advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: Ted King
Date: November 16, 2022 12:35PM
It took a couple hundred thousand years for the population of Homo sapiens to rise to 2.5 billion. In my seven decade lifetime it has risen to 8 billion. Over three times as many people on the planet than when I first arrived!

I know everyone knows about the rapid rate of growth of people on the planet, but, geez, it's still mind-boggling to think about what has happened to the population just in my lifetime.



e pluribus unum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2022 12:35PM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: Steve G.
Date: November 16, 2022 12:46PM
then it's obviously your fault
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: mrbigstuff
Date: November 16, 2022 12:56PM
Pretty much coincides with the advent of rock and roll...hmmm



Mischievous and Deceitful
Chicanerous and Deplorable
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: November 16, 2022 12:59PM
And the places that still have high fertility rates generate very little carbon, in fact the least on the planet. It's us low breeders who create most of the carbon emissions.

Point is, human population growth is not the cause of climate change, uncontrolled carbon emissions in the so-called developed world are.

This planet can handle billions of us, if only we'd behave.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: SDGuy
Date: November 16, 2022 01:18PM
for the longest time, I had in my mind that the population was 4-5B; I was surprised when it hit 6B - I had no idea we blew by 7B and are now at 8B. eye popping smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2022 01:19PM by SDGuy.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: decay
Date: November 16, 2022 02:00PM
This is pretty wild:
[www.abc.net.au]

This week, the world’s population ticks over a historic milestone. But in the next century, society will be reshaped dramatically — and soon we’ll hit a decline we’ll never reverse.



---
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: Acer
Date: November 16, 2022 08:42PM
3.5 billion was the number I remember from elementary school. Back then, the buzz was we'd be at 10 billion (or was it 12 billion?) by the year 2000. We have actually slowed down from the days of Paul Erlich's "Population Bomb" The fertility rate is half of what it was when he wrote the book in 1968.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: Ted King
Date: November 17, 2022 08:08AM
Quote
Acer
3.5 billion was the number I remember from elementary school. Back then, the buzz was we'd be at 10 billion (or was it 12 billion?) by the year 2000. We have actually slowed down from the days of Paul Erlich's "Population Bomb" The fertility rate is half of what it was when he wrote the book in 1968.

Yeah, the reproductive rate is going down on a worldwide basis. I recently read that there are more children alive today than there will for the foreseeable future. I don't know why but that gave me a funny feeling. There's no doubt that the trend is a good thing for future people in general, it just feels a little funny to have grown up with the population going up and up and up seemingly so rapidly and now coming to an inflection point.



e pluribus unum
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: davester
Date: November 17, 2022 08:55AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
And the places that still have high fertility rates generate very little carbon, in fact the least on the planet.

Not entirely true. One of the greatest carbon producers is agriculture via fertilizer production and mechanized farming. The population explosion blew past the limits of natural fertilizers decades ago. The current human population requires synthetic carbon-based fertilizers (and pesticides) to keep yields sufficient for survival.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: November 17, 2022 09:24AM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Point is, human population growth is not the cause of climate change, uncontrolled carbon emissions in the so-called developed world are.

smiley-signs006 Halve the population (of first, second and third world) and halve the carbon emissions.

Quote
Lemon Drop
This planet can handle billions of us, if only we'd behave.

Any signs THAT'S going to happen? Any time soon?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: November 17, 2022 01:44PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Lemon Drop
Point is, human population growth is not the cause of climate change, uncontrolled carbon emissions in the so-called developed world are.

smiley-signs006 Halve the population (of first, second and third world) and halve the carbon emissions.

Quote
Lemon Drop
This planet can handle billions of us, if only we'd behave.

Any signs THAT'S going to happen? Any time soon?


The highly industrialized world ( I'm not sure anyone says 1st world now) generates most of the carbon emissions. In fact just 3 countries, China, the US, and India, are responsible for 50% of the world's carbon emissions. And there are huge per capita differences with the much smaller US population using two or three times more per capita than China or India.

So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions. We need to focus on reducing emissions in heavy carbon generating nations. The poor nations are victims of our consumer habits, not the cause.

[www.worldometers.info]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: November 17, 2022 01:50PM
Quote
davester
Quote
Lemon Drop
And the places that still have high fertility rates generate very little carbon, in fact the least on the planet.

Not entirely true. One of the greatest carbon producers is agriculture via fertilizer production and mechanized farming. The population explosion blew past the limits of natural fertilizers decades ago. The current human population requires synthetic carbon-based fertilizers (and pesticides) to keep yields sufficient for survival.

Yes agribusiness as practiced now is terrible, but synthetic fertilizers are not the only answer to feeding the planet.

Fertilizer prices have been soaring in 2022 and farmers globally are seeking more environmentally friendly and cost effective options.

We really don't have to destroy the planet to sustain human life.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: November 17, 2022 05:15PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
I'm not sure anyone says 1st world now...

Oh my, have I used terms that are no longer acceptable? cry smiley

Quote
Lemon Drop
So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions.

It's math. Half the polluters create half the pollution.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: November 17, 2022 05:41PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Lemon Drop
I'm not sure anyone says 1st world now...

Oh my, have I used terms that are no longer acceptable? cry smiley

Quote
Lemon Drop
So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions.

It's math. Half the polluters create half the pollution.

It IS math, but that is not the correct answer.
As explained above.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2022 05:42PM by Lemon Drop.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: mrbigstuff
Date: November 17, 2022 08:20PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Lemon Drop
I'm not sure anyone says 1st world now...

Oh my, have I used terms that are no longer acceptable? cry smiley

Quote
Lemon Drop
So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions.

It's math. Half the polluters create half the pollution.

Not correct. the countries that emit the most are industrialized countries, who are far ahead of more agrarian societies, for obvious reasons. Further, people who live in cities emit less per capita than those in suburban and rural (industrialized) areas, again for obvious reasons.

Interestingly, all of the top emitters, per capita, are in the Middle East: Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, SA, Oman, etc. USA is #9 on this list, but Canada is #8.



Mischievous and Deceitful
Chicanerous and Deplorable
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: kj
Date: November 18, 2022 11:37AM
As if it would be so much easier to cut the population in half than to behave better. Neither is likely based on history, but behaving better (better tech, etc.) is more likely than halving population. Plus, I have faith that half the population could actually increase emissions by living even larger.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: Steve G.
Date: November 18, 2022 12:11PM
Quote
kj
As if it would be so much easier to cut the population in half than to behave better.

I think that's been tried already
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: kj
Date: November 18, 2022 12:38PM
Quote
mrbigstuff
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Lemon Drop
I'm not sure anyone says 1st world now...

Oh my, have I used terms that are no longer acceptable? cry smiley

Quote
Lemon Drop
So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions.

It's math. Half the polluters create half the pollution.

Not correct. the countries that emit the most are industrialized countries, who are far ahead of more agrarian societies, for obvious reasons. Further, people who live in cities emit less per capita than those in suburban and rural (industrialized) areas, again for obvious reasons.

Interestingly, all of the top emitters, per capita, are in the Middle East: Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, SA, Oman, etc. USA is #9 on this list, but Canada is #8.

Also, it would depend which half. If that half were to be all from poor countries, it wouldn't help at all.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: November 18, 2022 01:00PM
Quote
kj
Quote
mrbigstuff
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Lemon Drop
I'm not sure anyone says 1st world now...

Oh my, have I used terms that are no longer acceptable? cry smiley

Quote
Lemon Drop
So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions.

It's math. Half the polluters create half the pollution.

Not correct. the countries that emit the most are industrialized countries, who are far ahead of more agrarian societies, for obvious reasons. Further, people who live in cities emit less per capita than those in suburban and rural (industrialized) areas, again for obvious reasons.

Interestingly, all of the top emitters, per capita, are in the Middle East: Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, SA, Oman, etc. USA is #9 on this list, but Canada is #8.

Also, it would depend which half. If that half were to be all from poor countries, it wouldn't help at all.

Exactly.

Focus on cutting the carbon. The population is only going to grow, and the growth isn't the problem at this stage.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: November 18, 2022 05:23PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
deusxmac
It's math. Half the polluters create half the pollution.

Quote
Lemon Drop
So halving the global population would not halve carbon emissions.

It IS math, but that is not the correct answer.
As explained above.

False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.

Here's the math...

Say all current carbon emissions are represented by the number 100,000.

50%* is created by 10 "A"s - 50,000 - the big polluters.
30%* is crated by 10 "B"s - 30,000.
20%* is created by 10 "C"s- 20,000.

Halve each of those groups; with each, still practicing the types of pollution activities:
5 "A"s crate 25,000
5 "B"s create 15,000
5 "C"s create 10,00

All emissions now 50,000; half what it was.

Alternately...

50%* is created by 6 "A"s - 50,000.
30%* is crated by 20 "B"s - 30,000.
20%* is created by 40 "C"s - 20,000.

Halve each of those groups; ; with each, still practicing the same types of pollution activities:
3 "A"s crate 25,000
10"B"s create 15,000
20 "C"s create 10,00

All emissions, again, now 50,000; half what it was.

*Use any percentages you like that add up to 100%
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: kj
Date: November 19, 2022 01:24PM
There is no good reason to assume a reduction in population would act equally on all groups of people. Plus it assumes people who currently have little access to resources will continue to have similar access. Your model does not reflect reality. If it did it would obviously hold true, but it doesn’t.

Edit: Half the current population of the world could easily use several times the energy currently used if they were as resource intensive as we are in the US. Therefore population control is not an adequate way to address the problem. We absolutely have to produce and use energy differently.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2022 01:34PM by kj.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: I was born in 1950. There were two and a half billion people on the planet.
Posted by: mrbigstuff
Date: November 19, 2022 08:52PM
50%* is created by 10 "A"s - 50,000 - the big polluters.
30%* is crated by 10 "B"s - 30,000.
20%* is created by 10 "C"s- 20,000.

Halve each of those groups; with each, still practicing the types of pollution activities:
5 "A"s crate 25,000
5 "B"s create 15,000
5 "C"s create 10,00

All emissions now 50,000; half what it was.

Alternately...

50%* is created by 6 "A"s - 50,000.
30%* is crated by 20 "B"s - 30,000.
20%* is created by 40 "C"s - 20,000.

Halve each of those groups; ; with each, still practicing the same types of pollution activities:
3 "A"s crate 25,000
10"B"s create 15,000
20 "C"s create 10,00


people are not objects, such as automobiles, for instance. in that case, perhaps dividing by two, there would be a nearly halving of emissions (notwithstanding the necessary infrastructure that would not be halved, but whatever, for the sake of argument). people have different habits, desires, and goals; a very unstructured group that does not lend itself to metrics very well.



Mischievous and Deceitful
Chicanerous and Deplorable
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 393
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020