Human population

[Fenrir]

There's also the euthinasia thing, wich is basically what Kavorkian did

[Vuldari]

Whoah- you guys didn't read my whole post now did you.

This One?

I have to say this: when it comes down to survival, when it's i'll eat the wol'f or it'll eat me, i havbe to know the exact curcimstances- but i tend to lean towards the 'wolves deserve ti more' side. really, we haven't overpopulated this world but it so happens that wolves and humans liek the same areas.

What part do you think we missed?

The world isn't overpopulated- BUT noone wants to live out i nthe mmiddle of nowhere.

That's your opinion. I disagree.


...and I WOULD like to live "in the middle of nowhere", if it was possible.

A Single House in a woodland Aria...On a Hill...overlooking a lake, river or Ocean shore...with ample open spaces to plant just enough fruits and vegetables to feed two families (it's allways nice to have "more than enough"), with enough wildlife about to support a single family of human hunters, in addition to the local Carnivores (Including Wolves ) ...and no cities within 80 miles in any direction...(but yes... cities too. Just becasue everyone could be self-sufficient, does not mean the Science, Industrial, Financial, and Service trades, etc. need not exist anymore)...

A population sparse enough that this scenario could at least be an Option for everyone on the planet who desired to live that way would be the IDEAL Human Population in My eyes. It is My Opinion that any population too large to make such an Ideal scenario possible is just an Increasing level of Overpopulation.


I appologise for my ranting thus-far. "OverPopulation" just happens to be one of a few topics that really makes my blood boil...in that SO MANY people refuse to believe that the population of the human race has allready far exceeded what is reasonable on this planet.

We have just as much a right to exist, live and thrive on the planet Earth as any other animal...(No less...no More)...but For Goodness Sake!...why can't people realize there are just too #%#$& many of us!?!?

As you can tell...I feel very strongly about this...

[vrikasatma]

You know, deciding not to have children is.... good and all, but it's not something the government should decide for people, nor should there be a government that actually has the means to enforce something so blasted oppresive and barbaric.

Couldn't agree with you more. It has to be done voluntarily or not at all (which is my standard attitude towards everything). It gets frustrating sometimes when people seem so focused on squeezing out the cubs until their pelvis falls apart, but I won't confront a woman in front of her kids about it. At best, it's gauche, at worst it's a terrible thought to stick a kid with for the rest of their lives.

This is why I'm giving up the present generation as a lost cause and focusing on the upcoming one. This is the time to get them and let them know that it's okay to not have children. Program out the "childless" social stigma and making sure that birth control remains legal and readily accessed.

[Lupin]

This is why I'm giving up the present generation as a lost cause and focusing on the upcoming one. This is the time to get them and let them know that it's okay to not have children. Program out the "childless" social stigma and making sure that birth control remains legal and readily accessed.

The increase in world population doesn't come from developed nations (like I said before the fertility rate is usually under the replacement rate). The population boom comes from developing countries where children are used as a source of labor and to take care of their parents in their old age. Notice how all the developing nations are at the top Somehow I doubt that you are going to be able to convince them to have less children.

[Vuldari]

The increase in world population doesn't come from developed nations (like I said before the fertility rate is usually under the replacement rate). The population boom comes from developing countries where children are used as a source of labor and to take care of their parents in their old age. Notice how all the developing nations are at the top Somehow I doubt that you are going to be able to convince them to have less children.

On the most part, that is true...most of the worlds population inflation is comming from the third world countries, which definately causes a problem.

They are simply not as "in touch" with the rest of the world as we are, and only have their traditons to pull guidance from. It's a huge cultural roadblock in the path to Population Management, as in order to stop the excessive birthrate, one would have to doom thusands of family lines to end, and leave the surviving members to die alone, with no "next generation" to support them in thier later years. (which, in those countries, is only about 30 years old.)

...so who has to be the devil in this situation and stop these well meaning, simple people who just want to live as is thier right to, from destroying the world one starved baby and desperate immigrant at a time?

There is no easy answer to that question, but I fear that if those cultures do not learn to change thier ways on their own, within the next century or two, the world will be forced to take action against the innocent by force, not only for the good of mankind, but for the good of the world that is suffocating under the flood of human beings within it.

Plus...overcrowding does not just drain resources. ...it causes tension and civil unrest, which inevitably leads to fighting and WAR.
(It's far easier to get 100 people to settle on a truce than 1,000,000)

[WolvenOne]

Oh, I'm convinced the most likely place for a major war to break out *Major being WW1 or 2 level causaulties* is the area ranging from parts of China to much of Africa. With such a high population in much of that area coupled with religious extremism, poverty and a few other geo-political instabilities, and you've got yourself a powderkeg of "oiy that's really gonna smart when it goes off."

This may not actually help the population problem immedietly though, as humans tend to step UP thier breeding after wars. Though if a war eventually stabelized the region it would certainly help ease the population issues "eventually."

[Trinity]

Here are a number of hard cold facts.
1 ) not only have we overpopulated, but have begun spreading out in to viable, usable FARMLAND. Some communites that are mostly rural have been FORCED by their local and some state governements to allow a certain amount of businesses to build on viable farm lands. This is susposed to help the "economic recession".

2 ) Humans rely, as a whole population, on thre, count them 3 major food crops.., two fo which are rice and wheat. Both grass species, both easily destroyed if a major hazzard came our way. If anything happens to the Global-wide crop sof wheat and rice, more then half of the world population will starve.

3 ) By building up on our farmlands, not just in older, industrilizaed countires, but in other newly industrilized countires, we limit our food production to the mass, govenrment run, or private;y owned companies. They will eventually determine what sort of foods we eat .., period. Did you know there -were- ( past tense ) like over 50 -species- of apple? How many can you name?

4 ) We wouldn't BE in an economic depression if we had jobs avaiable, and if the cost of living weren't so high. Of course this treds into other matters as well.., but when I have to struggle to get a job, fresh out of college, with some High School kid..., working for walmart.., yeah thinsg are going down hill fast.

5 ) The Human population continues to -expand- exponetially. We double and triple in size -every year-. Even if one couple had one kid, with the BILLIONS of humans on this planet.., that effectively doubls our population in less then one year.

Now of course there are death-rater facotrs to consider.., which then I have to point out that our elderly are not dying off at the same rate that babbies are being born..,

And everyone has to eat..,

ever if its only plant matter...,

Now.., yes i want to be a mother. Its an instincutal urge that's plagued me all of my life. But when Ithink of the whole of it all.., I feel so sick.

I hate citiesm they depress me..., but you know what depresses me more?

the Housing developments going up in pristine farm land in NEW JERSEY.., ya know the "Garden State". Places, HUGE swaths of 100's of acres of farmland being sold because the "poor dirt farmer" can't make a living off of his work. Most farmers either have to be part of a larger company, or they have to get second jobs else where.., which means they can't put 110% into their farming.

So.., they sell. Why? Unbuilt, flat, easily built upon lands are worht a LOT of money. 1 acres can cost upwards of 5,000 or more. One farm I knew, that a groupd of use were thinkiing about buying for a non-profit Organic organization.., the company that wanted to buy it.., builing a housing complex right acorss teh street.., was offering them a quarter of a million dollars.

get this.., they sell teh finsihed house for a quarter of a million dollars. I kid you not. They are HUGE manses. 2-3 story, fills up almost an entire half an acre by itself, comes with 5 acres of land.., yeah HUGE.

Guess who's buying them?

City folk. Docotrs, Lawyers people who have money. In some cases the large Latino -families- who wash our toliets. Yep. They move OUT of the city.., why? Its too crowded. It stinks.., traffic's bad, taxes are too expensive.

*knock knock* HELOO!! by moving into a cheap area yu MAKE it more expensie.., thus leading to futher economic depression because you still wokr and shop in the cities.., drive you cars around an dstink up the place.., then later down the line COMPLAIN that its too crowded and too noisy...,

O.O
GAH!

*beats head into deks* *thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda*

Yes. We are too crowded.., adn we keep spreadin gout like a plague. about half to 3/4 of the population either a ) doesn't know or b ) doesn't care. It would inconvience them too much to care.

[Figarou]

O.O
GAH!

*beats head into deks* *thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda-thudda*

*hands Trinity some aspirin*

[Trinity]

hmmn thank you.., ouch.

[Figarou]

hmmn thank you.., ouch.

no problem

[Kzinistzerg]

WHoah.ok. I just got the september issue of scientific american- which, oddly enough, is alla bout this topic. once i finish it i'll summarise it for you guys ina new thread.

[Set]

We are too crowded.., adn we keep spreadin gout like a plague.

I guess what Agent Smith from The Matrix said was right then. Humans aren't mammals, we're a virus.

And now for some good news!

I hate being a pessamist, but I fear we are far closer to that "Biblical Catastrophy" than any of us would care to believe.

...That's absolutely right. We're due for not one, but AT LEAST THREE major catastrophies. And it's not the wacko people who always think the world is ending saying that, the scientists are. Wanna know what the disasters will be? I'll tell you...but you won't like it. There's no avoiding any of them.

There's a fault line off the coast of Washington state. Geologists have been looking at the layers of dirt and stuff from that area and have found a pattern of major earthquakes occuring once every few hundred years. It's about due for the next one. Problem is these quakes are huge. California hardly ever gets quakes bigger than a 6.0, and those do major damage when they hit. The earthquakes that occur on that particular fault are around the range of 9.0, which means big. At least 100 times more powerful than a 6.0.

You've all heard of Yellowstone park right? Well scientists have recently found out that the entire park is a gigantic supervolcano. A supervolcano has a magma chamber 100 (or was it 1000? I forget) times bigger than a normal volcano. It's due to blow. It could erupt tomorrow or a few thousand years from now. The time varies but at an absolute minimum it would blow...tomorrow. The damage it would cause would be absolutely devestating. Anything within 200 miles of the volcano will be demolished. But it doesn't stop there. The sheer amount of ash it would pour into the upper atmosphere would blanket the United States in ash even all the way to where I live in South Carolina. If the ash stays in the atmosphere for any real length of time it could darken the entire world and make it colder.

Then there's the megatsunami. For those of you who don't know, a megatsumani is an enourmous wave created not by an earthquake, but by a landslide. Compared to an earthquake generated tsunami a megatsunami is...gah, I can't remember the number. But to give you a comparison they said that a normal one would only come up to the fifth story of the biggest building in the world and the megatsunami would be so large as to be even bigger than the tallest building in the world. That means many, many more deaths than the tsunami in Asia caused. And we're about due for that too. There's an unstable volcanic island off the coast of Africa that could slide into the ocean at any time. Landslides are the reason the Hawaiian islands look the way they do, so this is a regular thing with islands around the world. If you're wondering where the megatsunami will hit...it's gonna smack right into the east coast of the United States. Anyone living on the coast and especially in Florida will probably be dead.

[Lupin]

5 ) The Human population continues to -expand- exponetially. We double and triple in size -every year-.

No. We don't.

In 2000 the UN estimated that the world's population was growing at a rate of 1.2%, or about 77 million people, per year. That is nowhere near doubling and tripling in size every year.

[Silverclaw]

I think human overpopulation is THE most important problem facing the world right now. The Earth is being destroyed more and more, forest and other natural places being destroyed, wildlife going extinct, pollution, I really wish they would have permits to have children or something. If your really poor and cant afford to support a child (or children) then no kids for you right now. Nobody needs to have like 7 or so kids. People who have really bad health problems shouldnt have children and such. I think if nature doesnt go ape-s*** on us (like Relune's examples) then we will destroy the earth ourselves. War and using biological/chemical/neuclear weapons will finish of everything real quick. It is really sad
I was watching this show on The Science Channel were a few huge astroid hit the earth. They showed everything being completely destroyed(not the dinosaur one, earlier one) A HUGE earth/dirt tidal wave being thrown up and a HUGE wall of heat and fire engulfing the world. They say everthing was destroyed and all water dissolved. The only life left was some bacteria way underground below the burn zone. Guess life started again from that. I never heard of that before that show so..*shrugs*

What Relune described and with a killer astroid or two, sounds kindof weird. Earth starting over with the four elements, earth, wind, water and fire. *Twilight Zone music*

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I've been concerned about this one for years now and anyone who looks at our ecosystem can see the problems there. Anyway a group of us in class proprosed a theory that help solve overpopulation and abortion .

Basically what we had proposed is that people who wish to have an abortion were allowed ONE and as a result both partners married or not were required to have an operation removing their reproductive ability. It is something that would prob. have to be tested of course though it may result in lowered population, abortion rates, increase adoption rates while also lowering the number of adoptees. It's just a theory....

[vrikasatma]

On the subject of the so-called "Third World" (it's all one world)...

Let's also take into consideration that most people in the "undeveloped" countries (meaning, where cellphone and bank lines of communication are not up to the level that we enjoy in, say, Europe and North America) live closer to the earth. They *see* what impact the birth of their child has on the surrounding area. It's more <i>direct</i>: a baby is born, therefore we are going to need to plant more rice plants to feed it, so we'll need to take some more grazing land away from our beasts of burden (donkeys, water buffalo, et alia), therefore those beasts of burden get nudged out and have to forge into wildlife habitat for their food. The antelope, foxes and butterflies have nowhere else to go so they just die. In the West — we usually don't see the chain of reaction. We have a baby, oh, I'll just have to nip down to the supermarket to buy another box of mac 'n cheese a week. And pick up another case of Diet Pepsi for myself...

And what we don't see is thousands of small mammals, beneficial reptiles, groundnesting birds' nests dying under the wheels of the harvesting machine to harvest the wheat for that mac 'n cheese, on just one farm that Kraft contracts with for a supply of grain to grind into flour for the macaroni part.

Not that that excuses any of it.

I have a friend at the barn who used to do Peace Corps work over in Africa. Her daughter was born there and they stopped at one. The women of the village that she worked with tutted and asked her why, and my friend brought up a loaf of bread. "Watch," she said, and cut the loaf into three parts. "Each one of us has more resources to live on." Then she cut the loaf into fourteen pieces, and asked them, "Why do you have nine, ten, twelve kids?" "Oh, we need them to take care of us in our old age!" "Honey — the way you're going, you're not going to make it to old age! You're going to die of starvation and your children will be orphans!" So...yeah...I think there's a way to encourage the so-called "third worlders" that using birth control and not having as many babies as they do is possible. The big problem is that in many "third world" countries, for cultural reasons, the women can't stand up and tell their husbands, "No, we have enough children." I get the feeling that if they had more say in the matter, more women would say, "It stops here, it stops now, no more." Take a look at the spiritual climate in most of the countries where the birthrate has gone ballistic: Africa, India, South America. Most of Africa is Muslim, hardly a climate where the woman has a say. South America is largely Roman Catholic, and we all know where The Church stands on birth control. Now go to a place like Sweden: it's mostly Protestant, they aren't down on birth control (unlike the Bible Belt here). Birth rate there is pretty low, on a par with Italy (another culture where quality of life is of high priority). Sweden, Germany, Italy: the emphasis is on limiting one's family and giving your small brood the care and attention they require.

it all comes down to how much quality of life you want: do you want to live like the swamp people of Iraq, or do you want to live like the Italians do and have three-hour lunch breaks and three-month paid vacations like the Germans?

When people ask me whether I'm pro-life or pro-choice, I tell them I'm pro-quality of life. Birthing a child into an abusive situation, or a household that can only just make ends meet or isn't making ends meet to begin with, or to a child-mother who doesn't know what to do and is still growing up and maturing herself, doesn't help anyone. This is not quality of life. Abortion may be bad, but if the kid comes out and gets the hell slapped out of it by its father and/or mother the first night of its life, what justice has been done here? Or if the kid has to go hungry every other night because the adult of the household can't afford to buy food, would anyone want to be born into a situation like that? Hell, no! Better to excise a mass of cells that may or may not consciously suffer for a short duration of time, than to give a full-term live birth and damn the kid to decades of suffering.

Last note, and sideways cancer update...I met with my surgeon yesterday, and he said as a preventionary measure they were going to take my ovaries out along with the cancerous part of my intestines, because colonic, ovarian and breast cancer tend to come together and they want to head off the possibility that I'd develop ovarian cancer (my sister developed a cyst on hers and had them removed). So yeah, September is going to be my last period and this wolf is going to burn her Genetic Pool card after that

[Renorei]

Yeah there's too many of us. There are many solutions that could solve this problem, but I won't mention those 'cause I don't want people jumping down my throat, even though there's nothing wrong with those suggestions.

So here's another one. In america, we have effectively made smoking almost taboo (most definitely so in public areas). Obviously it's not illegal, but it's definitely frowned upon. Bans on public smoking definitely played an impact on this trend, but so have commercials discouraging smoking and new information gained about second-hand smoke, and also the fact that cigarette advertisers are now much more limited in terms of what they can do than they used to be.

So. Perhaps something of that sort for overpopulation. Have a commercial that has a family with 4 kids. Show them all happy or whatever, then cut to some starving kids in Africa or whatever. Make people feel guilty for having more than two kids. Encourage two, one, or none.

Provide incentives to networks to create TV shows and book companies that depict families with 2 kids or less in a positive light, or a single parent with one kid, or people with no kids. Show how happy they are. Maybe throw in an extra incentive for having families with three or more kids seem unhappy. Don't force anyone, but definitely make it worth their while.

(the above actions are to be taken by the govt.)

Course this would only help in America, and these aren't exactly the best ideas. But I think stuff of this nature would help. Making it socially taboo to have an assload of kids is probably the direction to go.

Some other things I'd like to address:

Someone said it was selfish to choose having your own kids over adopting. No. It's not. What's selfish is to have way too many kids, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to have your own. I plan on having my own children. I'm pretty sure it's a natural desire to want to do so, b/c giving birth to a child automatically creates an instant, intense love b/w mother and child, something you don't get with adoption. Of course if you choose to adopt, Great!! But having your own kids is definitely a right that should never be questioned or held to scrutiny.

Genetic superiority.
This is a toughie. I am definitely in favor of the genetically superior having more kids than the inferior, but I wouldn't know how to approach this issue. (Honestly, I have opinions about how to do this, but I won't share them on this board b/c those who have similar opinions have been shot down...when they aren't actually wrong, they're just stating their thoughts which don't agree with some people's). So I would say perhaps (the government could) provide incentives to the genetically superior to have kids, and providing incentives to the inferior to NOT have kids. (I don't know where all these incentives would come from...that's a whole 'nother enchilada). Or perhaps instead imposing heavier taxes on them for having kids or for having more than their share of kids, but not for the genetically superior.

(I really really don't want to get into an argument about human genetic superiority. You can push the issue if you want but my thoughts are this: genetic superiority is evident in humans all the time...it may be a sad thought to know that someone was born with more ability than you...but it happens. All the time. Anytime you see some weak little wormy looking guy who makes bad grades and has a family history of various diseases, and put him next to a big, strong, healthy guy who is really intelligent and doesn't have any family history of diseases, that is an example of genetic superiority. Of course nutrition and the way we are raised plays a factor, but there's no denying that there are people who are genetically 'better off' than us in various areas. I, for one, would love to see the best produce more and the lesser produce less. That would improve the human race as a whole. Natural selection used to do that for us. But now we have modern medicine, which is allowing those who would otherwise die to survive and pass on their bad genes. Sorry if this offends anyone, but those are my thoughts. Like I said, I really don't want to argue about this, b/c that's not what this thread is about and plus I don't think it is even an issue that can be 'argued' anymore. You can question my logic of encouraging the superior to produce and discouraging the inferior, but please don't question the fact that some are superior to others in the areas where it counts. I really don't want to argue that one, and I don't even think that it's even debatable anymore.)

So those are my thoughts. Many things can be accomplished, without ever forcing anyone to do anything.

[NarnianWolfen]

To give China credit...I read an article that they're realizing just exactly what destroying their female children does. I can't remember the figure, but right now there are just TOO many boys in China, with nowhere near the number of girls. They're effectly killing themselves off be removing their mothers, and there are actually a lot of groups encouraging girl children, and last I heard the Chinese family can have up to three children. China is trying to recover.

I don't believe that children in other countries are starving to death because of lack of food/resources. The resources are there. What's not there is money. What's there are governments that have, for years and for various reasons, suffered and failed, and are in desperate need of help. Check this: http://www.worldonfire.ca/ They have children because either the parents want to be supported or, in the case of seriously deprived countries, they can't afford the birth control that we can and choose not to take advantage of. Today's youth sees sex as a way to rebel, and they just can't understand the consequences of their actions. I think it's alright to abort, if the reason is valid. It's the only acception I make to my views of killing. I know it sounds hypocritical, and I apologize. I think that there is just not enough emphasis put on adopting, and I also think these women with 4.5 tots don't generally plan it..they just have no self control or no say in the matter. We won't run out of food. Not soon. I know people won't like me saying it, and I am NOT saying I agree with it, but look at the population of stray pets today. Thousands of dogs, cats, and other species of pet are euthanized every year, thousands upon thousands. If we ever got that hard up for food..where do you think we might turn to for meat..?

We're just living longer. At least in well-developed countries. We're forcing the old to live, and we're pumping out pups with no knowledge as to what we're doing. We can fit an amazing number of people into an amazingly small space...look at New York City, Manhattan, Rhode Island. For people that like the city life, they live fairly comfortably, except for those that ALLOW their living environments to deteriorate. We talk about ghettos and garbage and waste...but as my mom likes to say, 'I've BEEN poor. I've had no money and lived in a little craphole of a house with just my four dogs and had to sacrifice for all of us. But that didn't mean I had to keep it a craphole. My house was always clean. There's NO excuse for dirty.' It's the laziness of humans that makes it bad for all, not just overpopulation. I don't feel we're so overpopulated that we're killing each other, I just think too many people don't care, and are too used to creature comforts. I think that we're overpopulated enough to warrant major disasters, but not because humans HAVETODIENOW, but because our world is just changing. It's not just humans that may die. It's all living creatures.

[Darum]

the only solution is orbital cities. they would need to be spinning to simulate gravity, with a section completely dedicated to farming plants and live-stock. they would need green houses and a giant freezer to store extra water. and emergancy sailock systems.... but how will the resources hold up?

EDIT: HOLY CRAP! LOOK AT ALL THE POSTS!

[vrikasatma]

I don't think we're going to destroy the planet. In my view, that's just human hubris, and we shouldn't flatter ourselves. A bloody rock the size of K-2 hit the Yucatan and the planet scarcely blinked. Sure, there was wholesale death among the extant life forms but the elements that nurture life remained mostly in place. The great extinction was a hiccup. Mt. Pinatubo was a zit pop on a planetary scale. The Boxing Day Tsunami was a belch.

Yet, Krakatau was enough to blow a whole island to pieces.

What I'm worried about is, the planet will continue with its processes, and concentrated pockets will experience death in inconceivable numbers. I mentioned Mt. Rainier before: it's right next to Seattle, and it's considered the third most dangerous volcano on the planet; Mt. St. Helens is just a little girl pitching a hissy.

One of the scenarios I explored in my Werewolf:the Apocalypse game was having the Red Talons fall to the Wyrm and since they aren't technological (certainly not by the others tribes' standards), they used rites to wake up the entire Ring of Fire, Tierra Del Fuego up through Cascadia, Kamchatka, Hokkeido down to Rarotanga. In one day, three and a half billion people died, about 55% of the human race. They chose this course because they knew, that's where the great concentrations were. As a special side bonus </snark> the Yellowstone Supercrater decided to join the party and shared the love with the eastern Rockies and a sizeable chunk of the American Heartland.

We're concentrating near the oceans and that's where the tectonic action of the planet is; the most violent geologic adjustments happen there. Imagine if the Bay Area's volcanoes went? They have four: Tam, Mt. Rose, Mt. Diablo and Loma Prieta. Imagine if Popacatepetl blew its top? Good-bye Mexico City. Rainier — Good-bye Seattle. Mt. Diablo — Good-bye San Francisco.

Great concentrations of the population means great swaths of death when the planet — just does her thing. This is why when a battery plant in India melts down, thousands die, but if the same thing happened in Australia, chances are there'd be a body count of 0.

[Kzinistzerg]

I have to point this out: we can solve this once we get decently unified world with a decently good world government. there's some more out-there solutions, such as ringworlds, dyson spheres, and giant disks, all of which we would be able to spread trillions and trillions of people among, who could wanter their entire lives, and never meet anyone else. for instance, using larry niven's ringworld, which is 3 milion times the area of earth.... that's ALOT of space,and if we're building it, ALL of it is useable.

[Vilkacis]

Erm..

As Lupin pointed out: surface area is not the problem.


The problem is resources. We're using natural resources faster than they can replenish. We cut down trees faster than new ones grow. We kill animals so quickly that entire species go extinct. We use oil to such an extent that we're looking to run out before long.

The problem is not living space -- there's more than enough for everyone.

The problem is not food -- there's so much that we throw away a great deal of it because we can't find a use for it.

The problem is not pollution (although annoying) -- a single volcanic eruption depletes the ozone layer more than mankind ever has in its entire existence, for example.

The problem is the childish way humans use the resources of this planet.

Gimme', Gimme', Gimme'.

We're spoiled; we're not going to stop unless someone forces us to. A unified world government might do the trick; however, even smaller, less powerful governments have this terrible little habit of becoming corrupt over time. A world government might, in the end, be an even worse problem than the one it was enacted to correct.

-- Vilkacis

[Figarou]

The problem is resources. We're using natural resources faster than they can replenish. We cut down trees faster than new ones grow. We kill animals so quickly that entire species go extinct. We use oil to such an extent that we're looking to run out before long.

Agreed.

I mentioned it as a question here.

http://calypso-blue.com/werewolf/viewto ... 0219#30219

The more people on this planet, the more we use our resources.

[Kzinistzerg]

the poiunt of a ringworld, 3 million times the surcafe area of the world, is this:

3 million times the area of teh world.

we build it

3 million times the area of the world, with DAMN ENAR AL OF IT USEABLE LAND. you could get forests bigger than the ara of the earth, oceans so large that the fish populatio ncould be i nthe trillions and the oceans still empty, you could fit entire maps of worlds on! my point is this: there's room for anywhing, civilization, primitive mud huts, anything in between and beyond.

of course, my argument is moot, because a: we don't have the technology to do this, b: no one here seems to have read anywhing about this, c: the controll needed to do this is nonexistant.

but as you said, vilkacis, yes, the problem isn't people, its the correct use of land and resources.

[vrikasatma]

The problem with a ringworld or a dyson sphere — while they look <b>fantastic</b> on paper and in the head, is that they are parsecs off the scale in terms of resources, both material and human.

We could build a ringworld, but it would require strip mining at least 10% of the asteroid belt, since most planets in this system are gaseous. We'd need to tap one of those gaseous bodies to power the project. We'd also need to educate THE WHOLE of the human race and recruit them into the project. I wouldn't be opposed to this in the least, for once we'd see global unity and cooperation. End of homelessness, end of unemployment, nobody killing anyone else. No bad news here.

I do argue that if we applied the same effort, conscientiousness, administration and resources to fixing what we have now, we won't have to build a pie in the sky, we'll have paradise on earth with a fraction of the energy that would go into building a ringworld (a dyson sphere would be incalculably more complex and expensive).

And of course, remember that a ringworld is still a human construct and thus only as infallible as its designers and creators. Not saying it would come apart at the seams but it's not complex math to suss that it wouldn't handle a deep-impact meteor strike as well as the earth did.

This also raises another question. Terraforming another rocky planet or building living pods — cloud cities — in gaseous planets' atmospheres would probably be more conservative resources-wise. Figuring out a way to give the moon a liveable atmosphere would be a more prudent step — even if it's a step closer to actually building a ringworld.