Human population growth - fun fact
Discussion
What do you think about the vast amount of water you Aussies are using? Both for human consumption directly, but also for agriculture? There are places where the drawing of water from below ground has made growing of crops unviable because the ground is salty. Theoretically your country could house another 100m, and I'm sure if needed to could support them, but not for a indefinite period of time in a sustainable way.
robm3 said:
Here in Australia, we have circa 26m people. But, we can easily sustain 126m, possibly even more. We're incredibly underpopulated, just 1.45 minutes out of our cities and you won't see human structures for hours and hours.
Yes, a large proportion of this countrie's centre is unliveable but so much of our temperate coastline is empty as well.
We've some infrastructure issues that need addressing, but overall we need at least 100m more people and our land can support it.
Thankfully though, our government has some pretty stringent rules on who can emigrate to us, the rule of thumb being they must be productive and contributing members of society.
In summary, I'm not worried about population growth from a selfish point of view, for my children nor my grandchildren. We're self-sustaining, have effective natural borders and a stable society.
The above is why many want to get into Australia, but to get into Australia is not so easy, unless a person has a required skill set, or they are bringing a load of cash in with them, it isn't so easy. And compared to the tiny UK, Australia is huge, with as you say large areas of coastal land undeveloped.Yes, a large proportion of this countrie's centre is unliveable but so much of our temperate coastline is empty as well.
We've some infrastructure issues that need addressing, but overall we need at least 100m more people and our land can support it.
Thankfully though, our government has some pretty stringent rules on who can emigrate to us, the rule of thumb being they must be productive and contributing members of society.
In summary, I'm not worried about population growth from a selfish point of view, for my children nor my grandchildren. We're self-sustaining, have effective natural borders and a stable society.
The UK want an Australia style points system, but the moment any type of control on immigration is mentioned, there are some who scream in indignant horror, saying we can take millions more. One thing some Australian friends comment on, is how cramped and frenetic living in the UK is compared to Oz, with tiny rabbit hutch houses with postage stamp gardens (if they have a garden at all) crowded roads, crowded hospitals, crowded schools, crowded shops.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Pan Pan Pan
I think you have created a false choice there.
What about those like me who believe that we won't go on churning out more and more people precisely because we are developing?
Or even that the best way to ensure we don't churn out more people is to encourage greater and faster development?
Once countries become developed it is a well known fact whilst their population growth slows, their consumption per capita rises, so whilst in decades time, the global human population growth may start to level off or even fall back, the consumption, of all resources including viable land, and therefore emissions will rise.I think you have created a false choice there.
What about those like me who believe that we won't go on churning out more and more people precisely because we are developing?
Or even that the best way to ensure we don't churn out more people is to encourage greater and faster development?
Also the rise of the human population is at the expense of many of the natural habitats around the world, including the oceans, and all the other species in them, Unless of course you don't believe that elephants, rhinos, lions, cheetahs, jaguars, leopards, and many more have declined massively in numbers owing to human encroachment, and that we are making many species extinct.
In the news today is the statement that we have made nearly 400 species extinct in just the last decade. Why do you see swamping the Earth with humans just because we can, as any kind of good thing, when many see it as a horror?
Pan Pan Pan said:
Once countries become developed it is a well known fact whilst their population growth slows, their consumption per capita rises, so whilst in decades time, the global human population growth may start to level off or even fall back, the consumption, of all resources including viable land, and therefore emissions will rise.
Also the rise of the human population is at the expense of many of the natural habitats around the world, including the oceans, and all the other species in them, Unless of course you don't believe that elephants, rhinos, lions, cheetahs, jaguars, leopards, and many more have declined massively in numbers owing to human encroachment, and that we are making many species extinct.
In the news today is the statement that we have made nearly 400 species extinct in just the last decade. Why do you see swamping the Earth with humans just because we can, as any kind of good thing, when many see it as a horror?
That's assuming things will Garry on as they are. There's no reason to actually think they will.Also the rise of the human population is at the expense of many of the natural habitats around the world, including the oceans, and all the other species in them, Unless of course you don't believe that elephants, rhinos, lions, cheetahs, jaguars, leopards, and many more have declined massively in numbers owing to human encroachment, and that we are making many species extinct.
In the news today is the statement that we have made nearly 400 species extinct in just the last decade. Why do you see swamping the Earth with humans just because we can, as any kind of good thing, when many see it as a horror?
The main reason the developed world has consumed so many resources is that they have been "cheap." As things become scarcer they cease to be cheap. Whether that's open space, oil, wild animals or meat.
I don't see filling the world with as many human beings as possible to be a good thing as such. I see better health and greater prosperity as good things, and also as a solution to over population.
What is the alternative? Some kind of global one child policy? Taxing children? Mass sterilisation? Economic sabotage?
Impossible and undesirable monstrosities to solve a problem that will solve itself anyway.
Pan Pan Pan said:
The above is why many want to get into Australia, but to get into Australia is not so easy, unless a person has a required skill set, or they are bringing a load of cash in with them, it isn't so easy. And compared to the tiny UK, Australia is huge, with as you say large areas of coastal land undeveloped.
The UK want an Australia style points system, but the moment any type of control on immigration is mentioned, there are some who scream in indignant horror, saying we can take millions more. One thing some Australian friends comment on, is how cramped and frenetic living in the UK is compared to Oz, with tiny rabbit hutch houses with postage stamp gardens (if they have a garden at all) crowded roads, crowded hospitals, crowded schools, crowded shops.
It's a very different place, but has just as many issues and problems as the UK does, they are just different, and maybe not as obviously to someone from outside. Central Sydney is as busy and developed as London, while Scotland is a quiet as some of the more rural communities. Obviously it is a much bigger place, but much is uninhabitable, and the reason nobody lives there is because they dont want to! The UK want an Australia style points system, but the moment any type of control on immigration is mentioned, there are some who scream in indignant horror, saying we can take millions more. One thing some Australian friends comment on, is how cramped and frenetic living in the UK is compared to Oz, with tiny rabbit hutch houses with postage stamp gardens (if they have a garden at all) crowded roads, crowded hospitals, crowded schools, crowded shops.
FYI getting a permanent residency in the UK is actually very hard if you are from outside the EU, and already requires several tests to be passed. To think the UK is a free for all is very naive.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
JNW1 said:
Well the population of the UK has increased by around 7 million (12%) since the start of the new millennium and from what I can see continues to grow by the best part of 0.5 million every year; meanwhile, in the area I live planning permission for development on greenfield sites is granted regularly and often and as a consequence new houses are thrown-up like confetti to (supposedly) meet a continuing increase in demand. Doesn't feel symptomatic of a levelling in our population to me....
It won't. But I think it's fair to call that localised and (I am not a financial adviser) steer you away from investing in agriculture in Siberia. 
227bhp said:
amgmcqueen said:
Never understood why many women feel the need to keep banging out three, four, five plus kids each...?!
It's very, very selfish.
Because that's what they're programmed to do, it's human nature.It's very, very selfish.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Once countries become developed it is a well known fact whilst their population growth slows, their consumption per capita rises, so whilst in decades time, the global human population growth may start to level off or even fall back, the consumption, of all resources including viable land, and therefore emissions will rise.
Also the rise of the human population is at the expense of many of the natural habitats around the world, including the oceans, and all the other species in them, Unless of course you don't believe that elephants, rhinos, lions, cheetahs, jaguars, leopards, and many more have declined massively in numbers owing to human encroachment, and that we are making many species extinct.
In the news today is the statement that we have made nearly 400 species extinct in just the last decade. Why do you see swamping the Earth with humans just because we can, as any kind of good thing, when many see it as a horror?
That's assuming things will Garry on as they are. There's no reason to actually think they will.Also the rise of the human population is at the expense of many of the natural habitats around the world, including the oceans, and all the other species in them, Unless of course you don't believe that elephants, rhinos, lions, cheetahs, jaguars, leopards, and many more have declined massively in numbers owing to human encroachment, and that we are making many species extinct.
In the news today is the statement that we have made nearly 400 species extinct in just the last decade. Why do you see swamping the Earth with humans just because we can, as any kind of good thing, when many see it as a horror?
The main reason the developed world has consumed so many resources is that they have been "cheap." As things become scarcer they cease to be cheap. Whether that's open space, oil, wild animals or meat.
I don't see filling the world with as many human beings as possible to be a good thing as such. I see better health and greater prosperity as good things, and also as a solution to over population.
What is the alternative? Some kind of global one child policy? Taxing children? Mass sterilisation? Economic sabotage?
Impossible and undesirable monstrosities to solve a problem that will solve itself anyway.
With regard to the current situation, are you saying that man made climate just does not exist, that natural habitats are not being encroached upon, that we are not losing other species at almost unprecedented rates, That we are not pulling increasing, rather than decreasing volumes of oil and other mineral resources from the Earth.
Whether some like it, or not the population must be kept at more or less replacement levels, because if as some believe humans have been responsible for all the above and more, how is adding billions more humans to the Earth in a relatively short space of time going to improve the situation? As stated before, that is like discovering a dangerous resource consuming, emission generating fire, and adding more petrol to it, and then being surprised that fire gets worse, not better..
Once a person arrives on the planet, they must be afforded the same rights as everyone else, but if a person is not born, they don't know that they have not been born, because they don't exist. so they don't think they have been hard done by, they don't in fact think or experience anything.
Unlike some who call for the culling of those already on the planet, especially the elderly, controlling birth rates is the most humane way of controlling global populations, and the subsequent effects those populations have on the Earth.
Of course nobody can be 100% sure of things that haven't happened yet but there is very good reason to believe people have less children as they have more economic development.
I'm not saying anything definite about global warming, extinction or resource depletion as I don't know enough to say anything authoritatively. Though I would say I don't see them as an existential threat.
I suppose my position is best described as a classic liberal one, that whatever we are facing is best dealt with by development and democracy rather than a grand plan.
I'm not saying anything definite about global warming, extinction or resource depletion as I don't know enough to say anything authoritatively. Though I would say I don't see them as an existential threat.
I suppose my position is best described as a classic liberal one, that whatever we are facing is best dealt with by development and democracy rather than a grand plan.
Tangentially linked.
https://youtu.be/dSvgw9ZOK3I
Approximately 100bn humans have ever lived. Is there going to be 100bn more humans or a trillion trillion?
Not all Americans are retards.
https://youtu.be/dSvgw9ZOK3I
Approximately 100bn humans have ever lived. Is there going to be 100bn more humans or a trillion trillion?
Not all Americans are retards.
[quote=JuanCarlosFandango]Of course nobody can be 100% sure of things that haven't happened yet but there is very good reason to believe people have less children as they have more economic development.
I'm not saying anything definite about global warming, extinction or resource depletion as I don't know enough to say anything authoritatively. Though I would say I don't see them as an existential threat.
I suppose my position is best described as a classic liberal one, that whatever we are facing is best dealt with by development and democracy rather than a grand plan.[/quote
]
I would agree that people generally have less children as they gain more economic development, but some societies and religion`s exhort their followers to have as many children as they can, even when that is not done for continuity reasons. As happens in some poor countries, where they cannot even feed themselves, yet still bring many new children into the world. They were doing that decades ago when I was a kid, and are still doing exactly that now.
But as posted above, the more developed a country becomes, the more each person in it, is likely to acquire, consume, and emit
We are currently being bombarded from all quarters about man made climate change, encroachment, and destruction of natural habitats, and the species in them, (Save the Whale. Save the tiger. Save the elephants. Save the lions. Save the Orang Utans, Save the rain forests, save fish species etc etc) Yet we are still endangering and encroaching these habitats and the other species, and digging up and burning oil and other resources, and yet all those who are bleating about this, say little or nothing, about what is at the very root of just about every single issue they bleat about, Namely `Man'
Does that not seem a bit odd to you?
I'm not saying anything definite about global warming, extinction or resource depletion as I don't know enough to say anything authoritatively. Though I would say I don't see them as an existential threat.
I suppose my position is best described as a classic liberal one, that whatever we are facing is best dealt with by development and democracy rather than a grand plan.[/quote
]
I would agree that people generally have less children as they gain more economic development, but some societies and religion`s exhort their followers to have as many children as they can, even when that is not done for continuity reasons. As happens in some poor countries, where they cannot even feed themselves, yet still bring many new children into the world. They were doing that decades ago when I was a kid, and are still doing exactly that now.
But as posted above, the more developed a country becomes, the more each person in it, is likely to acquire, consume, and emit
We are currently being bombarded from all quarters about man made climate change, encroachment, and destruction of natural habitats, and the species in them, (Save the Whale. Save the tiger. Save the elephants. Save the lions. Save the Orang Utans, Save the rain forests, save fish species etc etc) Yet we are still endangering and encroaching these habitats and the other species, and digging up and burning oil and other resources, and yet all those who are bleating about this, say little or nothing, about what is at the very root of just about every single issue they bleat about, Namely `Man'
Does that not seem a bit odd to you?
Pan Pan Pan
Decades aren't that long in the scheme of things.
The TFR of Saudi Arabia has dropped from over 7 to 2.5 since the 1970s. India's is 2.3 down from over 5. Mexico's has had a similar fall.
Over population does pop up from time to time and it has proponents. I think like the Global Mega Corp monopoly on everything it just doesn't happen.
Similarly for things like habitat encroachment, it happens up to a point, just as it did here. However at some point people decide they don't want houses up the side of lake district fells or motorways through Hyde Park. These things become more valuable.
It is basically a market.
Decades aren't that long in the scheme of things.
The TFR of Saudi Arabia has dropped from over 7 to 2.5 since the 1970s. India's is 2.3 down from over 5. Mexico's has had a similar fall.
Over population does pop up from time to time and it has proponents. I think like the Global Mega Corp monopoly on everything it just doesn't happen.
Similarly for things like habitat encroachment, it happens up to a point, just as it did here. However at some point people decide they don't want houses up the side of lake district fells or motorways through Hyde Park. These things become more valuable.
It is basically a market.
Anyone hazard a guess as to what the earth's mass (weight) was 1 billion years ago and today?
Answer = Its the same. (save for any meteorites) Try asking that question with regards to increase in population and a lot of people will think the earth is heavier because of more people.
Resources on and in earth may get changed to different states the mass remains constant.
Humans may or may not be able to use a particular resource. Doesn't matter to the earth.
It may matter to humans at some point but humans are good at adapting and engineering things be it a nuclear power or planting more trees or whatever. I think it more likely that population growth will level off and decline as wealth and education increases.
Answer = Its the same. (save for any meteorites) Try asking that question with regards to increase in population and a lot of people will think the earth is heavier because of more people.
Resources on and in earth may get changed to different states the mass remains constant.
Humans may or may not be able to use a particular resource. Doesn't matter to the earth.
It may matter to humans at some point but humans are good at adapting and engineering things be it a nuclear power or planting more trees or whatever. I think it more likely that population growth will level off and decline as wealth and education increases.
superlightr said:
Anyone hazard a guess as to what the earth's mass (weight) was 1 billion years ago and today?
Answer = Its the same. (save for any meteorites) Try asking that question with regards to increase in population and a lot of people will think the earth is heavier because of more people.
Resources on and in earth may get changed to different states the mass remains constant.
Humans may or may not be able to use a particular resource. Doesn't matter to the earth.
It may matter to humans at some point but humans are good at adapting and engineering things be it a nuclear power or planting more trees or whatever. I think it more likely that population growth will level off and decline as wealth and education increases.
The earth is constantly losing atmosphere to space, and accumulating mass by accretion. Overall, it's losing more than it's gaining.Answer = Its the same. (save for any meteorites) Try asking that question with regards to increase in population and a lot of people will think the earth is heavier because of more people.
Resources on and in earth may get changed to different states the mass remains constant.
Humans may or may not be able to use a particular resource. Doesn't matter to the earth.
It may matter to humans at some point but humans are good at adapting and engineering things be it a nuclear power or planting more trees or whatever. I think it more likely that population growth will level off and decline as wealth and education increases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass#Variation
otolith said:
The earth is constantly losing atmosphere to space, and accumulating mass by accretion. Overall, it's losing more than it's gaining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass#Variation
So in a nutshell we lose some gas and a few space craft and gain some space dust. The total amounting to the Gnat’s cock of bugger all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass#Variation
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff