Keep reproducing folks, because you can never have too many people

@ Bordsilver Yes, it makes sense.

I'm a bit divided on it really. Half of me agrees with what you say, and the other half thinks that this wild, inflation-ridden version of capitalism consumes even more resources than necessary. Eg, Americans (or Australians) being able to buy trinkets from China for a pittance, when in reality the true cost of it all is born by the slave labour of the Chinese worker.

But why is this the case? Is it because of the crazy USD monetary expansion of the last decade (thanks Greenspan) and the rise in resource use (and hence price) since? I think so.

If you have a currency (and I mean USD here) that is not held to account for its own volume and exchange value, then why not expand that money supply and use it to buy up resources and pillage the world? Even though the US may not be 100% to blame for that, the Chinese leveraged off this model by buying up the resources and on-selling them after adding their own value (refining, manufacturing, etc).

I wonder too if we had gold-backed currency whether this could have happened - and I suspect perhaps not because the Chinese goods may not have had a buyer, since we would all have to live within our means.

 

Okay, I admire the brains some of you had/have, but it still frustrates me observing bias wisdom applied to one reasoning but not another.

Who releases the global population figures? Do you know them? Can they be trusted?

Unless you literally count the heads of every human on earth, nobody knows. Just like 'they' (i.e. the statisticians) use error prone computer models using floating point arithmetic with wild guess exponents, then add a dash of universal laws (i.e. agreed consensus but still lacking understanding of the constants), and I know I am not the only one whom has been hearing the odd bit of news on ABC radio. Can only imagine what they play on television these days.
Anyway, if they can stuff up simple 'surveys' by being selective with both control and test subjects, normally a head count of 1000, how the hell can they be competent with larger numbers?

And, don't even try to convince me 'they' all share data freely with each other across the whole world, gathering supposed un-skewed election results, births and deaths, and the flying nuns. Every organization around the world seems corrupt, whether non profit or not.

I ESTIMATE (and I am the first to admit I have no fkn idea) the error percentage would have to be somewhere around 10%, and that is if the suppose retrieved numbers were not falsely inflated or deflated.
Transport and Logistics using ISO is still a headache. Australia Post can't even do their job right. McDonalds still stuffs orders.

Chinese Whispers my friend, mingled with hidden agendas and self gain.

Believe nothing. Question everything. Grain of salt.
.

 

The real population could be 1 billion.
The real population could be 100 billion.
All I know is that it is more than me.

 

You've gone off the rails a bit with your statistical analysis there W&F.

There are plenty of tools to do population analysis that could bring someone to within a 1% error margin or less I am sure. It doesn't have to be perfect, just statistically very good.

We know a lot about Western countries because all births and deaths are registered. But we don't necessarily know about countries where this does not occur. Still, they can make some statistical assumptions that will be within a decent error range, far below the 10% you say.

And if you were right somehow and it was 10%... that's the difference between say 6.6billion and 5.4billion people (using 6billion as the starting figure, although we're probably closer to 7billion by now).

So enough playing devils advocate and time for your sleep sir.

 

I think you all raise some really good points here, 46 and bords are basically arguing the same thing from different angles. The capacity of producers to feed everyone is there but it is the capacity of the political and actual food transport of the systems which are in place that fails to provide. My point of view anyway.

I recently did a study paper on this very issue, population growth overall in developing country's is falling believe it or not and Africa as a whole is way behind on growth compared to Asia for all manner of reasons, War, Pestilence, and Climate being the major reasons. The combination of these three as a limiting factor on population growth in Africa compared with that of Asia is quite profound really but when you break down the numbers it comes down to quite recently a lack of breeding through menfolk being off at war and the rate of child nutrition and resultant disease impact on child mortality in the under six age group along with the large rural population relying upon subsistence farming, who in times of social unrest and drought are unable to source alternative food due to disruptions in the supply chain.

Starvation is caused by lack of distribution not failure of crops or any one reason such as war or drought or number of people.

Population in rural areas of third world or developing country's are based upon the norm of large family's as a necessity of survival. A large family provided both a good chance that at least a number of children would survive to work the land and provide food along with some excess for trade and also provide care for the aging parents. In the past it would be expected that probably half your offspring would die before age ten and that the remainder would secure your farmland and provide for you in your old age. The past I mention is less than fifty years ago, before disease control mechanised farming and fertilizer, education, communication, roads etc etc etc. \

The drop in child mortality lead to the current growth in population, the resultant offspring now know no difference until they realise they dont need to breed to survive when they migrate or are born into a metropolitan area and can buy food at a market with dollars instead of bartering the excess of a grown crop or livestock. As a result the growth in population will reach a peak by 2050 and start to shrink people are breeding less and growing older, all first world countrys have a deficit of replacement and only grow through immigration.

Production of food is not a problem at all, we in the west throw away nearly half of what we buy or feed it to our pets. Sure we are overpopulated so far as the worlds resources go but in reality we could feed the hungry in the world with just the grain used to provide feel good do nothing biofuel. The one and only reason people starve to death is POLITICS.

 

Dogmatix, I appreciate your failure. So, I shall elaborate with more.

We get taught such n such is 'factual' for years to only find out down the track was not the case, and instead of rectifying history we continue the lie, passing on the falsehood. Since to change the data would imply and admit we were lied to from our apparent elected leaders.

There are times, rare, where the knowledge passed on is amended and updated, such as the Tobacco Companies lying about the health risk of cigarettes.

Seriously, you got too much faith in the elect.

What was it; It should really be the year 1700 or something, cause 'they' stuffed up the calendar. I forget that one.

I can think of one very good reason why 'they' are perhaps lying or covering up (re: population number); to amplify augment grandiose depopulation and other agendas.

Sensationalism sells. Exaggeration sells.

If you believe in Carbon being a cause of climate change, and not a product, then this goes over your head.

There was a time when you did not know about naked shorts and gold spot manipulation. Now you know. Yet, whenever you attempt to school the uninformed they just can't see. They live their lives behind another veil.

Every space image taken by the Hubble Telescope has been doctored/altered/manipulated by an onboard version of 'Photoshop', literally every image. Not one is released without a lie.

Desensitized.
You turn on your idiot box and hear news how USA has invaded a nation of stone age villagers, but you can't help to think; good, the world is overpopulated anyway.

Your brain = sponge.

 

@southerncross
Yes.
I crunched some math years ago proving the claimed world population can fit snuggly within the State of QLD (Australia), each person having 1/4 acre of fertile land. Leaving between 1/4 to 1/3 of QLD empty.

 

Probably still true today based just alone on the numbers living in slums in India alone and still surviving and reproducing, one has to wonder why nearly everything we are told apart from economics is based on fear.?

 

I guess I should qualify that, We are all told that everything is A OK all the time so far as the economy of the country is going but are fed a constant stream of worry about everything else. Even contradictions such as loss of jobs in manufacturing but the GNP is still up , We can balance the budget but but we borrowed X amount from China, We spent X amount on education but your kids are now dumber than they were fifteen years ago.

We are nowhere near as bad as X Y or Z country but we are heading that way so long as you keep us in Government.

Government = Govern essentially translates to 'control' and ment means 'mind' -- control of the mind, or perhaps- in context, control of the many. Depends on context and translation.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Latin_translation_of_the_word_government#ixzz22hLZk7Wi .

 

Seriously I would love to have a couple of slaves, now that would be the way to make money...... Not politically correct but it would be awesome. Yard would be spotless, house would shine like a dime.

 

Imagine how kool it wood bee if *you* were the slave. I reckin that wood be awesome.

 

The bible does not expressly disallow slavery and the book of Philemon is one of the most disliked books in the bible for this fact. There are rules on how you MUST treat your slaves if you have them

 

Yes, I was just wondering how they'd be decided/allocated. Not like you'd have to be rich to have some folks to do everything for you for no payment. Ballot - who gets to be the slaves.

 

Theres a message from god coming soon i suspect :

 

Umm... that was Mars....

 

That was an analogy. :/

 

That was tongue in cheek.

 

7 billion people on earth, so QLD would have to be 1.75 billion acres.

Australia has 1.88 billion total acres of land.

 

You are right. I massvive headfk. I must of been smoking at time.
1/16 acre (not incl. uninhabitable and infertile), not my previous 1/4. Don't ask me how I multiplied by four. O_O
.