Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

World can no longer sustain humans: we need to reduce ourselves

Discussion in 'International Forum' started by bona, Jan 20, 2010.

  1. bona

    bona JF-Expert Member

    #1
    Jan 20, 2010
    Joined: Nov 6, 2009
    Messages: 3,667
    Likes Received: 61
    Trophy Points: 145
    One of the most influential science advisors to the U.S. government says the human population now exceeds the planet's carrying capacity
    Dr. Nina Federoff is the science and technology advisor to the U.S. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. On March 31, 2009, she told the BBC program One Planet “that humans had exceeded the Earth’s limits of sustainability.’ ”
    “We have six-and-a-half-billion people on the planet, going rapidly towards seven. We’re going to need a lot of inventiveness about how we use water and grow crops,” she told the BBC.
    The World Fact book, which is published by the CIA says, “The planet’s population continues to explode: from 1 billion in 1820, to 2 billion in 1930, 3 billion in 1960, 4 billion in 1974, 5 billion in 1988, and 6 billion in 2000.”
    According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the current world population is 6.8 billion. This is growing by a net 218,030 people per day, giving a projected world population of nine billion by 2040.

    Paul Ehrlich, mentor of U.S. Vice President Al Gore, wrote a landmark book in 1968 called "The Population Bomb." He predicted, "We will breed ourselves into oblivion."
    Thomas Malthus is a British historical figure of great note. His most studied work, "An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvements of Society, with Remarks on the Speculations of M. Godwin, M. Condorcet and Other Writers," was first published in 1798. Its thesis -- that overpopulation would destroy the world unless war, famine and disease rose to check human growth.
    Malthus reasoned that, since people increase exponentially and food production only increases arithmetically, food production could not possibly hope to keep up with more and emptier stomachs. he predicted mass starvation on the eve of one of the biggest farming expansions.

    Although the Earth could theoretically sustain as many as 9 or 10 billion people that would only be possible under conditions of extreme stress and poverty, and patterns clearly indicate that lower populations and lower birthrates directly correspond with higher standards of living and higher quality of life. We are currently at around 6.7 billion people, which can be supported only assuming that many live in relative poverty. For example, the Earth could only support around 4 billion people living a lifestyle like the average american.

    with this in mind, it is almost universally accepted in academic circles that there is an overpopulation problem, but the solution to such a problem is another matter altogether. At current rates of population growth, the natural solution, as someone already alluded to, would be some massive, catastrophic event that would greatly reduce our population (a plague, or a great famine caused by economic meltdown, for example). The scope of such an event would necessarily be unimaginable. Think of a thousand 9/11 style catastrophes every day for a year!!! That is the kind of mass death that would reduce the world population only by a billion.

    It's hard to give you an exact, or even a relative number, but the world is experiencing an overpopulation problem that seems as if it is only going to get worse in years to come. And ultimately, it is the actions of this generation that will decide whether this problem will be resolved peacefully or catastrophically.

    Wana JF does this means tuanze kuuana kusave mankind? Kweli wazungu hawana plan B kweli ya kutumaliza? Nahisi kama wa Africa tutakua kafara!

     
  2. Kinyambiss

    Kinyambiss JF-Expert Member

    #2
    Jan 21, 2010
    Joined: Dec 2, 2007
    Messages: 1,373
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 135
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ9j2cajRo4&feature=related[/ame]
     
  3. R

    Rubabi Senior Member

    #3
    Jan 21, 2010
    Joined: Nov 30, 2006
    Messages: 174
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    Im not conviced.People in the developed world consume 30 times more carbon than less devoloped countries. I think devoloped countries should reduce their polution first.
     
  4. Kipala

    Kipala JF-Expert Member

    #4
    Jan 21, 2010
    Joined: Jan 10, 2009
    Messages: 3,375
    Likes Received: 25
    Trophy Points: 145
    Nakubali na swali lako. Ila tu sioni jibu.

    Nafasi ya dunia inategemea ni watu wa aina gani wanaotumia malighafi, maji, hewa zake.
    Yaani raia wa US kwa wastani anatumia nishati/malighafi mara mbili kuliko raia wa kawaida wa Ulaya; huyu wa Ulaya anatumia mara 200 kama raia wa Burundi (nilisoma miaka 10 iliyopita hivi; ninanukuu kutoka kumbukumbu bila kuiangalia pya - wengine wasahihishe kama namba za leo tofauti) .
    Tatizo: wote wanapenda kuelekea huko walipo ama Waamerika au wale wa Ulaya. Bilioni saba, nane wanaoishi kama hao hawawezi kuishi duniani.
     
  5. Kiranga

    Kiranga JF-Expert Member

    #5
    Jan 21, 2010
    Joined: Jan 29, 2009
    Messages: 34,583
    Likes Received: 5,622
    Trophy Points: 280
    Tatizo si kwamba watu wamezidi uwezo wa dunia, hasha.

    Tatizo ni kwamba watu wanaishi maisha yasiyo na sustainability, wanajilundika mijini wakati kuna mapori kibao hayana watu, wanachafua mazingira, hawataki kulima hususan in a sustainable way, ila wanataka kula, wanakata miti.

    Dunia inaweza ku sustain idadi ya watu mara tatu au nne ya sasa, karibu watu bilioni 30, lakini hatuwezi kuishi kwa jinsi hii tunayoishi.
     
  6. Z

    Zungu Pule JF-Expert Member

    #6
    Jan 21, 2010
    Joined: Mar 7, 2008
    Messages: 1,549
    Likes Received: 167
    Trophy Points: 160
    Rev. Thomas Malthus was probably the first one to warn (at least formally) about the possibility of human population to outstrip resource availability, almost two centuries ago. He has been proved wrong for the most part of his theories. I am interested to know if Dr. Federoff accounted for technological advancement in her analysis. Anyone knows? Is their an empirical study/published paper to support her argument?
     
  7. Q

    Qadhi JF-Expert Member

    #7
    Jan 21, 2010
    Joined: Oct 27, 2009
    Messages: 235
    Likes Received: 1
    Trophy Points: 0
    Dr.Nina yuko busy kiasi cha kutoangulia the now most popular movie in da the world-AVATAR.Amtafute James Cameron atampa sababu za msingi.
     
  8. Kiranga

    Kiranga JF-Expert Member

    #8
    Jan 21, 2010
    Joined: Jan 29, 2009
    Messages: 34,583
    Likes Received: 5,622
    Trophy Points: 280
    I believe she was talking in more general terms than citing particular academic papers. And I would like to point out that what worries me the most is not the number, but lifestyles and the geometric progession of the growth. See this BBC link on the same issue here

    There is an almost intrinsic design in the Malthusian construct that convinces me it is not yet dead and buried, but merely evolving in another pertubation that permits the waves of population booms and wipeouts to maintain a longer intervals.

    The advantage of technology gave us the ability to fight diseases more effectively starting with penicillin (althout bacterial resistance is turning this into a cat and mouse game). But the same technology also gave us rapid intercontinental air travel en masse, posing risks of strange strains being transmitted all over the world in a matter of days.
     
  9. Sipo

    Sipo JF-Expert Member

    #9
    Jan 21, 2010
    Joined: Jul 25, 2008
    Messages: 2,155
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 0
    Mimi sihamini hili jambo, bado dunia ina nafasi kubwa sana. Tuendelee kuzaana jamani
     
  10. Wacha1

    Wacha1 JF-Expert Member

    #10
    Jan 21, 2010
    Joined: Dec 21, 2009
    Messages: 11,858
    Likes Received: 432
    Trophy Points: 180
    Pengine hujasikia mpango kabambe wa kuwaua waafrika kwa sababu wamezaliana kama wachina. Kwenye misaada mingi tunayopata i.e. madawa nk kuna research za kutisha sana mfano Bill Gates anahusishwa na mipango kama hiyo ya kupunguza population ya dunia etc. Tuliongelea hili mwaka jana na baadhi ya members wa JF kwamba kuna hiyo mipango.
     
  11. Kipala

    Kipala JF-Expert Member

    #11
    Jan 22, 2010
    Joined: Jan 10, 2009
    Messages: 3,375
    Likes Received: 25
    Trophy Points: 145

    Sawasawa, hii inawezekana kabisa KAMA
    a) kama Waafrika kwa wastani (!) wanaendelea kula mara moja kwa siku tu tena nyama kidogo (1-2 x kwa mwezi wastani?) halafu wasisahau kuishi bila umeme mfululizo na maji ya bomba kila saa, waendelee kutembea kwa miguu ....

    ILA TU hii haitatosha

    b) wavute hata bilioni 1-2 wengine watu penginepo kuridhika hivyo.

    Baadaye watu wa US (pamoja na wanaJF walioko kule) na wale wa Ulaya na Japoni wanaweza kuendelea jinsi walivyo.

    Na sehemu (wasizidiii !!) za Wachina na Wahindi wanaweza kusogea mbele wakiacha baisikeli kuchukua magari ILA TU wengine waitikie mfano wa Waafrika....

    AU ????
     
Loading...