Scientists grow sperm in the laboratory
Discussion
I hate to break this, but I seriously doubt this sort of treatment will ever be available in numbers anywhere remotely large enough to significantly affect global population growth rates. I also seriously doubt that it will ever be available to those who are the source of the massively increasing population, i.e. the very poor
But don't let that get in the way of a good argument.
But don't let that get in the way of a good argument.
MX7 said:
AJS- said:
What problems is this human overpopulation causing?
You don't think overpopulation is a problem? DSM2 said:
Shortage of resources, including food and water, pollution for a start.
Most of the conflicts around the World are the result of people trying to keep hold of or steal resources. One way or another.
If a majority were prepared to exist in poverty in your vast swathes of land, you might be right but of course they aren't. Even the Chinese and Indian hordes have had enough of that.
But they are two of the countries with the fastest rising living standards.Most of the conflicts around the World are the result of people trying to keep hold of or steal resources. One way or another.
If a majority were prepared to exist in poverty in your vast swathes of land, you might be right but of course they aren't. Even the Chinese and Indian hordes have had enough of that.
Think of this, the UK, very densely populated and with a very low rate of population growth is roughly 60 million acres. If the population were to double over the next 50 years that would still leave us approximately half an acre each. That's a pretty big garden.
Of course not all that land is usable but even so, over crowding is a very localised problem in certain areas, and the attendant problems could be solved by better planning. From zone 2 outwards most of London is 2-3 bedroom Victorian era houses on 2-3 stories, often converted into pokey little flats with limited parking. Build some proper purpose built flats with adequate parking and you could get far more people comfortably into the same place, and you might even have room left over for a decent motorway.
Food production hasn't been profitable in the UK for decades and notions of food self sufficiency were finished not long after Malthus made his gloomy predictions of famine and pestilence in the early 19th century.
So long as schemes like CAP are actively discouraging food production and disposing of food to keep prices artificially high, I can't see food as a problem.
Fresh water is again localised. There's tons of it, and the technology for desalination is fairly well known and reasonably cheap now.
Pollution - ask someone who remembers (mbh?) how the air in London compares to the 1950s? Cars, houses and factories have got cleaner and moved to less harmful locations. Electric cars and other clean fuel vehicles are a real possibility in the next 10 years.
As for the exponential increase in population predicted by the doom mongers at the UN and similar problem seeking organisations is that as countries develop people are better able to control how many children they want, and the imperative to reproduce in numbers great enough to ensure a couple reach adulthood disappears, and the use of contraception gains social acceptance.
In most developed countries the problem we are facing is the aging population and the low birthrate. I was surprised to find even relatively undeveloped Thailand has a dropping birthrate.
Basically what today's Malthusians fail to see is what Malthus himself failed to see 200 years ago - technology brings the improvements we need, and long before we get even close to limits imposed by the absolute limits of resources, the population itself limits the rate of increase to make optimal use of the resources available.
As for wars - most wars are caused by dictators seeking vast wealth, usually from resources. Find a war between two democracies?
AJS- said:
But they are two of the countries with the fastest rising living standards.
Only because their starting position was so low.AJS- said:
Think of this, the UK, very densely populated and with a very low rate of population growth is roughly 60 million acres. If the population were to double over the next 50 years that would still leave us approximately half an acre each. That's a pretty big garden.
That's your logic? We all have half an acre so it's ok? I estimate that the world has about 73,612,800,000 half acres, so I guess we have some way to go...MX7 said:
That's your logic? We all have half an acre so it's ok? I estimate that the world has about 73,612,800,000 half acres, so I guess we have some way to go...
As I said later in the post, not all of it is usable. It's a very rough guide, but it does put it in a bit of perspective. Go and have a look around Northumberland, Norfolk, Wales, Cornwall. There's absolutely tons of empty, fertile land that could house millions more people if needed. Most people live on far less than half an acre anyway, so there's no need to tarmac over the lake district or have tenement blocks lining the Yorkshire dales.AJS- said:
As I said later in the post, not all of it is usable. It's a very rough guide, but it does put it in a bit of perspective. Go and have a look around Northumberland, Norfolk, Wales, Cornwall. There's absolutely tons of empty, fertile land that could house millions more people if needed. Most people live on far less than half an acre anyway, so there's no need to tarmac over the lake district or have tenement blocks lining the Yorkshire dales.
We could live like that, though I would question the quality of life - I would rather live in somewhere less populous than Wiltshire and would hate to live in the South East - but there are other issues. Look at the state of the rivers in the South - abstraction for drinking water is severely impacting their flows. Yes, we could desalinate - at massive energy cost. AJS- said:
As I said later in the post, not all of it is usable. It's a very rough guide, but it does put it in a bit of perspective. Go and have a look around Northumberland, Norfolk, Wales, Cornwall. There's absolutely tons of empty, fertile land that could house millions more people if needed. Most people live on far less than half an acre anyway, so there's no need to tarmac over the lake district or have tenement blocks lining the Yorkshire dales.
Naive beyond belief. Most of that land in Norfolk for instance is used for agriculture to provide for the existing population and is hardly enough to meet what is needed from it now. Your theory seems to assume we'd all be happy to sit in one place keeping warm, eating, s
tting and sleeping. Unreal.
AJS- said:
As I said later in the post, not all of it is usable. It's a very rough guide, but it does put it in a bit of perspective. Go and have a look around Northumberland, Norfolk, Wales, Cornwall. There's absolutely tons of empty, fertile land that could house millions more people if needed. Most people live on far less than half an acre anyway, so there's no need to tarmac over the lake district or have tenement blocks lining the Yorkshire dales.
I think you are completely missing the point. Sustainability is jeopardised long before we approach .5 acre/person. In the South East, I sometimes feel that our roads are approaching tipping point now, and we could get traffic jams similar to China. We have to take fairly drastic measures to maintain our water levels even now. You think we would cope ok if the UK reached 120m?
The Wookie said:
I hate to break this, but I seriously doubt this sort of treatment will ever be available in numbers anywhere remotely large enough to significantly affect global population growth rates. I also seriously doubt that it will ever be available to those who are the source of the massively increasing population, i.e. the very poor
But don't let that get in the way of a good argument.
Good point.But don't let that get in the way of a good argument.
I would also suggest this applies to children born with assistance.
The issue isn't assisted conception, it's uncontrolled breeding resulting in ferral chavs.
I am biased though given my 1st daughter is a test tube baby.
But most of the south east was built for a population of less than half of current levels, riding around on horse drawn vehicles in the 19th century. There isn't even a decent motorway into central London from any direction. Most of the houses are built for a lifestyle that has long gone, and most of the shopping and recreation areas are more suited to wheel-wrights and cobblers than to the modern world.
It can all look nice and twee on a postcard but it just makes it impossible to live there.
Where I was living until recently in Bangkok was a proper, modern block of studio flats with underground parking, a huge supermarket 10 minutes walk away, the sky train just around the corner and the entrance to a proper big motorway going in and out of the city 5 minutes drive away.
It's London equivalent would be a dingy little bedsit in a converted Victorian house with warden controlled parking, from a bizarre little borough council 30 minutes traffic jam away, odd little convenience stores dotted around and an over congested one way system making strange circumnavigation of the area outside. Like the one I lived in for a while in Clapham.
It's just stupid.
Bangkok has traffic jams aplenty, but for a city that has grown up to something like 15 million people in the last 30 years it is just light years ahead of London for convenience and practicality.
Anyway, the point is that over population has never been that much of a problem, even though people have been predicting it since time began. Everyone looks around them and thinks it must happen sometime soon, but long before any of the gloomy predictions of famine and pestilence become true, prices in over populated areas will rise so far as to push people into less developed areas (of which there are plenty), just as with the growth of a city.
It can all look nice and twee on a postcard but it just makes it impossible to live there.
Where I was living until recently in Bangkok was a proper, modern block of studio flats with underground parking, a huge supermarket 10 minutes walk away, the sky train just around the corner and the entrance to a proper big motorway going in and out of the city 5 minutes drive away.
It's London equivalent would be a dingy little bedsit in a converted Victorian house with warden controlled parking, from a bizarre little borough council 30 minutes traffic jam away, odd little convenience stores dotted around and an over congested one way system making strange circumnavigation of the area outside. Like the one I lived in for a while in Clapham.
It's just stupid.
Bangkok has traffic jams aplenty, but for a city that has grown up to something like 15 million people in the last 30 years it is just light years ahead of London for convenience and practicality.
Anyway, the point is that over population has never been that much of a problem, even though people have been predicting it since time began. Everyone looks around them and thinks it must happen sometime soon, but long before any of the gloomy predictions of famine and pestilence become true, prices in over populated areas will rise so far as to push people into less developed areas (of which there are plenty), just as with the growth of a city.
AJS- said:
Where I was living until recently in Bangkok was a proper, modern block of studio flats with underground parking, a huge supermarket 10 minutes walk away, the sky train just around the corner and the entrance to a proper big motorway going in and out of the city 5 minutes drive away.
See, for me, Hell is other people. I'd hate living in Bangkok. Or London, New York, KL, etc. Just not a city person.otolith said:
AJS- said:
Where I was living until recently in Bangkok was a proper, modern block of studio flats with underground parking, a huge supermarket 10 minutes walk away, the sky train just around the corner and the entrance to a proper big motorway going in and out of the city 5 minutes drive away.
See, for me, Hell is other people. I'd hate living in Bangkok. Or London, New York, KL, etc. Just not a city person.London I simply couldn't tolerate, partly because of Britain as a whole, and the climate, but most of the problems that annoyed me the most there were a result of trying to have a modern metropolis on the site of an old city without replacing significant chunks of the building or infrastructure.
It's not preserving history or character as council planning officers like to claim, it's more akin to the medieval Greeks occupying the parthenon and other ancient wonders.
By all means preserve Westminster, St Pauls, even certain significant areas, but get rid of all that dull old 2 story housing and replace it with some proper modern buildings and I'm sure you'll make London much more tolerable, even for a country bumpkin like me.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff