1 in 13 people that have ever lived, are alive today.

[El Mel]

This really is quite a startling graphic, to think that humans have been on the planet for millions of years, and for every million years you could say that there would be 20,000 generations of our species.

We're probably not that fair away from destroying the planet.

[Lard Buttie]

Wow, mind blown.

Explains the strain on space, resources & food.

Maybe also explains the mental health increases in human beings.

With thoe numbers being what they are the demand for resources etc must have an effect

[clappyhapper]

And it's the virtue signallers causing it.

We're artificially supporting birth rates in the third world, mainly Africa by throwing money at them, enabling mothers there to pop out 7 or more offspring, where the land can only naturally support way under 2 at the current level.

In the UK, indigenous mothers have less than 2 children and life expectancy is falling, so population growth is mainly down to immigration from the breeding fields of Africa and the Middle East. 

This mass breeding just leads to mass migration into Europe mainly, where we take the hit on resources and infrastructure, as many were promised a free living in the land of milk and honey.

When you think about it, life on the dole in the UK is streets ahead of life in a mud hut in Africa, so why would they work or contribute to society when you paid a trafficker £3000 to get this golden ticket to benefits?

It won't end well, as London and surrounding County Lines areas are showing over the last decade or so. Most of the machete wavers tend to be recent imports from Somalia and the like.

[gingerbreadman]

Oh deary me he's found another issue to rant over.

[captslapper]

The third world especially has a culture of having many many children and its a culture that is deeply engrained for good reason.. because until recently very few of them would reach adulthood and go on to reproduce themselves.
Religions have the same culture for a further reason... to increase their membership.

It was the same in the 1st world until relatively recently but as living standards, opportunities and most importantly health and medical science has improved, its a culture that waned during the early 20th century and has continued to today.
In the 3rd world the same improvements to life are now happening but, maybe due to a deeper religious faith, the culture of huge reproduction is still there,, so you end up with these population explosions.
The worlds population has doubled in just 50 years.

At the same time our instincts are to value life above all else.. to preserve it whenever and however we can.
We cure diseases,, we make everything safe,, we ban unhealthy activities.. we try and get everyone to live much much longer.

The elephant in the room that the voices never point out is that what the planet and the environment really need is for 3 or 4 billion people to drop dead.
If there was a species above us in the pecking order, then humans would be culled for our own and other species good.. just as we do to species below us.

Imagine Greta wouldn't be as popular if she said that , simple fact though that it is.

[clappyhapper]

Mar 16, 2022 9:35:15 GMT gingerbreadman said:

Oh deary me he's found another issue to rant over.

Or pointing out cold hard, fact as it's also known as Tarquin. 

Birth rates amongst Western women are way under 2.0, currently 1.5 per mother.
In the UK, births to mothers born outside the UK, makes up a third of all UK births.

Bury your head in the sand and pretend this fact doesn't exist in your cuddly image of reality if you like, but we're being outbred at an alarming rate. 

In  topic about massive population growth, I'm highlighting that it's not us doing it, but us paying for it and causing it, by artificially encouraging it in countries which otherwise would not be able to support it. 

[gingerbreadman]

Who's Tarquin you deranged loony?

[clappyhapper]

Mar 16, 2022 9:36:29 GMT captslapper said:

The third world especially has a culture of having many many children and its a culture that is deeply engrained for good reason.. because until recently very few of them would reach adulthood and go on to reproduce themselves.
Religions have the same culture for a further reason... to increase their membership.

It was the same in the 1st world until relatively recently but as living standards, opportunities and most importantly health and medical science has improved, its a culture that waned during the early 20th century and has continued to today.
In the 3rd world the same improvements to life are now happening but, maybe due to a deeper religious faith, the culture of huge reproduction is still there,, so you end up with these population explosions.
The worlds population has doubled in just 50 years.

At the same time our instincts are to value life above all else.. to preserve it whenever and however we can.
We cure diseases,, we make everything safe,, we ban unhealthy activities.. we try and get everyone to live much much longer.

The elephant in the room that the voices never point out is that what the planet and the environment really need is for 3 or 4 billion people to drop dead.
If there was a species above us in the pecking order, then humans would be culled for our own and other species good.. just as we do to species below us.

Imagine Greta wouldn't be as popular if she said that , simple fact though that it is.

Or we could stop throwing "aid" at Africa, enabling them to have 7 plus kids each in a land which could not support that level of reproduction, a lot of whom end up waving machetes around in London?

[Deleted]

What is the capacity of the earth for sustaining human life, in terms of being sufficient room for basics of food, water and energy provision?

I read something ages ago which I've just found again...back in 2010 - "According to the United Nations Population Division, the human population will hit 7 billion on or around Oct. 31, and, if its projections are correct, we're en route to a population of 9 billion by 2050, and 10 billion by 2100".

Surely that growth is underestimated?? If its taken 10 years to grow almost another billion, its not going to take another 40 years to add another billion to that.

Surely also, the disparity between births and deaths stretches wider and population grows ever quicker? My own quick estimate, notwithstanding any influencing or limiting factors, would be that the population of the world would double again within 50-100 years. I don't think there's enough room.

[El Mel]

My wife's got 4 kids, the virtue signalling bastard.

[captslapper]

Mar 16, 2022 9:56:09 GMT @ennius said:

What is the capacity of the earth for sustaining human life, in terms of being sufficient room for basics of food, water and energy provision?

I read something ages ago which I've just found again...back in 2010 - "According to the United Nations Population Division, the human population will hit 7 billion on or around Oct. 31, and, if its projections are correct, we're en route to a population of 9 billion by 2050, and 10 billion by 2100".

Surely that growth is underestimated?? If its taken 10 years to grow almost another billion, its not going to take another 40 years to add another billion to that.

Surely also, the disparity between births and deaths stretches wider and population grows ever quicker? My own quick estimate, notwithstanding any influencing or limiting factors, would be that the population of the world would double again within 50-100 years. I don't think there's enough room.

Theres an argument that science and technology move on to cope with it.
For example I saw a vegetable business in New York on TV that produced huge amounts of food in the heart of the city by growing veg under artificial conditions in a big warehouse on stacked up growing shelves.
Then you have possible other sources of protein such as farmed insects that require a fraction of the space of farmed animals with very little carbon footprint.

But I think the population is growing too quickly for science like that to keep up.
We are chopping down the rainforests, and draining the life out of the seas at an alarming rate for the space and resources we need.

I think ultimately nature will fight back. Produce a virus we can't cure. One that doesnt just kill the elderly and infirm.
And you hear stories that the development of antibiotics can't keep pace with the decline in their effectiveness as nature finds ways to get round them.
But god knows what state the planet will be in by the time nature does find a way to seriously cull the human population.

[Lard Buttie]

How much/many of our valuable resources are thrown away as waste in the West?

Food certainly, power (office lights left on 24/7 as one example).

We have lost the ability to know the price of everything but not the cost

[Deleted]

There are matters of quality of life....just because the Earth could materially support a population of X billion doesn't necessarily mean support them in a way which is more than just tolerable. There's also the uncertainty of climate changes (manmade or no)....for example,the western USA is in the throes of one of its worst droughts in centuries....Colorado river reducing to a trickle downstream....acquifers being drained dry.

And in various regions....Africa, SE Asia for example....the potential for Water Wars is growing. Upstream countries are creaming off more and more river water for irrigation, etc, meaning less flow is reaching downstream countries. For some of the latter, there may be potential for desalination (technology helping)....but not a panacea.

[clappyhapper]

Yet apparently ice is being converted back to water at an alarming rate.

We have droughts from time to time. It's not getting worse at all, neither are storms, no matter what the climate fascists pretend.
The last decent one we had was in the 1980's, 40 years ago.

"Third warmest year on record" = "Its been warmer in the past"

[El Mel]

In my lifetime, I've seen the winers get warmer. The science and data tells us the planet is getting warmer. Ice caps melting, glaciers melting.

But it's not getting worse?