A Conversation for World Population

Mother Nature, she'll sort it out

Post 1


Well in a hundred years we will have a few more diseases to cope with, more & more virilant strains of the ones we've already got and a fairly huge proportion of wars to with which to contend.

So as far as the world getting more packed with people, take solice in the fact that they will all have to be really healthy & fit to survive the on coming plague of "things".

It is an observation that is probably shared by a few more people than myself but ...... there was probably an explosion in the dinosaur population but where are they now? museums.

Mother Nature, she'll sort it out

Post 2

animated trenchcoat

Well, historically speaking, war doesn't tend to decrease the population much... it just decreases the rate of increase. There've been a few exceptions, like after the 40 years war in Germany... but for the most part, populations keep going up even during war. Also, war only decreases populations in the countries where there is actually fighting... large portions of the world aren't at war and are still breeding.

Disease killed a 'few' folk in Europe during the Black Death, or so I'm told... this led to an actual decrease in European population since only 1/3rd of the population survived it... but globally that wasn't much of a dent... or so I'm told.

As countries industrialized, birthrates went down... you don't see many 7-child homes in America anymore (I don't know if they used to be a regularity in Europe, but I bet family size has decreased)... China's going through the scary process of industrialization now (not that they don't have industry now, but the whole country can't be said to be "modern". The rather brutal gov't there is trying hard (and failing) to enforce a Zero Population Growth thingy... thats a movement that never really caught on in the States.

As I see it, the most likely cause of death of lots and lots of people is a genetically engineered biological weapon... its easier to lose control of than nuclear weapons and crazy terorists could actually get ahold of enough of it to kill lots and lots of people (as opposed to just a measly city or two).

any thoughts?


Post 3


I think the Chinese policy of 1 child per married couple actually works out, in the long term, to be Negative Population Growth????? - still isn't working though.



Post 4

Cylas formicarius

If you have ever been there you will realise that an even scarier thought is what would happen if they changed their bicylces for cars. Its begining to happen, and Bangkok will be tame by comparison to Beijing in a couple of years time.


Post 5

Ye Monce Pigeon

You don't have to worry about China. According to New Scientist 1/3rd of all Men in China is expected to die from Smopking in the next few decades. [iirc]


Post 6

animated trenchcoat

I don't think there is enough gasoline or steel for every person in china to own a car, but yes, the massive expansion of the car market that modernization in china represents is gonna be ugly for the environment.

Regarding 1/3 of the male chinese population dying from cigarettes... how old will they be when they die? 40? 50? if so, they've already had kids... so while the rate of population growth may decrease, the actual population will still be increasing... and each of those children born will someday have kids of their own... and so on.

While having only 1 kid represents a population decrease in the long term, in the short term it is still an increase... population growth is measured by taking the growth rate (babies born) and subtracting the death rate... when someone has a kid, usually both parents are still around afterwards, they won't die for another 20-40 years...

Oh... and while we're on the topic of old people who don't die when they're supposed to, in the United States the baby boomers are going to be retiring in a few years, and collecting social security... social security was set up so that not many people would collect cuz the average life expectancy was lower... but the age at which one can collect has remained the same... so the US ecconomy is gonna hit the skids in say... a decade. It might get ugly...


Post 7

Ye Monce Pigeon

Don't forget, smoking makes you impotent, and if you smoke while pregnant, its v bad for the baby. Besides, even if they die at 50, it still decreases the overal population as there is less overlap of generations

Mother Nature, she'll sort it out

Post 8

Fruitbat (Eric the)

Yes. Some friends and I were discussing this very topic on last Sunday; we went through the usual methods of disease, natural disasters and wars and none of them felt sufficiently strong....aside from the rule that was imposed on the conversation about killing only people, not other life forms (so my plan for a neutron bomb strike was out).

Mind you, to make a serious enough dent in the world population many years and concerted effort are probably necessary.

My thoughts were to let each baby that cannot survive on its own die. Another possibility is to remove the reason why so many people have massive families (I believe Africa, South America and China fall into those categories). If everyone had a reasonable standard of living, the likelihood is that the population would drop considerably.

Of course, a wilder idea is to take one of the massive (and non-existent) microwave satellites (put up to collect energy from the sun and beam it to receiving stations on Earth, in order to deliver cheaper, and constant, energy to us power-hungry consumers) and redirect it badly for several days. This would fry anyone in its footprint...although the controllers would likely be done for murder.


Mother Nature, she'll sort it out

Post 9

Follower of Murphy´s Law

As for I know, the German population is decreasing.
We are pretty industrialised but our country is pretty small to,
so everybody thinks twice before growing a child ...
So there are no more seven headed families in europe, mostly there are two ore three childs now .


Post 10

Cylas formicarius

The other worry about China and the one child family will be when those children are in power. They will have been brought up thoroughly spoilt and may not wish to share the world with the rest of us. By then they should be a true super power and thus a real worry. Or is that too pesimistic, perhaps cold fusion will work and we will have learnt to control gravity and all problems will be solved. Thankfully I won't be here to see it unless the bastards solve aging too.


Post 11


Cigarettes seem to be much milder here in China.....perhaps the magazine you were reading was talking about western brands? If they are milder, maybe the 1/3 estimate is too high

Mother Nature, she'll sort it out

Post 12

The Frood (Stop Torture: A455528)

Germany population decreasing? Counting the immigrants that come in?

Mother Nature, she'll sort it out

Post 13


The way I see it, although big families are bad for population expansion, they're great for the common good of man - large families mean more people caring for others and although most large families are in poor areas, economically depressed communities are better at looking out for each other - the more money you have, the more selfish you get - so do we want an overcrowded but loving world or do we want to continue with the ever-growing divide between rich and poor?

China and India

Post 14


If you think China is a problem, I can't even begin to imagine how India is going to end up, with no one child policy, a major god thats represented by a phallus, conservative ideas about macho-ism and fertility, and 70% of all elected officials having nearly 6 children each...yikes. And then lets add the economy thats growing by leaps and bounds (at the expense of the poorest and the environment). Then considering all this imagine if in 40 years all the people that wanted cars in India had cars...

Things are not only going to get ugly, they're going to get downright grotesque for the environment.

Key: Complain about this post