Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: How many people earth can support.

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • 8

    1 11.11%
  • 10

    3 33.33%
  • 13

    1 11.11%
  • 16

    0 0%
  • 20

    1 11.11%
  • 30

    3 33.33%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 70

Thread: How many billion of people earth could potentially support.

  1. #1
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    How many billion of people earth could potentially support.



    Quote Originally Posted by Twilight View Post
    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.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Twilight's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-06-12
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Age
    25
    Posts
    879
    Points
    11,628
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,628, Level: 32
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 322
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-Z56-BY3957
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c7a

    Ethnic group
    15/32 British, 5/32 German, 9/64 Irish, 1/8 Scots Gaelic, 5/64 French, 1/32 Welsh
    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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
    Last edited by Twilight; 30-09-16 at 17:34. Reason: rephraising that based on user points I apologize for my rash outburst, but it's honest personal experience. Depressing but a reality

  3. #3
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Moi-même's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-16
    Location
    Quebec City
    Posts
    95
    Points
    3,470
    Level
    17
    Points: 3,470, Level: 17
    Level completed: 5%, Points required for next Level: 380
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2a1

    Ethnic group
    French Canadian
    Country: Canada-Quebec



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Twilight's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-06-12
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Age
    25
    Posts
    879
    Points
    11,628
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,628, Level: 32
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 322
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-Z56-BY3957
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c7a

    Ethnic group
    15/32 British, 5/32 German, 9/64 Irish, 1/8 Scots Gaelic, 5/64 French, 1/32 Welsh
    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Moi-même View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,506
    Points
    59,617
    Level
    75
    Points: 59,617, Level: 75
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 433
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by Twilight View Post
    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=8LJ...Johann&f=false



    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 estimated that the Earth had 1.0 billion inhabitants
    In 1685 Issac 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 ???

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Twilight's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-06-12
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Age
    25
    Posts
    879
    Points
    11,628
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,628, Level: 32
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 322
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-Z56-BY3957
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c7a

    Ethnic group
    15/32 British, 5/32 German, 9/64 Irish, 1/8 Scots Gaelic, 5/64 French, 1/32 Welsh
    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    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=8LJ...Johann&f=false



    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 estimated that the Earth had 1.0 billion inhabitants
    In 1685 Issac 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

  7. #7
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,506
    Points
    59,617
    Level
    75
    Points: 59,617, Level: 75
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 433
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    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/...red-legend.png



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

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


  8. #8
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,506
    Points
    59,617
    Level
    75
    Points: 59,617, Level: 75
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 433
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    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_o..._and_land_area

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

  9. #9
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    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. ;)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Twilight's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-06-12
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Age
    25
    Posts
    879
    Points
    11,628
    Level
    32
    Points: 11,628, Level: 32
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 322
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-Z56-BY3957
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c7a

    Ethnic group
    15/32 British, 5/32 German, 9/64 Irish, 1/8 Scots Gaelic, 5/64 French, 1/32 Welsh
    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    In Wyoming or Montana, you have only 6-7 people per one square mile:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Boreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-05-15
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    686
    Points
    5,780
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,780, Level: 22
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 270
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-YP346
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1b1b1

    Ethnic group
    Rumî
    Country: Turkey



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    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/...red-legend.png



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

    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.


  12. #12
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,276
    Points
    42,956
    Level
    64
    Points: 42,956, Level: 64
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 1,294
    Overall activity: 31.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    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

  13. #13
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,276
    Points
    42,956
    Level
    64
    Points: 42,956, Level: 64
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 1,294
    Overall activity: 31.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    In Wyoming or Montana, you have only 6-7 people per one square mile:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._and_land_area

    This is wilderness by European standards. Almost nobody lives there, LOL.
    population pressure is much higher in Europe than in America

  14. #14
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    DuPidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-07-15
    Posts
    445


    Country: Cuba



    Quote Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
    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.

    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!!!!?

  15. #15
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    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 contained
    Actually, 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 less
    Not 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.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Moi-même's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-16
    Location
    Quebec City
    Posts
    95
    Points
    3,470
    Level
    17
    Points: 3,470, Level: 17
    Level completed: 5%, Points required for next Level: 380
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2a1

    Ethnic group
    French Canadian
    Country: Canada-Quebec



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    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:



    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.



    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.

  18. #18
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by DuPidh View Post
    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/...S?locations=EU

    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...cultural_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?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Boreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-05-15
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    686
    Points
    5,780
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,780, Level: 22
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 270
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-YP346
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1b1b1

    Ethnic group
    Rumî
    Country: Turkey



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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/release...0714142133.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.

  20. #20
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moi-même View Post

    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.

  21. #21
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
    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.
    Last edited by LeBrok; 03-10-16 at 02:31.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    DuPidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-07-15
    Posts
    445


    Country: Cuba



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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/...S?locations=EU

    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...cultural_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

  23. #23
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,506
    Points
    59,617
    Level
    75
    Points: 59,617, Level: 75
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 433
    Overall activity: 8.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    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.

  24. #24
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by DuPidh View Post
    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.

  25. #25
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    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 70
    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •