Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 07 Aug 2018, 16:13:00

I didn't say that they were false claims :)
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 18 Aug 2018, 10:43:09

Current population estimate is we have 7,643,000,000+ people alive right now and a population annual growth over 70,000,000 per annum.

While we are unlikely to 'achieve' 7.7 Billion by Christmas we will only be a couple months into 2019 when we get there. By the time the next US Presidential election rolls around in November 2020 we will be at or near 7.9 Billion and by the time we hit the next 'midterm' election after that in 2022 we will have noticeably more than 8 Billion humans on this dusty orb we call Earth.
10 Billion (2055)

The United Nations projects world population to reach 10 billion in the year 2056.
8 Billion (2023)

World population is expected to reach 8 billion people in 2023 according to the United Nations (in 2026 according to the U.S. Census Bureau).


Not to put too fine a point on the obvious, but all these new young people are going to want an American lifestyle a couple decades after they are born. They are not going to give up that idea easily. The only thing that is going to stop this growth is a hard limit to the food supply by whatever means comes about. That could be climate disruption in the unsettled period before our world adapts to the next step on the climate staircase, energy supply shortfalls causing less farming to take place, or a really devastating plant disease like the potato Blight of the 1840's or a wheat rust that wipes out one of the major caloric sources for the world human population.

Barring a truly stupendous disaster of epic proportions however these numbers are on the optimistic side with world population doubling from 5 Billion in 1987 to 10 Billion in 2055. Odds are pretty good that the kids which were born in 1987 will still be alive in 2055. They will have seen the world change massively in one human lifespan, even if that means the collapse of technological civilization back to an earlier form.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dissident » Sat 18 Aug 2018, 11:04:11

They may want, but they will not get. By 2055 the state of global agriculture will be that of collapse. All the people talking about adaptation to climate change are detached from reality. Saying that we will move farms to more viable zones is ludicrous. The soil will not come with you. I guess there will be a program to transport billions of tons of soil to dump over sand and rock. The problem with this techno-fix is that those soils will be heavily degraded and oxidized by 2055.

Literally nothing is being done about global warming. Nothing. So the nightmare in the coming decades is guaranteed. Reacting to crisis conditions in the 2050s will be pointless. The reaction should be now.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 06:56:17

Tanada,
I suspect that a global financial meltdown, loss of faith in trade and monetary exchange, may do us in first. Surely if not, your list will be sufficient back up should my mechanism fail.

And a cheery Sunday morning to all.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 14:34:56

dohboi wrote:If this finding could be widely enough circulated, it could go some way toward addressing population growth issues.

According To Science, The Best Age To Have Kids Is After 35

According to a recent study by the University of Southern California, scientists now believe that best age to have a baby and give birth is after the age of 35, as it improves the mental abilities of the mother.


That is according to "science", whatever it is, if anyone still cares.
According to Nature it is between 22 and 30.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7342
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 21:25:55

Sooooo, EU prefers whatever WAG he pulls out of his WA to actual science.

Greeeeeeeat....

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/wom ... d=52971244
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 22 Aug 2018, 00:31:19

dohboi wrote:Sooooo, EU prefers whatever WAG he pulls out of his WA to actual science.

Greeeeeeeat....

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/wom ... d=52971244

Science is not to be confused with politics related nonsense, what it recently became on many fronts.
Your thesis about "scientifically preferable age of 35+ to give birth" are example of such a nonsense, comparable to discovery of 50-something "new sexes" in last decade, also apparently "scientific" or a multiverse theory in physics which would qualify as a sort of religion but not a science because it cannot be falsified even in theory.

Regarding older mothers, major obstacles to healthy pregnancies or babies in older age is DNA deterioration in aging eggs due to accumulation of mutations, decay of body functions of aging mothers etc.
Example of relevant reading:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881604/
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7342
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby nocar » Sat 25 Aug 2018, 10:04:28

There is, of course, one advantage of women bearing their children at a later age. It will slow population increase.

In fact, IIRC, one of Malthus's suggestions to deal with the threatening overpopulation was later marriages for women.
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 25 Aug 2018, 11:59:54

Nice points, nocar.

Of course, there is nothing that has only advantages and no disadvantages--anyone who says there is is probably trying to sell you something.

But the advantages for population control and for having more mature people carrying out the most important function of society--raising kids--far outweighs some risks. Having a kid is risky, of course, at any age.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby kublikhan » Sat 25 Aug 2018, 16:34:33

Malthus advocated a "later" age of 27 or 28 for marriage and then to start popping out babies soon after. Not waiting until after 35 to have children.

Malthus advocated a later age at marriage as a check to the growth of population. Malthus suggested the ages of 27 or 28 as desirable for marriage. Limitation of births within marriage was regarded by him as immoral.
MALTHUS, MARRIAGE AND MULTIPLICATION
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 25 Aug 2018, 16:47:31

Malthus was living in good old time, when having babies out of marriages was unheard of and in US resticted mainly to female plantation slaves.
Because of collapse of institution of marriage his ideas are irrelevant from perspective of modern Western societies.
Our discussion about having babies at 35 or or later is already becoming obsolete because in Western civilization many if not most of women are electing just that - to deterioration of health and general genetic quality of their offspring, but who cares?
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7342
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 25 Aug 2018, 20:01:37

Ah, now the main concern is the "deterioration of health and general genetic quality of their offspring," not over-population.

Bbbbbut what about our precious bodily fluids...aren't you concerned about those, too!? :) :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAHJCPoWCC8

If that is really your major concern, you are, of course, free to start a thread on that interesting subject.

Meanwhile, those of us with very healthy children of excellent 'genetic quality' (thank you) who were born when their mom was over 25 will just carry on with our carefree happy lives!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 01 Sep 2018, 18:01:17

Again, when women have access to safe contraception, they hugely prefer that over having endless kids'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DcdONaKSQM
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby Ibon » Sat 01 Sep 2018, 21:12:00

Tanada wrote: Odds are pretty good that the kids which were born in 1987 will still be alive in 2055. They will have seen the world change massively in one human lifespan, even if that means the collapse of technological civilization back to an earlier form.



I was thinking about how my parents, born in the 1920's and passed away during the last couple of years. They also saw the world change massively in one human lifespan. And this will happen again as you mentioned Tanada to those born after 1987.

All of this just indicates what an anomaly these times are , this accelerated explosion of population, technology, harvesting and colonizing practically every corner of the planet, blanketing more than half the earths surface with our modified landscapes.

In a deep time perspective this is all but a heart beat.

In many ways I take solace in understanding this. This is everything but BAU in reference to our species history....

Everyone of us is living in radical times actually.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 02 Sep 2018, 04:08:26

Sorry to hear of your recent loss, Ibon.

My folks are both in their 90's and have indeed see the world change in very dramatic ways. My daughter, if she survives very far into it, will also see enormous changes.

We are, indeed, a planet-altering species.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 02 Sep 2018, 08:58:17

Can I ask all of you a question. This question has intrigued me for some time now. Do you all think that we need to maintain fairly advanced technology to make it through the bottleneck of the consequences to Overshoot? I am not asking will we. But do we need to in order to insure our survival as a species?
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 02 Sep 2018, 11:08:14

No. For 99...% of the existence of humans, there was no high tech, and yet we survived and (overall) thrived.

But if there is anything to Kurzweil's AI 'Singularity' idea, it may be out of our hands to even decide.

Another question might be, do you think we have earned the right to continue surviving as a species, given the state we are leaving the living planet in?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 02 Sep 2018, 11:22:56

Onlooker,
I agree with Dohboi on this point.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 02 Sep 2018, 11:31:57

Interesting question Dohboi. Frankly, I would have to say no. However, it is a bit of a complicated issue, in that while some are especially implicated in our reckless path, ie. Exxon Mobile hiding inconvenient facts, rich world citizens basking in material affluence, others are not doing anything that can be deemed as malfeasance in being good global citizens other than of course having a rather large litter haha. I think that looking from a more abstract and wide lense, we are just another species that has happened to be able to exert especially strong influence upon our Environment, nothing more or less. So, to blame us as a species may be a little too stern as we are acting similar to other species but with greater impact. I think we can blame each other for many things but hard to place blame on us collectively for being culprits in our collective demise.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby Ibon » Sun 02 Sep 2018, 12:02:42

I would also say no but add a caveat that going through the bottleneck does not mean an automatic reset to our tribal past as it was before civilization. The knowledge that passes through the bottleneck will be interwoven with the challenges of survival and out of that comes a new set of cultural values and technological adaptation. The planet degraded but healing along with our ruins everywhere around us will set the stage for some interesting possibilities. Maybe a new spiritual orientation toward our mother earth for example. I just say maybe. No guarantees. Just maybe.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 76 guests