Population 7 Billion

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: GuerrilaWarfare

Originally posted by: JayStimson

The real problem is that it's the stupid people that are breeding the fastest.quote>

Theres actually a movie i saw on Comedy Central that the stupid people will have out grown the population of earth compared to more educated people, and in 500 years, the IQ or all humans on earth will be at 50 funny movie really lol. 

I forgot what it was called

Also on topic, i skimmed though this thread, and a lot of you are talking about major loss of food supply, you all realize most food consumed by humans are also Bred by humans, so it's practically a cycle, beyond that though other natural resources like Oil and Water aren't renewable, so we'd probably have to conserve things like that for when we extremely need them, and find other alternatives. ( except water of course, we need that always )

ALSO, i actually am all for " one-person policy " We can't bring a natural disaster upon our civilization whenever we want, so while we're waiting we might as well try to level out our population ourselves.
quote>

Idiocracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

"Brawndo's got what plants crave"

[diamonddog_74 32]

Originally posted by: GuerrilaWarfare

Originally posted by: JayStimson

The real problem is that it's the stupid people that are breeding the fastest.quote>

Theres actually a movie i saw on Comedy Central that the stupid people will have out grown the population of earth compared to more educated people, and in 500 years, the IQ or all humans on earth will be at 50 funny movie really lol. 

I forgot what it was calledquote>

"Idiocracy." It's already happening in the U.S.

[Kevin 101]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Once upon a time, not very long ago, there was such a thing a crop rotation.  Farmers who grew crop A this year grew crop B next year, and crop C after that before returning to crop A.  This was planned out so that the rotation replenished the soil.  Grow the right stuff and the air, water, and sunshine will do the rest.  No chemincals required.

Tobacco, which has uses other than smoking, pulls nitrogen out of the soil, but if you grow peanuts in that field next year, the soil nitrogen will be replensihed.

Ask any agronomist, and you will find out what does which to the soil.  Blowing ammonia into your corn field can only work until the soil turns to dust.  Natural farming eliminates some of the risks of dust bowls.

quote>

*Emerges from the depths of "I never post in Current Eventsland"*... ask an agronomist you say? I've been studying crop and soil science as an undergraduate for the past 4 years (though I admit, I prefer grass to vegetable crops... ), and I'll be going for my Master's in Agronomy next year, so I think I fit the bill.

Since about World War II, we have been destroying our soil with poor farming techniques. Overapplication of chemicals, using chemicals that harm the environment, over-tillage, overuse, a lack of crop rotation, over-irrigation, over-fertilization etc etc etc... . We've wanted to get the most use out of the land that we have, and like idiots we threw everything we had at the soil, not knowing, or not caring,  that we were doing more harm than good.

The blame often lies with companies (or governments) who pressure farmers to yield a certain amount of a crop. The people making decisions on crop yield and how those crops will be grown are generally not experts in soil science, and often profit is the sole motivator. Couple that with farmers who have little to no academic training in agriculture, and we have a real crisis.

Thankfully, solutions do exist. The folks at the USDA, many of whom I've had the pleasure of meeting, are smart people with a good understanding of the problems that farmers face. To Obama's credit he has increased funding to USDA incentive programs that encourage farmers to participate in seminars on good farming practices, use chemicals more efficiently and responsibly, and employ environmentally friendly methods of pest management.

Unfortunately, organizations such as the EPA and USDA, and local DEP have spotty enforcement power at best, and those incentive programs only work if the farmer chooses to participate. I don't see that changing any time soon, at least in the US, with all of the protesting against government regulation of, well, anything...

Us university folks are doing our best to help farmers through extension programs that offer expert assistance in maximizing yield while still being responsible stewards of the soil and environment. Again, we don't have any real enforcement power, but farmers are generally more inclined to listen to us instead of government organizations.

Anyway, I feel like I've gone on a bit of a tangent. If another topic is started on farming practices, I'll have more to contribute there

Bringing it back to overpopulation...

At least in terms of soil and the food supply, I believe that with good farming techniques, (please don't bop me on the head for this... I'd be happy to elaborate on my opinion later) responsible and well-informed use of genetically modified crops, and increased efforts to get food to where it is needed, we can continue to feed the world. Our soil can handle it. It is going to take a lot of effort though.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I dont see farming practices changing soon unless another Dust Bowl event occurs that forces the farmers to
readopt  the practices Kevin ( Hi Cheese  mentioned that have fallen into disuse but were  common knowledge and in pratice not that long ago.
Con Agra, ADM I wont even go into how much money these companies get in subsidys  to not grow things.







 

[hym 358]

Since these suggestions were brought up, I thought I'd add some technical viewpoints to this...

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Stop making food into automotive fuel use waste oils instead.quote>

One of the nasty little secrets of the E85/biofuels groups is that they won't tell you that E85 blends aren't any cleaner than the blends that were used before them.  Furthermore, engines that can burn both E85 and regular fuel blends have an inherent 10% efficiency loss because they can't be optimized around a single fuel type.  And, oh yeah, all that nitrogen that Midwest farmers are dumping on their corn fields is producing a massive deadzone in the Gulf of Mexico.

Stop making automobiles that fall apart in three years.  Use the metals for something else besides fat cat bonuses.quote>

Most autos don't fall apart in 3 years.  My father has a 2004 Honda Accord with 132,000 miles on it and the only things that have ever been changed are the tires and the battery.  While that is not a normal case (and is in large part due to my father's conservative driving style), the average vehicle can provide somewhere between 7-10 years of largely worry free performance, provided you drive it in a responsible manner.  (A huge part of a lot of people's problems is that they drive their vehicle too aggresively and produce artificially high levels of wear on the components.)

Stop making internal combustion engines.  There are many better ideas that work.quote>

There are other engine types that are more fuel efficient than traditional internal combusion engines, but internal combustion engines have a major advantage: superior variable engine RPM handling.  Variable engine RPM conditions are an inevitable fact of life in the driving world, and the engine must be able to withstand that or it will be destroyed in only a few thousand miles (compared to the several hundred thousand miles that a good internal combustion engine can withstand).  Until such time as mainstream vehicles carry an engine that is not used to drive the vehicle, internal combustion engines are the king of engine technology because they are the only commercially viable engine type that can withstand real world driving conditions.

Start doing some real engineering for manufactured goods that last a long time.quote>

There has to be a balance here.  Too little attention to quality and you make a crappy product.  Too much quality and you go out of business.  Lest you think I'm joking, look at the variable resistor manufacturers of the 1950's.  Many of them made products that were so good that they are still in use today, which had the unfortunate side effect of meaning that after a few decades, there wasn't enough of a market to sustain the businesses.

Stop playing with toy rockets and get on with some real science.quote>

As has been said before, there are some things that physics simply won't allow humans to do, and there is no getting around this fact.  NASA has been conducting "advanced drive" research for over 50 years now and even the most promising technologies are likely centuries away from rivaling the power of a mere chemical reaction rocket.  Consider this: the booster rockets used to launch the Space Shuttle eject thier gas at supersonic speeds from the instant they kick on and generate enough force to destroy the Shuttle just from their acoustic shock wave, while many of the most advanced ion drives don't even generate enough thrust to move a 2 pound weight.

You can throw all the money at it that you want, but it won't change the fact that there are major physics hurdles that are stopping any serious efforts to build "warp drives" or anything even remotely close to it.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Organic farming uses crop rotation and wealthier people prefer certified organic food.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: hym

One of the nasty little secrets of the E85/biofuels groups is that they won't tell you that E85 blends aren't any cleaner than the blends that were used before them. 

quote>

I totally agree with this point, and to be honest i only really see E85 as a good cheap race fuel/extra premium substitute.

Originally posted by: hymFurthermore, engines that can burn both E85 and regular fuel blends have an inherent 10% efficiency loss because they can't be optimized around a single fuel type.

quote>

Now that, i don't think so. Putting E85 into a vehicle allows you to run the engine much leaner with more advanced cam timing. Now while its true that dumping E85 into an engine tuned for regular premium fuel will run 10% less efficient, the modern Flexfuel vehicles for sale now detect the fuel being used and will automatically adjust the Settings to be optimal for whatever fuel is being used.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: hym

Stop playing with toy rockets and get on with some real science.quote>

As has been said before, there are some things that physics simply won't allow humans to do, and there is no getting around this fact.  NASA has been conducting "advanced drive" research for over 50 years now and even the most promising technologies are likely centuries away from rivaling the power of a mere chemical reaction rocket.  Consider this: the booster rockets used to launch the Space Shuttle eject their gas at supersonic speeds from the instant they kick on and generate enough force to destroy the Shuttle just from their acoustic shock wave, while many of the most advanced ion drives don't even generate enough thrust to move a 2 pound weight.

You can throw all the money at it that you want, but it won't change the fact that there are major physics hurdles that are stopping any serious efforts to build "warp drives" or anything even remotely close to it.

quote>

Well, yes and no.  I know about the ion drive stuff, but I also know about the NERVA program that has not gone very far because of a lack of a base of operations.  A lot more investment is needed to place a permanent (no fooling) space station in one of the lunar LaGrange points rather than continuing to fool around with the ISS in LEO.  One of these days, the ISS will fall out of orbit and be just so much meteoric junk. 

NERVA transport systems based on a, say L5, station would save us a lot when it came to getting out of the gravity well.  Fuel can, apparently, be mined on the moon.  Of course the NERVA vehicles can never come to Earth because once they are turned on, their propulsion sections will be hotter than the hubs of Hades.  If we can have nuclear powered ships, why not rockets?  Plasma drive may be much better than we think.

I hope some really interesting stuff might come out of the LHC.  I hear they have made some anti-matter.  I would be nice if they could find a way to bottle it.  Annihilation reactions could move us from Newton to Einstein, and that would be a great benefit.  If we are stuck with pushing things, let's get all the energy into it we can.  No sonic booms in space.

Of course for long freight hauls, we could always use solar sails.  The acceleration is lousy, but it is continuous.

I think mankind has lost the pioneering spirit or we'd have something cooking out there right now.  We are too comfortable, and we need some kind of shaking up.  Maybe the current climatic trends will do it, because we will soon be in the position of King Knut, trying to hold back the tide.

As for getting something practical out of the General Theory of Relativity, I am not holding my breath on "warp drive".  The energy requirements to fold space on demand are probably on the order of googols of joules.  You'd have to create a singularity that you could control(?).  Hah!  The first guys who tried that would probably be turned into strings.

[Cobraroll 138]

Straying off topic, I've always found space travel a little... what to say... pointless(?). Time would begin to screw up badly for whoever ventured on space flights. If you want to travel far, you'll either way end up years behind the rest of society when you return (either from the isolation, or relativity). You would need tremendous amounts of energy to accelerate up to an acceptable speed, and equally much energy to slow down again. Hitting a fist-sized rock when travelling at relative speeds would tear the spacecraft to shreds (shreds that travel away from any rescue forces at relative speeds, at that). And... well, I think there is a Cracked article somewhere that covers the rest.

Either way, I don't see why space travel can save humanity. Going to Mars a little faster, yes, but beyond that...

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I have a feeling that the only way to "travel" in space would be as a coherent bolt of X-ray or Gamma-ray photons, which are limited by C.  If we can't solve the rubber sheet sneak problem, there would be no point.  Probably have to use up an entire star to get enough energy.

So-called life ship trips would definitely be one way.

[EyeofMobius 27]

Originally posted by: dghh70

Even though im anti gay. I think a solution is let gay people marry all they want and since gays can't have children they will adoptquote>

I do not feel that this is a viable solution at all. There is a great deal of inclination remaining in the world where anything but heterosexual monogamy is viewed as perversion and there are many organizations exist who are willing to sponsor legal costs to fight anyone who does not fit into this mold who is trying to become a legally recognized family and especially with regards to raising children. Far too many people are bleating out the "Won't someone think of the children," arguement which holds as the same amount of water as arguements about the nuclear family just one side has more wealthy believers pushing on it.

With the difficulty that alternative lifestyle families have in being granted the ability to adopt there are a significant number of couples utilizing the option of finding surrogate parents; thus they are in effect still making babies.

[GMT 389]

Originally posted by: hym

Since these suggestions were brought up, I thought I'd add some technical viewpoints to this...

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Stop making food into automotive fuel use waste oils instead.quote>

One of the nasty little secrets of the E85/biofuels groups is that they won't tell you that E85 blends aren't any cleaner than the blends that were used before them.  Furthermore, engines that can burn both E85 and regular fuel blends have an inherent 10% efficiency loss because they can't be optimized around a single fuel type.  And, oh yeah, all that nitrogen that Midwest farmers are dumping on their corn fields is producing a massive deadzone in the Gulf of Mexico.quote>

Jet another point in the engine debate is that many manufacturers are selling the same vehicle all over the world, or better, throughout many climatic regions, therefore map the engine to an average. Many tests have shown that it might render handy to do a so called eco-tuning which remaps the engine so it's perfectly fitted to the area of usage, improving not just the performance, but also milage and emissions.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: GMT

Jet another point in the engine debate is that many manufacturers are selling the same vehicle all over the world, or better, throughout many climatic regions, therefore map the engine to an average. Many tests have shown that it might render handy to do a so called eco-tuning which remaps the engine so it's perfectly fitted to the area of usage, improving not just the performance, but also milage and emissions.quote>

A few decades ago, when I was driving cross-country, things were going fine until Colorado.   Driving there was no problem but, when we woke up the next day, the car would not start.   The mechanic said it was because we had a low altitude tune and there wasn't enough air getting to the engine.

Eventually, he gave the car a mid-altitude tune since we would be driving all over the place and didn't know reliable mechanics along the way.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

A few decades ago, when I was driving cross-country, things were going fine until Colorado.   Driving there was no problem but, when we woke up the next day, the car would not start.   The mechanic said it was because we had a low altitude tune and there wasn't enough air getting to the engine.

Eventually, he gave the car a mid-altitude tune since we would be driving all over the place and didn't know reliable mechanics along the way.quote>

The key qualifier being "a few decades ago". Modern cars have computer chips that control their fuel injection (among other things) and are able to automatically adjust to varying conditions. Though, granted, they are not necessarily programmed to optimize fuel economy.

Nonetheless, altitude does still affect a car's performance. At high elevations, you will get better fuel economy regardless of your calibration (thinner air, less resistance), but on the other hand you will also notice that you don't get quite as much power out of your engine and won't be able to accelerate as fast.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: GMT

Originally posted by: hym

Since these suggestions were brought up, I thought I'd add some technical viewpoints to this...

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Stop making food into automotive fuel use waste oils instead.quote>

One of the nasty little secrets of the E85/biofuels groups is that they won't tell you that E85 blends aren't any cleaner than the blends that were used before them.  Furthermore, engines that can burn both E85 and regular fuel blends have an inherent 10% efficiency loss because they can't be optimized around a single fuel type.  And, oh yeah, all that nitrogen that Midwest farmers are dumping on their corn fields is producing a massive deadzone in the Gulf of Mexico.quote>

Jet another point in the engine debate is that many manufacturers are selling the same vehicle all over the world, or better, throughout many climatic regions, therefore map the engine to an average. Many tests have shown that it might render handy to do a so called eco-tuning which remaps the engine so it's perfectly fitted to the area of usage, improving not just the performance, but also milage and emissions.

quote>

That's only helpful if the ideal fuel/air mixture is significantly different from the "golden ratio" that they program the vehicle's engine management system to optimize around.  If it isn't, then paying thousands to tune your engine for your climate is a waste of money.

[chicah 20]

Okay, I won't bother reading all the posts, sorry. But, I'll start with saying one thing: We all agree this is not sustainable. And the population will keep growing.

And, stop calling people who get many children "stupid". In poor countries, you can get 10 kids and if you're lucky, 3 of them will grow up to become adults. As they fight infant mortality, the birth rate doesn't follow. Which means we're in a period where there are fewer children dying but people still get as many kids. This will adjust, it will just take time. And as birth control spreads, the birth rate will go down aswell.

Instead of blaming the poor countries, where they NEED children to make enough money for the family, we should look at ourselves. Living in the western world, in an almost gross excess and luxury, we only get children because we want to; not because we need to. Children are an expense here. My parents got 4 kids, so I guess you could say they didn't exactly help over-population, but I'm glad they did (I'm the 4th child). Are any of us able to say "I will abstain from having children to prevent over-population" or say that we rather want to adopt children who are already born than give birth to new ones? I think some of us might say that, but when the time comes, we'll want children. It's just "assumed" that everyone needs children to be a complete person. Maybe this attitude is what we need to change. Maybe we need to stop judging people who choose NOT to have children as sad, patethic, uncomplete people. Some people are happy without children, and with the over-population we see today, we should accept that and maybe even praise them for it. You can't tell people NOT to have children, but can't tell them to do either.

No, this is a complex issue. We all agree that children are a good thing. But that we need to decrease the population, though no one wants to actively kill off people, or force people to only get a certain amount of children. On this issue... I'm against, but at the same time; I have a friend who's all pro. I mean, he argues the population in China would be even LARGER if they didn't have the one-child policy, and he also (yes, he's kind of a cynic) argues that as more people kept their boys, there are fewer people to give birth, which leads to not increasing the population that much. This would not be the right way to see it, though, as a man can get plenty more children than a woman, since she'd need to carry each child for nine months. Either way, I don't see where I'm getting with this. I'm just saying that maybe we should consider taboo solutions such as imposing a limit to how many children you can get - or if not an actual limit, then loss of benefits. So that if you get 5 children, you lose child support, you lose the right to an education, you lose the right to this or that. It might seem harsh, but would in work in this part of the world?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The idea of reducing social benefits as the number of children in the family increase sounds great on paper, but what about the family that gets, say, five children when the benefit limit is three.  Do you cut off the benefits for the three or do you just hold it at that level?  This is another method of creating a dichotomy between the haves and the have-nots.  The wealthy can get a tribe while the poor are limited (and in reality won't be) by their income plus benefits.  In addition to denying baby bonuses to extra children, do you also deny them a medical insurance card?  Do you let children die of "childhood diseases"?  Do you not treat them if they have life-threatening allergies?

You can see that the bleeding hearts will be out in full force if you tried that.  Nothing like creating a little civil unrest to cause real problems in the state, eh?

[EyeofMobius 27]

@ chicah: as it turns out I am planning on getting fixed in the near future. I have never had children and do not see the need to do so. Most of my freinds and family are completely against the idea and still think I am joking. Some friends say I am being selfish others say that I am not allowed to becuase I haven't had at least 2 children yet. I sight the reasons for not wanting to have kids as:

- 1st overpopulation

- 2nd my work typically involves entertaining kids and I like being able to leave my work at work

- 3rd I live a nomadic lifestyle and am not actively seeking out cohabitation with a long term partner making it a bit hard to have kids,

- 4th kids are expensive just like mortgages, vehicles and pets. I make very little money but 90% of it is disposable so I enjoy a comfortable quality of life without a large salary or many expenses.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: chicah

It's just "assumed" that everyone needs children to be a complete person. Maybe this attitude is what we need to change. Maybe we need to stop judging people who choose NOT to have children as sad, patethic, uncomplete people. Some people are happy without children, and with the over-population we see today, we should accept that and maybe even praise them for it.quote>

Somehow I don't think the desire to have children is a learned trait. Cultural attitude is not the root cause, it's basic biological programming.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@EOM:  Don't do anything irreversable that you will very much regret later.  I don't have any kids to speak of other than the two I adopted when I married, and I am 73 and have never been celibate.

And I agree that having children is a biological imperative.  For the young, the sex drive can be overwhelming.

[mightygoose 92]

related to the NERVA comments, nerva will always be a last resort as people have total nuclear fear and the risk for a nuclear stack breaking up over US soil is too high a risk for any administration. it is why the nose laser 747 never got mass produced, apart from efficiency against reflective target issues it had problems that if it crashed it would spill some truly horrifying chemicals.

as to why to go to other planets... if you even read some of the constant indefensible threats to humanity on earth, it makes sense to spread ourselves out.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, stupidity is not necessarily the case.  It is a matter of opportunity and financing.  Having several children usually is a major financial burden, especially if the nuclear family has split up.  Once you get a working mother with several mouths to feed, you get to the real tragedy if she is not a professional of some sort other than the oldest profession.

Many of these people have normal IQ's of around 120, but that doesn't help if you don't know where your next dinner is coming from or what you'll put on the backs of your kids so they can go to school.  Bleeding heart outfits don't cover enough of this problem to be more than a drop in the bucket.

Of course we are talking about things in the first world here.

Now, let us take a trip to the third world where there is rampant disease, bad water, little food, a hot climate rife with parasites both internal and external, and a government that doesn't give a damn about the people as long as they continue to be enriched.  So-called democracy or no, these are either satrapies or unenlightened monarchies, no matter what the title of the head of state is.  The proper business of the head of state is not self-aggrandizement, it is caring for the people. 

For example, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe (formerly Rodesia) has a gigantic palace and lots of good things for himself, but his people are starving.  Criminals of this stripe need to be removed, but who will do it?  Not the west.  That's not our brief.  The OAS?  Not a chance, most of them are of the same stripe.  The UN?  Mugabe will die of old age before they can get enough consensus, even if the matter were taken up.  The world is helpless before such things.  We couldn't do anything about Hitler nor Tojo until they crossed their borders either.  The more things change, the more they are the same.

[morriswalters 16]

It's odd how some people seem to think they are smarter then everybody else, without ever realizing that to others they are everybody else.  The educated may breed less but they don't make better long term decisions better than anybody else.  This can be demonstrated by the fact that most politicians are college graduates. Having said that, the smart ones better figure some solutions out because as time goes on there will be less of everything for everybody.  And when resources get tight we will go to war, it's what we are good at.  We are not going to migrate from earth, you can't build spaceships fast enough, and if you could there's no place to go.

[Muck308 55]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

The educated may breed less but they don't make better long term decisions better than anybody else.  This can be demonstrated by the fact that most politicians are college graduates.

quote>

The decisions politicians make can be chalked up to their motives, not their level of education. Keep in mind these politicians are often in someone's pocket. We need to weed out the corruption before we can elect trustworthy leaders.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Fortunately, fuel should not be a problem between CoalGas, SynGas, Biodiesel, and Ethanol blends.

Fuel can be made from the following:

Petroleum

Coal

Water+Pollution (with the help of CO2 scrubbers and electricity or High Temperature Nuclear Power Plants)

Algae

Seeds (including a toxic seed that grows in deserts and is high in oil)

Junk Calories (starch and fat)

Plant waste (fiber, though the process is difficult ATM)

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

C'mon you guys, quit trying to fuel the automobubble.  Its time is past.  Cites are going to die the death simply because we can't afford to keep them.  This so-called energy crisis is only a diversion.  The real problem we will be facing within a decade is the rising sea levels and the droughts in places that are dependent on glacial melt for water.  We are going to have water wars.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[mightygoose 92]

i agree the sooner we transfer to a non oil based civilisation the better.

[hamsterTK 93]

Well, being educated and labeled as smart correlates to being a member of a certain more modern culture where people tend to prefer having fewer children in exchange for being able to afford a higher standard of living. Whereas people who have many children tend to represent a perhaps more traditional culture. it's a curious question as to whether there is any direct causation between fertility rates and IQ in individuals.

It is what it is. I'd hope society could find a balance though.

Certainly nobody wants to live like their grandparents who grew up with 10 brothers and sisters in a 2 bedroom house, walking 15 miles to school in the snow, you know those lame stories. Then again, places like South Korea and Singapore where people mostly have one child and go overboard raising them to some very weird social consequences never mind the crippling demographic decline...can't say that's a wise direction either.