Is there a Population Problem

[aloha918]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 7 2004, 03:21 PM'] 50 years? Says who?

And even if it is true (and I don't think it is), that is not a problem of overpopulation, its a problem of lifestyle and it has nothing to do with population. The US is not the most populous nation. It does, however, consume the most resources (several times over the next highest). [/quote]
i completely agree that it is our lifestyle.......but there are other factors.....education and resources

[aloha918]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 7 2004, 04:46 PM'] The US has nough Coal to use Coal for ALL of it's energy, ALL of it to make synthetic gas for all it's cars, to replace hydroelectic dams with nuclear reactors, etc and have enough for 300 years, 300 years that is a LOT of coal, that doesn't include the Coal in other parts of the world just the coal in the US herself. [/quote]
this is very true....but if we did that i KNOW that it would be a bad decision....coal increases our CO2 level and is not very enviormentaly friendly.....in fact it is the worst.......not to mention when they get coal they ruin very large amounts of land......coal is a short term solution with a lot of long term effects

[Guest Aluigi]

drill in alaska

how bout that commercial with the deep sea explorers gettin more oil

and besides, they're workin on hydrogen technology, and all sorts of alternative fuels that look very promising. unless your the scientist preparing to get rich off of the imminent new power source that will eventually emerge, it really does no good to worry

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]increases our CO2 level and is not very enviormentaly friendly.[/quote]

Burning anything increases your CO2 level, some types of coal have a lot of Sulfur but many do not, furthermore thare are many anti polution technologies which help preventthese problems avialable they just must be used.

[quote]not to mention when they get coal they ruin very large amounts of land..[/quote] nowdays they are required to return the land to its original state if they strip mine, but a great deal of coal is still mines with shafts the old fashion way, which doesn't harm the land at all, anymore than a salt mine. I am not saying we shoould just start useing coal for everything but we have it, we can use it, we are NOT running out of fuel resources.

[aloha918]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 8 2004, 09:26 PM']
Burning anything increases your CO2 level, some types of coal have a lot of Sulfur but many do not, furthermore thare are many anti polution technologies which help preventthese problems avialable they just must be used.

nowdays they are required to return the land to its original state if they strip mine, but a great deal of coal is still mines with shafts the old fashion way, which doesn't harm the land at all, anymore than a salt mine. I am not saying we shoould just start useing coal for everything but we have it, we can use it, we are NOT running out of fuel resources. [/quote]
This is true............... although coal produces the MOST CO2, has high environmental impact, air and water pollution, high land use, health effects...........coal is not the answer

also the anti pollution technologies are called scrubbers....they do get SOME of the pollution out...but not anywhere near the amount they need to

The thing you said about still mines im not to sure about......i am not really familiar with that....but i amm pretty sure that once the land is stripped mined, the land will be useless....and i believe that it is still very much so being done today......

[aloha918]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 8 2004, 03:23 PM'] drill in alaska

how bout that commercial with the deep sea explorers gettin more oil

and besides, they're workin on hydrogen technology, and all sorts of alternative fuels that look very promising. unless your the scientist preparing to get rich off of the imminent new power source that will eventually emerge, it really does no good to worry [/quote]
drilling in alaska is the worst idea ever......the amount of oil that we would get from there would last the U.S. about 6 months.....it would also disturb the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, which is one of the prettiest things on this earth

They are working on other fuels sources, but oil right now is so important to our way of life.....its not just gas....oil makes everything......it makes plastic....and Americans use a lot of plastic

I wouldn't really say that i am worried....i just think that we need to do something about all of this.......

[BullnaChinaShop]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Dec 9 2004, 10:04 AM'] i amm pretty sure that once the land is stripped mined, the land will be useless....and i believe that it is still very much so being done today...... [/quote]
I grew up in an area where stip mining for coal was done. At least around there it was required that the land be what they called reclaimed. Reclamation involved saving the material stripped away and replacing it after the coal was removed. They at least attempt to put things back as close as they can to how they found them.

[aloha918]

[quote name='BullnaChinaShop' date='Dec 9 2004, 11:28 AM'] I grew up in an area where stip mining for coal was done. At least around there it was required that the land be what they called reclaimed. Reclamation involved saving the material stripped away and replacing it after the coal was removed. They at least attempt to put things back as close as they can to how they found them. [/quote]
well thats ok......but i would still think that they couldn't put it back exactly

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Dec 9 2004, 11:10 AM'] I wouldn't really say that i am worried....i just think that we need to do something about all of this....... [/quote]
Addressing the resourse issue is quite a bit different than population control.

[the protector]

[quote]50 years? Says who?

And even if it is true (and I don't think it is), that is not a problem of overpopulation, its a problem of lifestyle and it has nothing to do with population. The US is not the most populous nation. It does, however, consume the most resources (several times over the next highest). [/quote]

I've got news for you. Our economy is almost entirely dependent on oil. Our economy also relies on perpetual growth. Now, what happens when we reach that halfway point when oil production decreases each year while demand increases?

The real issue is not when we run out of oil, as it is when oil production will peak. Problems arise when demand outsrips production that will only decrease throughout the years. There are many respected geologists who believe we will reach that point within the next three years.

Why have we been able to sustain a population of 6 billion?

Oil.

[url="http://peakoil.com/fortopic1687.html"]Leibig's Law[/url], look into it.

Edited December 10, 2004 by the protector

[popestpiusx]

And the conclusion of your argument is.....?

[aloha918]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 9 2004, 03:18 PM'] Addressing the resourse issue is quite a bit different than population control. [/quote]
so we got a little off topic what is your point?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='aloha918' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:20 PM'] so we got a little off topic what is your point? [/quote]
I think so. Although I was kind of wondering if you equate the two. It seems that the big population control advocates do in fact make the two into a single issue. But yes I do think we got somewhat off topic.

[aloha918]

well i think that protector was kinda getting to it....with less and less energy for people we will not be able to sustain such a high population.... in no way am i saying that abortion is ok because of population problem or contraception....but i think we as americans need to change our views things, cut back on our energy use, waste of food, water, etc......leave some of these things for future generations and other countries.......we need to educate women in abstaining from sex, getting a job to support there family because most of them get so many kids so that they can run a farm for money, and teach them sustainable practices

Edited December 10, 2004 by aloha918

[the protector]

[quote]we need to educate women in abstaining from sex[/quote]
You can't put the entire burden on women. You also need to tell the men that their wives aren't just for their amusement.

Economic equality equality for women, as well as improved sexual education, haven done wonders to curb population growth.

[aloha918]

[quote name='the protector' date='Dec 11 2004, 01:07 AM'] You can't put the entire burden on women. You also need to tell the men that their wives aren't just for their amusement.

Economic equality equality for women, as well as improved sexual education, haven done wonders to curb population growth. [/quote]
i agree with changing the men but i feel it is more on women

[the protector]

I'm going to add some of my previous posts from another thread to keep this going...

-----

The current world population lies somewhere around 6 billion. The earth's carrying capacity is measured by some at around 2 billion. Planet earth is in overshoot. We've been able to sustain this bloated population due to cheap energy from oil.

A lack of cheap energy is another crisis waiting in the wings. It may much sooner than you think. However, the impending economic collapse has the potential to extend this peak through demand destruction. Maybe that we shock us into living simpler lives and consuming less resources.

If the average child per woman were 1.5, we could reach the goal of 2 billion within 100 years. Unfortunately, we haven shown little to no desire to mediate our growth. In that case, nature will correct the problem, which won't exactly be peaches and cream.

[the protector]

The world's population will decrease to a more sustainable level whether we tackle the crisis or not. It can be a slow process, like centuries. However, it can also be a short process, like several decades. The current political and enviromental conditions definately make that shorter, more unpleasant die-off a possibility.

Check out this thread from the peakoil.con forums. I think it best explains the relationship b/t the population and energy crises.

[url="http://peakoil.com/fortopic1687.html"]Leibig's Law[/url]

[the protector]

[quote]50 years ago the earth could support 60 billion people using existing farmland. [/quote]
Where did you find that stat? It sounds ridiculously high to me. In their book "Limits to Growth", the [url="http://www.clubofrome.org/"]Club of Rome[/url] said that if the food supply was evenly distributed, and production was de-centralized, the planet could support around 8 billion at most.

Either way, it is not all about food. What about infrastructure, jobs, clothing, medicine etc.? Lou Dobbs reported last night that in a few decades, the US will need twice of what is has now in houses, hospitals etc. What the enviromental impact of 60 billion people? Look at the impact of 6 billion people. According to [url="http://www.foet.org/JeremyRifkin.htm"]Jeremy Rifkin[/url]. Us Americans account for about 22 billion Chinese in terms of consumption and enviromental impact.

[quote]The world will not become overpopulated.[/quote]
The world IS overpopulated. We have been able to fight some of the effects of overpopulation because of cheap, abundant energy from oil. Energy staves off entropy. Thermodynamics. Do you really want to challenge the laws of thermodynamics?

Leibig's Law: whatever necessity is least abundant, relative to per-capita requirements, sets the environment's limit for the population of any given species.

[quote]We are approaching a point where cheap oil will be in decline. What do you think will happen when the source of energy which fueled the growth in population?
In fact, with great decreases in fertility rates (number of children per woman) in much of the world, the population will likely begin decreasing within this century! (Even the pro-population-control U.N.'s latest population report concedes this.) There is evidence that the decrease will come sooner and be steeper than the U.N. predicts. It has already begun in Europe.[/quote]
What about those other 6 billon and counting? Is population in the third world declining? Due to immigration, even population in the US in not set to decline.

Edited December 18, 2004 by the protector

[qfnol31]

Do you know anything about Thomas Malthus?