[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 59 KB, 310x310, earth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2593048 No.2593048 [Reply] [Original]

Hey, I remember reading a study or an article in the past which projected the mass of humans in the future taking into account the current exponential population growth. It was somewhere around the mass of humans equaling that of the Earth sometime, and then our galaxy. The time that it projected was shockingly close, within the proximity of 750 years i believe. Being the moron that I am, I didn't save the link, does anybody have information on this? A link or reference would be great. I'm trying to debate the rationality of China's 1 child policy and the possibility of selective breeding if anyone is wondering why I need this. Thank you!!!

>> No.2593059

Look, it's either birth restrictions, genocide or mass starvation.
Or some other form of mass death.

>> No.2593067

Well then find a better way to debate it. Population growth can't just continue exponentially. CLEARLY there won't be enough humans to equal the mass of Earth.

I agree with your views on the 1-child policy and its implications, but do yourself a favor and don't rediscover that reference.

>> No.2593100

>>2593067
The reason i posted was to look for the reference. If i could rediscover it I wouldn't have posted....

I know it will never happen, It was just a projection about what WOULD happen IF it was possible for the growth of humanity to continue. I don't need somebody to tell me that there isn't enough room on Earth for an equal mass of humans.

>> No.2593113
File: 84 KB, 589x340, 1298501350279.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2593113

I believe you may have found it here
>4chan.org

>> No.2593141

>>2593100
My point is that you shouldn't use impossible hypotheticals because they don't strengthen your argument. They actually make you look less informed.

If you're going to say, "IF it was possible" then you could simply counter with, "IF they didn't have a negative impact on the environment, then there would be no problem."

>> No.2593156

>>2593113
no lol, it was an actual article.

>> No.2593190

There's an "organization" where the members chose to not procreate in order to end the human race. Although their primary purpose isn't one of my concerns, they do have pretty good argumentation about limiting procreation. I can't remember the name, but if you can find it you'd get access to a lot of arguments on the subject.

>> No.2593210

>>2593048
Selective breeding is very tricky. Just argue the 1 child policy.

>> No.2593215

Sure isn't conservation of mass in here.

>> No.2593232

>current exponential population growth.
That's stupid. Our rate of growth has been decelerating since the 60's.

As such, our population is going to peak around 9 or 10 billion shortly after 2050 and then go into decline. Africa is the part that might lag behind that prediction, if they can't continue their industrialization trend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth/
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

>> No.2593295

>>2593232
This, but we still might need to pull a China in some places with the forced family planning.

>> No.2593311

>>2593295

Then everyone can look forward to infirm old gits outnumbering the workers who support them. It's not a very good solution.

>> No.2593326

>>2593311
Why would we want to take care of them?

>> No.2593332

>>2593295
No, we don't need to do anything like that. There is more than enough space for ~10 billion people. The only place that would need to implement population control would be something like New York City if it suddenly couldn't expand at all for the next 500 years. As it stands, there is plenty of land.

>> No.2593349

>>2593332
Yeah, you're right. The only places that might need enforced planning are for heavy local overpopulation. It might happen in places in Africa.

>> No.2593369

>>2593332
land isn't the issue. Resources, namely food and clean, fresh water are the issue. Not to mention over stressed energy needs.

>> No.2593378

OP, could you possibly be talking about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=relmfu

>> No.2593398

>>2593369
If food and water were an issue for industrialized nations (lol), there would be no need for population control, as it would happen naturally.

>> No.2593435

Yes, exponential growth get big quick. That's why no growth is ever exponential. It only approximates the exponential function over certain time frames.