It took a hundred thousand years of mankind to reach 2 billion people

[Toots]

In just fifty years that figure more than tripled. At that rate what will the next twenty five years bring? Overpopulation is the biggest problem facing the world IMO and the leading cause of Global Warming. Maybe we do need a nuclear war or something if only to save our planet. Remember the more people the more energy sources are used and used up, the more trees are cut down and the more land occupied. What is the solution to such rapid growth?

[The2ndWheel]

1. There is no solution

Well, the solution would be getting rid of agriculture, but that would kill almost everyone, so that's not happening.

The state(like China) has tried to force people to a single child, and they have more people than anyone. So that's not something anyone wants to see on a global scale.

There are two ways to go. We either continue to grow because we fear no predator and manipulate our environments, thus we have no counter-balance(as everything else in nature does). Or, we run out of resources, with at least 6.5 billion people on the planet, all competing to stay alive. That's it.

[Skidmore]

6. Global warming could take care of killing agriculture.

No one has to do a thing. The Earth Mother will clean house on her own.

[GreenArrow]

2. World War III for starters, and make it massively destructive

with plenty of nukes being tossed around, throw in a Global pandemic or two, add a shortage of food, with a dash of drought, and voila!

[madokie]

14. I wonder what the inhabidants will be like after this next major war

say in a few thousands of years from now.

[Rosemary2205]

3. The planet is self regulating

Actually IMHO the wars over limited resources, fatal diseases resulting from overcrowding, and the famine and increased natural disasters from global warming will get the population back down to what the planet (or rather local geography) can support. Even a flat out world wide nuclear holocaust will leave a few humans alive to continue the human race.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. True. I think this may well take place unless, as Stephen Hawking says,

we head for space.

[mom cat]

20. By that time, we may have passed the tipping point beyond which there is

no return. A scientific and logical approach are in order or we are all certainly doomed, We might already be beyond the point of no return.

[raccoon]

4. Epidemics. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. The next 25 years will bring another 1.5 billion or so

the rate of increase is already slowing; world population is expected to peak at about 10 billion a bit after 2050.

[Toots]

8. Yes I remember a few years back it was supposed to peak at 4 billion

:shrug: We have severe problems at six billion what will ten billion bring?

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. You must have a long memory

Back in 1950, when it was 2.5 billion, the growth looked roughly exponential, so I doubt anyone would have predicted a peak of only 4 billion as late as that. Was it when they thought WW2 was going to wipe out a large part of the world's population?

Since the rate of increase has been dropping for the past 15 years or so, there is reason to believe it really will peak.

I think 10 billion will be doable, but only with severe restrictions on lifestyle, and a lot of cooperative planning. Even then, a lot of the environment will have to be turned into satisfying purely human needs. Global warming will make this even more difficult.

[boise1]

9. Peak Oil will help to regulate the population of the petri dish

[theHandpuppet]

10. Thank you, Toots, and I AGREE

The issue of human overpopulation seems to be the damned sacred cow we're not supposed to talk about even as its results are sending this planet into a catastrophic die-off from which it may never recover. Unless folks are willing to face the fact that they can't just keep popping out kids as if this has nothing at all to do with the problems we're facing now, then the rest is just window dressing in the scope of things. Recycle your cans, buy a hybrid car, go solar... bottom line: if you aren't serous about limiting the size of your biological family, then you are part of the problem. Period.

[Bill McBlueState]

11. It's not really overpopulation that's the problem

Calls to "do something" about overpopulation are unfair, really. The birth rates in most of the developed world are right around replacement level, so when you say the birth rate is too high, you're really asking people in the poverty-stricken parts of the world to reduce their family sizes. Without a massive amount of external aid, this is asking the poorest people in the world to put the survival of their families at stake. In those parts of the world, a large family means more security for the oldest and youngest in the family.

What we in the developed world need to do, instead of preaching to the destitute about overpopulation, is to reduce our own ecological footprints. The world can easily support billions of people if the richest billion of us aren't overconsuming and overpolluting and instead live environmentally responsible lifestyles.

[porphyrian]

12. Nature won't wait for you to figure it out.

What happens when any population overgrows its habitat? It's arrogant to think we're somehow above other animals with regards to the system, but it's also arrogant to think this problem requires a human solution.

[electron_blue]

15. The planet will be fine. Earth's not going anywhere. Nuclear war

will not solve anything. The lasting radiation would cause massive die off of other animals and plants.

Frankly, anyone who thinks nuclear war is a solution to *anything* is suspect in my book.

[GaYellowDawg]

17. BINGO!!

Earth and life were here a long time before us. Earth and life will be here a long time after we're extinct. Even if we pollute the planet so badly that only bacteria survive, there are still 5 billion years left in the sun's main sequence. And if they're aerobic or photosynthesizing bacteria, they have a huge evolutionary leap on the first time around.

To think that humans will leave the Earth lifeless is hubris.

[AngryAmish]

16. HIV is lessening life expectancies in Africa

Otherwise in the majority of the world life expectancy is growing extremely quickly.

When people have longer life expectancies and less poverty the birth rate slows dramatically (this is especially true when women are not treated as chattel).

That said if we are going to expand to 10 billion people have to become much more tolerant of certain technologies. Foremost among those is genetically modified food crops. GM foods reduce pesticide use and increase yields. If more people were vegetarians that would lessen the agriculture footprint (but I'm selfish and I am a proud omnivore). Any other ideas?

[ramapo]

18. I remember 3 billion world/200 million US

When I look at current figures, I am staggered. One way to keep up economic growth is to increase population. Growth is sacred. Lack of growth is seen as failure.

Not good.

[wuushew]

19. Capitalism does not like ZPG

how are all those fat cats going to enrich themselves when there is no longer ever increasing demand for goods, services or land?

The returns of securities would would collapse as future demand becomes a know and static quantity. The artificially boosted return of stock investments would decrease as their returns fall in relation to their already diversified risks.

Tightening labor markets would further sadden the investment class as wealth is earned the way it always should have been through wages and honest work.

Additionally if a society is democratic or representative in any way at all services that are structured in unsupportable ponzi scheme fashion now would necessarily transition to state funded mandated entitlement programs.

The wealthy fear the benign socialist future as the taxman cometh to feed to poor and needy.

[JohnyCanuck]

21. Check out Prof. Albert Bartlett's lecture

on steady growth and resource consumption if you haven't seen it yet. You need Real Player to view the lecture but transcripts and MP3s are also available at link below. For those who might be reluctant to watch because Bartlett is a physics professor, his lecture is aimed at the average Joe, not PhDs in Engineering Physics, and the math involved is very simple and straightforward.

The retired Professor of Physics from the University of Colorado in Boulder examines the arithmetic of steady growth, continued over modest periods of time, in a finite environment. These concepts are applied to populations and to fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal.

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461

[Snivi Yllom]

22. Space travel

It's inevitable.

In 100,000 years I expect mankind to have evolved further physically and via technology to the point where the entire galaxy is colonized.