Cant see were that relates to human population. It has everything to do with fishing practices and conservation methods. The same argument could be made before the advent of agriculture when we all were hunter gathers. What if all the red meat available was supplied by professional hunters? That too would also exhaust the supply. If anything this is a call for aquaculture.
The planet can only support so many people
Since World War II, despite ever increasing investment in a more efficient fleet, trawler catches in U.K. waters have been dropping, presumably due to overfishing.
For example, today's trawling fleet off the U.K. annually catches about half what its sail-powered predecessor did in 1889, the study saysâand less than a quarter of the peak annual catch in 1938.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100511-science-environment-overfishing-trawlers/
For example, today's trawling fleet off the U.K. annually catches about half what its sail-powered predecessor did in 1889, the study saysâand less than a quarter of the peak annual catch in 1938.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100511-science-environment-overfishing-trawlers/
1 - 20 of 220 Posts
Um, what do you feed the fish in your aquaculture? That food has to come from someplace. I personally havent seen any manna dropping from heaven recently.... Maybe they can eat some of this junk plastic we produce oodles of? There you go, genetically engineered fish that can eat plastic, couse Monsanto will own the patent and rent you the right to raise one sterile non-breeding fish for a nominal fee.
You can indeed expand the population yet some more, there are still some protected wild areas we havent overrun. BUT quality of life will keep dropping until we, like the bacteria colony in the petri dish go belly up, finally use all resources we have and pollute the rest to unusable status.
Fact of life, you cant expand and exploit indefinitely, on a FINITE planet. Unless you have an economical way to move huge numbers of people to other solar systems that you are certain have other unpopulated earth-like planets, then you have to learn to live within your means. You would think self proclaimed "conservatives" would get the idea of how to actually CONSERVE and be good stewards. But apparently not. They have this notion pure GREED and "shop till you drop" is the best strategy. Use it all up and let the great grandchildren that do survive, live like vermin, struggling and picking through the garbage we leave behind.
You can indeed expand the population yet some more, there are still some protected wild areas we havent overrun. BUT quality of life will keep dropping until we, like the bacteria colony in the petri dish go belly up, finally use all resources we have and pollute the rest to unusable status.
Fact of life, you cant expand and exploit indefinitely, on a FINITE planet. Unless you have an economical way to move huge numbers of people to other solar systems that you are certain have other unpopulated earth-like planets, then you have to learn to live within your means. You would think self proclaimed "conservatives" would get the idea of how to actually CONSERVE and be good stewards. But apparently not. They have this notion pure GREED and "shop till you drop" is the best strategy. Use it all up and let the great grandchildren that do survive, live like vermin, struggling and picking through the garbage we leave behind.
I think that is an incorrect conclusion. Of course it is because of over population. The bulk of human population lives near sea coasts verses inland areas, and in some cultures almost all of the animal protein in people's diets is from fish/seafood. More people means greater exploitation of the sea, period.Cant see were that relates to human population. It has everything to do with fishing practices and conservation methods.
Sure, if you lower catch limits, somebody in California with an empty crill can just stop at McDonolds for some McNuggets. But, what about the Indonesian fisherman that won't feed his children tonight because there are no fish to catch? Conservation sounds just fine, unless it's all you depend on to survive!
You can pass all the laws and limits you want but nobody is going to sit by and watch their children starve because of them.
Not to worry the population is slowly decreasing and in about 20 years the US will begin to have a problem with finding "workers" to support the aged.
Anyone interested in things like this might want to pick up The Next Hundred Years A forecast for the 21st Century by George Friedman.
As if anyone could forecast that far into the future.
He does it thorugh tracing history and its geopolitical patterns around the world. An interesting, enlightning, thought provoking, easy to read book.
Anyone interested in things like this might want to pick up The Next Hundred Years A forecast for the 21st Century by George Friedman.
As if anyone could forecast that far into the future.
He does it thorugh tracing history and its geopolitical patterns around the world. An interesting, enlightning, thought provoking, easy to read book.
Sure can. Of course that number of people is 20 to 30 billion if we distribute reasonably.
Some of you are seriously whacked. It does refer to conservation practices with little impact from the population. You assume that the growing population will equally share in the resource. If this is so then the poplulation does impact the resource. Especially if the resource is a limiting factor. Using the logic that an increase in population alone causes a resource to decline then here in the United States the Deer, Turkey and Buffalo would be extinct. This however is not the case. Even though our population has increased many times over from say 200 years ago the amount of resources is expanding. This is due to conservation practices. Sorry, Im right, you're wrong, but I still respect you and your crazy ideas.
OK- As the population increases, and usable land decreases, how are you going to feed everybody? It is a finite planet, and we are overpopulating it. It's starting to show up as we use up one resource after another. Meanwhile, we do everything we can to extend human life all around the globe, while doing little to control population growth. Sure, educated people in some countries practice birth control, but then you have the Octomom and the Duggan family or whatever their name is. You have the lady in Tampa with 12 children who insists that the government take care of her and her family. You have Muslims in Europe who have been instructed to have as many children as they can, so some day they will take over by a simple majority. Then there are illegals cranking out 'anchor' babies so they can stay here. Eventually, there will be a massive die-off, like there is any time a species over-populates. It won't be pretty.
Sheesh - MushCreek - The examples that you use are the end of the spectrum exception rather than the rule, therefore invalid.
Rather than just pop off about the article, why not google to see if it's valid? If youall don't want to read - just scroll down to look at the chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline
:bored:
Rather than just pop off about the article, why not google to see if it's valid? If youall don't want to read - just scroll down to look at the chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline
:bored:
I think we already have a problem finding enough workers to support those that don't want to work.They want a government check,thanks to the backs of the hard working taxpayers.Most of the border crossers legal and illegal,get help from the working taxpayers as well.Not to worry the population is slowly decreasing and in about 20 years the US will begin to have a problem with finding "workers" to support the aged.
Some regions are declining but overall the world population is still boot-scooting for the sky, abd those regions are allowing more immigration because the easy way to have a growing economy is by having a growing population.
A resource is by definition something that is of use. More people puts more demand on those resources. Commercial cropland is starting to decline in productivity because of too many demands put on it with too few returns of organics and nutrients. Fertilizer by itself is not sufficient to maintain it. More people are depending on seafood and yields are going down. At some point the trend lines cross and more people die.
A resource is by definition something that is of use. More people puts more demand on those resources. Commercial cropland is starting to decline in productivity because of too many demands put on it with too few returns of organics and nutrients. Fertilizer by itself is not sufficient to maintain it. More people are depending on seafood and yields are going down. At some point the trend lines cross and more people die.
Wow. Only 2 replies before someone showed up and started pointing fingers................Um, what do you feed the fish in your aquaculture? That food has to come from someplace. I personally havent seen any manna dropping from heaven recently.... Maybe they can eat some of this junk plastic we produce oodles of? There you go, genetically engineered fish that can eat plastic, couse Monsanto will own the patent and rent you the right to raise one sterile non-breeding fish for a nominal fee.
You can indeed expand the population yet some more, there are still some protected wild areas we havent overrun. BUT quality of life will keep dropping until we, like the bacteria colony in the petri dish go belly up, finally use all resources we have and pollute the rest to unusable status.
Fact of life, you cant expand and exploit indefinitely, on a FINITE planet. Unless you have an economical way to move huge numbers of people to other solar systems that you are certain have other unpopulated earth-like planets, then you have to learn to live within your means. You would think self proclaimed "conservatives" would get the idea of how to actually CONSERVE and be good stewards. But apparently not. They have this notion pure GREED and "shop till you drop" is the best strategy. Use it all up and let the great grandchildren that do survive, live like vermin, struggling and picking through the garbage we leave behind.
All we need is the one good superbug that will wipe out 50 to 60 percent opf the most congested areas in a no fault culling.
Cholera, smallpox, TB, infuenza etc have all filled the bill when population concentration reached maximum concentrations. Each time medical science proclaimed whatever epidemic conqured with advanced innoculation Nature quietly began breeding a new bug to thin the human herdin new no fault ways that no one group of technicians could be blamed for the loss of life within the herd but everyone could claim to be doing all they could to prevent its spread if they chose.
The hamster cage lifestyles many of the most congested areas of the human herd now live sealed in their urban human hamster cages disinfecting every germ that comes their way is helping Nature to develop MRSA and assorted lung ailments that will greatly thin the hamster cage bubble dwellers in the coming generations.
Best part is there will be nobody to blame because everyone will simply be living their lives to the best they can within their chosen environments and it will simply be another pandemic that medical science will only cure after Nature has thinned the human herd to numbers where a "medical cure" is possible.
Think of how many humansters today are allergic to peanuts and shellfish and already succumb to new influenza and infection strains while breathing their filtered air, sanitizing everything around them and running their stairmasters instead of out building antibodies (the recirculated moist chilled air btw makes a most effective bacteria breeder in most cases ). Nature can act very fast when required and no one group of the herd is found to be at fault
Cholera, smallpox, TB, infuenza etc have all filled the bill when population concentration reached maximum concentrations. Each time medical science proclaimed whatever epidemic conqured with advanced innoculation Nature quietly began breeding a new bug to thin the human herdin new no fault ways that no one group of technicians could be blamed for the loss of life within the herd but everyone could claim to be doing all they could to prevent its spread if they chose.
The hamster cage lifestyles many of the most congested areas of the human herd now live sealed in their urban human hamster cages disinfecting every germ that comes their way is helping Nature to develop MRSA and assorted lung ailments that will greatly thin the hamster cage bubble dwellers in the coming generations.
Best part is there will be nobody to blame because everyone will simply be living their lives to the best they can within their chosen environments and it will simply be another pandemic that medical science will only cure after Nature has thinned the human herd to numbers where a "medical cure" is possible.
Think of how many humansters today are allergic to peanuts and shellfish and already succumb to new influenza and infection strains while breathing their filtered air, sanitizing everything around them and running their stairmasters instead of out building antibodies (the recirculated moist chilled air btw makes a most effective bacteria breeder in most cases ). Nature can act very fast when required and no one group of the herd is found to be at fault
History has shown the best way to reduce the population is to increase the standard of living. As the standard of living goes up the number of children per family drops.Some regions are declining but overall the world population is still boot-scooting for the sky, abd those regions are allowing more immigration because the easy way to have a growing economy is by having a growing population.
A resource is by definition something that is of use. More people puts more demand on those resources. Commercial cropland is starting to decline in productivity because of too many demands put on it with too few returns of organics and nutrients. Fertilizer by itself is not sufficient to maintain it. More people are depending on seafood and yields are going down. At some point the trend lines cross and more people die.
This is why I feel that a greater percentage of our GDP should be spent towards space exploration. Always before in mankind's history there has been some frontier to reach for. Now we are reaching the top of the "dome" and it's starting to become clear to everyone that we can't go on like this indefinitely.
I prefer the thought of mankind reaching to the stars and finding other planets to colonize as opposed to a supervirus that wipes out 90% of the population and returns us to a new Dark Age.
I prefer the thought of mankind reaching to the stars and finding other planets to colonize as opposed to a supervirus that wipes out 90% of the population and returns us to a new Dark Age.
Hey,even Obama is trying to get Africa to change their constituion, to allow Abortion.
The earth is designed to support people's needs, not their wants. we have stopped differentiating between needs and wants.
No population whether it be plant, animal, or bacteria is exempt from the laws that govern life on this planet.
We're rapidly approaching 7,000,000,000 people with no end in sight. That's insane considering the obvious signs of overpopulation that are all around us. We're exterminating species at a rate that is equal or greater than the great exterminations that happened in the past. Future generations are going to have to live on much less than generations that lived around the turn of the 19th century. I think we are headed towards the biggest world war this planet has ever seen and it will be fought over resources as huge numbers of environmental refugees migrate. That number has already reached 200,000,000 people and it hasn't really gotten started yet.
We're rapidly approaching 7,000,000,000 people with no end in sight. That's insane considering the obvious signs of overpopulation that are all around us. We're exterminating species at a rate that is equal or greater than the great exterminations that happened in the past. Future generations are going to have to live on much less than generations that lived around the turn of the 19th century. I think we are headed towards the biggest world war this planet has ever seen and it will be fought over resources as huge numbers of environmental refugees migrate. That number has already reached 200,000,000 people and it hasn't really gotten started yet.
no, but people can certainly limit the sizes of their families.You can pass all the laws and limits you want but nobody is going to sit by and watch their children starve because of them.
1 - 20 of 220 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Homesteading Forum
A forum community dedicated to living sustainably and self sufficiently. Come join the discussion about livestock, farming, gardening, DIY projects, hobbies, recipes, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
GTX63
479 Replies
Danaus29
340 Replies
Alice In TX/MO
255 Replies
Recommended Communities
