Could be nature is going to make urban ideological humans obsolete, the planet is incapable of sustaining a human population over 100 million or more for the foreseeable future. Especially such destructive, uncaring for the future humans.

So you are saying that the planet is incapable of sustaining a human population that is LESS that that in the time of the ancient Greeks 3000 years ago?

So you are saying that the entire planet is incapable of supporting the human population of just four states (CA, TX, FL, NY)?

So you are saying that the entire planet is incapable of supporting the human population of just the Philippines?

 

So you are saying that the planet is incapable of sustaining a human population that is LESS that that in the time of the ancient Greeks 3000 years ago?

So you are saying that the entire planet is incapable of supporting the human population of just four states (CA, TX, FL, NY)?

So you are saying that the entire planet is incapable of supporting the human population of just the Philippines?

There were not 7 billion people on the planet 3000 years ago, more like 10 million and there wasn't 384 thousand humans born every day and growing, as is the case now, more like a few hundred.

I'm not saying anything, just going by the declared science, which states we need more than 2 extra earth size planets for food production to sustain our current population. It's very easy to see this reality if you can open your eyes beyond the denialist programming most seem enslaved to.

This reality is not something that can be seen, until it is way to late and that will be when there are no fish left to catch, no bees or insects to pollinate food crops and denuded lands incapable of growing anything because of chemically saturated land and environmental destruction.

 

stormbay....Surely you can't be serious.

 

There were not 7 billion people on the planet 3000 years ago, more like 10 million and there wasn't 384 thousand humans born every day and growing, as is the case now, more like a few hundred.

I'm not saying anything, just going by the declared science, which states we need more than 2 extra earth size planets for food production to sustain our current population. It's very easy to see this reality if you can open your eyes beyond the denialist programming most seem enslaved to.

This reality is not something that can be seen, until it is way to late and that will be when there are no fish left to catch, no bees or insects to pollinate food crops and denuded lands incapable of growing anything because of chemically saturated land and environmental destruction.

No, 3000 years ago there were about 100 million people on the planet, which is what YOU are claiming is the maximum number of humans that the planet can sustain.

It is YOU that are claiming that it takes the resources of the entire planet in order to sustain just the people that are presently living in the Philippines.

Do you comprehend that the very term "declared science" is an oxymoron?

 

Sustaining a population doesn't mean for one or ten years, but hundreds of years. Denial of reality is the hallmark of an ideologue, they have no concept of anything but now and them, so I have no interest in discussing a situation which is denied by all ideological clones.

The science is there to be discovered, as is the viewable reality of our existence. Trying to explain reality to delusionists, is futile and a waste of time. You only have to do the maths on current food and resource consumption, available long term sustainable food resources, lands capable of producing food and the growing desertification of once fertile lands. That doesn't include poisonous depleting fossil fuels, waste, chemical build-up in seas, rivers and land. They are the major factors in this scenario, but there are hundreds of underlying factors also contributing to this awakening reality.

You can't take millions of tonnes of sea life out of the oceans every day and expect it to last for ever, that's another deluded fantasy ideologues are avoiding, the dying out of our sea life by over fishing and pollution.

 

You aren't being consistent. Now you are saying that you consider a population sustainable if it can survive for hundreds of years (I would have said "indefinitely", but let's use your metric). You are saying that the limit on a sustainable human population is 100 million. Yet the world population past that point 3000 years ago and past 500 million more than half a millennia ago.

And don't delude yourself into thinking that the approach you are taking is sustainable. If the world population is limited to 100 million (again, for reference that's the population of the Philippines today), then no one is going to be making anything high tech, like your batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, or generators. Not to mention the majority of the tools that you rely on. There simply isn't going to be the excess labor needed to support such endeavors, which require high levels of specialization at many levels and consequently require a large population in order for the marginal productivity to supply the basic needs for the specialists.

 

Ha, ha,....and you all thought I was a pain.

I think we're getting stumped.

 

You aren't being consistent. Now you are saying that you consider a population sustainable if it can survive for hundreds of years (I would have said "indefinitely", but let's use your metric). You are saying that the limit on a sustainable human population is 100 million. Yet the world population past that point 3000 years ago and past 500 million more than half a millennia ago.

And don't delude yourself into thinking that the approach you are taking is sustainable. If the world population is limited to 100 million (again, for reference that's the population of the Philippines today), then no one is going to be making anything high tech, like your batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, or generators. Not to mention the majority of the tools that you rely on. There simply isn't going to be the excess labor needed to support such endeavors, which require high levels of specialization at many levels and consequently require a large population in order for the marginal productivity to supply the basic needs for the specialists.

I used hundred of years as a number, but indefinitely is what it should be and our overpopulated planet can't sustain life under the present approach for more than a couple more years.

The fallacy of the need for large populations to go forward technologically, is ridiculous and not borne out by the facts. It's the same as the populate or perish idiocy, or the belief in god/s, all deceptive fallacies to prevent the people from knowing the truth and acting upon it

Ever heard of technology, 3d printing, robotics. Labour intensive jobs are disappearing and robotics is taking over production and development. So it's logical and rational to envisage a small population, which is highly technical and long living. A small population doesn't need large amounts of infrastructure, or services. Nor does it need large prisons and defence forces, or the greedy rich, all it needs is sensible responsible people working towards a sustainable and viable future.

 

I used hundred of years as a number, but indefinitely is what it should be and our overpopulated planet can't sustain life under the present approach for more than a couple more years.

The fallacy of the need for large populations to go forward technologically, is ridiculous and not borne out by the facts. It's the same as the populate or perish idiocy, or the belief in god/s, all deceptive fallacies to prevent the people from knowing the truth and acting upon it

Ever heard of technology, 3d printing, robotics. Labour intensive jobs are disappearing and robotics is taking over production and development. So it's logical and rational to envisage a small population, which is highly technical and long living. A small population doesn't need large amounts of infrastructure, or services. Nor does it need large prisons and defence forces, or the greedy rich, all it needs is sensible responsible people working towards a sustainable and viable future.

So now our planet can't sustain life for even a couple more years?

It would seem that the only solution, according to your "declared science", has to involve the mass slaughter of literally 99% of the human population over the next couple years in order to save the planet.

The big fallacy is that it is possible to have a population consisting of nothing but sensible responsible people all working together for the shared utopian dream.

And where are the robots and such going to come from? Where is the wire for their internals going to come from? Where are the semiconductors going to come from? Where are the insulation materials for the wires going to come from? Where are the feedstock materials for the plastics going to come from?

 

So now our planet can't sustain life for even a couple more years?

It would seem that the only solution, according to your "declared science", has to involve the mass slaughter of literally 99% of the human population over the next couple years in order to save the planet.

The big fallacy is that it is possible to have a population consisting of nothing but sensible responsible people all working together for the shared utopian dream.

And where are the robots and such going to come from? Where is the wire for their internals going to come from? Where are the semiconductors going to come from? Where are the insulation materials for the wires going to come from? Where are the feedstock materials for the plastics going to come from?

You need to be rational and not make wild and weird interpretations of posts. The demise of ideological humanity will take at least a decade, as people fight over resources and extremely limited food supplies. Plus they have to use up their weapons supporting their delusions, which will increase human deaths.

The next couple of years will be when it will becomes known to all that we have reached the limit of the planet ability to sustain us and our destructive ways. That will be when the worlds ocean food chain collapses and there is no sea foods to feed the masses. Then the lands ecological food chain will collapse under the growing abuse and chaotic attrition will take over.

There is enough reusable resources and technology to be able to sustain technological growth, our own small island of 500000 people is capable of doing that very easily and so is every other sensible human, if they have the evolutionary understanding of our situation. Then of course when all the ideological humans have gone, there will be large amounts of technological equipment and machinery which can be used or recycled. Survivors will be those capable of fending for themselves and being prepared, which will leave out the vast majority of urban dwellers, who completely rely upon the system for their survival.

 

Regarding Stormbay's last comment, California is a prime example of how the real estate and construction industry has promoted endless population growth and development and created a socio-economic and environmental monster.

Most of California is experiencing a drought and a water shortage. However even with normal rainfall, the shortage may become permanent as population continues to grow. The larger urban areas are experiencing even worse problems like traffic congestion and air pollution. San Francisco used to have clear air, but it is now experiencing more smoggy days like L.A. We're also having problems with solid waste disposal and household garbage is being shipped to a landfill 100 miles north of the city. The Construction and demolition industry is the biggest source of solid waste, but never the less, the business and government's policy is to just keep building more and more high rises. The amount of building in this city is "indulgent" and not based on responsible environmental or economic practice.

The solution is for the government to stop financing the real estate and construction industry and let market forces determine the real course for development. The government should also stop providing subsidies and tax breaks to businesses that are not viable in the private sector alone. In San Francisco alone, there are 100s of non-viable businesses getting government money and this has warped the socio-economic process.

Finally, the ultimate solution is for government to eliminate deductions for having more than one child. Parents need to take more responsibility for the actual cost of reproduction and the later effects of population growth. However, this runs counter to the agenda of the multinational business community and the runaway freight train continues down the track toward disaster.

More on this subject later.

 

You need to be rational and not make wild and weird interpretations of posts.

Wild and weird interpretations? They are YOUR numbers!

I guess part of adhering to a "declared science" is that you get to just make up numbers at random and people aren't allowed to challenge them -- after all, you've declared your "facts" and that's all there is to it.

 

We are all DOOMED , DOOMED, I say!

 

Has Thomas Malthus come back to life?

 

forehead

meet brickwall.

 

The concept of "Carrying Capacity Of The Planet" is rather obscure because people and animals can adapt to changes including environmental degradation.

For animals, adaption often means a decrease in the quantity and hardiness of the species and for humans, a decrease in the standard of living and mortality. Metro Manila in the Philippines is a prime example of human overpopulation mal-adaption. The effect of excess population growth has lead to a serious decrease in the standard of living and also a decrease in the mortality of many inhabitants of that city. This is an example of how human impact on the environment can create negative feedback that moderates and tends to limit population growth. However this is a form of "destructive moderation" rather than the orderly moderation seen in the developed countries.

As for the future of the human species, the only thing that would result in near extinction would be a mega-disaster like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. One reason the dinosaurs went extinct was because they were such huge consumers of natural resources which were obliterated by the disaster. Unfortunately, most people require such a huge demand for resources (mainly oil and gas for their cars) that they could not survive a prolonged and severe disruption in resources. Furthermore, most of the population live in large cities that consume resources rather than create them so people cannot fend for themselves if the outside supply is cut off.

In addition to the prospects of having an extraordinary natural disaster, a nuclear war might be the ultimate fate of the human species and the principle of destructive moderation would quickly take effect.

 

As for the future of the human species, the only thing that would result in near extinction would be a mega-disaster like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.

It could be far more mundane than that. A flu epidemic of a strain as virulent as the 1918 flu would be far more devastating today because of the subsequent urbanization of our population. Losing 75% or more of the population is not far fetched at all. Our medical institutions have advanced, but they'd be utterly overwhelmed very quickly.

 

It could be far more mundane than that. A flu epidemic of a strain as virulent as the 1918 flu would be far more devastating today because of the subsequent urbanization of our population. Losing 75% or more of the population is not far fetched at all. Our medical institutions have advanced, but they'd be utterly overwhelmed very quickly.

This is why mass urbanization is paving the way for the downfall for a large part of the human civilization.

Urban dwellers are sitting ducks for anything (not just diseases) that could cause an overload and disruption of the infrastructure. The 9-11 attacks on Manhattan are a prime example of how a mega-disaster could cripple a huge city. Gas and water supplies to Manhattan was shut off for days after the attack, however the area is mostly a business center with a minority of residents living in high rises so there was no threat to their survival.

However if a large city with a very high population density (like Tokyo or Hong Kong) got hit with a 9-11 style attack, there would be 1000s of deaths due to lack of food, water, and sanitation. Continued population growth and mass urbanization is a recipe for some kind of Darwinism.

 

So, does the zombie apocalypse happen before or after the initial decimation of the human population?

I'm only asking 'cause I've been waiting to take out some zombies for the longest time -- and everyone's always wonderin' why I walk around with this hatchet. The joke'll be on them, meh....

 

Interesting coincidence about this post, there is now a minor epidemic of measles in visitors to Disneyland in Southern California and it has now spread to the San Francisco area.

The proximate cause of the outbreak seems to be foreigners visiting the U.S. from some undeveloped country where there are still a plethora of diseases. The is a prime example why the idea of "Countries without boarders" and unregulated immigration is a complete lunacy.