• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Human Population Growth & Overpopulation

The world's total human population has jumped to over 7.4 billion just this year.

Feeding the human species takes a tremendous toll on our natural resources including water, soil and phosphorus—a chemical element in fertilizer essential for food production.

In modern agriculture, fertilizer often leaks into waterways such as rivers, lakes and oceans. The phosphorus (P) in the runoff stimulates algae blooms and then, when algae die and decompose, dead zones develop and fish die off. But much of the "lost" phosphorus doesn't end up in water bodies—large amounts of P also accumulate in the landscape. Until now, scientists have not had a good handle on the magnitude of this accumulation.

For the first time, an international group of scientists, including researchers from Arizona State University, has come up with a way to estimate on a large scale how phosphorus flows through an environment over many decades. By doing so, researchers are gaining a better understanding of how and where phosphorus accumulates. ...

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-massive-phosphorus-buildup.html
 
New homes eroding green belt 'at fastest rate for 20 years'
Campaign to Protect Rural England accuses councils of altering boundaries and the government of facilitating the process
Haroon Siddique
Monday 25 April 2016 00.01 BST

The number of houses planned for England’s green belt has risen to 275,000, nearly 200,000 more than four years ago, making a mockery of government pledges to protect the countryside, a report says.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) says the number of planned homes on the green belt has increased by 55,000 in a year, with the area around London and the West Midlands under particular threat.

The group accuses councils of altering green belt boundaries to accommodate housing at the fastest rate for two decades, and the government of facilitating the practice.
Paul Miner, the CPRE’s planning campaign manager, said: “Councils are increasingly eroding the green belt to meet unrealistic and unsustainable housing targets. The government is proposing to encourage further development in the green belt.

“Our green belt is invaluable in preventing urban sprawl and providing the countryside next door for 30 million people. We need stronger protection for the green belt, not just supportive words and empty promises.”
He said brownfield land could provide at least 1m new homes, and the government should empower councils to prioritise such sites.

Last year David Cameron said protection of the green belt was paramount, reiterating the commitment made in the Conservative party’s 2015 manifesto.
The CPRE, however, points to a decision taken this month by Greg Clark, the communities and local government secretary, to approve the building of 1,500 new homes on the green belt between Gloucester and Cheltenham – one of the biggest green-belt developments for a decade - as evidence that the government is not living up to its promises.

It also highlights proposals in the government’s planning policy consultation to release small sites in the green belt for starter homes.

etc...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...en-belt-homes-planned-up-200000-in-four-years

Oddly enough, there's no mention in the article of birth rates, or immigrants, or any other cause of this ever-increasing demand for more housing... Houses don't build themselves, but builders and developers seem confident they can sell all they can build.
 
I seem to recall the government making a statement that they would relax some planning rules in order to free up land for building, because of the rising demand for housing. This comes as no surprise.
It's still not enough to meet demand.
 
UK population grows by half a million in a year to reach 65.1 million
'At this rate, the UK population will increase by 10 million over the next two decades and continue to go up'
Kayleigh Lewis

The UK population grew by more than half a million in a year to reach 65.1 million, figures have revealed.
A report published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found the 0.8% increase by mid-2015 was similar to the average increase over the past decade.

The ONS suggests natural growth – more births than deaths – of 171,800, and net international migration of 335,600, contributed to the results.

Population change due to the difference between the number of births and deaths was at its lowest since mid-2006.

Meanwhile, an increase in immigration and a decrease in emigration resulted in a net migration increase on the previous year.
“This is caused by a combination of more people arriving to stay in the UK and fewer people leaving the UK on a long-term basis,” the report said.

etc (more details and graphs on page)...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ion-grows-half-million-year-651-a7097651.html
 
rynner2 said:
The ONS suggests natural growth – more births than deaths – of 171,800, and net international migration of 335,600, contributed to the results.

Hold on, is he suggesting that 300,000 immigrants has contributed to an increase of 500,000 inhabitants? That just blows my mind. What will they think of next?
Click to expand...
 
335,600 + 171,800 = 507,400
 
There is not much point in constantly pointing to the inexorable increase in population.

The big question is 'What is to be done about it' ?

Boris was right.

INT21
 
INT21 said:
There is not much point in constantly pointing to the inexorable increase in population.

The big question is 'What is to be done about it' ?

Boris was right.

INT21
Click to expand...
Specifically, what was he right about?
 
No, I meant that Boris was pointing out the obvious.

That the population will continue to increase indefinitely and that it cannot be sustained.

But just as important, that it has become one of those subjects that cannot speak it's name.

And this situation will continue until we have wall to wall buildings, completely polluted air and water, continuing waring for the few remaining resources on the planet.

This will happen because any politician who tried to control the growth would immediately be branded a fascist.

GNC's Comment ..'I think he means Boris was right wing' illustrated the problem.


INT21
 
We should start promoting more alternative medicine and cancer-curing smoothies. That should help.
 
Xanatic* said:
We should start promoting more alternative medicine and cancer-curing smoothies. That should help.
Click to expand...
Also, promote the use of suicide booths for those who want it.
Promote more dangerous sports and risky habits.
Free condoms for all.
 
When I first started this thread, I was mostly talking to myself. But now it's all growed up and rattling along at a good rate with little input from me!

Does this make me a prophet? No, of course not, Malthus really started this meme, based on pure logic and mathematics. But sadly much of the world is still functionally innumerate.
 
rynner2 said:
When I first started this thread, I was mostly talking to myself. But now it's all growed up and rattling along at a good rate with little input from me!

Does this make me a prophet? No, of course not, Malthus really started this meme, based on pure logic and mathematics. But sadly much of the world is still functionally innumerate.
Click to expand...
More people have joined the thread because of expanding population...
 
Does anyone have a practical suggestion ?

Even one that may be seen as 'draconian' in the short term.

The nuclear annihilation of whole countries does not count; although that is where it will probably finish up if nothing is done.

INT21
 
My suggestion might work. Tell China and India they don't get anymore western medicine.
 
In the long run, it's a self-correcting problem. The resolution won't be pretty, however. I've seen estimates that climate change may contribute to the deaths of one billion.
 
And you consider that an acceptable long term solution ?

Surely the idea is to never reach that point by applying immediate short term corrections.

Oddly enough, the only country to ever do anything practical was China.

INT21
 
So...would you be advising the use of methods last employed in WW2?
 
No, I would not.

I am interested in what others think is a practical way of fixing this problem.

I aught to add that I am looking for sensible, if difficult suggestions.

To everyone.

If I had wanted flippant, jokey responses I wouldn't have bothered registering here.

INT21
 
Any sensible but difficult suggestions might get you on a government watch list. Best to plan these things away from prying eyes.
 
Xanatic*,

I wouldn't worry too much about that.
It's highly unlikely that government takes any notice of what is being said on a ufo/paranormal site.

Unless they are fishing for solutions.

Then you may be in line for a Knighthood.

INT21
 
INT21 said:
No, I would not.

I am interested in what others think is a practical way of fixing this problem.

I aught to add that I am looking for sensible, if difficult suggestions.

To everyone.

If I had wanted flippant, jokey responses I wouldn't have bothered registering here.

INT21
Click to expand...
Some of those daft responses I made are actually quite sensible and may come to pass.
 
Possibly they will.

But let's concentrate on coming up with something that will head of the necessity of mass murder.

It really does have to be solved. The world cannot go on making more houses to hold more people that need feeding etc.

If nothing else, consider where all the sewage is going to end up.

Do you like eating fish ?

INT21
 
There has to be solutions at both ends of the lifecycle. By that, I mean - (1) prevent excess babies being born and (2) provide a way for people to remove themselves if they wish.
At the moment, the medical profession seems to be pouring huge resources into helping more children into the world (IVF and fertility treatment as examples) and preventing people from dying (suicide prevention for example).
Perhaps those policies need to change?
Free or really cheap provision of prophylactics in (say) African countries can not only cut unwanted births, but they will cut disease.
Various countries have in the past tried to force people into having sterilisation procedures, but of course the very whiff of eugenics is enough to set off the accusations of Nazism.
 
Don't worry INT21, I don't think you're a fascist. The common thinking seems to be that education is vital in managing the population, especially education of girls. If you're aware of the consequences from an early age, then you can start planning for the future. Which is better than being labelled a problem before you've even been born.
 
GNC,

One of the major problems with the need for forward planning is that people do not want to see how the future is panning out. It is extraordinarily difficult for a government to say, 'you have two kids, that is the limit. You must accept this for the good of your own children and for the well being of everyone else'.

And it does seem odd that so much effort is going into ensuring that many babies survive who, in an earlier age, would not have made it. But that is human nature. Once a life has been created, you have to do all you can to give it a chance.

It is the conception that needs to stop.

You only need two interconnected brain cells to see that a small family is much easier in every respect to raise in a quality of life that is superior that a large family. In every respect.

I am aware that there will be people here who are part of a large family who will feel upset about this, and will no doubt point out that they seem to do alright. But that was in an earlier age. Times have changed and there are now many more teeth chomping at the pie.

The problem is compounded when the message from at least two of the World's major religions is 'get out there and breed'. Basically that is the cannon fodder approach.

I can see that the problem could be solved in small modern countries, but only by keeping out all who do not agree that there is indeed a problem. And enforcing the rules.

And this by itself will be a huge headache.

INT21
 
I have asked these questions before on this thread, and we came up with very little.
I guess there is no quick fix.

We have to rely on a steady improvement in the following in every country:
(a) Education of people.
(b) Standards of living.
(c) Better mortality rates for children.
(d) State pension systems for older people.

Also, we have to hope that there will be a decline in those religions advocating 'takeover by birthrate'.

When all of these factors are in place, the indigenous birthrate will go down - as it has in wealthy countries in the EU and Japan.
I'm glad we are having a Brexit, because that gives the UK the opportunity to have some control. Until now, we have had governments who have seen fit to inflict uncontrolled population rise on us. Perhaps that will now change, although I won't hold my breath.
Although some people are afraid of discussing it, I personally think a program of free sterilisation should be promoted.
This could be either in the form of surgery or via some kind of subdermal implant to induce sterility.
Perhaps this could be provided along with financial incentives to make it more attractive?
 
Are the well-educated having less kids because of the knowledge they gain, or just because it takes longer before they can afford starting a family?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top