David Attenborough: How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?

[mik]

humans will self regulate, when push comes to shove, resources,food run out, wars will break out, population control will be automatic.

[blownvn]

Expansion to the stars is the ultimate answer but there doesn't seem to be much hope in that when most businesses and government have given up on space as being "too expensive".

What's cheaper? Colonising space? Or killing off 75-80% of the population?

If we start now then in fifty years we'll have large viable colonies on the moon, mars and in orbit here and around Jupiter. The technology exists, we just lack the will.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by blownvn

Expansion to the stars is the ultimate answer but there doesn't seem to be much hope in that when most businesses and government have given up on space as being "too expensive".

What's cheaper? Colonising space? Or killing off 75-80% of the population?

If we start now then in fifty years we'll have large viable colonies on the moon, mars and in orbit here and around Jupiter. The technology exists, we just lack the will.

Where would you get the resources to live there? Can we grow crops on the moon or would they need to be shipped there? The only way space conlonisation can be viable is if we found a planet similar to earth.

Yes it is cheaper to kill ourselves. 20c a bullet vs millions in one space flight.

[blownvn]

Originally Posted by irish2

Where would you get the resources to live there? Can we grow crops on the moon or would they need to be shipped there? The only way space conlonisation can be viable is if we found a planet similar to earth.

Yes it is cheaper to kill ourselves. 20c a bullet vs millions in one space flight.

You want to kill yourself? Sorry, I choose life.

The resources are floating around out there in the shape of asteroids and other Near Earth Objects which are constantly swinging past. Then there's the asteroid belt and Kuiper belt to mine.

Large asteroids (20Km or more in length) can be bumped into orbit (either around the moon or earth), hollowed out, and given some spin to impart gravity.

Bases can be started on the moon, they already know there's water to be had, and plants can be grown underground hydroponically which also creates oxygen.

Mars can be terraformed (long term project). It already has an atmosphere, it just need thickening and more oxygen. Direct a couple comets it's way and there's a start.

They are already discussing building a space elevator (private consortium) which will help get stuff up into orbit.

No one is saying it'll be easy, but it needs to be started and then we can talk about interstellar travel down the track.
From 1900 to 1970 we saw a huge amount of technological growth, but since the early 70's we seem to have stagnated. We seem more interested in better DVD players and iphones these days rather than expanding our frontiers.

Our choices are:

*Everyone live like the Chinese or Indian's (think Australia, with 1billion people)
*Have less people (who volunteers to die first)
*Expend beyond Earth's boundaries

[TheInterceptor]

Technology is expensive, gov sure as hell wont care, they're set no matter what, we're paying for it and imo thats what they care about the most. Money money money. You cant use money when your dead can you? Instead of them concentrating on getting all this money, they should shift their concerns elswhere like what are we going to eat in 20 years time? Maybe we can eat money?

Well im hoping the earth will sort it all out since us humans are incapable.

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by blownvn

*Have less people (who volunteers to die first)

Uh, not who volunteers to die. There should be a 2 children max per family. There's no need for big families these days!

There's not really enough decent technology out there in this present day to be able to colonise other planets. Just think of how long it takes to get there & the training regime that astronauts have to undertake. Can you really see the average Joe or Joanne doing that?

[TheInterceptor]

There sufficient technology for humans to progress forwards, earth is still the place to be. Bobman is correct in saying "There should be a 2 children max per family."
Its slower than massacreing people but its humane and would probobly work to some extent.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by Bobman

There's not really enough decent technology out there in this present day to be able to colonise other planets. Just think of how long it takes to get there & the training regime that astronauts have to undertake. Can you really see the average Joe or Joanne doing that?

Plus it would only work if you could ship em out in the billions as well. There is no point sending a few out there only for them to colonise another planet by themselves because they will only be creating a new population somewhere else leaving the earth to continue to populate at the same rate as we are now.

Bud Bud

[XR6Runner]

If humans wanted to start colonising another planet, the whole population of the earth would have to come together first. Like a new world order. One language, one or no religion. We would all have to settle all the differences, be borderless, share every technology and advancement.

But that is never going to happen. The closest and most possible solution for population control and also, importantly, a boost to the economy, would be World War 3.

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by XR6Runner

But that is never going to happen. The closest and most possible solution for population control and also, importantly, a boost to the economy, would be World War 3.

Exactly and as much as I hate to say it, I can see something like this happening in our lifetimes. It would be like September 11th on a Global scale.

[70caprigt3k]

Save.Exit.Planet

[irish2]

Originally Posted by XR6Runner

The closest and most possible solution for population control and also, importantly, a boost to the economy, would be World War 3.

Exactly. A few nukes will cause a nuclear winter. Whoever survives that will have a virtually empty world to re populate!

[Adamz Ghia]

Child limits is proven to work. China installed the one child policy and are now starting work to revoke it in some provinces and soon the entire country because the population has aged rapidly and there's no where near enough young people coming through to support them. The working population is expected to stop growing around 2013 to 2014 and after 2025 shrink by 10 million a year. It's esimated the one child policy has prevented up to 400 million births.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by blownvn

Expansion to the stars is the ultimate answer but there doesn't seem to be much hope in that when most businesses and government have given up on space as being "too expensive".

What's cheaper? Colonising space? Or killing off 75-80% of the population?

If we start now then in fifty years we'll have large viable colonies on the moon, mars and in orbit here and around Jupiter. The technology exists, we just lack the will.

schmoke to much pot and you will be on another planet.......

[tranquilized]

The thought of populating other planets makes me sick. We render this one unlivable so we move onto the next?

No matter what humans do, Mother Nature always wins, everytime. If it ever reaches the point when this planet is no longer a suitable environment for humans, then that should be the end of us. Let the next dominant species have a go and see if they cant do a better job.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

The thought of populating other planets makes me sick. We render this one unlivable so we move onto the next?

No matter what humans do, Mother Nature always wins, everytime. If it ever reaches the point when this planet is no longer a suitable environment for humans, then that should be the end of us. Let the next dominant species have a go and see if they cant do a better job.

Viruses work in the same way. Why can't we?

[pottery beige]

i want to evolve into a mudskipper.... cool as....

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by irish2

Viruses work in the same way. Why can't we?

You summed it up!! Humans are a virus.

I'm sure you'll agree, viruses are pretty much without exception highly undesirable for the host...

[blownvn]

Originally Posted by Bobman

Uh, not who volunteers to die. There should be a 2 children max per family. There's no need for big families these days!

There's not really enough decent technology out there in this present day to be able to colonise other planets. Just think of how long it takes to get there & the training regime that astronauts have to undertake. Can you really see the average Joe or Joanne doing that?

The training regime for astronauts is more about weaning out the field than any higher need for sending fit people into space.

The average joe or joanne don't need to do the heavy lifting, most of them are merely going to be cattle, shipped from place to place.

Like I said before we've got a alot of real estate out there, we just need to start working towards accessing it. Mars is a perfect place to start. It's not too far in astronomical terms and it's a clean slate. It has no native flora or fauna to damage.

Our population require 2.1 children per family just to stay level, so limiting families to 1 or 2 per couple isn't the answer either.

[Maggot]

You could stew up everyone in the world into a pot 1km by 1km by 1km.. so there'e really not that many of us, and in this country we all have several square kilometers to ourselves!

But yes, limiting reproductive numbers (in a method unlike China where some are encouraged to kill of a child merely because it a she and not a he) is the only humane approach.

..sais he with four kids! :-)

[Adamz Ghia]

It's not as simple as limiting the number of kids we have but, we've got to consider the gender mix, as when you limit us to, say 2 kids, they've gotta be popping out as close to a 50/50 mix as you can get. There's also the couples or people who chose not to have kids, can't have kids, or stay single. If we limit us to 2 kids and this happens, then instantly the next gneration or two, even three is smaller and we have to have another population boom to correct things again.

[Bobman]

World population has gone from about 2 billion in 1950 to about 6 billion currently with that number expected to reach 10 billion by 2050.

There will never be a need for another "boom" as everyone keeps saying.

All you have to do is look at how many cats & dogs are de-sexed these days, yet there is still a steady supply of kittens/puppies to have as pets. There will always be enough babies now and in the future to negate the "aging population" theory.

[Adamz Ghia]

Those numbers are true- at current trends. If you limit the re population to two kids, and lets say out of that generation it's a 55 men/45female split, instantly the next generation is smaller as there's a smaller number of females to have another two kids. Or lets say just 1% of that generation chose not to have kids, and then 1% of their kids ect chose not to or can't have kids, each generation will get smaller. Then we have the homosexual community, in a society where kids are limited to two, they most likely wouldn't be able (even allowed) to adopt, so again, the pool for reproduction is smaller.

China is a gret example on a small scale. Small might even be the wrong word to use as they make up 1/6th of our population.

Also, the cats and dogs point raises another issue. For many breeds of cats and dogs, the gene pool is getting smaller and a side effect of this more and more genetic problems are surfacing in breeds that never previously had issues. Same would happen, it would just take longer with us.

[Bobman]

Good post mate and you have good points.

I still stand by what I said earlier that there is no need for "large" families these days. Just look around and you'll see Gen Ys everywhere with their mobiles and ipods. There's a lot more young girls having kids these days too (be it by accident or other). The current generation will probably pop out more kids than the generation before them, so there's clearly an urgency to do something about the population or we face a bleak future.

I've watched Melbourne turn from a beautiful liveable place where you could sit on a train, get around without much fuss to a place full of people, sardine can packed trains, traffic shambles, e.t.c. How many more people can our cities sustain?

[Adamz Ghia]

I fully agree with there being no need for large families, I live next to a family of 13 (!!!), and they've been raised as such that they too will have lots of kids each. Personally I find the thought of 3 plenty, any more and all of a sudden the missus will have me looking at Taragos...

To stem population growth, I beleive we need to stop stigmatising people who chose not to have kids. Lets face it, we as a society do put an unfair focus on these people. "How many kids do you have?" "I don't have any." "Oh why not?" and all of a sudden there's four or five people waiting for my answer is the jist of what I cop and I'm only 24.

Rather than offering tax break after tax break to families, why not start looking after childless people as well. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate how hard it is to raise a family these days, I see mum do it every day, but not having kids is not a bad thing, and these days, might be the thing to subtly encourage.

Another thing to do might be to cut tax breaks to families once they have a second or third child. Would make big families less attractive.

[Maggot]

[QUOTE=Adamz Ghia] any more and all of a sudden the missus will have me looking at Taragos...

QUOTE]


now that is a problem!

[onfire]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Other way round. Dick smith is offering a cool mil to anyone who can offer a solution to population growth. After thinking about it for a while any solution would go against many human rights.

How about removing any and all the incentives to breed?

- Take away the " Baby bonus " and every other cash type incentive.

- Replace cash handouts with specialized " food stamps " .. eg. If the stamp reads " Woolworth's Home brand Nappies " the receiver of the coupon can only purchase said item. Dockets from supermarkets in turn will reflect items purchased using food stamps and become deemed un-returnable or exchangeable for cash or credit.

- If not food stamps, specialized debit cards that can only be used to purchase from a list of say for example 500 specialized items from Milk & Bread to Baby Food & Nappies. Any attempt to purchase items not on the list results in a instant denial at the register. Cash withdrawals are also blocked.

- Establish free day care clinics for receivers of any assistance ( coupons, debit cards, etc ) with in house access to doctors and dental. In exchange if not already employed, receivers must complete some form of community service or assistance for a minimum of 15 hrs per week while children are under care of the clinic.

How many members of the lower social demographic breed as a means of income? From what it appears a hell of a lot. How about we make it a lot harder for people to have children? Remove the support system and only at the most extreme cases offer financial support.

I'm sure telling people they wont be receiving money for simply having children, and that their spending and purchasing will be limited and governed by a coupon / debit system then being told they need to donate their time and energy in exchange for access to a day care clinic.. will stop a decent percentage of peopled having too many unnecessary children.

[Trek]

Originally Posted by onfire

How about removing any and all the incentives to breed?

- Take away the " Baby bonus " and every other cash type incentive.

- Replace cash handouts with specialized " food stamps " .. eg. If the stamp reads " Woolworth's Home brand Nappies " the receiver of the coupon can only purchase said item. Dockets from supermarkets in turn will reflect items purchased using food stamps and become deemed un-returnable or exchangeable for cash or credit.

- If not food stamps, specialized debit cards that can only be used to purchase from a list of say for example 500 specialized items from Milk & Bread to Baby Food & Nappies. Any attempt to purchase items not on the list results in a instant denial at the register. Cash withdrawals are also blocked.

- Establish free day care clinics for receivers of any assistance ( coupons, debit cards, etc ) with in house access to doctors and dental. In exchange if not already employed, receivers must complete some form of community service or assistance for a minimum of 15 hrs per week while children are under care of the clinic.

How many members of the lower social demographic breed as a means of income? From what it appears a hell of a lot. How about we make it a lot harder for people to have children? Remove the support system and only at the most extreme cases offer financial support.

I'm sure telling people they wont be receiving money for simply having children, and that their spending and purchasing will be limited and governed by a coupon / debit system then being told they need to donate their time and energy in exchange for access to a day care clinic.. will stop a decent percentage of peopled having too many unnecessary children.

Onfire, you are brilliant, wanted to give you rep again, but couldn't, sadly :(

You've summed up my thoughts and extended upon it.

Painfully, the ball started rolling too long ago in some respects to population control vs. scarcity of resources. It's gonna take one helluva push to reap any kind of rewards for our actions though.

The biggest problem lies in educating those who refuse to discipline themselves for the sake of everyone else, methinks. After all, "you can't cure stupid".

[Bobman]

http://whitehorse-leader.whereilive....-mum-of-seven/

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/...9791_news.html

Above are 2 separate cases of single women who have had 7 children each and one of them had a 7th child months after the "nightmare" began.

I vote for Baby Bonus to be scrapped and possibly introducing sterilisation for extreme cases as above.

Given the population issues, but more importantly - if you can't feed them, don't breed them.

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Other way round. Dick smith is offering a cool mil to anyone who can offer a solution to population growth. After thinking about it for a while any solution would go against many human rights.

Do what China did...

Enforce a one-child policy.

India is a poor country because many families root like rabbits, have multiple children and cannot afford them. They look to other countries for aid.

They could help themselves by at least slowing population growth, like in China (which is now a growing economy!).

I'm doing my bit. After 4.5 years of Primary Teaching and also being a teenager at one stage, I don't plan on having any kids.