|
-
Will the World become overpopulated
Predictions are that the World will reach the optimum number of people by around 2050, 8.1 Billion. This number is based on World resources available to sustain that number of people.
On an average there are: 18.5 births per 1000 people, while the death rate is 7.8 per thousand people. Will the world become over populated? Will there be mass poverty on a scale not seen before?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
-
I can see where this thread is intended to go.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
no natural sustainability will be the marker.as it is you could place the worlds populatio in alaska with an acre each and also 4.5mill intheir banks also,.so its another media and profit mongers hype portrayed.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by jamyramy
no natural sustainability will be the marker.as it is you could place the worlds populatio in alaska with an acre each and also 4.5mill intheir banks also,.so its another media and profit mongers hype portrayed.
Your numbers don't add up, Jamy! There is only 500 million acres in Alaska - compared to 7 Billion people in the World. But it is hype - for if the situation was so dire, we would need every bit of land to grow produce and allow grazing for cattle - house building would be banned. Still, we do have vertical farming, it is just that it will need to be sky scraper vertical soon.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by said
Your numbers don't add up, Jamy! There is only 500 million acres in Alaska - compared to 7 Billion people in the World. But it is hype - for if the situation was so dire, we would need every bit of land to grow produce and allow grazing for cattle - house building would be banned. Still, we do have vertical farming, it is just that it will need to be sky scraper vertical soon.
have t have aword wth dr charlie ward on that one then.but on another info leading sientists say the earth can more than sustain 3 times the current population before it reaches point of concern!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Imo, there's already too many people for the earth to provide for adequately. Many now suffer food and/or water shortages. Energy production is another area that's under pressure. Not to mention a number of other resources becoming scarce. The earth is a finite ball of rock spinning in space, it will never get any bigger. Therefore, populations cannot continue to swell indefinitely......Somewhere down the line, a crunch will undoubtedly come!
On Yer Bike!
www.20splentyforus.co.uk
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
Imo, there's already too many people for the earth to provide for adequately. Many now suffer food and/or water shortages. Energy production is another area that's under pressure. Not to mention a number of other resources becoming scarce. The earth is a finite ball of rock spinning in space, it will never get any bigger. Therefore, populations cannot continue to swell indefinitely......Somewhere down the line, a crunch will undoubtedly come!
Eventually, yes. If the numbers keep increasing as they are now, but it won't be for a few hundred years yet - is my guess. But, thinking ahead - automation is moving really fast now and very soon there will be no jobs for the majority of service workers and very few vacancies for professionals. It could mean a complete turnaround with cottage industries making a return. What say you?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
It isn't the current number that is the problem.
It's the distribution of wealth and resources.
There's more than enough to sustain the human race, but most of the wealth and resources are in the hands of a fraction of 1% of the population.
Which is why we'll go the way of the dinosaurs. Who weren't greedy, so will have outlasted us by several million years.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
I'm going to disagree with most posters.
I don't think that there are 'adequate resources' to be shared out.
The 8.1 billion is not an 'optimum population' ( we probably passed that 4-500 years ago), predictions are that we'll reach that figure within 3-4 years! (WHO)
The world population in 1960 was 3 billion....if you remember those times (fraid I do), then you will recall that one of the biggest topics was how we were going to feed the world's growing population. Oxfam had become a major organisation because famine was a major issue.
Now the world population is 7.8 billion or so (WHO), however we rarely hear about famine...so what's changed? The answer is the 'green revolution': technology has allowed us to breed new high yield crops (mainly rice, wheat and maize), these often rely on high inputs of fertiliser, water (often by irrigation) and pesticides in order to achieve those high yields. It's allowed us to more than double the population and provide adequate food for all.
However it is not cheap, especially in terms of the overall energy input to achieve those yields...the agri business say that greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by the green revolution. Per ton of yield, this is probably true...modern varieties produce greater percentages of 'useful' biomass (the seeds) than old varieties. Nevertheless the green revolution is very reliant on energy to produce the fertilisers, pesticides and the fuel that powers the agricultural machinery. Many people believe that as we pass peak oil (estimates of 2019-2040) then the costs of the crops that produce the green revolution will become increasingly expensive and non-viable. Our recent fuel shortages, fuel price rises (especially gas) and the consequent closure of fertiliser production show that our food production may be at risk if these conditions continue.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by MICK/GILLY
I can see where this thread is intended to go.
Backwards I assume as were already at 7.9 Billion.
Thankfully in amongst that tide of the average there are some smart ones to keep things improving.
Imagine sat round your cave fire with dreary Keir and a Sabre Tooth Tiger was looking good for dinner.
You would be eating the grass till Boris came by.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by local
You would be eating the grass till Boris came by.
Boris would probably be more filling but I'd keep to eating the grass.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
What we need is a good Pandemic to wipe out a quarter of the population.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Snig's foot
I'm going to disagree with most posters.
I don't think that there are 'adequate resources' to be shared out.
The 8.1 billion is not an 'optimum population' ( we probably passed that 4-500 years ago), predictions are that we'll reach that figure within 3-4 years! (WHO)
The world population in 1960 was 3 billion....if you remember those times (fraid I do), then you will recall that one of the biggest topics was how we were going to feed the world's growing population. Oxfam had become a major organisation because famine was a major issue.
Now the world population is 7.8 billion or so (WHO), however we rarely hear about famine...so what's changed? The answer is the 'green revolution': technology has allowed us to breed new high yield crops (mainly rice, wheat and maize), these often rely on high inputs of fertiliser, water (often by irrigation) and pesticides in order to achieve those high yields. It's allowed us to more than double the population and provide adequate food for all.
However it is not cheap, especially in terms of the overall energy input to achieve those yields...the agri business say that greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by the green revolution. Per ton of yield, this is probably true...modern varieties produce greater percentages of 'useful' biomass (the seeds) than old varieties. Nevertheless the green revolution is very reliant on energy to produce the fertilisers, pesticides and the fuel that powers the agricultural machinery. Many people believe that as we pass peak oil (estimates of 2019-2040) then the costs of the crops that produce the green revolution will become increasingly expensive and non-viable. Our recent fuel shortages, fuel price rises (especially gas) and the consequent closure of fertiliser production show that our food production may be at risk if these conditions continue.
Good Points! Don't you think alternative fuels could become cheaper in future? Also, I don't think fast grown crops have the nutrition that natural grown crops have. How would that affect us all?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Desert Region
Boris would probably be more filling but I'd keep to eating the grass.
Quite right! Carnivores are more prone to food poisoning.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
|
Search Qlocal (powered by google)
Privacy & Cookie Policy
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Booking.com
Supporting Local Business
Be Seen - Advertise on Qlocal
UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
UK,
UK News,
|