|
Post by AztecBill on Dec 3, 2013 13:52:31 GMT -8
"In my opinion, all previous advances in the various lines of invention will appear totally insignificant when compared with those which the present century will witness. I almost wish that I might live my life over again to see the wonders which are at the threshold" - Commissioner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Charles Holland Duell 1902. I believe we have plateaued - uwaztec 2013. The feeling that "we have plateaued" often accompanies the second terms of democrats. First of all, I hope I'm wrong. Just don't get the politics angle at all. I've worked with plenty of right wingers over the years who think the same thing. Many of us have come to this conclusion after many years of direct observations in the field, of rapid changes to the environment in a relatively short time, plus a high amount of world travel. There are plenty of Scientists who have said similar things such as: Carl Sagen and Stephen Hawking. On a larger scale, we are no different than many cultures and human populations that have disappeared in the past. If you want to talk politics, there is no shortage of "End Timers" on your side of the aisle. Nothing of the things you have seen is because of over population. The whole "population Bomb" thinking is so 70s. Reread the book and laugh at all the missed projections. It is a joke.
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Dec 3, 2013 15:59:49 GMT -8
First of all, I hope I'm wrong. Just don't get the politics angle at all. I've worked with plenty of right wingers over the years who think the same thing. Many of us have come to this conclusion after many years of direct observations in the field, of rapid changes to the environment in a relatively short time, plus a high amount of world travel. There are plenty of Scientists who have said similar things such as: Carl Sagen and Stephen Hawking. On a larger scale, we are no different than many cultures and human populations that have disappeared in the past. If you want to talk politics, there is no shortage of "End Timers" on your side of the aisle. Nothing of the things you have seen is because of over population. The whole "population Bomb" thinking is so 70s. Reread the book and laugh at all the missed projections. It is a joke. Bill, we will just have to disagree. My colleagues and I have seen major changes (undeniable) in the Oceans of the World that are directly related to population, pollution, fishing pressure etc. I also know a lot about terrestrial forms as well, who eats who, which animals and plants are supposed to be in a given area and which ones are not. I am not going to assume how much you get out or what you do for a living. Let's just say I would notice a lot more than the next guy when it comes to Man's effect on the Earth. If you want to discuss a specific geographical area or a topic such as corals, fisheries etc., that would be fine. I am a bit surprised that you would say "Nothing of the things you have seen is because of over population". Really? Going back a ways, you do know why the soils, over a large portion, of the "Fertile Crescent" were made unusable? There are thousands of examples, both modern and historic, of expanding human population having a negative effect on the environment. The issue is that there is exponentially more impact today than 60 years ago. Some of the most modern countries have adjusted the impact, however Third World (include India and China here)continues unabated.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Dec 3, 2013 16:10:02 GMT -8
Nothing of the things you have seen is because of over population. The whole "population Bomb" thinking is so 70s. Reread the book and laugh at all the missed projections. It is a joke. Bill, we will just have to disagree. My colleagues and I have seen major changes (undeniable) in the Oceans of the World that are directly related to population, pollution, fishing pressure etc. I also know a lot about terrestrial forms as well, who eats who, which animals and plants are supposed to be in a given area and which ones are not. I am not going to assume how much you get out or what you do for a living. Let's just say I would notice a lot more than the next guy when it comes to Man's effect on the Earth. If you want to discuss a specific geographical area or a topic such as corals, fisheries etc., that would be fine. I am a bit surprised that you would say "Nothing of the things you have seen is because of over population". Really? Going back a ways, you do know why the soils, over a large portion, of the "Fertile Crescent" were made unusable? There are thousands of examples, both modern and historic, of expanding human population having a negative effect on the environment. The issue is that there is exponentially more impact today than 60 years ago. Some of the most modern countries have adjusted the impact, however Third World (include India and China here)continues unabated. The US had major soil problems in the 30s and changed the way they did things. They didn't reduce population to fix it. In fact they produce far more now. The base cause is the way things are done. Population does not mandate that things are done the way they are. History is replete with predictions of maximum populations that were ludicous. We are not even close to what can be easily supported with better environmental effects. Everytime someone limits the future they are proved terribly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Dec 3, 2013 16:42:09 GMT -8
Bill, we will just have to disagree. My colleagues and I have seen major changes (undeniable) in the Oceans of the World that are directly related to population, pollution, fishing pressure etc. I also know a lot about terrestrial forms as well, who eats who, which animals and plants are supposed to be in a given area and which ones are not. I am not going to assume how much you get out or what you do for a living. Let's just say I would notice a lot more than the next guy when it comes to Man's effect on the Earth. If you want to discuss a specific geographical area or a topic such as corals, fisheries etc., that would be fine. I am a bit surprised that you would say "Nothing of the things you have seen is because of over population". Really? Going back a ways, you do know why the soils, over a large portion, of the "Fertile Crescent" were made unusable? There are thousands of examples, both modern and historic, of expanding human population having a negative effect on the environment. The issue is that there is exponentially more impact today than 60 years ago. Some of the most modern countries have adjusted the impact, however Third World (include India and China here)continues unabated. The US had major soil problems in the 30s and changed the way they did things. They didn't reduce population to fix it. In fact they produce far more now. The base cause is the way things are done. Population does not mandate that things are done the way they are. History is replete with predictions of maximum populations that were ludicous. We are not even close to what can be easily supported with better environmental effects. Everytime someone limits the future they are proved terribly wrong. Sure there are possibilities to curtail impacts, and that's been done in the modern era. A Global effort would require certain levels of cooperation and political stability that many think are not achievable. Read the current article in the New Yorker that takes a close look at China's struggles with pollution. You have to understand that I am in a field where I have seen animals and plants either greatly reduced, or disappear over large areas. I am sometimes put in the position to find filming situations in the wild that are no longer feasible. People who work in fields like mine cannot help but notice changes over time. I imagine that you would be someone who would not notice the same changes unless your water quality, food source or air quality was affected.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Dec 3, 2013 17:11:37 GMT -8
The US had major soil problems in the 30s and changed the way they did things. They didn't reduce population to fix it. In fact they produce far more now. The base cause is the way things are done. Population does not mandate that things are done the way they are. History is replete with predictions of maximum populations that were ludicous. We are not even close to what can be easily supported with better environmental effects. Everytime someone limits the future they are proved terribly wrong. Sure there are possibilities to curtail impacts, and that's been done in the modern era. A Global effort would require certain levels of cooperation and political stability that many think are not achievable. Read the current article in the New Yorker that takes a close look at China's struggles with pollution. You have to understand that I am in a field where I have seen animals and plants either greatly reduced, or disappear over large areas. I am sometimes put in the position to find filming situations in the wild that are no longer feasible. People who work in fields like mine cannot help but notice changes over time. I imagine that you would be someone who would not notice the same changes unless your water quality, food source or air quality was affected. I remember the Life Magazine cover with a gas mask. In the article they stated that by 1990 everyone living in a city would have to wear a gas mask. Go back further, in the 1890s, the horse / city problem was so huge that they called huge global meetings of experts and the conclusions were always the same - no possible solution. Their conclusions were that the horse problem was insurmountable. Populations had to decrease. The car came along and solved the greatest pollution problem this country has ever seen. Fixing the problems is much easier than you think.
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Dec 4, 2013 8:46:20 GMT -8
Sure there are possibilities to curtail impacts, and that's been done in the modern era. A Global effort would require certain levels of cooperation and political stability that many think are not achievable. Read the current article in the New Yorker that takes a close look at China's struggles with pollution. You have to understand that I am in a field where I have seen animals and plants either greatly reduced, or disappear over large areas. I am sometimes put in the position to find filming situations in the wild that are no longer feasible. People who work in fields like mine cannot help but notice changes over time. I imagine that you would be someone who would not notice the same changes unless your water quality, food source or air quality was affected. I remember the Life Magazine cover with a gas mask. In the article they stated that by 1990 everyone living in a city would have to wear a gas mask. Go back further, in the 1890s, the horse / city problem was so huge that they called huge global meetings of experts and the conclusions were always the same - no possible solution. Their conclusions were that the horse problem was insurmountable. Populations had to decrease. The car came along and solved the greatest pollution problem this country has ever seen. Fixing the problems is much easier than you think. Bill, I don't discount your opinion here. I agree with many of the elements you bring up. However, the World is much smaller than it was in the 1890's. In fact, it is exponentially smaller than it was 60 years ago. You may remember that littering was not made illegal here until the early 60's. Why was it made illegal? Because the "wide open spaces" became small enough, and the population got high enough, that it became a problem cumulatively. You may be right, however, I also believe you do not see, or choose to see, the entire picture on some of these debates regarding Human population, the environment and culture/society.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 18, 2014 22:16:55 GMT -8
Lots of interesting (and some not so interesting) replies in this thread, but global population either is or is not going to decrease in the coming years. Based on the evidence I have encountered, I am convinced that the population of the world will start to decline by the end of this century. That will bring lots of problems, but it will also alleviate other problems.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 21, 2014 10:08:32 GMT -8
The world has experienced 70 years of relative peace. This is the longest period in world history without a major conflict somewhere in the world. With the increase in population, it is only a matter of time before a major ground conflict begins. It will be over water.
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jan 21, 2014 16:00:27 GMT -8
The world has experienced 70 years of relative peace. This is the longest period in world history without a major conflict somewhere in the world. With the increase in population, it is only a matter of time before a major ground conflict begins. It will be over water. At this rate it will be NoCal versus SoCal....if they ever get any up there!
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 21, 2014 16:17:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jan 21, 2014 16:50:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Feb 2, 2014 8:14:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 6, 2014 15:11:41 GMT -8
The whole idea about demographics problems with a declining population is overblown. There are a number of very close tech fixes that will also make those preceived problems magically dissappear. The main tech is AI and robotics for elder care and medical atuomation. Imagine a women getting a "bra" in the mail that she puts on and connects to the net. She then replaces it in the return box and sends it off. A while later (I was going to say a day, but why limit things and be laughed at if this is read in 10 years) she checks her email to find everything is alright. Imagine a machine at 7/11 where you place your arm, it takes blood and a few minutes later may or may not despense pills with instructions. Those who place limits on the future are bound to be wrong.
What will happen?
Whereever infant mortality is reduced, birthrates reduce. We will take steps to remove the things that kills so many in 3rd world countries. Clean water and a cook stove would do wonders for all the water borne and indoor air pollution deaths. Little things with big results. Once the 3rd world stops having so many babies, true weath can follow. Already more have access to a cell phone than a flush toliet. Changes can happen fast. Reducing infant mortality will reduce population. The world's population may decrease but not because it has to but rather because it is a choice.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 16, 2014 9:19:33 GMT -8
Saw those guys in Thew Gym in Yokosuka in about 1960.
|
|
pepe
New Recruit
Posts: 10
|
Post by pepe on Jun 19, 2015 9:10:14 GMT -8
Far exceeding the Earth´s carrying Capacity, shortage of water/energy resources, and rapacious meglomaniacs are factors that are gradually taking the world off a cliff.
Humanity as it is right now cannot sustain itself indefinitely.
A lot of people believed little more than 10 years ago that a Third World War was ludicrous. However, now more and more people realize that it very well could happen.
In 2050 there will be like 10 billion people, with several billion cars, and all more or less desiring to keep up with the Jonses´- the Earth wasnt designed to sustain so many people, whom consume so many resoruces.
This cannot be sustained, a larger Easter Island Scenario is plausible if this continues.
Nevertheless, major conflicts and pandemics could end up changing everything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2015 10:36:53 GMT -8
Far exceeding the Earth´s carrying Capacity, shortage of water/energy resources, and rapacious meglomaniacs are factors that are gradually taking the world off a cliff. Humanity as it is right now cannot sustain itself indefinitely. A lot of people believed little more than 10 years ago that a Third World War was ludicrous. However, now more and more people realize that it very well could happen. In 2050 there will be like 10 billion people, with several billion cars, and all more or less desiring to keep up with the Jonses´- the Earth wasnt designed to sustain so many people, whom consume so many resoruces. This cannot be sustained, a larger Easter Island Scenario is plausible if this continues. Nevertheless, major conflicts and pandemics could end up changing everything. Something tells me you are not a new poster here. Agree with the above (seems kind of obvious actually but many don't see it that way.)
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 19, 2015 19:54:41 GMT -8
Far exceeding the Earth´s carrying Capacity, shortage of water/energy resources, and rapacious meglomaniacs are factors that are gradually taking the world off a cliff. Humanity as it is right now cannot sustain itself indefinitely. A lot of people believed little more than 10 years ago that a Third World War was ludicrous. However, now more and more people realize that it very well could happen. In 2050 there will be like 10 billion people, with several billion cars, and all more or less desiring to keep up with the Jonses´- the Earth wasnt designed to sustain so many people, whom consume so many resoruces. This cannot be sustained, a larger Easter Island Scenario is plausible if this continues. Nevertheless, major conflicts and pandemics could end up changing everything. Qatar gets a billion gallons of water a day via desalination. We can easily do that even in 3rd world countries if we allow cheap energy to flourish. Water is not a big problem. Energy is also less of a problem today than ever before. Graphene makes desalination much easier. That will be available within a few years.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jun 19, 2015 20:16:40 GMT -8
Far exceeding the Earth´s carrying Capacity, shortage of water/energy resources, and rapacious meglomaniacs are factors that are gradually taking the world off a cliff. Humanity as it is right now cannot sustain itself indefinitely. A lot of people believed little more than 10 years ago that a Third World War was ludicrous. However, now more and more people realize that it very well could happen. In 2050 there will be like 10 billion people, with several billion cars, and all more or less desiring to keep up with the Jonses´- the Earth wasnt designed to sustain so many people, whom consume so many resoruces. This cannot be sustained, a larger Easter Island Scenario is plausible if this continues. Nevertheless, major conflicts and pandemics could end up changing everything. Qatar gets a billion gallons of water a day via desalination. We can easily do that even in 3rd world countries if we allow cheap energy to flourish. Water is not a big problem. Energy is also less of a problem today than ever before. Graphene makes desalination much easier. That will be available within a few years. Graphine requires an order of magnitude less energy to desalenate water. Technology makes a lot of the worries melt away with time.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Jun 21, 2015 10:09:52 GMT -8
|
|