Nearly half of countries are producing too few babies to maintain their populations, say researchers

  • Thread starter Thread starter ATraveller
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Water does not disappear.
Used water may end up in the ocean. And that brings us to desalination.
as they do in some places in California the people employ desalination.
Desalination has many harmful effects.
It burns up many more fossil fuels
It contributes to global warming
It kills millions of plankton, fish eggs, fish larvae and other microbial organisms that constitute the base layer of the marine food chain.
The salty sludge leftover after desalinization can wreak havoc on marine ecosystems if dumped offshore.
See: The Impacts of Relying on Desalination for Water - Scientific American
 
Last edited:
Water does not disappear.

Water evaporates and then reappears as rain, which you collect.

If you are in the desert, you can harvest moisture from the environment.

I, personally, harvest rain and store it.
Not enough to grow lettuce at a profit.
 
Babies aren’t a sign of irresponsibility. Wasting water is. There is a difference between responsibly using resources and wasting them. That is the point I am trying to make. Everyone is so caught up in the overpopulation belief that they choose not to see how the majority of resources are being gobbled up and wasted by a small percentage of individuals. Those individuals are the ones pushing their agenda that we are going to run out of water, oil, whatever soon but what are they doing to curb their waste? It’s the greed of a few individuals while blaming the families of the rest, and they make many others believe it’s true
I don’t disagree that people should conserve more. What I don’t understand is how you can hold these two beliefs simultaneously: “we should conserve more” and “our resources will never run out.” If our resources will never run out, why should we bother to conserve? Waste all the water and oil you want.

You and I might quibble on what the number of the unsustainable tipping point is. I’m just trying to see if we can agree that there is, in fact, some number. I mean, to get real weird with it, surely you’d agree that 100 trillion people could not survive on Earth?
 
I’m just trying to see if we can agree that there is, in fact, some number. I mean, to get real weird with it, surely you’d agree that 100 trillion people could not survive on Earth?
We shall go to the stars. Humanity is meant to fill the Cosmos. Earth is only the beginning.
 
Ok this is frustrating. I had a post typed out and lost it somehow. I don’t have time to retype it at the moment but will attempt to find time this evening. You asked a very good question and deserve a response.
 
Maybe I make rain for you late next week.
How would you do that? Indians used smoke, and now with the fires California has plenty of smoke, much much more smoke than is needed. But i don’t see any rain.
Let us know your method of making rain.
 
40.png
AlNg:
Desalination has many harmful effects.
It burns up many more fossil fuels
It contributes to global warming
Yea of little Faith…

Solar-powered desalination unit - Wikipedia
Nice. This seems like a possible solution to the problem of burning fossil fuels. But there still are problems:
The cost of water from solar desalination is four times the cost using the typical desalination method.
And i don’t see how this method would prevent the damage to millions of plankton, fish eggs, fish larvae and other microbial organisms. What are you going to do with the salty leftover sludge?
 
Why are we even discussing what would happen if the world ended up being overpopulated when it’s not going to happen? Let me reiterate, with the currents rates and trends, no projection shows overpopulation will happen.

How old was Mary when Jesus was born? Was it 15 years old?
We frankly don’t know. It could 20 years old as far as we know.
Is there a point? People in Canada can marry at 16 with parental permission.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure about that. I think that some projections do show overpopulation.
Cite them please because none I’ve seen show such a thing. By 2100, the consensus is it will be no higher than 12 billion.
 
Last edited:
I think that worrying about how to pump more people onto a planet that is already dying an early death because of human activity is like worrying about how to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Our time might be better spent trying to figure out how to clothe, feed, shelter and educate the people who are already here. Instead, we vote for politicians and support leaders who promote policies that kill mass quantities of the people we already have. Leaders who sell arms to Saudi Arabia so they can commit genocide in Yemen. Leaders who manufacture engineered wars to swell the pockets of federal contractors and corporations like Halliburton. Religious leaders who evangelize in AIDS infested countries and teach that contraception is a grave sin, which is like lighting a match in a munitions factory, no matter how self righteous the intent. Let’s not kid ourselves. Such things have killed a lot of people. And each person we have killed in these ways would have contributed the births of many more people in the course of a few generations. The answer is not to keep cranking out as many people as we can so that we can annihilate them with our broken system of casino capitalism that at its core cares for nothing but power and profit margins, while poisoning the planet that serves as the only platform to support the lives we propose to increase in number. If we spent some time fixing the way we think, and getting our heads straight, we might see more clearly such things as the fact that high birth rates are a survival strategy for lemmings and fruit flies, not creatures of intellect such as ourselves.

All the best!
 
Last edited:
none I’ve seen show such a thing. By 2100, the consensus is it will be no higher than 12 billion.
12 billion? Isn’t that an increase of almost 5 billion people from what we have now?
Cite them please
According to the UN studies there are different scenarios.
Medium scenario
Low scenario
High scenario
Zero growth scenrio
constant fertility scenario.
Under the medium, and zero growth scenarios, the population is kept constant and it will decrease under the low scenario. “However, If, for the sake of illustration, the fertility of countries is kept constant at 1995-2000 levels, the world population soars to 244 billion by 2150 and 134 trillion in 2300.”
More realistically, " in the high scenario, whose fertility remains at or above replacement level until 2300 …, the world population, which reaches 10.6 billion in 2050, is projected to keep on rising steadily to attain 36.4 billion in 2300."
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/Long_range_report.pdf
 
“However, If, for the sake of illustration, the fertility of countries is kept constant at 1995-2000 levels, the world population soars to 244 billion by 2150 and 134 trillion in 2300.”
But 1995-2000 levels isn’t where we’re at. It’s lower so you can discard that as quoted.
More realistically, " in the high scenario, whose fertility remains at or above replacement level until 2300 …, the world population, which reaches 10.6 billion in 2050, is projected to keep on rising steadily to attain 36.4 billion in 2300."
2300 is so far away no serious person uses it with great certainty. And fertility rates are declining. This is an excellent presentation by the late Hans Rosling. I skipped it to the relevant part.

 
Last edited:
The media and entertainment have a lot of power. There seems to be a de-emphasis of the importance of family, and even attacks on traditional families.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top