/sci/ - Science & Math

da phuc u talkin bout fgt

Out of curiosity, what did these studies generally consider to be the limiting resource?

>>7765545
braincells

>>7765545

I'd assume water to be the main one as even today a large number of people don't have access to clean water. Desertification and climate change will also be a factor, especially clear since 2001.


Here's UN paper

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf

page 30(39) talks about capacity though also states that 10bn people will not be attained til 2200 when in reality it's likely much closer. When this UN study was put out we had just over 6bn. We're now close to 7.5 in just 14 years.

>>7765543
>If not, should we be aiming for zero growth and how would you go about this?
Generally what happens is a species will breed to unsustainable numbers, shit gets tight and then a bunch die off and a sort of equilibrium is reached. Although it probably actually goes more in cycles. Probably, billions of people will die due to lack of resources by ~2116

>>7765558

You're probalby right in that that's the way it will go. Just seems kinda dumb to go down that road when the writing is on the wall so plain for all to see. But I suppose population control isn't viable.

Food supplies can always improve. The biggest problems IMO are water and waste. Even if water can be cleaned efficiently, water is heavy. Trans[oration is expensive and cliffhanging over long distances.

>>7765543
It's ok because it doesn't really affect us, theoretically. In most developed country, the birth rate is actually low enough that the population wouldn't rise, if it wasn't for immigrants. Those high birth rates are mostly in poor as shit countries like India, they can die off for all I care. And we should seal the borders so the Syrians stop shitting up my country. The way I see it, the developed countries are gonna be fine.

In other news, China recently got rid of their One-Child policy and replaced it with a Two-Child policy.

glass africa, problem solved

>>7765573

We won't be isolated from this though. As the syrian civil war has proven, the worlds problem is our problem.

>>7765543
>So what's going to happen here?

Well, there are more new people every year, so... we're all doomed?
Wait, there are LESS new people every year than the year before, so... the species will die out from under population?

I'm sure it won't be easy (or fun), but in the long run, we'll be fine.

>>7765567
>Just seems kinda dumb to go down that road when the writing is on the wall so plain for all to see.
Yeah the problem is if you don't have kids, some other schmuck will and then the problem remains and you've been out-bred, thus the only way this will resolve itself is the way I mentioned. Yeah people will mention educating women and increasing standard of living as a way to reduce population but these will only work temporarily as the people this works on are selected out of the population.

The only way to ensure the long term success of population control would be extremely heavy handed. I mean fucking with people's hormones so they don't want to breed/are less fertile, brainwashing/propaganda, penalties, etc. These things are diametrically opposed to a free society.

>>7765591
>We won't be isolated from this though. As the syrian civil war has proven, the worlds problem is our problem.

No, it's only your problem because you choose to make it your problem. If countries chose to not accept refugees, there's no problem.

>Do you think there will be drastic improvements in technology that will allow us to sustain this number?

The technology already exist, problem is efficiency and foreign policy.

It's a logistics nightmare to regulate the consumption and birthing habits of 7 billion people over multiple countries/ governments. Compound this with certain types of economies that depend huge labor pools i.e. India, China, Africa and multi-billion dollar corporations who utilize them and you are in for a world of hurt.

I've heard suggestions from other anons about either cracking down hard or bombing Africa and India but that isn't going to go down well since they could basically lock out the west and east asia of raw materials and resources.

The entire thing is a crap shoot.

>>7765543
>what's going to happen here?
Europe will keep importing third wolder's until the welfare systems collapses, people will start starving and rioting which will collapse what's left of the economy, complete anarchy and civilization is regresses back to pre-Roman tier societies.

US depends on who wins the next election.

>>7765554
Water is limiting in most regions. We are already using more arable land than the environment can sustain too.

You can pretty much take your pick we don't have enough of most things.

>>7765591
>Being this brainwashed.

Leftists in Brussels have a globalist agenda, they know they can get more left voters if they import hordes of refugees and stupidly believe they will magically adopt Western culture instead of staying in their Islamic ghettos.

Meanwhile Saudi Arabia has taken in a grand total of ZERO refugees.

It's not "a problem", it's a political narrative, and a naive one at that.

All we have to do is stop feeding the Africans, which might happen. Food prices go way up, food donation places can't afford to send as much food to Africa anymore. More of it stays in developing countries. We are fine with more expensive food, more Africans starve to death. Of course the food program people will freak out about this and start spending more money on ads, but that will just mean even less food for the Africans because the money was spent on ads and not food.

>>7765567
>>7765599
China had some good population control measures. If similar measures are applied of Africa we will be fine, Africa is where the people will die because we will stop giving them food when we run out. Africa is where the population is currently exploding.

>>7765648
People will tend to have more children as resources become more scarce, because family support networks are the only chance for some form of social security available to those that live in poverty. This is what breeds backward memes like more children is better t h an
We have to do more than limithan fewer. It will be necessary to address both cultural and economic factors, especially in Islamic nations where birth control is seen as a son or contrary to the interests of Islam.
There has to be some concerted international effort to make Africans productive and self-sufficient, otherwise withdrawing aid will neither solve overpopulation nor save the rest of the world from dealing with poor migrants, the motive in Africa will remain to emigrate.

I believe that over population will stop being a problem when even China and India will be rich enough.

>>7765543
Im guessing space colonies is out the question in 100 years?

>>7765543
When we have the next version of the industrial revolution population will explode again I bet it will be close to 100 billion with probably a billion on mars

Pre Agricultural revolution:
Human pop maxed about 100 million

Pre Induatrial revolution:
Human pop maxed below 1 billion

Pre next revolution
Human pop max 10 billion

After next revolution I would bet on 100 billion

My bet is the next revolution will be a robotics and artificial inelegance revolution, with machines doing almost all human work

>>7765662
Can confirm.

Here in South Africa every impoverished women (that is to so most women) purposely have 10-16 children because they sincerely believe they will be rich living on all their income.

Of course most of them die of AIDS or just live in poverty themselves, but if this continent understood the concept of forward thinking it would've looked like Europe decades ago.

>>7765631
Oil. We eat oil today in the first world and the third has been moving towards modern farming for a while. It doesn't work without massive injections of petrochemicals, diesel tractors and transport. People will drink ditch water but famine will kill the most people in the 21st century, maybe some plagues, pestilence and disease will fire up but those are hard to predict.

>>7765687
House of Saud will be crumbling about 2050. You confuse technology with energy sources - it's like the new age ignorance of a generation glued to electronic devices all day, it's an energy sink in reality.

>>7765705
Outdated.
What are the numbers for 2011-2015?

>>7765543
>should we be aiming for zero growth and how would you go about this?

I would go about it by waiting, and helping Africa and the Middle East to rise out of poverty.

Human population growth has been decelerating for some time - instead of keeping up a constant rate, it's been slowing down. If trends continue at the current rate, population will actually peak between 9 - 12 billion and then either stay stable or - more likely - decrease. The question is not how to achieve zero population growth, but how to *avoid* it or mitigate the negative effects.

The cause seems to be affluence, or correlated with it - some combination of people no longer needing kids to help out with labor, social safety nets meaning they don't need or expect kids to support them in old age, more contraceptive use, and women's rights making motherhood compete with education and career aspirations.

>>7765707
Still fairly low - light sweet crude really is running out. Oil in general, however, is still rising due to explosions in economically extracting and refining (lower-quality) unconventional oil.

>>7765715
The reason EU nations have a negative growth isn't because they're affluent, quite the contrary it's because they are overburdened by high stress careers and even higher taxes so can't fathom raising children.

In all rich nations you see really rich people who have a shitton of children.

>>7765636
Careful with that tinfoil, eugene.

>>7765728
Middle and upper-middle class having fewer children is a worldwide phenomenon, cretin. It has nothing to do with taxes. If anything, taxation in Europe favours families a lot more.

>>7765715

affluence and intelligence obviously play a large part in reducing the number of kids. Other factors however do the exact opposite, religion, particularly islam for example. And Islam is on the ascent. For mew it comes down to will the population stop growing soon enough to avert the worst case scenario?

>>7765543
No.

We have more than enough technology than we know what to do with. Our selection application could be dramatically improved. But that still would be limited by basic physics.

This of course is excluding some key game changer like 30%+ gain fusion reactors or other things we typically call sci-fiction. However most new technology just make things worse given the huge cost of supporting infrastructure.

Zero growth is not a bad idea right now. However how you get there is messy as any two people of opposite sex can breed, and any structural restriction would need to be straight draconian to stop it.
I would think lots of sex education and softer incentives to not have children. But such incentives get complicated as you would need to punish the parent without pushing the child, which is very hard to do.

Such things would also need global involvement, or else one nation will just be the breeding ground for the rest.

>>7765810
Natural limitations would be much messier.

>>7765840
no argument there
when thing hit a tipping point wars will get messy
and a messy war is far worse then a messy dictatorship, at least with such a draconian system you know where you stand
but people now have such cushy lives (at least in the 1st world) they see such measures as hell. Yes civil liberties will be trampled and it is bad, but no drink water is fatal.

>>7765810
Middle eastern countries (and some others) already do this. Women will go into surgery for something unrelated in their abdomen and be sterilised by doctors to help slow population growth.

>>7765543
>Do you think there will be drastic improvements in technology that will allow us to sustain this number?

No. Don't be silly. All systems have carrying capacities and limits.

>If not, should we be aiming for zero growth and how would you go about this?

We'll go about it using another World War. Resource crunches are always resolved that way.

>>7765543
>only white people
>no environment raping "pepes of color"
Check your privs etc

>>7765705
>You confuse technology with energy sources

Most Westerners do. Energy is really the only major religion of the West. They can't question it, and they have to believe in it.

>>7765543
>Do you think there will be drastic improvements in technology that will allow us to sustain this number?
Yes, it's called "modernization". It's refrigeration, clean running water, hospitals, transportation, vaccines, etc.

Malthus was only partially right. What we noticed in the 20th century was that population growth IS exponential with food and safety provision, but it plateaus as societies modernize. Why? Women stop having so many children. Having a large extended family as a retirement policy is no longer necessary, and a move towards a nuclear family is preferable.

Source: a fucking social science degree.

>>7766096
What about diminishing returns? There will always be ways to improve efficiency, but as the efficiency improves, the improvements will be more and more incremental. We can do things like large scale algae farming for resource collection, but it is much less cost effective than drilling for oil at the bottom of the ocean right now.
This is all under the assumption that the environmental over pressures that already exist can be compensated for and others can be avoided.

>>7765543
Well the only societies that naturally experience zero population growth are extremely developed societies like parts of modern Europe and Japan where living is so expensive that people choose not to have kids, and extremely undeveloped societies like say the prehistoric era where so many people die that it doesn't matter how many kids you have.

The really big population booms come from the "in between" societies where people still need lots of kids for free labor and income (as well as fulfilling traditional expectations), and also have access to medicine that keeps those kids alive longer.

>>7765599
>Implying it's not already happening.

>>7765687
When we start to build space habitats is when our population will never plummet again.

>>7765715
>helping Africa and the Middle East
>literally thinks we can help

LOL

>>7765591
>the worlds problem is our problem
only if you're dumb enough to make it your problem. like germany.
alternatively you can just do it like hungary, build a wall, and tell them to fuck off.

what happens to germany? lots of rape, rioting, general crime, unrest, and that's just the start of it.
what happens to hungary? a bunch of leftists are butthurt at them. thats it. no cultural enrichment, no foreign welfare leeches, no muslim rioters, no paris attacks, no mass rapes by muslims.

in the end, nations ruled by leftists will turn to shit. again. and while muhammad rapes their daughter for not wearing hijab, they'll stillmake up a way to blame it all on evil nazi hungarians for not being progressive enough.

>>7765684
>Im guessing space colonies is out the question in 100 years?
Not in sufficient number to make an impact on population growth.
Currently we're growing at about 1.1% per year (down from 2% in the early 1960's).
That's a million people every 5 days or so.
Even if we had giant, empty space-cities already built, we couldn't launch that many people in that time frame in the near future.

>>7767510

this. While 1.1 may seem low (I believe the true figure is higher, closer to 1.3), it still leads to explosive growth. At 1.1%, the earth would only take 63 years or so to double in population. At 1.3 this would be just 53 years.

>>7767258

We will never build space habitats. Genociding Humans will always be the cheaper option, and frankly we prefer to kill off our population.

Space colonization is economically impossible.

>>7768316
you're retarded lol

>>7768341
Flawless counterpoint.

>>7768316
That's only because of capitalism. Who's to say what new world order will arise post the looming population crises and inevitable societal collapse.

Someone smart once told me "all humans alive today would fit into a big cube with one cubic kilometer"
>1km x 1km x 1km
This made me think that overpopulation actually does not take place at all.

>>7768949
but muh leg room

>>7768942
>That's only because of capitalism.
How was your first SAT, high school student?

>>7768949
It isn't overpopulation as it is over consumption. Think about all the things you use in a week. All the electricity, all the food you eat, paper you've used, clothes you wear, detergent to wash those clothes... Now think about 6 billion or so doing the same things. That's what'll get us.

>>7768983
Shitpost detected.

>>7768949
Okay I guess all you need to live comfortably is the space your body takes up. Can I have your house and all that food, clothing and electricity you apparently don't want? You can live in a storage locker I rented.

That is not possible. You cant have it. You and me are gonna be inside that giant box.

>>7769007
Something about the big box sounds comfy even though it would be the polar opposite of that.

>>7769035
'come on anon, join the box, everyone's here'

>>7770360
'And I don't mean that as a figure of speech'

>le overpopulation jew meme
It was based on 17 century ideas and has been used to kill and genocide poor people.

Its not science

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/

>but the jews told me
jews control the UN

>>7770890
>le jews control everything meme
was based on 19th century philosophy and has been used to kill and genocide semitic people

its not science

https://protocolsofeldersofzionisahoax.com

>but stormfront told me
faggots control stormfront