Seeing double (the population, that is)

I stumbled on this site today and the info was kind of surprising (it shouldn’t be, it’s not new, I just wasn’t aware) so I thought I would share.

Here is an excellent population graph, one of the best I have ever seen.

And here is its site of origin. It contains some cool info.

And here is an interesting (partial) list of Overpopulation - Quick Facts

Quote:

---

·World population is projected to increase from 6 to 9 billion in the next 50 years.

·In low-income countries more than a third of the population is under age 15, while in high-income countries less than a fifth is.

·The world’s population is growing by 200,000 people a day.

·Between 1980 and 2030, the population of low- and middle-income countries will more than double -- to 7.0 billion, compared with 1 billion for high-income countries.

·In the next 35 years, 2.5 billion people will be added to the current population of 6 billion.

·U.S. population has doubled during the past 60 years to 270 million and, at the current growth rate, is projected to possibly double again, to 540 million, in the next 75 years. Each year our nation adds 3 million people (including legal immigrants) to its population, plus an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants.

---

To state the obvious, we might have some overpopulation growth pain issues to deal with soon if were not already. Any thoughts?~:)

Quote:

---

To state the obvious, we might have some overpopulation growth pain issues to deal with soon if were not already. Any thoughts?

---

It will probably be ok, at least America is large and still fairly empty. If the population doubled in Britain we'd all be sitting on each other.

A quick world war using ABC weapons will help solve that problem...

Could get cosy here in Holland.

Of course, birthrates are going down in most Western countries, to my knowledge. The only reason several European countries experiance net population growth is immigration. I think that also goes for the US.

Of course, we could fit the entire world's population in the state of Texas and have a population density less than that of New York City.

World's Population = 6562868400 (at time of post, roughly)
Texas' Land Area (square km) = 678,907
NYC's Population density (per square km) = 10,292

Population density of world in Texas (rounded to nearest one): 9667 people/square km

Which is less than NYC's population density.

~:handball:

That's a great point Alexander. That's why it's always funny to me how people worry about lack of space.

My only worry is that the poor populations of India will never grow into middle class as their population increases.

Course the trick is to convince people to live in an area with NYC population density.

Of course, there would be less pop density if we moved the world's population to the continent of Africa.

Lotsa space on this Earth. ~:handball:

I think overpopulation is less an issue of population density than it is an issue of limited resources, medical supplies, security, sanitation, employment, etc. check out the second link and take a look at the graphs showing “safe drinking water”, “food distribution”, “stunting”, “life expectancy”, “HIV%”, etc. Of course people can be packed in to cities like sardines but IMO the quality of life declines drastically and requires a massive supply network.

NYC was mentioned for density but how many acres of land are required to support that city? They import all kinds of stuff and export all the waste created from all the stuff imported and still suffer from massive sanitation issues (roaches and rats). :bow:

So NYC is self supporting and doesn't need to bring in water, food and electricity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So NYC is self supporting and doesn't need to bring in water, food and electricity?

---

we could start eating eachother (dont tell me you dont find tribesman tasty~;p )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So NYC is self supporting and doesn't need to bring in water, food and electricity?

---

No, but if the rest of the surface of the world was vacant- we could probably work something out....

Hah. There`s going to be one million more of us within 2050. :charge:

Quote:

---

World population is projected to increase from 6 to 9 billion in the next 50 years.

---

If that happens all hell break loose. It simple isn`t enough resources on this Earth to sustain that many humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So NYC is self supporting and doesn't need to bring in water, food and electricity?

---

Texas needen't be self-supporting either. There is of course people that can stay back(or robots) that could bring in water and food and all else to the population in the hypothetical situation.

Of course it's pretty stupid to say that we all have to live in Texas, but we could definetly do with some more urbanization. After all civilizations always grew in the cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STFS

(dont tell me you dont find tribesman tasty )

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

If that happens all hell break loose. It simple isn`t enough resources on this Earth to sustain that many humans.

---

That's somewhat true. The problem is in the distribution of the food and water. America produces enough surplus food to sustain Africa forever and Africa produces enough oil to pay for more food, but the problem is in the distribution of the wealth and the resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Hah. There`s going to be one million more of us within 2050. :charge: ... If that happens all hell break loose. It simple isn`t enough resources on this Earth to sustain that many humans.

---

No worries--Mother Earth knows how to take care of herself, assuming we don't nuke ourselves and her or unwititngly release a megavirus that annihilates all life, etc. We humans, on the otherhand ... I'm glad I won't likely be around to find out whether we self-terminate or not.

Toga, I can't stand that kind capitulationist attitude.

We 'humans' are not all the same, we are the most variable of all animals and our motivations for doing things are complex. You cannot predict the future but you have to trust that the powerful and intelligent will not let anything that idiotic hapen to the planet.

Are you guys wanting to build Coruscant or the Megacities or something here?

Civilisation starts in the fields not the cities: check out all the early civilisations in the river basins etc, why? Because they got their agriculture up to the level they could support large non-food producing populations in these densely packed urban environments.

The problem isn't going to be feeding all these people or anything, we can do that (they won't be getting McDonalds everyday thats all) - its the fact that most will be Chinese, Indian, SE Asian or African - all areas with massive poverty already. The rich areas will not have these problems. This is going to exacerbate those poor countries problems, and strain the ability of the local environments to cope - it does Sweet FA good if the USA and Europe's ecology is fine if the rest is screwed, as will happen. The huge populations will never be able to get a large middle class and eliminate poverty - there will be just to many people to get the economg going like that (what the hell are they going to do for jobs? 3 billions more people, most with low education and in deprived areas?). The Chinese will maybe climb out of this in time with the one child policy saving them some of the worse, but the rest of the third world has big problems coming from this.

The answer of course is to colonise space ASAP, but we screwed that one up...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

but you have to trust that the powerful and intelligent will not let anything that idiotic hapen to the planet.

---

Dude this is one of the more intelligent forums I have seen...

HeeeeeeellllllllllllllPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!

We are all going to Die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine if the current population stayed stable but everyone used the same amount of resources as the USA... anyone seen what those figures look like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Toga, I can't stand that kind capitulationist attitude.

We 'humans' are not all the same, we are the most variable of all animals and our motivations for doing things are complex. You cannot predict the future but you have to trust that the powerful and intelligent will not let anything that idiotic hapen to the planet.

---

Said with a bit of sarcasm, m8. Muahaha, but now I know how to annoy you ~;p.

"You have to trust ...," hmm ... It's a choice. Optimistic, cynical, neutral ... it really doesn't matter--like you said: you cannot predict the future. Indeed, we 'humans' are not the same. Imagine the now cliche scenario where a fanatical group that believes suicide bombing is ok gets a hold of a nuke or two or ten. All the powerful and intelligent people in the world cannot guarantee that this will never happen. Imagining such possibilities, sometimes I wax "capitulationist" (I think ...) and post whimsical cynicisms.

Toga. How would extremist groups be able to steal and then somehow denotate a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure if you know this but it's not that simple to play around with nuclear weapons. It's not like dynamite, you can't just blow it up, lol.

You know what you should really be afraid of? Terrorists being able to break into russia's smapls of smallpox and then letting that loose on the population. It's a relatively simple procedure provided you can get it out of it's container and then contaminating a couple of people with it.

Now I would think people in the higherups know all about this kind of thing. The CIA doesn't exist for no reason. I wouldn't panic over things like this. But then again, you might panic just to piss me off, so in the off chance that that hapens here's the smiley that I would use to respond: ~;p

The CIA did not stop either of the attacks on the World Trade Towers... the car bombing nor the Airplanes.

15 sucide bombers who inject small pox like virus into themselves, incubate on the flight, ship, car trip etc and then each on arrival go clubbing/rave/big game... now that would be something to worry about.

In fact there is not "a lot of space on this earth," not for 9 billion. According to this report we were already at 120% of the earth's carrying capacity in 1999.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2062729.stm

But, also according to the report,

Quote:

---

But we can solve this without austerity or hair shirts, by using technology and avoiding waste."

---

I imagine instead we will all sit around with our heads up our backsides until the planet is reduced to a worked out slag heap and our children have to look up what trees looked like in history books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Toga. How would extremist groups be able to steal and then somehow denotate a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure if you know this but it's not that simple to play around with nuclear weapons. It's not like dynamite, you can't just blow it up, lol.

You know what you should really be afraid of? Terrorists being able to break into russia's smapls of smallpox and then letting that loose on the population. It's a relatively simple procedure provided you can get it out of it's container and then contaminating a couple of people with it.

Now I would think people in the higherups know all about this kind of thing. The CIA doesn't exist for no reason. I wouldn't panic over things like this. But then again, you might panic just to piss me off, so in the off chance that that hapens here's the smiley that I would use to respond: ~;p

---

Yes, of course: it would be very difficult for a small faction to obtain and detonate a nuclear weapon (but not impossible, imo). The example you give involving biological weapons is indeed a more likely threat. I agree that our intelligence communities know much of what's going on--but definitely not anywhere close to "all about this kind of thing," (I'm mean, come on ...). I'm not panicked, just aware of the possibilities and not the type to pass them off as impossible.

Why would I get upset? You're just expressing an opinion, and you haven't done so at my expense. No problem as far as I'm concerned m8.