Human population numbers questioned

[skjl47]

The other is the biological food pyramid as found in biology and ecology texts. Not the food pyramid of human nutrition recently turned upside down. The idea is if you skip feeding livestock you then can feed many more people. I will again use beef cattle. To raise beef cattle to market size it is estimated to take near ten pounds of feed for each pound of meat +bone + blood + whatever is harvested. So, if you feed the same grains to people, you can support something like ten times more people than with beef foods. (By the way my beef & beans is ready to eat.) I have to agree with this particular idea partially but not overall.

Hello; The end. finally.

 

[jjohnwm]

I don't doubt that more people can be "fed" if we treat them as livestock...rather than feeding them  on livestock which must in turn be fed on crops. We could probably make some entirely synthetic substitute food out of recycled cardboard or refined sewage or who-knows-what, allowing even greater efficiency. But at risk of sounding like an uncaring boor...so what?

I won't be eating the upcoming version of Soylent Green regardless of what...or who...it's made from.

 

[skjl47]

I don't doubt that more people can be "fed" if we treat them as livestock...rather than feeding them  on livestock which must in turn be fed on crops. We could probably make some entirely synthetic substitute food out of recycled cardboard or refined sewage or who-knows-what, allowing even greater efficiency. But at risk of sounding like an uncaring boor...so what?

I won't be eating the upcoming version of Soylent Green regardless of what...or who...it's made from.

Hello; I tend to agree that there are lengths not worth going to. Afraid I got stuck in a rut decades ago. Could be once I saw over population as the issue so long ago I became like the proverbial hammer & nail. If you are a hammer everything looks like a nail. To me back in 1975 it seemed the best way to avoid over stressing the environment beyond tipping points was to stabilize the numbers.
I do not know what lengths humans as a whole will go to survive.

 

[skjl47]

As a consequence, I am on the side of the environmentalists here - or rather, they're on my side. I want a planet that has at least some wildlife in it, states and corporations want the useful planet, so I'm happy with those who push back against the latter, even if they're loud and annoying at times.

Hello; Well written post. Easy to follow and I get the point. I like the idea of nature preserved just to have it around.

 

[skjl47]

Hello; Back 50 + years ago when I was charging at my overpopulation windmill there was more than just population on the table. ZPG (zero population growth) was an idea to stabilize the numbers. There were reasons to want such stabilization. That was the time of bad smog and things such as that river in Ohio catching fire. Serious environmental problems existed and more were predicted to come.

Among the predictions was problems with tap water. What would we do when our rivers, lakes and reservoirs produced poor quality tap water? The answer of course was water bottled in throwaway plastic. An ironic catch 22 in more ways than one. Also, one with a false assumption. The catch 22 being increased plastic pollution which is now the boogie-man of microplastics. The false assumption is bottled water is sourced from pure spring water.
Of course some is sourced from clean springs. There is a brand bottled in Middlesboro KY which gets the water from a limestone spring which comes from underground and taken from a spring in Cumberland Gap TN. I see the 18-wheeler tank truck taking loads thru the tunnel often in a big stainless tank. Called Cumberland Gap Mountain Water. I have some. I do not often drink it. In the summer I keep a few bottles frozen and put one in my mail box on the Hwy for the mail carrier to have when it gets above 90 degrees F.

It is my understanding most bottled water is indeed tap water which is filtered. I think in my area huge amounts is bottled near Atlanta GA.

 

[Ulu]

I have 300 gal/day RO filter capacity but my wife is addicted to the taste of plastic bottles. I wouldn’t buy any bottled water, because even our tap water here is champagne compared to the Minnesota iron range or the Ohio river.

Now I did drink Mississippi water once, but I was dipping a canteen at Itasca, where the spring is. By Minneapolis it was as brown as bottled Yoohoo.

 

[Ulu]

BTW I too was a victim of the ZPG biz.
I only had two children, because two was the politically correct number.

If every couple only had two kids the population would fall slowly. No more overpopulation! I’ve got a book of protest music (from highschool !) which covers all that.

But I was a fool, and in my old age I wish my own family was larger. I don’t give a hoot about the population. I’ve turned into Ayn Rand. What’s good is what’s good for me.

Alternatives contest nature.

YMMV

 

[skjl47]

BTW I too was a victim of the ZPG biz.
I only had two children, because two was the politically correct number.

If every couple only had two kids the population would fall slowly. No more overpopulation! I’ve got a book of protest music (from highschool !) which covers all that.

But I was a fool, and in my old age I wish my own family was larger. I don’t give a hoot about the population. I’ve turned into Ayn Rand. What’s good is what’s good for me.

Alternatives contest nature.

YMMV

Hello; In any practical way of looking at it my stance on overpopulation, ZPG and the like is a moot thing. ZPG and population stabilization did not happen. So, no bone of contention.
I am old and childless. I have, from time to time, tried to imagine how it would feel to have had children. Best I can come up with is to watch folks i have known well. No clear conclusion from observation. I think most everyone has told me their children are the best thing. I do not dispute that. Just do not personally know. There is some evidence parenthood is not universally great from the troubles I have witnessed among families.

Since the efforts to stabilize the population at a more sustainable level clearly failed long ago, I have been in more of an observation mode the last few decades. Afraid i tend to link many of our modern problems to overpopulation. Not all to be sure, but many.

 

[jjohnwm]

Homo sapiens is a species of animal, like any other. We have built-in characteristics and traits that are the result of millions of year of evolution, and our much-vaunted brains can only do a very limited job of altering our behavour significantly from the course that we are biologically ingrained to follow.

ZPG? Peace on Earth? A homogeneous world population that all works together for the common good? Vegetarianism/veganism? These and many other of the lofty goals that some of us set for ourselves are pipe dreams. At the core, we are a highly adaptable, aggressive, social animal that is designed to live in small groups and to reproduce at the maximum rate possible. I think that one of the reasons that we hate rats so much is because they and we are so similar.

A thinking, reasoning individual who makes a conscious decision not to procreate is doing nothing to improve the human condition. Rather, that person is removing from the gene pool another slight chance for improvement. Meanwhile, the more rodent-like among us ignore that person and keep on breeding, thus infusing the overall gene pool with their traits and characteristics; look where that's gotten us.

But the philosophers and theologians among us continue to prattle on about "love thy neighbour" and all the other pleasant homilies and feel-good sermons that they think are going to change the world. It's laughable and tragic at once. We do what we do because we are what we are. Human nature is what drives us to the brink and then over the cliff edge.

I was nine years old when the original Star Trek TV series premiered. Gene Roddenberry portrayed an unflinchingly positive and hopeful view, portraying a future where humanity was raising itself above all of its inherently "evil" traits and working towards Utopia. I thought that was nonsense even then, and my opinion certainly hasn't changed today.

 

[skjl47]

Homo sapiens is a species of animal, like any other. We have built-in characteristics and traits that are the result of millions of year of evolution, and our much-vaunted brains can only do a very limited job of altering our behavour significantly from the course that we are biologically ingrained to follow.

Hello; yes. I could provide several personally observed situations but will share only one. A young woman married an older man who had had a vasectomy. She was told well before the marriage there would not be any children. Much as she tried the desire for a child remained. She divorced the man. Not entirely because of no children or at least not spoken.
She had her back broken in a car wreck. Was lucky to not be paralyzed. Was told by her doctors having a child was a big risk. Had some miscarriages but eventually had a child well into the 40's. Had health issues as a result. Yes, the drive is ingrained.