Well I have a background in enviro science, but you don't need to be in enviro science to understand how to address this problem. Of course, you get science denying idiots like Pat who don't know enough about the subject to realise they know nothing. But that is yahoo answers for you.
Anyway there are a few correlations with low population growth. These are high average income/wealth, high levels of education (especially among women) and access to adequate family planning. Of course, these all correlate because the countries with low growth rates are wealthy, educate women and have access to family planning. So it is possible that we could address two of any three of these variables in a given developing country and not reduce the growth rate because it may require all three.
The main problem from exponential growth rate is resource depletion. This will lead to wars since resource limitations were the first things human populations ever came into conflict over. If we cannot reduce the growth rate, the impacts of resource limitation can be spread across generations (as opposed to waiting until rapid depletion occurs) which will offset the amount of conflict. To do this we must regulate resource use and use it more wisely. Presently the wealthy nations use vastly more resources to produce food than they need. The major problem for this is the demand for meat. Livestock products make up less than 10% of the global food budget, but use up around 50% of all the crops we grow and 80% of all agricultural land. Livestock products also require vastly more water and typically must be shipped long distances. If people in the wealthy nations take responsibility for these facts and make efforts to consume fewer animal products, then this will reduce the overall amount of resources being used right now. A dietary shift is inevitable as we near the carrying capacity so it makes sense to do it voluntarily before there are severe effects on the remaining ecosystem we extract our resources from.
Since the human population is expected to reach 9 billion within 35 years, and food production cannot increase at the same rate without intolerable impacts on ecosystems; food prices are projected to increase dramatically in this time (UNEP estimates by 70-100%). The amount of extra space required to feed those extra 2 billion people will threaten many plant and animal species. Loss of biodiversity has the potential to harm humans through the increased spread of some pathogens. It makes much more sense to use our resources with greater efficiency NOW than to wait and count the cost of all the impacts. My greatest hope is for the introduction of vertical farming in cities, which will generate employment in areas where populations are highest and reduce resource use by producing plant and algae based foods in the areas where they will be consumed while reducing things like water usage as the transpired water can be collected and reused. It just requires some political will to get it started.
Another problem which arises is highlighted by Pat's nonsensical rant. Humans have NEVER before had any effect on ecosystems they were not living in themselves, so have never had to consider what is occurring in places they cannot see. But with modern technology, we are changing the amount of water available in ecosystems plus finite resources like phosphorus which must be replaced for a system to remain productive. This is an extremely challenging facet of modern life. How do you get people to accept reality when they cannot experience it directly? How do you get people like Pat (or maxx as he is more well known) to accept science when he/she is incapable of understanding it? Sadly, these are questions I cannot answer; but hopefully enough people will act to reduce their impacts so that the selfish or desperately ignorant people like Pat/maxx will not be making as large an impact on the world as they currently are.
I was going to skip answering until I saw the attack on Paul Ehrlich. He may go for the most controversial topics to write about but he is hardly nutty, nor was he wrong. Nice guy, too. We had a pleasant chat in 1963, at the International Congress of Zoology, where we were both presenting. Anyhow, all you have to do is look at the conditions in Daifur, Bangladesh, and some of the undeveloped, overpopulated regions of the world to see that he was right. Malthus was an optimist.
Reversing the trend would not be easy. If the entire world were developed, we could make a big dent by reversing internal revenue tax codes that allow deductions for each child, up to an inordinate number. If we stopped the deductions at two, had no deductions for the third, and started to penalize fro the fourth on, there would be economic incentive to control family size. Alas, our Social Security system is based on a gradually-increasing work force. Congress might have to start paying back all the money they have taken from the fund for pork-barrel projects.
However, the world is not developed. The problem wil correct itself, sort of. In studies on rodents, Anderson showed that the more dense the population, the more antisocial the animals become. Expressions of this behavior include crime and war. Both reduce the population.
The world population needs enough resources. If we could find ways to mass produce food and drinking water, the population could continue growing to however large we can support it. Living space isn't really a problem. People just need to give up their luxury homes and live in a small apartment. Take Japan and China for example, they've got quite a high population density.
Making the food might be a problem, perhaps scientists will grow steaks from trees or something less ridiculous.
There will be a point where this world and our technology are not able to support more human life. I do think that before we reach that point, war would decimate our numbers. If not we would be like yeast and die from starvation or in our own excrement.
I would like to add that one of the unintended consequences of collectively taking care of the old has reduced the need to have children to look after us in our old age. And combined with basic human greed (children cost money) this has reduced the desire to have as many children as we once did. I do realize this is an oversimplification but it is largely backed up by real world examples. I do acknowledge that (some) organized religions in parts of this world counter this trend and is the reason why I think we will see world war 3.
I am not an environment scientist, but do want to make myself heard on this issue.
Humans are no different than any other biological population growth. There is an initial period of growth to establish survival of the population that depends upon the difference between their breeding/mortality rate, balanced against the available resources. If a population succeeds in extracting more resources from the environment than it needs then the population growth rate will increase, generally at an exponential rate, until there are constraints placed on the available environmental resources.
Humans have certainly experienced exponential population growth since the renaissance period and may continue to grow exponentially, then plateau in growth, prior to going into decline. All populations must live within the 'carrying capacity' of the environmental resources that are available to them. If the population growth exceeds, or overshoots, the 'carrying capacity' of the available resources then the population will go into decline until a balance is restored back below the carrying capacity of the environment. Alternatively, the environment available to human population may change and either reduce or increase in its ability to provide suitable resources.
Where the human population is situated right now is subject to debate but my guesstimate is we have reached the end of exponential growth and likely in a plateau phase while a whole range of resource problems are either managed well or poorly. The environmental condition of the planet is in definite major decline so the ability to supply suitable resources to sustain the population growth is becoming severely constrained. Poor resource management will result in population decline. Simple as that.
So there is a very strong need to manage available environmental resources well. Colonisation of another planet is an option to increase the population away from mother earth. These are the biological facts for humans. Water is the most precious resource for humans so that must be the major priority, followed closely by restoration of the rapid decline in biodiversity across the globe.
Obviously, continuing to feed the population is major problem and others have discussed modified agricultural practices and dietary habits. I will add to this to say educating people to incorporate living off the earth has enormous benefits. Herbs, vegetables, fruit, grown in home gradens and apartment balconies can help a lot. Likewise, a return to localised market gardens for small communities. The Bristish maintain their neighbourhood allotments where households get allocated a lot amongst many other lots and grow a range of foods that they share/sell amongst themselves. This is why good water cycle and biodiversity management is crucial because it supplies the ecological integrity required for good soils and environmental health. Many cultures still maintain these practices such as the Greeks and Italians. It is more the major western consumer countries that need to get back to the grass roots of life and stop relying upon multinational, monopolosied, food producers and supermarkets that provide the mass produced, processed foods most consume. Attitude, education and significantly improved environmental design of the urban living space would bring this about.
You came to the global warming section where a whole range of 'misguided people' will advise that CO2 emmissions, carbon taxes, Government control of your life, and controlling your carbon footprint are the most imperative issues for the planet. I very strongly suggest you keep to your view that environmental science issues such as good management of the water cycle and biodiversity are far more crucial. Both to the planet and human survival.
Your question is nonsensical. Those who have taken on this issue in the past have proven to be plain nuts.
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)
That man is nuttier than a fruit cake, yet the 'saviors of the earth' highly regard him even though his predictions are laughably wrong.
A government is needed to provide organization for the common good of the people. This is natural. But when a government takes it on to provide everything for the people, then that is unnatural. When a government deems it necessary to limit the number of people, it is admitting it is a failure as a government. A true government will embrace more people since more people are an asset to the earth. It is a failed government who sees people as a liability.
We haven't begun to see the earth's capacity for sustaining human numbers. But today we see that many children are starving. Is this because the earth cannot produce enough? No, it is due to the meddling of governments. Case in point, President Obama sent the UN $100 billion last December in the name of Global Warming, which is an unproven idea. What would happen if that money went to feeding starving children, instead of filling the coffers of the fat UN dignitaries? Would not that definitely reduce the number of people starving each year? Your answer has to be yes. Thus, it is only reasonable that greedy self serving governments are the cause of the masses going hungry.
Zimbabwe is another example. It was once called Rhodesia and the breadbasket of Africa. Now the people are starving and the government has $214 in its coffers as of last week. Was this because due to Rhodesia losing its size or climate change? No, it is totally due to the UN backed Communist government.
So you can see that your question has no merits in any practical sense. The real question should be, which government would be best for the earth's population?
Climate Realist doesn't see the connection. I understand the connection. Let me try.
First off you need to understand the facts about overpopulation. There isn't any! I'll help you understand with math. The entire world's population takes up the space equivalent to less than 1/3rd of a cubic mile. To figure this one has to understand that an average person's size. 7 cubic feet. 7 billion people x 7 cubic feet. A cubic mile is 5280x5280x5280. You can do the rest.
Here's a satellite view of the world provided by NASA :http://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/map/viewer/#app...
Another thing that I hope you can comprehend is that the UN proposed an initiative to depopulate the planet (I think you are on the list. I know that I could be. LOL!). It's called Agenda 21/Depopulation. George Bush Sr signed this initiative back in the early 1990s and all subsequent Presidents have supported this too. They aren't shy about wanting this. "Global Warming" is part of this equation. It has been very clear that the head of the IP CC wants 'Global Governance'. This is the over-all objective of the UN. You can find a YouTube called "Agenda 21/Depopulation for dummies" that gives a better perspective on what they are wanting to do with people. How does it feel to be a 'lab rat'?
Here's a bigger connection that shows how there are Elites who want Global Governance. It is how our monetary system came to be. It's very detailed and explains a lot about the 'History of the World' when it comes to our monetary system and who controls it. The U.S. only lacks the political will to do anything about all of this. 'Smoke and Mirrors" has hidden this objective for years and the Rothschild family has been the biggest perpetrator. If you have the 'kahunas' to watch either one of these videos, then you may be more informed as to our dilemma. Good Luck! :
What does this question have to do with global warming? Unless you are willing to commit mass murder, you will not bring down the population fast enough to curb global warming. And if I didn't value human life, I would just let Earth warm. If we use zero emission energy sources, zero emissions times any population = zero emissions. Population does need to be kept in check, but because we need to be able to feed everyone. Global warming is not a population problem.
For those of you who think that alarmist rhetoric related to the catastrophic consequences of world overpopulation began in the 1960s with a book called "The Population Bomb" you are sorely mistaken. In 1798 Europe Reverend Malthus declared that human population was increasing faster than it could sustain itself which would lead to famine, wars, etc. Many of the same arguments we have today. Then we have Aristotle who stated that laws needed to be established to control Greek population.
Why do I mention this? Because it's relevent. We have to understand why these dire consequences never occured even though world population blew past the thresholds of their theoretical boundaries for catastrophy. And the answer was technology. Better farming techniques enabled a growing population to sustain itself.
Today our crop yield per acre is many times that of 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. Every year the alarmists decry that our soil is being depleted yet every year we grow the same yield per acre. Only limiting factors really is the weather. The continental united states is less than 10% of the world's land mass yet produces 25% of the world's food. Not all the land mass in the continental US produces food so think about it. If Africa had the agricultural infrustructure that the US has our world population can triple and still have plenty left over to eat. We grow food in the US in the most uninhabitable places if not for our technology. Imperial Valley, CA.
We have technology that would allow us to create floating hydroponic farms across the oceans. Our civilizations haven't even scratched 70% of the earth's surface yet we have technology that would enable us to colonize it if we want.
So, what's the dangers of world overpopulation on humans? It's the self imposed limitations human civilizations place upon itself if we are to consider what aristotle and reverend malthus said and what human civilization in their time did. And that was to prove them wrong then and has been proving the author of 'The Population Bomb' wrong today.
The problem as you envision it can easily be solved by getting rid of warlord dictators in africa and establishing true democratic governments across the entire continent and develop a modern agricultural infrustructure. Use our technology and start devoloping ocean based agriculture and yes your idea of urban agriculture would contribute too. Add to that incentives for US citizens to develop small private gardens at their residence to suppliment their own food resources. In metropolis areas convert the rooftops of every building into a garden to produce local food sources. One can grow a small orchard atop most flat top buildings in Manhattan and may absorb some heat concentration within the urban thermal zones too.
I planted 12 tomato plants in a 3 foot by 8 foot area which yield about 70 pounds of tomatoes. I have bell peppers growing next to my TV in my living area with bright red bell peppers on it and it's the dead of winter here.
Our food resources are limited to our own personal ambitions and a geopolitical infrustructure and not necessarily the environment as some alarmists want you to believe.
give me some of your real ideas on how to fix this problem. i have my own opinion on im wanting to see if anyone is thinking the same as me.
