Overpopulation: the big lie

Walt said:
The governments of Europe, South Korea, Japan, etc. do not decide how many children parents have. But, they do allow a level of development that discourages large families.
Click to expand...

A level of development that discourages large families.... What does that mean?
 
Retarded logic: It is not possible for the Earth to be overpopulated because the Earth is a open system.
 
Nordberg said:
Open? It is not only finite, but the livable areas are not that great. Lots of useless land exists. Millions of acres will not support human life.
Click to expand...

Open system is a thermodynamics term. We get energy from the sun and moon. We get unlimited supply of energy from outside of the Earth.

As to the overpopulation problem? Even that will not help with that. The resources will be depleted faster than the rate of energy coming in.
 
AProudLefty said:
Open system is a thermodynamics term. We get energy from the sun and moon. We get unlimited supply of energy from outside of the Earth.

As to the overpopulation problem? Even that will not help with that. The resources will be depleted faster than the rate of energy coming in.
Click to expand...

We have unlimited energy from the Sun and a planet surface that's 75% water. The main component of "useless land" is the lack of fresh water.

Seems like a pretty straightforward engineering problem to me. :)

As for food, vats would be more efficient than a thousand acres of land.

This link states the present carrying capacity is 9-10B people but it's assuming a set level of technology to provide fresh water in the areas desired.

More efficient ways of turning seawater into fresh water (and what to do with the salt) would go a long ways toward exceeding the 9-10B mark.

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.​

The article assumes we'd consume natural growing veggies instead of just growing them in vats. Those little snack packs of cheese, ham and crackers are basically all vat produced.
 
Last edited:
David Jeffrey Spetch said:
Lefty's and their affixation on butt cracks ... wouldn't Earth's realistic a hole be located as the Mariana Trench? Getting you a little excited Lefty ;)
Click to expand...

trench-marine.jpg


i-dream-of-genie-naughty.gif


CompleteAstonishingGallowaycow-size_restricted.gif
 
AssHatZombie said:
A level of development that discourages large families.... What does that mean?
Click to expand...

In primitive societies, children are extra farm workers, and add resources to the family. In more advanced societies, children are students and take resources from the family. The difference is part of the reason the number of children per family goes down as societies advance.

Another reason is that societies with poor healthcare need to have many children in order for a few of them to make it to adulthood. And in societies without pensions, or ways to save for retirement, children are the way to support parents in their old age.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Why is bringing up a child expensive?

They eat food, wear clothing, need shelter, etc., but do not work to earn those. They need to be watched and protected, which either requires paid child care, or an adult to give up earning money to watch them. They require education to become productive members of society, which requires educated adults to teach them. This education can easily extend out to age 18 to 25.
 
Walt said:
Why is bringing up a child expensive?

They eat food, wear clothing, need shelter, etc., but do not work to earn those. They need to be watched and protected, which either requires paid child care, or an adult to give up earning money to watch them. They require education to become productive members of society, which requires educated adults to teach them. This education can easily extend out to age 18 to 25.
Click to expand...

Families were larger when people were poorer. How's that possible?

Is it really necessary for a barista to have a degree in feminist dance studies?
 
Walt said:
Paying for them, and educating them. Educating them becomes more expensive and time consumer the higher the level.
Click to expand...
What limits the supply of teachers for teachers?

We have fiat currency which means approved spending always occurs, even if it destroys society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top