What mankind ( at least 6.6 billion) needs to survive...

Doug · Apr 27, 2008

I'll call in the 3-3-3 rule...should please trytrytry ?

Well first of all, air to breathe...without that , you might have 3 minutes... we have that !

the next leg of the trifecta is water ( or something) to drink... you kind of have 3 days without it, depending on climate... kind of doable unless you life in Africa... getting scarcer.

Final horse is food... you might be able to go three weeks without it ( if fat), not a whole lot longer than that.

Problem is food resources are now kinda stretched to the limit to feed the world's population, right now !

world can't handle many more people !

more thoughts to follow coming, esp. if thread isn't moved immediately.

romer · Apr 27, 2008

the world is too overpopulated.

Wynn · Apr 27, 2008

romer said:
the world is too overpopulated.

That does it, I'm leaving!

SmallDaddy · Apr 27, 2008

What the world needs is for the US to consume less

I just heard it recently that if the rest of the world would consume as much resources as the US does, we would need 4 Earths. (just wonder where we will get the other 3?)

Doug · Apr 27, 2008

7 billion seems to be about limit the Earth can sustain,IMO

Jabow · Apr 27, 2008

All B.S, there is more than enough food, the problem is we're wasting alot of it, how? just check yourselves to start, how many times have you thrown away a bunch of food,,,,,,,always.

Not to mention the many restaurants, hotels etc that throws away tons and tons of food everyday.

MrJ · Apr 27, 2008

Doug said:
7 billion seems to be about limit the Earth can sustain,IMO

These suggestions always forget about technological advances. If the Earth can't already sustain 7 billion, it will sometime in the near future. The overpopulation threshold is as high as our level of technology allows.

-Slim- · Apr 27, 2008

Errrrrrrr, lets not try to replace water with 'something else'. Water it is.

kidslick · Apr 27, 2008

Anyone see that commercial, where they convert salt water in fresh
water (Fisherman catch a full net full of bottled water )

good stuff

NES · Apr 27, 2008

I think Mankind will do just fine....

...........it's the rest of us that I'm worried about.

TomGshotput · Apr 28, 2008

It is not so much a food shortage as a shortage of total resources. If the 3+ billion people in southeast Asia ate beef at the same rate Americans did there would not be enough land on two earths to hold all the cattle. If everyone ate unprocessed corn, rice and wheat products it could be cultivated and distributed pretty easily. . .

romer · Apr 28, 2008

if hitler didn't kill all those people there'd be over 7 billion people now imo.

onemwtheone · Apr 28, 2008

Mr J said:
These suggestions always forget about technological advances. If the Earth can't already sustain 7 billion, it will sometime in the near future. The overpopulation threshold is as high as our level of technology allows.

Thank you. It's threads like this that make me wonder why I poke my head in the door anymore.

romer · May 1, 2008

china has a real good law that you can only have 1 child. that should be the law here, i'm sick of all the blacks that have like 12 kids. you know they do that so that blacks can take over the united states. rich people should be allowed to have 3 kids max since they're rich and can afford it.

cd329 · May 2, 2008

why do you think diseases like cancer are never going to be cured? First the drug companies make billions treating the diseases, so they dont want to cure any of them and secondly not curing the diseases is a great way to basically control the population. Could you imagine what would happen if they started curing diseases and people started living longer? The world would for sure run out of everything alot faster.

NES · May 2, 2008

NesAdvantage said:
I think Mankind will do just fine....

...........it's the rest of us that I'm worried about.

You poly-forum fucksticks dont recognize genius when you see it do you?

Kornholio · May 2, 2008

The world is about to become unpopulated.

Doug · May 2, 2008

cd329 said:
why do you think diseases like cancer are never going to be cured? First the drug companies make billions treating the diseases, so they dont want to cure any of them and secondly not curing the diseases is a great way to basically control the population. Could you imagine what would happen if they started curing diseases and people started living longer? The world would for sure run out of everything alot faster.

US gov't certainly doesn't need and can't handle SS recipients living to 85+, much better if you die at 70 for them.

Presto · May 3, 2008

Malthus and his followers have been wrong for 200 years. Great track record.

MrJ · May 3, 2008

china has a real good law that you can only have 1 child

Yes, a law which leads to an unnaturally large number of males - throwing out the balance of the male-to-female ratio - is truly a great law.

why do you think diseases like cancer are never going to be cured?

Of course they will be cured, it will just be prohibitively expensive, at least until capitalism (which leads to a poor sociological structure for most) is thrown aside.

as a shortage of total resources. If the 3+ billion people in southeast Asia ate beef at the same rate Americans did there would not be enough land on two earths to hold all the cattle. If everyone ate unprocessed corn, rice and wheat products it could be cultivated and distributed pretty easily. . .

There isn't a shortage or resources, it's just disproportionately distributed among humanity. When we do face a shortage of resources, we'll just develop alternative resources or improve the efficiency at which we can gather those resources. The switch to alternative energy sources is a good example. We don't need oil and the only reason we still depend on it is because it would be silly to knock down one of the pillars that keeps the world economy on its feet. Oil companies don't want a quick transition, and whether we know it or not, we don't either.

As for food, we will develop more efficient methods of growing and harvesting it. Your argument for the half a billion people of SE Asia wanting to east beef at the same rate as Americans is irrelevant as it's a luxury, not a necessity. You're talking about a resource that we don't depend on to survive or even to maintain our standard of living. Ignoring the economical impacts of such a change, beef disappeared overnight would just mean a slight adjustment in our diets.

It's better to talk of resources that we depend on, but even that isn't as important as we would think as the resources we depend on will change as time passes. The only resources we truly depend on is the Earth itself and the species that live on it.