Will 10 Billion People Use Up the Planet's Resources?

[Forkboy]

The human enterprise now consumes nearly 60 billion metric tons of minerals, ores, fossil fuels and plant materials, such as crop plants and trees for timber or paper. Meanwhile, the seven billionth person on the planet is expected to be born this year—and the human population may reach 10 billion by this century's end, according to the latest United Nations analysis. Hundreds of millions of people in Europe, North America and Asia live a modern life, which largely means consuming more than 16 metric tons of such natural resources—or more—per person per year. If the billions of poor people living today or born tomorrow consume anything approaching this figure, the world will have to find more than 140 billion metric tons of such materials each year by mid-century, according to a new report from the U.N. Enviromental Programme.

Figuring out how to do more with less is becoming a global necessity.

The international agency derived its consumption figures by simply dividing the total world production figures for such commodities by national population. The good news is that economic prosperity has been rising faster than direct resource consumption. Between 1980 and 2002, the resources required to produce $1,000 worth of consumer goods fell from 2.1 metric tons to just 1.6 metric tons and global per capita income has increased seven-fold. The bad news is that trend will not necessarily continue and—in absolute terms—resource consumption has increased 10-fold since 1900.

Of course, a wide array of national governments and even the international community have committed to "sustainable development," variously defined but essentially attempts to reduce things like energy use or resource extraction that go along with economic growth. Those lofty goals, however, do not match up to facts on the ground: such as an unwillingness on the part of the U.S. to lower its consumption or a hesitance on the part of China to restrain its economic growth.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=will-10-billion-people-use-up-the-p-2011-05-25

[ClarkUSA]

1. Why is mandatory birth control after 1 or 2 kids so taboo outside of China?

If all countries would institute such policies as the biggest puzzle piece in supporting global sustenance, the world would not be facing this inevitable environmental crisis of massive resource depletion.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

8. I would appreciate if you keep that stuff out of my threads.

I can't tell you what to post and where of course, but it's not appreciated by me at all.

[Forkboy]

11. One of those concepts that sounds great on paper, but it's implementation hasn't been so hot.

Many problems with it in China and India.

Forced Sterilization and Other Problems with the One-Child Policy

*Files are kept on every woman of child-bearing age by the local councils, who are assisted by networks of informants. Women who have children without permission—and are found out—are often forced to have abortions or sterilizations. If they refuse to cooperate, thugs are sometimes sent to destroy their houses or beat them up. If they run away sometimes their parents or relatives are imprisoned.

*In some cases the basis for raises and promotions of local officials is based on how well they meet their population targets. This policy encourages officials to push forced sterilizations and forced abortion and mete out tough punishments to meet their quotas. In some places enforcement has been so harsh that the Family Planning Association has had to give out brochure that list the "seven don't" of population policy (don't beat up people who have an unplanned birth; don't burn their house down, etc.)

*Birth control policies vary a great deal from place and place, and the way the policy carried out can be quite arbitrary. When a peasant woman in Guizhou got pregnant with a third child, according to one report, the local authorities took her cow. When she bowed to pressure and had an abortion, she was charged half a year's income to get her cow back.

*Describing the story of one Chinese immigrant in New York, Kirk Semple and Jeffrey E. Singer wrote in the New York Times, “When he was about 30 — old to be a bachelor by the standards of his village —Wang Jianhua married Lin Yaofang and they had a baby, a girl. When Ms. Lin became pregnant again, in violation of the country’s one-child policy, the authorities made her get an abortion, relatives and friends said. When word of her third pregnancy reached the government, he later told friends, officials went to their house to take Ms. Lin away, leading to Mr. Wang’s detention.

http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=128&catid=4&subcatid=15

Obviously, the idea can be handled differently than this, but I don't see the idea flying here in the U.S. or many other countries, and certainly not in time to forestall the issues raised by overpopulation.

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. One step from forced sterilization to eugenics.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Because it's noxious and offensive as fuck and about as totalitarian an idea as they come.

The fact of the matter is, in countries with a relatively good standard of living, access to birth control and other reproductive freedom, rights for women, and a high degree of personal autonomy from state and church 'authorities', birth rates manage themselves just fine ON THEIR OWN.

That's "why".

[indurancevile]

42. the world total fertility rate is 2.52 births per woman.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=total+fertility+rate+world&pbx=1&oq=total+fertility+rate+world&aq=f&aqi=g2g-v3&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=732l6530l0l7106l26l12l0l10l10l0l463l3534l2-2.6.2l10l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=661c0b1152c259b4&biw=1005&bih=586

[Gregorian]

46. Because people don't like acknowledging limits. And they don't want to think about the future.

Choice is all we have. Choice is limited all over the place. But reproductive rights are precious. They aren't limited at all. Each child in the modern society gets a car, a house, medical, food, water, septic... People still don't realize the full effect we're having on the planet. The question of this thread has already been answered. In case anyone wants evidence, just look at global warming and dwindled resources. It already cannot sustain this much consumption. And granted, consmption is not just population. But in a modern society (and we are not going back) population is the factor driving the disaster that is now unfolding.

Basically people are irresponsible. And in a way I can understand, because for all of eternity we have never had to face this issue. The vertical part of the exponential curve is exponential. It came upon us suddenly, like a wall.

Some of us see, and some just don't care enough to look. Or they're too busy with the lives they've created for themselves. There isn't really an excuse.

We can't even drive a car without a license. Yet we can reproduce beings without any training at all. I believe this is what the problem is. It's easy for me to criticize people, but sometime people don't see. I find it hard to believe that people can't see the mess they've made. But it's even harder to believe that we're just letting it continue.

[amborin]

3. it will extirpate every other species

there's massive habitat destruction, and global climate change also harms....

[Mimosa]

9. YES.

Humans take over ever bit of land, every forest. And we have fouled the oceans, turning them into septic tanks. :(

[Oasis_]

19. Your thinking...

Turns normally rational people into Republicans. I have two brothers who both vote a straight (R) ticket (despite it being in their financial self interest to vote (D) and it's directly a result of the Dr. Frankenstein (or is is Mengele or Kevorkian?) wing that insists the Earth is overpopulated and must employ drastic measures to control it--including government mandates restricting reproduction--among other things.

We're screwed. Real liberalism is dead--and we killed it.

I fully expect the Republicans to take the Senate and the WH next year. They will also take a (more) commanding hold of the SCOTUS.

It's very depressing.

The Tea party weirdos are one thing, but can't our creeps form a third party to haunt?

Oasis

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. You might have your opinion but not entitled to your own facts

the oceans are indeed dying.

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/oceans-dying-at-alarming-rate-scientists-warn-of-coming-extinction/

and the world is indeed warming up

And peak oil is most likely here.

Try to use your head.

Oh and nature is a darn cute mistress, but limits to how much it can support are real. It will not be congress... it will be nature...

By the way today the temp in a town in OK was 117... once a summer, sure.... tehy are becoming common... you do know why the Pueblo People left their houses right? Desertification.

As I said, you have a right to your opinions but facts are there.

[amborin]

23. wait, so those concerned about the environment & other species are "creeps" ? who are you?

[Oasis_]

25. Please form a third party

Oh, and I'm someone who would like to at least partially ensure Democrats have a fighting chance of being elected--or in the case of our President---re-elected.

In your view, the majority of the Earth's population is comprised of "undesirables" whose very existence makes them a threat to human sustainability.

No wonder everyone in the mainstream does their best to hide and silence your grotesque message from the masses.

To give you a legitimate platform would ensure the party demise.

Oasis

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. At no point anybody mentioned anybody was undesirable

or eugenics, which is what you just implied.

As to party platform, it ain't... it was at one point... way back in the way back machine... when Eugenics was popular in the US... you might want to pick up a book.

That said, it will not be a congress, or your believes. We are in the Holocene Extinction... read this and try to understand it... apex species tend to die out during mass extinctions...

We, as in HUMANS are an APEX species. The only thing that might save us from that fate is that we make tools. This is not a political statement, but a scientific one.

It has little (at this time) to do with any national party politics.

http://park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/holmass.html

Jaysus I know republicans are allergic to really pretty basic science... but I guess it is not dependent on party. And sooner or later, we as a species, will have to make pretty nasty decisions... or nature will make them for us... or most likely, both. As is, we may be seeing the tip of the iceberg in this population collapse...

After all Somalia has this little problem called desertification... leave the failed state part.

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/issues/desert/desert_lecture_new.html

One reason for it being failed, might very well be that.

Oh and that desertification was predicted by global weather change and land abuse.

[Mimosa]

28. Jacques Cousteau predicted the death of the oceans

Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Jacques Cousteau predicted the present distress of our oceans.

Take a look:

http://mainland.cctt.org/istf2010/Ocean.asp

More from Cousteau:

Cousteau was also quoted on overpopulation and other alarming symptoms by the "World Ecology Report" (Spring 1995).

"Jacques Cousteau continues to warn that overpopulation is humanity's greatest threat to survival. He argues that focusing on `sustainable economic development' is an illusion in a world of limited resources, and claims that the Western notion of `progress' has to be readjusted to recognize the reality of finite, rather than new and renewable, resources. He condemns environmental destruction in the name of progress, citing the draining of marshlands, the destruction of coral reefs, the depletion of marine populations by driftnet and dynamite techniques, and the felling of millions of acres of rainforests."

Think about what our needs for cheap energy have done to areas in Russia and Japan. I don't envy the lives of kids in the future.

[Rex]

4. No.

Probably about 42 billion or so.

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. With no further action on our part, the entire East Coast Woodland of the US

(one of the world's largest deciduous forests) is scheduled to be completely wiped out by climate change in the next 50 years. Half of the native hardwood species America is known for have or are scheduled to go extinct in the wild due to invasive diseases and habitat loss of old growth forests, and you can add hickory (iirc) to that list simply because the government under Clinton, Bush and Obama slashed about $1 million dollars to rescue the species in its last remaining holdout in the Great Smoky Mountains national forest using an expensive treatment program.

[villager]

17. hmmm.. *Aldo* Leopold's ghost, by any chance?

But yes, "green fire" sadly dying out everywhere - including in our souls...

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. I wish, but he was a great environmentalist.

King Leopold, actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Leopold%27s_Ghost

Listen to the yell of Leopold's ghost, / Burning in Hell for his hand-maimed host.
Hear how the demons chuckle and yell / Cutting his hands off, down in Hell.

But the story of what is happening in the Great Smoky Mountains right now is especially sad -- and with the Oak Blight if it ever gets out of California -- I need to find the book I read it in, because it's an appalling expose that has gotten no attention on the Internet.

[amborin]

24. plus Indonesia's remaining rainforest, etc............and all the species that depend on this habita

[Leopolds Ghost]

27. amborin, does your sig image work for you?

I tried opening it and it appears if you remove the "500x200" it works but then it's too big of course

[amborin]

30. it was a Corexit hazard warning, to use gloves, not breathe it, etc...too lazy to change it

was oversized for du

[Riftaxe]

31. By who and how are they defining woodland?

I suspect a lot of weasels will be running around with un-sourced studies claiming silly things.

[Mimosa]

5. Possibly.

Clark, if anybody can *ruin this OP* it's YOU.

Mandatory birth control is a concept which makes people angry.

Many of us, particularly feminists and gays, have chosen not to have children because we knew overpopulation causes problems.

Many of my friends do not have children. We made informed choices. Socialist policies which insure childless older citizens are cared for are responsible and help the planet. Nordic countries take care of sick and elderly people who sacrificed the SELFISH desires to procreate. Saving the planet is another reason we need single payer health care!

[Forkboy]

12. Actually, Clark didn't ruin this thread. Someone suggested he kill himself.

Obviously Clark and I aren't the best of buds, but that's going too far. I would have responded as Clark did as well.

Thank you for the rest of your post though. :pals:

[Mimosa]

14. Thanks (Didn't see that you post)

Telling ANYBODY to kill yourself is tacky!!!!

Mods working FAST as lightning lately. I reported somebody who called President OBIE a 'half black sockpuppet w*ORE' this afternoon. People got mad at me for alerting. ;)

Forkboy you're one of everybody's fave people!

[Forkboy]

18. Mods erased it with lightning speed.

For which I'm very grateful.

Forkboy you're one of everybody's fave people!

I appreciate that, but I'm betting there's plenty who think otherwise. ;)

[Oasis_]

13. Please try and sell that

I too am for a Single payer system of health care (or at least a Universal option) but it's comments such as yours that frighten the public into believing it would inevitably lead to "birth limits"

By the way, my wife and I have three children and are hoping to add a fourth in the near future.

So there.

Oasis

[TheMadMonk]

6. Shouldn't, but in the pursuit of a god given profit it's absolutely guaranteed.

[Forkboy]

15. Wisely managed, we could probably support twice that.

But, we all know that little in this world is "wisely managed".

[phantom power]

10. We seem to be taking a hell of a bite out at 7 billion.

[Mimosa]

16. 10 billion is serious disaster number according to what I read in 1960s

Think of what we as a species are now doing. We are ruining habitats for all other creatures. We're killing each other for control of raw materials to make our 'stuff'. I am proud that I consciously made a choice to not have children. I know at least 2 dozen other people both straight and gay who made a similar decision.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. I foresee a population collapse relateively soon

peak oil, without industrial agriculture... it will be painful. IN fact, Somalia is a preview of coming attractions I fear.

[Forkboy]

21. My magic 8 ball says "All signs point to yes".

[flvegan]

29. I * would* suggest going vegan, but...

bacon tastes too good for this lot.

So you know, fuck the planet.

[Lorien]

33. I prefer Quorn. nt

[Forkboy]

36. There are numerous other ways we could also go about it.

I understand you feel strongly about this issue, and respect your stance, but superiority will not get people to your side, no matter how correct you are. There is crucial data that you could provide instead of putting others down (such as the amount of land used for meat production, the amount of resources it uses, etc).

Your answer is but one of many, but not the only one. We have to get people to pay more attention to this issue, including your aspect of it, but railing on them is going to create the opposite effect. It will tune people out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. There is another choice

and that is what we do here.

We still eat it, but as a condiment, not the main course.

I mean 1 8 oz steak for two humans and two parrots, trust me, people look at us weird.

And since red meat is the worst offender, not more than once a week.

We do meatless from time to time as well.

[Forkboy]

44. I've been trying to cut down on meat as well.

Not easy, but I'm making progress. :)

[Lorien]

32. According to the World Wildlife fund we have less than 40 years of resources left

at 2000 consumption rates.

[AdHocSolver]

35. Capitalist consumerism is the main cause of the problem.

Planet earth will eventually rid itself of this disease.

Global "warming" is the fever planet earth is using to rid itself of the infection.

Earthquakes and floods are earth's techniques to rid itself of the pestilence of pollution.

It is the wealthy who control industry and commerce who have orchestrated the coming disaster, aided and abetted by an ignorant, gullible, and shortsighted population.

[Kablooie]

39. We need to eliminate healthcare so th population will decrease.

[Amonester]

41. Call me egocentric (which I'm not), but...

I'm kind of glad I will not live long enough to see that 2050, unless the secret to eternal life is discovered and distributed for free. Watching how this species is actually managing smaller problems on the global scale, I am convinced nothing will be done in time to escape the inevitable.

[Forkboy]

45. I know for a fact you're not alone in that feeling.

Many people older than me (I'm 43) have expressed those sentiments to me just in the last couple of years. I don't blame them.

[Amonester]

49. If I still breathe this planet's air in 2050, I'll be 97...

which I'm hoping to let my share of that air to everybody still breathing by then...

Unless gentle and kind ETs come pick me up ASAP and show me everything they want! :hi:

[ProfessionalLeftist]

43. 1300 of them use most of them

‎1300 individual billionaires have hoarded 94% of the planet's resources, the other 7 billion fight over 6% of Earth's wealth.

[LWolf]

47. I think we've misused too many of the planets resources already.

I know there are some that think that technology will allow us to feed a continuously growing population.

Even if that were true, what kind of planet would that be?

Not a planet I want to live on.

I know I'm outside the norm. I like visiting the city, but I like living, not just alone, but as far from other people as I can afford to get. Right now I live on the dead end of a private dirt road, next to many miles of public land. There are three other homes on my private dirt road; 3 too many, especially my next door neighbor. I can see his house, hear his family, and can't walk my property line without being in full view of his back yard. I like him. I like his wife. They are nice people and nice neighbors, but I don't get the privacy I wish I had.

I don't expect billions of people to be allowed any sort of real privacy. I remember reading a sci-fi novel decades ago; I don't remember anything about it except that it was futuristic, when human population overflowed earth into space stations and as many planets as they could find beyond, and the government was so powerful and high-tech that there was no escape. They had a privacy law that required someone's permission to approach them, to try to communicate with them in any way. They lived in tiny little cubicles in massive compounds, but nobody could intrude on their space.

I've always wished we had a law like that now, while we've still got a little breathing space. The right to privacy.

All of which leads me back to this: I don't want to live on a planet where all land, water, and species are controlled to make space and food for more people. I want wild places, empty places, and a wild abundance of other species to share the planet with.

[William769]

48. K&R.