Slashdot Mirror
Earth Officially Home To 7 Billion Humans
New submitter arcite writes "It's official: planet Earth is now home to over seven billion ugly-bags-of-mostly-water (otherwise known as humans). We're adding ten thousand new humans every hour, or one billion every nine years. Head over to 7 Billion Actions (put together by the UN with the help of SAP) and check out the population map data. Short of adopting a strict diet of Soylent Green, what viable solutions will enable us to survive on this increasingly crowded pale blue dot? What will the role of technology be in supporting this many people?"
It feels like just yesterday we crossed the 6-Billion mark. I remember when I was younger (about 30 years ago) there being 4-billion. The number isn't just increasing, but the rate of acceleration itself is picking up in a scary way. You think of these things as being long-term, but when you can see it happening over the course of your own lifetime...
This is only one solution to population control that is 100% successful -- affluence. Only poor people can afford to have kids. Rich people don't need them.
At 10,000 per hour and growing there is only 1 kind of war that will have any meaningful effect. We dont have enough bullets.
"His name was James Damore."
Obviously the solution is to transition away from the current paradigm, where every person has their own physical hardware. We must move to a new architecture, where a single body can concurrently run numerous minds, greatly increasing overall efficiency and reducing waste.
I would come up with a clever acronym, but schizophrenia has way too many letters.
Maybe I'm a bad, horrible, terrible person, but I hope that you'll get it first.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
This is a notice to inform you that your geek card has been revoked. Here is your missing reference. Please study this carefully before you reapply for your card.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Thats 167 rounds per minute, which isn't really that fast of a cyclic rate for a modern automatic weapon.
The trick is getting them to stand still while you reload.
Progressive people: It will balance itself!
Conservative people: It will balance itself.
Human population is projected to peak at 10 billion.
The UN estimates of world population now indicate an increase until around 2075 (9.2 billion), and then a decrease after that.
Birth rates in all developed nations are falling fast, many are under replacement rate already. The US population would be lower than the replacement rate right now if it weren't for immigration.
The problem with Malthus is not the math, it's the model. Anyone can pick assumptions and make a model, and from there make predictions. Mathus erred in assuming that things would not change. An exponential curve is indistinguishable from a bell curve at the long tail beginning, so the evidence seemed to support his prediction.
What's changing is the demographics. Once raised out of poverty, people naturally start having fewer children. There are a variety of proposed reasons for this, and the evidence is very strong.
The prediction now is that once everyone is reasonably above the poverty line (mostly Africa, with some contribution from SE Asia) population growth will reverse.
Interestingly enough, in 75 years time there may be the reverse problem - population *shrinkage*.
This is not a problem. We can all relax about this particular issue, and focus on solving the other issues, on some of which population is dependent.
Eventually we're going to end up a lot like Japan. Japan is a small place with a lot of people. Over time, we'll have small places in which to live, with fewer, more general purpose devices in the home that consume small amounts of energy. We'll eat smaller meals. In general, we'll make do with less because there's a finite supply of resources and a lot more people gobbling them all up.
We have quite a bit of time before that happens in the USA or Russia or China - those places have a LOT of vacant land - but we'll get there eventually.
We'll likely have to rely on growing "super foods" that are very dense with calories and nutrients. Lots of renewable energy sources. I'm betting Solar and Bio will be the big ones, with Biofuels being one of several solutions to the massive amount of human waste (poop). It is possible that more and more countries will start to enact incentives regarding breeding - either something very strict (you can have 1 or 2 kids, then you're sterilized) to something more flexible (you can have 2 kids, but any more and you lose certain benefits).
While food and energy are a concern, so are economies. With technology allowing people to do so much with so few people, what kind of work will people be able to find? Society needs only so many farmers, factory workers, etc., and with technology replacing hundreds and thousands of people... Where will we find work? What to do when a population is so incredibly productive that, say, only 30% of the population is needed to produce and service everyone?
Or, of course, with resources being strained with so many people, eventually People A are going to look at People B and say, "Hm, you know what, we need that fresh water supply more than they do..."
Perhaps we'll solve our population problems on our own and we won't have to worry about extreme population support.
Love sees no species.
Disease and famine can kill far more efficiently than that. Instead of having to be active to cause people to die by going out, lining them up and shooting them, at some point people will die due to inactivity - not enough farming, not enough transportation, not enough construction of basic sanitation, etc. This is why developed nations must hold on to their infrastructure for dear life. Population in poor countries will boom and bust with disease cycles, but most of those diseases (cholera, for instance) really can't gain a toe-hold in a country with modern water treatment/waste processing.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1) Reduce the populations in India, Central America, China, Muslim countries, and Africa.
[citation needed]
Population density is really diverse in Central America. There are local foci of very high density (Mexico City, parts of Guatemala), but overall it is less populated than, say, Europe. Same goes for Muslim countries. The only clear case of overpopulation in an Arab country I can think of is Bangladesh, and even that case I am not sure it is worse than e.g. the Netherlands.
2) Reduce consumption. The only way to make this happen is to actually decrease production.
I disagree with the later statement. The 5% of the population that the US represents, consumes 25% of world resources, approximately. If that extra 20% isn't enough to solve this problem, I am sure it would contribute.
Nature makes excess with the expectation they will die off.
Pointing out this applies to humans because we are part of nature is Politically Incorrect As Fuck, but it's also accurate.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
We should all eat vegetarian diets. It doesn't make sense to grow subsidized corn and then use it to sustain an animal that -- given a year or two -- will become food for us. Of course, we'd simply end up with a glut of food in the first world, along with some very angry dairy farmers because getting the food to those who need it is another issue entirely.
In the earth's long biological history, my take is that whenever an organism stumbled upon a giant resource, the organism either exploited the resource or was soon replaced by one that could. Humans have done with oil what any other species on the planet would do if they managed to stick their long snout into an underground ocean of glucose.
Unlike most any other species, we've invested perhaps 10% of this windfall wisely: primarily in the form of information technology and reading the genetic code. The energy intensity of those technologies is constantly falling (the intensity of progressing those technologies is another story).
Also unprecedented in biological history: we're discussing the consequences of our giant slurp well before the consequence arrives in dire form (excepting the extirpation of megafauna biodiversity, which started long before we found oil, and has subsequently accelerated).
In fact, I'm pretty sure we're the first species on the planet to conduct a census to determine if our numbers were getting out of hand.
If god lobs another rock at the planet--like a late-popping popcorn kernel--I'm sure we'll give Deep Impact the old college try, notwithstanding that this would be our biggest intrusion on the cosmic plan ever and not lose too much sleep over the philosophical implications. Yet here we are doing what every successful species does (expand into the available niche) and wringing our hands as if our current circumstance is some grand exception to the history of life on earth.
Since the way of things seems to be cycles of boom and bust, if we succeed in pulling off the soft landing following our trillion barrel feast, we will all deserve a nice pat on the back for turning a trick not yet achieved by life on this planet. Many people seem to think the task at hand is to address a deviant transgression; I think the deviancy lies in our future efforts to mitigate the consequence of behaving exactly as mother nature made us. The biological tiller of fate has been swinging wildly for many billions of years. Only now do we propose grabbing onto it and taking the helm.
When we realize that we will be forced to make the politically incorrect the topic of central discussion, what will it do to our own perceptions of ourselves?
When seeing millions die elsewhere as we expend little effort to prevent it, knowing that is almost certainly to result in a threat to our safety of our own families, what will this motivate us to do?
It makes a person question our own effectiveness of our own humanity, for what it is worth.
One can only be left wondering, is my and humanities number up given by my relative unwillingness to help work with others to solve the larger problem?
Everytime I see this argument, I question the educational background of the person posing it.
That field of weeds and trees does have significant value exactly as it is. Contrary to many people's opinions on the matter, rampant destruction of biodiversity to develop farmland has a significant detrimental effect on the quality and viability of the total biosphere, human requirements included.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20091204/Habitat-destruction-and-biodiversity-loss-can-increase-the-incidence-of-infectious-diseases.aspx
This means that such so called "undeveloped areas" serve a fundemental and necessary function for society exactly as they are, other than mere asthetic and entertainment values. They are NOT "worthles unless exploited".
The lack of total biodiversity is one of the reasons why the biosphere 2 project failed so miserably. The idea of a giant citywide metropolis like those from science fiction is not sustainably realistic, and human carry capacity of the planet is not merely bounded by bulk storage and nutritional requirements. The earth's biosphere is a terribly complex thing, and treating it as though it weren't and without due caution invites very serious consequences.
Uneducated, under-developed/developing countries are getting harder and harder to find. Soon we'll have to put the starving in regular countries.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I see vast open space on my commute to work and every time I travel.
I've seen almost the same words on several post, how can so called "educated" people be so ignorant about where their food comes from? The empty space you see is called "farmland", there would be no city for you to commute to without it. Globally, we have run out of new farmland, food prices have sky-rocketed over the last decade causing food riots in many places, including Mexico which borders the US. The only thing that will stop this from becoming worse as our population grows is a new green revolution that does not depend on oil to create fertiliser.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I have a strong hope desalination will get vastly cheaper when the need manifests. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that. There's already a number of small scale concepts that can do it cheaply. I don't think we're too far away from being able to utilise the oceans as potable water, but it's just the little countries that need it right now so why bother? As soon as Vegas (or similar) starts to wilt, I'd expect funding in this area to gain some traction.
If medicine were ever perfected, we'd all be the same.
Can I please say from anyone with two shreds of compassion for their fellow humans...
Fuck.
You.
There are really only two options.
1) Reduce the populations in India, Central America, China, Muslim countries, and Africa.
Central America?? There are only 41 million people here (says Wikipedia). Each of your other examples is 1 billion or more.
Actually if the world got rid of more Americans, there would be room to pack even more in as non-Americans consume so much less than Americans.
Get off this rock.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
"There is a "well known" racial difference of malaria susceptibility vs sickle cell anemia"
There is a relationship between malaria and susceptibility to sickle cell anemia because having the sickle cell trait is beneficial in the presence of high concentrations of malarial mosquitoes. It is the condition, which is a heterozygous trait, is benefitcial to those in areas of high incidence of malaria. It results from by a single base pair difference leading to a single base amino acid substitution in a haemoglobin subunit and is associated with partial collapse of the erythrocyte wall giving the phenomenon its name. Unfortunately, for homozygotes the condition can be fatal.
However, the relationship is not racial, except in the sense that the frequency of the haplotype varies among people of different races that live in different areas where there is a high presence of malaria.
What you can do is the only thing that reliably lowers the birth rate: Educate women and girls.
In some places places like Japan and Australia, there are more deaths than births. Japan's population is shrinking. Australia's would be too were it not for immigration.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Miles and miles of land squandered for the sole purpose of growing food... for livestock. It's not very efficient for society, nor is it beneficial for the environment.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
that there aren't nearly enough of them to constrain the greed and gluttony of the average anti-environmental conservative.
You have probably been watching Fox News haven't you?
Yes, like in the US there is lots of open space. Its just that much of it is at high altitude or desert, with very little water to support life.
One can never ceased to be amazed by how little Biology the average slashdotter knows. They have no idea what would happen if they turned ever square inch of the planet into a factory or a farm. Humans would be extinct in short order from the consequences.
The problem is obesity.
I don't mean dietary obesity, but financial and resource obesity.
What do you call someone who consumes far more food than their body needs? A fat fuck.
What do you call someone who hoards far more resources than they need to take care of themselves for the foreseeable future? A success!
Why do people look at the Buffets, Gates and Forbes of the world differently than they do the massively overweight guy who's stuffing his face with the fourth Whopper of the day?
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Hans Rosling got some really interesting statistics on population growth ( http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html ) and a number of other issues related to this on TED ( http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html ). His basic message is that the world has turned a lot better and that the average child/woman already is decreased to sustainable levels in most countries that previously were poor and suffered from overpopulation. In fact, the division "developed" versus "developing" countries and the accompanying fear of overpopulation is a heritage from how it looked in the 70:s. Personally, I just marvel at the possibillities. Never before have as many people been able to realize their potential as today. If we assume that the birth of a great genious (an Einstein, Mozart...) is of a certain low probability, and that on top of that that this genious would be born under such circumstances that it would survive and have the means to realize its potential, we can assume that we actually have more of those in our current society than ever before. As a side note.... this is also why I find the whole religious "stuff that are old must be true" a very strange point of view - by virtue of better education and more accumulated experience (exteligence), I think that we are more qualified to design a moral system today than some bronze-age herders somewhere in the middle east.
AND they want to feed it to CARS.
look sig is kool