David Attenborough: How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?

[tranquilized]

I just watched this awesome doco on SBS. Its been posted on YouTube for those interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF15YAvT9G0

For those who don’t have the time or interest to watch it, try on these figures;

The planet earth can sustainably support;

15 billion people if all consumption was at India’s levels
18 billion people if all consumption was at Rwanda’s levels
2.5 billion people if all consumption was at Britain’s levels
1.5 billion people if all consumption was at USA levels
This is according to a scientist who contributed to the show.

The worlds human population was self-regulated to about 1 billion up until the year 1800, since which time the exploitation of fossil fuels has seen the population explode to the current number of 6.8 billion

The worlds population is currently increasing by 2 people every single second.

Now, the problems the worlds people face in terms of availability of resources and population levels is in many ways separate, yet closely related to the issues of global warming, in so far as reduction of consumption is one thing that’s needed to help solve both problems.

Seeing as most members here don’t seem to believe in global warming, I was curious as to peoples thoughts on this resource/population problem, which is based entirely on fact, not on arguably contentious science as global warming is.

I don’t want to start an argument on global warming, let’s leave that alone. My question basically is, what do people think of the legitimacy of the resource/population problem, and what, if anything, should be done about it.

[Bobman]

90% of the Earth's population consumes 10% of it's resources.

Can't see a happy future for us if we keep breeding like crazy!

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by Bobman

90% of the Earth's population consumes 10% of it's resources.

Can't see a happy future for us if we keep breeding like crazy!

Other way round. Dick smith is offering a cool mil to anyone who can offer a solution to population growth. After thinking about it for a while any solution would go against many human rights.

[Walkinshaw]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Other way round. Dick smith is offering a cool mil to anyone who can offer a solution to population growth. After thinking about it for a while any solution would go against many human rights.

Yes, large scale airborne/waterborne chemical sterilization doesn't go down to well as an idea.

[Streets]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Dick smith is offering a cool mil to anyone who can offer a solution to population growth.

What a scungy bastard! A solution to overpopulation would be worth way more than a lousy million bucks. Bloody tightarse poindexter.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Streets

What a scungy bastard! A solution to overpopulation would be worth way more than a lousy million bucks. Bloody tightarse poindexter.

I am sure $1m would be small change compared to what the rest of the worlds leaders would offer for the solution.

[Mad_Aussie]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Other way round. Dick smith is offering a cool mil to anyone who can offer a solution to population growth. After thinking about it for a while any solution would go against many human rights.

Its already happening, in a small scale currently. Homosexuality.

Its a natural population limit mechanism.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Mad_Aussie

Its already happening, in a small scale currently. Homosexuality.

Its a natural population limit mechanism.

Perhaps it is, but maybe our own beliefs and laws work against our own efforts to save the human race. For example some laws and religions make population reducing behaviour illegal or immoral. I could put up some more definite examples but that would push the envelope under the site T&C's, I am sure those that think about it could come up with examples of what I mean.

[Mad_Aussie]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Perhaps it is, but maybe our own beliefs and laws work against our own efforts to save the human race. For example some laws and religions make population reducing behaviour illegal or immoral. I could put up some more definite examples but that would push the envelope under the site T&C's, I am sure those that think about it could come up with examples of what I mean.

If I had it my way, I'd be paid to sit up on an overpass with my 303 and select the people who don't merge correctly to help alleviate the overcrowding issue.

The only problem is that threeOh brass is becoming expensive these days, and the gubment might not want to subsidize it.

[onfire]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Other way round. Dick smith is offering a cool mil to anyone who can offer a solution to population growth. After thinking about it for a while any solution would go against many human rights.

How about removing any and all the incentives to breed?

- Take away the " Baby bonus " and every other cash type incentive.

- Replace cash handouts with specialized " food stamps " .. eg. If the stamp reads " Woolworth's Home brand Nappies " the receiver of the coupon can only purchase said item. Dockets from supermarkets in turn will reflect items purchased using food stamps and become deemed un-returnable or exchangeable for cash or credit.

- If not food stamps, specialized debit cards that can only be used to purchase from a list of say for example 500 specialized items from Milk & Bread to Baby Food & Nappies. Any attempt to purchase items not on the list results in a instant denial at the register. Cash withdrawals are also blocked.

- Establish free day care clinics for receivers of any assistance ( coupons, debit cards, etc ) with in house access to doctors and dental. In exchange if not already employed, receivers must complete some form of community service or assistance for a minimum of 15 hrs per week while children are under care of the clinic.

How many members of the lower social demographic breed as a means of income? From what it appears a hell of a lot. How about we make it a lot harder for people to have children? Remove the support system and only at the most extreme cases offer financial support.

I'm sure telling people they wont be receiving money for simply having children, and that their spending and purchasing will be limited and governed by a coupon / debit system then being told they need to donate their time and energy in exchange for access to a day care clinic.. will stop a decent percentage of peopled having too many unnecessary children.

[Trek]

Originally Posted by onfire

How about removing any and all the incentives to breed?

- Take away the " Baby bonus " and every other cash type incentive.

- Replace cash handouts with specialized " food stamps " .. eg. If the stamp reads " Woolworth's Home brand Nappies " the receiver of the coupon can only purchase said item. Dockets from supermarkets in turn will reflect items purchased using food stamps and become deemed un-returnable or exchangeable for cash or credit.

- If not food stamps, specialized debit cards that can only be used to purchase from a list of say for example 500 specialized items from Milk & Bread to Baby Food & Nappies. Any attempt to purchase items not on the list results in a instant denial at the register. Cash withdrawals are also blocked.

- Establish free day care clinics for receivers of any assistance ( coupons, debit cards, etc ) with in house access to doctors and dental. In exchange if not already employed, receivers must complete some form of community service or assistance for a minimum of 15 hrs per week while children are under care of the clinic.

How many members of the lower social demographic breed as a means of income? From what it appears a hell of a lot. How about we make it a lot harder for people to have children? Remove the support system and only at the most extreme cases offer financial support.

I'm sure telling people they wont be receiving money for simply having children, and that their spending and purchasing will be limited and governed by a coupon / debit system then being told they need to donate their time and energy in exchange for access to a day care clinic.. will stop a decent percentage of peopled having too many unnecessary children.

Onfire, you are brilliant, wanted to give you rep again, but couldn't, sadly :(

You've summed up my thoughts and extended upon it.

Painfully, the ball started rolling too long ago in some respects to population control vs. scarcity of resources. It's gonna take one helluva push to reap any kind of rewards for our actions though.

The biggest problem lies in educating those who refuse to discipline themselves for the sake of everyone else, methinks. After all, "you can't cure stupid".

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Other way round. Dick smith is offering a cool mil to anyone who can offer a solution to population growth. After thinking about it for a while any solution would go against many human rights.

Do what China did...

Enforce a one-child policy.

India is a poor country because many families root like rabbits, have multiple children and cannot afford them. They look to other countries for aid.

They could help themselves by at least slowing population growth, like in China (which is now a growing economy!).

I'm doing my bit. After 4.5 years of Primary Teaching and also being a teenager at one stage, I don't plan on having any kids.

[F6T]

I missed the show but will check out the YouTube clip. There is also this fantastic little piece by David Suzuki on population growth at an exponential rate.

http://testtube.nfb.ca/

really scary stuff.

[Iggypoppin']

Got it in one yellow festiva, it's the ultimate catch 22

[Iggypoppin']

What's it called when koalas on Kangaroo Island are destroyed because there are too many and they are eating all the gum leaves? Culling?

[tranquilized]

population management was discussed in the doco, such as Chinas one child law, and some measures that were taken in India in the 70's which including sterilisation as punishment for any crime. Education was named as the most effective method of population management. Smarter people breed less, its a well known phenomenon.

A book I read a while back called "Peak Everything" had some extreme ideas for population management, my memory is hazy on the details but I think capitol punishment was mentioned a lot. The authors theory was, as resources run out the worlds population will revert to a sustainable level of one or two billion, meaning a huge number of people are going to die anyway, they might as well be criminals.

Like I said, extreme....

[Mickxr8]

unfortinatley natural progression has failed.. there are a plethora of reasons for this. most of witch can`t be discussed on here.
my 2c

[Mr Hardware]

tranquilized, you've got some great points. It is a fact that smart people breed less. I have my own little theory that your main two points are the essential cause of the rise and fall of civilizations, ie smart people breed so little that the civilization gets ruined by the stupids, then the civilization collapses, then the stupid savages revert to capital punishment and other survival of the fittest techniques to build up a strong civilization again and the cycle continues.

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

It is a fact that smart people breed less..

This scares me the most!

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

This scares me the most!

I know. But whilst society focuses on personal achievement rather than the family (ie dual incomes! everyone is career based! i can worry about kids when i'm 34! i want to live my life NOW!) well then hope is small. What ever happened to being proud about one for mum, one for dad and one for the country? Why is it that only deadbeat bogans should have the joys of 3 kids?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

I know. But whilst society focuses on personal achievement rather than the family (ie dual incomes! everyone is career based! i can worry about kids when i'm 34! i want to live my life NOW!) well then hope is small. What ever happened to being proud about one for mum, one for dad and one for the country? Why is it that only deadbeat bogans should have the joys of 3 kids?

Because as you said, the others are to busy to have kids and then when they start the biological clock has ticked for too long.

This goes into a lot of very political areas and points that would see thread closure pretty quickly. Lets just put it out there that there are more than the odd occasion that out own social welfare system supports population growth without increasing the means to support the population, all under the guise of human rights. I am sure you all know what I mean without getting too deep into it and I am also sure a lot of people would agree.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

tranquilized, you've got some great points. It is a fact that smart people breed less. I have my own little theory that your main two points are the essential cause of the rise and fall of civilizations, ie smart people breed so little that the civilization gets ruined by the stupids, then the civilization collapses, then the stupid savages revert to capital punishment and other survival of the fittest techniques to build up a strong civilization again and the cycle continues.

Interesting concept regarding the cycle and probably not far off the mark.

I know from my experience in my job, it is a disturbing trend that those households with the higher means to support children and educate them properly, tend to have half the number of kids than those that have inadequate means to support even one or two kids. This is not a phenomenon that is unique to our country, look at it on a global scale and you will find countries with a higher average individual wealth will tend to have smaller families than those with lower individual wealth.

Unfortunately all the really effective methods of population reduction are really distasteful in respect to human rights, no one has the right to decide who has the right to life.

Could we possibly reach a point where nature will take over and enforce its own cull, another black plague perhaps. As much as I am a staunch supporter of modern medicine (of course I am, its what I do), do we sometimes take it too far and change nature's own control mechanisms.

Perhaps our own human nature will take over again as it has done previously, no doubt we will again start throwing bombs around to cut down both the population and the breeding stock.

To state that the earth has a limit of population that its natural resources can support and that we are exceeding that is clear and I am sure very few people will dispute it.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

tranquilized, you've got some great points. It is a fact that smart people breed less. I have my own little theory that your main two points are the essential cause of the rise and fall of civilizations, ie smart people breed so little that the civilization gets ruined by the stupids, then the civilization collapses, then the stupid savages revert to capital punishment and other survival of the fittest techniques to build up a strong civilization again and the cycle continues.

You'll probably get a kick out of this flick, then.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by Rodp

You'll probably get a kick out of this flick, then.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

Funny you should mention that rodp, my wife and i brought that film up when we were discussing this only a few weeks back, I haven't seen it but she has and recommends i see it too!

Also reference the fat pool people in Wall-E

[leighm]

Human beings are the world's greatest killer of the earth and of each other. Perhaps we are programmed to want to kill each other to control our growth as we are on the top of the food chain? Or maybe some people are just really dumb....

Maybe if we got rid of speed cameras everyone on the roads would automatically die, therefore saving the earth from over population.

[ubute]

Maybe the population will self regulate a bit when the next major deadly flu strain rips through and no vaccination is made in time, bit of a nasty way tho. Whether for good or bad, the advancement of medical science means that the weakest are surviving much more often now.

[Mr Hardware]

Quite so geckoGT. I'm relatively sure the social welfare system was put in place to help the middle-class couples that are on the verge of 'can we or can't we afford kids' to then say 'yes, because of the government, we can afford kids'. Unfortunately this help from the government can get abused, and unlike other forms of government help, influences far more than just the receiver of the cheque, it is society wide.

Also anyone who thinks that modern medicine means you can have a baby when you like obviously hasn't seen a birth defects by mother's age chart and how it absolutely skyrockets past 34 or so

[Hardtopxb]

Smart people do not necesarily have smart offspring.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Hardtopxb

Smart people do not necesarily have smart offspring.

Maybe not but the odds are certainly much better.

[Hardtopxb]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Maybe not but the odds are certainly much better.

Granted.