There are not enough resources to support the world's population

[Snowyowl9]

No kidding looking at this.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/there-are-not-enough-resources-to-support-the-worlds-population/5511900  

[Nick L]

The (slightly altered) phrase "no poo Sherlock" springs to mind!

[be cause]

No problem with resources .. the problem is excessive consumption .Our planet can support billions more healthy people living sustainably . 

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'm just waiting for some genius to come along and claim that we can have plenty more people in the world because there's loads more land without houses we can build on and, not to forget, we can't trust these agenda driven scientists and their statistics...

[laserguy]

So what we gonna do about it - have another war and get shot of all the useless eaters, or build more wind turbines an' stuff under the guise of tackling climate change (chortle)?

[knocker]

No problem with resources .. the problem is excessive consumption .Our planet can support billions more healthy people living sustainably . 

 

I think there is a problem with resources when one considers resource depletion. Several studies have concluded that we are, indeed, approaching a point at which the gradual depletion of low-cost mineral resources is becoming a major limitation to economic growth and even to maintaining the present level of economic output. The problem of dwindling mineral resources is all the more crucial because it is arriving in tandem with accelerating ecosystem disruption and rapid growth of the human population. Global temperatures are rising, severe weather events caused by climate change are increasing, and a host of further problems, from ocean acidification to droughts and loss of biodiversity, are before us.

 

These problems can't just be boiled down to the perils of "running out of something" or of a modest increase in atmospheric temperatures. Instead, they represent a complete transformation of the whole Earth's ecosystem, generated by the human influence on the planet. The need for action is becoming more and more urgent. We need to face the problems of ecosystem disruption and mineral depletion with better efficiency in all sectors of industry, with the use of renewable resources, and with the development of effective recycling processes to lengthen the life of the remaining resources.

 

Food is the least of the problems.

Edited June 14, 2014 by knocker

[Bobby]

No problem with resources .. the problem is excessive consumption .Our planet can support billions more healthy people living sustainably . 

 

I think "billions of people living sustainably" is an oxymoron considering it's fossil fuels which support the vast majority of our 7 billion people and they certainly aren't being used sustainably. How many people were there before fossil fuels?

 

Perhaps a billion or so could live sustainably at a lower level of energy and resource use but certainly not 7 billion people and growing consuming every resource we can get our hands on like a plague locusts! Which seems the current state of affairs. That can't end well surely.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Bobby

[laserguy]

 Global temperatures are rising, severe weather events caused by climate change are increasing

 

Even if that were true, what's the link with resource depletion?? Maybe it's a simple case of our civilisation,as others before it,has reached critical mass and is on the verge of spectacular decline. Who cares  - it's the natural order of things. We can try to eke out remaining resources all we like but it's only delaying the inevitable and prolonging the misery - like giving a terminally ill patient life-prolonging drugs when the end should have come much earlier. Our world is built on fossil fuels and the withdrawal will most likely get messy - but what the hell I'll miss all the fun.

[Guest]

Exploit the use of solar power to power desalination plants in order to irrigate the desert regions which could be used to for bio fuels, as well as other products instead of tearing up our rapidly depleting rain forests. Expensive and ambitious but it could solve a lot of problems. It would allow the rain forests to renew and perform their natural and necessary function in this world - it would supply much more sustainable power - it would create greater living space - it would provide a means by which poorer economies could improve their economic outlook and as this improves it will reduce the urge for many to migrate to the developed regions of the world. Less carbon, meaning global warming could be moderated and acidification of the oceans could be slowed down.

 

What is everybody waiting for? We have the technology and I am sure the finance on a global scale could be organised - that just leaves a few political problems to overcome but man is inherently greedy, senior political figures more than most - we will just have to point out the advantages and cross their palms with silver, so they can see the advantages of this rather than running around the countryside with Kalashnikovs shooting their fellow human beings.

 

I don't believe the experts from their academic ivory towers who try to convince us that everything in the garden is rosy - I look at what things are now and what they could become and quite honestly the future could become very bleak and frightening.

[be cause]

at the moment we produce enough food for 20 billion people but most does not make it to the market place or gets thrown away . or the taxpayer (everyone) subsidizes ridiculous schemes to waste it making 'green' energy that is less environmentally friendly than the coal fired power stations we are closing down .

 then we feed most of the fish we catch to animals we do not need to eat .. and we feed chicken to our farmed salmon . We could feed another 20 billion people on the food we feed animals .. but we choose to see a billion or two go hungry .. and blame them for wasting resources ! 

[knocker]

But it's not just about food. Of course we can produce enough food to feed twice as many people. That's about distribution. But do have finite reserves of important minerals that are more and more important these days. I'd like to see you justify the statement that  'green' energy is less environmentally friendly than the coal fired power stations we are closing down . Or the shale oil deposits we are opening up.

[laserguy]

Fossil fuels aren't just for generating power - they're for making stuff - lots and lots and lots of stuff. Try doing the same with a wind turbine/nuclear plant/solar panel etc. Don't be in denial (as the warmists are so fond of saying) - we've had it.

[knocker]

Nobody said it was just about generating power. But you have a good point. A huge amount of stuff, and increasingly so in this technical age, has to be made with important components that require scarce minerals.This is not sustainable.

[Jax]

Kind of the point I tried to make HERE when we cross the important tipping point then what?

 

As said we also need to re-use more and waste less.  Also is replacing things like bush shelter adverts with screens to show adverts better or worse than the old paper static posters for example? is that using more or less energy and resources?

[Yarmy]

People have been saying this since Malthus*, and yet it has still not happened. By any objective measure we are irrefutably healthier, wealthier, and longer-lived than at any time in the history of human civilisation.

 

What happens is that human ingenuity, technology and adaptation is always underestimated. Can it go on? Fusion reactors, GM, etc, but who knows, maybe there is a tipping point. However, population looks like it will peak mid-century anyway.

 

(*BTW, Malthus was a repulsive man who blamed the grinding poverty of his own time on the indolence of the poor.)

[Jax]

Who knows the true final outcome? only time and getting there will reveal that one.

[summer blizzard]

Can't say i worry too much about over-population here in the UK.

 

Firstly, it's important to remember that growth in efficiency each year is more than capable of dealing with a global birth rate of less than 3. As such, we are as an average globally fine. Secondly, we must bear in mind that technology to power, water and feed ourselves exists, some areas of the world are simply too poor to afford it. 

 

Pockets like Africa with extremely high birth rates will have severe problems but i don't really worry here in the west.

[knocker]

As long as we don't run out of Phosphorus.

[4wd]

People have been saying this since Malthus*, and yet it has still not happened. By any objective measure we are irrefutably healthier, wealthier, and longer-lived than at any time in the history of human civilisation.

 

What happens is that human ingenuity, technology and adaptation is always underestimated. Can it go on? Fusion reactors, GM, etc, but who knows, maybe there is a tipping point. However, population looks like it will peak mid-century anyway.

 

(*BTW, Malthus was a repulsive man who blamed the grinding poverty of his own time on the indolence of the poor.)

Yes good post, also this is an interesting survey - in particular note the growth is slowing remarkably as direct result of increased prosperity and health.But most UK residents and students have been indoctrinated to believe we are on an irreversible path of self-destruction.http://www.gapminder.org/news/highlights-from-ignorance-survey-in-the-uk/#.U6lmzcpdWSo

[cheeky_monkey]

Yes good post, also this is an interesting survey - in particular note the growth is slowing remarkably as direct result of increased prosperity and health.But most UK residents and students have been indoctrinated to believe we are on an irreversible path of self-destruction.http://www.gapminder.org/news/highlights-from-ignorance-survey-in-the-uk/#.U6lmzcpdWSo

tis true that the population of the world will level off after the mid point of the century and then will begin decline towards the end of the century as prosperity grows

[4wd]

For those that will not click the link for fear of seeing something which challenges their preconceptions, here is the conclusionConclusions: 

Question 1: The answers reveal very deep ignorance about population growth. Only 7% know that the total number of children (below age 15) already has stopped increasing. Almost half of the respondents think there will be twice as many children in the world by the end of the century compared to the forecast of the UN experts.Questions 2 and 3: Answers show that the respondents think the literacy rate and the life expectancy of the world population is around 50% and 60 years (median values), respectively. But these figures correspond to the how the world was more than 30 years ago.Question 4: The results show that just 10% are aware of that the United Nations’ first Millennium Development Goal, to halve the world poverty rate, has already been met, even before the target year 2015. More than half think the poverty rate has increased. It is important to understand that random guessing would have yielded 33% correct answers. The result is therefore not due to lack of knowledge, rather it must be due to preconceived ideas. The results strongly indicate that the UK public has failed to be informed about the progress towards the first of the UN´s Millennium Development Goals.Question 5: Two thirds of the respondents severely overestimate the present role of new renewable sources of energy in world energy production. The present proportion is close to 1%.Questions 6 and 7: The respondents reveal a deep ignorance about the progress of Bangladesh during the last two to three decades. Only about one in ten know that life expectancy in Bangladesh today is 70 years and that women on average have 2.5 babies.The results indicate that the UK population severely underestimates the progress in education, health and fertility reduction in the world as a whole and in countries like Bangladesh, whereas they severely overestimate how much the richest countries have changed to renewable energy. It is noteworthy that the results from those with university degrees are not better than the average results, if anything they are worse. The results from UK are similar to those obtained by a 2013 survey in Sweden.

[knocker]

Yes good post, also this is an interesting survey - in particular note the growth is slowing remarkably as direct result of increased prosperity and health.But most UK residents and students have been indoctrinated to believe we are on an irreversible path of self-destruction.http://www.gapminder.org/news/highlights-from-ignorance-survey-in-the-uk/#.U6lmzcpdWSo

 

I've noted that growth (of population) is slowing remarkably as direct result of increased prosperity and health. But the latter also increases the growth of the use of non-renewable resources. Or are you saying that has slowed as well because this is the key to the thread title?

Edited June 24, 2014 by knocker