Population Growth: The Real Apocalypse

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
3,100
Likes
4,436
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
Such things do help, but they have to be managed.

I have a couple of hundred gallon of rainwater in butts. Use it mostly on the plants (I have a water meter) in summer.

But the biggest consumer of water in our home is the toilet. 9 litre per flush.

The water from the butts is quite suitable for that purpose and could be set up to supply the toilet.

Another project .

INT21.
A while back, the advice doing the rounds on the Internet ecology forums was to put an object, such as a house brick wrapped in a plastic bag, in your toilet cistern. This reduces the water flow by 1 to 1.5 litres per flush. Great! Except that the reduced water flow proved insufficient to dispose of toilet paper, which just swirled around without disappearing. So you had to flush 2 or 3 times, instead of just one full flush, which of course defeated the purpose.
Some modern systems, including the toilets at my work, have the option for a half or full flush, with the former being just enough to remove evidence of a "number one".
Of course, there's always the Greek option; toilets with minimal flushing capability and which cannot cope with toilet paper at all. It was a bit of a culture shock to find, even in a decent hotel, that you have to deposit used toilet paper in a bin next to the toilet. Can't see that system catching on elsewhere!
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,597
Likes
2,170
Points
154
G'day Myth. Our federal government is importing 160,000 migrants every year, and is now trying to make it a prerecquisite that to get residency here, the new Australian and their family must live in a regional area for a specified time. Regional and remote areas are not amused.
Look on the bright side. Regional Australia is pretty uniformly "white-bread". At least migrants might get some decent restaurants going out in the bush. On the other hand, from what I understand, the real problem is Australia's water supply, which is erratic. How many gallons of fresh water does a human consume to keep them fed and clean every day? Has your government considered that?
 

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
5,449
Likes
3,934
Points
229
Is the Soylent Green method the answer ?

Or maybe the 29 th of February should be designated 'Kill a pensioner day'.

Don't see it as a problem, more an opportunity.

INT21.
 

Mungoman

Mostly harmless...
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,334
Likes
3,670
Points
159
Location
In the Bush (Peak Hill, NSW)
Such things do help, but they have to be managed.

I have a couple of hundred gallon of rainwater in butts. Use it mostly on the plants (I have a water meter) in summer.

But the biggest consumer of water in our home is the toilet. 9 litre per flush.

The water from the butts is quite suitable for that purpose and could be set up to supply the toilet.

Another project .

INT21.
Before we got half flush toilets 21, the majority of us in Australia would put a house brick in the cistern - to save a bit of water. Then there was the motto on the dunny wall- "if it's yellow, let it mellow but if it's brown, flush it down" - your butt water (sniggers), is just so much better for plants I reckon (sorry 21...school boy humour has never left me).

I have a 10,000 litre tank out the back which is used for watering vegies and consumption, while tap water is used for domestics. Tap water is bore water and stinks of fish(?), will blacken any silver jewelry and tastes salty and kills plants.
 
Last edited:

Mungoman

Mostly harmless...
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,334
Likes
3,670
Points
159
Location
In the Bush (Peak Hill, NSW)
Look on the bright side. Regional Australia is pretty uniformly "white-bread". At least migrants might get some decent restaurants going out in the bush. On the other hand, from what I understand, the real problem is Australia's water supply, which is erratic. How many gallons of fresh water does a human consume to keep them fed and clean every day? Has your government considered that?

Things have changed AP...Whitebread isn't an expression that I'd use - unless you are talking about some of the major rural cities, and to a certain degree that would be an exaggeration.

I live in a village, 400k's inland, where one local garage is run by Rose and Cyril, a middle aged black couple from South Africa, and the road house is run by an extended family from the Sub Continent - ditto the delicatessen/smallsupermarket, while The cooks at the bowling club and at the returned soldiers club are both from Korea.

There are three families in the district, comprising a couple of hundred of local Wiradjuri people with one family who run the local school, the other family runs the land Council and employment agency, and the other family runs the local precinct council. The only whitebread here are farming families who've been here since the the invasion and we don't see much of them at all, but water is as you say, the problem.


We've been on bore water since 2016, and it won't get any better - Our governments (both) seem hellbent on flogging off the water in our inland rivers to foreign governments and corporate multinationals, allowing our major farms to be bought by chinese interests who export the product directly to mainland China, while the majority of frozen fruit and vegetables is from China - via NZ. We are surrounded by sea yet 228,000 tonnes of our seafood consumption is imported - mainly from Asia, while in 2012 we exported 35,000 tonnes in sea food products

Our governments see water and land as a commodity to be sold, and wouldn't have thought any further than the next election. Chinese interests own 140,000 square kilometres of Australia - which is an area of land that is more than twice the size of Tasmania...this includes, on 99 year leases, every major Sea Port in Australia.

It will take revolution before the incumbent governments take note of our total discontent.
 

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Staff member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
9,589
Likes
9,830
Points
284
Location
An Eochair
your butt water (sniggers), is just so much better for plants I reckon (sorry 21...school boy humour has never left me).
vital for our compost heaps! We dug one of them out into the raised beds we (re)built last year and it was lush!
 

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
5,449
Likes
3,934
Points
229
Mungoman,

Our version of a 'brick in the bog tank' is a two liter bottle of water. Serves the same purpose. And at two litre a time it does add up.

And defiantly let it mellow; Flush every second visit. Although my wife says it tends to stain the porcelain. The problem with roof water is that you have to take care to remove all the leaves etc. I have a couple of mesh filters to help reduce this. Having trees all around the garden doesn't help.

As for newbie Australians, I suppose a few month up in the Darwin area will either make them or break them.

INT21.
 

Mungoman

Mostly harmless...
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,334
Likes
3,670
Points
159
Location
In the Bush (Peak Hill, NSW)
vital for our compost heaps! We dug one of them out into the raised beds we (re)built last year and it was lush!

It's quite amazing how that works, isn't it Frides...If I was uneducated in the soil sciences, my natural inclination would say - 'But it's rubbish - how can it be good for the soil'...but of course it is, and being educated, we know why... I have an alternative composting method, which I use Frides.

I allow all weeds like amaranth, wild lettuce, mallow, chenopodium and purslane to grow till it starts to form seed, then I pull it up and use it as mulch. for some reason the seed doesn't add to the soils seed bank and it mulches wonderfully, taking twice as long to break down, and because each plant has a deep root system each plant has access to minerals that are prone to leaching out of the A and O horizons - a sort of long term release plan...

It also suits my lazy bachelor/too bloody hot/ what! double bloody dig!/can't wait till winter gardening style.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,232
Likes
19,808
Points
284
Location
Eblana
Male contraception.

ON A RECENT morning in Los Angeles, Michael Medrano dabbed a teaspoon-sized glob of cold gel onto his shoulders. It’s just another part of his routine these days: Brush teeth, apply deodorant, comb hair, dab gel.

The gel, which Medrano describes as having the consistency of hand sanitizer, contains testosterone and progestin, a hormonal composite that suppress his body’s natural production of sperm. Massaged into his skin, it functions as the only birth control he and his wife, Julia, will use for the next year and a half.

A few years ago, Julia stopped taking Depo-Provera, an injectable form of hormonal birth control, which had caused her weight to fluctuate and made her, in Medrano’s words, “kind of moody.” Condoms worked fine, but Julia worried about slipping up. So when Medrano came across a post on Reddit recruiting participants for a clinical trial of this new kind of male contraceptive, it seemed worth a shot. Julia, happy to be relieved of the burden of managing the couple’s birth control, agreed.

https://www.wired.com/story/how-we-... NL 032719 (1)&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
4,476
Likes
8,117
Points
234
In the 1960s, when the world’s population had just crossed 3 billion people, there was a common belief across the experts in the academic and scientific communities that we were approaching “peak humanity”. That this was largest number of people the planet could support, based on the amount of food the planet could produce. Policymakers feared global famine, mass starvation and a collapse in the social order.



Thanks to the Green Revolution that was spurred in part by Norman Borlaug’swork to develop heartier and higher-yielding strains of staple crops like wheat, food production doubled without significantly expanding land use. With the global population now some 7 billion we are told by experts in the academic and scientific communities that this we are facing a “climate crisis”. Policymakers fear climate induced global famine, mass starvation and a collapse in the social order.

If this is true wouldn’t world food prices being a leading indicator? Food costs would be rising as environmental constraints reduced supply and population growth increased demand.



So it is incredible that within a generation food costs have dropped so dramatically in India and China, countries that at one time were frequently on the brink of famine. Environmentalists who campaign against agri-tech advances have argued for population reduction rather than increased food production. Fortunately policy-makers have taken the humane option and have better fed bigger populations as a result.

https://order-order.com/2019/08/08/climate-crisis-populism-versus-data-food-production/

maximus otter
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,597
Likes
2,170
Points
154
If this is true wouldn’t world food prices being a leading indicator? Food costs would be rising as environmental constraints reduced supply and population growth increased demand.



So it is incredible that within a generation food costs have dropped so dramatically in India and China, countries that at one time were frequently on the brink of famine. Environmentalists who campaign against agri-tech advances have argued for population reduction rather than increased food production. Fortunately policy-makers have taken the humane option and have better fed bigger populations as a result.
https://order-order.com/2019/08/08/climate-crisis-populism-versus-data-food-production/
maximus otter
I think it is possible to argue that perhaps the market is getting it wrong on the pricing of food. I mean, the market often gets it wrong. Look at the price of Helium for example. Helium is presently a mined non-renewable gas that is used for numerous advanced electronic manufacturing procedures, but is also blasted into space in childrens' party balloons for pennies on the dollar. There is a very limited supply of Helium and while there are some methods for extracting more from coal, they are expensive. Now looking at food, we don't even really grasp the price of clearing and fertilizing extra land, or how the use of pesticides, ground water, etc is going to affect that land's productivity in the future. I suspect that a lot of the price for food is being distributed into fuel costs and other expenses. After all, without petrol and diesel being readily accessible, many farms would cease to be viable, and often the finished product is subsidised. I would also point out that I wouldn't trust the biggest player in agribusiness, Monsanto to tell the truth about the time of day, given that they generally come up with some sort of genocidal nightmare scandal once every decade.

On the other hand, and not to be unfair, such subsidies vary considerably from nation to nation, and even province to province. I know that there have definitely been immense improvements in many areas of agriculture, as you clearly point out M.O. and I seriously hope that we can dodge that Malthusian bullet for a good while to come.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
35,762
Likes
21,806
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
After all, without petrol and diesel being readily accessible, many farms would cease to be viable, and often the finished product is subsidised.
Without oil, coal and gas, a population of 7 billion would quickly become unsustainable. There's always the chance that it might run out (OK, Britain has loads of coal, but some other countries don't). That might be the real reason for trying to limit population size.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,597
Likes
2,170
Points
154
Without oil, coal and gas, a population of 7 billion would quickly become unsustainable. There's always the chance that it might run out (OK, Britain has loads of coal, but some other countries don't). That might be the real reason for trying to limit population size.
I hope that the transition from fossil fuel to renewables is like the transition from whale oil to fossil fuels i.e. unthinkable until it was done. I am so impressed by the level of intellect and entrepreneurship of people developing alternative forms of transport and energy production and improved battery tech, that it restores my faith in humanity quite a bit. I am in little doubt that the next great fortunes will be made in these areas.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
875
Likes
282
Points
69
Population should start to decline between 2050 and 2080 --we'll see if we can make it that long. My bet is probably not or not well.
 

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Staff member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
9,589
Likes
9,830
Points
284
Location
An Eochair
I hope that the transition from fossil fuel to renewables is like the transition from whale oil to fossil fuels i.e. unthinkable until it was done.
and also, on a lesser scale, the UK shift from Town Gas to Natural Gas...
 

AnonyJoolz

Captainess Sensible
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
725
Likes
1,951
Points
134
Location
Having a nice cup of tea and a sit-down.
Population should start to decline between 2050 and 2080 --we'll see if we can make it that long. My bet is probably not or not well.
I think you're spot-on. There is a chance that the current birth-rate (TFRs - Total Fertility Rates) may drop off even more sharply than anticipated. In the short term, there will be a massive swell in global population due to the 1950-1980 boom and the main concern will be resources and caring for a elder-heavy population pyramid, but after that...

It's a bit of a pet subject of mine and If I may bore one, some or all of you with my previous contributions from thread https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/proactive-human-population-reduction.27083

Yep. Lots of people (but maybe not as many as might be thought) need to step down their relentless wasteful consumption. We don't need to return to mediaeval levels, but something akin to a Costa Rican, or south Indian, median standard of living.

People used to laugh at me 25 years ago for using a home-made fabric shopping bag, but maybe I was just ahead of the game! I don't know if it's just me but seeing stuff like the overblown luxury of Dubai, or the pointlessness of Formula 1 racing (using fossil fuels), or sandwiches sold in plastic boxes just makes me feel ill and guilty on their behalf.

The world's population is forecast to stabilise at around 10-13 billion within the next 100 years, then gradually fall. The main 'boom' in world population currently taking place is down to improved healthcare and not extra or multiple births [ie., folks are sticking around a lot longer] The global average birthrate per woman is almost down to 2 (replacement level), and then predicted to fall further. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate for the figures

Some nations are already seeing marked birthrate decrease (eg., Italy, Japan, Korea to name a few).

As education and information spreads, family sizes fall and there's some room for optimism here. The main issues facing us all in the 'first world' are how to care for elderly people compassionately when they are in the majority (Japan is already facing this demographic conundrum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan ) AND how to suppress the model of a constantly expanding economy and shift it into something much less wasteful and damaging.

It's not impossible that a pandemic will get some of us, leaving only the fittest, but the predictions of doom are a bit overblown. Each one of us that turns their back on rampant consumerism and waste is doing their bit, however small it may seem. We have that power! If the billionaire class wishes to zoom off to another planet and consume that, too, then let them.
Yes - when contraception and education is widely available, family sizes do tend to fall and even if one woman has 4 or 5 children there are others who have none. That's why the overall birth rate vs. overall death rate is important here, not individual family size.

However due to the population momentum effect and the tempo effect, these changes are only seen in generations, or centuries, and not decades. It's going to get a bit hairy around 2050 if consumption and environmental habits don't change!

An interesting article here about the various stages of demographic transition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition Most of the 'first world' is already in stage 4 - declining populations, catching up fast is China & India with most of Asia and southern Americas already in stage 3. To quote Hans Rosling: Don't Panic!


The point is, much of the world has already got to, or near the magic figure of 2.1, virtually all of the developed world already has a fertility rate of 2 or below. Beliefs or not! Even The Philippines, staunchly Catholic and with little access to contraception currently has a rate of 2.92 (2016, source: World Bank) compared to 1950-55's 7.4 (source: UN); roughly about 50 years behind the UK's own fertility rate drop in the 60's.

The main issue is resource use and consumption, not birthrates or family size. It's going to take a few more generations for the full effect of the 1950-1980 boom to pan out - the population momentum effect - but if we survive as a species we will then gradually become less numerous.
Individual countries will feel overcrowded due to immigration, and the demographics of the world are going to change even more (more people from the continent of Africa, as opposed to Asia now), but if we manage not to nuke or pollute ourselves to death there is great hope for the future. We'll just be browner, that's all.
 

AnonyJoolz

Captainess Sensible
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
725
Likes
1,951
Points
134
Location
Having a nice cup of tea and a sit-down.
I think you are being very optimistic, unrealistically so.
To whom are you replying? If it was me then we are both entitled to our opinions :)

Indeed, as we are in the 'new science' forum then maybe this article from New Scientist (2016) is worth flagging up https://www.newscientist.com/articl...6-the-population-bomb-did-go-off-but-were-ok/ It's behind a paywall but the intro gives a flavour of future population predictions:

"Could the population bomb be about to go off in the most unexpected way? Rather than a Malthusian meltdown, could we instead be on the verge of a demographic implosion?

To find out how and why, go to Japan, where a recent survey found that people are giving up on sex. Despite a life expectancy of 85 and rising, the number of Japanese is falling thanks to a fertility rate of just 1.4 children per woman, and a reported epidemic of virginity. The population, it seems, are too busy (and too shy) to procreate.

It’s catching. Half the world’s nations have fertility rates below the replacement level of just over two children per woman. Countries across Europe and the Far East are teetering on a demographic cliff, with rates below 1.5. On recent trends, Germany and Italy could see their populations halve within the next 60 years.

The world has hit peak child, says Hans Rosling at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. Peak person cannot be far behind.

For now, the world’s population continues to rise. From today’s 7.4 billion people, we might reach 9 billion or so, mostly because of high fertility in Africa. The UN predicts a continuing upward trend, with population reaching around 11.2 billion in 2100. But this seems unlikely. After hitting the demographic doldrums, no country yet has seen its fertility recover. Many demographers expect a global crash to be under way by 2076.
"

Looking at the evidence we have, and the trends we see now I don't think we're in for a mass self-extinction just yet.
 

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
5,449
Likes
3,934
Points
229
To whom are you replying? If it was me then we are both entitled to our opinions :)



.
Roslin, by the way, dies two years ago. He was a very entertaining presenter of statistics.

And of course you are entitled to your opinions and views. As am I.

[Bijou snippette by Frides with agreement from author.]

INT21.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
875
Likes
282
Points
69
I think you're spot-on. There is a chance that the current birth-rate (TFRs - Total Fertility Rates) may drop off even more sharply than anticipated. In the short term, there will be a massive swell in global population due to the 1950-1980 boom and the main concern will be resources and caring for a elder-heavy population pyramid, but after that...

It's a bit of a pet subject of mine and If I may bore one, some or all of you with my previous contributions from thread https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/proactive-human-population-reduction.27083








Individual countries will feel overcrowded due to immigration, and the demographics of the world are going to change even more (more people from the continent of Africa, as opposed to Asia now), but if we manage not to nuke or pollute ourselves to death there is great hope for the future. We'll just be browner, that's all.
Thanks for those great posts, AnonyJoolz! I will take a look at that link to your past posts, too.
 

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Staff member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
9,589
Likes
9,830
Points
284
Location
An Eochair
Thanks for those great posts, AnonyJoolz! I will take a look at that link to your past posts, too.

hear hear! one of the privileges of this place is seeing a coherent series of writing from someone with expertise in a particular area. I've enjoyed this in UFOs, Esoterica and CryptoZoo very recently :)
 
Top