Skip to comments.The `Population Bomb` Has Fizzled
Posted on 09/01/2010 2:05:11 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB
Predicted calamities are always the worst; until the future comes. Then, they don't show up, or they shrink to ordinary. Overpopulation is a prime example. Calamity resulting from too many of us has been the subject of countless prophecies, but those never came true. More humans are living on the planet now than ever and living better, rather than being starved and desperate.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkgwinnett.net ...
Someone print this memo and get it to Discovery Channel HQ STAT!!!
Malthusian doomsaying is based upon bad math, and doesn’t account for technological advances. Thanks to decades of scare-mongering, the West is about to enter a demographic winter over absurd notions from the 1970’s and earlier. Unfortunately, many people won’t realize the horrible consequences until its too late.
“Population Bomb” has fizzled”
This has been the case for the last 20 years yet our MSM still hasn’t gotten the message.
I hope his book has pictures...
What’s this guy talking about? Overpopulation is “settled science” just like anthropogenic global warming. Right?
People IN and FROM the third world still BREED in great numbers!
The idea of catastrophic overpopulation has always been a source of great irritation to me, especially when it comes to Science Fiction.
The idea is: There are too many people, so we are risking extinction.
Really? There are too many of us, so we are all going to die?
Now there are incidences where overpopulation triggers a massive die off from disease or lack of food, but the affected species never dies completely, it just lowers it’s numbers until it is sustainable.
Luckily for humans, we are no where near overpopulating the earth. There is plenty of room, plenty of farmland, and plenty of fresh water for many, many more people than currently live on the planet.
Now getting government out of the way so that people aren’t starving is another issue altogether.
Ending putting food in our fuel would be a good start.
For population growth by country.
Replacement rate is 2.01%.
This tells us that the main countries whose population are really growing are THIRD WORLD countries ( mostly African and Muslim ).
The USA is actually near replacement rate levels mainly due helped by immigration.
The Gore worshipping Discovery Bomber will be happy! He hates humans.
“Can we get a few more 55 gallon drums of thorazine for the folks that still belive in man-made global warming.”
Welllll, not exactly, and in opposing it you need to be very careful about your own assumptions.
Malthusian doomsaying is based on a particular model of food production (it's often assumed to be fixed, or nearly so), and the extrapolation of population against that fixed amount of food. The underlying theory is sound -- it's the inputs, particularly the extrapolation of food supplies, that's in error.
Your objection is based on the fact that technological advances have allowed farmers to produce more food than predicted, and to keep up with population growth. And that's unquestionably a good thing.
What your objection does not address, though, is the fact that technological advances are not the only factors that affect food production.
Extended cold, for example, or widespread drought, or a pervasive pest or disease, could have long-term effects that technology cannot address for an extended amount of time.
If such were to occur, the Malthusian dynamics of population vs. food come back into play. Those populations most affected by a global drop in food production (for any reason) would almost certainly be in the less technologically advanced areas .... which also happen to have the highest populations and population growth.
Even that is no big deal. Let’s look at some simple math. Let’s assume that we make corn our staple crop. Each person would need, let’s estimate, 2 pounds of corn meal a day for a basic diet.
A bushel of corn will provide right around 45 pounds of corn meal, or about 22 days of food per person. Stretch that out in a year and each person needs 16.5 bushels of corn a year to live on.
An average acre of corn in the U.S. averages around 165 bushels of corn per season. That means that each acre of corn can provide food for just at 10 people.
At 6.5 billion people, that means we would need to grow about 650 million acres of corn a year. 650 million acres is 1,015,625 square miles.
The States of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, New Mexico and Iowa is right about 1,000,000 square miles. If we used all the land on just that center chunk of the U.S., we could grow enough corn to feed everyone in world.
There is plenty of food in the world. Government’s just like to keep their people poor and hungry so they don’t get those silly freedom ideas in their head.
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
Bronze Age Forum
Excerpt, or Link only?
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·
Dossier: Environmental Scientist: Dr. Paul Ehrlich
Note: this topic is from 9/01/2010. Thanks WOBBLY BOB.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.