They came to two conclusions: the first was that the ocean could be empty of fish by the year 2048. That’s right, in just 32 years, fish may have all but disappeared. Info from www.bing.com/search?q=when+the+fishes+will+disappear&cvid=7fdae1c271e34e339f8e7dcfcc778b52&aqs=edge..69i57.8553j0j1&pglt=43&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=HCTS
@Praneel-s said in #7:
> Our earth is blue
> we can say it without any clue
> keep our earth spick-and-span
> let us all live clean throughout our lifespan
@aarohandatta_ivws said in #4:
> stop hate our planet green
> or worst things will come which u never have seen
> throw all garbage in the bins
> so to keep mother earth green and not make full of sins
@PLSDONTCLOSEMYACC said in #2:
> protect our mother earth
> where u took ur birth
> don't make it pollute
> rather do something by which people will give u salute
@charvishefali1105 said in #1:
> aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/ocean/earthday-infographic-large.jpg
Lemme ask you a question
Do you follow that first?
cause doing some forums won't help anything with our mother earth
we should implement them
making some poems
clapping for that will do nothing for the future of our mother earth
> Our earth is blue
> we can say it without any clue
> keep our earth spick-and-span
> let us all live clean throughout our lifespan
@aarohandatta_ivws said in #4:
> stop hate our planet green
> or worst things will come which u never have seen
> throw all garbage in the bins
> so to keep mother earth green and not make full of sins
@PLSDONTCLOSEMYACC said in #2:
> protect our mother earth
> where u took ur birth
> don't make it pollute
> rather do something by which people will give u salute
@charvishefali1105 said in #1:
> aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/ocean/earthday-infographic-large.jpg
Lemme ask you a question
Do you follow that first?
cause doing some forums won't help anything with our mother earth
we should implement them
making some poems
clapping for that will do nothing for the future of our mother earth
@Happygurl28 said in #12:
> Lemme ask you a question
> Do you follow that first?
yeah i do in my area before 7-8 yr ago even everyone threw garbage in lake so i asked my mothers to throw in the van that comes firstly they were not agreed as all doesn't i told if 1 man follows rest will do automatically slowly and today in my area out of 23 houses 15-18 guys throw the rest were asked by our councillor he told us that if he wins the election this time he gonna make a rule that if someone is seen throwing garbage in lake they will be fined
> Lemme ask you a question
> Do you follow that first?
yeah i do in my area before 7-8 yr ago even everyone threw garbage in lake so i asked my mothers to throw in the van that comes firstly they were not agreed as all doesn't i told if 1 man follows rest will do automatically slowly and today in my area out of 23 houses 15-18 guys throw the rest were asked by our councillor he told us that if he wins the election this time he gonna make a rule that if someone is seen throwing garbage in lake they will be fined
@Praneel-s said in #7:
> Our earth is blue
> we can say it without any clue
> keep our earth spick-and-span
> let us all live clean throughout our lifespan
good bro
> Our earth is blue
> we can say it without any clue
> keep our earth spick-and-span
> let us all live clean throughout our lifespan
good bro
we need to call @lasker5
The only way to stop people from overusing the Earth's resources is to have fewer people. If people all shift from resource X to resource Y, resource X may last longer, but resource Y will be used up faster.
"Famine seems to be the last, most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the Earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world."
--Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society (1798)
"Famine seems to be the last, most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the Earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world."
--Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society (1798)
@clousems said in #16:
> The only way to stop people from overusing the Earth's resources is to have fewer people. If people all shift from resource X to resource Y, resource X may last longer, but resource Y will be used up faster.
>
> "Famine seems to be the last, most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the Earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world."
>
> --Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society (1798)
Its not like there's a finite, X amount of food in the world, and once we eat it its gone. We grow what we eat, and people grow an amount they think other people will buy. If the population increases, food becomes more expensive, and there's an economic incentive to produce more, so the supply will increase and prices go back down until there's more demand, and so on.
I would argue that the technological advancements possible with a large society and more researchers greatly outweigh any scarcity issues as supply is expanded to keep up with demand.
A good example of this is GMO corn. Look at the average USA corn yield over the 1900s. It was around 20-30 bushels per acre average at the beginning of the century. Breeding and GMO technology now allows us to produce an average of about 170 bushels per acre. 6x more food from the same seed, because of our advancements. While I know it's not a local market, the population of the US has less than trippled since that time. ~3x more people, but 6x more food.
Our interactions with our own biosphere will be the damage from a large population, as the children in this thread are writing weird poems about. Not food scarcity.
> The only way to stop people from overusing the Earth's resources is to have fewer people. If people all shift from resource X to resource Y, resource X may last longer, but resource Y will be used up faster.
>
> "Famine seems to be the last, most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the Earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world."
>
> --Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society (1798)
Its not like there's a finite, X amount of food in the world, and once we eat it its gone. We grow what we eat, and people grow an amount they think other people will buy. If the population increases, food becomes more expensive, and there's an economic incentive to produce more, so the supply will increase and prices go back down until there's more demand, and so on.
I would argue that the technological advancements possible with a large society and more researchers greatly outweigh any scarcity issues as supply is expanded to keep up with demand.
A good example of this is GMO corn. Look at the average USA corn yield over the 1900s. It was around 20-30 bushels per acre average at the beginning of the century. Breeding and GMO technology now allows us to produce an average of about 170 bushels per acre. 6x more food from the same seed, because of our advancements. While I know it's not a local market, the population of the US has less than trippled since that time. ~3x more people, but 6x more food.
Our interactions with our own biosphere will be the damage from a large population, as the children in this thread are writing weird poems about. Not food scarcity.
<Comment deleted by user>
@Sleepy_Gary While it is true that supply/demand motivates production of food, I doubt that mankind can rely on technological innovation indefinitely.
The previously cited Malthus believed that human population increases exponentially, while food capacity increases arithmetically. His ideas are often overlooked in the modern world, due to
a) his oft-misinterpreted, sarcastic suggestion that we move poor people to the swamps, teach them not to wash their hands, and use the plague to lower population growth
b) (more relevant to the topic) the timing of his prediction coinciding with the first Industrial Revolution (which boosted food production and generally made him look like a moron at the time).
As much as technology helps to counteract the effects of population growth on resources, physics says that there is a finite amount of energy and matter. This means that there is necessarily a degree of scarcity, and this scarcity increases as population grows.
Think of it mathematically:
let X equal total matter on Earth (for all intents and purposes, a closed system), R be usable resources, n be human population, a be technology, and S be standard of living.
We can determine that:
R= f(a(X))
S= R/n
Since physics tells us that X is fixed (principle of mass conservation), and since R must be less than X (since resources are made of matter), unlimited population growth will eventually approach a point where S approaches 0. Technology growth allows us to harness a greater part of the Earth's matter, but it does not allow us to increase X.
(Side note: At this point, I'd like to acknowledge that I'm overlooking humans also being made of matter, but I doubt that humans make up a major part of total matter of the Earth. I also don't want to discuss the economic efficiency of cannibalism).
When population growth reaches a certain point --a "Mad Maxis", if you will-- starvation will set in, since there is no way that enough resources can be harvested in order to supply the whole population.
Thus, no matter how much technological advancement we achieve, we can't break free of the Malthusian trap so long as the Earth remains a closed system.
I'm attaching a link to a relevant essay by Kenneth Boulding. It's a quick, interesting read.
http://arachnid.biosci.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Readings/Boulding_SpaceshipEarth.pdf
The previously cited Malthus believed that human population increases exponentially, while food capacity increases arithmetically. His ideas are often overlooked in the modern world, due to
a) his oft-misinterpreted, sarcastic suggestion that we move poor people to the swamps, teach them not to wash their hands, and use the plague to lower population growth
b) (more relevant to the topic) the timing of his prediction coinciding with the first Industrial Revolution (which boosted food production and generally made him look like a moron at the time).
As much as technology helps to counteract the effects of population growth on resources, physics says that there is a finite amount of energy and matter. This means that there is necessarily a degree of scarcity, and this scarcity increases as population grows.
Think of it mathematically:
let X equal total matter on Earth (for all intents and purposes, a closed system), R be usable resources, n be human population, a be technology, and S be standard of living.
We can determine that:
R= f(a(X))
S= R/n
Since physics tells us that X is fixed (principle of mass conservation), and since R must be less than X (since resources are made of matter), unlimited population growth will eventually approach a point where S approaches 0. Technology growth allows us to harness a greater part of the Earth's matter, but it does not allow us to increase X.
(Side note: At this point, I'd like to acknowledge that I'm overlooking humans also being made of matter, but I doubt that humans make up a major part of total matter of the Earth. I also don't want to discuss the economic efficiency of cannibalism).
When population growth reaches a certain point --a "Mad Maxis", if you will-- starvation will set in, since there is no way that enough resources can be harvested in order to supply the whole population.
Thus, no matter how much technological advancement we achieve, we can't break free of the Malthusian trap so long as the Earth remains a closed system.
I'm attaching a link to a relevant essay by Kenneth Boulding. It's a quick, interesting read.
http://arachnid.biosci.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Readings/Boulding_SpaceshipEarth.pdf
Malthus is the same guy who crapped scaecityfrom his rear and was championed by capitalists who labeled China as fascist due to its one child rule, while outsourcing their work to the overpopulated China's sweatshops and while the saying " the rich 1% consume 90% of world's resources" had become this big elephant in the room. Scarcity then? lol. It's lollable because they encouraged population growth then to twist the job supply demand curve and have children work for 5 cents a day or whatever to then sell, say a 5 dollar worth pair of shoes for 180 dollars. The population growth was affordable despite this twisted distribution of surplus and profit. That was how big that lie was.
And now the exploitation is even bigger while the profits ever increase owing to endlessly printed green paper backed by ME oil and realized by the warzones created, resources looted, people indebted under the threat of embargo whatnot via huge trade compromises that are tantamount to selling away their countrybit by bit.
Confessions of an Ecomomic Hitman walks everyone through the whole nine yards of the democracy bringing charade. As for scarcity, that goods are produced arithmetically while pop grow geometrically is, to me, very laughable. Any pop graph over any decade will show there's no exponential growth because people also friggng die(except you can technically call 1.05% exponential while you encourage it lol) and there'd be no surplus in the world if that were the case.
And now the exploitation is even bigger while the profits ever increase owing to endlessly printed green paper backed by ME oil and realized by the warzones created, resources looted, people indebted under the threat of embargo whatnot via huge trade compromises that are tantamount to selling away their countrybit by bit.
Confessions of an Ecomomic Hitman walks everyone through the whole nine yards of the democracy bringing charade. As for scarcity, that goods are produced arithmetically while pop grow geometrically is, to me, very laughable. Any pop graph over any decade will show there's no exponential growth because people also friggng die(except you can technically call 1.05% exponential while you encourage it lol) and there'd be no surplus in the world if that were the case.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.