World Population: How many is too many?

the model rocket show
madcow rocketry
Wildman Rocketry
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
JPVegh

JPVegh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
4,419
Reaction score
9
The UN estimates between 8.3 and 10.9 billion people on Earth by 2050. The population could increase to 16 billion by 2100. Can the planet sustain this many people? Even if that much food could be produced to feed the masses can the ecosystem survive the pressures of so many?

Interestingly the UN estimates for 2150 project a population between 3.2 billion and 25.8 billion with mathematical modeling supporting the LOWER figure. Will the population really decrease by that much? Doesn't nature dictate the instict to breed or will dwindling resources be the over riding factor? 26 billion definitely seems like way too many people for our small planet, could Earth actually sustain so many?

Put on your thinking caps and look into your crystal balls. What does the future hold, a dystopian nightmare or a new era of enlightenment and plenty?
 
In the short term I think technology could sustain tens of billions of humans. But that would require much less dependence on fossil fuels for energy needs. In the long term, I think were already overpopulated. Considering the way we live, the long term trends look bleak for sustained populations as large as we've gotten to this point. We're already playing with nature for food production (gmo's), and seeing effects of global warming, radiation spills, oil spills, water shortages. There are only so many resources...once they're gone, they're gone.
 
You guys need to spend more time in the west we have hundreds of square miles that no human has set foot. Also my brother did survey work for a oil company years ago and he said there is more oil in this country than the whole of the middle east.

Anyway if we arnt using Mr. Fusion by 2030 I'm going to be pissed.



TA
 
I think we are already way over the carrying capacity of the Earth. Probably a population of about 2 billion is sustainable in the long term. We will either get there through the kind of voluntary negative population growth you already see in many developed countries, or nature will help us along with starvation, disease, and war.
 
This ignores the negative population growth that is achieved when societies become industrialized. As more and more emerging economies develop significant middle classes, it's reasonable to expect that they, too, will follow the example of the developed nations in population trends.

JPVegh said:
The UN estimates between 8.3 and 10.9 billion people on Earth by 2050. The population could increase to 16 billion by 2100. Can the planet sustain this many people? Even if that much food could be produced to feed the masses can the ecosystem survive the pressures of so many?

Interestingly the UN estimates for 2150 project a population between 3.2 billion and 25.8 billion with mathematical modeling supporting the LOWER figure. Will the population really decrease by that much? Doesn't nature dictate the instict to breed or will dwindling resources be the over riding factor? 26 billion definitely seems like way too many people for our small planet, could Earth actually sustain so many?

Put on your thinking caps and look into your crystal balls. What does the future hold, a dystopian nightmare or a new era of enlightenment and plenty?
Click to expand...
 
When waste is created faster than it can be reprocessed and absorbed, that's bad. That is what we are doing now, imagine how bad it will be with 3 billion more.
 
Those of us who have been around a little longer (crap, that sounds bad) probably remember when we were in high school or junior high and many experts thought that terrible things would happen when we had more than 3 billion, and then when we we approaching five billion. I don't know. What I do know, is that in some places there are already too many. Population densities increase violence and the probability that some superbug will kill a LOT of people. Just imagine if a bubonic plague sort of bug went global the way that it swept eastern Europe in the 1300's. 25-50 percent mortality. I pray that never happens but that would readjust the numbers in a real hurry.
 
I remember reading The Population Bomb back in the seventies. Ehrlichs predictions have proven to be alarmist hype. The population just keeps on truckin upward and so far the massive shortages have not materialized.
 
JPVegh said:
I remember reading The Population Bomb back in the seventies. Ehrlichs predictions have proven to be alarmist hype. The population just keeps on truckin upward and so far the massive shortages have not materialized.
Click to expand...

You don't remember any famines in Africa?
 
Mother Earth is a tough **tch! She could wipe us out (if we don't do it to ourselves first) and start over!

The crazy green people have already come out and said there should only be 500 million people!

Well.. there is always Soylent Green! :y:



Jerome :wink:
 
shrox said:
You don't remember any famines in Africa?
Click to expand...

Absolutely I do but the everyone of those people could have been fed just from the U.S. surplus. The majority if not all of the famine over the last 100 years was the result of politics not a shortage of food.
 
JeromeK99 said:
Mother Earth is a tough **tch! She could wipe us out (if we don't do it to ourselves first) and start over!

The crazy green people have already come out and said there should only be 500 million people!

Well.. there is always Soylent Green! :y:



Jerome :wink:
Click to expand...

Ah, the so called satanic ten commandments, I had a feeling that someone might bring that up.


Soylent is here but it's not green, yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(food_substitute)
 
shrox said:
When waste is created faster than it can be reprocessed and absorbed, that's bad. That is what we are doing now, imagine how bad it will be with 3 billion more.
Click to expand...

Yep, and the (predicted) gradual reduction in birth rates will be compensated by increased life expectancy for everyone.

It is a real problem. Not one I would lose sleep over, but a reality nonetheless. My biggest concern, because of population densities and increased travel is the emergence of some nasty virus mutation....

Carpe Diem, I guess.
 
JPVegh said:
...Put on your thinking caps and look into your crystal balls. What does the future hold, a dystopian nightmare or a new era of enlightenment and plenty?
Click to expand...

As King Crimson said:

Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools

Confusion will be my epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back and laugh
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying
Click to expand...
 
When has the UN been right about anything?

If we did everything we could to destroy the earth, mankind would be wiped out and the earth would recover. So does it even matter?

Let's launch!
 
Last edited:
VonMises said:
When has the UN been right about anything?

If we did everything we could to destroy the earth, mankind would be wiped out and the earth would recover. So does it even matter?

Let's launch!
Click to expand...

Never. Look at the Korean War.
 
JPVegh said:
I remember reading The Population Bomb back in the seventies. Ehrlichs predictions have proven to be alarmist hype. The population just keeps on truckin upward and so far the massive shortages have not materialized.
Click to expand...

Have you noticed any changes in the price of fuel or food? Any change in the availability, quality or cost of seafood? Ever heard of any species going extinct or topsoil disappearing? Ever had to do any water rationing? The shortages are definitely materializing.
 
VonMises said:
When has the UN been right about anything?

If we did everything we could to destroy the earth, mankind would be wiped out and the earth would recover. So does it even matter?

Let's launch!
Click to expand...

But as a member of mankind, I do not like the idea of being wiped out. It does matter.
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
Have you noticed any changes in the price of fuel or food? Any change in the availability, quality or cost of seafood? Ever heard of any species going extinct or topsoil disappearing? Ever had to do any water rationing? The shortages are definitely materializing.
Click to expand...

Yes, water in the western USA is greatly stressed as it is. My sister's well outside Phoenix is 120 feet deep. In my lifetime the water table has dropped from 30 feet to 100+ feet.
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
But as a member of mankind, I do not like the idea of being wiped out. It does matter.
Click to expand...

As song as the earth isn't wiped I'm good, out because that's where I keep all my stuff.

The people, not so much. It's not that we have too many people, it's that we have too many stupid people. I'm in favor of getting rid of the warning labels and letting the problem take care of itself. After all, peril is natures way of weeding out the stupid.
 
I calculated the carrying capacity of earth once. It was around 15 billion or so. It's pretty simple math. Just think of the sun as our battery and we are all 100 watt light bulbs. If I recall correctly, 15 or 20 billion as long as we were the only animal life on earth, so I guess we'd have to eat plankton. However, you slice it, the fact remains we have somewhere between 200 and 500 years left on earth before we either flatline (bad, think economics without growth) or go extinct. I always chuckle when people talk as if humanity was just getting started when in fact, we are at the tail end of it.
 
nh4clo4 said:
Yep, and the (predicted) gradual reduction in birth rates will be compensated by increased life expectancy for everyone.
Click to expand...

And also offset by the more consumptive lifestyles of the developed world. In the US we consume something like 4 to 5 times the resources per person than the average person on this planet. It's a great lifestyle, and the rest of the world aspires to it as well. As the rest of the world starts to make more money, they start to buy and consume more like Americans do, and why not? They can afford it, and that's always been our reasoning, so how can you begrudge them? The problem is that if everyone on the Earth used up resources the way we do, we'd run out of stuff in the blink of an eye.
 
Peartree said:
Those of us who have been around a little longer (crap, that sounds bad) probably remember when we were in high school or junior high and many experts thought that terrible things would happen when we had more than 3 billion, and then when we we approaching five billion. I don't know. What I do know, is that in some places there are already too many. Population densities increase violence and the probability that some superbug will kill a LOT of people. Just imagine if a bubonic plague sort of bug went global the way that it swept eastern Europe in the 1300's. 25-50 percent mortality. I pray that never happens but that would readjust the numbers in a real hurry.
Click to expand...

No need to imagine it.
https://news.yahoo.com/three-more-sick-kyrgyzstan-battles-bubonic-plague-135609415.html
 

Similar threads

Winston
1000 light year radius planet killer ASASSN-15lh
Replies
0
Views
876
Winston
Winston

Latest posts

Back
Top