Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 2:13 AM
22 online now:
Dr Adequate, Heathen, Pressie, Tanypteryx (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,193 Year: 5,230/19,786 Month: 1,352/873 Week: 248/460 Day: 0/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   What do we do about the population crisis?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3009 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 31 of 45 (337847)
08-04-2006 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Nighttrain
08-04-2006 12:52 AM


Re: nae a drop to drink
Massive delasination and reforestation of certain areas is what we need to do, but the issue is cost and this goes to the energy technology issue.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Nighttrain, posted 08-04-2006 12:52 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by MangyTiger, posted 08-04-2006 3:22 PM randman has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 32 of 45 (337849)
08-04-2006 3:07 AM


Priorities, not cost
Nighttrain writes:

Cost, as always, seems to be blocking the more adventurous ideas.

randman writes:

the issue is cost

Wrong. That's where I come in again with the argument I already stated: we are spending way too much money on the wrong things. My example was wars and weapons, and a sideline discussion on weapons ensued, but my main point was that cost itself is not the issue, it's our priorities. Apparently, there's more than enough money available, it's just that the Bushes and the Blairs of this world are making the wrong choices in what to spend it on.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Nighttrain, posted 08-04-2006 5:05 AM Parasomnium has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2104 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 33 of 45 (337862)
08-04-2006 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Parasomnium
08-04-2006 3:07 AM


Re: Priorities, not cost
Nighttrain writes:
Cost, as always, seems to be blocking the more adventurous ideas.

randman writes:
the issue is cost

Wrong. That's where I come in again with the argument I already stated: we are spending way too much money on the wrong things. My example was wars and weapons, and a sideline discussion on weapons ensued, but my main point was that cost itself is not the issue, it's our priorities. Apparently, there's more than enough money available, it's just that the Bushes and the Blairs of this world are making the wrong choices in what to spend it on.

Just reporting what the politicians say, Para. At present we are revisiting the nuclear vs the alternatives debate. As Q stated, until we develop a cheap source of energy (and we export something like 30 million tonnes of coal each year, mainly to China and Japan), the politicians will meander down a number of paths calling 'Cost. Cost.'
Until the shortage of water bites home, the general population will do what they always do--lay back and complain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Parasomnium, posted 08-04-2006 3:07 AM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Parasomnium, posted 08-04-2006 5:43 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 34 of 45 (337864)
08-04-2006 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Nighttrain
08-04-2006 5:05 AM


Re: Priorities, not cost
As Q stated, until we develop a cheap source of energy [...] the politicians will meander down a number of paths calling 'Cost. Cost.'

If you state it like that, you may be right. A cheap source of energy might be the cure for a lot of things: for instance, I think desalination of water is a costly process partly because of the energy needed for it.

Concerning the nuclear vs. alternative debate, I think nuclear energy is only an option if we can manage to get fusion started. Otherwise, the same problem we have with fossil fuels will occur again in the near future: eventually fissile nuclear fuel is going to run out too.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Nighttrain, posted 08-04-2006 5:05 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 2273 days)
Posts: 356
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 35 of 45 (337895)
08-04-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Modulous
08-02-2006 3:51 PM


Re: Humanity is not immortal
Modulous writes:

Make the world rich.

That's what I was going to say. Well, similar to that.

Two ways I believe will slow population growth worldwide:

1)Increase nations' Standard of Living. With an increase in SOL, a more prosperous economy, population growth tends to decrease. In lesser developed nations having many children is more of a benefit than a hinderance. They are a cheap source of labor, both agricultural and domestic. Also, the cost to raise a child is minimal compared to more-developed nations. In more-developed nations', children are incredibly expensive to raise. Having fewer children is financially less burdensome(sp).

2)Increase the "freedoms" of women. In many nations, women are still seen as second class citizens, as baby-makers and home-makers. This must stop. With an increase in women's priveleges, educationally and financially, more women opt for financial or educational success and the desire to reproduce slightly flags.

I don't see the population conundrum as negatively as possibly some other posters on this thread. However, I would be lying if I said everything would be A-OK if these two simple ideas were put into practice. It is a worrying and specifically "human" issue that needs much more attention than it is receiving.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2006 3:51 PM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Jaderis, posted 08-07-2006 6:21 PM BMG has not yet responded

    
Mespo
Member (Idle past 995 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 36 of 45 (337920)
08-04-2006 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Nighttrain
08-04-2006 12:52 AM


Recycled Water
Nighttrain writes:

Water may be one of the main limiting factors on population growth. Many countries are reaching the limit of available supplies. Australia is surrounded by water, yet our assorted authorities are furiously searching for alternative sources. A referendum on recycling used water was soundly defeated last weekend..

Hi Nighttrain,

You Aussies may well want to send a delegation to Las Vegas, Nevada. Use of recycled water is mandatory in public fountains and other public water displays. Las Vegas sits on a aquafer that is rapidly depleting and reliance on spring snow melts from the mountains has an uncertain future.

When it comes to looking for additional water sources, the western states of the U.S. have cast longing eyes on the huge reservoir called the Great Lakes. It contains 19% of the world's supply of fresh surface water. In response, the governors of the Great Lakes states have banded together to prevent pipelines or bulk tankers from shipping the water out. The coming decades will intensify the fight for the ol' water hole.

(:raig


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Nighttrain, posted 08-04-2006 12:52 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 08-04-2006 11:36 AM Mespo has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 37 of 45 (337923)
08-04-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Mespo
08-04-2006 11:30 AM


Re: Recycled Water
Georgia, Alabama and Florida have been involved in a Water War for at least the last couple decades.

Water is and will remain a key component.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Mespo, posted 08-04-2006 11:30 AM Mespo has not yet responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4464 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 38 of 45 (337947)
08-04-2006 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
08-04-2006 1:58 AM


Desalination may not be a panacea
Depending on how and where it is done large scale desalination can bring problems of its own.

From Wiki:

Concentrate disposal
Regardless of the method used, there is always a highly concentrated waste product consisting of everything that was removed from the created "fresh water". With coastal facilities, it may be possible to return it to the sea without harm if this concentrate does not exceed the normal ocean salinity gradients to which osmoregulators are accustomed. Reverse Osmosis, for instance, may remove 50% or more of the water, doubling the salinity of ocean waste. The benthic community cannot accommodate such an extreme change and many filter feeding animals are destroyed when the water is returned to the ocean. It is more of a problem as you move inland, as one needs to avoid ruining existing fresh water supplies such as ponds, rivers and aquifers. As such, proper disposal of "concentrate" needs to be investigated during the design phase.

Environmental
From an environmental point of view, in some locations geothermal desalination can be preferable to using fossil groundwater or surface water for human needs, as in many regions the available surface and groundwater resources already have long been under severe stress.

Aside from the energy costs of the process, desalination plants produce hypersaline brine that must be disposed of. These concentrates are classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as industrial wastes. The hypersaline brine has the potential to harm ecosystems, especially marine environments in regions with low turbidity and high evaporation that already have elevated salinity. Examples of such locations are the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and, in particular, coral lagoons of atolls and other tropical islands around the world.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, as the saying goes.


Oops! Wrong Planet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 08-04-2006 1:58 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 08-04-2006 3:46 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3009 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 39 of 45 (337948)
08-04-2006 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by MangyTiger
08-04-2006 3:22 PM


Re: Desalination may not be a panacea
Well, good point, but there has to be some way to do this and filter it back at a pace that isn't too destructive.

On the Great Lakes, I think it's sort of silly those states won't share. It's not going to deplete the lakes enough to harm them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by MangyTiger, posted 08-04-2006 3:22 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 08-05-2006 6:38 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 41 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 08-05-2006 10:13 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Mespo, posted 08-07-2006 1:15 PM randman has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 40 of 45 (338142)
08-05-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
08-04-2006 3:46 PM


Great Lake Depletion
On the Great Lakes, I think it's sort of silly those states won't share. It's not going to deplete the lakes enough to harm them.

The Great Lakes, I believe are already being depleted enough to cause problems. IIRC, this is partially caused by the fact that they are remanents of the ice age but I think there is reason to believe that if not the only problem.

We are simply not operating in a sustainable way. We are stealing from out children and murdering our grandchildren.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 08-04-2006 3:46 PM randman has not yet responded

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 3944 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 41 of 45 (338183)
08-05-2006 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
08-04-2006 3:46 PM


Re: Desalination may not be a panacea
On the Great Lakes, I think it's sort of silly those states won't share. It's not going to deplete the lakes enough to harm them.

Well, that's your opinion...

As a resident of illinois... I would rather not ship our water out to areas that never should have been settled in the first place.

Places like Phoenix probably shouldn't even exist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 08-04-2006 3:46 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 08-05-2006 10:33 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 45 (338184)
08-05-2006 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
08-05-2006 10:13 PM


Re: Desalination may not be a panacea
Well, if you want to start arguing from that basis, what makes you think that we should have settled anywhere but the African savannah? You've got little more right to Illinois than they have to Phoenix.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 08-05-2006 10:13 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by kuresu, posted 08-07-2006 6:16 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Mespo
Member (Idle past 995 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 43 of 45 (338376)
08-07-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
08-04-2006 3:46 PM


The Great Lakes Water Fight
randman writes:

On the Great Lakes, I think it's sort of silly those states won't share. It's not going to deplete the lakes enough to harm them.

It's political as much as it is environmental, randman.

U.S. Political: Why ship the water out when you can entice businesses and residents to relocate to your neck of the woods? "We've got the water. Period."

Canadian Political: "We own the water too, dammit!" The International Border goes through 4 of the 5 Great Lakes.

Environmental / Business impact: Every inch the Great Lakes basin is lowered is that much more money that has to be poured into dredging to keep the shipping channels open. Especially true in the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair and Western Lake Erie areas.

(:raig


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 08-04-2006 3:46 PM randman has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 623 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 44 of 45 (338410)
08-07-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
08-05-2006 10:33 PM


Re: Desalination may not be a panacea
I think he means that we shouldn't build our homes where this is very little water, like in deserts, or near-desert like areas.

if you were given a choice between settling the great lakes or phoenix, which would you pick?

water, or not water, that is the question.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 08-05-2006 10:33 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1535 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 45 of 45 (338411)
08-07-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by BMG
08-04-2006 9:48 AM


Re: Humanity is not immortal
1)Increase nations' Standard of Living. With an increase in SOL, a more prosperous economy, population growth tends to decrease. In lesser developed nations having many children is more of a benefit than a hinderance. They are a cheap source of labor, both agricultural and domestic. Also, the cost to raise a child is minimal compared to more-developed nations. In more-developed nations', children are incredibly expensive to raise. Having fewer children is financially less burdensome(sp).

While I would love to see the eradication of poverty worldwide, I would have to say that it would not (by itself) help the population crisis, or rather the impact on resources, specifically.

It is true that raising the standards of living everywhere would gradually ease the amount of people being born, it would also decrease the amount of people dying. That is important, but not the main point.

My point has to do with resources and the more people we have with disposable income, the more disposable the societies worldwide will become. Which means more plastic/styrofoam packaging, more industrial waste, more disposable diapers (Here is another link supporting that claim),more land being used for agriculture and the waste that comes along with that, more land for larger houses for everyone, more natural lands being made into ski resorts, more supermarkets/restaurants/bakeries/etc with the huge amounts of food wasted (just ask a dumpster diver about all the good, unspoiled food thrown out every day), more upscale camping areas, spas, golf courses, etc, and definitely more WATER. We would have more people taking looong showers, running the water while brushing their teeth, running dishwashers and washing machines, using swimming pools/jacuzzis, using lawn sprinklers, going out to eat (water usage and waste in restaurants is obscene), vacationing at water parks, living in developments with those fancy water fountains (I was always appalled that these places were allowed to run their fountains during water shortages in Florida) and the list goes on and on.

Making everyone rich will bring so much more waste and water usage that it will probably negate the lower population, unless, of course, we find ways to significantly reduce this waste and then enforce it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by BMG, posted 08-04-2006 9:48 AM BMG has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019