Estimated World Population to Pass 6,666,666,666 Today

suso writes ""The estimated population of the world will pass 6,666,666,666 today. No doubt an interesting number for people everywhere (not referring to any religion connotations). 5,555,555,555 was passed about 14 years ago. You may not realize that only 80 years ago, the population of the Earth was only around 2 billion. This shows how the population of the world has increased at an alarming rate in recent times, although the growth rate is almost half what it was at its peak in 1963, when it was 2.2%. Unrelated but also an interesting coincidence, the estimated number of available IPv4 addresses is getting very close to 666,666,666. It should cross over today as well.""

Comments

Someone care to estmate

[blind biker]

...when is it that we're totally screwed?

Re:Someone care to estmate

[Trailer Trash]

Probably no time soon. The recent population boom wasn't caused by an increased birth rate, but rather by increased longevity. Birth rates are down in most of the first world, to the point that Japan is worried about a dropping population.

Population Control & Modern Views

[eldavojohn]

You may not realize that only a 80 years ago, the population of the Earth was only around 2 billion. I think it was in Billions and Billions by Carl Sagan that I was first exposed to this idea that poverty and illiteracy could be linked to high birth rates. Since then I have read articles by Paul and Anne Ehrlich as well as Collapse by Jared Diamond. I had been exposed to the Chinese way of economically pressuring citizens to have only one child. I ignorantly thought this was a form of extreme fascism.

But a key difference at that time was I was still Catholic.

One of many reasons for divorcing myself from Catholicism was its stance towards birth control. Iâ(TM)m not talking abortion (or âoebaby killingâ as some of them like to refer to it)â"Iâ(TM)m talking about preventative measures like condoms and Plan B. For some reason, the Vaticanâ"the organization that is the Catholic Churchâ"took it upon itself to stop the use of preventative measures. In pre-industrial times, this may have been advantageous to a religion and even a people. However, as it stands now this attitude results in a powder keg leaving the populace open to drought, famine, disease and brutal warfare (probably as a result of the famine) to keep the human population in check. Just look at the enterovirus (EV71) in China.

I think a lot of the responses are going to be along the lines of what Iâ(TM)ve said so far; that if we donâ(TM)t start to pay attention to population and think of non-intrusive non-immoral ways to keep it in check then weâ(TM)re in some serious trouble. Instead, Iâ(TM)d like to relay some views Iâ(TM)ve heard from people quite close to me on this issue. Iâ(TM)m not sure if this will become a political issue in the near term but I know that, at least in the United States, there are people with conflicting views.

A close friend of mine who is a Christian and a bit conservative voiced concern that the United Statesâ(TM) population growth is lagging behind many other countries. Many of the Western countriesâ"such as those in Europeâ"are also lagging behind those of Muslim nations like Turkey and several others in the Middle East & Africa. He claimed (or âoefear mongeredâ if you will) that if the current trend continued the end state of the world would most certainly be Muslim Dictatorships everywhere. I would like to quickly point out that I do not share his ideas in this Christian Vs Muslim war he believes has been going on since the crusades. I am merely relaying what many conservative Christians in the world are probably subconsciously thinking.

Now just last week my uncle sent me an e-mail that was along his thinking of people should have to have a license to have children. They should have to pass tests demonstrating they can provide food shelter clothing water all the basic life necessities before they can start to procreate. This would require a source of income to sustain a child ⦠he also has said that criminal record and health history should be taken into consideration. He linked an unfortunate story and was perhaps half joking.

Are either of these ideas the future? Is the idea of a procreation license issued by the state an unfortunate reality? Is it my friend wrong to push to close the âbirth rate gapâ(TM) between West and East?

Personally, all I can do is rail for education worldwide for all and, with that, the power to do what is right for us and the future of our children.

Re:Population Control & Modern Views

[thePig]

Now just last week my uncle sent me an e-mail that was along his thinking of people should have to have a license to have children. Whatever the case, the right to have children is/should be a fundamental right.

Even if they did not take care of their earlier children, even if they are criminals or whatever, similar to their requirement for food and shelter is the requirement to have children. In fact, I consider that this right jumps over everything everything else and should occupy the top spot, even above a persons right to live.

The reasoning is that the basic reason for any living being to exist is to prolong its/its species/lifes (in ascending order of priority) span in this world. Whether or not a person chooses to is another matter. What matters is the right to do it.

As an aside, this is one big gripe that I have about prisons everywhere. It doesnt allow for creating new life.

Re:Population Control & Modern Views

[SatanicPuppy]

The problem is inherent in trying to fix a problem that we haven't even now fully defined.

The arguments against a large population are usually resource based: "ZOMG all teh peoplez are eating all our FOODZ" or taking all our oil/copper/whatever.

Historically, however, we've always found alternate resources. We've always increased production, or utilized alternatives.

Now people push for sustainable living, but we don't have a clear idea of what that means. Sustainable at what level? We have no way of knowing without knowing what our options will be twenty years from now.

I think, barring instances (like in China) where there is a clear and pressing need to reduce your population because of obvious and immediate consequences, that the government and the people are doing the right thing by letting population take care of itself.

The situation is so complex that there is effectively no way to intervene without causing significant issues. You can see this in China, with their sex specific infanticide; an unintended side-effect which became inevitable when the government started meddling in reproduction.

Re:Population Control & Modern Views

[jcgf]

There is no "reason for any living being to exist". Never has been, never will be. That line of thinking just leads to false conclusions such as the world was created in 7 days or in this case "the right to have children is/should be a fundamental right.Even if they did not take care of their earlier children, even if they are criminals or whatever".

This is going to sound cold

[pembo13]

But considering how distracted and divided humans still are, the earth will likely fix this load we are putting on it's resources. It has been known to erase lives hundreds of thousands at a time. In the USA alone there is a super volcano about due, and a few plate movements are overdue. A lot of people take issues with the population control methods utilized by the Chinese -- how much more densely populated would China be without those measures? What's point of a new bouncing baby girl if there isn't enough food available to feed her?

Re:This is going to sound cold

[Anonymous Coward]

You're close, but cold is:
"What's the point of a baby girl?"
In China, that is.

Re:This is going to sound cold

[Anonymous Coward]

Chinas problem was a population explosion during Mao era due to not applying birth control measures (needed canon fodder?), and also maintaining a rural and agriculture system.
(what do people do when there is no electricity, TV or other entertainment available and life is dull and boring..?)

Population growth became so out of whack that had to use the extreme policy of one child per family.

Had the country be allowed to be industrialized earlier, together with good (and human) birth control program, the problem would not exist today. Or at least be not so extreme.

They may solve population growth now, but in 40 years the population pyramid would be so inverted that they would have a completely new problem to handle with. The aging of EU or US countries would be a joke compared with that.

Re:Did you know...

[maxume]

1.5, -2, etc. Apparently any positive whole number power.

Good thing

[El Cabri]

I resent people who are stating that 5, or 6, or 7 billions is too many and that the growth of world population should make us worry. I would like to point out that, compared to the era when world population was less than 1 billion, the average life expectancy, quality of life and, yes, access to ressources and opportunities has dramatically increased for our species. How far is the time when a single pandemic, natural disaster or mass migration would wipe out a third of a continent population and make whole civilization disappear from History ? Notwithstanding the current price fluctuations that call for natural adjustments in production and distribution systems, REAL hunger, the one where the basic intake of food necessary for survival simply isn't available within reach, has been reduced to cases relatively limited in scope and mostly due to geopolitical circumstances rather than natural resource limitations.

Re:Good thing

[jIyajbe]

A man fell from the top of the Empire State Building. As he passed the tenth floor, he said to himself: "I've fallen 92 floors, and haven't gotten hurt. I guess this wasn't dangerous after all!"

Re:Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Notwithstanding the current price fluctuations that call for natural adjustments in production and distribution systems, REAL hunger, the one where the basic intake of food necessary for survival simply isn't available within reach, has been reduced to cases relatively limited in scope and mostly due to geopolitical circumstances rather than natural resource limitations."

True. However, exponential growth at any rate is pretty cruel. For example, only a 2% growth rate per year implies doubling of resource demands (assuming per capita demands remain the same) in about 35 years. For 4% it is less than 20 years. It is therefore highly desirable to not allow population growth or per capita resource demands to grow much longer at their currently exponential rates, because it is inevitable that we will eventually run into resource limitations.

For example, global oil demand has growth pretty consistently for the last decade and a half at about 2-4% per year. Everybody knows that the resource is limited, but with that kind of growth the ultimate limit doesn't really matter, and depleting the resource is still a long way off. What matters is that it is almost impossible to sustain that kind of growth for a prolonged period. Eventually, even with ample supply still left in the ground (we're probably about half way through the resource), you can't supply the next increment of growth fast enough. You can't lay enough pipe and ship the stuff fast enough. You also run through the last half of any finite resource in a small fraction of the time it took to run through the first half.

And here we are, for that particular resource. Therefore, the price rises, we'll have a demand adjustment, and the exponential growth will probably stop or drop to a more modest growth rate. Someday after that the growth will reverse, but that's years in the future yet.

The limitations for agriculture are a lot further out, but they are tightly connected to energy supply and suitable land.

We can be very creative with our resource use and sustain growth for a long time, but it's got to slow eventually. Well, unless we expand off the planet.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[Ethanol-fueled]

Agreed. Wake me up when the rest of the world reaches the population density of Japan.

Having seen Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico ...

[mlund]

I'm not really worried about this number.

The actual "global population" is a big number that people wave around for dramatic effect. It is so far divorced from the realities at hand that it's a joke.

"Over population" is relative to the boundaries constraining that population. If the global population drops but the population of China continues to increase then the burden of "over population" in China continues to escalate. Of course, there isn't an "over population" problem in China proper - there is a problem with Population Density near the cities the Chinese Military Dictatorship cares about.

It reminds me of how dedicated coastal city-dwelling folks complain about urban sprawl and population control from their high-rises and college dorms in Boston, New York, and Los Angeles. Take a trip out to New Mexico or Arizona some time. Visit Wyoming. There isn't a lack of land - you just can't to be away from your precious urban island. The idea of lacking having a neighborhood Starbucks, of not being able to slip down to the bistro and meet with your vegan friends to complain about the soulless carnivores, of maybe needing to own a gun - these things are so unthinkable to some.

We've got room in the U.S.A. folks - no need for the current generations to go all "0 population growth" fanatic on us. That negative reproductive rate isn't helping Europe either - they are just importing more immigrants and more unsustainable reproduction in the exporting nations fills the gap. Meanwhile, they are having serious problems assimilating their immigrant population and in some ugly cases (Londonistan, some suburbs of Paris) losing their domestic tranquility and culture in unprecedented fashion.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[Anonymous Coward]

On average, over a 150000 people die every day. If a million people died in Burma, it'd only push the date back about a week.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[Waffle Iron]

I don't want to be crass but the disaster in Burma isn't even countable. I know they can do estimates and such but major events like Burma should be accounted, are they? What about Iraq?

IIRC, somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 people are born and 100,000 die every day. The Burma disaster and/or the Iraq war would throw off the count by only a few hours. The bigger issue is that the entire count is just a gross estimate.

Besides, whats the fear? Its not like this planet cannot support double that if not more.

Some estimates say that will happen. Then what? What if everyone in the world manages to raise their standard of living to US levels? Then you'd need to find resources at 5X or more the rate we're currently using. Have you checked commodity prices lately?

Hell on my recent 1600 mile trip to and from Ohio I can tell you this, this country is empty in many spots and I am sure it is in others.

The problem is water, without which all that space will stay just as empty as it is now. We're already mining it out of aquifers that are drying up, and we're diverting so much from surface sources that it's causing problems downstream.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[plague3106]

Those empty spots in Ohio are called "farms." That's where we grow our food. If we reduce the empty space, we reduce the amount of food we can grow. Also, there's a big empty space a bit to the west where we can't grow food and is a bit lacking in water. It would be difficult to live there.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[Knuckles]

Yes, IF we want to live like that.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[Scrameustache]

Besides, whats the fear? Its not like this planet cannot support double that if not more. Do people realize just how much arable land is not in use? None. All land is used by the organisms forming its ecosystem. If we double the number of humans, we must destroy their habitat and convert it to our needs, and through that we destroy entire species, simply to spread as much as possible.

Hell on my recent 1600 mile trip to and from Ohio I can tell you this, this country is empty in many spots and I am sure it is in others. Hell I know there are substantial areas of Europe that are essentially empty. Yeah there are villages and towns nearby but its not like we even try to exploit the lands we have. It is not empty. It is full of NATURE.
Unexploited doesn't mean nonexistant.

One thing I have learned in my short time on this planet. Every doomsayer's predictions of over population and food shortages comes to nothing. We always shift how things are done and accommodate it. If we didn't we would not be here today. What you haven't learned yet is that if the predictions are heeded and countermeasures are taken, tragedies are averted.
The doomsayers had been saying for years that if a cat 4 or more hurricane were to hit New Orleans... but nothing was done.
The doomsayers had been saying for years that if Haitians kept clearcutting the hills for fire wood... and their warnings fell on deaf ears.

If you weren't so ignorant, you'd know about all the tragedies that were foretold, and all the ones that were averted.

but its not like we even try to exploit the lands we have. Look at Africa! How much of that is still like America of a hundred if not two hundred years ago?
[...] We actually do very well in this day and age from allowing nature to takes its course. Hypocrite.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[Arccot]

Besides, whats the fear? Its not like this planet cannot support double that if not more.

Some estimates say that will happen. Then what? What if everyone in the world manages to raise their standard of living to US levels? Then you'd need to find resources at 5X or more the rate we're currently using. Have you checked commodity prices lately?

That's what I'm afraid of. There simply isn't enough resources for everyone in the world to live like a middle class family in the US, and production isn't increasing as fast as population growth or standard of living.

Something has to give, and it's going to be within 25 years. The standard of living is going to start coming down in the US and other highly developed countries, due to demand for resources worldwide.

Sort of some miraculous deus ex machina technology is needed ASAP. Or we'll end up in a world war over resources.

Re:Having seen Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico ..

[MadUndergrad]

Having land to stand on isn't the problem. The problem is resources. People need food, water, fuel, electricity, building materials, plastic and metal for their toys, etc. Water especially is a big issue. We're living on borrowed time and resources right now.

From wikipedia: "The Ogallala Aquifer is being depleted at a rate of 12 billion cubic meters (420 billion ft3) per year, amounting to a total depletion to date of a volume equal to the annual flow of 18 Colorado Rivers. Some estimates say it will dry up in as little as 25 years. Many farmers in the Texas High Plains, which rely particularly on the underground source, are now turning away from irrigated agriculture as they become aware of the hazards of overpumping."

Once the Ogallala is depleted, we're going to be facing another dust bowl. We're going to be increasingly relying on desalination in the future for our fresh water, and that's quite energy intensive. This drives our energy usage up even more. Once our fossil fuels run low, where do we get the energy? We're going to have to seriously expand nuclear and renewables to cope. Empty desert doesn't do much to solve these problems.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[ArcherB]

Where are the bees? The bees were being killed off by a natural fungus or a parasite, also 100% natural.

Unfortunately I'm not surprised that you are so quick to blame man. You are no different than so many creationists who think that whenever we don't know the cause of something, it must be God's work. Instead of blaming/crediting God, you attribute everything to man when no other reason is known. Sometimes, even when the answer IS known, man is STILL blamed ("Man Made" Global Warming causing tsunamis is a good example. Hell Global Warming itself is a good example!).

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[Kokuyo]

Well, technically, I'm an omnivore, but it is a close call...

Re:Distortion of God's identity

[compro01]

That's your opinion and I'm fine with you having that opinion, so long as you don't attempt to legislatively force that opinion upon the rest of us.

Zero Growth Rate

[dreamchaser]

If everyone raised their standard of living to about what the US and most of Europe enjoys then population growth would slow dramtically. Most developed nations are either losing population slowly (barring immigration) or just maintaining steady levels.

The better the standard of living, the fewer babies people have. Google around and you'll see plenty of studies to that effect and plenty of theories why that is.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[nizo]

Well lets see, bees have been around for 100 million years; fossil evidence for honeybees indicate they were around 35 million years ago. And yet now they are disappearing in large numbers. Read this for a quite plausible guess at the cause.

Re:An update

[fireboy1919]

Two people go into the building at the other side of the street.

A few minutes pass.

3 people come back out.

First the biologist notices this. And he promptly declares that they reproduced.

The engineer, a bit more at his senses, states that obviously there simply was an error in the original measurement of people entering the building

But, the mathematician realizes the obvious truth, and announces "You're both wrong. If now one more person enters the building, there will be no-one left inside"

Fixed it. Who told you this joke in it's less funny fashion?

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cows don't eat crop. They eat grass.

In the US, most cattle are fed corn and soy.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[Threni]

> The one child per family rule in China has caused many problems

Does it cause more problems than having 12 children per family?

Water Resources

[mlund]

Having land to stand on isn't the problem. The problem is resources. People need food, water, fuel, electricity, building materials, plastic and metal for their toys, etc. Water especially is a big issue. We're living on borrowed time and resources right now. To be fair, New York, Los Angeles, and Boston have been "living on borrowed time" in terms of resources for centuries now. Our oldest, largest settlements were built as ports - none of their surrounding areas can feed their population.

We're going to be increasingly relying on desalination in the future for our fresh water, and that's quite energy intensive. This drives our energy usage up even more. You know, nature has been engaging in desalinization for a long, long time in the water cycle. We're running a water surplus in the U.S.A., but we don't pay much attention to the distribution methods. Heck, we let our water reserves evaporate regularly. Storage and distribution will finally get some attention when demand makes it cost effective to build new conservation methods. Right now there just isn't any profit to be had moving constant water surpluses from the Midwest out to places like Arizona. Yet I still down the street from at least 4 farms here in a City District of Phoenix, AZ.

Once our fossil fuels run low, where do we get the energy? We're going to have to seriously expand nuclear and renewables to cope. I agree completely there. Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Fuel Recycling should have been implemented years and years ago. We've got some great prospects out here in Arizona and Nevada and New Mexico to provide enough electricity to provide more than enough energy to power the whole country. We just can't build squat because of legislation passed under the old "Nuclear Fission the Enemy of the Earth!" mantra of Green Peace types.

Empty desert doesn't do much to solve these problems. No land or resource solves problems on its own. If people were allowed to turn that empty desert into solar and nuclear energy plants, however, we'd be much better off than we are now.

Re:Do not worry...

[Quiet_Desperation]

.many people will die soon as the energy crisis hits. Well, thank *you*, Little Miss Sunshine.

The future does not bode well for us. Oh, cheer up. It's nearly Christmas.

What? It's not. Oh. Cheer up anyway. Grand Theft Auto 4 is out, and it is neat.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[RightSaidFred99]

I call bullshit. People always look at history and say "well, we're always coming up with something new I'm sure we'll be OK". We aren't. Think "dark ages".

There is absolutely no rational reason to think history will repeat itself. There is just as much (actually, much much more) logic to saying that current population growth is unsustainable and there will be a worldwide catastrophe. The simple truth is that poor people breed like rats, and they're going to drag down the rest of the world. Your assumption that we'll just be fine based on some pollyanna view of humanit's history is baseless.

You're basing your view of the future on what happened in the past, which begs the question. There has never been a time in the past when we've had this large a population and this fast a population growth. So your argument is based on the faulty assumption that point A (now) is the same as point B (sometime in the past) and hence point C (sometime in the future) will be something like point D (sometime in our past, and point B's future).

To put it bluntly - we're fucked.

Please keep your RELIGION to yourself!

[rubypossum]

None. All land is used by the organisms forming its ecosystem. If we double the number of humans, we must destroy their habitat and convert it to our needs, and through that we destroy entire species, simply to spread as much as possible. Right! We live, they die, get over it. Maybe we might have a use for some of them but otherwise it's evolution baby.

It is not empty. It is full of NATURE.
Unexploited doesn't mean nonexistant. You know what? You are full of NATURE! You are, in fact, surrounded by nature! You are typing on nature in order to send electrons down the spine of a copper and glass part of nature. You are nature! Behold the eternal Dao!

What you haven't learned yet is that if the predictions are heeded and countermeasures are taken, tragedies are averted.
The doomsayers had been saying for years that if a cat 4 or more hurricane were to hit New Orleans... but nothing was done.
The doomsayers had been saying for years that if Haitians kept clearcutting the hills for fire wood... and their warnings fell on deaf ears. So you personally predicted Katrina and the deforestation of Haiti? Damn. Good call. I wonder why they didn't listen to you? It's unfortunate but jackasses have tried to command their fellow men by making up stories about coming apocalypse for years. Follow the gourd! It's the end of the world!! You happen to have bought into one or several of these eschatologist's dystopian myths.

If you weren't so ignorant, you'd know about all the tragedies that were foretold, and all the ones that were averted. If you weren't so ignorant, you'd know about all the prophecies that were foretold, and all the ones that were averted.

Hypocrite. On the contrary, you are the hypocrite. You are claiming that mankind is not natural. On the contrary, this is a universe that peoples. Mankind is an animal! We are not separate from nature. We ARE nature!

And I personally think we humans will leave this rock before overpopulation is an issue. But who the fuck are you to tell other human beings how many children they can or cannot have. Particularly based on your religious beliefs.

What you're suggesting is that some "visionary" humans should be able to use guns to prevent other humans from reproducing - to avoid an imagined apocalypse.

Thanks, but keep your religious beliefs to yourself.

Re:Please keep your RELIGION to yourself!

[YttriumOxide]

1. We are nature, not seperate from it.

Correct, but irrelevant. In nature, a species often dies when it doesn't "play nice" with the rest of the environment. We are definitely a part of the natural universe, but that doesn't mean we're preferred in it.

Call me humano-centric, but I prefer to survive.

2. There have been many people who forecast apocalypse and were wrong. In fact, ALL of them. This does not preclude an apolalypse, it only shows that prophets have a burden of proof they must live up to before we take their predictions seriously.

Somewhat correct. There have been many "earth ending prophecies", and none of them have come true. There have also been forecasts of less global catastrophes and some of them have been wrong, while some of them have been right. You pretty much ignored a poster who pointed a couple of these out because he didn't "prophecise" them himself. I didn't either, but some people did, and they were right!

Also, the "burden of proof", I believe has been more than met for the subjects of climate change and overpopulation. Both of these are serious issues that need to be ACTIVELY dealt with if we want to survive with a reasonable way of life. If a very large number of people die, I fully expect that humanity will indeed keep going, but that's NOT a world I want to live in if it can be avoided! (if it can't be avoided, I certainly won't commit suicide given that I'm one of the lucky few survivors, but I still won't be happy about it)

3. We have NO idea what the world or humanity will be like in 20 years. Let alone a few hundred! Yes, it's true that we can guess at the rate of population growth. Unfortunately, we have no idea what those guesses mean. Will a super-virus arise next year which happens to kill 6,666,600,000 of us? Good thing we had backups!

We have backups? Sorry?

You're right that we can't accurately foretell the future, but we can make reasonable assumptions and can base things on these assumptions. It's possible that a major event of some kind will render our predictions worthless, but what if a major event does NOT happen? In those cases, our predictions are fairly likely to have a reasonable degree of accuracy.

4. The people who make these claims implicity assume that they are the ones who are qualified to fix the crisis. This "prophet syndrome" is an unfortunately contageous disease lately. Case in point, the original post where the poster implicity takes credit for prophesying the devestation from Katrina. Did this person actually do so? Not likely. Although they're happy to take credit and use it to bolster their argument. And nobody ever bothers to say anything.

NOT TRUE. I make these claims and I KNOW I am not qualified to fix them alone. However, we, as a species, need to do something - and I will add my voice to those who agree to try and push the people that CAN do something about it to actually do so. For "lesser things", I will also do my part by not excessively breeding, using less petrol where I can and so on.

5. Let us say that in 30 years we all use 1/100th of our current calorie intake because we are hooked into computer networks, similar to The Matrix. Nobody leaves the rock at all, in fact, we wander pristine mountain meadows as the only being alive in the world! If we want to. I don't say this will be true, only that it is one solution to the problem. The point is, we have no idea. And tyrants who wish to rule on the basis of half-assed prophecies are totally full of it.

Yes, the "Matrix Solution" may be one solution... but see my point above about "world changing events" - what if we DON'T get the technology for a "Matrix Solution", or any other great tech to save us all... nor does any natural disaster happen to kill a significant number of us? What then? We must plan for this, as it is both the most likely scenario, and also the only one we can effectively plan for. If we're wrong, fine, we're wrong. But if we're right, it saves our species.

Have a little perspective, please!

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[geekboy642]

Medium well? ...philistine. Go to a good steak house(i.e., not Ruth's Chris or anything similar), get either a Kobe steak or some well-aged American knock-off, order it medium rare with a good wine, and get nothing else. That's Heaven in the form of food.

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cows don't eat crop. They eat grass. That's the stuff we usually don't eat. That's the stuff that grows even where wheat doesn't. Dude, you are delusional if you think this is the case. I'm not going to do your research for you, but I can assure that *huge* portions of our cropland go toward feeding cattle. Ever hear of "corn-fed Iowa beef"? The vast majority of cows in the US eat corn, because there simply isn't enough grassland to feed all the cows we need for our beef consumption.

Also, FYI, both corn and wheat are grasses.

Considering that I can go one day on one good steak with a filling side dish, while I get hungry in mere hours from the side dish alone. Excellent point. I've also noticed that if I have two plates of food in front of me, and I only eat one of them, I get hungrier sooner. [rolls eyes]

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[YttriumOxide]

On my last business trip to the US, I ordered a steak "medium rare". What I got was barely even pink in the middle. So, the next steak I ordered (at a different place) was "rare" and came to me cooked in a way that the rest of the world would call "medium rare" (i.e. How I like it).
Based on this, I get the feeling that "medium" is actually leaning towards the "well done" side of things from a non-US perspective.

Alarmist reporting

[lewko]

This shows how the population of the world has increased at an alarming rate in recent times.

People are having kids. Exactly why is this "alarming"?

Re:How do they know? What about Burma?

[mowa]

"The simple truth is that poor people breed like rats, and they're going to drag down the rest of the world." An even simpler truth is that the average "westerner" consumes an order of magnitude more food (meat diet) and resources (disposable consumer lifestyle) than a whole family or small village from a third world country. source

We are the ones doing the dragging.

Re:Do not worry...

[Dr_Barnowl]

I think the comment about "free" was linked to the fact that we didn't do the work to capture the energy ; the consensus theory is that an enormous number of deceased organisms did the work for us.

Yes, there is a cost associated with extraction and refinement, but the energy balance is overwhelmingly positive with fossil fuel. For each unit of energy you spend, you get at least 6 back (historically this has been higher).

Compare this to one of the worst biofuel cases, corn ethanol, which yields 1.3 units of energy for every unit you spend making it.

So that's +500% vs +30% - the fossil oil is 16 times more profitable.

Fossil fuels are an enormous free-ride - Because the ancient ecosystem did all the work of absorbing the solar energy and carbon, we are essentially mooching off the efforts of past epochs of lifeforms.

Alternative forms of energy gathering are expensive because you have to pay for them to be built now and the energy profit comes in the future. Fossil fuels are cheap because all the energy gathering is already done.

The problem with that high profit ratio is that it won't last. It used to be 1 to 30 ; it's dropping like a stone. When you see an announcement that a "new oil reserve" has come on line these days it's often not that a new oil discovery has been made - it's just that the price of oil has gone up so much that reserves that were previously uneconomical to extract are now viable.