This topic contains 6 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by 
Crow Bar 1 year, 9 months ago.
-
Posts
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-13/demographic-doom-number-children-household-collapsing
IIRC it is 2.2(ish) to maintain a population.
-
Well, I have done my duty in staving off the decline! *laugh*
-
@James,
LOL!But I guess I am not doing my duty; one was enough for me.
I can vaguely remember Eight Is Enough on tv. -
The world is overpopulated anyway .
-
By how much? How much population do you think the world can handle?
-
-
James posits the following …….
“By how much? How much population do you think the world can handle?”
I contend that it isn’t simply a question of numbers, as people are not beans to be counted and placed into sacks. People are astoundingly complex creatures, and simple answers are usually lacking in predicting their behavior, or their survivability.
How many people can the world handle? what kind of people, what quality (PC offense in progress)? Even a small population that is morally bankrupt, irresponsible, existing at a low level of moral development, ignorant, will have a low probability of survival, even in the midst of an Eden. They will waste resources, pollute most everything, fight within the group over petty things, and be ill prepared to defend themselves against outside groups who do a better job of keeping it together, and natural disasters. This can be observed in the world today, if one can take off the PC blinders.
On the other hand, a population that is the converse of the aforementioned, will have a much higher probability of survival within the closed ecosystem that is the earth we live on.
As the population increases, so to does the competition for all available resources. Taken more in depth, the competition increases for perceived needed resources, actually desires masquerading as needs. Foe example, desirable places to live. In some places the living is easy, pleasant, and in others it is posible to live, but it is unpleasant, harsh, and so the people living in the lessor habitats, in their perception, will compete against others for the preferable places to live. This has pragmatic reasoning driving it also, child mortality is less in certain environments, resources are more easily available in certain environments, etc.
Wars are fought over preferable habitat.
The current immigration/invasion by people from third world countries is driven in large part by the desire to live in a land of relative plenty as opposed to some crap hole where the life expectancy is abysmal. I cannot fault these people’s desires to do this, but it does engender certain serious problems of economics, politics, and culture.
So, take a realistic look at the populations of the western world, the entire world for that matter, and contemplate what the competition is going to be like in the future with ever greater population density within the context of finite resources. What form of governance is going to evolve to maintain necessary control over such numbers? What will the overall quality of life be like, and how will this effect social stability with the inevitable wealth disparity that always grows in any culture?
It’s not just numbers, it’s people, with all their faults and virtues …….. read history, among many other things. The answers are always right there, everything we need to know to quit killing each other, if we can only part the fog of delusional thinking long enough to see.
-
With the over use and abuse of antibiotics, eventually there will come a super bug that will maul the population.
Of course there is the reporting of various numbers if there was a grid down situation here in the US (EMP, CME, cyber-attack) anywhere from 70-90% of the US population would be dead in a year.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.