Should we be concerned about our population size?

[Brothern]

Suicidesoldier#1

Current population increases have been very high, but estimates on an exponential curve line don't necessarily reflect reality. We know that as industrialized countries develop, their populations sky rocket; afterwords though, they stabilize, meaning the population isn't going to increase forever. Furthermore, there's a limit to industrialization; once everyone has electricity, the gap has been filled. In addition, when newer technology becomes commonplace, the efficiency tends to be higher. Coal plants in China have about 1-2% efficiency, where in the U.S. our 50 year old coal plants have over 30%. Taxes make putting in new ones unnecessarily expensive, but they can be 2-3 times more efficient with relatively little difficulty.

We don't have to collectively share resources and technology to get to a better society, we're doing fine now and we aren't collectively sharing everything. This technology will develop on it's own, and by the time population sizes become a considerable problem, dozens up dozens of years in the future, we'll have already achieved it. The whole world doesn't need to come together to make Thorium or fusion power a reality, just a handful of scientists.


But, in any case, we have the means to make things better right now. Europe almost entirely uses diesel; it's over twice as efficient in the average engine, as the average American care gets 21 mpg, and the average European gets about 42. And not all of Europe purely uses diesel. The same exact refineries can turn crude into into diesel or gasoline, but in the U.S. diesel is discouraged and taxxed, for no real reason, by the green party. The fear used to be that it had more of other pollutants, like sulfur or would create smog; with a catalytic converter, that's really not as big of a deal, and with modern electronically controlled fuel injectors, we can do WAY better.

With modern coal plants, we could reduce the consumption by 2-3 times the amount, and absorb practically all the exhaust with algae. All of our coal plants are over 50 years old, mostly due to arbitrary taxes by the green party. While at first this seems great, no new coal plants, this more or less cements the old infrastructure in place. It's been counter productive, sadly.


CANDU reactors are cheaper and don't need the same level of refinery as typical light water uranium reactors; even now, about 60-70% of the costs are in the downpayment of the reactor and largely in interest, so we could cut out a sizable chunk of the cost just by paying for it with the government and having no interest. Uranium power already provides about 20.9% of the electricity within the U.S.; it wouldn't be too hard to make it 100%, and thus have close to no carbon emissions. Uranium waste is over rated, and the chance of a melt down is minimal, and with CANDU reactors impossible. All we'd have to do is put in new ones, remove the taxes, and then buy them in bulk with U.S. tax moneysz, essentially subsidizing them, to element interest, and electricity would be 3-5 times cheaper. There's thousands of years of uranium, easy, and potentially hundreds of thousands of Thorium. Thorium could be used practically tomorrow if we wanted, and 10-20 years isn't so difficult.

Once the U.S. does it, the rest of the world will follow suit or buy it from us. It's not really the end of the world to run out of fossil fuels.

Maybe I should have clarified before you took the time to write all of that.

Energy is the least of our concerns. The problem is far, far deeper than that. The concern is over energy, but also food, water, land, nitrogen (fertilizer) and all of the less notable, but vital resources like rare Earth minerals that are necessary to maintain our lifestyle.

I mean food production alone needs to increase by 70% in the next few decades on the current population growth trajectory. That's a conservative estimate. According to the World Bank, we've already dedicated 37.6% of the entire world's land area to food production. We cannot create land and there is only so much we can do with technology; we're literally facing a hard production limit that will be almost impossible to breach.

That goes for food, as well as fresh water and fertilizer, and raw materials like wood, metal, coal and crude oil. We're quickly depleting these materials and on current projections - assuming we don't want all hell to break loose in poorer countries - we're not going to survive to 2100 without drastic changes to our consumption habits.

Suicidesoldier#1

Things are already on a path for resolving the issues; with the rising cost of gasoline and other fossil fuels people already want to switch over. Alternatives are looking better, and with public education comes a better understanding of them; 50 years ago, the U.S. basically subsidized coal. Today, it wouldn't be impossible to subsidize some new form of electricity, eliminating at the very least interest payments to banks by the company, which would have increased the prices drastically.

Most of the world is talking. The U.S. is allied with Europe, most of Africa and South America, and India. Russia and China are a little crazy right now, but China works well enough with us to do business. If there's anything we'd all come together to do, it would be to secure energy. In fact, they're already working together on Fusion and such. I'm not saying do nothing or resolve all of our political differences, I'm just saying technological capabilities are already sufficiently advanced and by the time overpopulation becomes a problem, say 50-100 years by now, we'll have increased our capabilities, to a point, where it wouldn't matter if our populations did reach those levels. You claim 9 billion as if it's some kind of magical number of evil, but what makes it so bad anyways? When it's based on the maximum estimate anyways. The U.N.'s minimum estimate is actually negative, and claims that is more likely. What is more likely to happen is for everything to settle out, based on improved technologies, and end to industrial expansion, and a stabilization of the population from improved birth control, medical care, and more efficient technology. We're at a rate of rapid development at the moment. You've got places like the U.S., fairly technologically advanced, and places like Africa, where over half the population doesn't even have electricity. Then you have places like India, where those with electricity and those without live side by side. But the thing is, there's a limit to where they become industrialized; when they do become industrialized, they'll have less kids, as they'll be more educated and the initial boom due to improved medical care will even out. But there's a limit. We aren't going to keep having countries gain significantly amounts of people who are suddenly on electricity forever.

I need to get back to work, but I'll respond to this as well.

[EnglishTrain]

Simple answer: No.

[Rebeldoomer]

When the food supply cannot keep up with the population is when it's a problem.

[Captain_Shinzo]

Senator Armstrong

Captain_Shinzo

Avgvsto

No.

Solid point.

You asked a yes or no question. He answered satisfactorily.

I never said he didn't.

[Captain_Shinzo]

I'm glad to see many different ideas here. Reason I made the whole topic was to see the controversy and different thoughts on the topic.

Personally, I'm not entirely sure.
The human race's max population will increase so long as the technology, resource efficiency, and many other things stay on a stable path and increase with the growing population.

The reason I am not sure, however, is I am not positive if the growth of our population isn't more, less, or equal to the amount of our growing capabilities of striving. It is always possible to continue striving and, in theory, we could go on for a long period of time in growth if we had the land and resources. I am not sure if we have the ability and growth to gains those, however.

Mostly because I am ignorant on the subject and would like to hear of personal opinions from others on why they believe population size, currently or soon, either is or is not an issue for us or the planet.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Brothern

Suicidesoldier#1

Current population increases have been very high, but estimates on an exponential curve line don't necessarily reflect reality. We know that as industrialized countries develop, their populations sky rocket; afterwords though, they stabilize, meaning the population isn't going to increase forever. Furthermore, there's a limit to industrialization; once everyone has electricity, the gap has been filled. In addition, when newer technology becomes commonplace, the efficiency tends to be higher. Coal plants in China have about 1-2% efficiency, where in the U.S. our 50 year old coal plants have over 30%. Taxes make putting in new ones unnecessarily expensive, but they can be 2-3 times more efficient with relatively little difficulty.

We don't have to collectively share resources and technology to get to a better society, we're doing fine now and we aren't collectively sharing everything. This technology will develop on it's own, and by the time population sizes become a considerable problem, dozens up dozens of years in the future, we'll have already achieved it. The whole world doesn't need to come together to make Thorium or fusion power a reality, just a handful of scientists.


But, in any case, we have the means to make things better right now. Europe almost entirely uses diesel; it's over twice as efficient in the average engine, as the average American care gets 21 mpg, and the average European gets about 42. And not all of Europe purely uses diesel. The same exact refineries can turn crude into into diesel or gasoline, but in the U.S. diesel is discouraged and taxxed, for no real reason, by the green party. The fear used to be that it had more of other pollutants, like sulfur or would create smog; with a catalytic converter, that's really not as big of a deal, and with modern electronically controlled fuel injectors, we can do WAY better.

With modern coal plants, we could reduce the consumption by 2-3 times the amount, and absorb practically all the exhaust with algae. All of our coal plants are over 50 years old, mostly due to arbitrary taxes by the green party. While at first this seems great, no new coal plants, this more or less cements the old infrastructure in place. It's been counter productive, sadly.


CANDU reactors are cheaper and don't need the same level of refinery as typical light water uranium reactors; even now, about 60-70% of the costs are in the downpayment of the reactor and largely in interest, so we could cut out a sizable chunk of the cost just by paying for it with the government and having no interest. Uranium power already provides about 20.9% of the electricity within the U.S.; it wouldn't be too hard to make it 100%, and thus have close to no carbon emissions. Uranium waste is over rated, and the chance of a melt down is minimal, and with CANDU reactors impossible. All we'd have to do is put in new ones, remove the taxes, and then buy them in bulk with U.S. tax moneysz, essentially subsidizing them, to element interest, and electricity would be 3-5 times cheaper. There's thousands of years of uranium, easy, and potentially hundreds of thousands of Thorium. Thorium could be used practically tomorrow if we wanted, and 10-20 years isn't so difficult.

Once the U.S. does it, the rest of the world will follow suit or buy it from us. It's not really the end of the world to run out of fossil fuels.

Maybe I should have clarified before you took the time to write all of that.

Energy is the least of our concerns. The problem is far, far deeper than that. The concern is over energy, but also food, water, land, nitrogen (fertilizer) and all of the less notable, but vital resources like rare Earth minerals that are necessary to maintain our lifestyle.

I mean food production alone needs to increase by 70% in the next few decades on the current population growth trajectory. That's a conservative estimate. According to the World Bank, we've already dedicated 37.6% of the entire world's land area to food production. We cannot create land and there is only so much we can do with technology; we're literally facing a hard production limit that will be almost impossible to breach.

That goes for food, as well as fresh water and fertilizer, and raw materials like wood, metal, coal and crude oil. We're quickly depleting these materials and on current projections - assuming we don't want all hell to break loose in poorer countries - we're not going to survive to 2100 without drastic changes to our consumption habits.

Suicidesoldier#1

Things are already on a path for resolving the issues; with the rising cost of gasoline and other fossil fuels people already want to switch over. Alternatives are looking better, and with public education comes a better understanding of them; 50 years ago, the U.S. basically subsidized coal. Today, it wouldn't be impossible to subsidize some new form of electricity, eliminating at the very least interest payments to banks by the company, which would have increased the prices drastically.

Most of the world is talking. The U.S. is allied with Europe, most of Africa and South America, and India. Russia and China are a little crazy right now, but China works well enough with us to do business. If there's anything we'd all come together to do, it would be to secure energy. In fact, they're already working together on Fusion and such. I'm not saying do nothing or resolve all of our political differences, I'm just saying technological capabilities are already sufficiently advanced and by the time overpopulation becomes a problem, say 50-100 years by now, we'll have increased our capabilities, to a point, where it wouldn't matter if our populations did reach those levels. You claim 9 billion as if it's some kind of magical number of evil, but what makes it so bad anyways? When it's based on the maximum estimate anyways. The U.N.'s minimum estimate is actually negative, and claims that is more likely. What is more likely to happen is for everything to settle out, based on improved technologies, and end to industrial expansion, and a stabilization of the population from improved birth control, medical care, and more efficient technology. We're at a rate of rapid development at the moment. You've got places like the U.S., fairly technologically advanced, and places like Africa, where over half the population doesn't even have electricity. Then you have places like India, where those with electricity and those without live side by side. But the thing is, there's a limit to where they become industrialized; when they do become industrialized, they'll have less kids, as they'll be more educated and the initial boom due to improved medical care will even out. But there's a limit. We aren't going to keep having countries gain significantly amounts of people who are suddenly on electricity forever.

I need to get back to work, but I'll respond to this as well.

Which resources?

70% food increases for a population that will be increasing by 30% at most? The issue here is the reasoning on many levels. Even assuming the 70% figure is accurate, by your sources own admission most the population growth will be in cities, which will be 70% of the population, so farmland will actually be somewhat less populated than before due to migrations and the attractiveness of living in cities. That means there isn't going to be a shortage of farmland.

There's a few things that need to be taken into account; first, most of our nitrates come from fertilizer, specifically ammonium nitrate. Ammonium nitrate is the most common fertilizer in the world, and it uses 1-2% of our energy supply to create; it's made from nitrogen from the air, and is otherwise capable of being produced abundantly. There is still widely available and unused arable land, but even so more arable land can be made with irrigation, fertilizer, and other agricultural methods. Most places in the world don't use modern farming technology; in India for instance, most of their agriculture is still handled by people working in fields. 50% of their workforce are in agriculture; in the U.S., it's less than 2%. Tractors, wells, harvesters, and other forms of modern machinery commonplace in the U.S. but not as much in the rest of the world, can be used to increase yields several times what they are currently even within the same land. Thus, because so much of the world's farmland is still fairly rudimentary, it should be easy enough with developing countries to switch over to more efficient methods and produce more food. Different food crops can be planted, and more land can be transformed into farmland fairly easily utilizing simple methods like irrigation and fertilizer. Furthermore, there are more efficient methods of crop production readily available that are still rarely used in the U.S., such as aquaponic gardening.

According to your websites definition of 37.6%, "Agricultural land refers to the share of land area that is arable, under permanent crops, and under permanent pastures. Arable land includes land defined by the FAO as land under temporary crops (double-cropped areas are counted once), temporary meadows for mowing or for pasture, land under market or kitchen gardens, and land temporarily fallow. Land abandoned as a result of shifting cultivation is excluded. Land under permanent crops is land cultivated with crops that occupy the land for long periods and need not be replanted after each harvest, such as cocoa, coffee, and rubber. This category includes land under flowering shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees, and vines, but excludes land under trees grown for wood or timber. Permanent pasture is land used for five or more years for forage, including natural and cultivated crops."- Land that is arable is not the same that land that is necessarily used, but land that is naturally available for farming.


As for new and more efficient methods not being used, aquaponic systems come to mind. Not only do they provide higher crop yields in terms of surface area density, but they also consume less water and need less fertilizer, while also providing fish. The system works by basically taking aquaculture farming, essentially fish farming, and taking the nitrate and waste build up of the fish, and feeding it to the plants. While factory farming with chickens or cows may seem inhumane, fish can be easily stored in large aquariums with relatively little difficulty, and since the move around 3-dimensionally, can move over each fairly easily. Fish tend to travel in schools in the ocean, anyways.

Fish are a good source of lean meat with B12, high protein, and low fat and cholesterol. In addition, over 60% of the world's population lives on the coast, and most cultures will eat fish, even if they won't eat meat or certain kinds of meat. Better yet, growing them out of the ocean or from local streams helps to control the pollution, so while mercury is a current problem with ocean fish, particularly tuna, this is not the case with aquarium grown fish. The only problem with factory grown fish is the nitrate and waste build up; the water needs to be replaced, and the icky water needs to be dumped somewhere, preferably where it won't cause run off and cause algeal blooms or simply kill all the other fish (oxygen is needed, as is a relatively clean environment). These same things tend to be perfect for plants, though; manure, carbon dioxide, and nitrates. In fact, all you have to do is suspend the agriculture in the word, and they'll absorb it through their roots. Not only does this produce both cruelty free meat, but agriculture as well.

Here's the interesting part. First, water usage is one of the biggest problems regarding farming; without abundant water, say in the desert, vegetation is unlikely to grow. Agriculture accounts for approximately 80% of the U.S.'s water use, and it's likely higher in other country's. The next biggest problem is soil; like any place, unless the soil is filled full of fertilizer or naturally abundant in nutrients, it can be difficult to grow plants there; with aquaponics, the agriculture can be suspended in the water, and thus doesn't need soil or fertilizer, as long as fish feed is available, which duck weed is available, for that, a common pest in most places, you can more or less never have problem with soil or fertilizer. While sunlight isn't controllable per say, in places with lots of sunlight but otherwise poor growing conditions (like say, the desert) it wouldn't be impossible to grow food there. Since Aquaponics uses anywhere from 2-10% of the water usually used in agriculture, we're not only talking about taking away one of the largest constraints to agriculture, but one of society in general. 10% water usage of traditional farming means we would drop to approximately 28% our current usage even here in the U.S. Land with poor soil could actually become ideal for aquaponic cultures. In addition, because the roots no longer need the space to expand, so crop density can be much higher, 5-10 times the amount. I.E. the same space can produce 5-10 times the amount of crops, and fish as well.



These systems aren't being used despite their abundance largely due to the fact that they aren't seen as needed. Traditional methods of farming are easier to do and less complicated (as well as bit more intuitive) but if we wanted to change it wouldn't be that difficult to do. As the countries of the world industrialize, newer methods will be more common and as people feel the strain of food supplies, these methods will also be implemented, if not just by entrepreneurs looking to cash in on a new system.

All of these things, aquaponics, tractors, irrigation, fertilizer, require energy. In fact, their biggest costs are all related to energy. As long as that is settled, we can resolve most of these issues. I''ve been doing research into energy production methods myself because I was worried for a time, but I'm fairly certain that Uranium, Thorium, or a few other methods should be capable of meeting our energy requirements, for potentially thousands of years, enough time to reach fusion or accelerator driven Thorium technology (basically using large hadron colliders;it could also work with depleted uranium). I'm not finished compiling any of the information, mostly due to RL setbacks, but I've got some info here!

[Brothern]

Suicidesoldier#1

Which resources? 70% food increases for a population that will be increasing by 30% at most? The issue here is the reasoning on many levels. Even assuming the 70% figure is accurate, by your sources own admission most the population growth will be in cities, which will be 70% of the population, so farmland will actually be somewhat less populated than before due to migrations and the attractiveness of living in cities. That means there isn't going to be a shortage of farmland.

The assumption here is that traditionally poor areas are going to be able to grow their wealth (as a result of industrialization, education), or there at least will be a more equitable share of wealth, and that will allow for an increased demand for products with bigger resource footprints -- like coffee, meat and dairy products.

Thus while there may be a smaller movement (30%) in raw population growth, the demand (70%) will drastically increase. China and India are two big ones here. Both have growing middle classes with growing purchasing power; which will drive increase demand and place strong pressure upon food prices.

Suicidesoldier#1

There's a few things that need to be taken into account; first, most of our nitrates come from fertilizer, specifically ammonium nitrate. Ammonium nitrate is the most common fertilizer in the world, and it uses 1-2% of our energy supply to create; it's made from nitrogen from the air, and is otherwise capable of being produced abundantly. There is still widely available and unused arable land, but even so more arable land can be made with irrigation, fertilizer, and other agricultural methods. Most places in the world don't use modern farming technology; in India for instance, most of their agriculture is still handled by people working in fields. 50% of their workforce are in agriculture; in the U.S., it's less than 2%. Tractors, wells, harvesters, and other forms of modern machinery commonplace in the U.S. but not as much in the rest of the world, can be used to increase yields several times what they are currently even within the same land. Thus, because so much of the world's farmland is still fairly rudimentary, it should be easy enough with developing countries to switch over to more efficient methods and produce more food. Different food crops can be planted, and more land can be transformed into farmland fairly easily utilizing simple methods like irrigation and fertilizer. Furthermore, there are more efficient methods of crop production readily available that are still rarely used in the U.S., such as aquaponic gardening.

According to your websites definition of 37.6%, "Agricultural land refers to the share of land area that is arable, under permanent crops, and under permanent pastures. Arable land includes land defined by the FAO as land under temporary crops (double-cropped areas are counted once), temporary meadows for mowing or for pasture, land under market or kitchen gardens, and land temporarily fallow. Land abandoned as a result of shifting cultivation is excluded. Land under permanent crops is land cultivated with crops that occupy the land for long periods and need not be replanted after each harvest, such as cocoa, coffee, and rubber. This category includes land under flowering shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees, and vines, but excludes land under trees grown for wood or timber. Permanent pasture is land used for five or more years for forage, including natural and cultivated crops."- Land that is arable is not the same that land that is necessarily used, but land that is naturally available for farming.

Slight clarification here - The nitrogen in ammonium nitrate is harvested from the air, but it's the H2 gas that is needed and is the key limiting factor for fertilizer production. The only feasible technology right now to producing that H2 gas is using up non-renewable natural gas deposits.

Second point is that arable land is land that is currently being used for the cultivation of crops, and that awkward definition from the FAO doesn't help to clarify what they're talking about. You have to read it a couple of times. It's a common mistake made by English speakers that arable land just means "land suitable for farming," when it also has this more specific definition that the FAO is using. (I know, was told wrong definition all my life too ....)

In this case: Arable land may be land that is not used during the winter months, or after harvests, but it is still being regularly tilled up and planted upon. As for the estimate? Yes, I know, it sounds f*king absurd, but about 10% of Earth's land is arable (being tilled & planted upon), 1% is under permanent crop and 26% is under pasture which totals to ~ 37.5%. Land that is naturally available for farming probably amounts to another 10%-20% of the world's land. That's a complete guess of mine, going off the idea that 30% of Earth is still forested. We might be able to reclaim some of that. So maximum potential agriculture land is ... like 50-60% of Earth's land area.

Anyhow, I am also in much agreement with you that there is much to be done to improve rudimentary farming techniques. Keeping with this agriculture theme, only about 20% of arable land is irrigated. However, the underlying point is that it will require significant investment and coordination by world leaders to reach this -- which is why I answered "yes" to the OP of this thread. It's a worry.

Suicidesoldier#1

As for new and more efficient methods not being used, aquaponic systems come to mind. Not only do they provide higher crop yields in terms of surface area density, but they also consume less water and need less fertilizer, while also providing fish. The system works by basically taking aquaculture farming, essentially fish farming, and taking the nitrate and waste build up of the fish, and feeding it to the plants. While factory farming with chickens or cows may seem inhumane, fish can be easily stored in large aquariums with relatively little difficulty, and since the move around 3-dimensionally, can move over each fairly easily. Fish tend to travel in schools in the ocean, anyways.

Fish are a good source of lean meat with B12, high protein, and low fat and cholesterol. In addition, over 60% of the world's population lives on the coast, and most cultures will eat fish, even if they won't eat meat or certain kinds of meat. Better yet, growing them out of the ocean or from local streams helps to control the pollution, so while mercury is a current problem with ocean fish, particularly tuna, this is not the case with aquarium grown fish. The only problem with factory grown fish is the nitrate and waste build up; the water needs to be replaced, and the icky water needs to be dumped somewhere, preferably where it won't cause run off and cause algeal blooms or simply kill all the other fish (oxygen is needed, as is a relatively clean environment). These same things tend to be perfect for plants, though; manure, carbon dioxide, and nitrates. In fact, all you have to do is suspend the agriculture in the word, and they'll absorb it through their roots. Not only does this produce both cruelty free meat, but agriculture as well.

Here's the interesting part. First, water usage is one of the biggest problems regarding farming; without abundant water, say in the desert, vegetation is unlikely to grow. Agriculture accounts for approximately 80% of the U.S.'s water use, and it's likely higher in other country's. The next biggest problem is soil; like any place, unless the soil is filled full of fertilizer or naturally abundant in nutrients, it can be difficult to grow plants there; with aquaponics, the agriculture can be suspended in the water, and thus doesn't need soil or fertilizer, as long as fish feed is available, which duck weed is available, for that, a common pest in most places, you can more or less never have problem with soil or fertilizer. While sunlight isn't controllable per say, in places with lots of sunlight but otherwise poor growing conditions (like say, the desert) it wouldn't be impossible to grow food there. Since Aquaponics uses anywhere from 2-10% of the water usually used in agriculture, we're not only talking about taking away one of the largest constraints to agriculture, but one of society in general. 10% water usage of traditional farming means we would drop to approximately 28% our current usage even here in the U.S. Land with poor soil could actually become ideal for aquaponic cultures. In addition, because the roots no longer need the space to expand, so crop density can be much higher, 5-10 times the amount. I.E. the same space can produce 5-10 times the amount of crops, and fish as well.

All of that is what is going to be needed and worried about. We need scientists and engineers and business people to come up with those types solutions. I'm concerned that we're not going to be heavily enough focused in that, because ...

The problem with overpopulation is that it's not something that's going to be immediate, nor is it something that will probably affect the US. We Americans don't care if food prices jump 20%; that's affordable to us. Who's affected is the world's poor. They're the ones that will be suffering en masse ...

Suicidesoldier#1

These systems aren't being used despite their abundance largely due to the fact that they aren't seen as needed. Traditional methods of farming are easier to do and less complicated (as well as bit more intuitive) but if we wanted to change it wouldn't be that difficult to do. As the countries of the world industrialize, newer methods will be more common and as people feel the strain of food supplies, these methods will also be implemented, if not just by entrepreneurs looking to cash in on a new system.

All of these things, aquaponics, tractors, irrigation, fertilizer, require energy. In fact, their biggest costs are all related to energy. As long as that is settled, we can resolve most of these issues. I''ve been doing research into energy production methods myself because I was worried for a time, but I'm fairly certain that Uranium, Thorium, or a few other methods should be capable of meeting our energy requirements, for potentially thousands of years, enough time to reach fusion or accelerator driven Thorium technology (basically using large hadron colliders;it could also work with depleted uranium). I'm not finished compiling any of the information, mostly due to RL setbacks, but I've got some info here!

I'm a huge supporter of nuclear solutions, especially fusion technology.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Brothern

Suicidesoldier#1

Which resources? 70% food increases for a population that will be increasing by 30% at most? The issue here is the reasoning on many levels. Even assuming the 70% figure is accurate, by your sources own admission most the population growth will be in cities, which will be 70% of the population, so farmland will actually be somewhat less populated than before due to migrations and the attractiveness of living in cities. That means there isn't going to be a shortage of farmland.

The assumption here is that traditionally poor areas are going to be able to grow their wealth (as a result of industrialization, education), or there at least will be a more equitable share of wealth, and that will allow for an increased demand for products with bigger resource footprints -- like coffee, meat and dairy products.

Thus while there may be a smaller movement (30%) in raw population growth, the demand (70%) will drastically increase. China and India are two big ones here. Both have growing middle classes with growing purchasing power; which will drive increase demand and place strong pressure upon food prices.

Suicidesoldier#1

There's a few things that need to be taken into account; first, most of our nitrates come from fertilizer, specifically ammonium nitrate. Ammonium nitrate is the most common fertilizer in the world, and it uses 1-2% of our energy supply to create; it's made from nitrogen from the air, and is otherwise capable of being produced abundantly. There is still widely available and unused arable land, but even so more arable land can be made with irrigation, fertilizer, and other agricultural methods. Most places in the world don't use modern farming technology; in India for instance, most of their agriculture is still handled by people working in fields. 50% of their workforce are in agriculture; in the U.S., it's less than 2%. Tractors, wells, harvesters, and other forms of modern machinery commonplace in the U.S. but not as much in the rest of the world, can be used to increase yields several times what they are currently even within the same land. Thus, because so much of the world's farmland is still fairly rudimentary, it should be easy enough with developing countries to switch over to more efficient methods and produce more food. Different food crops can be planted, and more land can be transformed into farmland fairly easily utilizing simple methods like irrigation and fertilizer. Furthermore, there are more efficient methods of crop production readily available that are still rarely used in the U.S., such as aquaponic gardening.

According to your websites definition of 37.6%, "Agricultural land refers to the share of land area that is arable, under permanent crops, and under permanent pastures. Arable land includes land defined by the FAO as land under temporary crops (double-cropped areas are counted once), temporary meadows for mowing or for pasture, land under market or kitchen gardens, and land temporarily fallow. Land abandoned as a result of shifting cultivation is excluded. Land under permanent crops is land cultivated with crops that occupy the land for long periods and need not be replanted after each harvest, such as cocoa, coffee, and rubber. This category includes land under flowering shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees, and vines, but excludes land under trees grown for wood or timber. Permanent pasture is land used for five or more years for forage, including natural and cultivated crops."- Land that is arable is not the same that land that is necessarily used, but land that is naturally available for farming.

Slight clarification here - The nitrogen in ammonium nitrate is harvested from the air, but it's the H2 gas that is needed and is the key limiting factor for fertilizer production. The only feasible technology right now to producing that H2 gas is using up non-renewable natural gas deposits.

Second point is that arable land is land that is currently being used for the cultivation of crops, and that awkward definition from the FAO doesn't help to clarify what they're talking about. You have to read it a couple of times. It's a common mistake made by English speakers that arable land just means "land suitable for farming," when it also has this more specific definition that the FAO is using. (I know, was told wrong definition all my life too ....)

In this case: Arable land may be land that is not used during the winter months, or after harvests, but it is still being regularly tilled up and planted upon. As for the estimate? Yes, I know, it sounds f*king absurd, but about 10% of Earth's land is arable (being tilled & planted upon), 1% is under permanent crop and 26% is under pasture which totals to ~ 37.5%. Land that is naturally available for farming probably amounts to another 10%-20% of the world's land. That's a complete guess of mine, going off the idea that 30% of Earth is still forested. We might be able to reclaim some of that. So maximum potential agriculture land is ... like 50-60% of Earth's land area.

Anyhow, I am also in much agreement with you that there is much to be done to improve rudimentary farming techniques. Keeping with this agriculture theme, only about 20% of arable land is irrigated. However, the underlying point is that it will require significant investment and coordination by world leaders to reach this -- which is why I answered "yes" to the OP of this thread. It's a worry.

Suicidesoldier#1

As for new and more efficient methods not being used, aquaponic systems come to mind. Not only do they provide higher crop yields in terms of surface area density, but they also consume less water and need less fertilizer, while also providing fish. The system works by basically taking aquaculture farming, essentially fish farming, and taking the nitrate and waste build up of the fish, and feeding it to the plants. While factory farming with chickens or cows may seem inhumane, fish can be easily stored in large aquariums with relatively little difficulty, and since the move around 3-dimensionally, can move over each fairly easily. Fish tend to travel in schools in the ocean, anyways.

Fish are a good source of lean meat with B12, high protein, and low fat and cholesterol. In addition, over 60% of the world's population lives on the coast, and most cultures will eat fish, even if they won't eat meat or certain kinds of meat. Better yet, growing them out of the ocean or from local streams helps to control the pollution, so while mercury is a current problem with ocean fish, particularly tuna, this is not the case with aquarium grown fish. The only problem with factory grown fish is the nitrate and waste build up; the water needs to be replaced, and the icky water needs to be dumped somewhere, preferably where it won't cause run off and cause algeal blooms or simply kill all the other fish (oxygen is needed, as is a relatively clean environment). These same things tend to be perfect for plants, though; manure, carbon dioxide, and nitrates. In fact, all you have to do is suspend the agriculture in the word, and they'll absorb it through their roots. Not only does this produce both cruelty free meat, but agriculture as well.

Here's the interesting part. First, water usage is one of the biggest problems regarding farming; without abundant water, say in the desert, vegetation is unlikely to grow. Agriculture accounts for approximately 80% of the U.S.'s water use, and it's likely higher in other country's. The next biggest problem is soil; like any place, unless the soil is filled full of fertilizer or naturally abundant in nutrients, it can be difficult to grow plants there; with aquaponics, the agriculture can be suspended in the water, and thus doesn't need soil or fertilizer, as long as fish feed is available, which duck weed is available, for that, a common pest in most places, you can more or less never have problem with soil or fertilizer. While sunlight isn't controllable per say, in places with lots of sunlight but otherwise poor growing conditions (like say, the desert) it wouldn't be impossible to grow food there. Since Aquaponics uses anywhere from 2-10% of the water usually used in agriculture, we're not only talking about taking away one of the largest constraints to agriculture, but one of society in general. 10% water usage of traditional farming means we would drop to approximately 28% our current usage even here in the U.S. Land with poor soil could actually become ideal for aquaponic cultures. In addition, because the roots no longer need the space to expand, so crop density can be much higher, 5-10 times the amount. I.E. the same space can produce 5-10 times the amount of crops, and fish as well.

All of that is what is going to be needed and worried about. We need scientists and engineers and business people to come up with those types solutions. I'm concerned that we're not going to be heavily enough focused in that, because ...

The problem with overpopulation is that it's not something that's going to be immediate, nor is it something that will probably affect the US. We Americans don't care if food prices jump 20%; that's affordable to us. Who's affected is the world's poor. They're the ones that will be suffering en masse ...

Suicidesoldier#1

These systems aren't being used despite their abundance largely due to the fact that they aren't seen as needed. Traditional methods of farming are easier to do and less complicated (as well as bit more intuitive) but if we wanted to change it wouldn't be that difficult to do. As the countries of the world industrialize, newer methods will be more common and as people feel the strain of food supplies, these methods will also be implemented, if not just by entrepreneurs looking to cash in on a new system.

All of these things, aquaponics, tractors, irrigation, fertilizer, require energy. In fact, their biggest costs are all related to energy. As long as that is settled, we can resolve most of these issues. I''ve been doing research into energy production methods myself because I was worried for a time, but I'm fairly certain that Uranium, Thorium, or a few other methods should be capable of meeting our energy requirements, for potentially thousands of years, enough time to reach fusion or accelerator driven Thorium technology (basically using large hadron colliders;it could also work with depleted uranium). I'm not finished compiling any of the information, mostly due to RL setbacks, but I've got some info here!

I'm a huge supporter of nuclear solutions, especially fusion technology.

Much of these improved techniques are already available.

While industrialization will result in an increased population and thus an increased food demand, it will also result in more efficient techniques, many of which that don't need to be reinvented since they already exist. Thus it will, largely, mitigate those issues. Higher crop yields are fairly easily possible, and with things like GMO's or laboratory grown food the capabilities may sky rocket.

Still, even at our current level, it should be sufficient. Basically, increasing industrialization tends to increase population size because it expands what their carrying capacity is; as a result it "mitigates", or more aptly explains why the population growth tends to occur. But after a certain point it should slow down and also likely will rectify itself. Since the only real resource we're running out of are fossil fuels, finding alternatives to those more or less solve the majority of our problems. Not using natural gas means we can focus it all on fertilizer; other forms of hydrogen exist, but they're expensive or difficult to get ahold of from non-fossil fuel sources. With lots of cheap energy though, this tends to be less of a concern. The same is true with carbon fiber, high strength alloys, computer processors, photovoltaic cells, and many more things. If we can get cheap electricity, we'll mostly solve these problems. Right now, this is a major concern of most countries, and we are more or less making great strides in those areas.

While certain fertilizer methods utilize non-renewable resources, potassium oxide makes up about 1.8% of the earth's crust, and can easily be turned into fertilizer. While hypothetically non-renewable (although human waste and plant compost can be returned to the ground over long enough periods of time), we shouldn't be running out any time soon.

[Mebibyte]

Yes yes yes. But nobody will do anything. Best hope is to leave Earth to rot and jump ship to another planet ASAP.

I hear they're working on a mars colony pretty soon.

(actually, google SpaceX's mars colonization plan, not a joke. Elon Musk gets it done)

[Nikomikiri]

I think overpopulation could be our race's downfall.
The Earth will recover as it has for it's entire life cycle, but the human race may not be so lucky.

I agree with the previous points of education. If education were made more available we might be able to teach people about how the overpopulation issue is a serious one. The unfortunate side to that is the amount of people who would write it off(and teach their children to write it off) as a load of crap because they don't like thinking about the effect they have on the environment with their lifestyle.

As far as ways to control it that I wish would work but I know would probably make it worse would be some type of global population control. I know it won't work because we can all look at China as a prime example of those laws making more problems than they solve. A ratio of roughly 4 men to every one woman(going off of memory so don't quote me on the exact figures)make for a very uncomfortable situation.
It leads to women being kidnapped and sold for marriage purposes or just left to die, in which case they're sometimes adopted by people from other countries making the actual gender gap in the country itself pretty big.

Now on a Global scale I can only imagine how much worse it could get but short of laws governing the amount of children you can have I don't know what else could really be done.

[Zephyr_Antari]

Part of the problem is people who want children want that child to carry their dna, something you can't even SEE without aid from machines. If people simply adopted, tons of kids would suddenly have parents, and tons of couples would have kids. The woman would not need to go through childbirth, and any hereditary problems would not be passed on. Not to mention the original reason for my saying this, which was population control. No one is sterilized or anything and yet people still get to have children, they just don't carry "your" dna (like I said, something invisible to the naked eye). Despite all of this, so many people feel like "oh but if "it" (the child) didn't come from us physically, then it's not really our kid... I call bull on that. Why? Let us say for the sake of argument that you were the child of a couple that died in a tragedy around a month after you were born, and another couple took you in. This couple raises you and teaches you. They raise you like you are their own child, and you don't even know the truth until later on in your teens. Once you find out the truth, what does it mean? Nothing. Oh, so those two people I always called mother and father were not genetically connected to me? So what!? They raised me, they loved me and cared for me. They taught me! They did everything parents do. They were parents to me.

Thus, adoption. If someone raises you in the absence of your genetic parents, they are your parents. The literal only difference is that genetic stuff that is invisible to your eyes.

Also, yes, I plan on adoption. I plan on it not because of population reasons, but rather so that my genes which harbor hereditary problems shall not be passed down into a child, cursing that child with the same illnesses I suffered from in my childhood.

[NatalliaMakayla]

We will overpopulate because there is only so much land. It wont happen any time soon, but it is forsure going to happen. But we will also run out of water, land will grow and soon the whole world will be a big land, just like islands form out of water

[Divine Moment of Truth]

I'm not.

Japan and china alone are actually decreasing in population, since the 1 child rule, and japan's youth just aren't interested in children.

India's female infanticide will probably take a toll with the population too.

Personally I don't give a ******** because I'm pretty self sufficient.