Where did this myth come from? When was humanity supposed to end?
- Did Malthus really say to kill off the poor?
- Malthus thought doctors shouldn't cure diseases?
- Did Paul Ehrlich really say that famines would devastate humanity in the 1970s?
- What's the UNFPA? How do they profit from fear?
- No way everyone could fit in Texas …
- Where are you getting these numbers?
- The world's population will peak in 30 years? Prove it.
Did Malthus really say to kill off the poor?
Yep. In his Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus calls for increased mortality among the poor:
All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons… To act consistently therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. (Book IV, Chap. V) — Read it online.
Malthus thought doctors shouldn't cure diseases?
“But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. (Book IV, Chap. V) — Read it online.”
Did Paul Ehrlich really say that famines would devastate humanity in the 1970s?
Yep. In his 1968 work The Population Bomb, Ehrlich stated:
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
What's the UNFPA? How do they profit from fear?
The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) was founded in 1969, the year after Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. They have been involved in programs with governments around the world who deny their women the right to choose the number and spacing of their children. Their complicit work with the infamous “one-child policy" mandated by the government of the People's Republic of China, uncovered by an investigation of the U.S. State Department in 2001, led the United States to pull its funding.
The wealthy of the West, in their terror of poverty, have given copiously to the UNFPA and its population control programs. Visit Population Research Institute for more info.
No way everyone could fit in Texas …
According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).
So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.
Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.
Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.
Where are you getting these numbers?
U.N. Population Database. While they provide Low, Medium, and High Variants, the Low Variant is the one that keeps coming true, so the Low variant numbers are the ones used in this video. Check their online database.
The world's population will peak in 30 years? Prove it.
According to the U.N. Population Database, using the historically accurate low variant projection, the Earth's population will only add another billion people or so over the next thirty years, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline. Check their online database.
Comments
The faultiness of your logic...
By focusing entirely on Malthus, you are missing the point completely. Malthus was wrong, yes, but overpopulation is still a problem. Just because Malthus's notions were wrong, doesn't mean that overpopulation isn't a problem or that there aren't viable solutions to this problem. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Consumers
I question the motives of the producers of this site and film. Of course overpopulation is a problem but it's an "inconvenient truth" ignored by practically everyone because we want/need more CONSUMERS to support our economies, buy buy buy. The problem is our oceans are over fished, virtually everywhere in the U.S. is on are at risk of being subject to water restrictions that were unheard of 10 years ago. Less people, less stress on the environment.
Overpoulation is a Myth
As an economic demographer by education, I can assure you that you would fail any graduate course at any major university, using the reasoning that you do on this web page. At the time when I was doing my graduate work in population analysis (economic demography), "The Limits to Growth" study out of MIT was one of the hot topics of the day. You can watch the updates of this work, by searching Limits to Growth in Youtube, of note are the presentations by Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers and Lester Brown. This work was based on a highly sophisticated computer model, developed by the first two people just noted and Dennis' wife Deanna Meadows. Unlike your simplistic assumptions, they developed and continue to refine a highly sophisticated computer model, which estimates the "carrying capacity" of the planet, given limited natural resources (fresh water, farmable land, rare minerals, etc., etc.), finite fossil fuels, ocean acidification, and the impacts of global warming, and pollution. None of these do you consider. We lovingly call your types "the flat earth folks." You still don't realize that the earth is round, and that it therefore has limitations on population. You might argue that the planet can sustain 500 trillion people, using your simple assumptions, but at least you would show that you understand what limits are! Most of us would assume that you have no idea how to compute these limits, but at least we would not place you in the "flat earth" group. But alas, you are in the flat earth group. Take for instance the climate change issue, which I am sure you think is wrong. Watch on youtube, "Artic Death Spiral and The Methane Time Bomb." They argue that the world is likely to warm by 5C by 2050, due to over population of people using too many fossil fuels. This will then release the Artic methane, which is likely to warm the planed another 5c. Life on the planet will not exist at 10c above current levels, is the argument. But not to worry. The business world, and those of you strong supporters of unlimited growth are most likely to win out. The global population is likely to reach 11 billion people sometime in the second half of this century. Good news is that the planet will test your thesis that "over population is a myth." Bad news is that if the millions of us that are arguing that this level is well over the 4-5 billion carrying capacity of the planet are correct. The world will suffer a massive collapse, due to extreme changes in climate, unstoppable climate change. Massive growing areas, like CA is facing now, may become dry waste lands. The 1 billion people on the planet now that do not have access to fresh drinking water, may rise to 7 billion of the 11 billion. And the mayhem forecasted all too soon by other demographers, may ultimately be reality. But not to worry. If those of you from "the flat world" camp are wrong, you can simply take it as partially your responsibility for the potentially billions of people who die, due to your simplistic and very misleading arguments. If those of us from the "scientific" community, are correct, and the population leveled off at 4-5 billion, and the world transitioned now to wind and solar, what would be the impact if we were wrong on our assumptions and forecasts. We would have a cleaner, less populated planet, where the oceans were filled with healthy coral and sea life. The forests would not be devastated, and the rivers and lakes not polluted nearly as much. So it would appear that the risks of all of you in "the flat earth" group have a much higher risk of causing the death of billions and billions of people if your simplistic assumptions are wrong. Those of us in "The Limits to Growth" camp do not face such dire consequences if our assumptions are incorrect. Quite the opposite, an under populated world may not make as many billions for the billionaires, but it could provide for a much better living for billions of people globally. And the argument that 11 billion people will increase the standard of living of more people than a planet of 4 billion people, with the majority of the energy provided by renewable energies, primarily wind and solar, is also non-science. But hey, you are likely young enough to see the real world implications of your very misleading arguments, if others and I are correct. Too bad those of us that understand the carrying capacity of the planet, and limits to growth, don't have another planet to move to. That way we could live for thousands of generations into the future, due to our responsible life styles. However, we are stuck on "Planet Titanic" driven by a Right Wing, Radically Wrong group of nuts like your group. We are stuck going down with the ship, due to your very simplistic and inaccurate analysis. God forgive you, for you do not know what you are doing!
for he does not know what he's doing?
What's he doing, convincing the world to all live in Texas? LOL. Yes his article can be dangerous, but no one is going to buy this except the ignorant. There is an artificial overpopulation in that the goverments of the world, being evil, mismanage things often, that creates situations for wars, which in turn lead to population reduction. It works out in a way. However God is going to kill many people anyways, apparantly around a billion.
Not exactly...
Really, what you're saying is that we focus on everyone who says that the earth is overpopulated, when really, its simpler to explain and understand the theory when only the main or first person who had started the awareness, who, may I add is Malthus.
The argument that we have
The argument that we have plenty of room to keep expanding the population seems somewhat short-sighted. When early Americans began cutting the giant Sequoias, they thought there would always be plenty of wood--surely, they would never run out of trees in the forest.
We may only be a few drops in the bucket, but when the drops keep coming, the bucket will eventually become full. It's more about quality of life than simply sustaining humans on the planet.
Pardon me, but have I missed
Pardon me, but have I missed something? Have we run out of trees?
Everyone could fit in Texas...
Yes, it would be true that you can fit the entire world's population into texas, but how would you feed all those people? 75% of the entire earth's land mass is dedicated into farmland, to produce the food necessary.
What about Food?
In answer to your question, I suggest you look at the science behind our video "Food: There's lots of it."
Enough food..
Technically enough to sustain human life correct, but the first world its overconsumption. Is there not a statisitc of an average american consuming the equal to 32 Kenyans.. So the world reaches 'overpopulation' well before this equal food rationing for the world is ever going to have a chance. And finally the point you miss in each video and your eniter ideology is that the FIRST WORLD iis not going to give away the MASSIVE amount it would take to make an equality, wars (like 99% of them) are because one set of people have what you want.. Or are pushing for what you have. Think about it.
99%?
Where is the 99% of wars fought over "what you have"? World War I? WWII? Neither had anything to do with that... WWI was the result of an unsettling arms race & buildup of alliances between the powers of Europe (and Japan, as well) and WWII was caused by a group of governments who wanted to control the world... I can go further. The Civil War (Of America) was caused by a lack of states rights over governmental rights. A government had more power then another government. The Gulf War was caused by a tyrannical leader who abused his power. The Cold War (which could be argued as a conflict, I suppose) was caused by a buildup of nuclear weapons.
I understand where you're coming from (American Revolution, French Revolution, anything with the word "revolution" in it) but you can't use statistics if they're incorrect. Sorry for the rant, but so many people on this feed are incorrectly using statistics and this one sent me over the edge.
75% of the earth's landmass is being used for farming?
Right now, the best figures say that at most 38% of the world's landmass is use for agriculture. What percentage of that land is being farmed at anything like the efficiency of U.S. or other developed nations? If half the land currently being farmed in Africa were being used efficiently Africa would become a huge net exporter of food and the rest of the land could be turned to other uses.
Yes, but...
Yes, but the low variant projections kept coming true, perhaps thanks to those infamous "one-child" or "birth-control" policies? So, once you abandon them or even worse encourage more births, the tendency of the population rate will not remain the same.
And by the way, 66'x66' for a family is really not very comfortable, and Texas is NOT a tiny portion of the INHABITABLE Earth. Well, if you say Sahara or Taklamakan Deserts or Scandinavian highlands or Canadian north are inhabitable, then there is not much to say...
I think you have overlooked some important facts
1) You are failing to account for is a biological property known as carrying capacity, the ability of this planet to support (provide food, clothing, shelter etc) is much more constrained than the surface area available to put people.
2) The UN does not estimate a population peak in 2040. The estimate for 2100 is that there will be more than 10 billion people and that we will be adding more than 5.5 million people per year at that point.
3) If you wish to understand population growth rate, I recommend watching: www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY.
In answer to your points
1) I suggest you watch the POP101 video "Food: There's Lots of It"
2) Those estimates follow the high-variant. Considering the low variant has consistently come out more accurate, 2040 is the estimated population peak.
3) Here I suggest you watch the POP101 video "7 Billion People: Everybody Relax!"
Carrying capacity
I think that the point was just loosely illustrative. However I agree that it is more relevant (though I suspect also more subjective and less empirical or verifiable as it is subject to many variables) to speak in terms of 'carrying capacities'.
However I recently heard the following (as we're discussing America): 6% of American Landmass is developed, 3% is classified as urban, 77% of Americans live in the areas classified as urban, the rest is still largely untouched by humans. The same could be said of most of the globe.
Despite the fact that obviously there are areas that are not suitable for farming under any conditions I personally do not believe that we are anywhere near exhausting the carrying capacity of the earth and I would like to see an objective and detailed analysis proving that we are, if that is the contention. Most governments seem to be totally unconcerned about our current ability to produce for our wants and its my experience in England that farming is not encouraged. Based on parts of the video 'food, there's lots of it' I suppose the same is true in the States.
At any rate we cannot simply say that when fossil fuels dry up (a condition that is continually being postponed it seems) that all other current conditions will prevail - human ways of living may neccessarily re-arrange themselves and local and more widespread production may well provide the answer. Many people today are doing not very much (and I'm not just talking about the unemployed - I'm talking about many who earn good salaries and consume a lot).
God Bless all,
Harry Tyldesley
Population still peaking based on the selected data
1) I would suggest that the land area illustration is only meant to address one particular myth, and that is the myth that there is simply not enough room on the earth for everyone. In the 1960's there were pictures of the globe with people falling off it. Many still believe that it is a matter of available land, and this myth must be put to bed before further progress can be made in a discussion. One must define what they mean by overpopulation.
2) The UN gives four different projections, and the one you have cited is what they call the probabilistic mean (medium variant). This is the population growth that is most probable. However, if we agree on using this model, the population is still peaking at about 10.2 billion, rather than 8 billion. The fact that 5.5 million people are still being added to the population in 2100 is true, but it is far smaller than the 48 million per year growth in 1950. So even this model demonstrates a reduction in growth rate and an eventual peak. You can see it visually by looking at the graph they present.
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
3) I watched the video and it was interesting. However, if his point is that the population is growing at a steady rate (exponentially), then he is in disagreement with the UN's data. None of the UN’s projections are exponential. As I mentioned, the most probable UN model has a peak at 10.2 billion.
A myth indeed
It seems like most of the commenters haven't watched the other videos. On the food topic specifically, the US currently produces significantly more grain from a smaller amount of land than it did 40 years ago. As time goes on and agricultural technology continues to improve, we will continue to get more bang for our buck.
Consider how much food could be produced if, say, Africa was producing food with the efficiency/agricultural technology of America.
Forever though?
Can we really expect for it to increase the same as it has in the past though? Most of the agricultural breakthroughs have already happened. So expect us to always have a breakthrough allowing us to keep pace is absurd.
Do you see the future?
Do you see the future?
Peak in agricultural output?
Today's space research indicates that roughly 3.5 sq meters is needed to feed one human being if we have access to energy. Fitting the growing space needed for a small family inside an ordinary apartment in greenhouse book shelf wouldn't be a problem. We are still very far from any agricultural production limits...
That's crazy
"Most of the agricultural breakthroughs have already happened. So expect us to always have a breakthrough allowing us to keep pace is absurd."
No, what's absurd is believing that we already know almost everything there is to know. Given sufficient time and motivation, there are no limits to human ingenuity.
They still call oil a
They still call oil a "fossil" fuel too. Oil is likely abiotic, and peak oil is a myth.
Abiotic??
What on earth makes you believe that oil abiotic?
africa
Africa will never pull their heads out of there azzezz because islam is "very peacefully" spreading their bs faith.
What Malthus Missed
Malthus missed the coming of the heat engine, that is, useful work done by exosomatic energy such as coal or oil. The supply of food is limited in one sense by the ability to plow, plant, and harvest. All are processes that require energy. If accomplished by human labor, one could see how that would place an upper limit on how much food could be produced. Give mechanization, fewer people can produce much more food. Add to that natural gas, methane, some chemistry and you can add synthetic fertilizers to the mix. But, we must also remember that fossil fuels are finite resources and as reserves diminish, the rates of production will also diminish. And right now, the Earth's rate of production of petroleum is peaking, as will coal and nature gas in a few decades. Over the course of several decades we'll see fossil energy play an steadily decreasing role in the world's economy. Eventually our capacity to do work, such as the aforementioned plowing, planting, and harvesting will likewise diminish. The projections for the world's population are for it to peak in a few decades and then decline. The question is whether it will decline fast enough to keep pace with a diminishing food supply. Of course, when all the fossil fuels are gone, they'll be limited by solar inputs, just as in Malthus' time. But, that's just one aspect of modern agriculture. Topsoil loss, urban expansion, fresh water, transport, etc. also figure in the equation. Fifty years from now it might well be anybody's guess as to whether or not we can feed everyone. If current trends are any indication, it doesn't look good.
Explanation about the population of China and India (from questi
I'm not a part of this website but I can answer the question about the population of India and China.
China is growing because until recently they had a relatively young population so these people were able to begin having children recently (but only 1 per family due to the one child policy in China). Also their healthcare is getting better so people are living much longer. However their fertility rate is only 1.7 children born per woman. A fertility rate of 2.1 is needed to replace the current population. So they will begin to have a decline in population very soon. Currently they have more than 1.33 billion people, in 2050 they will be down to 1.29 billion, and in 2100 they are projected to only have 940 million! (my source is geography.about.com's list of the most populous countries) This decline in population will likely continue although projections don't go out that far.
India will keep growing for a while but will also begin to suffer a population decline before the end of the century. Currently their fertility rate is 2.8 children born per woman which is still above the replacement rate of 2.1 but that is down from about 6 per woman in 1950. Their fertility rate is falling fast and will soon be below replacement levels so their population will start to decline. Today India has 1.24 billion people, in 2050 they will have 1.69 billion, and in 2100 that will begin to fall to 1.55 billion. Again that trend will probably continue into the future.
As far as the target population I wouldn't think there should not be any target population. We should let individuals decide how many children to have and not seek to artificially limit the population. Although ideally the population should continue to grow and not decline because there are lots of advantages that come with a growing population.
Numbers...
Why do you trust numbers about future population calculated by people who barely understand the past ?
1. All those estimations are based on the very stupid belief that the factors that limited the expansion of population in the western world are absolutes when they're temporary.
2. All those estimations completely ignore politics and strategies (Islam has vowed to take over the world by population numbers, for example)
3. People with limited vision should never speak about what will happen in a hundred years.
If you have no clue about what factors really limit human population on earth, you can't possibly figure out population evolution.
Population density off India
Per large scale sample of over million households, India's TFR is already down to 2.4 and is not 2.8 . http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2013/03/mj-akbar-at-simon-fraser-univer...
Secondly while a TFR. Of 2 .1 is considered replacement level I the developed world, it is likely that India has already reached replacement level given its much higher infant mortality rate and adverse female to male sex ratio. Thus it is likely that India's population will peak in 1945 instead of waiting until 1960 to stabilize.
Population is the result of fossil fuel
Our bloated world population is made possible by fossil fuels that we are using as if they were limitless. If not for fossil fuel we would not be able to supply food or maintain such large populations with their complex economies and societies. If you don't believe this, look into how much synthetic fertilizer and pesticides are dumped on food crops to produce the high yields (and ever increasing yields) people refer to on this site. These fertilizers and pesticides are derived from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas, and other nutrients whose manufacture would not be possible on such a large scale otherwise. The world supply of petroleum, on top of which natural gas reserves sit, is peaking as we speak or probably has already peaked according to most experts, even the petroleum industry. Unless we find another way to create these synthetic fertilizers, for which there are no other production methods that are possible on such a large scale in the absense of fossil fuel, we will not be able to maintain the food production that makes our large population possible. The increase in price of petroleum will make farming on such a large scale much more expensive and the price of food will skyrocket. Along with climate change, the erratic effects of which are likely lead to massive yield reductions like those seen this season in the US, these changes to agriculture are likely to greatly impact food supply. Switching to organic methods or draft animal power will mean a drastic reduction in food supply(unless we all become vegetarian), because these non fossil fuel methods are less productive, and will thus require a drastic reduction in food demand.
Look around you and see how everything you depend on is created using or is derived from, fossil fuel. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, and pesticides are made directly using fossil fuel, while everything else, metal, wood, glass, is shaped by the power of fossil fuel. These are the things that make it possible for us to have such a large population. We couldn't maintain large cities without cars and highways, because people couldn't get from place to place in them and they couldn't have their food and other resources shipped to them from far across the world. Population only really began to increase dramatically with industrialization and the exploitation of fossil fuel. It made possible the green revolution that followed WWII and made possible massive increases in crop yield. This led to the increase of meat heavy diets of those in rich countries, because animal feed crops could be grown much more cheaply.
I think you all need to learn a lot more about population to have a website about it. Also, instead of just allowing the comments from people you can easily respond to or who support your ideas to be seen, maybe you could include comments that have good information that fuels a good discussion. This is just a propaganda site using pseudo-science to support its false claims. You leave out much information necessary to actually understand this complex issue.
Regarding the fossil fuel argument...
Could you offer some links in support of the statistics you are laying out here?
Also we are no where near running out of oil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kZotftLE0A
Who cares about oil ?
Am i the only person with a brain here ? Who needs fossil ? the only reason we used fossil energy is because it made a lot of sense in 1900, the rest is purely inertia, fossil hasn't made sense for years.
Re: Who cares about oil
Since you are the "Only person with a brain here".... Since fossil hasn't made sense for years, what alternatives do you suggest? My understanding is that Fossil Fuels currently provide the most energy for the dollar, hence make the most sense. I'm not saying I am correct, I am just saying that is my understanding.
What I would like to see more often is a "Total Cost Calculation". Folks are always saying how proud they are of their Prius or Nissan Leaf, but the never talk about the cost of battery disposal and heavy metals.
Resource Base Economy
Resourced based Economy is the most clean efficient system that society can run on by use of all Solar, Wave, Wind,Tidal, and most importantly geothermal energy. Geothermal energy ALONE can provide the entire planet with energy for thousands of years Solar Wave, Wind, and Tidal are just extra fossil fuels would be almost phased out we would have very little use for it, Research resource based economy especially Jacques Fresco's ideas for it "Future By Design".....
They Delivered
Actually this website responded to both of your objections/requests. 1) Posted your disagreeing statement (in its entirety apparently), and 2)they provided a wealth of data in the 92 second presentation with supporting references you could check out yourself. What more could you ask for?
short sighted
Yes fossil fuel has been the second largest factor in food production right behind human creativity So unless u believe all of mankind is as negative as u I believe we will come up with a much better way to support mankinds needs. If I might add I believe modern day agricultural is one of the most destructive things we've ever seen.
which populations does this fossil fuel consumption support?
The current levels of consumption of fossil fuels disproportionately supports a small fraction of the global population. "The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world." (J Diamond, NY Times, 2 Jan. 2008).
The problem is not the number of people on the planet per se, it's the rate at which they consume finite resources. If all of our global neighbours consumed like the 'developed' world, then you'd be right, but the truth is we shouldn't be talking about the bloated population before we talk about our bloated consumption, (notwithstanding the fact that the population is an important issue)
If we halved the global population, (and guess which 'half' the developed world would vote to 'disappear'), do you seriously think our consumption would drop proportionately?... or would we just decide that with less pressure on resources, we could still drive 5 litre V8 pick ups and individually eat enough burgers in a week to feed a village in Africa for a month? I wonder...
Who wants to be poor?
I wholeheartedly agree we could lead less materially based lives. But the 3rd world is rapidly urbanizing and repeating the path to development - and concomitant consumption - of the 1st world. And just as humans are evolutionarily predisposed to overeat we are also predisposed to seek out low input ways to get things done IE convenience. We are no more likely to stop wanting "stuff" via self discipline than we are to stop overeating via self discipline.
Ideally I'd like to see scientists create an index of quality of life vs material wealth and technology. Does anyone really believe we are happier in the 1st world than we were in the 60s? I'm not talking recreate the 60s here but pick and choose which of the inventions over history that use resources are really bringing us the most happiness? What we need is a global mean for population and consumption were we have sanitation, medicine, transport, education, information transfer, entertainment at a base level everywhere. No wars over resources, no have-nots, no civilisational jealousy and resentment, just people working as little as possible and finding meaningful things to do with their leisure time that aren't dependent on burning truckloads of coal.
hmm - fossil fuels
so - the advent of technologies like those developed by the folks at LS9 (ls9.com) - does that make population growth more or less challenging in your view?
Cheers!
uhm..you've never heard of
uhm..you've never heard of hemp? read a book...
Population growth is all due to longevity
The main cause for population growth since the 1950s is due to better medicine and longer life spans. People in countries like Japan and Scandinavian countries are living to their 80s. At the same time, almost all regions have seen lowered birth rates and in some areas, like Europe, have seen birth rates drop below 2 per family (below replenishment rate). Africa, which had birth rates at around 10/family is seeing a drop down to about 4 or so. Their health is not so high, so longevity is not as great.
Coupling the low birth rate with a 60-40 male-female distribution in China from the 50s through the 90s will mean a big drop in the global population as soon as these people, who would have ordinarily died had we not had better medicine, actually die from old age and old-age related diseases. That is why the prediction is for a decrease of global population in 2040 or so: those who benefitted from modern medicine will eventually die off, and the low birth rates (and large male-female ratio in China) have resulted in lower replenishment of humans.
So the population has very little to do with fossil fuel use (or lack of).
Truth of the matter.
I think that for someone so widely read, you have some research to catch up on, for example, methane clathrate is abundant enough to keep mankind supplied with natural gas for thousands of years, also,I am appalled that on a website so open, as is shown by the fact that your comment was left on the forum, and by the fact that four out of five comments are from the opposition, you would have audacity to act in such a manner. So far, I have not seen a single false claim, and furthermore what you pen as pseudo-science I think is a lot closer to simple-science; it may not be Shakespeare, for a couple minute cartoon, I think it makes a good point :-)
seriously...
So you blather on in opposition to the blogger's premise offering NOT ONE reference to your claims then accuse the blogger of spreading propaganda. Good one.
water
The limiting factor on world population isn't land, so the Texas analogy is faulty.
It isn't food, at least not directly. It isn't oil, although peak oil is a major problem.
The limiting factor on world population is water. Even in Seattle (a notably rainy place) we occasionally have drought issues. The situations in many parts of the world is dire.
You cannot grow crops without water, no matter how technologically advanced you may be. You cannot raise food animals without water. You cannot control disease without water. And we need it to drink, too.
Water is key. And no, there isn't enough water in Texas to support the entire world population. They're having water wars even with the sparse population they've got.
water
As is with land, water is being enormously abused. If it is not being bottled, sold, or horded, it is being atrociously poisoned. Lack of stewardship is the real issue here! Suzanne
Water
human capital and enterprise can solve any and all problems including water - desalinization, berg transport, water purification projects, etc.
Assuming that there is enough
Assuming that there is enough money and resources to back it. Not to mention the enormous amount of time that is associated with each of those processes. And money and the incorporations that fund them are all run on the idea of capitalism. Not natural processes, ideas that just have enough belief in them by the people that they work, for now.
water
God created enough water to sustain the planet. Water is being polluted but He has his own distillation process, called evaporation, condensation, cloud formation, and precipitation. Most of the problems have to do with distribution. Anyhow, everything has changed due to Fukishima, and now we are in the last days. See the book of Revelation
water
Oil pipelines are thousands of miles long so no problem sourcing water from the Colorado river. Enough water sweeps through there in one hour to supply the entire planet for one day.
Water
Everyone is blowing their whistles about the effects of "overpopulation" but no one is doing anything to ACTIVELY fix it. Just passively getting angry at others for having "too many" kids.
I'm going to give a crazy, head in the clouds solution to the water issue...
We know what water is made of: 1 Oxygen atom and 2 Hydrogen atoms. So...in theory, we should be able to fuse these three atoms together to "create" water!
But the problem is not that there is not enough water on the earth for every person to have everything that they need. the problem is that too much water gets wasted. I keep seeing the phrase "In order to give everyone an American standard of living..." Well the current American standard of living is extravagant and extremely wasteful. Why should we give everyone that standard of living? I'll bet we could give plenty of water to a whole third world country just out of the amount that is wasted in 1 American city.
Pages