How many people could Earth support? (documentary))

[Valentin the II]

How many people could earth support? What should be done about it?
Lets watch

What do you think?

[Exarch]

when we can synthesize water and turn deserts into arable farmland, it shouldnt be a problem
tech should be able to solve th eprob of overpopulation;

[Salem1]

Pretty much what Exarch said. We need only to advance our technology, most notably to turn deserts into what they were before they were deserts and such.

[PointOfViewGun]

We already can turn desert into green land and construct self sustainable, organized and efficient cities. It's just not that profitable yet.

[Alkarin]

We already can turn desert into green land and construct self sustainable, organized and efficient cities. It's just not that profitable yet.

*takes this statement and turns it into an anti capitalist arguement*

[PointOfViewGun]

*takes this statement and turns it into an anti capitalist arguement*

Care to elaborate?

[Alkarin]

Care to elaborate?

an economic system based on supply and demand in a way ours is today, makes it more favourable (for current corporations) to instead of switching to renewable and self sufficient systems to use non renewable sources like fossil fuels and oil, since when you have a scarcity of something, the deman for it goes up and therefore so does the price. The last thing a business wants to do is sell a product that is reliable or renewable. Say a Car or an ipod for instance, its better to make faulty products so you can sell another product to them later, instead of selling a reliable product that wont break because after you sell it to them once, you lose that customer since they wont need another car/ipod. Consumerism is an enemy to the environment and life on earth really. Since it is more profitable to destroy the environment than it is to preserve it. Even though if we don't protect the earths ecosystem, all those profits wont matter in the end anyways.

[PointOfViewGun]

an economic system based on supply and demand in a way ours is today, makes it more favourable (for current corporations) to instead of switching to renewable and self sufficient systems to use non renewable sources like fossil fuels and oil, since when you have a scarcity of something, the deman for it goes up and therefore so does the price. The last thing a business wants to do is sell a product that is reliable or renewable. Say a Car or an ipod for instance, its better to make faulty products so you can sell another product to them later, instead of selling a reliable product that wont break because after you sell it to them once, you lose that customer since they wont need another car/ipod. Consumerism is an enemy to the environment and life on earth really. Since it is more profitable to destroy the environment than it is to preserve it. Even though if we don't protect the earths ecosystem, all those profits wont matter in the end anyways.

I agree with you. I don't think anyone would reject that. But, to make environment be protected by such cooperation then we need to make it profitable.

[Georgy Zhukov]

an economic system based on supply and demand in a way ours is today, makes it more favourable (for current corporations) to instead of switching to renewable and self sufficient systems to use non renewable sources like fossil fuels and oil, since when you have a scarcity of something, the deman for it goes up and therefore so does the price. The last thing a business wants to do is sell a product that is reliable or renewable. Say a Car or an ipod for instance, its better to make faulty products so you can sell another product to them later, instead of selling a reliable product that wont break because after you sell it to them once, you lose that customer since they wont need another car/ipod. Consumerism is an enemy to the environment and life on earth really. Since it is more profitable to destroy the environment than it is to preserve it. Even though if we don't protect the earths ecosystem, all those profits wont matter in the end anyways.

Which is why there is 155 billion dollars invested into alternative energy?

http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/pdf/Trends2009.pdf

[TheTrainee]

an economic system based on supply and demand in a way ours is today, makes it more favourable (for current corporations) to instead of switching to renewable and self sufficient systems to use non renewable sources like fossil fuels and oil, since when you have a scarcity of something, the deman for it goes up and therefore so does the price. The last thing a business wants to do is sell a product that is reliable or renewable. Say a Car or an ipod for instance, its better to make faulty products so you can sell another product to them later, instead of selling a reliable product that wont break because after you sell it to them once, you lose that customer since they wont need another car/ipod. Consumerism is an enemy to the environment and life on earth really. Since it is more profitable to destroy the environment than it is to preserve it. Even though if we don't protect the earths ecosystem, all those profits wont matter in the end anyways.

It's not that corporations want to destroy the environment. Their actions are not inherently evil or malicious; it's that the system, as it exists today, which does not account for the negative externalities (the destruction of the environment, damaging future generations) into the costs of production. Corporations, as is, are only reacting to the current system, which is flawed. The market should take care of the problem once it's factored in. The article I referenced outlines a whole host of situations where the 'full cost' of a production has been realized--or, shall I say, better realized. For instance, they cite how in Germany a law passed in 1993 "hold[s] producers accountable for nearly all the packaging material they generate. The new law dramatically increased the rate of packaging recycling, from 12 percent in 1992 to 86% in 1997. Plastic collections, for example, jumped nearly 19-fold, from 30,000 tons in 1991 to 567,000 tons in 1997. Better yet, the law gave producers a strong incentive to cut their use of packaging, which dropped 17 percent for households and small businesses between 1991 and 1997" (for citation, see my previous post this thread).

I, however, do agree that corporations, such as ExxonMobil, BP, etc., are resistant to any changes that may hurt their profits; thus, legislation which attempts to internalize externalized costs is going to be fought against tooth and nail.

Also, I agree that the current mode of consumerism is destructive to the environment. However, consumerism can be changed. There are a number of proposals for cultural change, which revision the manner in which our hedonistic pursuits play out. Here's an academic article on one such proposal:

Soper, K. (2008). Alternative hedonism, cultural theory and the role of aesthetic revisioning. Cultural Studies, 22(5), 569-585.

It's an OK article. Not the best, but suffices. Generally, it's about revaluing what we, as a society, value to be more sustainable. Edit: Also, I should add that the article kind of lacks in how we transition society into the author's envisioned improved style of consumption, which is where the practical problem is.

[jankren]

World population is actually heading toward a crash.

[chilon]

World population is actually heading toward a crash.

Depends on the scenario

Here are several of Verner Vinge's options:













http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame...html?m=1%23696

[SinerAthin]

Unless we want to see a large amount of people living like pathetic animals, I say we do something about the overpopulation.

In my opinion, this crazy growth needs to stop... there's no need for more people until we start colonizing space.

[Valentin the II]

when we can synthesize water and turn deserts into arable farmland, it shouldnt be a problem
tech should be able to solve th eprob of overpopulation;

1) What do you mean by "synthesize water"? We already have many methods of creating water, but they are highly inefficient and I don't see that changing any time soon. Like the narrator said: Earth always had the same amount of whatter, so we'll have to make due with what we've got.
2) There are already ways of growing crops in a desert (some good examples in Egypt and Israel) but again, they are highly inefficient and wont be able to sustain a large population.

Unless we want to see a large amount of people living like pathetic animals, I say we do something about the overpopulation.

In my opinion, this crazy growth needs to stop... there's no need for more people until we start colonizing space.

Bingo! Earth can barely support the current amount of people, any more is just asking for trouble.
Personally, I see nothing wrong in the Chinese method. There is no reason for a family to have more than two children.

[georgeman51]

1) What do you mean by "synthesize water"? We already have many methods of creating water, but they are highly inefficient and I don't see that changing any time soon. Like the narrator said: Earth always had the same amount of whatter, so we'll have to make due with what we've got.
2) There are already ways of growing crops in a desert (some good examples in Egypt and Israel) but again, they are highly inefficient and wont be able to sustain a large population.



Bingo! Earth can barely support the current amount of people, any more is just asking for trouble.
Personally, I see nothing wrong in the Chinese method. There is no reason for a family to have more than two children.

In the future if no one does anything about our population boom, then the only way to stop it is a massive natural disaster, that would have to cut the population by half.

[Problem Sleuth]

Unless we want to see a large amount of people living like pathetic animals, I say we do something about the overpopulation.

In my opinion, this crazy growth needs to stop... there's no need for more people until we start colonizing space.

Population growth is already slowing down. The article I was going to link in its original form at the Economist can't be accessed unless you have a subscription, so here's a PDF version:

www.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~makoto/education/economist_fertility_20091031.pdf

Don't click on the link. Copy-paste it into your search bar.

[SinerAthin]

Population growth is already slowing down. The article I was going to link in its original form at the Economist can't be accessed unless you have a subscription, so here's a PDF version:

www.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~makoto/education/economist_fertility_20091031.pdf

Don't click on the link. Copy-paste it into your search bar.

If that's true then it's really good news!

With a little luck, it will stop soon enough so we don't have to go about steralizing people like China.

[jankren]

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Our Earth can provide so many humans, we just haven't the sufficient technology to do so now.

[TheTrainee]

The neo-Malthusian school of thought has lost much of its luster over the last 20 years. That is, the obsession with population being the major problem (with everything, from environmental degradation to socio-political unrest).

It's an easy thing to get people riled up over because it, at first glance, makes sense. However, like I alluded to, the debate has shifted and most of this film expresses an outmoded argument from of the past. People are not the major problem. They contribute, but it's a red herring issue. It's consumption that's the problem--who's consuming what, what we're consuming, and how this affects our environment. We cannot sustain the planet consuming like Americans. As is, it would be impossible for India and China to adopt US-level and -style consumption.

The film touches on consumption, but completely overemphasizes population. The film makes some good points, from water, to food, to energy, to extinction, but they identify the wrong issue, population, over consumption itself. More population increases consumption, true; however, the parts of the globe that contribute the most to population growth are contributing the least to consumption. Thus, the far majority of the babies being born will consume relatively little in their lifetimes if present trends continue. Best quote from the film: "The earth can accommodate so much consumption." The consumption section of the film is spot on, unlike the population jibberjabber.

Not that population is completely a non-issue, but much of what's wrong with population is corrected when consumption (from its nature to its humongous inequality in global distribution) is corrected.

Population growth drops like a rock when:

• standards of livings are raised--This would require more equality in global consumption levels, i.e. serious efforts made to developing undeveloped nations -- rock and hard place here
• Women are empowered
• education is available
• and contraception is socially/culturally acceptable.

Changing consumption, however, is a trickier subject, but basically we need to allow the markets to self-correct through properly internalizing negative externalities into the costs of production throughout the global system. Oh yeah, and stop subsidizing that s up.

Here's an interesting article: Gardner, Gary, and Payal Sampat. 1999. "Forging a Sustainable Materials Economy." In Worldwatch Institute, State of the World 1999. New York: Norton, p. 41.

Basically, it's a middle of the ideological spectrum article about how not to up the environment, but still get to keep our precious consumerism.