is the exponential evolution of human demography acceptable for the earth ?

Question

the human exist since something about 10 000 years in 1850 we were only about 1 billion.... 150 years later we are more than 7 billion !!! Incredible exponential demography evolution...
when we know that on earth only 10 or (max) 11 billion of humans can live on... after that, not enough ressources, place, etc.. to keep the earth intact... knowing that we are already destroying the earth actually...

Do we have to adopt like in china, the one children politcy ??? I hope no...

3 species are disappearing from the earth every day due to human activity... that mean that 1000 species are are deleted from the earth every year due to human activity !!! earth is not so fine.... earth will survive after human, of course, but how many species human must destroy before his death himself ???

Answer 1

In the 4 million or so years that human/hominids became self-aware (the first step in becoming sentient) there has been an estimated total of about 77 billion of us. The increase has been so great in the last 156 years that in that time period, 15% of that total has been alive. 40,000 children starve to death everyday, our seas are dying from our waste, arable land is disappearing at 2% per year,finite resources (like oil) will soon run out and people have the stupidity to say the world has room for more people.
As long as religions are engaged in a contest to out-breed each other and as long as people believe it is their right to add to the misery by selfishly over-breeding, we will not even start to deal with the problem. It would have taken drastic measures back in the 1930s to effectively deal with the population problems we face today, but as long as we remain short sighted, we face the same fate as a mindless virus that fails to mutate to a benign form that can live in symbiosis with it's host. We are the virus and Earth is the living organism we are killing, ultimately killing ourselves.

Answer 2

Exponential growth of the population is unlikely to continue, because demographic models show that population growth accelerates as a country makes the transition from 3rd to 2nd world (because of reduction in the death rate), then levels off as the transition from 2nd to 1st world occurs, because of a corresponding reduction in the birth rate.

Since the inception of China's "One couple, one child" policy, their population has risen from 950m to over 1.3bn, so I think we can say that it has failed miserably. This is because it is not enforced in law and relies on "social acceptance" only - i.e. ostracising couples that violate the rule. So if the policy can't work in a country that cares nothing for human rights (like China) there can be no hope of it working elsewhere.

The world clearly cannot sustain the current number of people it has today, let alone 10 or 11 billion, so unless there are future developments, Stephen Hawkings question this week "Can the human race survive the next 1,000 years?" suddenly appears very pertinent.

These is, however, a very easily achieveable way of controlling population. Firstly (take note Tony Blair) control immigration from countries (such as China and India) which have totally failed to control their own populations. It the ethis is such that birth control doesn't work in their own countries, do we really want such people in our country when we're struggling to keep our own population under 65 million?

The solution is taxation. Child benefit is payable at the weekly rate of £17 on the first child only and £11:40 on subsequent children. But if instead parents got, say, £17 for the first child, £10 for the 2nd, nothing for the third, then had to PAY £10 for the fourth, £25 for the fifth, £50 for the sixth etc. then the issue of over population could be brought to task.

This is standard stuff - it is the role of government to kerb our undesireable behaviours by taxation. An excellent example is tax on petrol.

So yes, population CAN be controlled, but will we ever see a government with the guts to take the tough steps necessary?

Answer 3

If the exponential evolution of human demography increases or decreases on this earth we must conclude it is and always will be accepted, by the earth. There would of been no increases or decreases in the human population if it is not on this earth.

If the planet accepts larger numbers of humans, according to your present demographic studies, the earth or the numbers of humans must of found alternate resources other than the resources of the initial demographic studies.
Example: The space station is an increase of resources as humans exist there. Not many ..But a few....

let us now look at the huge amount of precious present resources consumed just to keep a few humans alive suspended above the planet's surface.

Society at this time dose not care, they still eat and survive. They consume with-out regard for their young, they look to living the fullest in the years of their own lives. Social behavior will change when society realizes there is no food. As in many places on the globe famine shows it's ugly head and the young suffer the most.
In closing, social behavior must exponentially change if present populations continue to exponentially grow and our present resources are sustaining themselves in predictable amounts as your first demographic study concluded.
We cannot, at this time, get 5 billion or so humans existing in the space station at a minimal loss of present resources required from our planet.
Most think that we inherit the earth from our parents but all of us in reality borrow it from our children. If we consume too much now there will not be any left for our children unless we occupy above the surface or below the surface.

At this time humans only occupy the surface of the earth.
If Darwin is correct and your demographics are sound with the exponential growth of the population factored in with no sociatal behavior changes being made. Thus Darwin's natural selection theory is required for human survival, human offspring must inherit digging or jumping capabilities. Basically live somewhere besides the surface of the planet.
A good jumper but currently using the digging argument are the big frogs located in Africa, that burry themselves the entire year, only to come up, thru the mud, during a short season, to eat & mate. We must conclude this was done by these frogs to survive because of unstainable resources in their environment. Life is still stained, by these frogs, but the quality of life, these frogs have, seems somewhat diminished.
Identifing these points conclude that everychild born to this earth from now on, will pay the ultimate price of a diminished quality of life. So is it ,in reality, the earth and it's natural resources that concern us or is it the natural resources of the human race,known as our offspring and the thought of failing life before it arrives.

Just a thought.....

Answer 4

If the Earth's human population continues to grow unchecked, we will either need to institute our own form of population control or nature will do it for us.

In nature, a given environment can only support a limited quantity of life ... populations naturally reach a point where they begin to level out and stabilize due to a lack of sufficient resources (food and water are high) to support a larger population.

I believe that, as the resources dwindle, we will likely see a great deal of struggle between competing populations ... one area in particular has always peaked my interest (India and Pakistan). Both of these nations rely heavily on the same or related water sources ... pollution or overuse by one will affect the other ... and to make the situation more dire, they both recently began testing nuclear weaponry.

There's a good chance, in my mind, that we will see some very devastating wars as a result ... reducing the population significantly, at least for a time.

Answer 5

If you notice the number of people keeps increasing and so does the number of natural disaster. Not to mention all the starvation and diseases run rampart. Nature is trying to keep us in check and being as obstinate as we are we fight it and ignore Her. One way or another well will probably end up learning a lesson very soon on population control.

Answer 6

No... not really. Ecological homeostasis should take care of things automatically. To say that we are "... already destroying the earth..." is, or course, an absurdity. The earth will be just fine. Oh, we may not be able to LIVE on it... but the earth will be just fine.

Answer 7

Oh! you mean exponential population increase!

No, it isn't, and eventually we will have to do something about it, but more like a 2 child not a 1 child policy will be the most reasonable.

Answer 8

I believe Atlantis is the way to go...

Start sinking our cities into the sea -- under water cities, and we would have much more room and resource to live on.

Perhaps we could also build some flying cities too -- space platforms.

BTW we still have plenty of resources on the other planets of the solar system to exploit, (OOPS) I meant appropriate...

Answer 9

have you ever heard of the bottle neck effect? we are long overdue for this to happen again