NationStates Jolt Archive

In the 19th century British merchant ships had a mark on the hull indicating when the ship had reached its carrying capacity. To fill a ship beyond this mark, or Plimsoll line, endangered the ship and its crew.

What is the Plimsoll line for human population on the earth?

It was only a bare two centuries ago that human population, after tens of thousands of years of existence on the planet, first cracked the one billion mark. Since then we have topped six billion with current estimates for the leveling off point in the neighborhood of 10-11 billion.

How many people can the earth sustain without irreparable harm to the planet and its crew, human and nonhuman alike?

I wouldn't know about damage to nonhumans, but better agricultural techniques and GM crops may make the earth capable of sustaining plenty more people.

I'd be willing to wager that the Plimsoll Line is pretty damn high, espescially with the advances in agriculture and industry that we can expect in the future. And the ability to do things like build on "floating cities" and space elevators would up the line a LOT more even.

I wouldn't know about damage to nonhumans, but better agricultural techniques and GM crops may make the earth capable of sustaining plenty more people.
Food isn't the answer (or the problem)...we have plenty of food, but a disproportionate amount goes into the fat bellies of Westerners. Growing more food is not going to change that, unless you plan on paying for it and paying for it to be distributed fairly. Plus, GM foods may actually threaten food security by cross-pollinating with native crops. This is a problem because GM companies have successfully sued farmers for allowing GM plants that blew onto their land (as seeds) to grow without paying a fee. As well, the contamination of native crops could result in seed sterility, which would force farmers to buy new seeds every year.

Even if every square inch of land in Canada was converted to cattle feedlots, it still would not guarantee that the majority of people on this earth would ever get to eat beef.

Education has been such a major catalyst in decreasing the birth rate...I don't understand why we don't push this more if we really are concerned about overpopulation. Oh wait...it's more expensive than just letting people have a dozen children who all die from AIDS or preventable childhood diseases. Damn.

It certainly can't support many more, and with the standards of living improving in once-undeveloped countries, there's going to be some forced equalising between nations.
For example, if everyone currently living on the planet were to live the lifestyle of the average American, we'd need an extra 7 planet Earths to provide for us.

It certainly can't support many more, and with the standards of living improving in once-undeveloped countries, there's going to be some forced equalising between nations.
For example, if everyone currently living on the planet were to live the lifestyle of the average American, we'd need an extra 7 planet Earths to provide for us.
Ok, then we either find 6 more earths, or we start decreasing the surpluss population.

Ok, then we either find 6 more earths, or we start decreasing the surpluss population.

Or we stop consuming so much and bring in a little more equality.

Ok, then we either find 6 more earths, or we start decreasing the surpluss population.
Through education? Or are you planning on shooting people again? Who will pay the toll to Mecca then?

-snip-
This logic may be overly-simple, but if mass cannot be created or destroyed (and on earth it is seemingly transferred only from nonsentinent things to sentinent), then wouldn't people not have to worry about a Plimsoll line?

Unless unequal mass distribution (highley unlikely tho) causes problems....

Or we stop consuming so much and bring in a little more equality.
Not an option.

Through education? Or are you planning on shooting people again? Who will pay the toll to Mecca then?
No need to shoot anyone. Educate people and give them a little more opportunity to earn money and the birthrate drops. Or we could just release smallpox again. Either would work.

Not an option.
Why exactly?

"You don't have to live next to me, just give me my equality!" - Nina Simone

Why exactly?

"You don't have to live next to me, just give me my equality!" - Nina Simone
I like to eat fish and meat too much.

No need to shoot anyone. Educate people and give them a little more opportunity to earn money and the birthrate drops. Or we could just release smallpox again. Either would work.
I didn't enjoy smallpox the first time you people gave it to us...so let's avoid that one. Education. I like it...now who's paying?

I didn't enjoy smallpox the first time you people gave it to us...so let's avoid that one. Education. I like it...now who's paying?
Multinational corporations. If they want to be multinational let's see them take an interest in the wellfare of people from multiple nations.

Food isn't the answer (or the problem)...we have plenty of food, but a disproportionate amount goes into the fat bellies of Westerners. Growing more food is not going to change that, unless you plan on paying for it and paying for it to be distributed fairly. *snip*
Even if every square inch of land in Canada was converted to cattle feedlots, it still would not guarantee that the majority of people on this earth would ever get to eat beef.

So there is a controlling feedback system based on our self indulgent nature, which ensures that if the human population becomes too big, there will be sufficient mortality due to starvation to bring it back into range. Tough on those who starve, but useful for the rest of us.

Or we stop consuming so much and bring in a little more equality.

But how do you suggest that we persuade those that currently have a lot of what they want, to give it up so others might have a little more of what they need. Altruism just doesn't cut it.

Over population is not just a matter of having enough food or enough room to build housing. A large human population creates many other problems as well.

As the population goes from 6 billion to 10 billion where are the jobs for an additional 4 billion people? Where do we put the increased waste? The world is already experiencing a shortage of clean pottable water. How much more so when we add 4 billion more people? In areas along the world's deserts additional people will consume more trees for fuel, causing the deserts to grow. More people will continue to destroy plant and animal habitat, further increasing the already high levels of extinction.

Also, increasingly the rest of the world looks to the western nations for their economic model of consumerism. How many more resources will be consumed by the 2 billion people of India and China as they adopt western consumer values? How much more pollution will be discharged into our air, water, and soil. Then multiply that by an additional 4 billion people.

Many, if not most, of this additional population will be born into extreme third world poverty. You think the hopelessness poverty of the Middle East has been a breeding ground for radicalism and terrorism? What about the anger of 4 billion more young people without hope?

It isn't just a matter of stacking and feeding more folks.

In the 19th century British merchant ships had a mark on the hull indicating when the ship had reached its carrying capacity. To fill a ship beyond this mark, or Plimsoll line, endangered the ship and its crew.

What is the Plimsoll line for human population on the earth?

It was only a bare two centuries ago that human population, after tens of thousands of years of existence on the planet, first cracked the one billion mark. Since then we have topped six billion with current estimates for the leveling off point in the neighborhood of 10-11 billion.

How many people can the earth sustain without irreparable harm to the planet and its crew, human and nonhuman alike?



(bump)

Well, since wars are usually fought competing for resources, maybe we'll kill
each other off and it'll be a self correcting problem.

Fact: Education of women is the single largest factor in the reduction of birthrates.

What is the Plimsoll line for human population on the earth?
I really like your analogy, but it is referred to as "carrying capacity" in ecology. And for healthy environment, humans have exceeded it. Anthropocentically, though, it is possible for billions more humans to be on this planet. However, we can never rise above nature, and I doubt we will exceed 10 billion (I'm assuming we're all using American numbers here, by the by) before the environment is vindicated. It really is just a matter of time before a large chunk of humans are killed. I hope that we can stop overpopulation and peacefully return to an environmentally sound quantity, but that's never going to happen because of life's need to reproduce. I don't blame humans, but the nature of self replicating entities. I do not know what it is that will act as a population control for us, we have taken quite a bit from the first method, food. The second is a specter that we have suppressed, but it still quite capable: disease. Parasites to a lesser extent, but they can not really become pandemic. There are other consequences of overpopulation, but those are the two major ones, especially the former. My guess is that we are going to delve too deep into the rainforest and release some highly communicable and lethal pathogen across the face of the planet, or a known pathogen will mutate, the avian flu being foremost in my mind. it could potentially eliminate 3/4 of all humans if a human-to-human transmissible form emerges. And then, of course there is climate change. The difference is that this time, we are quite possibly the ones responsible, and will bring the apocalyptic circumstances upon ourselves, which will be much more devastating than natural climate change, since it is caused by other factors than those that normally contribute. There is also the possibility of natural disasters, like an asteroid colliding with Earth or something like that, but overpopulation doesn't really influence that.

Fact: Education of women is the single largest factor in the reduction of birthrates.
I believe you, but do you have a source?

I believe you, but do you have a source?
Let me see if I can find it. I have tons of reference books and they're in no way organized.

Thomas Malthus might be able to give you an answer somewhere

The population is supposed to be balencing out.
Anyway, its about time we started listening to the ideas of Gerald O'Neil and build some colonies at the Largarge points. Hey, if they could call it feasible in the 70's then it should be more then possible now.

The population is supposed to be balencing out.
I wish! The population shows no sign of balancing out at all. Except in China, but that's only a fourth of the world's population, we still have the other 3/4 that are procreating like rabbits.

I believe you, but do you have a source?

I'm too lazy to check all my books, but try these sites.

http://www.populationeducation.org/pages/0,readingdetail,readingdetail,00.ecs?contentid=64


http://members.tripod.com/~sadashivan_nair/quotwomenquotandrights/id23.html

http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/newslett/94_13/6women.html

Why exactly?

"You don't have to live next to me, just give me my equality!" - Nina Simone
Why? I'll tell you why.

"You can take me life...but you CANNAE TAKE ME FREEDOM!" - William Wallace

Multinational corporations. If they want to be multinational let's see them take an interest in the wellfare of people from multiple nations.
You're incorrectly assuming that people have an inherent right to the money of people more successful than themselves.

As the population goes from 6 billion to 10 billion where are the jobs for an additional 4 billion people?
They will be created by...well, themselves.

In the 19th century British merchant ships had a mark on the hull indicating when the ship had reached its carrying capacity. To fill a ship beyond this mark, or Plimsoll line, endangered the ship and its crew.

What is the Plimsoll line for human population on the earth?

It was only a bare two centuries ago that human population, after tens of thousands of years of existence on the planet, first cracked the one billion mark. Since then we have topped six billion with current estimates for the leveling off point in the neighborhood of 10-11 billion.

How many people can the earth sustain without irreparable harm to the planet and its crew, human and nonhuman alike?

Well, the earth could probably sustain an awful lot of people. However, the optimum population is probably much lower than the actual number of people it can sustain. The optimum population is basically the level at which people have the maximum quality of life.

Apparently, China's optimum population is about 600-700 million, which they've nearly doubled.

They will be created by...well, themselves.

Ah, an economics professor, I see.

Ah, an economics professor, I see.
An increase in consumers creates an increase in quantity demanded. It's not complicated.

Why? I'll tell you why.

"You can take me life...but you CANNAE TAKE ME FREEDOM!" - William Wallace

I think you mean Randall Wallace. He was the writer of the MOVIE you are quoting, which had little to do with the actual life of Willam Wallace.

An increase in consumers creates an increase in quantity demanded. It's not complicated.

Yes, increased demand is created, but that demand is already more than met with advancements in technology which require fewer and fewer workers. We call it increased productivity, which results in increased layoffs.

More people does not automatically create more jobs.

I think you mean Randall Wallace. He was the writer of the MOVIE you are quoting, which had little to do with the actual life of Willam Wallace.
In the end, does it really matter? The point is that liberty is more important than goverment-enforced equality.

In the end, does it really matter? The point is that liberty is more important than goverment-enforced equality.


In the end, yes, accuracy and historical literacy matter.

Yes, increased demand is created, but that demand is already more than met with advancements in technology which require fewer and fewer workers. We call it increased productivity, which results in increased layoffs.

More people does not automatically create more jobs.
And the technological advancements themselves create jobs in other areas. Further, there are many areas where technological advance does not substantially reduce labour requirements. A larger population DOES increase demand, which DOES expand the labour force.

In the end, yes, accuracy and historical literacy matter.
Irrelevent to the subject at hand. You're being hypertechnical and ignoring the point.

And the technological advancements themselves create jobs in other areas. Further, there are many areas where technological advance does not substantially reduce labour requirements. A larger population DOES increase demand, which DOES expand the labour force.

Well, if just saying it made it true, then what a happy world this would be, but I'm afraid your knowledge of economics is...limited.

And incidentally, the movie in question was directed by Mel Gibson.

And incidentally, the movie in question was directed by Mel Gibson.

Yes, it was. I said the words you quoted were WRITTEN by Randall Wallace, the writer of the script.

And the technological advancements themselves create jobs in other areas. Further, there are many areas where technological advance does not substantially reduce labour requirements. A larger population DOES increase demand, which DOES expand the labour force.

Many of the developing nations which have the greatest populations (such as China, India, Indonesia, etc.) are making a transition from agricultural to an industrial and service societies. This will lead to expansion of infrastructure (roads, bridges, housing, etc.) and areas of settlement, which will create some jobs, but nearly as many as they eliminate. The increase of productivity in both industry and agriculture, as these nations modernize technologies, will lead to massive unemployment – particularly among the agricultural population. The world already has an excess agricultural labor force, which will increase the potential for rural-urban migration. People leave the farm and move to the city looking for jobs that will not be there. These people hardly make ideal consumers, since they have few resources, creating a permanent underclass.

Many countries in Africa already have an unemployment rate of 40-50% (Zimbabwe's unemployment is at 70%). Both India and China have 10% unemployment rates. Unemployment is even more of a problem for the world's young people. Over 90% of the world's unemployed young people live in developing nations and rates of unemployment for the young are on the rise.

Simply adding more people will not miraculously create jobs for these people or their children.