Why human activities will not cause the end on the world as we know it ?

[Virtual ghost]

I did not plan to open this thread now but I have no reason to wait.

I see that people are disscussing environmental issues on this forum from time to time. So I have decided to open a thread that covers all of those issues. One thing is to disscus them one by one and another thing is to mix them in order to form a bigger picture.
I have already created some similar threads but this time I am ready to invest more time and effort then before.


Just for the record I don't classify my self when it comes to politics and I don't see myself as one of those typical environmentalists. (since I am not)





From experiance I know that majority of people are not likely to believe in things that involve the end of the world as we know it.
On the other hand I think that we are on a highway to a disaster of global proportions and that we will get there in a few years. (decade if we are lucky)


So here is in what I am interested: Why people think that the world as we know it will remain standing for a long time? I am interested in what makes you say/think something like that.



Also I would like that this thread stays free from high tensions. Since this is designed as an exchange of ideas. All forum members are welcome.
If you have a question about this kind of thing feel to ask.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ok, I will start the debate. I see that global warming is being debated in another thread so I will use different approach/argument why the world as we know it is doomed.

So I will open a question of overpolulation.

Today in this world there is about 6.8 billion people. The population is rising for about 70-100 million people each year and it does not show trend that It will stop soon.


But parents don’t die when they have children so when you have 2 parents with 2 children you are not at 0 you have 100% increase on the short run.
What can be fatal.
The point is not that we will decrease number with time the point is that we are spreading more then we should.


In about 2 years from now there will be 7 billion people on this planet. So let’s say that in the next 10 years billion women and billion man will have children. If they have only one child we will have another billion and there is no way that everybody will have just one.

Of course old and smaller generations die but world still has a strong surplus especially since mothers have more then one children.


So it is enevitable that the population will continue to rise in the future.
The amount of children per mother is droping but the number of potential mothers is rising.


Also the key factor is that rise of population is not distributed equaliy around the globe.
Often people in developed countries are not aware of the fact that they make only about 15% of the world population. If you add Russia into the nix you have another 2%.


The problem is that this world simply does not have enough resources to sustain this on the long run.
Especially if number of humans continues to rise like this in years to come.

Here is what will happen if this continues.

Lets say we get extra billion people in the next 10 years

One billion divided in 10(years) = 100 000 000 extra every year. Divide that with 365 and you get about 270 000 per day. What means that you need to build 270 elementary schools for 1000 children each day just to get the most basic education for those children. Not to mention high schools and colleges and place for their future job. This is simplified but it is obvious where this leads us.
Plus we are in the middle of global economic crisis, energy crisis and crisis of food and fresh water what is actually the most important factor.
I think that forming a logical conclusion about this is really no that hard.


I will stop here for now.
Opinions ?

 

[Lateralus]

Overpopulation will be (is) a problem for undeveloped nations, not developed nations. In Europe, births have dropped below the magical replacement rate. The US is very close to the replacement rate. My point being, in undeveloped nations, they'll eventually reach a tipping point where lots of people will starve to death...then they'll no longer be overpopulated.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Overpopulation will be (is) a problem for undeveloped nations, not developed nations. In Europe, births have dropped below the magical replacement rate. The US is very close to the replacement rate. My point being, in undeveloped nations, they'll eventually reach a tipping point where lots of people will starve to death...then they'll no longer be overpopulated.

Exactly.

But you can expect that this will pass without a complications for worlds economy. Especially since many of those poor countries provide resources and production of goods.

If this happens the entire chain could snapp in every aspect there is and it probably will if it ever comes to this.

 

[Lateralus]

Exactly.

But you can expect that this will pass without a complications for worlds economy. Especially since many of those poor countries provide resources and production of goods.

If this happens the entire chain could snapp in every aspect there is and it probably will if it ever comes to this.

Really? I don't remember there being any worldwide economic consequences when Ethiopians were starving in the 80s. But I was just a kid back then, so maybe I just didn't see it.

 

[Unique]

The destruction caused (and ice age or severe proportion) is simply a process of recovery... thats right.... recovery... not the end of the earth

Yeah people will die, yeah it will be bad but the end of the earth? No... end of humans? Maybe...

 

[01011010]

Human activities won't end the Earth. No doubt about that.

However, people should still be concerned with the quality of our resources (food/water/oxygen). Being exposed to pollution etc.

 

[entropie]

To bring the old programmers joke: I dread bugs !!

 

[Feops]

Our current style of living is perhaps unsustainable, but a factor I think most people neglect is that of time. Our society is elastic in terms of adapting to resources and doubly clever when pressed for a solution.

For example, some forecast a doomsday scenario when we "run out of oil". Naturally if oil supply straight up ended modern society would collapse very quickly. But how would this be possible? Oil isn't stored in a giant drum we siphon until it's empty, oil is a resource we continually harvest and will gradually decline as supplies become scarce. Reduction of oil will pressure the discovery of alternatives (a solution) and put a premium on existing energy resources (adaptation).

Similar bounds exist for environmental damage, population, food production, etc.

I feel that people underestimate the ability for humans to survive harsh periods of war or distaster. Humanity is not a pane of glass that will shatter at the first impact. Species come and go, but humans are the first to adapt technologically rather than biologically. We don't need to wait generations and generations to die off via selection and toughen up (or die trying) - we can put on parkas and harvest food and fight off infection well beyond the normal capacity of our natural systems.

 

[ptgatsby]

For example, some forecast a doomsday scenario when we "run out of oil". Naturally if oil supply straight up ended modern society would collapse very quickly. But how would this be possible? Oil isn't stored in a giant drum we siphon until it's empty, oil is a resource we continually harvest and will gradually decline as supplies become scarce. Reduction of oil will pressure the discovery of alternatives (a solution) and put a premium on existing energy resources (adaptation).

That's exactly it. Humans adapt to market signals that will generally slow and reverse trends. This gives a natural breaking effect to human activities. The only real requirement is that we get proper market signals. If oil was cheap until it literally wasn't, it would be the 70's but worse (there would be less alternatives if it was a world-wide depletion)... But even that isn't "terminal", just painful adaptation.

It's the issues where there are no signals - anything from biological and environmental influences. Most human activities aren't significant enough to 'end the world'. Even those that are tend to be tail-end events (but notable simply because of their impact!)