English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

considaring drought and submerged areas, or will it be "up yours Jack were OK".

2007-02-01 20:04:33 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Earth Sciences & Geology

should have said nations

2007-02-01 20:47:16 · update #1

6 answers

In the 20th century the world human population increased by four times (1.5Bn to 6.0Bn) yet the amount of land under cultivation hardly increased at all. This is entirely due to intensive industrial agriculture. ( there would be no room for wildlife if we still used traditional agricultural methods)
If the population continues to double every 50 or so years more wild areas will have to be used, there will be more intensive competition for increasingly scarce resources and therefore more conflict. Like with all other species, the strongest will survive and the rest die out. Not a tempting prospect. As a 60 year old man with no children, it doesn't bother me too much, but unless we figure out a way to stabilise our population in a reasonable way, nature will do it for us. In the natural world there are three main ways that animal populations are controlled, and these are density dependant.

Starvation
Disease
predation

The first two relate directly to humans and a human equivalent of the third is war and crime. This, I fear, is the alternative to population control by rational means.

2007-02-02 03:15:52 · answer #1 · answered by mick t 5 · 0 0

Good Answer Mick T ! I have been taking notice to China as they have the largest over-population of any place on the planet. China has had mandatory population control for some time. However population control does little in the short run for over population. Now is the time everyone should be considering setting limits on family size. I believe that the people are capable of doing this, perhaps without it becoming a mandatory Law. This is but one of many problems that face the people of the 21st century. As for will there be enough food for the nation in 2100, yes but the average citizen might have very few menu choices,lower quality of food in general. My hope is that people start to realize there is a problem. Look what we have learned in just 200 years. I believe mankind is capable of solving most any problem given time and resources. Now is the time! Though governments must acknowledge that the problem exists.

2007-02-02 04:28:05 · answer #2 · answered by mong115a 1 · 0 0

We're not ok as it stands. Current production can only feed 80% of the population, there will ALWAYS be famine, somewhere...in 2100 it will just be much worse that it is now, as the effects of climate change deminishes the arable land.

2007-02-01 20:09:29 · answer #3 · answered by mortierella 2 · 0 0

of course there will. the more people there are the less food there will be. The less food there is the more people starve. the more people starve to death the more food there is for those that are left. so in theory there should be just enough food to feed the nation. It all equals itself out in the long run. Ya can't live beyond your resources.

2007-02-01 23:20:02 · answer #4 · answered by The_Bluesman 2 · 0 0

Yes, the earth is incredibly productive and could easily feed 20 billion people. It is man's greed and incompetence that prevents mankind feeding itself adequately.

2007-02-04 11:04:27 · answer #5 · answered by lester_day 2 · 0 0

I will be dead so I dont care

2007-02-01 20:07:42 · answer #6 · answered by Rick R 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers