/sci/ - Science & Math

Oh look, an edgy teenager.

>>4929529
>tfw you're talking about yourself

>>4929529
im anonomous, what the fuck does this have to do with anything fucking idiot, just say your dislikes or likes.

>>4929535
Let's see: I'm neither a teenager nor do I make edgy threads on /sci/.

>>4929538
lol

>inb4 "muh human rights"

>inb4 hitler loves you

Why sterilize the females? Fallopian tube ligation is a costly and invasive surgery. Isn't it easier to just cut the balls off males?

Why don't you start? I'm sure there's a kitchen knife around you somewhere.

>>4929523
>implying that 7 billion is actually sustainable
>2012
>shiggy diggy doo da zippity zoo

>>4930437

Because a single male is quite capable of impregnating multiple females. However every sterilised female is one less baby maker.

Well to be honest overpopulation is only a problem in 3rd world countries.

no

b-but.. thorium..

>>4930442
7 billion is easily sustainable. forget the year but enough food was harvested to feed 11 billion with ease. it's just that a single cow eats more than it's meat worth in food over its life. I believe this is from 2007
>>4930466
many (obviously not all. see germany and japan) industrialized nations still have a growing population. if there isn't a present issue of overpopulation it's still possible in the future.

What the hell. Random user here, just cruising to see what this boards about, but this thread is a moral question not a scientific or math-related one. IE this should be on a philosophy board.

I GET SO BUTTMAD WHEN SCIENTISTS THINK THEYRE MORAL PHILOSOPHERS OR ARE IN ANY WAY QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE HOW THEIR WORK SHOULD BE USED ETHICALLY.

>>4930470
As if anyone here is actually a scientist. Also, nice philosophy board.

>>4930469
I'm not so sure about that. When I say sustainable, that means without reliance on fossil fuels, cause they'll become more and more rare as time goes on. Expensive fuels -> expensive fertilizer, expensive farming. Shit'll become unaffordable or outright collapse. That's not sustainable. Even if we all stopped eating meat, it wouldn't be enough. At the end of the century, there'll be much less people around, one way or another.

>>4930466
Well to be honest the overpopulation is only a problem for African and Muslim countries. Mostly.

India and China have managed to bring down their rate over the years.

It's gonna take longer for us to go from 7 billion to 8 billion than it did for us to go from 6 to 7. Global birthrates are declining, not just in the West but internationally.

I'm inclined to agree with the second post in this thread, frankly.

>>4930470
>implying anyone else is
>implying that understanding of logic, reason and an unbiased insight in the workings of nature isn't the best qualification there is

You know, it actually makes me mad when some humanities activist thinks he's qualified to make judgements about things he doesn't understand in the slightest.

> 13 billion
It wasn't that long ago people were saying that 1 billion was the theoretical maximum we could sustain. In the 1980s, it was 6 billion, for sure, no messing around, we're all going to live horrible lives by the year 2000.

All such predictions are bullshit.

>hurr durr edgy teenager, nazi

Population control is widely supported in China, thats quarter of a world full of edgy teenagers and nazis, I guess? Nor is it a human right to procreate.

I think procreation licences may actually go a long way to improve situation in the third world.

>>4930480
No, there has to be a limit. I don't think scarcity of fossil fuels has ever played a role in food production before. It's inevitable decline will be felt, and I see no way around it.

>>4930473
That's assuming that fertilizers are only possible with fossil fuels. The problem is that there may be workarounds for this.
You can't reliably predict the future, but say synbio really takes off and nitrogen/phosphorus rich fertilizers are being farmed just as much as food. Keep in mind that there may be solutions to the issues at hand.

>>4930486
Replacing one non-renewable resource with another doesn't solve anything, does it? Not at the rate humanity is burning it up, at least. I think the only way to truly push our deadlines out of the nearest future is to lower the standard of living in all developed countries by a lot, and that's not exactly an inviting thought.

With enough energy (nucular) you can synthetise ammonia from air and water. Ammonia is the second most widely used chemical resource after oil.

No mention of artificial wombs...
One mention of thorium...

What is happening to you, /sci/ !?

>>4930493

We prefer useful solutions. Like uranium and birth control.

>>4930491
I don't think you understand synbio. This is not a nonrenewable.
It's a solar panel that can make chemicals instead of energy

>>4930496

It turns out that idiots are somehow immune to birth control.

>>4930497
You're right, I don't. Got any links?

>>4930486

The only ways to truly make farming sustainable are to either turn it into a full on ecosystem or to harvest it only 2 years out of every 10 (milpa).

>>4930504
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120326133556.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niQ0kkgPxJk
What a civil post.

>>4930508

To elaborate on this. Solar cells cannot be produced and maintained infinitely, they require several resources which we may also exhaust in the future.

Furthermore, nitrogen as a side effect tends to kill existing root systems and microorganisms which normally provide all of the nutrients in a functioning ecosystem. Running a farm off of nitrogen is really a step backwards instead of a step forwards since it makes the farm entirely dependent on it when it could instead be made self sustaining.

>>4930517
the youtube link may not be so relevant. it seems like a talk on biological engineering.

>>4930523
I am not a farmer. I do not understand exactly what's required to make a fully functioning farm, but I still predict a technological solution to famine. The solar cell thing was just a nod to cyanobacteria. If nitrogen isn't the answer, there may be better solutions available. If making an entire ecosystem is required, then awesome. As someone has already said, 1 billion was the carrying capacity of earth before the industrial revolution. along comes technology and it increases. If we need to make an ecosystem to bump up carrying capacity above 20 billion, then that is still a solution.

> but I still predict a technological solution to famine.
It's called the green revolution and it's about as old as the space program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

>>4930523
>Solar cells cannot be produced and maintained infinitely, they require several resources which we may also exhaust in the future.

ever heard of recycling?

>>4930589
yes, and it's actually fairly lossy in terms of energy and resources regained. In other words, it's still constrained by the energy problem.

>>4929523

Meh. The sexbot tech will finally bring the decline of global population. We only have to make them cheap enough for 3rd world countries.