World Population

[M.C]

World population is actually a serious problem, we're coming up on 7 billion people.

I readed this book in enviro science where, as a result of world population, family's were only allowd to have two children, and those who had third children would have them killed in really bad ways.

What do you think will happen about the increaseing world population?

[Zoch]

Population is not a serious problem. There are vast, unpopulated areas all over the world.

[screw youuuuu]

hey girl,

go outside sometime, anywhere thats not a big city. look around, hear the silence, and marvel at all the places in the world that people arent

[M.C]

Zoch

Population is not a serious problem. There are vast, unpopulated areas all over the world.

Most of those areas are not populated for reasons! Where will we grow food? Put our rubbish? ect?

[Zoch]

M.C

Zoch

Population is not a serious problem. There are vast, unpopulated areas all over the world.

Most of those areas are not populated for reasons! Where will we grow food? Put our rubbish? ect?

In the same places we do now, obviously.

The places that are suitable for farming will not be populated in the near future. And garbage is not a problem. At all.

[phasmaexmachina]

World population by itself isn't a major problem. The current problem comes from the unequal distribution of wealth and other resources. Earth can easily support a much larger population if humanity could fully use all of Earth's resources. All of the world's population could live comfortably if you could figure out how to get important resources to where they are needed most.

[TPauSilver]

phasmaexmachina

World population by itself isn't a major problem. The current problem comes from the unequal distribution of wealth and other resources.

Yep. You know, if we directly ate the plants we grew there would be enough food in the world to feed everyone. However, we feed to to animals beause they're worth more so there isn't. Nice that, isn't it.

Anyway, a lot of developed nations are actually seeing a problem where they have a shrinking workforce supporting an aging population. I know the english goverment is going spare about it. On top of that, AIDS is poised to take out a nice big chunk of the world's population if we don't find a cure soon so I do'nt think population is really something I'm overly worried about.

[The Merchant of Durem]

M.C

I readed this book in enviro science where, as a result of world population, family's were only allowd to have two children, and those who had third children would have them killed in really bad ways.

Do you know that in China, you are only allowed to have one child?

[ArtemisLB]

Expanding population may cause further enviromental problems. More people means more farming, fishing, and habitat distruction, not to mention more waste. More farming means more ammonia fertelizer which further pollutes water ways and removes a food source by killing the fish in the bodies of water affected. Fishing depeletes the food source of predators. Fishing sharks depletes their population and also will cause more frequent mercury poisoning because of the high mercury content in shark meat due to pollution and biomagnification. Habitat distruction will ruin a chances of obtaining new anitbiotics and medicines from nature. If there was a way for people to live with the enviroment, the Earth could support more people without strain to the enviroment.

[Ayuta]

Most European countries are going to suffer from a lack of population in twenty years. Not to say over population isn't a problem but it isn't a giant threat.

[Rythim_Man]

I think we need to be on the look out.
with 7 billion people all we need is for all the women to get one baby and
we might have 10 billion in the next 3 years, it can increase fast.
in 10 years it's possible to get double what we have now. I don't think
we are that frutful but, hey it's a possibility.

[TPauSilver]

Rythim_Man

I think we need to be on the look out.
with 7 billion people all we need is for all the women to get one baby and
we might have 10 billion in the next 3 years, it can increase fast.
in 10 years it's possible to get double what we have now. I don't think
we are that frutful but, hey it's a possibility.

Not really. Women can only bear chindren from the age of about 14 (though we do start puberty earlier not many girls can sefely carry a pregnancy through earlier) to about 50. That's 36 years. Taking the Average female lifespan is 80, and presuming that ages are equally distributes, only 45% of femamles will be capable of child bearing. You can also expect an infertility of about 2.1% so that means about 44%. If all these were suddenly to become pregnant in the same year, you'd have 1.54 billion pregnant women. Only about 1/3 of all pregnancies are carried to term, not counting those aborted at the mothers wish so we're down to 0.51 billion. In the us, about 12 in 1000 births are twins (I'm ignoring larger numbers of birth since they're ven rarer) so now we have...0.52 billion children. So realisticaly, in this unlikely circumstance, the popultion would increast to 7.52 billion, not 10 billion, and that's not even accounting for deaths.

[WaterDolphin]

Even though we have a lot of people having children right now, I am sure that soon we will have a few people dying as well from old age, so it will end up weighing out eventually.

[Sam Spade]

TPauSilver

Not really. Women can only bear chindren from the age of about 14 (though we do start puberty earlier not many girls can sefely carry a pregnancy through earlier) to about 50. That's 36 years. Taking the Average female lifespan is 80, and presuming that ages are equally distributes, only 45% of femamles will be capable of child bearing. You can also expect an infertility of about 2.1% so that means about 44%. If all these were suddenly to become pregnant in the same year, you'd have 1.54 billion pregnant women. Only about 1/3 of all pregnancies are carried to term, not counting those aborted at the mothers wish so we're down to 0.51 billion. In the us, about 12 in 1000 births are twins (I'm ignoring larger numbers of birth since they're ven rarer) so now we have...0.52 billion children. So realisticaly, in this unlikely circumstance, the popultion would increast to 7.52 billion, not 10 billion, and that's not even accounting for deaths.

One problem with those numbers, and it assumes that there's roughly an even distribution of females over age ranges, when it's much more likely that there's a more heavy skew towards a younger population in many parts of the world. Thus, the potential birth rate is probably slightly higher world-wide than such number might suggest.

[DownWithTheMan]

Zoch

Population is not a serious problem. There are vast, unpopulated areas all over the world.

Not to mention that carrying capacity will control it. Our population (appx. 6,250,000,000 people) will keep climbing until it reaches a peak then it will level out due to disease and such. Or, being the clever species we are, we can continue to do what we are doing and artificially inflate our carrying capacity to higher levels until its neccessary to get to a new hunk of rock and start populating it. I have no worries, thingsll right themselves out one way or another.