Eight Billion People on Earth as of Today

With automation and robotics, etc., making human labor less relevant, more people are being relegated to "service" jobs which produce nothing. Eventually half the population will be trying to sell insurance to the other half.

It's a tossup between Overpopulation and Climate Change which will trigger the next major conflict.....probably before this century ends.
 

rgp said:
8 Billionth since when ? How many folks have died in that same time frame ?

So if it's a problem ? What's the solution ? Kill off some of the existing ? How many & who ? Sterilization ? Again, how many & who ?
Click to expand...
The same News Bulletin said, "This figure won't last long, before
somebody argues against it", Ron, you win the prize!

True or false, it doesn't matter, it is still a lot of people to sustain.

Mike.
 
JimBob1952 said:
The UN says population will peak at 10.9 billion. Others say about 9.7 billion by 2064. Populations are actually declining in some countries; all the projected growth is in Africa.

The "cure" for population growth is a higher standard of living. If people don't feel like they need large numbers of children to support them in their old age, then they won't have so many children. So that would be an argument for massive aid to sub-Saharan Africa, with the caveat that many African governments are hopelessly autocratic and corrupt, so that aid distribution becomes highly problematic.
Click to expand...
Excellent points. Remote parts of Africa (as well as India) could also benefit from health services that include reliable birth-control and children's vaccines.
 

bingo said:
with world food shortage at our door...there will be massive starvation...the population will go down...all...very troubling
Click to expand...

Chet said:
Humans are a cancer upon the planet and will eventually consume the host to the benefit of every other living thing.
Click to expand...

Do you really feel that way? Do you look at your friends, children, grandchildren and say, "You are a cancer upon the planet?"
 
Mike said:
The same News Bulletin said, "This figure won't last long, before
somebody argues against it", Ron, you win the prize!

True or false, it doesn't matter, it is still a lot of people to sustain.

Mike.
Click to expand...

Can't argue here ...:giggle: but I do hope the "prize" has to do with a good smooth whisky .....
 
Murrmurr said:
Meaning "People currently on the Earth" yes?
Click to expand...
Could it be that the search for an inhabitable planet is because the anticipation of earths resources being depleted is a motivator to get out while it's still possible?
 
Knight said:
Could it be that the search for an inhabitable planet is because the anticipation of earths resources being depleted is a motivator to get out while it's still possible?
Click to expand...
Or could be the search is more focused on discovering resources on inhabitable and uninhabitable planets, and hoping to kill 2 birds with 1 stone in the process.
 
Knight said:
Could it be that the search for an inhabitable planet is because the anticipation of earths resources being depleted is a motivator to get out while it's still possible?
Click to expand...
The earth will be "depleted" long before man finds the means to inhabit another planet....if one exists. The poorer nations are reproducing at an increasing rate, while the richer nations are seeing reduced numbers of births.

We are already seeing the results as large numbers of migrants are crossing our Mexican border, and similar crossings are becoming more common from Africa into Europe.

Latinos are already the largest ethnicity in California, and gaining in the other SW states....Arizona, NM, Texas, etc. This will likely result in increased "racism" issues, and social conflicts.

A few years ago, the UN predicted the maximum sustainable population to be about 6 billion. We are well beyond that now, and it will not be long before this unchecked population growth, combined with Climate Change, results in a global crisis that will make WWII look like a minor issue. Sometime, before this century is over, there will be a major confrontation between the Haves and the Have Nots.
 
The danger of overpopulation may one day become an issue of government control… With this thought in mind, doesn’t it seem logical to address possible moral solutions and options while there’s still an opportunity to do so?

Offering a safe and satisfactory death solution for open-minded, willing, convalescing elderly nearing end of life, and for terminally sick, as well as shunned displaced slum dwellers prepared to surrender, imprisoned inmates serving timed sentences, and incapacitated still sound-of-mind people yearning death, is a decent, humane way to traverse outdated ethical issues in favor of lasting human survival.

It’s a start, and a step in the right direction in addressing the minimization of overcrowding, and much preferred over other inevitable necessary evils that have yet to unfold.

As, earth’s resources wane and dwindle; it’s only a matter of time before future dystopian world governments force mandatory euthanasia or enforce disturbing means of sterilization. Sound far fetched? No doubt, worst-case scenarios simmer in the backdrop of many government official's mind.
 
Informally without careful thought, much horror rolls out of my mind without even needing to study the issues or being thorough...

More likely will be reading about increasing starvation in third world countries like has been ongoing in Ethiopia and the southern Sahara. The response will continue to be UN oriented sending food stocks from Western nations and various aide groups. Eventually over a decade or two those will run low impacting available food in Western nations. Global warming climate changes with drought, and sea level rise will cause migrations and unemployment world wide aggravating already strained relations between native citizens and immigrants.

Borders will be blocked by military forces and we will read about desperates being killed. The economic world's wealthy will avoid becoming involved or doing anything about their reckless agendas beyond further ceiling themselves from members of their own citizens, pointing fingers elsewhere, and complaining about their wealth being taken away by inevitable inflation and taxes required to pay for humanitarian responses for their own citizens. The system of economic globalization started in our generation will become a subject of much hate. Regional wars will occur as the impossibly interconnected global economies degenerate leaving myriad overpopulated people exposed without basic survival resources like fuel and food.

Third world people will flock to already overpopulated cities and create issues impossible to control leading to armed anarchy and chaos. People in Western nations will increasingly fear the same rising up in their own countries leading to hoarding, weapon sales, and migrations to rural areas where they feel safer. Ultra rich will move to self food supporting island nations. Australia, Japan, and New Zealand will increasingly isolate. Citizens will be frustrated by roving bands of armed criminal gangs that take while police only protect wealthy and core areas. Armed militias will control rural areas sometimes warring with criminal gangs.

Society will increasingly accept shoot first ask questions later as we slide into a dystopian future. Suicides by opiate overdoses will become epidemic as many desperates have-nots lose hope. Birthrates in Western nations will plummet even more as couples see only pain in their children's futures. Desperates despite laws, will deplete local native animal and sea life to survive.

Many will cry why haven't political powers done something? Religious groups will spew continual speculations the time of Revelation is occurring.
 
David777 said:
Informally without careful thought, much horror rolls out of my mind without even needing to study the issues or being thorough...

More likely will be reading about increasing starvation in third world countries like has been ongoing in Ethiopia and the southern Sahara. The response will continue to be UN oriented sending food stocks from Western nations and various aide groups. Eventually over a decade or two those will run low impacting available food in Western nations. Global warming climate changes with drought, and sea level rise will cause migrations and unemployment world wide aggravating already strained relations between native citizens and immigrants.

Borders will be blocked by military forces and we will read about desperates being killed. The economic world's wealthy will avoid becoming involved or doing anything about their reckless agendas beyond further ceiling themselves from members of their own citizens, pointing fingers elsewhere, and complaining about their wealth being taken away by inevitable inflation and taxes required to pay for humanitarian responses for their own citizens. The system of economic globalization started in our generation will become a subject of much hate. Regional wars will occur as the impossibly interconnected global economies degenerate leaving myriad overpopulated people exposed without basic survival resources like fuel and food.

Third world people will flock to already overpopulated cities and create issues impossible to control leading to armed anarchy and chaos. People in Western nations will increasingly fear the same rising up in their own countries leading to hoarding, weapon sales, and migrations to rural areas where they feel safer. Ultra rich will move to self food supporting island nations. Australia, Japan, and New Zealand will increasingly isolate. Citizens will be frustrated by roving bands of armed criminal gangs that take while police only protect wealthy and core areas. Armed militias will control rural areas sometimes warring with criminal gangs.

Society will increasingly accept shoot first ask questions later as we slide into a dystopian future. Suicides by opiate overdoses will become epidemic as many desperates have-nots lose hope. Birthrates in Western nations will plummet even more as couples see only pain in their children's futures. Desperates despite laws, will deplete local native animal and sea life to survive.

Many will cry why haven't political powers done something? Religious groups will spew continual speculations the time of Revelation is occurring.
Click to expand...
Any best guess as to the time frame this will begin?
 
Sorry if I'm skeptical about all this gloom and doom. There have been predictions about overpopulation and famine for the last 200 plus years, and they have all been wrong. Humans are remarkably clever and have demonstrated an ability to wriggle their way out of tight situations.

My guess is that population will peak at about 10 billion. We will be able to feed everyone. (We can feed everyone now; it's political rather than resource constraints that keep us from doing so.) Climate change will cause stress and disruption, but we will adapt.

None of us will be around to see if I'm right, unfortunately.
 
Old_Dame said:
The danger of overpopulation may one day become an issue of government control… With this thought in mind, doesn’t it seem logical to address possible moral solutions and options while there’s still an opportunity to do so?

Offering a safe and satisfactory death solution for open-minded, willing, convalescing elderly nearing end of life, and for terminally sick, as well as shunned displaced slum dwellers prepared to surrender, imprisoned inmates serving timed sentences, and incapacitated still sound-of-mind people yearning death, is a decent, humane way to traverse outdated ethical issues in favor of lasting human survival.

It’s a start, and a step in the right direction in addressing the minimization of overcrowding, and much preferred over other inevitable necessary evils that have yet to unfold.

As, earth’s resources wane and dwindle; it’s only a matter of time before future dystopian world governments force mandatory euthanasia or enforce disturbing means of sterilization. Sound far fetched? No doubt, worst-case scenarios simmer in the backdrop of many government official's mind.
Click to expand...

Much more efficient and humane to decrease birth rates than to increase death rates. And euthanasia for "slum dwellers" sounds worse than Orwellian to me.
 
@JimBob1952

“Much more efficient and humane to decrease birth rates than to increase death rates.”

Perhaps on the surface, decreasing birth rates appear the lesser of two evils to maintain balance, yet inhibiting new life defy convention of the natural biological law of proliferating existence; whereas diminishing surplus population of suffering/dying or condemned souls [willing] to take part in euthanasia is quite humane.


“And euthanasia for "slum dwellers" sounds worse than Orwellian to me.”

“Sound” is irrelevant compared to the catastrophic, inescapable doom and degrading hardship displaced slum inhabitants endure daily.

Kindness arrives in many forms, as does human decency, which involves “making hard choices.”

What if government (s) gave millions of unfortunate souls' the opportunity to choose euthanasia? To depart this world painlessly with excellence, to befriend death with grace?

Will you stand against “death with dignity” laws because they sound Orwellian?
 
Old_Dame said:
@JimBob1952

“Much more efficient and humane to decrease birth rates than to increase death rates.”

Perhaps on the surface, decreasing birth rates appear the lesser of two evils to maintain balance, yet inhibiting new life defy convention of the natural biological law of proliferating existence; whereas diminishing surplus population of suffering/dying or condemned souls [willing] to take part in euthanasia is quite humane.


“And euthanasia for "slum dwellers" sounds worse than Orwellian to me.”

“Sound” is irrelevant compared to the catastrophic, inescapable doom and degrading hardship displaced slum inhabitants endure daily.

Kindness arrives in many forms, as does human decency, which involves “making hard choices.”

What if government (s) gave millions of unfortunate souls' the opportunity to choose euthanasia? To depart this world painlessly with excellence, to befriend death with grace?

Will you stand against “death with dignity” laws because they sound Orwellian?
Click to expand...
However, breeding like rats is never a good idea. Slowing the birthrate would allow the death rate to catch up. I cannot for the life of me think of ANY good reason why anyone needs more than 2 kids.
 
Old_Dame said:
@JimBob1952

“Much more efficient and humane to decrease birth rates than to increase death rates.”

Perhaps on the surface, decreasing birth rates appear the lesser of two evils to maintain balance, yet inhibiting new life defy convention of the natural biological law of proliferating existence; whereas diminishing surplus population of suffering/dying or condemned souls [willing] to take part in euthanasia is quite humane.


“And euthanasia for "slum dwellers" sounds worse than Orwellian to me.”

“Sound” is irrelevant compared to the catastrophic, inescapable doom and degrading hardship displaced slum inhabitants endure daily.

Kindness arrives in many forms, as does human decency, which involves “making hard choices.”

What if government (s) gave millions of unfortunate souls' the opportunity to choose euthanasia? To depart this world painlessly with excellence, to befriend death with grace?

Will you stand against “death with dignity” laws because they sound Orwellian?
Click to expand...
Nobody is stopping anybody from taking his or her own life. The idea that the government should offer euthanasia to "slum dwellers" is creepy and off-putting. Why not offer them better housing, or a shot at a better life?

"Death with dignity" doesn't sound Orwellian, but it's still death.
 
JimBob1952 said:
Nobody is stopping anybody from taking his or her own life. The idea that the government should offer euthanasia to "slum dwellers" is creepy and off-putting. Why not offer them better housing, or a shot at a better life?

"Death with dignity" doesn't sound Orwellian, but it's still death.
Click to expand...
And when you consider how corrupt governments are these days, you know it would rapidly become more than "offer"
 

@JimBob1952

The recent legalization of human composting in several US states has left many feeling “squirmy and distracted” in the same fashion you find my slum-dweller remarks “creepy and off-putting.” Which, to me, is quite understandable, as our “thinking style” determines our feelings, and neither subject is a one-size-fits-all topic of discussion.

Thus, neither case is straightforward to address, and challenges a person’s thought to accept or not. Just as the topics of “overpopulation and homelessness” are in themselves overwhelming controversial subjects, we here at SF navigate and steer through in conversation even though they’re hard pills to swallow.


We are a society trapped in a system that still fabricates dismissal of “death’s reality at a crucial time when what we most need is acceptance of it.”

I view death as a partial solution rather than a repugnant topic of controversy, knowing that the world is changing; yet often forgetting that my way of thinking isn’t the most sensitive belief system. So, I apologize if I’ve offended you or others with my comments.

Several of my personal views on death care decisions lean towards being wayward, and unorthodox, and perhaps best restrained. So, I’ll say no more.

Harvard Design Magazine: A Billion Slum Dwellers and Counting

You might find the enclosed link to the Harvard-article a more appropriate read, though the closing paragraph delivers the type of ordinary chum that offers little hope, let alone a solvable solution.

“Apart from climate change, there may be no more pressing challenge to planetary health and security than the fate of slum dwellers. Helping to improve the quality of life in slums is not rocket science, yet every indication is that we are falling farther and farther behind. The failures are probably more political than logistical or conceptual, and that might be the sorriest part of the whole story.”
 
Old_Dame said:
@JimBob1952

The recent legalization of human composting in several US states has left many feeling “squirmy and distracted” in the same fashion you find my slum-dweller remarks “creepy and off-putting.” Which, to me, is quite understandable, as our “thinking style” determines our feelings, and neither subject is a one-size-fits-all topic of discussion.

Thus, neither case is straightforward to address, and challenges a person’s thought to accept or not. Just as the topics of “overpopulation and homelessness” are in themselves overwhelming controversial subjects, we here at SF navigate and steer through in conversation even though they’re hard pills to swallow.
Click to expand...
I appreciate view points that challenge thinking. IMO your thoughts challenge conventional thinking & are interesting to read. Homelessness, hunger & poverty have been around seems like forever so as topics, they go round & round with no solution. This topic of overpopulation will probably go the same way but is interesting to read the various posts that are ever hopeful. The when & why population will decrease to a sustainable level with earths resources depleted is not a comfortable topic to discuss. Maybe at some point research will put a definite time frame on when resources will no longer be available to sustain life as we know it.
 
We should keep in mind that in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, Stanford professor and author of The Population Bomb, said it was "even money" that the UK would no longer exist as a country by the year 2000.

The real and putative experts on this subject have repeatedly been wrong. However, as we remember the story of the boy who cried wolf, we must remember that the wolf did eventually show up.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top