Follow this blog:
RSS

7 reasons why a global population of 7 billion means trouble

By | July 19, 2011, 7:05 AM PDT

The United Nations population division recently predicted that the global population of humans would reach seven billion by Halloween.

We have every reason to be concerned about that figure, Worldwatch Institute executive director Robert Engelman says.

Writing in Yale’s Environment 360, Engelman notes that humanity has tacked on an additional one billion people in a mere 12 years. (In the last 60 years, we’ve added a breathtaking 4.5 billion people.) Meanwhile, our food supply and energy reserve has not expanded to keep pace.

In a lengthy essay, Engelman outlines several reasons why the trend spells trouble.

Here are seven of them:

  1. The sheer size of our population requires us to care about our impact on the rest of the world’s ecosystems. “We must care, ever more with each generation, how much we as individuals are out of sync with environmental sustainability,” he writes.
  2. Counter to the hype, it’s not your fault directly. “Our diets, our modes of moving, and our urge to keep interior temperatures close to 70 degrees Fahrenheit no matter what is happening outside — none of these make us awful people. It’s just that collectively, these behaviors are moving basic planetary systems into danger zones.”
  3. Density may boost sustainability, but that won’t solve the real problem. “Space, of course, has never been the issue. The impacts of our needs, greeds, and wants are. We should bemoan — and aggressively address — the gross inequity that characterizes individual consumption around the world.”
  4. Get real: you can’t green yourself out of existence. “We should also acknowledge that over the decades-long span of most human lifetimes, most of us are likely to consume a fair amount, regardless of where and how we live; no human being, no matter how poor, can escape interacting with the environment, which is one reason population matters so much.”
  5. China’s growth is just one piece of the puzzle. “More immediately worrisome from an environmental perspective, of course, is that the United States and the industrialized world as a whole still have growing populations, despite recent slowdowns in the growth rate, while already living high up on the per-capita consumption ladder.”
  6. Water scarcity is the canary in the coal mine. “Fresh water is now shared so thinly that the United Nations Environment Program projects that in just 14 years two thirds of the world’s population will be living in countries facing water scarcity or stress.”
  7. The bottom line: we’re out-of-balance with our surroundings. “We appropriate anywhere from 24 percent to nearly 40 percent of the photosynthetic output of the planet for our food and other purposes, and more than half of its accessible renewable freshwater runoff.”

Sobering words, indeed. But anyone can criticize. Who will be bold enough to suggest — and enact — solutions?

Engelman rightly notes that fear won’t help anyone, and we can’t stop inevitable global population growth in the short term. What we can do, however, is “put in place conditions that will support an early end to growth.”

His two suggestions:

  • Lower birth rates simply by letting women decide to become pregnant for themselves.
  • Reduce energy, water, and materials consumption through conservation, efficiency, and green technologies.

The problem as I see it is economic; that is, where’s the leverage? This is a long-term economic strategy that comes at the expense of short-term economic gains — a hard sell when nations are competing against each other to their own apparent long-term detriment.

In the age of globalization, can we work toward a common goal? First we may need a global organization that has the teeth to enforce it.

The World at 7 Billion: Can We Stop Growing Now? [Yale E360]

Illustration: Anders Sandberg/Flickr

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is the editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
75
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+5 Votes
+ -
Polpulation explosion!
Excellent post on Global population explosion and its consequences.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
Posted by anumakonda.jagadeesh@...
19th Jul 2011
+8 Votes
+ -
Unsustainable growth
Population experiments with rats show that the future may be interesting. Researchers put a few rats in a large but limited space; food and water were ample through the experiment. As the population of rats grew so also did stress from smaller territories. Once the rat population got to a certain size then the behavior of the rats changed with increase in violence and strange behavior not seen in smaller populations of rats. At a point the population collapses and there is a great die off of rats.

Humans have gotten good at finding and storing resources like food and water. People do not have the same behaviors as rats do and for the most part we are cooperative and able to use technology to overcome most problems.

Engleman's solution to let women choose when to become pregnant and to reduce resource consumption may not stop the increase in population. There are other solutions but those violate our morals too much; like reducing access to health care, encouraging more abortions and suicide, increasing capital punishment for lesser crimes, rely on war, drought and famine to wipe out populations. These are solutions that are ethically and morally wrong. There is one solution that is highly unlikely and that is for mankind to voluntarily choose to stop breeding except for enough offspring to maintain a stable but much smaller population.

Malthus was an optimist
Posted by sboverie
19th Jul 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
Rothschild, Rockefeller, & Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, et al
Firstly, I think we could convince the giant agribusiness corporations under elite control to somehow inundate global agriculture with genetically engineered food crops that cause sterility and increased infant mortality. Of course, we wouldn't tell the public about the plan.

Oops. Already been done.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html
http://www.truthistreason.net/children-of-the-corn-gmo-sterility-and-spermicides

Well, we could always have the giant petrochemical corporations under elite control add to nearly every single plastic consumer product a hormone-like chemical that causes infertility. Of course, we wouldn't tell the public about the plan.

Oops. That's already been going on for more than 50 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8093585/Bisphenol-A-now-linked-to-male-infertility.html

I suppose we could persuade the giant pharmaceutical corporations and international agencies under elite control to develop and deploy birth control vaccines that are disguised as "normal" and helpful vaccines, such as the tetanus vaccine. Of course, we wouldn't tell the public about the plan.

Oops. Turns out someone's already been there, done that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12346214
http://www.thinktwice.com/birthcon.htm

Perhaps we should encourage the giant military/industrial complex under elite control to develop and deploy munitions that are made out of radioactive uranium (with a 4 billion-year half-life) so that, whenever there's a war, there'd be a good opportunity to spread across entire regions of the globe an eternal legacy of cancer, infertility, and horrific birth defects. Of course, we'd tell the public it was safe.

Oops. Already being done.
http://www.warchildren.org/hidden_killer.html
http://ruthgordonmcgillmd.com/Home/InterviewRokke.pdf

Boy, I thought I was just brimming with novel solutions to the overpopulation "problem," but it seems like in every case I've been beaten to the punch by the oligarchic super-elite of the world.

Oh wait, has anyone thought of this idea? Let's just dismantle the global system of feudalistic, fractional-reserve, debt-based, central bank slavery; and allow the poor countries to develop. Their birthrate would quickly fall to below replacement, just as it has in every developed country on the planet...
...but that just doesn't seem to be deliciously evil enough, am I right?
Posted by Steamin' E.
22nd Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Rothschild, Rockefeller............etc.
One should not use low-credibility newspapers and websites to validate ramblings.

Why not just letting "survival of the fittest" run its course?
Posted by donrmiller@...
23rd Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Right, this is the hidden "blessing" of Rampant Capitalism...
...which is the production of so many chemicals that affect our bodies in small but important ways. The chemical industry MAY test for carcinogenisity, but they don't have to, since the American regulatory default is now that chemicals only get tested by regulatory agencies if there is "reason" to think they are toxic. In other words, the default is the position that all chemicals are, by nature, safe to consume.

If we lose fertility in a meaningful sense, it might even be the best thing that could happen, since people are predisposed to NEVER think of limiting their reproduction options.

But over time, it might be the end of us, as the environment will not clean itself up quickly, once these chemicals are rife, as they are becoming. They will just keep on bioaccumulating, until that blessing gets to us.

And the scary thing is, the effects seen in this study seem to have accumulated over the generations as well, implying that there is perhaps an element of geneticity to the changes.

That's all we need...
Posted by Lightning Joe
23rd Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
unstable growth perhaps
Well did any one forget how china had to cut there population down. by having one child per a family. it seemed inhuman at the time. there are more and more young people getting pregnant . so it must stop and giving people both sexes not to plan for children for a while. giving women birth control pills like the deer population if we as humans did not kill all the deer heard then they would them self starve them self's out by over population. people are the same way we will starve our self in time.
Posted by edward goodpeace
28th Jul 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
Let women choose when and if to become pregnant?
The problem is that in much of the third world the large family is a life-long benefit. It was that way in my family in the USA prior to World War II.
Sadly, in developed nations the birthrate is below maintenance, which skews the above problem even more.
Posted by cfthelin
19th Jul 2011
-3 Votes
+ -
Do not let women choose
It should be a decision done by man AND woman. Otherwise You get the situation in my country; women can choose if and when they get pregnant with no involvement of men at all. AT ALL! That's right, any woman can go to any doctors office and get artificial insemination without never even meeting any men. They have no idea whatsoever what kind of child they will get. The color of it's eyes is such a trivial matter that I don't even know why they bother recording such information. Besides, You would have to know the other persons parents, grandparents and greatgrandparents to even know a fraction of the probabilities. And that's what dating is all about, really.

Then these women complain how hard it is to be a single parent of five children. Duh...

The point in there being a man AND a woman, is a system that nature has tried out for billions of years and it has worked well. The system that humanity has "worked out" the last decades has already weakened humanity and worse is to come.

As for there being too many people on this earth already, yes, yes and yes. There are. Still some even developed countries' leaders are saying: multiply. Like Russia just recently. They want to increase the birthrate by 30%.

"You can't fix stupid" like a famous standup comic once said. But they can multiply. Unfortunately smart people do not multiply as readily, which will lead to an inevitable decrease in intelligence in humanity as a whole.

And let's not even talk about the part religion plays in this.
Posted by Dukhalion
19th Jul 2011
+9 Votes
+ -
the let women choose line
is due to many countries where the population growth is highest, the women have no say in the matter at all. The man wants lots of children, the woman gets pregnant repeatedly. If she somehow doesn't(choice or biology), she is disposed of for a more fertile woman.
Posted by kevinrs1
19th Jul 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
Choose
Letting women choose does include a man, just like you said, a man and a woman. you went off base on artificial insemination, couples use it too when a man is infertile, you sound like a sci-fi novel, like "the planet of the amazons"
Posted by junietoons
19th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
The planet of the Amazons...
is not here yet, but the country of the Amazons is. I was quite serious. It's here already. But as for Your suggestion below about male birthcontrol, I think it's a great idea, but it must be easy and efficient to use, for men to adopt the idea and really use it.
Posted by Dukhalion
20th Jul 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
What is so awful about women choosing?
So what, if they don't know what color the baby's eyes will be? I think if a woman makes a decision like that, then it should be clear that she DOESN'T CARE what color the eyes will be. I even think that is a GOOD thing!

And likewise, what is so awful about men not having a say in it? It's the woman's body, isn't it? (unless you think, as do male white "Christians" in this country) that YOU OWN the woman's body... NOT! In fact, the men also get what they want from it -- in this case, a place to masturbate, and some money for doing it.

Sorry, but men have NOT lived up to the very press they publish, on their own indispensability to women, reproduction and rearing. They commonly breed and run, leaving the women alone to raise the children. THAT is the source of single-woman parented families, NOT invitro fertilization. That you think there is a problem there, shows that you need to start perusing other sources of news -- because the ones you listen to now are setting you up with false information.

And if women DO go to clinics as you say, it just may be, that they want the kids, but DON'T want any man to be able to move in on them while they are parenting. And with the amount of trouble a man can cause a woman and her family, I don't blame them a bit.
Posted by Lightning Joe
Updated - 23rd Jul 2011
+11 Votes
+ -
The problem can't possibly be addressed until there's more honesty...
...about the problem and the causes. The following is an example of the dishonesty that precludes any "smart" solution to the problem:

More immediately worrisome from an environmental perspective, of course, is that the United States and the industrialized world as a whole still have growing populations, despite recent slowdowns in the growth rate, while already living high up on the per-capita consumption ladder.

This is simply not true . Much of western Europe is actually de-populating. In America, what increase in population that is actually taking place is due entirely to immigration, and not reproduction (except that which is being done by the immigrants, who tend to have larger families than those who have been here a generation or more) If anything, the affluent west has been acting as a buffer to this population explosion. (albeit for the supposed benefit of cheap labor) Stop immigration to America, and we'd be de-populating like Europe as well.

Of course, the west is much of the problem, although not for the reasons usually sited by the crisis industrial complex. The real problem is that through our humanitarianism and charity, we've made it possible for populations to grow where otherwise they would not have. We've done it by exporting surpluses of food and health technologies to poor and developing populations that have increased lifespans globally to historical highs while reducing infant mortality to historical lows. And one of the reasons we have such surpluses is because we are affluent, and that affluence has the side-effect of reducing our urge to breed as an economic necessity as it still is in much of the lesser-developed world.

How we correct this problem is both politically and morally troublesome, and brings up uncomfortable questions that those in the crisis industrial complex simply do not want to address. For example, the simple and obvious solution would be to stop subsidizing this unsustainable population growth by cutting off food and health aid to the places we've been artificially sustaining for generations. (I am not advocating this; I just state it as an obvious solution that would solve the problem, albeit in a manner that would be considered a human disaster)

But since the crisis industrial complex can't even acknowledge the real causes of the problem, what hope is there of them actually being able to solve it? It's so much easier just to say that it's the west's fault for being so affluent (which it is) and ask for more money, which actually is part of the problem, and solves absolutely nothing.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 19th Jul 2011
-6
The problem
Posted by junietoons  |  Below your threshold
+4 Votes
+ -
Fortunately, I don't rely upon people like you for aid...
...which, of course is the primary problem with aid in the first place; if not intelligently applied it creates dependency.

But thanks for the snarky reply. It further helps to make my point about the simple inability by Progressives to discuss this problem intelligently.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
19th Jul 2011
+6 Votes
+ -
Mostly agree
The problem with dealing with human population is that to make a difference would entail either making the situation worse by being nice or doing those things that are morally reprehensible that would let people die. I have a feeling that nature will handle the overpopulation.
Posted by sboverie
19th Jul 2011
+9 Votes
+ -
I'm afraid that I have to agree.
Not long after I first evaluating this problem, I came to the same conclusion. Historically, there have been 3 ways that this problem has been addressed. The most common, at least in recent centuries, unfortunately, has been war. (Wars are usually conflicts over access to natural resources) Wars have been terribly effective at thinning out populations. Then there is nature, which does it through disease or natural disaster, or both. Of course, the least likely is a "managed" approach. Generally, history has not viewed those responsible for the best known "managed" approaches very favorably outside of certain extremist circles.

Personally, I find it disturbing to have to consider Stalin or Mao as ecological heroes.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
19th Jul 2011
+4 Votes
+ -
Life Boat
A small scale version of controlling population vs resources is the movie "Life Boat". A ship sinks and the passengers and crew are lost at sea in a life boat. The captain maintains order until the resources become too little to support the group; he starts eliminating people according to his criteria. At the end there is a face off that ends with rescue, the captain observes that if they had to survive another day that the survivors would have thanked him.

That is the dilemma with having such a huge human population. Most of the natural ecological niches have a balance between predators and prey; humans do not have that balance.
Posted by sboverie
20th Jul 2011
+4 Votes
+ -
Straight from "Ethics 101".
Although I'm not sure we're at the "lifeboat" stage yet, unless the exponential growth of population does not slow at some point, we may find ourselves there.

But look at the bright side: Soylent Green IS people.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Jul 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
I have to wonder then...
...how many folks actually understood that particular reference (and I ain't talking about the "Lifeboat"). happy
Posted by bandersnatch42vt
22nd Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
What??
Is there anyplace on Earth, where the reference to "Soylent Green is people" will go over people's heads?
Posted by Lightning Joe
23rd Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Soylent Green! Oh! yummy
Somewhere someone is eating it and turning it into human protein.
Maybe this is part of the sixth mass extinction.
Posted by TonyTrenton
23rd Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
I would guess
that many people under 30 will not get the reference.
Posted by zclayton3
27th Jul 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Recomendation...
"Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed"
Posted by Stephen-Engard
20th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Have you noticed, that with all the wars and disease & natural disasters
The human population growth recovers very quickly.

This we recognize as a problem.
The fix is way beyond us.

The complexity is in fact way beyond our primative minds.
(The homosapien brain is only about 80,000 years in developement . Which is a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms.)

In chaos theory the 80:20 rule shows that 79.68% of the Universe is chaotic and only 20.32% is order out of the chaos.

We can grasp only +-20%. We are totally unaware of the other +-80% of reality.

We can only do the best we can.

Sorry to have to put the human condition in such a negative reality.
Posted by TonyTrenton
Updated - 23rd Jul 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
Fixing and then permanently controlling world population
If you would like to learn some of the options we must accept if our children's children are to survive then pickup "True Freedom - The Road to the First Real Democracy" found at www.democraticroad.com. The people of this planet had better wake up to the real world we are facing or the children of today will pay far more than anyone in the current world could even venture to guess.
Posted by dgage19558@...
19th Jul 2011
-3 Votes
+ -
True freedom
As the good book tells us so.
Posted by junietoons
19th Jul 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
What do you mean?
The superlative abstract nouns 'Freedom,' 'Change' & 'Democracy'
mean precisely nothing.

Freedom! To do what?

Change! What sort of change?

Democracy! Define democracy so that we are all on the same page!

Try this definition;

A truly democratic society gives each member of that society the 'Freedom' to make responsible choices within that society.

As an example;
If I respect your freedom to make responsible choices and you respect my freedom to make responsible choices. There is no conflict.

Democratic freedom, does not mean that you can do what you want regadless of other memers of society.

Each person must be responsible for their own thougts and feelings and actions because nobody else can know what you think or feel from moment to moment.

You can't read my mind and I can't read yours.

MAKING CHOICES IMPLIES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE CHOICES.

DEMOCRACY IS NOT JUST THE FREEDOM TO VOTE.

As you can determine from the above definitions.

AMERICANS DON'T KNOW WHAT DEMOCRACY IS !!!

At the last election.
America was sold a pig in the poke with a classical high pressure selling technique
with no substance.

Obama is a wonderful orator but a Barnam & Bailey flim flam man with no substance.
Posted by TonyTrenton
Updated - 23rd Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
There is only one permanent fix.
Goodbye cruel world.
We are very short lived creatures
The Universe we are part of is dynamic. Nature works the numbers game, with infinite quantities and an infinte variety of those quantities.

The late great professor Isaac Asimov said it was necessary to have your mind boggled at least twice a day.
While I'm on the Sci-fi. thought stream.
Check out Arthur C. Clarke's book 'Childhood's End' and see if you can perceive any parallels with what is happening today. He was very prophetic .
Posted by TonyTrenton
Updated - 23rd Jul 2011
+6 Votes
+ -
Fixing the problem
Um, Male birth control.
Posted by junietoons
19th Jul 2011
-6
Faulty assumptions
Posted by 2L82W8  |  Below your threshold
+5 Votes
+ -
Technology
Technology has pushed the problem into the future but there is a limit to how much technology can do. Malthus based his beliefs on the farm production methods of his time, we were able to use mechanical power to replace the animals used to plow and cultivate crops. Currently, corn is being used to make fuel at the cost of increasing grain prices. The Arab Spring rebellion was started by the poor who could not get enough food.

Currently, oil is heavily used in farming. Oil runs the tractors and trucks, oil is used to make the tires that the tractors and trucks use, oil is used to make the fertilizers that helped increase crop yields and oil is used to transport the crops to population centers. If oil was plentiful then this use of technology could last another century or so; but oil is getting harder to extract and the cost of oil goes higher. Higher oil costs increases the cost of food.

Malthus has not been disproved, only delayed.
Posted by sboverie
Updated - 20th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Human Ingenuity Hasn't Been Beat Yet
It's always the same ... some new problem (for example, your oil / farming link) presents itself and the doom and gloom chorus once again trots out the tired old refrain that THIS TIME catastrophe is imminent. And don't you know, THIS TIME, the chorus is wrong again and human ingenuity comes through. It is always a mistake to bet against the innovation and creativity possible when mankind is unleashed.

Of course, we could instead trust to some man-made rules or a feel-good institution (the UN, perhaps). But bureaucrats and committees -- local, national or global -- have a pretty poor track record compared with free men unleashed to create and invent and problem-solve. Of course, you don't get to pass any feel good laws ... you just get solutions ... every time.
Posted by 2L82W8
20th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Exubriant Optimism
Optimism is good and a better way to think than pessimism. The entire human race is betting large on human ingenuity and engineering to solve all our problems. Our most intractable problems have layers of politics and a lack of agreement on the desired outcome.

My point about oil is that it was a large factor in the agricultural expansion. Oil is in everything. Two years ago there was an economic shock when oil prices shot up to $140 per barrel; this year the prices soared almost as high. The future of oil is that it will go much higher and that will make food production costs go higher and the cost of food will go higher. Oil is still abundant but it is a finite resource that is being used at a faster rate. Oil has helped raise the human population to 7 billion and without oil or a substitute, the 7 + billion population will be unsustainable.

I am optimistic that there can be a high level of civilization without oil; mankind lived that way more than a century ago. We can be intelligent and use oil only for the most important reasons, to grow and distribute food.
Posted by sboverie
22nd Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Neither you nor I have yet had a fatal accident or illness ....
We have always escaped, so are we immortal?

Many things that have not yet happened are inevitable. One day our planet might be as barren as all the others. I would like to think we have a choice ...
Posted by PassingWind
22nd Jul 2011
+8 Votes
+ -
At the risk of getting minus votes,
I'm going to have to agree to an extent. Before the hand-wringing was finished over the dung in the streets of New York City, the automobile eliminated the problem. Now, the automobile IS the problem. But what makes people think this problem will not be overcome by technology? In 50 years we may be completely powered by Thorium reactor power plants. In 10 years, we may have electric automobiles with a range of 1000 miles, and we'll look back at the old days when we had to fill our gasoline tanks every week and talk about how primitive life was by comparison. Solution to the fresh water problem? I have no idea, but that doesn't mean we won't find one. Perhaps 25 years from now the Rio Grande will be grand once again, due to mankind's ingenuity. Maybe right now all of the food sent to poor countries preserves lives, but dooms those people to lives of poverty; in the future we'll have figured out ways to improve the quality of life, as well. Is this not Bill Gates' goal, to raise the standard of living everywhere? And part of that goal entails reducing consumption of natural resources. How can it be done? We don't know yet, but we're working on it.
Posted by AlanLaRue
22nd Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Energy isn't the issue ...
there is more than enough for a long time yet in the sun and the gravitational energy of the moon to keep solar, wind, tidal and geothermal sources going. If we're clever enough we don't need nuclear.

The problems are food, space, quality of life and systems resilience. Envisage 7 billion, 70 billion, 700 billion - somewhere the solution becomes so technologically complex that long term it cannot work.

There has to be a stable and sustainable master plan. Once we have that we can manage our growth. Without it, however clever we think we are, we are passengers on nature's train. And nature's solutions to these problems are ruthlessly unattractive.
Posted by PassingWind
22nd Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Yes I agree
But I fear there can be no master plan.

Remember. All power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Posted by TonyTrenton
23rd Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Yes I agree
But I fear there can be no master plan.

Remember. All power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Posted by TonyTrenton
23rd Jul 2011
+4 Votes
+ -
the show will go on and on and on ...
@AlanLaRue, You have it. Add to that what futurists suggest and predict that for the human species to survive, we must ultimately emigrate to the skies (where else) and beyond ... and then the show will go on and on and on ... ad infinitum.
Posted by jjcostandi
22nd Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
water
The biggest thing to do about water is to move excess (flooding) to the areas that need it (drought areas). When we can economically do that then we have solved some of the problem. Just this year Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico go wanting for rain/water, yet the upper midwest has flooding problems due to rain and winter precipitation melt runoff. We have had flooding problems here in Oklahoma as well. One could probably turn the Arizona desert into a fertile area with enough water.
Another idea from Scince Fiction is to populate habitable worlds, or at least set up colonies on the moon, Mars...
Posted by dhays
25th Jul 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Technological solutions...
Technology can solve some things, but it can not advance fast enough for the third world countries without severe birth control measures, which most people would not willingly submit to or vote to use... at least, not until the rate of death from starvation and dehydration starts affecting some first world countries.
Posted by Stephen-Engard
20th Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Population
Did Solient Green dieoff?
Posted by bernielevesque@...
19th Jul 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
Overpopulation
People are not like rats. Rats generally do not start killing each other when the going gets rough. What will happen when there are too many people and not enough food is war. If the war is nuclear, it will be the end of life as we know it on this planet. If it is "conventional" warfare, it will be disastrous but will cull the population to mare sustainable levels. There is not much that can be done about third world overgrowth. There may be a plague, mass starvation, or other disasters. When Europe was relatively overpopulated for their technology in the middle ages, bubonic plague corrected it by killing off 25% of the human population. What we have coming will make that pale in comparasion. Enjoy the time you have left, and be ever watchful, because armageddon is inevetible. Our fate is not really in our hands.
Posted by Arctic Char
20th Jul 2011
-1 Votes
+ -
A driconian solution to over-population.
It is now possible to engineer foods that increase rates of infertility in consumers.
Posted by Stephen-Engard
20th Jul 2011
+6 Votes
+ -
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"Fresh water is now shared so thinly that the United Nations Environment Program projects that in just 14 years two thirds of the world's population will be living in countries facing water scarcity or stress."

The UN is to blame for most of this problem. If they did not artificially support population growth in Africa there would not be food and water shortages in a part of the world that cannot support 1 billion people.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 22nd Jul 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
If anything the UN is the perfect implementation...
...of the self-aggrandizing bureaucracy. They demand money be extracted from us to create a problem, and then demand money be extracted by us to solve the problem they create while blaming the problem upon us in the first place.

Again, it is our fault, but not because we're "already living high up on the per-capita consumption ladder." It's because we subsidize, then tolerate the cycle. If it weren't for our success and affluence, the UN wouldn't even exist.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Jul 2011
+8 Votes
+ -
But hey, you don't have to take it from me how silly the UN is...
...when the UN is so capable of demonstrating its silliness on its very own:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/un-green-helmets_n_904503.html

They're currently debating trading in the traditional blue helmets for their peeacekeeping forces for green ones to "send a strong signal" about the threats of "climate change".

I assure you, that if you are living somewhere that is such a hell-hole that UN "peacekeepers" are your only hope, you've got far bigger problems than "climate change".

This has been my point from the beginning of the "global warming" political agenda; People who are poor, starving, and living under oppressive and corrupt governments don't give a rats ass about "climate change". Only affluent societies who have traveled up the Maslow curve have the luxury of doing so. As we start sliding back down that curve and becoming "poor" again, the environment will suffer as much as we do.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
22nd Jul 2011
+4 Votes
+ -
Unfortunately bureaucracy is like a melanoma
It is a cancer the feeds on the body the spawned it.
Beauracracy devours the society it depends on.
Posted by TonyTrenton
23rd Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
African "overpopulation"
The United Nations and other agencies are increasing Africa's population by decreasing childhood deaths from common and preventable diseases and conditions. The Gates Foundation has put big bucks into this as well. If Africa had the transportation infrastructure it would have developed had it not been divided and held by European countries for their own benefit, it would be much more like the US. China is moving aggressively (and US corporations through China) to buy up and combine land that was divided and subdivided by the tribal structure to be given to the ever-expanding families. Unfortunately, they want the land to grow what they want, not what Africans want - or need. Land in the Sahel is not very usable, and there is already a shortage of water in much of Africa. None of this was caused by the UN.
Posted by thylawyer
22nd Jul 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!