Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: I love graphs like this: pithy, accurate, and clear

  1. #21
    The world population is currently at 6 billion. If every couple produces two children, that means the population will double every 25-30 years. Fortunately, of course, not everybody is of childbearing age. But, let's say conservatively that 2 of the 6 billion people are of child bearing age. In 30 years, 2 billion will be added to the population. In another 30 years, another 2 billion will be added. In another 30 years, 2 more billion would be added. So, that means in 2100, the population of the world would be 12 billion if nobody dies. If 10% of the population dies every year, we would still have a population of over 10 billion at 2100. In order to keep our world population stable at 6 billion, at least 6 billion people will have to die in the next 90 years. That is a lot of people. Can you imagine even burying that many?

    Wise.

  2. #22
    It's a real eye-opener. Thanks for posting.

  3. #23
    DTOMA, thank you.

    Let me criticize myself a bit. It sounds pretty bad to have 6 billion people die but that what one should expect to happen in 90 years. In other words, the current lifespan is 75 years old and may hit 90 years old by 2100. Thus, almost all of the people who are alive today will be dead of old age in 2100.

    Although the numbers seem huge, they are not unreasonable. For example, burying 6 billion people will not take up so much room. If each person took 1 square meter, 6 billion square meters would be 6000 square kilometers. Yes, one square kilometer has 1,000,000 square meters.

    The estimate of 10% mortality over a 90 year period is of course too low. Death rate or mortality rate is usually expressed in deaths per 1000 people per year. In 2005, about 2.5 milion people died in the United States. This is about 1% of the population of about 300 million (Source).

    Wise.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young
    DTOMA, thank you.

    Let me criticize myself a bit. It sounds pretty bad to have 6 billion people die but that what one should expect to happen in 90 years. In other words, the current lifespan is 75 years old and may hit 90 years old by 2100. Thus, almost all of the people who are alive today will be dead of old age in 2100.

    Although the numbers seem huge, they are not unreasonable. For example, burying 6 billion people will not take up so much room. If each person took 1 square meter, 6 billion square meters would be 6000 square kilometers. Yes, one square kilometer has 1,000,000 square meters.

    The estimate of 10% mortality over a 90 year period is of course too low. Death rate or mortality rate is usually expressed in deaths per 1000 people per year. In 2005, about 2.5 milion people died in the United States. This is about 1% of the population of about 300 million (Source).

    Wise.
    That reminds me of something I posted last year. Boxing in the world population.

    Still though I think cremation is the way to go. When I die, I don't wish to take up even half a meter of usable land. To some it may be important. To me it's wasted space.

  5. #25
    I'm all for getting off this rock.

    People (not sure who.. as I don't know that many people) state
    we need to invest in food for the hungry (yes I agree) health and welfare.
    Then if over population is the result, and it is self correcting?
    How will it fix itself? What is this method of self correcting?
    I've seen herds of deer that over populated years ago (example) when hunting was banned for a period(many years ago). They quickly over populated, ate their food and starved. I dont' want to see that for human kind, any of us.

    Time to move, expand off this rock.
    Rick Brauer or just call me - Mr B

    http://www.riseadventures.org

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by doingtimeonmyass
    That reminds me of something I posted last year. Boxing in the world population.

    Still though I think cremation is the way to go. When I die, I don't wish to take up even half a meter of usable land. To some it may be important. To me it's wasted space.
    You are absolutely right.

    If we consumed nothing, 6 billion people is not so much. However, the problem is what we consume and then poop/piss out, as well as other waste that we create. If we each used a liter of water and ate/drank a kilogram per day, that is 12 billion kilograms that has to go in and come out per day. If you add to that a liter of gasoline, a kilogram of garbage per day, and 2 liters of toilet flush water, it all starts to add up to 6 kilograms of waste per day. Well, that is about 2 trillion kilograms of waste per year, not including the carbon dioxide and other gases that we contribute to the atmosphere. In the United States, each of us pollute far more than 6 kg per day.

    I brought an American neurosurgeon to watch an operation in China. His reaction was remarkable. He thought that the surgeries were very similar in China in terms of their practice and approach, with one exception. The Chinese generate much less waste in their operations. In a typical operation in the United States, even for the most minor procedure, big sacks of waste are produced because everything is disposable, from towels to plastic containers, and plastic wrappings for everything. In China, by contrast, a whole spinal surgery operation generated only a bucket of waste. Only some items are disposable. The rest are sterilized and reused. All wrappings are cloth. He was impressed.

    Unfortunately, China is now heading the direction of the United States. It is happening right before my eyes. In 1999, when I first went there, 90% of the people were on bicycles and only 10% were in cars. Now, it is the other way around. Cars completely clog the road and traffic jams are a way of life. While Beijing was quite polluted when I went there in 1999, the type of pollution was different. They were still using a lot of charcoal for cooking and coal for manufacturing in Beijing when I was first there and the air pollution was particulate and sulfurous. They did an amazing job transforming all cooking to natural gas and moving coal-based energy generation out of the city. Today, the air appears to be clearer and is not as awful looking but still it stings the eyes.

    Energy use in the United States is much greater than that of other countries. Many people commute an hour or more by car per day, consuming 4-5 gallons of gasolene per day. Our homes are considerably bigger than the typical dwelling in other countries and therefore require much more energy to heat or cool, and to light. So, the energy use in the United States exceeds that of China, even though we have less than a fourth of the population. We also contribute as much CO2 and other gases that contribute to global warming.

    The degree to which we are now pushing all the ecosystems of the earth to collapse by overutilization is more than just frightening. We are consuming oil, water, or arable land at an accelerating rate that will leave very little for even the next generation. Lest you think that I am exaggerating, people should read Plan B. 3.0 by Lester R. Brown. Subtitled "Mobilizing to Save Civilization", it is really eye-opening work. Amongst statistics that it cites, we are using groundwater at a rate that it is already depleted in most populated areas of the world. Our children may never use or see well-water. Worse, our food production depends on water pumped from the aquifer. The U.S. midwest sits on top of the huge lake of underground water. In most of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, underground water has dropped by more than 30 meters (100 feet). Our so-called corn belt may become a desert within our lifetime. Likewise, there is not enough water for irrigation and the Colorado River no longer makes it to the ocean, and is no longer able to supply as water for irrigation as it did in 1997.

    The loss of natural resources essential for food production is not only happening in the U.S. but all over the world. The latter is worrisome because there are 5 billion people living on resources that are disappearing. At some point, it will reach a breaking point and global war for resources will occur. You cannot have billions of people starving without war. Food, energy, and water prices will be so high that our children will never be carefree again. It is more than just global warming. We are facing disaster and our leadership blithely assumes that there is no problem.

    Wise.

  7. #27
    Senior Member zilnh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    360
    Dr. Young,

    First off, you said "piss." I giggled. Sorry.

    Second, as I understand it the key to population control is education. Not sex education, but regular schooling. Women who are educated have fewer children. I know there are exceptions, but it is a "general" truth.

    I was recently on an island, and one of my first questions as the guide talked about the growing population, was what do you do with your dead? They are turning more and more to cremation, just because the cemetery property is valuable land. Better for hotels and waterparks than dead people.

    Wasn't there just recently a study showing that the European population was declining significantly?

    Thanks,
    Liz
    I wished upon a falling star, I wished it had not fallen...

  8. #28
    Urinate seems a bit archaic and nobody would get it if I said micturate. Piss is a good word. It sounds like the act.

    It is true that fertility is declining amongst white Europeans. However, I think that the population is still increasing due to immigration, mostly from the Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Africa.

    It is frightening that we may be the last generation that will eat wild fish, that it will take hundreds of years for the depleted aquifer to be recharged, and that millions of square miles of arable land are being destroyed by the philandering of corporations and people who don't believe in leaving a place better than when they found it.

    PBS recently had a series on water use around the world. They interviewed several Midwestern farmers who were told and know that they are pumping out so much underground water for their crops that the water level was dropping by more than 2 meters per year and they will have depleted the water by 2050. One farmer asked, why not? He owns the land. If he doesn't use the water up, somebody else would. He might as well, he said.

    Wise.



    Quote Originally Posted by zilnh
    Dr. Young,

    First off, you said "piss." I giggled. Sorry.

    Second, as I understand it the key to population control is education. Not sex education, but regular schooling. Women who are educated have fewer children. I know there are exceptions, but it is a "general" truth.

    I was recently on an island, and one of my first questions as the guide talked about the growing population, was what do you do with your dead? They are turning more and more to cremation, just because the cemetery property is valuable land. Better for hotels and waterparks than dead people.

    Wasn't there just recently a study showing that the European population was declining significantly?

    Thanks,
    Liz

  9. #29
    There is always Soylent Green. Why burn all those yummy bodies up when you can process them, package them up, and bite down on some real chew. Thursdays is always special, thats Soylent Blue day. Serve up some lip smackin´Soylent Yellow for those special holiday dinners.

    "So I have stayed as I am, without regret, seperated from the normal human condition." Guy Sajer

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Peter
    The world population more than doubled during my lifetime.
    Whoa - you've a very busy man!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •