things (your whole point, not just the meat thing). The reason the poor places don't have food is not because the rich places have too much. Were it not for the rich places, there never would have been so much food in existence to begin with.

What we should be doing is examining what makes the rich places capable of growing/buying so much food, and makes the the poor place unable to (obvs talking more fundamentally than "because they're poor").

Well, the basic reasons why is because of:
1. Poor people often have to make suboptimal economic choices due to short-term survival being more relevant than long-term benefit. Child labor is a great example of this.
2. Political instability and/or corrupt dictatorial states.
3. Weak worker's movements, unions and the like.

The reason why we have so much food is due to us taking their food, due to economic and political power over them. Basically, it's quite easy to keep poor people poor through regulation (regulations made both by states/governments and corporations) and violence (again, both state and corporative violence). De-regulating or dissolving states remove their part in the oppression, but gives free hands to corporations to do the same thing. Saying "well the government can have you shot if you do this and that in their country" isn't much different than "well the corporation can have you shot if you do this and that on their property".

At 1/29/11 06:33 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: 3. Weak worker's movements, unions and the like.

Wait, so higher unemployment = more prosperity?
Wow! Take THAT, econ 101!

The reason why we have so much food is due to us taking their food, due to economic and political power over them. Basically, it's quite easy to keep poor people poor through regulation (regulations made both by states/governments and corporations) and violence (again, both state and corporative violence). De-regulating or dissolving states remove their part in the oppression, but gives free hands to corporations to do the same thing. Saying "well the government can have you shot if you do this and that in their country" isn't much different than "well the corporation can have you shot if you do this and that on their property".

No. Corporations have so much power only because of collusion with the state. Many African governments have been violently overthrown. Given that corporations have not even a fraction of the military capabilities of these overthrown military dictatorships, it is just lunacy to suggest that corporations are able to maintain control through force alone.

Here's a thought.
Have more children instead of less.
Do more to combat the childhood diseases killing kid's in 3rd world countries so more survive.
We get the planet to the point of overload.
We being humans & with thousands of years of history to prove what happens next is ...we go to war, kill off billions of competitors. Chances are some will survive & the whole cycle can start again !

Obviously the solution for this is that the World Leaders need to pass a new World Law on the U.N. Stating that if 1 country has too many people, it MAY give away some of its people to the lesser populated countries. I.e. Texas of America, Guatemalo of Brazil, etc.

At 1/29/11 05:07 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: What we should be doing is examining what makes the rich places capable of growing/buying so much food, and makes the the poor place unable to (obvs talking more fundamentally than "because they're poor").

Right, most of the developed nations are losing population, i.e. negative population growth so for one they have less to feed hence why China and India also have many troubles feeding their populations despite being some of the biggest agricultural centers in the worlds. That's many because in farms it's better to have more children hence more work is done then say in a city where you don't make your own food and have to pay for it making more children just a burden.

In Africa the main reason is that they don't have the capability to make farms as much as other nations are due to their terrain, worst hit being the former Belgian colony Democratic Republic Of The Congo.

It's great that more people are becoming aware of this issue. I think the best thing to do is probably to have no more than two kids. Since there are already two adults in the family, then in theory, the overpopulation problem would even itself out this well. Countries like China are already putting strict laws on having no more than a few children. It does seem like it's interferring with our personal lives to make something a law, so just decide for yourself. It's like the abortion issue, it's wrong to put a law on it when people have their own reasons.

At 1/28/11 10:44 PM, Warforger wrote: It's always been a problem or at least a predicted problem, the thing is is that technology advances which proves the prediction wrong.

That's just wishful thinking. Just because technology has been there to "save humanity" in the past doesn't mean it'll solve all our problems.

We're already finding alternative energy sources as well as transporting the food to places without it.

Last I checked we still use gasoline to drive our cars and coal to fuel our power plants.

Humanity won't stop advancing until there is no need to

There is no God-given law that states that humanity will always persevere given the odds or that technology will create some kind of breakthrough and that we won't have to worry about a problem anymore.

At 1/29/11 02:30 AM, Struggle wrote: here guys eat some relevant Hawking copy pasta:

"But the present exponential growth can not continue for the next millennium. By the year 2600 the world's population would be standing shoulder to shoulder and the electricity consumption would make the Earth glow red hot."

This is a perfect example of why there is a definite limit to growth. Even if we could avoid all the problems with space and food production, etc., you would get to the problem of heat dissipation -- assuming you even get there.

At 1/29/11 03:57 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: And if we reduced reliance on meat, which is very energy inefficient (with the exception of fish)

Yeah, no, I'm not giving up my hamburgers so we can have more people on this planet.

we could easily feed two worlds of this size.

I don't know why anyone would ever want to. More people is still not a good thing even IF we could accommodate them. The more people there are on this world, the less you matter.

At 1/28/11 07:14 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: An interesting rant, OP, but you missed something: overpopulation isn't going to become an issue. It already is an issue. Half the world is starving, deforestation is moving faster than ever, and there's already more carbon in the air than there was preceding the last ice age. If current predictions about climate change hold true, our supply of drinking water is the next thing to go, and in many less developed countries this seems to be the case already.

These are things we have all heard before; another rant isn't going to change what people already think. The only surefire way to change the course of our actions is to lead by example. We need to take the ideas already in circulation and implement them ourselves: solar and wind power, biofuels, recycling raw materials, etc. And this is a struggle thanks to a combination of economics and bureaucracy, to the point that many of us are in no position to make these kinds of changes. Hence why it is important to elect officials who advocate such changes, or run for office ourselves. Proactivity is the key here.

Good point, except your wrong. Overpopulation isn't why "half the world" is starving, its mostly corrupt leaders hoarding cash for themselves and taking everything away from the poor as soon as they get it. besides think about it, why is it that all the "overpopulated" places in the world have more than enough food? the starving countries tend to have a huge gap in wealth from the richest people and the vast majority of the rest of the country.

Deforestation isn't necessarily a problem of over population, its a product of people's ignorance and greed. There are all sorts of environmentally friendly alternatives to prevent deforestation, like using bamboo which grows much faster than most trees, and also since pandas don't seem to want to live anymore that just means more bamboo for the rest of us. or hey here's an idea. stop using new wood all together. there's plenty of wood that gets thrown into land fills that could be recycled and reused, on top of that there are tons of man made materials that could replace it.

Also, even if global warming causes the sea level to rise and ruin, in the worst case, ALL of the fresh water, there is a thing called desalinization. you see, what that does is it take the salt out of the sea water through a process, for you're sake i'll just explain it as wizardry, and makes it drinkable. the only countries that'll really suffer are the poor ones, but again not overpopulation, just corruption and greed. actually here's a fun fact. people on the coast drink sea water already, Einstein.

Then I read your second paragraph where you totally destroy your argument about it being overpopulation and almost agree with me.... obviously some one needs to learn about persuasive writing. First Rule: Focus.

just throw a few nuclear wars and legalise cannabalism and the population will decrease just fine

At 1/29/11 08:37 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/29/11 06:33 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: 3. Weak worker's movements, unions and the like.

Wait, so higher unemployment = more prosperity?
Wow! Take THAT, econ 101!

Unemployment is an artificial issue created by the capitalistic system to keep wages low. And without worker's movements, we'd have a much worse society in most of the world. It's mostly them who keeps child labor and slavery away. It's easy to see that the weaker unions a country have, the worse their workers are of, more or less.

No. Corporations have so much power only because of collusion with the state. Many African governments have been violently overthrown. Given that corporations have not even a fraction of the military capabilities of these overthrown military dictatorships, it is just lunacy to suggest that corporations are able to maintain control through force alone.

The reason they don't have military capabilities is because the governments don't allow them to.

At 1/29/11 10:49 AM, Warforger wrote: Right, most of the developed nations are losing population, i.e. negative population growth so for one they have less to feed hence why China and India also have many troubles feeding their populations despite being some of the biggest agricultural centers in the worlds. That's many because in farms it's better to have more children hence more work is done then say in a city where you don't make your own food and have to pay for it making more children just a burden.

No, it's because they're poor.

In Africa the main reason is that they don't have the capability to make farms as much as other nations are due to their terrain, worst hit being the former Belgian colony Democratic Republic Of The Congo.

So? They don't need farms. If they aren't good at farming, then them producing food is a bad thing.
Britain hasn't grown enough food to feed itself for something like 100 years now.
They do what they're good at, and then use the money from this to buy food from other places.
Comparative advantage, look it up.

It always cracks me up how quickly people jump to colonization of Mars whenever the topic of overpopulation arises.

Even if Mars was a lush beautiful world. Larger than Earth and more plentiful in resources. Fully terraformed, whatever.

Do you really think we could ship people there at a faster rate than we're making new people?

If your goal is to make the human race as populous as possible, then terraforming Mars is a great idea.

But what the hell does Mars have to do with solving overpopulation?

Can we ship 4 people to mars a second? Then we can roughly balance our birth-death over here.

At 1/29/11 10:00 AM, rifledark1 wrote: Obviously the solution for this is that the World Leaders need to pass a new World Law on the U.N. Stating that if 1 country has too many people, it MAY give away some of its people to the lesser populated countries. I.e. Texas of America, Guatemalo of Brazil, etc.

One, The UN has pretty much no power in enforcing anything. Two, how would a nation determine if it has too many people? Singapore is the most densely populated country in the world, yet it's a fully developed nation that can easily support more growth.

I actually just realized why overpopulation isn't a problem. Because I don't care what happens to superfluous amounts of people. In fact, if population and consumption aren't curbed at some point (and it certainly won't be) there will eventually be a major war, possibly a nuclear one, and the cycle will begin anew.

At 1/29/11 09:19 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/29/11 10:49 AM, Warforger wrote: Right, most of the developed nations are losing population, i.e. negative population growth so for one they have less to feed hence why China and India also have many troubles feeding their populations despite being some of the biggest agricultural centers in the worlds. That's many because in farms it's better to have more children hence more work is done then say in a city where you don't make your own food and have to pay for it making more children just a burden.

No, it's because they're poor.

If that were the case the population would be in the negative growth, but because China and India are agricultural centers it's booming since on a farm it's better to have more children as opposed to an industrialized nation less. Again this is where the food comes from, food would rarely even be sold.

In Africa the main reason is that they don't have the capability to make farms as much as other nations are due to their terrain, worst hit being the former Belgian colony Democratic Republic Of The Congo.

So? They don't need farms. If they aren't good at farming, then them producing food is a bad thing.
Britain hasn't grown enough food to feed itself for something like 100 years now.
They do what they're good at, and then use the money from this to buy food from other places.
Comparative advantage, look it up.

Britain however was always one of the richest and for a while the richest nation on the planet, while the Congo never was.

At 1/29/11 05:26 PM, Warbrain wrote:

At 1/28/11 07:14 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: An interesting rant, OP, but you missed something: overpopulation isn't going to become an issue. It already is an issue. Half the world is starving, deforestation is moving faster than ever, and there's already more carbon in the air than there was preceding the last ice age. If current predictions about climate change hold true, our supply of drinking water is the next thing to go, and in many less developed countries this seems to be the case already.

These are things we have all heard before; another rant isn't going to change what people already think. The only surefire way to change the course of our actions is to lead by example. We need to take the ideas already in circulation and implement them ourselves: solar and wind power, biofuels, recycling raw materials, etc. And this is a struggle thanks to a combination of economics and bureaucracy, to the point that many of us are in no position to make these kinds of changes. Hence why it is important to elect officials who advocate such changes, or run for office ourselves. Proactivity is the key here.

Good point, except your wrong. Overpopulation isn't why "half the world" is starving, its mostly corrupt leaders hoarding cash for themselves and taking everything away from the poor as soon as they get it. besides think about it, why is it that all the "overpopulated" places in the world have more than enough food? the starving countries tend to have a huge gap in wealth from the richest people and the vast majority of the rest of the country.

Read, duly noted and agreed. I was mistaken on this point.

Deforestation isn't necessarily a problem of over population, its a product of people's ignorance and greed. There are all sorts of environmentally friendly alternatives to prevent deforestation, like using bamboo which grows much faster than most trees, and also since pandas don't seem to want to live anymore that just means more bamboo for the rest of us. or hey here's an idea. stop using new wood all together. there's plenty of wood that gets thrown into land fills that could be recycled and reused, on top of that there are tons of man made materials that could replace it.

Again, read, duly noted and agreed.

Also, even if global warming causes the sea level to rise and ruin, in the worst case, ALL of the fresh water, there is a thing called desalinization. you see, what that does is it take the salt out of the sea water through a process, for you're sake i'll just explain it as wizardry, and makes it drinkable. the only countries that'll really suffer are the poor ones, but again not overpopulation, just corruption and greed. actually here's a fun fact. people on the coast drink sea water already, Einstein.

One, I am aware of desalinization. I am also aware of the limitations of the technology that make it expensive and impractical. It would be a worthwhile investment should potable water run low, but would still be a heavy burden even for wealthy countries due to its current financial and energy requirements (the latter of which could cause further detriment to the environment barring a significant change in where energy is derived from). Two, the personal attacks are completely unnecessary and I would ask you demonstrate some civility while you try to get your points across.

Then I read your second paragraph where you totally destroy your argument about it being overpopulation and almost agree with me.... obviously some one needs to learn about persuasive writing. First Rule: Focus.

I do not see how my second paragraph contradicted my first one. Human overpopulation is not a simplistic issue of demand outpacing supply; it also involves how the human population utilizes and disposes of the resources available to it, and this must be taken into account whenever discussing the matter. Also I am quite familiar with persuasive writing, and keenly aware that it is much more persuasive when it does not go out of its way to demean or insult the reader over a perceived lack of intelligence. I can not reasonably take advice on the rules of debate from someone who does not follow them.

Thank you for your contribution.