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 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 70 of 70

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

  1. #51
    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
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, 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
    the most abundant and redundant form of life on earth is human
    How does it answer the questing?
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  2. #52
    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
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, 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 Maleth View Post
    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.

  3. #53
    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
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, 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
    Oh you are Canadian so that's makes sense. We can understand why you are quering
    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. ;)




    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.

  4. #54
    King Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Maleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-14
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    1,919
    Points
    18,503
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,503, Level: 41
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 447
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    EV13 A7136 y18675G+
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Country: Malta



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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 . 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.

  5. #55
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Boreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-05-15
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    689
    Points
    5,840
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,840, Level: 22
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 210
    Overall activity: 9.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-YP346
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1b1b1

    Ethnic group
    Rumî
    Country: Turkey



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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. ;)




    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?

  6. #56
    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
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, 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
    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
    My bad, how does it make it better?


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

  7. #57
    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
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, 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 Maleth View Post
    You forgot the poor mice and rats too . 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. ;)

  8. #58
    King Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Maleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-14
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    1,919
    Points
    18,503
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,503, Level: 41
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 447
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    EV13 A7136 y18675G+
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Country: Malta



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.

  9. #59
    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
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, 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 Maleth View Post
    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.

  10. #60
    King Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Maleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-14
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    1,919
    Points
    18,503
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,503, Level: 41
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 447
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    EV13 A7136 y18675G+
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Country: Malta



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Maleth; 23-10-16 at 21:57. Reason: add more

  11. #61
    King Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Maleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-14
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    1,919
    Points
    18,503
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,503, Level: 41
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 447
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    EV13 A7136 y18675G+
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Country: Malta




  12. #62
    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
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, 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 Maleth View Post

    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.

  13. #63
    King Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Maleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-14
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    1,919
    Points
    18,503
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,503, Level: 41
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 447
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    EV13 A7136 y18675G+
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Country: Malta



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.
    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-d...lds-open-dumps

  14. #64
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    23-02-11
    Posts
    199
    Points
    8,834
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,834, Level: 28
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 516
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    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.

  15. #65
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    Diomedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-17
    Posts
    240
    Points
    1,575
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,575, Level: 11
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 275
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Greek
    Country: Greece



    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.

  16. #66
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    DuPidh's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-07-15
    Posts
    445


    Country: Cuba



    Quote Originally Posted by Maleth View Post
    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.

  17. #67
    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
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, 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 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.

  18. #68
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points
    LABERIA's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-15
    Posts
    2,058
    Points
    5,204
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,204, Level: 21
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 346
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
    Good Try but Hell NO

    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
    Yes, seems that Malthus was right:

    Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio, Subsistence, increases only in an arithmetical ratio.
    17 Dec.
    Paget to the Council.
    Now the Council's letters seem to imply (words quoted) that the King will keep no strangers save the Albanoys.
    Cales, 17 Dec. 1545. Signed.
    O me zhabat në moçale, o me zhgabat lart në male!
    -Petro Nini Luarasi-

  19. #69
    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
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, 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 LABERIA View Post
    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. ;)

  20. #70
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered250 Experience Points

    Join Date
    15-06-19
    Posts
    14
    Points
    369
    Level
    4
    Points: 369, Level: 4
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 81
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: Saudi Arabia



    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

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

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