World population is growing 20 million people every 3 months

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by AiniA

Sometimes it is good to temper real life experience with some research. I found a very interesting site with historical data.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility/

I could not copy and paste the graph I wanted but it is labelled I.2. It indicates that the total fertility rate for the UK stayed relatively constant from 1541 to 1875 and then dropped dramatically from 4.9 in 1875 to 2.01 in 1928. It rose during the post-war/post-depression baby boom but only to 2.49 in 1964 (the birth control pill came on the market in 1960) before dropping to 1.73 in 1980. It has stayed close to this range since and is predicted to be around 1.9 in coming decades. In other words, the UK has followed the demographic transition model (one of the early countries to do).that other countries have also followed. You can add other countries to the graph to see how they did.

Don't go challenging the backwoods, folksy, blue collar statements with factual data.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

Here is the data trap associated with assuming population growth will decrease because this trend has been seen in places like Europe. In order to achieve these trends, an economic situation that revolves around a high standard of living must exist which requires enormous resources and tremendously stable social support systems.

Depending on who you believe, it is said that the population of the United States would be in decline if it weren't for the directed efforts to increase immigration to support the aging population and tax base of the system. If the entire population of the planet had a standard of living equal to the US, it would require 4 Earths to maintain.

From BBC source: It has been suggested that if everyone on the planet consumed as much as the average US citizen, four Earths would be needed to sustain them.

It has been recurring on social media at least since 2012, when science writer Tim De Chant produced this infographic illustrating how much land would be required if seven billion people lived like the populations of nine selected countries from Bangladesh to the United Arab Emirates.


As such, I would postulate that if the population of the planet is to have this UN predicted retrograde growth rate by 2050, it would require the accelerated advancement of every social economic system and government on the planet to the level of current 1st world, plus a few more planets just to sustain it.

Humans will kill one another for resources long before we get there. Then we will replenish and start all over again.

The flaw in this theory is that it is wealth that drives down reproduction.

You have cause and effect backwards.

In the past a large family provided a level of wealth as the kids were essentially free labor in a world that was very labor intensive.

In the modern world, where kids are not financially productive until they are adults, they represent anti-wealth. Doesn't matter if you are rich or not, more kids makes it harder to maintain the same level of wealth.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

WHAT!!!!!!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Are you familiar with this substance called petroleum? Well let me tell you a story...you may need to sit down for this one.

We have not had and will not have world wars over oil. It's vastly cheaper and easier to buy it, than to fight over it. Who owns it, has little influence on its availability on world markets. Whoever owns it, has to make it available, in order to get money for it.

Oil will be as quaintly irrelevant as whale oil, soon enough (and the sooner the better). The only thing standing between us and total irrelevancy of oil for transportation, for example, is a little breakthrough in battery technology, which might appear any day now.

Resources are not ends in themselves, and are not wealth, in and of themselves. They are all replaceable with something else, when the price gets to a certain point, with the exception of fresh water, but in the worst case, we can make that out of sea water, as it's done in Israel.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We have not had and will not have world wars over oil. It's vastly cheaper and easier to buy it, than to fight over it. Who owns it, has little influence on its availability on world markets. Whoever owns it, has to make it available, in order to get money for it.

Gosh... I wonder what the invasion of Iraq was about? What I do know is that USA companies now control the Oil companies there...

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We have not had and will not have world wars over oil. It's vastly cheaper and easier to buy it, than to fight over it. Who owns it, has little influence on its availability on world markets. Whoever owns it, has to make it available, in order to get money for it.

Oil will be as quaintly irrelevant as whale oil, soon enough (and the sooner the better). The only thing standing between us and total irrelevancy of oil for transportation, for example, is a little breakthrough in battery technology, which might appear any day now.

Resources are not ends in themselves, and are not wealth, in and of themselves. They are all replaceable with something else, when the price gets to a certain point, with the exception of fresh water, but in the worst case, we can make that out of sea water, as it's done in Israel.

I've always questioned the fresh water shortage.

I mean worst case, I could build a solar still and as long as I have access to salt water or even some contaminated source, I could make enough for drinking water.

The earth is constantly producing more fresh water it's just certain dry areas that are relying on reservoirs at a greater rate than it is replenished. They just need to stop farming in desert areas.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The flaw in this theory is that it is wealth that drives down reproduction.

You have cause and effect backwards.

In the past a large family provided a level of wealth as the kids were essentially free labor in a world that was very labor intensive.

In the modern world, where kids are not financially productive until they are adults, they represent anti-wealth. Doesn't matter if you are rich or not, more kids makes it harder to maintain the same level of wealth.

Egg Zachary, and well-stated.

And it is human nature -- not culture-specific -- and on top of that, rational behavior (!) -- to do what is beneficial to oneself and one's loved ones. That is, have the family size which is appropriate to the cost/benefit of your different choices, considering the specific economy and conditions you live in.

That is why there is such an intensely strong correlation across all cultural lines, between family size, urbanization, and education.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I've always questioned the fresh water shortage.

I mean worst case, I could build a solar still and as long as I have access to salt water or even some contaminated source, I could make enough for drinking water.

The earth is constantly producing more fresh water it's just certain dry areas that are relying on reservoirs at a greater rate than it is replenished. They just need to stop farming in desert areas.

Fresh water is a complicated issue, and could lead to some real problems. It's not water to drink so much as water for irrigation, which is the problem. Yes, the problem can absolutely be solved by stopping farming in arid areas, but that's easier said than done, at least in the short term.

More precisely defining the problem: It's not that there's not enough of it; it's that it's used irrationally (it's generally not market priced), and whole communities are built up which depend on an endless supply of cheap water, which is increasingly unavailable.

It's definitely a solvable problem, but it could be painful. For example, it may simply be that there are too many people in Southern California.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Don't go challenging the backwoods, folksy, blue collar statements with factual data.

Why not.. us folksy backwoods people love a good laugh watching our 'Betters' smugly pat themselves on the back..
Poor people in India did/do not breed every year for a work force of 9-11 kids.. they did/do it because there was a chance 1 or 2 might live long enough to start work.. and the women don't have a choice..
Been watching some twat on Sky blathering on about the 'Universal Wage'.. another con like the Minimum Wage.. designed to take more control away from the majority and place it in the hands of the minority.. who you can lay odds of a Trillion to 1 will not be subject to it.
Too 'Commie' to have the President/Prime Minister earning the same as a dustman.. and I can't see Bush, the Clintons or the Senate going for it either.. and they're all well past their sell by date from what I see.. as for the House of Lords on £400+/day expenses.. your having a laugh..

[weavis]

Originally Posted by boatman61

.. as for the House of Lords on £400/day expenses.. your having a laugh..

Good lord.... I could turn up every day for one hour and have 2 grand a week...
Where do I sign up?

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We have not had and will not have world wars over oil. It's vastly cheaper and easier to buy it, than to fight over it. Who owns it, has little influence on its availability on world markets. Whoever owns it, has to make it available, in order to get money for it.

Oil will be as quaintly irrelevant as whale oil, soon enough (and the sooner the better). The only thing standing between us and total irrelevancy of oil for transportation, for example, is a little breakthrough in battery technology, which might appear any day now.

Resources are not ends in themselves, and are not wealth, in and of themselves. They are all replaceable with something else, when the price gets to a certain point, with the exception of fresh water, but in the worst case, we can make that out of sea water, as it's done in Israel.

We are so far away from having anything that comes remotely close to replacing oil, so we get electric cars! Oil is involved in so much of what we have and what we take for granted, from this phone that im typing on to the boat (in so many ways) that im living on and the plastic bottle im drinking out of. I dont think many of understand how much oil is involved in much of what we come in contact with in our daily life.
And lets not forget the petro dollar, the backbone of the world reserve currency, the US dollar.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by weavis

Gosh... I wonder what the invasion of Iraq was about? What I do know is that USA companies now control the Oil companies there...

Actually, Iraqi's oil is all state owned, so there are no "oil companies there" at all, in the sense of companies who own reserves. Service agreements were granted by auctions won by a wide variety of the world's oil companies. U.S. companies are not the leaders there (the biggest agreements are with BP and with China; the Russians and Malaysians also have large interests).

The invasion of Iraq -- the most idiotic geopolitical event of my lifetime -- was NOT by any means a world war. Nor did it have any long term effect on world oil markets. In the context of apocalyptic world problems we are discussing here, it is a backside pimple.

[daletournier]

I just re read your post Dh, "oil will be as quaintly irrelevant as whale oil soon" Wow!! How so? Seriously, please explain how, I'm all for it but have know idea how this is going to happen, a resource that has shaped our current world that we are as much depend on as a junkie is to smack, not to me the financial implications.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Fresh water is a complicated issue, and could lead to some real problems. It's not water to drink so much as water for irrigation, which is the problem. Yes, the problem can absolutely be solved by stopping farming in arid areas, but that's easier said than done, at least in the short term.

More precisely defining the problem: It's not that there's not enough of it; it's that it's used irrationally (it's generally not market priced), and whole communities are built up which depend on an endless supply of cheap water, which is increasingly unavailable.

It's definitely a solvable problem, but it could be painful. For example, it may simply be that there are too many people in Southern California.

Maybe cities need moving to deserts and arid area's.. and keep the green area's for growing food and other natural resource's.. could dump all the folksy blue collar trailer trash there on a Universal Wage.. and the minority can take a leaf out of Russia's book and have 'Dacha's' in unspoilt green fields with their own trout streams.. out of sight, out of mind.. both ways..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by daletournier

We are so far away from having anything that comes remotely close to replacing oil, so we get electric cars! Oil is involved in so much of what we have and what we take for granted, from this phone that im typing on to the boat (in so many ways) that im living on and the plastic bottle im drinking out of. I dont think many of understand how much oil is involved in much of what we come in contact with in our daily life.
And lets not forget the petro dollar, the backbone of the world reserve currency, the US dollar.

Once we stop using oil for fuel, there will be enough oil in Oklahoma to supply the world with plastics for a thousand years. OK, I'm exaggerating, but only a little. Only 4% of world oil production is used to make plastic, and plastics can be recycled.

And we will stop using oil for fuel -- it's just a question of technology, and doesn't even require invention of whole new technologies.

And electric cars, by the way, are without any doubt the future, at least in the medium term. Because using electricity allows you to separate the functions of energy storage and energy source, using the most rational solution for each task. The idea of pumping our energy out of the ground will seem as archaic and quaintly ridiculous to our children (or at least grandchildren) as horses and buggies seem to us.

[rgleason]

Agreed, its a huge taboo. Religion, Family "values", Growth, Economy, "Prosperity" and Business all depend on or support population growth. We can't talk about that seriously, people go blank when you mention it and change the subject.