/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3215387]

ITT Ways to ease the negative effects of overpopulation.

Problems:
A) Housing: more living space is needed. The solution must yield living space for millions plus infrastructure and a method to transfer this people quick and easy.
B) Food: There must be a cheap and efficient way to get healthy food for millions and a cheap way to distribute it. It also should not take away a lot of potential living space.
C) Energy: Energy sources that do not endanger the health of the population or render vast areas of living space/food production area unusable.

[Anonymous No.3215421]

>ways to ensure continuing overpopulation

Never heard of moral hazard have you, you do-gooder cunt?

[Anonymous No.3215425]

Can't we produce a eatable plant that grows in oceans without damaging the existant eco-systems. That way we have 1 & 2 covered.

[Anonymous No.3215431]

>>3215425
I see you've seen Soylent Green.

[Anonymous No.3215433]

A) Let's start moving people underground, surface space is basically gone so if we can actually start an underground community and then continually add to that we'd be fine. Also, fairly easy to transport people, just use a subway.
B) Multi-story hydroponics facilities. Grow fruits and vegetables, as far as meat goes that's not necessary so no need to worry about it.
C) We've basically got energy covered as it is so I don't really see a need to speculate about it.
>Implying there was a need to speculate about any of this.

[Anonymous No.3215443]

>>3215433
>Surface space is basically gone
lol

[Anonymous No.3215448]

>>3215425
Reason for more funding to go to oceanic exploration. Does anybody give a shit though? Nope.

[Anonymous No.3215458]

>>3215443
Read that back and realized it was idiotic. Meant to say surface space is very limited. Forgive me /sci/entist.

[Anonymous No.3215495]

>>3215448
You won't be able build off-land habitats for millions. Neither in the sea nor in space.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3215507]

>>3215387

Abolish all laws that take any land off the market.

[Anonymous No.3215520]

>>3215433

I take it you don't live in midwestern America then?

[Anonymous No.3215524]

ITT:

OP is a 12 year old kid who thinks overpopulation is an actual major issue. Try lack of clean water instead, thats a much more important pressing issue.

[Anonymous No.3215530]

>>3215524
Clean water is more important than overpopulation?

fullretard.pdf.mp4.avi.zip

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3215533]

>>3215524

He probably just started an intro to ethics class. I would just suggest he try a logic class first.

[Anonymous No.3215536]

>>3215530
Enjoy dying of disease when only dirty shit water is left.

You obviously aren't educated in this topic so I advise you to shut your whore mouth.

[Anonymous No.3215547]

>>3215530

There's a great speech given during one of the recent TED talks that addresses this, though I can't seem to find it. The argument was basically that overpopulation will take care of itself, as the third world countries modernize, they'll have less use for larger families, and the trend will move down to 1-3 children families.

[Anonymous No.3215554]

>>3215547

Found it, watch it.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

[Anonymous No.3215558]

>>3215524
There are a lot of so called conspiracy nutheads as well as people who call themselves "truth seekers", that think that overpopulation is the biggest problem we are facing and global warming is just there to distract us from it.

[Anonymous No.3215581]

>>3215558
NWO will deal with it. FEMA already has a stock of bodybags and cattle waggons to take anyone who opposes them to concentration camps.

[Anonymous No.3215593]

Here's my question, if America and Europe are experiencing population stagnation, then why is overpopulation a problem? If too many Africans are born what's going to happen? They're just going to starve faster, it's not like we're going to care any more than we already do. And no, they're not all going to immigrate to our countries...

[Anonymous No.3215603]

>>3215554
The thing is that by that time it will already be too late.

What do I mean by that? Well, either we as a species take control of the population growth and decide who gets to have babies and who don't.

Or if we fail to do so, eventually that decision will be taken from us as our population exceeds the carrying capacity of the global eco-system (some prominent researcher say we have already passed that limit). Because when that happens, nature will gradually start to fail and it will then be a question of who gets to survive and who don't.

Even relatively small food price hikes and water scarcity has led to revolutions, wars and civil-wars in the past. What makes you think the future will be different.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3215607]

>>3215593

They want to hope and believe based purely on emotion that the word is a zero-sum game.

[Anonymous No.3215621]

>>3215603

Because I live in America. We grow our own fucking food and have more than enough fresh water. Even if trends changed drastically and our population doubled, we'd still be fine.

[Anonymous No.3215640]

>>3215558
yes, because these professors and specialists are obviously nutters all of them.

http://populationmatters.org/about/who-we-are/

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3215650]

>>3215495

>>You won't be able build off-land habitats for millions. Neither in the sea nor in space.

Yes, you can. A modest one that houses 4 families (initially) is being built for around 4.5 million, and it's expandable.

>>3215443

There is plentiful space on the surface. But not much of it is livable, and nearly all of it costs money. Counterintuitive as it may seem, a modest colony on the continental shelf would cost considerably less than Vegas, mostly because the bulk of the cost of constructing vegas was in the pipelines needed to get water and gas to it out in the middle of the desert. In the ocean land is free, food is free, power is free and you're surrounded by both fresh drinking water and oxygen provided you have a source of power for splitting both out of sea water.

[Anonymous No.3215651]

White educated first world people have too less children.

Mudrace uneducated third world savages have too many children.

[Anonymous No.3215665]

>>3215640
There are also professors who promote this global warming garbage.

[Anonymous No.3215680]

>>3215650
>You won't be able build off-land habitats for millions.

I meant for millions of people not for millions of dollars.

[Anonymous No.3215691]

>overpopulation

The entire population of the planet could fit inside Texas, and everyone would have 1 acre of land to themselves.

There is no overpopulation problem. There is a distribution problem.

[Anonymous No.3215707]

>>3215651
people in the third world also die at much higher rates from disease and starvation and hence have a shorter life expectancy

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3215716]

>>3215680

Ah, that's true. They will likely remain a niche for oceanic enthusiasts, professionals and their families.

[Anonymous No.3215719]

>>3215691
that's not even true. check it out yourself.

[Anonymous No.3215727]

>A) Housing: more living space is needed. The solution must yield living space for millions plus infrastructure and a method to transfer this people quick and easy.
You are fucking, fucking, fucking so fucking stupid I don't even fucking know what to say, there's a few hundred thousand times enough unused land in the world for every single person to have a comfortable ground-level living space, the issue is only around population centers and lack of facilities but holy fuck if you're actually retarded enough to think we don't have enough fucking land to live on.
>B) Food: There must be a cheap and efficient way to get healthy food for millions and a cheap way to distribute it. It also should not take away a lot of potential living space.
Following from the housing, this is a lot less of an issue because HOLY FUCK THERE IS SO MUCH FUCKING ROOM FOR HOUSING. In fact the real issue is lack of farming resources, fertilizers and water, land is really not an issue it's getting the land to actually grow food.
>C) Energy: Energy sources that do not endanger the health of the population or render vast areas of living space/food production area unusable.
So nuclear plants and mechanical solar plants (in the FUCKING DESERT where there are hundreds of thousands of square miles of EMPTY FUCKING LAND people could live on) with aid from wind power.

Overpopulation freaks are retarded, but OP is setting the bar at a new high, there are some real issues that have to be dealt with in the future or overpopulation will be a problem but you managed to miss fucking all of them.

[Anonymous No.3215729]

>>3215691
Wolfram Alphonse says 39.5 people to an acre.

[Anonymous No.3215736]

>>3215707
That's fine, but their countries have population growth rates greater than ours. Oh and the mudsavages are also the top breeding groups when they get to Europe or NA. However you slice it, or try to explain it away, the world becoming less white and more african/middle eastern is bad.

[Anonymous No.3215737]

>>3215387

A) Housing: population control.
B) Food: population control.
C) Energy: population control.

There. Problem solved.

[Anonymous No.3215738]

>>3215691

Texas has almost 170,000,000 acres of land, how many people are there on Earth again?

[Anonymous No.3215740]

>>3215691
Texas has 167,552,000 acres of land, the world population is 6.7 billion. Nice idea, but no. The world population couldn't fit in the entire US with 1 acre of land each.

[Anonymous No.3215743]

>>3215691

thats not true....

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3215745]

>>3215691

>>There is no overpopulation problem. There is a distribution problem.

Again, you're assuming 100% of land is habitable. It isn't. People live where they do for a reason. America isn't all forests and fields. It may appear lush to you because you live in a populated area which, non-coincidentally, was built in a lush region. That's where our ancestors said "Hey, this would be a great place to settle."

America is also vast stretches of barren, arid desert that nobody wants to live in. Desert, swamp, mountains, etc.

The amount of land actually suitable for settling is much smaller than most initially assume. And climate change, whether manmade or not, will only reduce that further.

[Anonymous No.3215752]

>>3215387

Population will decrease with increase in wealth in 3rd world countries.

Population problems are only a byproduct of poverty.

[Anonymous No.3215755]

>>3215736

No, the vast majority of whites breed with whites, it will always be this way. Unless half of the middle east moves to Europe, the population won't drastically rise, because this generation of them may be middle eastern, but the next will be European, and the next even more so (my point is they'll get past the ten kids per family idea rather quickly).

[Anonymous No.3215767]

>>3215691
>>3215691
Have you been dropped on you head as a child? It is completely irrelevant if you can fit the global population in to Texas.

Overpopulation is not about the actual physical space a persons body takes, but about the area of land, volume of air and the space of the ecosystems needed to sustainably support him/her.

If you placed the global population in Texas 99,9% would most likely die from dehydration within 3 days. The same principle applies to a population spread over the entire surface.

[Anonymous No.3215781]

Alright listen the fuck up. I'm assuming when you say overpopulation you're talking about places like India, Bangladesh, China, the Phillipines, Japan, Indonesia, Nigeria, and most of the African coasts/river areas.

Most of these areas are perfect for farming rice and tropical plants, except Africa, which also probably has the most problems of all the places I listed.

150 years ago, the town I currently live in was a desert. Actually almost all of the corridor/range along the East slope of the Rocky Mountains was very dry, cracked, infertile earth. Everyone who moved to the area along the eastern slope of the Rockies back then knew that it had the potential to be great farmland, so what did they do?

They built huge irrigation systems and dug out rivers coming off the main rivers. The mountains where I live provide enough water for literally the entire state. Now you might say, "But there aren't enough mountains in Africa". Well, not every country has mountains, but there are enough in the eastern half of the country to provide water for farming and drinking. The western half is more problematic, but massive canals could connect the northern and eastern halves with the dry lowlands along the coast. Just have people stop clusterfucking around the coastal areas and have some of them move inland.

[Anonymous No.3215792]

>>3215781
There's nothing wrong with the land in Subsaharan Africa, when the people on top of it are white (maybe Asian, we'll see this century)
see: Rhodesia, Pre-1994 South Africa

[Anonymous No.3215849]

>>3215781
>I'm assuming when you say overpopulation you're talking about places like India, Bangladesh, China, the Phillipines, Japan, Indonesia, Nigeria, and most of the African coasts/river areas.

No you stupid cunt, I am talking about the planet as a whole.

>derp derp..perfect for farming rice...herp herp... They built huge irrigation systems and dug out rivers coming off the main rivers.. herp derp.

Irrigation driven conventional farming leads to increases in soil salinity and leads to desertification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impacts_of_irrigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_degradation

In fact we have already destroyed almost 30% of the land total that used to be arable before we started industrial farming.

Sometimes it is good to try to do some reading on ones own and not just go on what others say.

We are unable to support even the current world population in a sustainable manner.

[Anonymous No.3215863]

people still fail to realise a plot of land =/= food

current high intensive agriculture is supported by a: a shit ton of oil and b: inorganic mineral fertilizers that can't be replenished

if you think overpopulation isn't a problem please enlighten me as to where you have found a magical fountain that spews unlimited oil, and refined K and P

[Anonymous No.3215944]

>>3215387
>>3215387
Set a global one-child policy until we reach a total global population of one billion. Clean up the genepool (sterilize all violent offenders, mentally retarded etc.)

This solves both A), B) and C).

[Anonymous No.3215953]

>>3215944
not "both".

*all.

[Anonymous No.3216040]

B) In Vitro Meat! Google it, it's the future of meat production, we just need to perfect it. A combination of IVM and hydroponic multistories

[Anonymous No.3216062]

>>3216040
that sounds so gross...

[Anonymous No.3216113]

>>3216062
You fucking hippy, inhibiting perfectly reasonable innervation just because it 'seems wrong'
Let me guess, you're against nuclear power, only eat organic and herp derp herp derp.

[Anonymous No.3216144]

>>3216040
This may work once we have completely understood biochemisty. Until then in-vitro meat will suffer from the same problems as all other large scale produced meat.

Remember salmon? How it used to be a healthy product, full of omega3 and other goodies? Well that was before large-scale salmon-farms. Modern day salmon has almost no omega3, lots of heavy metals and carcinogenic substances (how about some formaldehyde).

Nah, in-vitro meat wont be healthy eating for at least another 30-40 years. We need to deal with the population crisis well before then.

[Anonymous No.3216148]

>>3216113

Did you even read his post?

[Anonymous No.3216168]

There is no overpopulation problem.
It is a myth

[Anonymous No.3216213]

>>3216168
Oh boy, I just love it when some retarded mong jumps in and just skips all previous posts just to repeat some stupid shit that has already been disproven.

Hey asshole, I don't come to your work and knock the dicks out of your mouth do I. So when others do or talk about something that they actually know about then shut the fuck up and read previous posts before you parrot you garbage.

[Anonymous No.3216229]

>>3216213
U SO MAD.
I'm sorry if I don't believe in your ignorant ideas, but that's no reason to get your knickers in a twist

[Anonymous No.3216287]

Vast overconsumption by the affluent 1st world and overpopulation in the 3rd world are two faces to the same issue of resource management, and the former is by far the more significant. Why am I not surprised that you fucks only talk about the latter? You people don't read the literature, nothing, so your discussions are worthless. I can't justify even bothering to come to this shithole anymore.

[Anonymous No.3216317]

WE BUILD CITIES IN THE FUCKING SKY.

[Anonymous No.3218508]

I don't really know if we have a problem yet, but it is obvious that if we don't set limits to population sooner or later we will have a problem.

The difficult thing is how does one convince the politicians who only care about short-term popularity to take such unpopular decisions for the long-term benefit?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3218514]

>>3215431
Or read the book?

[Anonymous No.3218529]

>>3216287
Innovation is the solution to every human problem. It comes from the former, not the latter. Overconsumption relative to what? Some mud hut living Bangladeshi cooking over cow shit? Suck my dick.

[Anonymous No.3218538]

Why don't we have a contraception in exchange for food program in the third world? That way there are less babies and more food to go around.

[Anonymous No.3218555]

>>3218538
That's politically incorrect.

[Anonymous No.3218557]

>>3218529
nah, overconsumption will adjust itself when resources run out an prices skyrocket.

But what about food? Say we expand current agriculture, ban all meat-production and use all available land for cultivation of annual monocrops, sure we would be able to feed more people for a while. But as was previously mentioned >>3215849
these practices lead to soil-erosion. So really the only way to make sure humanity and civilization is not lost, is to put limits on procreation.

[Anonymous No.3218563]

>>3218538
The problem is not only in the third world. The problem is global. Every people of every nation must limit its population.

[Anonymous No.3218566]

>>3218563
But they have a higher fertility rate.

[Anonymous No.3218574]

>>3218563
We (whites) already do. Brown people at home and abroad continue to shit out children

[Anonymous No.3218602]

>>3218538
Why don't you sterilise yourself first faggot?

[Anonymous No.3218634]

Overpopulation? lol In terms of what? Not enough land? There's enough. The problem is making a lot of the land habitable. This requires technological advancements in science and engineering. I would call for the deregulation of these kinds of things and explore the possibilities.

In terms of food, again, this is because of our current technological tools available, that we could not possibly be able to feed the whole worlds population.

[Anonymous No.3218659]

>>3215387
A) I think you underestimate the size of world, as of right now living space is not really an issue
B) Aeroponics towers. This way we can grow food using much fewer resources and can grow the food close to the population centers where its needed.
C) Thorium fission and renewables will provide all the power we need until we can figure out fusion.

And you didn't list it but we also need
D) Population control
My idea is everyone is issued 2 "child credits" when they are born. In order to have a child you must expend 2 child credits however you and your partner can divy that up however you like with one parent using both of theirs or each using one. At the end of the year if there are more deaths than births the extra credits can be issued to nobel prize winners, Olympic athletes, etc... If you break the law and have a third child you will be charged a steep fine. Of course keep in mind this is when we reach like 12+ billion people right now such stringent measures are probably not necessary.

[Anonymous No.3218663]

>>3215387

So your real question should be, how can we promote technological advancements?

My theory would be increasing personal liberty/freedom to perform experiments and such.

We would be nowhere if scientist didn't break rules every once in a while.

[kilo !6Mf6LtCqak No.3218681]

>>3218659

[kilo !6Mf6LtCqak No.3218696]

>>3218681
Singapore is looking into some interesting hydroponic options

[Anonymous No.3218702]

>>3218681
Do you mean growing shit on rooves? Because if you mean anything other than that you're fucking stupid, multi-storey farms would block sunlight to lower levels.

[kilo !6Mf6LtCqak No.3218714]

>>3218702
...durrr. You fail to properly gauge the intelligence level of this board. There are ideas about how to get around that. And yes, growing in between high-rises is a better idea.

[Anonymous No.3218716]

>>3218702
>Implying the sun is always directly above the buildings, and that designers wouldn't take that into consideration before construction.

[Anonymous No.3218731]

>or lets blast those mother fuckers and take their land!

[Anonymous No.3218758]

>>3218714
>>3218716
1: Anything you do to redirect or capture sunlight will cast a shadow on something else.

2: Even if you find a way to disobey the 1st law of thermodynamics it will still be more economical using those resources to irrigate pasture and make it fit for crops and obtain more farmland that way.

[Anonymous No.3218760]

>>3218702
Yeah just like if you live in an apartment building you never see the sun unless you go on the roof... Oh wait yes you do.

The plants will be on outer side with the center of the tower housing the processing, transport, supply and storage.

[Anonymous No.3218771]

Make life spans be indefinite to those who can afford it, ban child birth unless needed.

[Anonymous No.3218804]

>>3218760
The building will cast a shadow on the multi-story farm behind it.

[Anonymous No.3218806]

>>3218758
Keep in mind these are not filled with dirt these would be hydroponic or aeroponic farms which are far more efficient than traditional dirt farming. Then if you factor in the drastically reduced transportation and storage cost it becomes even better.

[kilo !6Mf6LtCqak No.3218825]

>>3218806
Yea, the main concern in Singapore is the cost of transportation.

[Anonymous No.3218867]

Give all women a 3 children limit. Though luck for a man meeting a woman that has already filled her quota though.. So I can see some major issues and ground for new conflict with that one. Alternatively 1,5 children per person, a couple can have 3, if you have 1 kid and you're single, find someone else with 0,5 or 1,5 left on their quota.
Why the hell would you need more than 2 or 3 children anyway?!

Or just wait until all countries are developed enough that the fertility rates go down by themselves, but by that time it'll probably be too late. And I doubt that will happen in any foreseeable future anyway.

[Anonymous No.3218876]

>>3218760

dude hasnt heard about lights before

[Anonymous No.3218882]

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

ffs, this is pretty much the best way forward. but it wont happen. the world will be bankrupt in 40 years, everyone dies.

/thread

[Anonymous No.3218888]

>>3218806
>>3218825
Being able to more efficiently use light doesn't create more light, try thinking more.

The time you waste quibbling about this nonsense could be spent searching for actual solutions.

[Anonymous No.3218900]

>>3218876
Would probably take some a considerable amount of electricity though. I'm no biologist so I have no idea how much. But I guess some solar power, wind turbines, geothermal power etc could fix that if the building had to be self sufficient. If not, I guess it would still save energy compared to the transportation of said goods from out of town.

[Anonymous No.3218901]

>>3218882
Everyone will die because of retards who think empty platitudes are the best way forward and defend retarded ideas like multi-storey farms with the stubbornness of a creationist.

[Anonymous No.3218913]

>>3218876
Lights use energy, energy that can be used to irrigate pasture and turn it into cropland.

[Anonymous No.3218950]

What if we were actually able to share, I'm thinking of things like cars, you had a car system within the city where you don't own a car but you loan one for a fee. You drive to your destination and park it, then the next person can take it and go wherever he/she want's to go. Kinda like city bikes today. Expand that to other areas, and energy, space etc would become less of a problem, simply smarter use of resources. A sharing system, not based on greed nor "communism". That would only work if we lived in a society where we didn't have criminals/asshats that would ruin said opportunities though
food? well, if we didn't throw away 50% of all our food that would help.. and ate smarter so we don't choke on 10000 kcal each day.
Key here is getting all people to actually think of what they are doing, throwing away usable stuff, wasting food/water etc. A cultural change. I doubt we will ever be able to get the whole world population up to western standards anyway though..
>And there I turned into meaningless hippie babel, good night..

[Anonymous No.3218952]

>>3218913
>>3218900

there are so many forms of renewable power generation its not funny. ever heard of tidal power? probably not. The reason no one cares is because no one can make money off it.

i.e. get rid of monetary system, get rid of more problems than you can imagine.

[Anonymous No.3218956]

>>3218952
How would you allocate resources efficiently without a monetary system?

[Anonymous No.3218970]

>>3218956

you are sent exactly what you need and possibly want. if technology is not restrained by money, shit will get real pretty fucking soon.

90% of crime is a result of the monetary system. dude needs a car. cant afford. steals car. just give the dude a car ffs.

[Anonymous No.3218972]

>>3218952
Problem is that none of them is nowhere near the efficiency of oil, nuclear power, coal etc. You'll need large amounts of land/sea for the same amount of power. But within a few decades we don't really have a choice, so I expect these technologies to develop fairly quick in the next few years.

[Anonymous No.3218984]

>>3218970
>90% of crime is a result of the monetary system

Source?

[Anonymous No.3218988]

>>3218952
>ever heard of tidal power?
yep

>The reason no one cares is because no one can make money off it.
Yes, because it is massively expensive and produces fuck all electricity. And it destroys wildlife habitats. Even here in the UK we aren't going for tidal, precisely because it is so expensive and has no real benefits.

[Anonymous No.3218995]

>>3215433
>We've basically got energy covered as it is

[Anonymous No.3219003]

>>3218984

its fairly indirect but if you think about it, most crime is a result of people wanting more money. people put their lives on the line to get money because money = life in this economy. people sell drugs, people steal shit, etc. i cant think of that many crimes that do not relate to money in some way

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3219005]

>>3218988
>>3218952
Thorium thread? Thorium thread.

TEDxYYC - Kirk Sorensen - Thorium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

Energy From Thorium: A Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

Someone knowledgeable still needs to tell me how awesome this really is, such as the cost of mining and refining the thorium as compared to uranium.

[Anonymous No.3219010]

>>3218952
mfw I live in a country where 99% of the electricity originates from hydroelectric power. And that is currently researching several renewable energy sources such as wave power(!), wind power and osmotic power.

[Anonymous No.3219013]

Ok, for the retards who are unable to read previous posts.

The main problem is not in housing or energy but in being able to sustainably feed all the people. (this means feeding without causing the destruction of the very ecosystems that we obtain the food from).

IRRIGATION and LARGE SCALE INDUSTRIAL FARMING does not work, because of soil erosion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impacts_of_irrigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_degradation
And as this is this is the method we currently are using to feed the world we can currently see a continual loss of arable land. We have already lost 30% of all arable land due to unsustainable farming practices.

So with a growing number of people and a decreasing amount of land to feed them from what do you expect will happen? Check this image >>3215767

[Anonymous No.3219014]

>>3219003
Do you have a more credible source than your own opinion?

[Anonymous No.3219024]

>>3218952
Financial tinkering isn't the reason the cost per kilowatt hour of tidal power doesn't match hydro-electric power.

[Anonymous No.3219029]

>>3219014

nar, I just watch to many zeigeist films and now im a fucking genius dude! But seriously, i think Jacque Fresco is on to something

[Anonymous No.3219038]

1) Tents made of human skin
2) Human Jerky
3) Burning feces, bones, inedible scraps etc
There, done.

But seriously, this is a massive issue. It's all civilisation/max carrying capacity vs barbarians/quality of life, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.3219039]

>>3219029
Have you read this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

[Anonymous No.3219041]

While hydroponic farming is useful for some things it still requires addition of nutrients. These are mined and non-renewable.

Also there is some debate as to hydroponically grown plants actually can provide all we need as ordinary plants grown in natural systems. The concern is that although hydroponics is good enough to make the plant grow. Hydroponics as a system is not complex enough to provide all trace-elements of a natural environment and will thus, in the long-term cause deficiencies in some elements.

[EK FAN CLUB No.3219045]

>>3219038
>human jerky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

[Anonymous No.3219051]

Take your economic discussion in another thread. This thread is about overpopulation.

[Anonymous No.3219053]

Supply and demand. The creation of systems that support large populations .. produces large populations. The target should be creating systems that produce higher quality at lower volume, which is the inverse of what we are doing today. Stupid mass production produces stupid masses.

[Anonymous No.3219064]

>>3219039

TL;DR but it seems like your with me in some sense. I don't even know how I got on to /sci/ in the first place.

[Anonymous No.3219070]

>>3219051

It only exists because of immigration. We have plenty of space like everyone is saying. we're just not using it wisely. Which is a result of money dewd

[Sage No.3219071]

#1 way of minimising overpopulation.

abort abort abort.

[Anonymous No.3219072]

>>3215863
>if you think overpopulation isn't a problem please enlighten me as to where you have found a magical fountain that spews unlimited oil, and refined K and P

Nitrogen fertilizer is produced via the Haber process which just needs a cheap source of hydrogen, natural gas is currently used but thermochemical hydrogen from high temp nukes would work just as well

Potassium is currently extracted from sea water

Phosphorus is a problem

[Anonymous No.3219074]

>>3219064
What board are you normally on?

[Anonymous No.3219091]

>>3219074

/p/ /fit/ /b/ /ck/ -- tbh i dont go on 4chan much unless i have a question google cant answer me

[Anonymous No.3219093]

Clearly the evolved industrial nations and some of the developing nations will have to join forces to exterminate vast amounts of the third world shit holes that are going nowhere. This will free up resources for the glory of the civilizations that actually have a future.

Just think if we killed every one in africa we could buy our selves a tremendous amount of time and resources. And don't forget countries like Haiti and portions of south eat asia.

copied this from /x/

[Anonymous No.3219105]

>>3218716
>Problem: food is to expensive
>Solution: built multimillion dollar towers that inefficiently produce trifling quantities of food

[Anonymous No.3219113]

>>3219105
Shifting resources from crucial food production to tower construction will initiate a severe famine, reducing the world population. Once the towers are complete, there will be many less mouths to feed, and the price of food will have fallen.

We have mastered the art of killing people by building things we promise will save them.

[FAT NIGGER No.3219115]

Ways to ease the effects of overpopulation.

In addition to restricting immigration to already severely overpopulated areas:

1. Abstinence. When that doesn't work.
2. Condoms and birth cuntroll. When that doesn't work.
3. Abortions

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3219126]

>>3219115
The best way to stop overpopulation is to raise people out of shitty living standards. People in better living standards have less children.

Also what you said.

[Anonymous No.3219139]

>>3219045
So people die of CJD, and instead of being food they get sent to the fires. What's the problem?

[Anonymous No.3219149]

>>3219005
>Someone knowledgeable still needs to tell me how awesome this really is, such as the cost of mining and refining the thorium as compared to uranium.

Every.Single.Fucking.Thread

monazite sand is about 10% Thorium and goes for a few hundred a tonne, thorium is cheap to refine. Enrichment, not refining, is the primary cost for uranium, all of this would have taken you three fucking to find through google

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3219153]

>>3219149
Actually, this is the first I've seen of you posting this. I apologize for being too ignorant to know that refining does not include enriching. And I have tried google, but failed. Apparently my google-fu is weak. Do you have sources, please?

[Anonymous No.3219161]

>>3219072
>>3219072
>>3219072
>>3219072
Yeah, phosphorus is a real problem, and the core of the problem. Phosphorus is a nutrient essential to all living organisms and according to the United States Geological Survey, America reached peak phosphorous in 1988, and the rest of the world did 1989. Current estimates say that we have between 50 and 130 years before it completely runs out. Then what?

Lets say we have 90 years left of phosphorus [(130-50)/2+50]. This means that food-production will decline and become more and more expensive for the next 90 years, and after that there will be no large scale commercial farming. How long do you think we have before we have riots and wars over food?

[Anonymous No.3219164]

>>3219161
here is a link for the usgs:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/phosphate_rock/

[Anonymous No.3219166]

>>3219149
calm down bruhbruh, this isn't serious business, we're just throwing shit out there

My only gripe with all these stupid ideas is the lack of them, I'd rather have 1000 stupid ideas thrown at me than 2 or 3 stupid ideas that are re-iterated over and over.

[Anonymous No.3219168]

>>3219161
What about the natural phosphate cycle? Where did medieval farmers get their phosphate?

[Anonymous No.3219170]

and here is the article I was quoting (took a few minutes to find it):
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/33164

[Anonymous No.3219172]

A) Build up, Build down, or Build on water and cruise around to avoid hurricanes
B) Hydroponics is the most promising thing I know of
C) There's only about 10 different ways to get energy, mix and match. Even at a conservative current efficiency solar power alone would have to be able provide 25% of our growing demand if we just took advantage of all the wasted surface area in our cities (roofs, exterior walls and road ways mainly)
Geothermal plants and LFTR reactors are two major future players for large backbone power supply when the obvious renewables can't keep up.

[Anonymous No.3219175]

There's only one real task ahead...

[Anonymous No.3219178]

>>3219168
>>3219168
Sure, if we use perennial polycultures and do a lot mulching (maybe even harvest deep-sea-algae for mulching). But the annual mono-crop farming used in current large scale framing, no way. It takes way to much P out of the soil.


[captcha: recycled evershav]

[Anonymous No.3219181]

>>3219172
hydroponics still need nutrients like phosporus (it is not just water being pumped around).

[Anonymous No.3219188]

>>3219039
Oh look it's that link again
ECC in a nutshell: How to distribute goods where they're needed.
Capitalism suggestion: Establish values which follow circular logic and establish that the ideal for everyone is to have as much of the means of accounting as possible.

How about just having an inventory which people take what they need out of and tracking usage of materials and goods instead of tracking a proxy of those things. This isn't the middle ages where doing this would have been hard after all.

[Anonymous No.3219196]

>>3219181
Easier to track precise amounts if added to a water feed and it's easier extract unused nutrients from water than it is soil.

[Anonymous No.3219198]

>>3219188
Who determines what they need (and how much)?

[Anonymous No.3219207]

>>3219196
>>3219196
>>3219196
Still even with hydroponics, P will run out. Read>>3219161
>>3219161
>>3219161

[Anonymous No.3219208]

>>3219198
An inherently fallacious question that one.

They decide what they need, though there would be methods of review in place. Obvious 'greedy' request could be automatically turned aside while an inspection team would have review reports of system abuse from the general populous.

So by all means request 499pounds of gold to get past the automation, but just know that Mr. Jones down the street isn't so easily fooled.

[Anonymous No.3219210]

>>3219207
My concern is not in how to obtain more phosphorus but in how to make the most of what is available.

Of the farming options I know of, hydroponics is the most promising.

[Anonymous No.3219223]

>>3219153
price and Th% were pulled from Alibaba listings, "cheap to refine" as in "not prohibitively expensive", thorium metal goes for something like $50/kg now and has gone for less in the past.

From Ulmann's:

>Solvent Extraction with TBP.
>In the absence of phosphate ions (e.g., in the case of oxidic and carbonate-containing thorium ores) or if phosphate ions have been previously removed in the alkaline treatment method, the U, Th, and RE nitrato complexes can be separated and purified by extraction with TBP in an organic solvent, preferably in kerosene. The overall process is simple and easily controlled. The effect of the molarity of nitric acid on the distribution coefficients of rare earths, uranium, and thorium is shown in Figure (12). With a mean acid concentration of 3 mol/L, the distribution coefficient (organic/aqueous) for rare earths is 0.02, for thorium 1, and for uranium 20, so that a multistage separation is possible [19]. Trivalent metallic ions such as Fe3+ can mask residues of phosphate. A suitable flow scheme is shown in Figure (13). Solvent extraction, which is optional in the purification of natural thorium compounds, is the only feasible method of separating thorium, 233U, and fission products after irradiation in a reactor.
>"Purification of Thorium Nitrate by Solvent Extraction with TBP," Fin. Rep. USAEC-BMI 946 (1952) p. 3 ff.
and
>Amex Process. The use of a combination of different amines in three consecutive cycles (see Fig. (11)) is the basis of the prototype scale Amex process [18], which enables pure products (U, Th, RE) to be obtained directly from diluted solutions of monazite in sulfuric acid. However, in the absence of any large demand, this flow scheme has not yet been tested on a full scale.
>"Recovery of Th, U, and SE from Monazite Sulfate Leach Liquors by the Amine Extraction Process," Rep. Oak Ridge National Lab., no. 2720, July 16, 1959.

pic is thorium content of monazite from around the world

[Anonymous No.3219246]

>>3219208
Who watches the watchers?
Your bureaucracy would soon grind to a communistic halt.

[Anonymous No.3219254]

We could turn the ocean into a giant algae tank to collect all the precious phosphates.

[Anonymous No.3219274]

>>3219246
That's theist level logic.

The watchers are no more immune to scrutiny than anyone else and even if they were immune it'd be no worse a situation than we are in right this second.

[Anonymous No.3219277]

>>3219072

whole thread, just 2 people adress the real issue at stake here
most food produced by nonrenewable mineral fertilizer, more resource consumption in the developed world isn't the problem perse, everyone is eating away precious P

now i'll admit my first post was a bit short so let me elaborate
to produce food you need to throw 3 things on a field
nitrogen in the form of ammonia derivates, which are produced from the haber process out of atmospheric N2, no problem there except current industry depends on cheap methane
you could use nuclear power here but then you need new plants and have a higher price

second you need potassium, K is one of the most abundant elements on earth however the problem is in extracting and refining it (currently still mostly done by mass out of mineral salt deposits) this refining is done by using once again lots of cheap oil, here too nuclear power could provide a solution but at a cost increase

Third you need phosphorous: vital for all biological systems, mined from mineral deposits, non renewable
if used it will cycle through the ecosystem for a while untill it ends up in the sea and ocean in which it is too diluted to recover

now some scientist claim that our reserves will run out by the end of this century
funny enough a lot of deposits are located in the arab world, so expect the western world to be invading morocco whenever they think they can stop the P from flowing

even if you use hydroponics P will still bleed from the system
so unless you can propose a way to extract P from the oceans without costing too much fossil fuels then you may claim there is no population problem


also for your consideration read up on this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun

[Anonymous No.3219289]

>>3219207
recycle human waste

[Anonymous No.3219300]

>>3219274
The current situation sucks ass. We want to improve it, not create another one that sucks just as much in a different way.

[Anonymous No.3219317]

>>3219289

yes this a solution that works
a fine example of this is the lake victoria in central africa
large population lives around fresh water all their shit flows in the lake, nile perch gets introduced and fished => closed cycle

however fish in the ocean isn't that easy to breed and most of the human population lives near an ocean or sea that connects to the ocean

[Anonymous No.3219323]

We will never really run out of any resource, it will just become more expensive to obtain.

[Anonymous No.3219335]

>>3219277

it is also worth mentioning that for every one calorie of food you put in your mouth, an average of nine calories of petrol has been used in farming, transporting, storing and mining. So as gasoline gets more expensive expect food to do the same.

We have built a house of cards, with a gigantic overpopulation supported by unsustainable, non-renewable means. Eventually one of the supports will start to falter and chaos will ensue.

It is kind of a pity that at a time when we are so close to the singularity we are also just inches away from the utter destruction of civilisation.

[Anonymous No.3219338]

>>3219300
The current situation is a worst case scenario in what I was saying, as in it couldn't end up any worse but it'd likely be better.

Either way we need a new system and I insist on removing currency since it was only EVER supposed to be a proxy which represented resources. There's simply no need to use it now that we have spreadsheets, near instant world wide data transfer, and super computers to track inventory with.

[Anonymous No.3219345]

>>3219126
You will have less people but those people will have living standards close to current western population, which makes the ressource problem even bigger.

[Anonymous No.3219346]

>>3219335
Farming and storing can be/are largely electrical loads so the solution is merely getting the means of electricity productions away from oil.

Transportation cost is minimized with reducing the distance to the consumer, which is why vertical hydroponics is a very real possibility.

[Anonymous No.3219348]

>>3219323
which in practice actually means that we will run out (ie. that the resource is unobtainable).

[Anonymous No.3219353]

>>3219345
It would most likely be a short term increase which results in less usage overall than doing nothing and letting the population continue to rise unchecked.

[Anonymous No.3219360]

here's some peer reviewed reading
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937800800099X

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/1/014009/pdf/1748-9326_6_1_014009.pdf

i do know the uselesness of posting these as people claiming we can fit all of the world population in texas simply aren't going to read

>>3219335
i have heard this number 1:10 and 1:9 multiple times, though i have never seen a source on it, do you have one?

[Anonymous No.3219373]

>>3219360
It is a fact that the population of the world could fit in Texas, with an average population density around that of New York City. Actually making such an immense megacity work would be a practical impossibility, of course.

[Anonymous No.3219374]

>>3219360
It's useless because
>$30
I swear it's like people these days don't want their ideas to be heard.

[Anonymous No.3219395]

>>3219374

ah yes the stupid cost of these articles
from my internet connection i auto log in, so i can't tell if an article is free or payed for by my institution

[Anonymous No.3219399]

>>3219346
Yet again I have to repeat myself and explain that while useful for some purposes hydroponic farming is questioned because of the simplicity of its mix of nutrients. Natural systems are incredibly complicated and we do not know how to duplicate all the compounds dissolved into the ground. This means that while (some) plants do well in hydroponics it has not been shown that they are suitable as main source of nutrition.

In fact, if you take a look at other systems where we try to mimic nature and farm things on a large scale we fail miserably (compare with salmon which has almost no omega3 when farmed but lots of pollutants and carcinogens).

tl,dr:
HYDROPONICS IS INTERESTING BUT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY FEED PEOPLE ON A LARGE SCALE BEFORE WE HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW NATURE WORKS.

[Anonymous No.3219420]

>>3219399
Your precious topsoil-box of secrets- can't survive the demands being placed on it right now though.

[Anonymous No.3219444]

>>3219420
>>3219420
>>3219420
Exactly, and that is why we need population control.

[Anonymous No.3219453]

>>3219360
>>3219360
>>3219360
I think I do, somewhere. I will try to locate the book and see what source it used. It might take some time (several hours, it is at a different house) so try to keep the thread alive.

[Anonymous No.3219490]

Okay guys, so what are the basic ressources we're going to run out of? And could we substitute or replenish them?

If we need phosphorus and can't synthesize it. We must undertake all efforts to get it.

[Anonymous No.3219495]

>>3219490
pic related

[Anonymous No.3219505]

>>3219395
download -> mediafire -> link!

[Anonymous No.3219506]

>>3219490
There are no efforts to be taken, it is to diluted to be collected. At least not until we have some form of nanobot-cloud technology. And at the rate we are going we will never develop that because the world will turn into a mad-max apocalyptic wasteland. You see, even scientists need food. And when the whole world gets drawn into a war over food and resources.... research on how to gather P will not be high on anyones list.

[Anonymous No.3219512]

>>3219495

[Anonymous No.3219516]

>>3219490

here is a full graph with many elements
does not however contain P

[Anonymous No.3219521]

A) Civil engineering
B) Genetic engineering
C) Nuclear power

[Anonymous No.3219527]

>>3219516
>does not however contain P

But it does.

[Anonymous No.3219532]

>>3219490

here is one showing past P production with fitted hubbert curve
they propose that current P production is the easily accessable P ores and in the future with better infrastructure harder to acquire ores might also be mined (the second peak in the dotted line)

however note the delay in production quantities and the uncertainty in the actual values

[Anonymous No.3219535]

>>3219527

meant to say a poorly defined P.
the reported 345 years are on the optimistic side

[Anonymous No.3219547]

>>3219516
>gold: 36yrs
>implying we consume gold

[Anonymous No.3219564]

>>3219547

the graph depicts ores in the ground, not total resource
we 'consume' gold in the sense that we extract it, refine it and then lock away in vaults

following your logic, note that with the exception of uranium in nuclear reactors not a single element is destroyed, rather put to use or diluted to unrecoverable concentrations

[Anonymous No.3219597]

oh wow, neither a b nor c address the problem of waste.

op, i am disappoint.

captcha: 148 ricenhep

the numerals '1 4 and 8' in chinese sound like 'when death occurs, profit'...

ricenhep... yes... ricin and hepatitis to cull the population to a managable size! captcha you magnificent bastard...

...no but seriously, you have to deal with the concentration of waste.

[Anonymous No.3219598]

>>3219535
>>3219532
yeah, very optimistic. most estimates i've read ranges in between 40-160yrs.

As for hard rock phosphorus, we are already mining that at large quantities, they are included in the 40-160 yrs estimate.

Sure we may/will find other sources for P but at what cost? This is the central issue that most seem to ignore. The vital question is not depletion it is cost. If P becomes so difficult/expensive to acquire that only a handful of companies can afford it. What do you think will happen. Will people in other countries just lay down and starve to death? Or will they fight for their lives?

[Anonymous No.3219640]

>>3219597
as natural resources are consumed and waste become plentiful, waste turns into a natural resource that needs to be extracted. With high energy requirements, too.

[Anonymous No.3219647]

>>3215944
This is all we need to do, but we're gonna wait till the last fucking minute in like 100-150 years.

[Anonymous No.3219929]

God(win), I wish someone could come up with a depopulation program on a national scale.

[Anonymous No.3219950]

A) Megastructures, floating cities, colonisation of other planets (terraforming), construction of space stations (torus-style).
B) terraforming other planets, floating islands, vertical farms
C) Solar satellites

[Anonymous No.3219987]

>>3219950

[Anonymous No.3220436]

>>3219950
>>3219950
The sad fail with these suggestions is that if we do not address the problem now, we will never have a chance to develop any or either of those technologies.

That is the great tragedy. We have all these great advances and discoveries ahead of us. But due to indiscriminate, rampant reproduction we may never get the chance to do so.