PDA

View Full Version : How many billion of people earth could potentially support.



LeBrok
30-09-16, 07:10
Idk, by 2036 we could be creeping up to 10 billion people on earth. We are at 7 billion in something and still trying to solve hunger issues. We don't have enough land to feed 10 billion people let alone 7 billion, colonizing planets might be the only evolutionary logical option in the end; ever since we humans first left the trees, we started multiplying exponentially until by about 10,000 bc, we dwelled on every continent besides Antarctica. Although I agree, we could be dealing with Native Martians. I'd feel more comfortable if Martian colonists start out creating "oxygen rich dome covered" cities and have astronauts to explore the terrain with space suits every workday.

Keep in mind in the year 1900 the world had a population of 1.6 billion people, now in 2016 we are at a population of 7.45 billion people and counting.


http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/Woudln't be much cheaper to colonize the moon, not Mars? Besides current hunger is due to poverty in some countries and not because we can't produce more food. Half of agrarian fields of Canada and Poland (countries I'm familiar with) are covered by meadows now, because it is not worth to plant crops.

Twilight
30-09-16, 16:04
Woudln't be much cheaper to colonize the moon, not Mars? Besides current hunger is due to poverty in some countries and not because we can't produce more food. Half of agrarian fields of Canada and Poland (countries I'm familiar with) are covered by meadows now, because it is not worth to plant crops.

You might be surprised, everyday when I come to work downtown there is always going to be signs of poverty. It might be liberal of me to say this but poverty isn't just a problem in 3rd world countries. If we build more cities for people to live in and expand human territory, we can create more jobs and more dirt to farm so we won't exhaust the soil. We can create soil on Mars by building massive compost plantations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Seattle (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Seattle)

Moi-même
30-09-16, 17:34
We have the technology and the know-how to feed over 10 millions of people now, and even more so if we improve land usage in third world. Hunger nowadays is politic, those walking skeletons you see are mostly mentally ill people. You government could help them out, but it chose not to, because voters don't want to waste public money on them. And anyway, they are not the kind of people which would be send to a martian colony, nor would they replace those who would left and take the slack in the job vacuum. The money invest in an hypothetical martian colony would save much more people if it was spent on earth instead.

Plus, I highly doubt a martian colony will help in anyway ethnic Somalians under the care of Ethiopian government who live in a contested area. The less money their government spend there, the less it risks to lose if the territory go to Somalia in the end, whenever this "when" happen. Also, the less these ethnic Somalians eat, the less the reproduce. Go check Eastern Ethiopia on google map, see how little roads... I mean paths there are. Martian harvest couldn't reach them if there is no proper road to deliver it, not even proper airport receive the goods.

Which doesn't mean a martian colony isn't a good idea, just that it isn't a solution to hunger in the world. If governments don't have a clear mandate to make sure everyone is feed, they just don't. At the current pace, we will have starving martian colonists begging next to the great martian harvest.

Twilight
30-09-16, 18:42
We have the technology and the know-how to feed over 10 millions of people now, and even more so if we improve land usage in third world. Hunger nowadays is politic, those walking skeletons you see are mostly mentally ill people. You government could help them out, but it chose not to, because voters don't want to waste public money on them. And anyway, they are not the kind of people which would be send to a martian colony, nor would they replace those who would left and take the slack in the job vacuum. The money invest in an hypothetical martian colony would save much more people if it was spent on earth instead.

Plus, I highly doubt a martian colony will help in anyway ethnic Somalians under the care of Ethiopian government who live in a contested area. The less money their government spend there, the less it risks to lose if the territory go to Somalia in the end, whenever this "when" happen. Also, the less these ethnic Somalians eat, the less the reproduce. Go check Eastern Ethiopia on google map, see how little roads... I mean paths there are. Martian harvest couldn't reach them if there is no proper road to deliver it, not even proper airport receive the goods.

Which doesn't mean a martian colony isn't a good idea, just that it isn't a solution to hunger in the world. If governments don't have a clear mandate to make sure everyone is feed, they just don't. At the current pace, we will have starving martian colonists begging next to the great martian harvest.

3rd world countries there needs to be Governmental improvement I agree with you but it just so happens that I work for the Government as an employee and with a mental disability. I'd like to help the poor get back to having jobs. Anyways in that case you can move this to a different thread if you'd like mods, moving on subject as for populating Mars I am looking forward to colonizing planets.

Tomenable
02-10-16, 02:51
Idk, by 2036 we could be creeping up to 10 billion people on earth. We are at 7 billion in something and still trying to solve hunger issues. We don't have enough land to feed 10 billion people let alone 7 billion,

J. P. Süssmilch estimated that the Earth could produce enough food to feed 13,932,000,000,000,000 people:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=8LJszviHVaoC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=1741+johann+estimated+earth+population&source=bl&ots=wHN9OsDxKP&sig=6FEUyfW3e0dDn9bvcBqVtfA9ddI&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN3u_ugJzOAhXrJZoKHQYXBS0Q6AEIJDAB#v=on epage&q=Johann&f=false

https://s3.postimg.org/vri6m3t2r/Shuemilch.png

More about that guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Peter_Süssmilch


Keep in mind in the year 1900 the world had a population of 1.6 billion people

Source? I think that modern estimates of past population size are a bit too low.

Let's take a look at some old estimates:

In 1672 Giovanni Battista Riccioli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Riccioli) estimated that the Earth had 1.0 billion inhabitants
In 1685 Issac Vossius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Vossius) estimated that the Earth had 0.5 billion inhabitants at that time

Source: https://www.coursehero.com/file/8034907/Lecture9-13/

In 1741 Johann Peter Süssmilch estimated that the Earth had 1.0 billion inhabitants


We are at 7 billion in something and still trying to solve hunger issues

What hunger issues ???

People in First World countries are throwing away a lot of food, and obesity is their problem, not "hunger issues".

There is excess of food.

Why do Americans promote this "Fat Acceptance Movement" thing if - supposedly - you have hunger issues ???

Twilight
02-10-16, 03:10
J. P. Süssmilch estimated that the Earth could produce enough food to feed 13,932,000,000,000,000 people:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=8LJszviHVaoC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=1741+johann+estimated+earth+population&source=bl&ots=wHN9OsDxKP&sig=6FEUyfW3e0dDn9bvcBqVtfA9ddI&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN3u_ugJzOAhXrJZoKHQYXBS0Q6AEIJDAB#v=on epage&q=Johann&f=false

https://s3.postimg.org/vri6m3t2r/Shuemilch.png

More about that guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Peter_Süssmilch



Source? I think that modern estimates of past population size are a bit too low.

Let's take a look at some old estimates:

In 1672 Giovanni Battista Riccioli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Riccioli) estimated that the Earth had 1.0 billion inhabitants
In 1685 Issac Vossius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Vossius) estimated that the Earth had 0.5 billion inhabitants at that time

Source: https://www.coursehero.com/file/8034907/Lecture9-13/

In 1741 Johann Peter Süssmilch estimated that the Earth had 1.0 billion inhabitants



What hunger issues ???

People in First World countries are throwing away a lot of food, and obesity is their problem, not "hunger issues".

There is excess of food.

Why do Americans promote this "Fat Acceptance Movement" thing if - supposedly - you have hunger issues ???

Good to know about the numbers, but I'm afraid that you didn't see my links I provided I'll post the sources again ^_^. For the link that doesn't work, you can copy the link and paste it onto the URL bar. It was just an idea thought that is a problem in Seattle politics, people are simply moving out of small towns and making it to the big city but there is simply not enough land to go around. If you'd like I can talk more about this in another thread but for here it's all about Mars.

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Seattle

Tomenable
02-10-16, 03:20
Overpopulation is not a problem of Europe or North America. It is a Third World problem.

The vast majority of all population growth in the world since 1938 was in poor countries:

Change in global population (numbers in millions) between years 1938 and 2013:

Continent ------------- population 1938 --- population 2013 -- (percent increase)

Asia ---------------------------- 1144.6 --------- 4298.7 ------------ (+ 276%)
Europe -------------------------- 529.0 ---------- 742.5 ------------- (+ 40%)
Americas ----------------------- 263.8 ---------- 972.0 ------------- (+ 268%)
Africa --------------------------- 148.2 ---------- 1110.6 ------------ (+ 649%)
Oceania ------------------------- 10.5 ----------- 38.3 --------------- (+ 265%)

Total --------------------------- 2096.1 --------- 7162.1 ------------- (+ 242%)

Projections until 2100 also show, that only Africa has a problem with too fast population growth:

http://static1.techinsider.io/image/55d248522acae7c7018c0c38-1200-900/regional-population-projections-centered-legend.png

http://static1.techinsider.io/image/55d248522acae7c7018c0c38-1200-900/regional-population-projections-centered-legend.png

In Europe we actually have the opposite problem - too low fertility rates and aging populations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA

Tomenable
02-10-16, 03:35
It was just an idea thought that is a problem in Seattle politics, people are simply moving out of small towns and making it to the big city but there is simply not enough land to go around.

In Wyoming or Montana, you have only 6-7 people per one square mile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density#Density_ by_states_by_population_rank_and_land_area

This is wilderness by European standards. Almost nobody lives there, LOL.

LeBrok
02-10-16, 05:03
With new food production technologies coming in, and if we seed all we can and cut more forests and irrigate deserts, and recycle waste, and produce most things of sand and carbon, we can support 30 billion people here on earth. Not that we need that many, far from it, but speaking about theoretical possibility.
I think humankind would be just doing fine with 1 billion people.
Personally I'm find around few friends in nice vacation spot. ;)

Twilight
02-10-16, 07:24
In Wyoming or Montana, you have only 6-7 people per one square mile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density#Density_ by_states_by_population_rank_and_land_area

This is wilderness by European standards. Almost nobody lives there, LOL.

Interesting, it seems that the states that are really small in that link tend to run via the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. Well I suppose we need more cities, I don't think the Native Americans would approve of us cutting down forests.

Boreas
02-10-16, 08:18
Overpopulation is not a problem of Europe or North America. It is a Third World problem.

The vast majority of all population growth in the world since 1938 was in poor countries:

Change in global population (numbers in millions) between years 1938 and 2013:

Continent ------------- population 1938 --- population 2013 -- (percent increase)

Asia ---------------------------- 1144.6 --------- 4298.7 ------------ (+ 276%)
Europe -------------------------- 529.0 ---------- 742.5 ------------- (+ 40%)
Americas ----------------------- 263.8 ---------- 972.0 ------------- (+ 268%)
Africa --------------------------- 148.2 ---------- 1110.6 ------------ (+ 649%)
Oceania ------------------------- 10.5 ----------- 38.3 --------------- (+ 265%)

Total --------------------------- 2096.1 --------- 7162.1 ------------- (+ 242%)

Projections until 2100 also show, that only Africa has a problem with too fast population growth:

http://static1.techinsider.io/image/55d248522acae7c7018c0c38-1200-900/regional-population-projections-centered-legend.png

http://static1.techinsider.io/image/55d248522acae7c7018c0c38-1200-900/regional-population-projections-centered-legend.png

In Europe we actually have the opposite problem - too low fertility rates and aging populations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA

Over population is also problem of Europe. You can't escape it. The difference is Europe population has already reached two three times over the sustainable population limit. The population is not growing but still high. There is no big mammal left.

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/maplocatingw.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Population2Centuries.jpg/400px-Population2Centuries.jpg

bicicleur
02-10-16, 10:18
it is possible to produce plenty of food for the whole world population
but poverty and hunger cannot be solved with money
the problem is to distribute the food to the right places
most causes for poverty and hunger are local, local corruption and greed, or wars and in some cases climate change

climate change has always been there, not all of todays climate change is due to greenhouse effect
which doesn't mean greenhouse effect shouldn't be contained

besides, human life is abundant and redundant, planeth earth would be better of with a few less

colonising other planets is part of human nature
it will and should be done, but it won't happen in the near future

bicicleur
02-10-16, 10:22
In Wyoming or Montana, you have only 6-7 people per one square mile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density#Density_ by_states_by_population_rank_and_land_area

This is wilderness by European standards. Almost nobody lives there, LOL.

population pressure is much higher in Europe than in America

DuPidh
02-10-16, 13:39
Over population is also problem of Europe. You can't escape it. The difference is Europe population has already reached two three times over the sustainable population limit. The population is not growing but still high. There is no big mammal left.

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/maplocatingw.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Population2Centuries.jpg/400px-Population2Centuries.jpg
Here is a smart Turk! I cant agree more with you! Europe is way up overpopulated! I would say the realistic population levels of Europe are those of 1800. Continental Europe can not feed its people if it does not import food! The acceptal density per square km should not be more than 50. Germany I think has more than 400. 8 times more people than it can hold!!!!?

LeBrok
02-10-16, 20:20
Over population is also problem of Europe. You can't escape it. The difference is Europe population has already reached two three times over the sustainable population limit. The population is not growing but still high. There is no big mammal left.

How do you define sustainablility of population?

Keep in mind that existence of big wild mammals is not necessary for people to exist. Likewise life was going strong long before people showed up. Big mammals are usually at the top of food chain, not important for health of life on earth in general. Bigger problem would be if we killed all the bacteria which decompose dead animals and plants, or we killed enough plants to cause oxygen level to fall.

LeBrok
02-10-16, 20:42
it is possible to produce plenty of food for the whole world population
but poverty and hunger cannot be solved with money
the problem is to distribute the food to the right places Money/GDP is the problem. Hungry people don't have money to buy food, either locally or from abroad. For example, I don't grow food but I can buy any type of food I want. I have a job and money. I agree however, that instability and corruption are local hindrances for development and prosperity.


or wars and in some cases climate change
climate change has always been there, not all of todays climate change is due to greenhouse effect
which doesn't mean greenhouse effect shouldn't be containedActually, greenhouse gas, as the name points to, is good for growing more plants, more food for people and animals, which we consume too. Greenhouse gas makes earth warmer, moist and greener. It is a normal practice in greenhouses to double and triple amount of CO2 in the air, to achieve 50% more crops.


besides, human life is abundant and redundant, planeth earth would be better of with a few lessNot only this, Earth would be just fine, flying around the sun for eons without any life on it. Barren like Mars or Moon. Planets don't care, you know. Loving Mother Nature or spirit Gaia is extrapolation of human feelings and believes on the world.
Surely, it would make me sad if there was no life on earth, but we can't say the same about mother nature or Earth. One doesn't exist the other doesn't have feelings.

Moi-même
02-10-16, 21:03
Here's an interesting paper about population growth between 1960 and 1999, when world population doubled from 3 to 6 billions:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777609/

Interestingly, in the 40 years while, the increase of food supply was even higher than the increase in population, meaning we even produce more food per capita now than in 1960:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777609/bin/nihms335409f4.jpg

And the 1990 UN world population projections show the probability are not even 1 in 2 for the world population to double again, at least not in the 21st century. It could even be decreasing back to 6 billions by the dawn of the 22nd century.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777609/bin/nihms335409f1.jpg

There are a lot more interesting details in the paper, but it would take too much place to repeat it all in one post, so feel free to follow the original link if the subject interest you. Therefore, there is nothing to get anxious about, even the land use in Europe is changing as less arable land is needed to produce the same among of food. Hence, land is left wild and the wolf is coming back.

Back to Tomenable video, the one thing they aren't talking about is the major improvement in medicine. Back to the early 1900s, you would expect between a third to half of the kids in any given family to die young. Nowadays, one can realistically expect all of their kid to make it to adulthood. We don't need spare children anymore. Another part of the equation is government is taking care of the old people. So we don't need to have extra kids, in hope some will make it to adulthood, so if we manage to get old, one will be prosperous enough to take care of us in addition to their own kids. Even with this kind of calculation, population wasn't growing too fast up to 1900.

Fast forwards to WWII, major improvement in medicine made people live much older and nearly all kids to make it to adulthood, while people still had large families. This is what caused the population to explode in the 20th century. The peak is passed in much countries, there may be some region in Africa where they haven't reached it yet, but most of the continent have already declining birth rates. Even if we do reach the number of 10 billions as in UN's average scenario, we will probably never even fall down to the 1960's food production per capita. And no need to colonize Mars for that.

LeBrok
02-10-16, 21:12
I would say the realistic population levels of Europe are those of 1800. Why not 1200 or 1000 BC?




Continental Europe can not feed its people if it does not import food! As usually, your information is wrong! It reminds me your assurance that US doesn't produce and export anything anymore. Except of course a little fact of 2 trillion dollars of exporting goods.


Europe food trade is balanced. And this in spite of agricultural land shrinking 20% in last 50 years!
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS?locations=EU
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/thumb/8/82/Trade_balance_in_agricultural_products%2C_EU-28%2C_2002%E2%80%9313.png/350px-Trade_balance_in_agricultural_products%2C_EU-28%2C_2002%E2%80%9313.png
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Extra-EU_trade_in_agricultural_goods

And if needed, Europe is still in position to double food production. Half of European fields are underutilized because food prices are too low due to overproduction/not needed.




Germany I think has more than 400. 8 times more people than it can hold!!!!? What are the signs of Germany "not holding" that you see? Do you have secret information?

Boreas
02-10-16, 21:15
How do you define sustainablility of population?

Let me explain what sustainabilility is not, with an example

If you catch more fish than fish population increase in your local sea zone and after years, you have to go international zone. After decades you have to go other continental zone till there is no more space to go.

For more detail, search Somalia - European Fishers.



Keep in mind that existence of big wild mammals is not necessary for people to exist. Likewise life was going strong long before people showed up. Big mammals are usually at the top of food chain, not important for health of life on earth in general.


I can't agree this argument. Big mammals and other big animals are clear sign of health ecosystems. If the top of ecosystem is ok, you can be sure that other levels are ok too.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714142133.htm

This paper documents some of the negative effects that the widespread loss of these animals has already had on Earth's biosphere, climate, biodiversity, and vegetation:



The reduction of lions and leopards from areas of sub-Saharan Africa caused the baboon population to swell. This unexpectedly increased transmission of intestinal parasites from baboons to humans as the primates were forced to forage closer to human settlements.
As large ungulates recovered from a devastating rinderpest epidemic in the Serengeti in Africa, herbivory increased, and the frequency of wildfire declined in that region. Wildfire frequency increased following the late Pleistocene/early Holocene decline of megaherbivores in Australia and the northeastern United States.
Industrial whaling in the 20th century resulted in the loss of large numbers of plankton-consuming great whales, which are now known to sequester carbon into the deep sea through deposition of feces. The result has been the transfer of approximately 105 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere that would have been absorbed by whales, contributing to climate change.

LeBrok
02-10-16, 21:42
Fast forwards to WWII, major improvement in medicine made people live much older and nearly all kids to make it to adulthood, while people still had large families. This is what caused the population to explode in the 20th century. The peak is passed in much countries, there may be some region in Africa where they haven't reached it yet, but most of the continent have already declining birth rates. Even if we do reach the number of 10 billions as in UN's average scenario, we will probably never even fall down to the 1960's food production per capita. And no need to colonize Mars for that.Exactly. I have seen statistics from Bangladesh, and their birth rate came down from 6 kids per couple to 3.5 just in one generation. Due to improved standard of life and birth control availability.
The point is, for all scared of overpopulation, help the poor world to develop economically and population growth will stop. Development and prosperity of the whole world will also stop the "unwanted" immigrant problem, the Tsunami of immigrants to rich Europe and Mexicans and other Latinos to US. Building walls and keeping investments and companies closed in borders of rich countries, as isolationist and anti-free trade philosophy demands, will only exacerbate the poverty problem all over the world and will increase birth rate in poor countries and Tsunami of economic immigrants will continue.

LeBrok
02-10-16, 22:10
Let me explain what sustainabilility is not, with an example

If you catch more fish than fish population increase in your local sea zone and after years, you have to go international zone. After decades you have to go other continental zone till there is no more space to go.

For more detail, search Somalia - European Fishers.
Good example. It means we should catch fewer wild fish and eat farmed fish or something else. For the same reason we have limits on hunting wild animals on land, and compensate by bigger production of domesticates. All fine. We found the way to sustain food production on land, we just need to do it in ocean.



I can't agree this argument. Big mammals and other big animals are clear sign of health ecosystems. If the top of ecosystem is ok, you can be sure that other levels are ok too. In this case "healthy" ecosystem will be when people go back to Hunter Gatherer ways. Even if we let the big mammals to roam free through Europe and Turkey, their population will be in miniscale to original size of population before advent of agriculture.
Think this way. About 10 kya there were extra big mammals through Eurasia and America, from Mammoths, 2 ton Ground Sloths, rhinos, to saber tooth cats. Do you find fauna of Northern Hemisphere unhealthy due to lack of them? What would be the sign of nature being "unhealthy"?
Heck, the other big mammals moved from south to north when ice age ended, creating way different fauna balance than before. Is this unhealthy too?
Don't take me wrong, I'm not arguing against deer, wolf of bears living in forests or nature reserves. I'm just arguing subjective term "healthy" environment, and if nature could get away with them, without major hiccups.


The reduction of lions and leopards from areas of sub-Saharan Africa caused the baboon population to swell. This unexpectedly increased transmission of intestinal parasites from baboons to humans as the primates were forced to forage closer to human settlements.
The solution is to remove human settlements and all will be fine. ;)
You don't see the bright side. Population of seeded plants increased in that area, because baboons eat fruit and excrete seeds together with fertilizer. It is about new balance, nature will find the way, than about supposed "health" of environment. Which usually denotes the way nature was before people changed it. Sometimes, if people would run nature, they would keep preserving all the species from going extinct. People, with all their loving hearts for the nature, would stop evolution. It would be a just nature. Every species would have the same place in nature, like it used to be since people took control, and would be to the end of the world.


As large ungulates recovered from a devastating rinderpest epidemic in the Serengeti in Africa, herbivory increased, and the frequency of wildfire declined in that region. Wildfire frequency increased following the late Pleistocene/early Holocene decline of megaherbivores in Australia and the northeastern United States.
Fire is good, it recycles nutrients and starts new life. It is part of nature.
Industrial whaling in the 20th century resulted in the loss of large numbers of plankton-consuming great whales, which are now known to sequester carbon into the deep sea through deposition of feces. The result has been the transfer of approximately 105 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere that would have been absorbed by whales, contributing to climate change.I don't get it. Phytoplankton is eaten by sea protozoa and microbes, protozoa by crabs and fish, which excrete them to the bottom of the ocean. If the whales went missing, other animals took their place at the plancton table and increased in numbers. Again it is about a new balance than things being wrong/right or healthy.

DuPidh
02-10-16, 22:57
Why not 1200 or 1000 BC?



As usually, your information is wrong! It reminds me your assurance that US doesn't produce and export anything anymore. Except of course a little fact of 2 trillion dollars of exporting goods.


Europe food trade is balanced. And this in spite of agricultural land shrinking 20% in last 50 years!
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS?locations=EU
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/thumb/8/82/Trade_balance_in_agricultural_products%2C_EU-28%2C_2002%E2%80%9313.png/350px-Trade_balance_in_agricultural_products%2C_EU-28%2C_2002%E2%80%9313.png
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Extra-EU_trade_in_agricultural_goods

And if needed, Europe is still in position to double food production. Half of European fields are underutilized because food prices are too low due to overproduction/not needed.



What are the signs of Germany "not holding" that you see? Do you have secret information?
First I am not from USA. The flag on the avatar is wrong and I am going to change it.
But the main source for sustainable population is arable land and its productivity. England and Germany have dense population and the farm land they have per capita is not enough. That was the main factor that pushed many Europeans to Emigrate to Americas. You dont see many Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians emigrating since they have enogh farm land to support the population

Tomenable
02-10-16, 23:18
Europe population has already reached two three times over the sustainable population limit.

No, it has not. Europe can sustain herself. But the problem is not declining population. It is aging population.

When population gets old, there are proportionally few young people who can work to sustain retired people.

This is why Europe needs to get back to at least 2 children per woman fertility rate, which is the ideal one.

=============

Either 2.1 fertility rate, or no more things such as retirement, and maybe obligatory euthanasia at age 70.

LeBrok
03-10-16, 01:59
First I am not from USA. The flag on the avatar is wrong and I am going to change it.
But the main source for sustainable population is arable land and its productivity. England and Germany have dense population and the farm land they have per capita is not enough. That was the main factor that pushed many Europeans to Emigrate to Americas. You dont see many Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians emigrating since they have enogh farm land to support the population How come we don't see mass emigration from Germany and England? On contrary, we see mass immigration to these countries. To the countries which lack agrarian land in your view. Your supposition is wrong.
Did you have time to analyze the statistics I posted the links too? Obviously not, because you would notice that there is no shortage of food production in Europe, or that Europe can easily feed itself and more.
The problem is the poverty and insufficient food production in poor countries. This is the source of economic migration. Solve poverty problem and mass migration will go away.

LeBrok
03-10-16, 02:07
No, it has not. Europe can sustain herself. But the problem is not declining population. It is aging population.

When population gets old, there are proportionally few young people who can work to sustain retired people.

This is why Europe needs to get back to at least 2 children per woman fertility rate, which is the ideal one.

=============

Either 2.1 fertility rate, or no more things such as retirement, and maybe obligatory euthanasia at age 70.It doesn't matter, robots and other industrial machines will solve labour problem in next 30 years.

and maybe obligatory euthanasia at age 70I'll remind you this when you are 70, lol.
Why not forcing women to have 3 or 4 kids, and only ethnically local kids.
Wow, now we are getting close to Nazi eugenics.

bicicleur
03-10-16, 08:23
No, it has not. Europe can sustain herself. But the problem is not declining population. It is aging population.

When population gets old, there are proportionally few young people who can work to sustain retired people.

This is why Europe needs to get back to at least 2 children per woman fertility rate, which is the ideal one.

=============

Either 2.1 fertility rate, or no more things such as retirement, and maybe obligatory euthanasia at age 70.

I could not agree more, except euthanasia.
There should be other criteria for euthanasia except age.
I agree that it is useless and costly to lengthen the life of terminal sick people or people who don't function properly any more.

Angela
03-10-16, 14:47
It doesn't matter, robots and other industrial machines will solve labour problem in next 30 years.
I'll remind you this when you are 70, lol.
Why not forcing women to have 3 or 4 kids, and only ethnically local kids.
Wow, now we are getting close to Nazi eugenics.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I was also about to ask how old his parents were and if they knew he was ready to ship them off to a gas chamber when they hit 70. Absolutely incredible.

bicicleur
04-10-16, 08:53
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senicide

Tomenable
04-10-16, 11:38
LeBrok,


It doesn't matter, robots and other industrial machines will solve labour problem in next 30 years.

Will humans have enough time to invent such robots and other stuff before our intelligence declines back to Lower Paleolithic levels?

Who will build these robots if governments are continually dumbing down high IQ countries by importing millions of low IQ migrants?

Are engineers from Senegal going to build robots for us? Last time I checked, in 2013 they could not even repair a broken pipe - the President of Senegal had to call for international help (from France and China) in order to help them repair a water pipe. Reuters wrote about it - check the link:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-senegal-water-idUSBRE98Q0MS20130927

That broken pipe led to massive riots in the capital, because Blacks riot only when they have a good reason to (as we see also in the U.S.).


I'll remind you this when you are 70, lol.
Why not forcing women to have 3 or 4 kids, and only ethnically local kids.

The solution to aging populations is that once again people will live only as long as they can support themselves.

Just like it used to be in the past, before retirements got invented. It will be a less comfortable situation, but a sustainable one.

The problem is not declining population (Europe is overpopulated, as you say), but the problem is aging population. So if the generation of our grandparents & parents was reluctant to have children, then my generation will not pay for their retirements and healthcare. Who cares if they live 90 or 70 years - they had it coming, by not reproducing they made the system unsustainable, and will bear the consequences of their negligence.

New generations are growing up, and they increasingly despise "Flower Children Generations", what they did to our civilization.

Back in the old days if you were too old and did not have enough children and grandchildren to take care of you, you just died.

So people wanted to have families, wanted to have children, because they were afraid of being left on their own when old. Now "the state" is taking care of old people, so they no longer have this fear. And maybe it is bad, because this is one of reasons why Europe has so low fertility.

Destroy socialism, destroy retirements - and the majority of people will want to have at least two children per couple again.

We do not even need to destroy anything - just wait until it all collapses on its own, because it is unsustainable anyway. And Third World immigrants are not working, are not paying taxes - they are collecting welfare, so they are only facilitating the collapse of this system.

DuPidh
04-10-16, 16:29
How come we don't see mass emigration from Germany and England? On contrary, we see mass immigration to these countries. To the countries which lack agrarian land in your view. Your supposition is wrong.
Did you have time to analyze the statistics I posted the links too? Obviously not, because you would notice that there is no shortage of food production in Europe, or that Europe can easily feed itself and more.
The problem is the poverty and insufficient food production in poor countries. This is the source of economic migration. Solve poverty problem and mass migration will go away.

How come you don't see it? There are about 100 million Brits in USA, Canada, all over!Would they been able to live in Britain? So are the Germans! Only in Latin America we have more than 20 million Germans in different countries. They all left because their country of origin could not support them. If they are not living now is because the industries they have build allows them to buy food to sustain the population. Imagine 200 yrs from now when fossil fuels are terminated their industries are not needed how is that population going to be supported? Don't forget, as time goes by the productivity of soil goes down since many minerals are used up. So the only way to keep the balance of life is by bringing the human population down to 2 billion worldwide.

Twilight
05-10-16, 03:11
How come you don't see it? There are about 100 million Brits in USA, Canada, all over!Would they been able to live in Britain? So are the Germans! Only in Latin America we have more than 20 million Germans in different countries. They all left because their country of origin could not support them. If they are not living now is because the industries they have build allows them to buy food to sustain the population. Imagine 200 yrs from now when fossil fuels are terminated their industries are not needed how is that population going to be supported? Don't forget, as time goes by the productivity of soil goes down since many minerals are used up. So the only way to keep the balance of life is by bringing the human population down to 2 billion worldwide.

We British Colonial Americans came to America because of Religious Persecution, I think I have a couple of Quaker ancestors that passed away in the Tower of London. My Paternal Grandfather was 100% British Quaker Heritage with a hint of Colonial Dutch. But yes, some Americans got here because of Famine also like the Irish Potato famine that destroyed their potato crop. So much for sending the hardy South American Potato to Ireland but there is always trial and error :). (You can copy the links and paste it to the Url ;) sorry for the tech inconvenience)

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

https://www.potatogoodness.com/potato-fun-facts-history/

LeBrok
05-10-16, 04:44
LeBrok,



Will humans have enough time to invent such robots and other stuff before our intelligence declines back to Lower Paleolithic levels?

Who will build these robots if governments are continually dumbing down high IQ countries by importing millions of low IQ migrants?

Are engineers from Senegal going to build robots for us? Last time I checked, in 2013 they could not even repair a broken pipe - the President of Senegal had to call for international help (from France and China) in order to help them repair a water pipe. Reuters wrote about it - check the link:I think you are going mad. Maybe you should invent these robots with your pure and high IQ! Before immigrants dumb you down. Did you noticed that most powerful, most inventive, most productive country in the world is built on immigrants? This in spite of being 20% black, and other 20% latino. Boohoo. Another most powerful countries like GB and Germany, awashed in immigrants too.

Stay pure, no robots for you. lol



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-senegal-water-idUSBRE98Q0MS20130927

That broken pipe led to massive riots in the capital, because Blacks riot only when they have a good reason to (as we see also in the U.S.).

Are you going to turn every thread here on Eupedia into racial hatred?


The solution to aging populations is that once again people will live only as long as they can support themselves.

Just like it used to be in the past, before retirements got invented. It will be a less comfortable situation, but a sustainable one. As long as humankind existed compassion, and support for everyone in the tribe, was what made us humans.


The problem is not declining population (Europe is overpopulated, as you say), but the problem is aging population. So if the generation of our grandparents & parents was reluctant to have children, then my generation will not pay for their retirements and healthcare. Who cares if they live 90 or 70 years - they had it coming, by not reproducing they made the system unsustainable, and will bear the consequences of their negligence.Could you explain how is it unsustainable? Who said that population can't shrink? Maybe it is a normal think, that population doesn't need to grow.


New generations are growing up, and they increasingly despise "Flower Children Generations", what they did to our civilization.

Back in the old days if you were too old and did not have enough children and grandchildren to take care of you, you just died.Good you didn't live back then, or you would have killed them sooner. People should just die, as you said, without you executing them. Did you talk with your grandparents about their future you planned for them?


So people wanted to have families, wanted to have children, because they were afraid of being left on their own when old. Now "the state" is taking care of old people, so they no longer have this fear. And maybe it is bad, because this is one of reasons why Europe has so low fertility. I'm sure your grandparents run away into goverment care hearing your plans of their early termination.


Destroy socialism, destroy retirements - and the majority of people will want to have at least two children per couple again.I really think you are going mad.


We do not even need to destroy anything - just wait until it all collapses on its own, because it is unsustainable anyway. And Third World immigrants are not working, are not paying taxes - they are collecting welfare, so they are only facilitating the collapse of this system. I had a good feeling about you going mad, now I'm sure you are in depression. Talk to someone about this.

LeBrok
05-10-16, 04:57
How come you don't see it? There are about 100 million Brits in USA, Canada, all over!Would they been able to live in Britain? So are the Germans! Lol, did you noticed that most of them left in 18, 19 and early 20th century when population in their countries was 3 times smaller than today? Now in 21st century, when according to you, they have unsustainable population level, they don't emigrate anymore.


Only in Latin America we have more than 20 million Germans in different countries. They all left because their country of origin could not support them. And now Germany supports 3 times as many. And food production per capita still rising.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Food_production_per_capita.svg/800px-Food_production_per_capita.svg.png


If they are not living now is because the industries they have build allows them to buy food to sustain the population.I'm glad you noticed, and also notice that you used term "sustain the population". Other words, population of Germany is sustainable. Thanks for helping my argument.



Imagine 200 yrs from now when fossil fuels are terminated their industries are not needed how is that population going to be supported? By making energy of solar, wind, nuclear, and whatever else people invent, and army of robots.



Don't forget, as time goes by the productivity of soil goes down since many minerals are used up. So the only way to keep the balance of life is by bringing the human population down to 2 billion worldwide.That's why we are putting minerals back into the ground. Did you hear about fertilizer or even hydroponic food production without soil? Look at future fields in a city. Harvested and delivered fresh for your lunch in minutes.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8DbPOvCkKNQ/UCqOlGRF49I/AAAAAAAAAEM/7kwtJV7Eois/s1600/vertical+farm.jpg

LeBrok
05-10-16, 05:04
Someone smart said this about human condition:

The reason people find it so hard to be happy is that they always see the past better than it was, the present worse than it is, and the future less resolved than it will be. Marcel Pagnol
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marcelpagn402273.html

Tomenable
05-10-16, 19:59
LeBrok,


most inventive, most productive country in the world is built on immigrants? This in spite of being 20% black, and other 20% latino.

U.S. population was between 80% and 90% Non-Hispanic White during most of U.S. history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_U nited_States#Historical_data_for_all_races_and_for _Hispanic_origin_.281610.E2.80.932010.29

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab08.html

https://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

Only after 1970 percent of Non-Hispanic Whites started declining and currently it is just 60%.


Another most powerful countries like GB and Germany, awashed in immigrants too.

Same case as above. They used to be ~99% White during most of history, until very recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHoG3KStuzc

Boreas
05-10-16, 20:07
And now Germany supports 3 times as many. And food production per capita still rising.


I'm glad you noticed, and also notice that you used term "sustain the population". Other words, population of Germany is sustainable. Thanks for helping my argument.



Good Try but Hell NO :grin:

to leave in France standard, we need 2,5 Earth in 2012, now we need 3 Blue Planet.

After thinking that you killed all big mammals in a few seconds. (You said "Keep in mind that existence of big wild mammals is not necessary for people to exist.")
I guess, definition of sustainability is really different in your head :good_job:
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/83647000/png/_83647604_ecological-footprint-by-country.pnghttp://awsassets.wwf.ca/downloads/160804_sri_graphic_earth_overshoot_earths_1.jpg

arvistro
05-10-16, 20:44
How come we need 1.6 worlds to live like World lives? If we do it with just 1 world?
Or that is like how much worlds we need to live like that for century?

Moi-même
05-10-16, 21:39
I guess they mean we are currently using too much renewable resources, like ground water or lumber, and we really would need an extra 0.6 planet to still have something two centuries down the road.

arvistro
05-10-16, 22:00
So, planet could sustain us all if we had average quality of life as Indians.
That sucks. Besides you can't spend that little of resource if you live North of India. You need energy (gas, oil, electricity or good old trees) to survive winter and you need shelters.

Moi-même
05-10-16, 22:31
We can live like the average Indian or we can get rid of 37.5% of the world population... :thinking:

More seriously, the countries which are the more resources waster are often those which the population growth is negative. Technology is getting better at doing more with less energy, oil or water. The late 20th and early 21st centuries will be a bit of drain to the planet resources, but we will find a new equilibrium after that.

LeBrok
06-10-16, 03:18
LeBrok,



U.S. population was between 80% and 90% Non-Hispanic White during most of U.S. history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_U nited_States#Historical_data_for_all_races_and_for _Hispanic_origin_.281610.E2.80.932010.29

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab08.html

https://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

Only after 1970 percent of Non-Hispanic Whites started declining and currently it is just 60%.



Same case as above. They used to be ~99% White during most of history, until very recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHoG3KStuzc And still these countries are at the top in the world and Europe. It doesn't seem that these immigrants are hindrance in their economies, not mentioning "collapse on their own".

LeBrok
06-10-16, 03:29
Good Try but Hell NO :grin:

to leave in France standard, we need 2,5 Earth in 2012, now we need 3 Blue Planet.

After thinking that you killed all big mammals in a few seconds. (You said "Keep in mind that existence of big wild mammals is not necessary for people to exist.")
I guess, definition of sustainability is really different in your head :good_job:
http://awsassets.wwf.ca/downloads/160804_sri_graphic_earth_overshoot_earths_1.jpgTHi s is very simplistic and doesn't take under consideration advances in science, economy, engineering and etc. 100 years ago there was 2 billion people, and except few lucky ones, all the world lived in poverty by our modern standards. Now most of world population live in better standards, and 2 billion much better than that. Still on the same one earth. You, and many resident pessimists here, wouldn't envision this if you lived 100 years ago.
This simplistic comparative model above reminds me of 80s, when some scientists predicted peak oil. We were supposed to run out of oil soon due to growing consumption and known methods of reserves and production. Well, 35 years later we have a lot of cheap oil, managed to overproduce it by a lot. So, what the heck happened?
We invented much better technology of pumping oil from the ground. Instead of only exploiting oil wells at 20% well capacity, we are getting closer to 50%. We found the way to get difficult to reach oil thanks to fracking. We found more oil fields, learned how to drill horizontally, etc, etc.
The same will be with other natural resources, fresh water including. Thanks to science, human genius, technologies and free market investments, people will find the way to stretch what we have and what we produce far beyond the limits set by doom and gloom "experts". Surely there are some limits now, and there will be some in the future, but not even close what these dystopian scenario predicts.

Tomenable
21-10-16, 01:41
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8

LeBrok
21-10-16, 06:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8
I see you are feeling optimistic today. ;)
After all the world is not collapsing.

Boreas
21-10-16, 11:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8

Overpopulation argument bases on sources of the Earth, not the human population.

Does the family in Bangladesh in 1965 who has 2 parents+ 5 kids consume same or less source then current Bangladesh families (2 parents+2 kids)?

No, current families consume more more then families in past.

There is no need to be panic but We need stable population and equal development until in any case of space-station living without helping Earth or planet colonisation age.

Maleth
21-10-16, 17:14
The earths survival is not just about food, its about fresh water availability and keeping the atmosphere in good shape (the work of trees (Plants) on land and in the oceans and seas. So open green spaces are crucial not just farmland). I am not sure if in the future humans would need open spaces to keep their sanity but that is a factor too. Increased noise pollution and close knit urban spaces seem to have a negative impact on a humans mental state unless its something that humans would get adapted to. Not to forget that wild animals have a right to share the planet too.

LeBrok
22-10-16, 05:17
The earths survival is not just about food, its about fresh water availability and keeping the atmosphere in good shape (the work of trees (Plants) on land and in the oceans and seas. So open green spaces are crucial not just farmland). I am not sure if in the future humans would need open spaces to keep their sanity but that is a factor too. Increased noise pollution and close knit urban spaces seem to have a negative impact on a humans mental state unless its something that humans would get adapted to. Not to forget that wild animals have a right to share the planet too.
Would you really legislate the animal right to live, or is it more of human moral obligation to a fellow animal?

Boreas
22-10-16, 05:34
Would you really legislate the animal right to live, or is it more of human moral obligation to a fellow animal?

Oh you are Canadian so that's makes sense. :grin: We can understand why you are quering :good_job:
http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aeYjKN5_700b.jpg

bicicleur
22-10-16, 09:03
Would you really legislate the animal right to live, or is it more of human moral obligation to a fellow animal?

the most abundant and redundant form of life on earth is human

Maleth
22-10-16, 09:27
Would you really legislate the animal right to live, or is it more of human moral obligation to a fellow animal?

It is an obligation and the preservation of wild life should be legislated. I am not sure if I can live in a world with a mind set that humans have some kind of right to destroy animals just to have uncontrolled numbers of their own species. Anyway such a mind set would probably end up exterminating its own species in the long run, no matter how many missions are planned to colonize other planets.

LeBrok
22-10-16, 19:00
the most abundant and redundant form of life on earth is humanHow does it answer the questing?

LeBrok
22-10-16, 19:21
It is an obligation and the preservation of wild life should be legislated. I am not sure if I can live in a world with a mind set that humans have some kind of right to destroy animals just to have uncontrolled numbers of their own species. Anyway such a mind set would probably end up exterminating its own species in the long run, no matter how many missions are planned to colonize other planets.I don't have problem making sure the whole nature ecosystem is doing well and protected. After all we need it for our existence and well being too. Having said that, I'm not sure what rule we can employ to "give a right to exist" to every wild animal. People usually think about mammals, especially big mammals, of the sea and the land or big birds, to be protected. And the cuter animal the better should be the protection, like panda bear. Most people forget that mosquitoes and fleas are wild animals too, and so are bacterias.
How can we be just and impartial in granting existential rights to animals if our own well being depends on killing billions of wild animals, mostly bugs, a day, not mentioning mind boggling number of murdered bacterias.
How can we be just and impartial when giving existential rights to wild animals but not to domesticated. Are domesticated less conscious and with fewer feelings, some sort of lesser animal, not to have rights?
Or should we forget about being objective and just and pick and chose to protect only "lucky" animals on our whim?

PS. My mind is not set on any side of this issue. I'm in subject exploration mood.

LeBrok
22-10-16, 19:39
Oh you are Canadian so that's makes sense. :grin: We can understand why you are quering :good_job:
I would see your animal rights cartoon more objective if you protested Turkish Goat Killing Festivals. Let's start fixing the world from our own yards. ;)

http://darkroom-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/11/AFP_Getty-535742903.jpg


The reason I asked these questions to Maleth is to see what other people think about this possibility and to learn what are the consequences of legislating animal right to live.
I'm curious.
For example, legislation to protect endangered species, as noble as it is, stops natural selection. People obligated themselves to protect species and their habitats to make sure they don't go extinct. A short term blessing for animals will stop them evolving with their changing environment, causing long term tragedy.

Maleth
22-10-16, 19:40
I don't have problem making sure the whole nature ecosystem is doing well and protected. After all we need it for our existence and well being too. Having said that, I'm not sure what rule we can employ to "give a right to exist" to every wild animal. People usually think about mammals, especially big mammals, of the sea and the land or big birds, to be protected. And the cuter animal the better should be the protection, like panda bear. Most people forget that mosquitoes and fleas are wild animals too, and so are bacterias.
How can we be just and impartial in granting existential rights to animals if our own well being depends on killing billions of wild animals, mostly bugs, a day, not mentioning mind boggling number of murdered bacterias.
How can we be just and impartial when giving existential rights to wild animals but not to domesticated. Are domesticated less conscious and with fewer feelings, some sort of lesser animal, not to have rights?
Or should we forget about being objective and just and pick and chose to protect only "lucky" animals on our whim?

PS. My mind is not set on any side of this issue. I'm in subject exploration mood.

You forgot the poor mice and rats too :grin:. In my opinion there should be a balance. There are some very important areas on the globe that support a variety of wild life such as the Serengeti in Africa were some of the most dramatic migrations occur. There already seems to be awareness about this and national parks are cherished by many countries. In Europe there is the reforestation of an encouraging number of areas and ancient wild species are being introduced. The migration of Butterflies from Canada to Mexico is another kind of preservation given importance to locate the resting places so as not to use herbicides and so on as the numbers were dwindling alarmingly. The urgency of preservation becomes more prevalent amongst species that are on the verge of extinction. To take your argument harmful bacteria, Rats and mice sparrows and pigeons (example do not fall in that category) Mosquitoes are important food for many birds and reptiles and do not really pose any real threat to humans in these wild areas. Most mosquitos do not even impose any real threats to humans, except in the cases of Malaria, the more recent Zika and so on. This then becomes an issue to human health so it has to be dealt with accordingly. Thousands died with Yellow fever when constructing the Panama canal. Otherwise these creatures are important part of the animal food chain.

Dont forget that in reality bacteria is much more beneficial then harmful. They break down organic material with yeasts into nutritions soil for plants and have many positive attributes towards the environment. They are present in our gut as part of our immune system. In reality we only have to deal with a few that happen to cause some fatal infections.

Boreas
22-10-16, 22:43
I would see your animal rights cartoon more objective if you protested Turkish Goat Killing Festivals. Let's start fixing the world from our own yards. ;)

http://darkroom-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/11/AFP_Getty-535742903.jpg


The reason I asked these questions to Maleth is to see what other people think about this possibility and to learn what are the consequences of legislating animal right to live.
I'm curious.
For example, legislation to protect endangered species, as noble as it is, stops natural selection. People obligated themselves to protect species and their habitats to make sure they don't go extinct. A short term blessing for animals will stop them evolving with their changing environment, causing long term tragedy.

Have you watched Avatar? That was my view about killing animals

About Turkish goat killlig festival,

1- the photo you shared seems bulls not goats

2-it is not Turkish, it is islamic and actually Abrahamic

3-Where does the pork sausages come from which you eat?

4-Killing livestocks and killing wild animals is it same for you?

5-Do you have any idea about my opinion about killing goats?

LeBrok
23-10-16, 05:18
Have you watched Avatar? That was my view about killing animals

About Turkish goat killlig festival,

1- the photo you shared seems bulls not goatsMy bad, how does it make it better?



2-it is not Turkish, it is islamic and actually AbrahamicAre you saying that true Turks don't kill animals?


3-Where does the pork sausages come from which you eat?Supermarket. ;)


4-Killing livestocks and killing wild animals is it same for you? I don't know, I never killed either one, except wild mosquitoes and flies, well and fish. Otherwise yes, in both cases animals are killed by people, and eaten.


5-Do you have any idea about my opinion about killing goats?Did you ask my opinion about killing seals? Nope, you assumed that it was what I was getting at. And this is my point of my response: for cultural, survival, health and our culinary taste we kill animals.

Now let's talk about validity of the premise to give animals existential rights and protection to live and naturally die, and consequences of it.

LeBrok
23-10-16, 05:47
You forgot the poor mice and rats too :grin:. In my opinion there should be a balance. There are some very important areas on the globe that support a variety of wild life such as the Serengeti in Africa were some of the most dramatic migrations occur. There already seems to be awareness about this and national parks are cherished by many countries. In Europe there is the reforestation of an encouraging number of areas and ancient wild species are being introduced. The migration of Butterflies from Canada to Mexico is another kind of preservation given importance to locate the resting places so as not to use herbicides and so on as the numbers were dwindling alarmingly. The urgency of preservation becomes more prevalent amongst species that are on the verge of extinction. This is exactly the example which is not sitting right with objective look at nature. We make arbitrarily like and talk about Monarch butterflies because they are so pretty and don't affect our lives except providing esthetic experience. On other hand nobody cares about millions of other butterflies killed by pesticides to protect our food. Though actually the once that we kill might be more important to ecological balance of our planet than rare Monarch butterfly. The point is that we judge more by our sense of beauty than by being objectively and morally just.


To take your argument harmful bacteria, Rats and mice sparrows and pigeons (example do not fall in that category) Mosquitoes are important food for many birds and reptiles and do not really pose any real threat to humans in these wild areas. Most mosquitoes do not even impose any real threats to humans, except in the cases of Malaria, the more recent Zika and so on. This then becomes an issue to human health so it has to be dealt with accordingly. Thousands died with Yellow fever when constructing the Panama canal. Otherwise these creatures are important part of the animal food chain. The issue at hand is, why don't we treat all animals equally? How does it make people fair, and legislated laws for animal protection right, if we consider some animals more important than others? What is our justification for preferential treatment; big eyes, nice colours, cute face, soft fur?
In the past it was much easier to decide. We were the dominant species, on top of food chain, and by law of nature we could do whatever we wanted with other animals. Now we want to protect animals and their habitats, but we are very selective in this approach, mostly protecting the cute and the cuddly. I don't think it is right.


Dont forget that in reality bacteria is much more beneficial then harmful. They break down organic material with yeasts into nutritions soil for plants and have many positive attributes towards the environment. They are present in our gut as part of our immune system. In reality we only have to deal with a few that happen to cause some fatal infections.I really like my guy bacteria. It really agrees with me and my diet. Nothing to complain. ;)

Maleth
23-10-16, 11:01
This is exactly the example which is not sitting right with objective look at nature. We make arbitrarily like and talk about Monarch butterflies because they are so pretty and don't affect our lives except providing esthetic experience. On other hand nobody cares about millions of other butterflies killed by pesticides to protect our food. Though actually the once that we kill might be more important to ecological balance of our planet than rare Monarch butterfly. The point is that we judge more by our sense of beauty than by being objectively and morally just.

The issue at hand is, why don't we treat all animals equally? How does it make people fair, and legislated laws for animal protection right, if we consider some animals more important than others? What is our justification for preferential treatment; big eyes, nice colours, cute face, soft fur?
In the past it was much easier to decide. We were the dominant species, on top of food chain, and by law of nature we could do whatever we wanted with other animals. Now we want to protect animals and their habitats, but we are very selective in this approach, mostly protecting the cute and the cuddly. I don't think it is right.



I really like my guy bacteria. It really agrees with me and my diet. Nothing to complain. ;)

I sincerely do not think that for Scientists and genuine environmentalists decide on the survival of a particular species according to their level of cuteness. Bats are not particularly attractive but well protected (example) http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_the_law.html same with crocodiles. There are instances were animals were extinct in natural ways such as climate change and so (such as Dinosaurs) no one can blame humans, unlike hairy mammoths that probably were wiped out because of excessive hunting. Basically there should be huge areas protected where wild animals can be allowed to live in their natural habitat as much as possible without constant threat from human expansions and priorities. When one how much natural has been lost to human expansion (cutting down forests/ draining swamps/ buildings of dwellings and roads and agriculture) one should not be surprised that so many species are on the verge of extension.

Bees are also not so cute and they sting too, but look at how valuable they are for the whole echo system in the propogating process through pollination. Their alarming decrease is a huge concern to all. Pesticides and ever increasing in lack of natural habitats. The list goes on and on.

LeBrok
23-10-16, 19:47
I sincerely do not think that for Scientists and genuine environmentalists decide on the survival of a particular species according to their level of cuteness. Bats are not particularly attractive but well protected (example) http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_the_law.html same with crocodiles. Yes, I think they are more balanced in their approach. However, cute Panda, though fairly unimportant to ecosystem, is a poster child of preservation of nature. Even you picked, subconsciously I guess, the cute butterfly as your example.


There are instances were animals were extinct in natural ways such as climate change and so (such as Dinosaurs) no one can blame humans, unlike hairy mammoths that probably were wiped out because of excessive hunting. Basically there should be huge areas protected where wild animals can be allowed to live in their natural habitat as much as possible without constant threat from human expansions and priorities. When one how much natural has been lost to human expansion (cutting down forests/ draining swamps/ buildings of dwellings and roads and agriculture) one should not be surprised that so many species are on the verge of extension.

Bees are also not so cute and they sting too, but look at how valuable they are for the whole echo system in the propogating process through pollination. Their alarming decrease is a huge concern to all. Pesticides and ever increasing in lack of natural habitats. The list goes on and on.So I guess, you are not in favor of giving animals legislated rights to exist, at least across the board. Instead prefer to use human judgment to save what is considered in danger. Am I right?

Don't take me wrong, I'm not in favor of it either. I'm for protective habitats even some strict "no go" zones for people. However, granting existential rights to animals would have devastating consequence to humans. You can't just give these rights to cute ones only based on a whim of human aesthetics. One would need to implement rights across the board for all animals, if not for all life on earth like plants. This definitely would affect human health and even kill people. We have to remember that nature is not only nice and pretty, but also roofless, cruel and compassionless. It can easily kill or eat people alive.

Maleth
23-10-16, 21:15
Yes, I think they are more balanced in their approach. However, cute Panda, though fairly unimportant to ecosystem, is a poster child of preservation of nature. Even you picked, subconsciously I guess, the cute butterfly as your example.

The monarch butterfly is the only butterfly that makes two way migration similar to birds. Are they cute? Maybe some people have a butterfly phobia too. LeBrok they just happen to be unusual and particular. Their numbers have been dwindling because of particular situations. Rats do not have the same faith. They have learned to thrive with humans just like pigeons. Pandas are cute too? thats cool. They also have dwindled in numbers. Wild animals can survive with out being a threat to humans. I believe with the amount of space taken by humans (Cities aggriculture water use) have eradicated more then 80% of the world wild life. Yes I believe we have a moral duty to at least leave some space for these creatures to coexist. Humans are a much BIGGER treath to animals then they are to us. I really do not understand what is wrong with this reasoning.



So I guess, you are not in favor of giving animals legislated rights to exist, at least across the board. Instead prefer to use human judgment to save what is considered in danger. Am I right?

I am in favor for large tracts of land to be totally preserved (by the way we already have and aware of it) for all known animals to be able to live in their own habitat. I dont believe that Humans need to occupy every inch of the earths surface. Yes animals in danger of extinction will be given priority to animals who have either adapted living with humans like a number of bird species and mamals apart from the domesticated ones, but there are many many more who need a particular habitat to survive. Having extending cities and uncontrollable settlements (per some sagrosant right) into important designated wild life areas is silly and capricious especially when now have acquired so much knowledge about the harm and benefits of how this world works. Animals all sorts have a right to exist as much as we do, and we do not need to use a bear (example) attacking a human to wipe out the whole species. How many bears have been gunned down randomly without even imposing a threat to humans just for the sheer pleasure of slaughter? Our mind has grown since those primitive days.


Don't take me wrong, I'm not in favor of it either. I'm for protective habitats even some strict "no go" zones for people. However, granting existential rights to animals would have devastating consequence to humans.

We have the knowledge to co exist, as I said humans do not have to occupy every inch of this earth to survive. We know enough (and still learning) of what is important for the survival of many species.


You can't just give these rights to cute ones only based on a whim of human aesthetics. One would need to implement rights across the board for all animals, if not for all life on earth like plants. This definitely would affect human health and even kill people. We have to remember that nature is not only nice and pretty, but also roofless, cruel and compassionless. It can easily kill or eat people alive.

Why do you keep insisting on the cute factor. In reality the cute factor is not the case. I tried to give you examples. The cute factor applies more to a kindergarden classroom lesson rather then a more scientific and mature environmental challenge wild habitat is facing.

By the way even we do not live it....humans are having a huge impact on the seas, apart from over fishing which effects the Oceans and seas food chain there is an incredibel amount of pollution created by humans were huge areas of the oceans are simply turned into a rubbish dump.

Maleth
23-10-16, 21:34
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/55000/55167/earth_lights_lrg.jpg

LeBrok
24-10-16, 01:34
Why do you keep insisting on the cute factor. In reality the cute factor is not the case. I tried to give you examples. The cute factor applies more to a kindergarden classroom lesson rather then a more scientific and mature environmental challenge wild habitat is facing.Cuteness works with general population, attracts the crowds with kids to the zoo, where they are introduced with preservation programs, cuteness opens wallets for these programs, and elects green parties.
I don't believe I would get any money or a praise from neighbors, when I open a habitat for mosquitoes, spiders and snakes in my yard.


By the way even we do not live it....humans are having a huge impact on the seas, apart from over fishing which effects the Oceans and seas food chain there is an incredibel amount of pollution created by humans were huge areas of the oceans are simply turned into a rubbish dump.I said many times that we should spend our limited money to protect oceans and rivers, then for less beneficial composting in the city, and usually terribly designed recycling programs. It will be much easier in the future to recycle garbage from a hole in the ground than all water in oceans.

Maleth
24-10-16, 10:21
Cuteness works with general population, attracts the crowds with kids to the zoo, where they are introduced with preservation programs, cuteness opens wallets for these programs, and elects green parties.
I don't believe I would get any money or a praise from neighbors, when I open a habitat for mosquitoes, spiders and snakes in my yard.

:grin: It really does not have to be a programme in your yard, its something on a much more scientific and coordinated level. Mosquitoes that evolve naturally in a natural protected environment would not effect a homosapien yard or garden or city, although these would generate their own mosquito breeding grounds for various reasons. In regards to wallets since $ seem to be an ingrained part of some humans, its good to know that adventure (connected with nature) has been on the rise year on year. Some countries in Africa are getting a healthy income from Safari 'holidays'. The more crammed the world is getting the more enthusiasm there is for nature holidays (Trekking diving and so on) so getting good for the wallet too as the demand is very healthy. Zoos have also come a long way on how they keep their animals and the space provided. There is nothing wrong with Zoos but they do not really represent wild life conservation although they have been helping in some species not to go extinct. However wild life conservation is a completely different matter from the cuteness of some Zoo animals that would attract a nice day out for family or School children.


I said many times that we should spend our limited money to protect oceans and rivers, then for less beneficial composting in the city, and usually terribly designed recycling programs. It will be much easier in the future to recycle garbage from a hole in the ground than all water in oceans.

You might be right. I am not really literate on how well recycling programs work, but I am 100% sure if they are not in place we will soon be living in disaster zones. I was lucky to visit the system in Vienna and I was very impressed on how well it works. The only thing I did not like is the residue of poison metals through the incineration part of it. We actually do not have any way how to destroy this residue and its stored. But for how long?. Austria example only landfills some 2% of all waste produced and most of its old landfills have been or being generated into non toxic grounds. Up to 100 years ago refuse was all organic. Basically it would decompose naturally. These days refuse is HIGHLY TOXIC. Apart from the huge amount of plastics used for wrapping there are a good percentage of appliances and gadgets that have highly toxic materials. They cannot simply be dumped in a land fill. This would be a total disaster for humanity no matter how unaware one can be of the situation.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/06/smelly-contaminated-disease-worlds-open-dumps

binx
06-11-16, 00:55
Overpopulation is not a problem of Europe or North America. It is a Third World problem. It's also a problem of Europe and North America.

Diomedes
22-04-17, 16:23
The Earth will not look good with so many people. I dunno, I think measures must be taken to stop the madness of over-population.

DuPidh
22-04-17, 16:47
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/55000/55167/earth_lights_lrg.jpg
I was looking at lights of India! Its projected that they will reach 1.6 billion at some point. But also India 's economy is growing so there will be more street light at night in India. Seen from the space India will look a bright area with no dark shades.

LeBrok
23-04-17, 01:21
I was looking at lights of India! Its projected that they will reach 1.6 billion at some point. But also India 's economy is growing so there will be more street light at night in India. Seen from the space India will look a bright area with no dark shades.Interestingly India is brighter than China, though China is much advanced economically.

LABERIA
23-04-17, 08:50
Good Try but Hell NO :grin:

to leave in France standard, we need 2,5 Earth in 2012, now we need 3 Blue Planet.

After thinking that you killed all big mammals in a few seconds. (You said "Keep in mind that existence of big wild mammals is not necessary for people to exist.")
I guess, definition of sustainability is really different in your head :good_job:
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/83647000/png/_83647604_ecological-footprint-by-country.pnghttp://awsassets.wwf.ca/downloads/160804_sri_graphic_earth_overshoot_earths_1.jpg

Yes, seems that Malthus was right:

Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio, Subsistence, increases only in an arithmetical ratio.

LeBrok
23-04-17, 22:52
Yes, seems that Malthus was right:

Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio, Subsistence, increases only in an arithmetical ratio. Any any other life form on Earth. ;)

ZTD
16-06-19, 08:21
most likely between 10-12 billion, but then again we might improve in our consumption and have more sophisticated agriculture and better city planning to support more population