POPULATION - page 4. | Bitcointalksearch.org

styca

sr. member

Activity: 1078

Merit: 354

Quote from: BADecker on November 01, 2019, 07:29:48 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on November 01, 2019, 06:56:25 AM

Quote from: BADecker on October 31, 2019, 01:05:56 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on October 30, 2019, 10:08:00 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on October 30, 2019, 08:24:10 PM

Ultimately, the planet's human population would be limited by the limit on the conversion of available sunlight to food.

Not with nuclear fusion.

Are you talking about allowing fusion energy that is good for life, but shielding from fusion energy that is dangerous for life? Or are you talking about converting fusion to electricity so we can power white light "bulbs" for plant needs?

What do you mean?

I mean that with unlimited energy one can synthesize almost anything a human needs to stay alive including nutrients. No old-fashioned sun required.

You know this? Or you are hopeful? Cool

If we do get commercially-viable fusion, then yes, it is essentially limitless free clean energy. Assuming everyone gets access to it and it's not just held back by the powers that be.

Fusion is essentially the opposite of the nuclear power that we have now, fission.

Fission creates hugely dangerous waste, is non-sustainable because it uses unstable heavy elements as source material, and can have runaway chain reactions, as we have seen.

Fusion sticks small atoms together to create energy. Its srouce is deuterium, which can be extracted from water. Its waste product is mostly helium, non-radioactive and safe. Chain reactions are impossible because you need a constant input of new fuel.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: tvbcof on November 01, 2019, 06:56:25 AM

Quote from: BADecker on October 31, 2019, 01:05:56 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on October 30, 2019, 10:08:00 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on October 30, 2019, 08:24:10 PM

Ultimately, the planet's human population would be limited by the limit on the conversion of available sunlight to food.

Not with nuclear fusion.

Are you talking about allowing fusion energy that is good for life, but shielding from fusion energy that is dangerous for life? Or are you talking about converting fusion to electricity so we can power white light "bulbs" for plant needs?

What do you mean?

I mean that with unlimited energy one can synthesize almost anything a human needs to stay alive including nutrients. No old-fashioned sun required.

You know this? Or you are hopeful? Cool

KingScorpio

sr. member

Activity: 1470

Merit: 325

Quote from: owates on February 16, 2018, 03:45:02 AM

How to live comfortable in an over populated environment?

be the capitalist and exploit those who are less

darkangel11

legendary

Activity: 2296

Merit: 1335

Don't let others control your BTC -> self custody

Countries aren't overpopulated it's just people who like convenience. They prefer to live in crowded places because it's easy to get everywhere.
I live in a small town where most people have a big garden in the back of the house and a driveway for a couple cars in front. When I ask some of my friends who live in one bedroom apartments if they would sell it and buy a small house instead they all say no. Because they would have to get a car to move around they would have to drive to work they would have to cut grass and do garden work, stores are far away they would need a bigger fridge and a freezer and worry about heating. They choose to live in overpopulated places! To battle it you have to battle mentality.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: BADecker on October 31, 2019, 01:05:56 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on October 30, 2019, 10:08:00 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on October 30, 2019, 08:24:10 PM

Ultimately, the planet's human population would be limited by the limit on the conversion of available sunlight to food.

Not with nuclear fusion.

Are you talking about allowing fusion energy that is good for life, but shielding from fusion energy that is dangerous for life? Or are you talking about converting fusion to electricity so we can power white light "bulbs" for plant needs?

What do you mean?

I mean that with unlimited energy one can synthesize almost anything a human needs to stay alive including nutrients. No old-fashioned sun required.

kuyaJ

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: owates on February 16, 2018, 03:45:02 AM

How to live comfortable in an over populated environment?

You cannot stop growing it but a country can reduce it. By limiting child in every country can reduce a population. By the people who doesn't do family planning can do for adding much population.

If you want to live comfortable you can migrate to some country who doesn't overpopulation. If you haven't any money for that then it's fine to live uncomfortable.

tambok

sr. member

Activity: 812

Merit: 260

Quote from: djsugar on October 30, 2019, 04:48:51 PM

Quote from: owates on February 16, 2018, 03:45:02 AM

How to live comfortable in an over populated environment?

Over populated areas lead to scarcity of resources at different levels if not dealt properly. There is fight and increase in prices of land, food and water. Also, healthcare and employment is difficult to serve as demand is high and capital can be less. But there can be some positive outcomes for overpopulated areas like diversity in culture and if we consider a marketplace, more players lead to more competition which leads to competitive pricing and eventually benefits the people.

There are advantage and disadvantage of over population, it creates scarcity yes but it also creates opportunity for most people as you can sell any kinds of staff, good and services as there's a lot demand, just like here in our country wherein it is over populated but created a lot of demand.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: tvbcof on October 30, 2019, 10:08:00 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on October 30, 2019, 08:24:10 PM

Ultimately, the planet's human population would be limited by the limit on the conversion of available sunlight to food.

Not with nuclear fusion.

Are you talking about allowing fusion energy that is good for life, but shielding from fusion energy that is dangerous for life? Or are you talking about converting fusion to electricity so we can power white light "bulbs" for plant needs?

What do you mean?

Cool

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: Spendulus on October 30, 2019, 08:24:10 PM

Ultimately, the planet's human population would be limited by the limit on the conversion of available sunlight to food.

Not with nuclear fusion.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 1386

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 12:10:31 PM

Quote from: BADecker on October 30, 2019, 11:23:01 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 10:34:13 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on October 30, 2019, 08:32:36 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 08:22:49 AM

The question is not if we can fit billions more.

The issue is sustainability, pollution control/cleanup, resource (water/air/land/food/energy) management, etc.

I think when we reach 14-15 Billion we will be close to that peak carrying capacity, maybe sooner.

Do you have any specific reasons why that seems like a good number?

Many think we will be out potable water and food when we reach 10 billion.
https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

We are barely starting with the technology that can take care of, say, 100 billion. DickDuckGo search on "graphene water filtration" as an example.

Cool

100 billion on this planet? Hmm, I don't see how.

Ultimately, the planet's human population would be limited by the limit on the conversion of available sunlight to food.

samputin

sr. member

Activity: 1036

Merit: 294

Quote from: owates on February 16, 2018, 03:45:02 AM

How to live comfortable in an over populated environment?

My definition of comfortable would be having your own space with all the things you need arranged neatly. It doesn't have to be grand as long as you can move freely at your own pace. You know, just keeping things tidy so that you can rest comfortably despite the environment.

It would be challenging but if there's a will, there's a way. I mean, if you want to feel comfortable somehow, then you should do something about it. There's nothing we can do about the population anymore. You can only change and control yourself. Still, that's my own opinion. We all have different perspectives, after all.

djsugar

sr. member

Activity: 686

Merit: 262

Quote from: owates on February 16, 2018, 03:45:02 AM

How to live comfortable in an over populated environment?

Over populated areas lead to scarcity of resources at different levels if not dealt properly. There is fight and increase in prices of land, food and water. Also, healthcare and employment is difficult to serve as demand is high and capital can be less. But there can be some positive outcomes for overpopulated areas like diversity in culture and if we consider a marketplace, more players lead to more competition which leads to competitive pricing and eventually benefits the people.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 12:10:31 PM

Quote from: BADecker on October 30, 2019, 11:23:01 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 10:34:13 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on October 30, 2019, 08:32:36 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 08:22:49 AM

The question is not if we can fit billions more.

The issue is sustainability, pollution control/cleanup, resource (water/air/land/food/energy) management, etc.

I think when we reach 14-15 Billion we will be close to that peak carrying capacity, maybe sooner.

Do you have any specific reasons why that seems like a good number?

Many think we will be out potable water and food when we reach 10 billion.
https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

We are barely starting with the technology that can take care of, say, 100 billion. DickDuckGo search on "graphene water filtration" as an example.

Cool

100 billion on this planet? Hmm, I don't see how.

Start to get the picture by considering a 2000 sq ft flat for four people... close to the average size of a family. Add another 500 hundred sq ft for utility, for a total of 2500 sq ft.

Use a 7.5 billion estimated population of the world.

This equals out to about 168141 sq miles, which equals out to 16814 square miles if there are 10 stories in each apartment complex.

Land area of the earth is about 57,510,000 sq miles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth). This means we would be using about 0.029% (well under a tenth of a percent) of land area for habitation.

We could easily go up another 10 stories, and down 10 stories. And if we considered the oceans, we would almost have an additional 2.5 times the space.

In an above post, I mentioned graphene water filtration, which can filter saltwater. Also, there are farming techniques that use humic microbes, humic acids, gibberellic acid, and plant nutrients that go way beyond fertilizers for growing plants.

And this isn't all by a long shot. We are barely using what we have available to us. One hundred billion population can easily be handled, if we want to handle it. The problem is working together.

Cool

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: PryptoMontreal on October 30, 2019, 01:07:15 PM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 08:22:49 AM

Quote from: BADecker on October 29, 2019, 08:39:10 PM

^^^ Right! And if people decided to build up, or build down, or cover the oceans, and build up and down on the oceans, Earth could easily hold many billions more.

Cool

The question is not if we can fit billions more.

The issue is sustainability, pollution control/cleanup, resource (water/air/land/food/energy) management, etc.

Exactly, Population Control is necessary! And in order to make it possible, government should impose strict laws (such as having a maximum of two children per family) and have a regular check on per family birth rate!
The offenders should be punished in a form of hefty fine!
This infact has been under implementation in a few countries. In my country, this failed miserly, government forced vasectomy after second child and impulsively, the public got furious and started anti-government rallies. This forced government to take the rule back.
Vasectomy was a bad solution, a heavy fine might also not be sufficient, what else could we think of?

Changing taxation laws to discourage having kids might work. Instead, most politicians want more growth and higher birth rates. Maybe not in Africa, China or India, but in the West that is the case. Instead of getting rebates, tax credits for having kids, the government should impose additional taxes on families that have kids.

Education, and some other forms of persuasion to move away from the traditional "spread and multiply" mantra to "find other ways to achieve fulfillment in life" might actually work.

Changing behavior is a difficult thing to do.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: PryptoMontreal on October 30, 2019, 01:07:15 PM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 08:22:49 AM

Quote from: BADecker on October 29, 2019, 08:39:10 PM

^^^ Right! And if people decided to build up, or build down, or cover the oceans, and build up and down on the oceans, Earth could easily hold many billions more.

Cool

The question is not if we can fit billions more.

The issue is sustainability, pollution control/cleanup, resource (water/air/land/food/energy) management, etc.

Exactly, population Control is necessary! And in order to make it possible, government should impose strict laws (such as having a maximum of two children) and have a regular check on per family birth rate!The offenders should be punished in a form of hefty fine!
This infact has been under implementation in a few countries. In my country, this failed miserly, government forced vasectomy after second child and impulsively, the public got furious and started anti-government rallies, thus forcing government to take the rule back. Vasectomy was a bad solution, a heavy fine might also not be sufficient, what else could we think of?

Except that Big Business controls the government. And they are the ones that are causing us to pollute by what they manufacture for us to uses, and the way they manufacture.

Population reduction will be painfully automatic when we start dying off because of pollution. So attempted, formal population control is unnecessary. Cleaning up pollution will only tend to increase population.

Cool

PryptoMontreal

sr. member

Activity: 588

Merit: 285

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 08:22:49 AM

Quote from: BADecker on October 29, 2019, 08:39:10 PM

^^^ Right! And if people decided to build up, or build down, or cover the oceans, and build up and down on the oceans, Earth could easily hold many billions more.

Cool

The question is not if we can fit billions more.

The issue is sustainability, pollution control/cleanup, resource (water/air/land/food/energy) management, etc.

Exactly, Population Control is necessary! And in order to make it possible, government should impose strict laws (such as having a maximum of two children per family) and have a regular check on per family birth rate!
The offenders should be punished in a form of hefty fine!
This infact has been under implementation in a few countries. In my country, this failed miserly, government forced vasectomy after second child and impulsively, the public got furious and started anti-government rallies. This forced government to take the rule back.
Vasectomy was a bad solution, a heavy fine might also not be sufficient, what else could we think of?

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: BADecker on October 30, 2019, 11:23:01 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 10:34:13 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on October 30, 2019, 08:32:36 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 08:22:49 AM

The question is not if we can fit billions more.

The issue is sustainability, pollution control/cleanup, resource (water/air/land/food/energy) management, etc.

I think when we reach 14-15 Billion we will be close to that peak carrying capacity, maybe sooner.

Do you have any specific reasons why that seems like a good number?

Many think we will be out potable water and food when we reach 10 billion.
https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

We are barely starting with the technology that can take care of, say, 100 billion. DickDuckGo search on "graphene water filtration" as an example.

Cool

100 billion on this planet? Hmm, I don't see how.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 10:34:13 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on October 30, 2019, 08:32:36 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 08:22:49 AM

The question is not if we can fit billions more.

The issue is sustainability, pollution control/cleanup, resource (water/air/land/food/energy) management, etc.

I think when we reach 14-15 Billion we will be close to that peak carrying capacity, maybe sooner.

Do you have any specific reasons why that seems like a good number?

Many think we will be out potable water and food when we reach 10 billion.
https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

We are barely starting with the technology that can take care of, say, 100 billion. DickDuckGo search on "graphene water filtration" as an example.

Cool

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: franky1 on October 30, 2019, 01:04:37 AM

Quote from: BADecker on October 29, 2019, 08:39:10 PM

^^^ Right! And if people decided to build up, or build down, or cover the oceans, and build up and down on the oceans, Earth could easily hold many billions more.

Cool

i feel sorry for your wife if your thinking of having 100billion kids in 9 months
if you even done some math,,
8000m² per person

yep a family of four equates to having enough habitable land for 40 of these
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ee/83/62/ee8362b7cfef4cf9517cc3c196c2e043.jpg
2car garage, outdoor pool, patio area all four sides garden, and a guest house

so selling 39 plots to be used for retail/farming
and this is only in a scenario of single floor living.

I was thinking of 150,000 kids, but my wife opted for a number far less than that.

The point wasn't how many kids anybody might have. The point was and is how many the earth can support. The point wasn't an exact number. The point was to show that with a little innovation, the earth can be made to easily support possibly many times the number presently in existence.

Consider single floor layers, deep underground and high above ground, and in the oceans, as well.

Cool

af_newbie

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1468

Quote from: tvbcof on October 30, 2019, 08:32:36 AM

Quote from: af_newbie on October 30, 2019, 08:22:49 AM

The question is not if we can fit billions more.

The issue is sustainability, pollution control/cleanup, resource (water/air/land/food/energy) management, etc.

I think when we reach 14-15 Billion we will be close to that peak carrying capacity, maybe sooner.

Do you have any specific reasons why that seems like a good number?

Many think we will be out potable water and food when we reach 10 billion.
https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

Arable land is already a problem.

I think we will muddle through until 15 billion or thereabouts. Technological advancements in water purification, desalination, food production will be offset by population rebalancing (from poor, high birth rates to developed, low birth rates countries), and a subsequent spike in energy consumption and an increase in pollution. This will also put pressure on the global population growth rate, which will create more problems as it will decrease the doubling time.

If you want to see what the world will look like in 70 years, take a look at the top 12 dirtiest cities in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-polluted_cities_by_particulate_matter_concentration

This is what Zaozhuang (40th most polluted city) looks like:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-most-polluted-cities-in-the-world-ranked/14/

Pollution is the biggest threat to the human race, water, land are not far behind, IMHO. Many people in the developed countries, including people who control the world, ignore the signs because in the West we have a pretty good standard of living and everything is hunky-dory.

Topic: POPULATION - page 4. (Read 3239 times)