Recommended Posts

Earth population 'exceeds limits'

earth-science.jpg

There are already too many people living on Planet Earth, according to one of most influential science advisors in the US government. Nina Fedoroff told the BBC One Planet programme that humans had exceeded the Earth's "limits of sustainability".

- Current world population - 6.8+bn

- Net growth per day - 218,030+

- Forecast made for 2040 - 9+bn

Source

Earth population 1980 - 4,453,831,714+

Earth population by 2020 - 7,584,821,144+

Earth population by 2050 - 9,346,399,468+

Source

With the price tag of "standard of living" going up and up each year, with more people going below the poverty line, less jobs becoming available with more people claiming benefits, when it too much, enough?

What's the answer? Cut down on the love making, or is it time to move onto the Space race of liveable space stations/another planet (Mars)?

It was already too much many decades ago. The earth under normal natural conditions has a maximum capacity for about 1 billion people, yet we keep stressing the planet even further to suit our needs. At some point, something's going to give. Food supplies are already short in many parts of the world and current energy resources are getting thinner (not saying that if everyone starts investing in alternative energies that nothing more can be gained). That space race isn't going to happen in the next 50 years (Mars) and we won't be able to colonize other planets in time before we suffocate.

At some point it will either be voluntary sterilisation or some form of war that will sterilise/erradicate a big chunk of humanity for the planet's resources, there's no doubt about that. Humanity has become a plague that feeds of the planet like a parasite.

/grim

  • Like 2
It was already too much many decades ago. The earth under normal natural conditions has a maximum capacity for about 1 billion people, yet we keep stressing the planet even further to suit our needs. At some point, something going to give. Food supplies are already short in many parts of the world.

Can you provide a source for that? Because I disagree, and my evidence is the fact that we are 6 billion+ people and there is still more space.

As for the comment on food supplies, the fact is that we have enough food to feed everyone in the world right now. It doesn't happen because we don't distribute it correctly, leaving some people with nothing and leaving others with so much that they end up wasting what they have. Source.

yeah just wait for the day when we have a "third sex"... aka you where fixed at birth... you are still a male or female, just never will reproduce... done just to reduce the population randomly

Can you provide a source for that? Because I disagree, and my evidence is the fact that we are 6 billion+ people and there is still more space.

As for the comment on food supplies, the fact is that we have enough food to feed everyone in the world right now. It doesn't happen because we don't distribute it correctly, leaving some people with nothing and leaving others with so much that they end up wasting what they have. Source.

and most places there are a shortage of food its because of the location they are at... like in parts of africa where its hard to support large crops of food and has to be brought in from other locations

Can you provide a source for that?

It's a quote by many biologists and it's been quoted by Sir David Attenborough on many occasions in his documentaries. The keywords are "natural conditions", because what we are all living under and reshaping the earth to suit our needs are unnatural conditions.

I find it hilarious people worry about this problem. Trust me, if there's too many of us, the Earth will take care of that all by itself.

A better question is how many people can the Earth comfortably support, which, since we haven't stopped reproducing, is apparently more than how many we have right now. That's an issue humans can self regulate.

I'd also like to point out that along with these "fewer jobs, more poverty" claims comes advances in medical care and technology unheard of 50 years ago. If resources are really the issue, we could give a lot of it up, fewer people could work at manufacturing jobs, and we could drop the life expectancy some.

Really, so some how figured out that there are to many people and think the growth should stop? There have been people over the last 400 to 500 years claiming there were to many people in the world, whats any different now?

Sorry, but the science doesn't add up, there is more then enough resources and capacity to handle. The majority of the world is open and un-used. The resource constrains are man-made. The majority of the scientist making these claims alarmist who make these forecast that never come true or that are never held to account for.

As countries develop, the population growth will eventually stabilize and possibly reverse. Statistics have already shown that while we are living much much longer, we are also choosing to have kids later in life on average. Can't find any scholarly sources that are free to the internet. Really wish the sources that you have access to through college libraries were open to the public.

there's a fantastic TED Talk (13 mins) in which the speaker shows how religion affects birth rates around the world. The point to take away from it (towards the end) is that religion doesnt affect birth rate, women are having fewer and fewer children, and the global population will level out at 10bil.

There are two different things here (physical vs resources) - the Earth physically can easily sustain 10+ billion people. The whatif on xkcd said you can cram all the people in Earth in the state of Rhode Island. Resources wise, we should be able to sustain more people, but we may have to change habits for that.

I say we find something useful to do with all that space in Russia :p

Although seriously, I think at some point in the future to remain sustainable, we're going to have to probably start heading down a very GM centric route in regards to animal & plant production.

  • Like 2

I don't see how the above is any different than the last 8000 years hell the last 50-70 gave us the green revolution

That ship has set sail a long long time ago...

Overpopulation is a myth. Every person on Earth could fit into the land area of Texas and have a comfortable living area to themselves. Yes, some places on Earth are crowded and some places simply can't be populated, but there is a lottttt of room that can be used. The US alone probably has the capacity for billions of people. Granted it would involve cutting down a lot of trees, but it's possible.

http://overpopulatio...aking-of-a-myth

  • Like 2

Overpopulation is a myth. Every person on Earth could fit into the land area of Texas and have a comfortable living area to themselves. Yes, some places on Earth are crowded and some places simply can't be populated, but there is a lottttt of room that can be used. The US alone probably has the capacity for billions of people. Granted it would involve cutting down a lot of trees, but it's possible.

http://overpopulatio...aking-of-a-myth

It's more about having the resources to comfortably sustain ourselves and being able to continually replenish our resources, rather than how much space we have. Hence why the issue is more considered as sustainability rather than overcrowding.

I think there is plenty of space like some of you mentioned, but we have to learn to take care of our resources and environment and then we will be fine. If we do not then we will start to perish due to lack of food, water, energy we use to do the work, disease, pollution, etc.

I say we find something useful to do with all that space in Russia :p

Although seriously, I think at some point in the future to remain sustainable, we're going to have to probably start heading down a very GM centric route in regards to animal & plant production.

youre right about a "very GM centric route" but there are a LOT of GM crops already. even animals are mass produced. kinda sickening to think about, but necessary, unfortunately.

again, the issue isnt about the land mass necessary to sustain the population - there's plenty of that. it's all about the resources.

youre right about a "very GM centric route" but there are a LOT of GM crops already. even animals are mass produced. kinda sickening to think about, but necessary, unfortunately.

again, the issue isnt about the land mass necessary to sustain the population - there's plenty of that. it's all about the resources.

If you were present with the ancestors of the crops before humans started medaling with them you would think you were on Pandora

This GM has already happened, Its been happening for thousands of years.

It's more about having the resources to comfortably sustain ourselves and being able to continually replenish our resources, rather than how much space we have. Hence why the issue is more considered as sustainability rather than overcrowding.

There are ample resources, though they are finite and non-replenish-able. Contrary to popular belief, we can end world hunger. As for sustainability, the answer lies in how much better off one wants to be than the next guy.Overpopulation is only a challenge for someone who wants the cake and eat it too.

Earth population 'exceeds limits'

There are already too many people living on Planet Earth, according to one of most influential science advisors in the US government. Nina Fedoroff told the BBC One Planet programme that humans had exceeded the Earth's "limits of sustainability".

And how does she know that exactly? No one has surveyed the earth's resources to determine what it can sustain. Furthermore, we have a situation where a large amount of the population is starving and without access to clean water, shelter, or basic medication, yet there are others who waste (the west) vast amounts of food, energy, and water. As well as hoarding wealth and resources that could be shared throughout the world and give everyone a good standard of living. The John Travolta's of this world, with their private planes and runways, and gigantic mansions make me sick. All the while people are dying because of simple preventable illnesses and malnutrition.

Yes there are too many people on this planet - hoarding resources that belong to all humans. Additionally, it has been shown countless times that educated humans have smaller numbers of children. So you see, if we all had equal access to the same resources and education, then the population would regulate itself.

Funny, I don't see people tripping up all over each other with over 6x more than your number there

Once again, it's not about space, it's about resources. It's funny that only a few of you seem to get that. Sure we could cram more and more into a tiny space and let the rest of the Earth be farmland, but the Earth does have its limits.

Unless humanity starts changing the way it consumes energy and other resources there will be a huge problem in the next 100 years.

Oil and food will be short and those will be sold at premium prices that most will not be able to afford.

We need different energy and food sources. And yes, even those genetically manipulated crops are showing signs of failure as many that were engineered to be resistant to certain bugs are already showing weak points and those bugs are the ones becoming resistant to those crops and eat/attack them once again.

And those that think we will level out...I think we wont, the number will rise exponentially untill some form of disaster happens or we limit population ourselves through diverse means.

Advances in medicine are one of those things that is changing the natural order of things. The survival of the fittest rule of evolution no longer applies because of it in this day and age (and this is coming from an MD).

I'm not saying what I'm doing as an MD is bad (I love helping people) but we are the ones that have changed the human population drastically from what it was 100 years ago and many people that would have died of natural causes, simply haven't and have been given a chance to procreate and increase our numbers.

If that immoratlity gene becomes reality and its use becomes widespread and we still procreate the way we do know, then the sh*t will really hit the fan, so to speak.

Once again, it's not about space, it's about resources. It's funny that only a few of you seem to get that. Sure we could cram more and more into a tiny space and let the rest of the Earth be farmland, but the Earth does have its limits.

Unless humanity starts changing the way it consumes energy and other resources there will be a huge problem in the next 100 years.

Oil and food will be short and those will be sold at premium prices that most will not be able to afford.

We need different energy and food sources. And yes, even those genetically manipulated crops are showing signs of failure as many that were engineered to be resistant to certain bugs are already showing weak points and those bugs are the ones becoming resistant to those crops and eat/attack them once again.

And those that think we will level out...I think we wont, the number will rise exponentially untill some form of disaster happens or we limit population ourselves through diverse means.

Advances in medicine are one of those things that is changing the natural order of things. The survival of the fittest rule of evolution no longer applies because of it in this day and age (and this is coming from an MD).

I'm not saying what I'm doing as an MD is bad (I love helping people) but we are the ones that have changed the human population drastically from what it was 100 years ago and many people that would have died of natural causes, simply haven't and have been given a chance to procreate and increase our numbers.

If that immoratlity gene becomes reality and its use becomes widespread and we still procreate the way we do know, then the sh*t will really hit the fan, so to speak.

The earth has apparently been feeding life for millions/billions of years, I highly doubt much is going to change in another 100

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Are you going to do performance benchmarks comparing all states? I'd be interested in seeing that in the next "part".
    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      rolfus earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      78
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!