Comments on: Overpopulation http://www.green-blog.org/2008/09/11/overpopulation/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:18:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: The Wilberforce Award: The Population Puzzle « Neuroanthropology http://www.green-blog.org/2008/09/11/overpopulation/comment-page-1/#comment-4667 The Wilberforce Award: The Population Puzzle « Neuroanthropology Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:03:12 +0000 http://www.green-blog.org/?p=445#comment-4667 [...] Population Growth Combating Overpopulation in Korea Overpopulation Overpopulation and Disaster Greenblog Essays on Overpopulation Overpopulation Quotes Definition Entropy A World Problem How to keep Koi [...] [...] Population Growth Combating Overpopulation in Korea Overpopulation Overpopulation and Disaster Greenblog Essays on Overpopulation Overpopulation Quotes Definition Entropy A World Problem How to keep Koi [...]

]]> By: ProfBob http://www.green-blog.org/2008/09/11/overpopulation/comment-page-1/#comment-4413 ProfBob Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:25:25 +0000 http://www.green-blog.org/?p=445#comment-4413 If we take three years and compare them we find some different and sometimes startling conclusions. I’ll take 1995, 2005, the year I first became very interested in the problem of overpopulation, and the year, 2025. The birth rate per 1000 people decreased from 25 to 21 to 16. That sounds positive. The deaths per 1000 people reduced from 9 to 8.6 to 8.3. So more people lived longer. But the world’s population increased from 5.7 to 6.5 to 8 billion. Why, because there were many more people, even if they were having fewer babies each.<br> But that’s only part of the story. The number of people per square kilometer of land increased from 48 to 52 to 59. But the key issue is not how much total land there is, but how much is arable—how much can be farmed. Some arable land is used for grazing and some is forest or jungle. The CIA estimates that only 10.5% of the Earth’s land is arable. Some estimate it to be twice that amount. So in 1995 there would have been 6.4 acres of land per person. If 20% were arable, each person’s share would be 1.3 acres, if 10% were arable, 0.65 acres. In 2005 It was 5.6 acres per person. If 20% were arable, each person would have 1.16 acres, if 10% were arable each would have 0.6 acres for farming. forests and foraging areas for animals. Naturally the arable land isn’t distributed equally. In 2005 the U.S. had 2 acres per person, nearly twice the world’s average. In 2025 with 8 billion people, each person will have four and a half acres of total land. If we use the 20% figure for arable land each person will have slightly less than an acre. If we use the 10% figure for arable land it is under a half-acre. This is about the same as Norway’s arable land per person, because most of Norway’s land is mountainous, rocky and under snow and ice much of the year. And the growing season is not a full year because of the harsh winters. <br> Then remember that that an acre or half acre per person is reduced as the soil erodes, as houses and factories are built on it and as roads and highways are built on land that is arable. <br> There is so much more to overpopulation. I suggest reading “In Search of Utopia” (<a href="http://andgulliverreturns.info" rel="nofollow">http://andgulliverreturns.info</a>) If we take three years and compare them we find some different and sometimes startling conclusions. I’ll take 1995, 2005, the year I first became very interested in the problem of overpopulation, and the year, 2025. The birth rate per 1000 people decreased from 25 to 21 to 16. That sounds positive. The deaths per 1000 people reduced from 9 to 8.6 to 8.3. So more people lived longer. But the world’s population increased from 5.7 to 6.5 to 8 billion. Why, because there were many more people, even if they were having fewer babies each.
But that’s only part of the story. The number of people per square kilometer of land increased from 48 to 52 to 59. But the key issue is not how much total land there is, but how much is arable—how much can be farmed. Some arable land is used for grazing and some is forest or jungle. The CIA estimates that only 10.5% of the Earth’s land is arable. Some estimate it to be twice that amount. So in 1995 there would have been 6.4 acres of land per person. If 20% were arable, each person’s share would be 1.3 acres, if 10% were arable, 0.65 acres. In 2005 It was 5.6 acres per person. If 20% were arable, each person would have 1.16 acres, if 10% were arable each would have 0.6 acres for farming. forests and foraging areas for animals. Naturally the arable land isn’t distributed equally. In 2005 the U.S. had 2 acres per person, nearly twice the world’s average. In 2025 with 8 billion people, each person will have four and a half acres of total land. If we use the 20% figure for arable land each person will have slightly less than an acre. If we use the 10% figure for arable land it is under a half-acre. This is about the same as Norway’s arable land per person, because most of Norway’s land is mountainous, rocky and under snow and ice much of the year. And the growing season is not a full year because of the harsh winters.
Then remember that that an acre or half acre per person is reduced as the soil erodes, as houses and factories are built on it and as roads and highways are built on land that is arable.
There is so much more to overpopulation. I suggest reading “In Search of Utopia” (http://andgulliverreturns.info)

]]> By: marryking http://www.green-blog.org/2008/09/11/overpopulation/comment-page-1/#comment-3416 marryking Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:46:17 +0000 http://www.green-blog.org/?p=445#comment-3416 Abercrombie & Fitch on Sale, Hoodies, Jeans, T-Shirts, Pants, Polos<br><a href="http://www.abercrombielife.com/" rel="nofollow">abercrombie and fitch</a><br><a href="http://www.abercrombielife.com/" rel="nofollow">abercrombie fitch</a><br><a href="http://www.abercrombielife.com/" rel="nofollow">abercrombie</a><br><a href="http://www.abercrombielife.com/" rel="nofollow">abercrombie fitch Shirts</a><br><a href="http://www.abercrombielife.com/" rel="nofollow">cheap abercrombie fitch</a><br><a href="http://www.abercrombielife.com/abercrombie-fitch-mens-tee-38.html" rel="nofollow">Abercrombie Men Tee</a><br><a href="http://www.abercrombielife.com/abercrombie-fitch-womens-polos-31.html" rel="nofollow">abercrombie womens polos</a><br>Abercrombie & Fitch Men, women, and children's clothing and accessories<br>ed hardy a famous ed hardy store which sell directly ed hardy clothing, shoes, boots, swim suit and other cheap ed hardy<br><a href="http://www.edhardylife.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Ed Hardy Store</a><br><a href="http://www.edhardylife.co.uk" rel="nofollow">cheap Ed Hardy</a><br>ed hardy clothing,Providing authentic Ed Hardy Clothing with competitive price and fast,secure delivery.The famous brand by Don Ed <br>Hardy 's Vintage <a href="http://www.edhardylife.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Ed Hardy</a> Abercrombie & Fitch on Sale, Hoodies, Jeans, T-Shirts, Pants, Polos
abercrombie and fitch
abercrombie fitch
abercrombie
abercrombie fitch Shirts
cheap abercrombie fitch
Abercrombie Men Tee
abercrombie womens polos
Abercrombie & Fitch Men, women, and children's clothing and accessories
ed hardy a famous ed hardy store which sell directly ed hardy clothing, shoes, boots, swim suit and other cheap ed hardy
Ed Hardy Store
cheap Ed Hardy
ed hardy clothing,Providing authentic Ed Hardy Clothing with competitive price and fast,secure delivery.The famous brand by Don Ed
Hardy 's Vintage Ed Hardy

]]> By: Green Blog » Blog Archive » Overpopulation is not the problem – overconsumption by the rich few is http://www.green-blog.org/2008/09/11/overpopulation/comment-page-1/#comment-3226 Green Blog » Blog Archive » Overpopulation is not the problem – overconsumption by the rich few is Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:12:46 +0000 http://www.green-blog.org/?p=445#comment-3226 [...] often hear people saying that overpopulation is the main problem to our environmental and ecological problems. Some people even claim that [...] [...] often hear people saying that overpopulation is the main problem to our environmental and ecological problems. Some people even claim that [...]

]]> By: Art3mis http://www.green-blog.org/2008/09/11/overpopulation/comment-page-1/#comment-2893 Art3mis Mon, 04 May 2009 16:03:09 +0000 http://www.green-blog.org/?p=445#comment-2893 Yes, solar energy hitting the Earth's surface per day WOULD be enough to sustain human population for 1 year IF the whole amount was collected by devices and saved to be used. But most of solar energy is absorbed by plants, which is perfectly rational and totally needed for us to survive. Plus, you should take into consideration the ammount of sun-rays (thus solar energy and heat) that has to be reflected and get back in space. Moreover, we should always have in mind that we have not developed the technology required to collect solar energy as we should have. Thus, even if the daily amount of solar energy coming to Earth was to be used only by humans and was not to leave the atmosphere, we would still be unable to use it. In short, only a very specific amount of solar energy can be saved and used as Alternative Sources of Energy. That is why the Earth could never possibly sustain 6 billion people without fossil fuels. Yes, solar energy hitting the Earth's surface per day WOULD be enough to sustain human population for 1 year IF the whole amount was collected by devices and saved to be used. But most of solar energy is absorbed by plants, which is perfectly rational and totally needed for us to survive.
Plus, you should take into consideration the ammount of sun-rays (thus solar energy and heat) that has to be reflected and get back in space.
Moreover, we should always have in mind that we have not developed the technology required to collect solar energy as we should have. Thus, even if the daily amount of solar energy coming to Earth was to be used only by humans and was not to leave the atmosphere, we would still be unable to use it.

In short, only a very specific amount of solar energy can be saved and used as Alternative Sources of Energy. That is why the Earth could never possibly sustain 6 billion people without fossil fuels.

]]> By: Eco Auto Blog | Carbon in numbers - Weighing in on the sources that add to the planet’s greenhouse gases http://www.green-blog.org/2008/09/11/overpopulation/comment-page-1/#comment-2743 Eco Auto Blog | Carbon in numbers - Weighing in on the sources that add to the planet’s greenhouse gases Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:45:59 +0000 http://www.green-blog.org/?p=445#comment-2743 [...] it’s not only about transportation. Overpopulation and consumerism have similarly dramatic impact on the amount of carbon dioxide on the [...] [...] it’s not only about transportation. Overpopulation and consumerism have similarly dramatic impact on the amount of carbon dioxide on the [...]

]]> By: Green Blog » Blog Archive » Carbon in numbers - Weighing in on the sources that add to the planet’s greenhouse gases http://www.green-blog.org/2008/09/11/overpopulation/comment-page-1/#comment-2702 Green Blog » Blog Archive » Carbon in numbers - Weighing in on the sources that add to the planet’s greenhouse gases Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:38:04 +0000 http://www.green-blog.org/?p=445#comment-2702 [...] it’s not only about transportation. Overpopulation and consumerism have similarly dramatic impact on the amount of carbon dioxide on the [...] [...] it’s not only about transportation. Overpopulation and consumerism have similarly dramatic impact on the amount of carbon dioxide on the [...]

]]> By: Submit Alternative Energy Article http://www.green-blog.org/2008/09/11/overpopulation/comment-page-1/#comment-1771 Submit Alternative Energy Article Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:14:30 +0000 http://www.green-blog.org/?p=445#comment-1771 I agree with Nathaniel. The rapid industrial and the non responsible way it used and still using energy resources are the cause for the pollution disaster. There are many power resources that are much cleaner than using fossil based energy. I agree with Nathaniel. The rapid industrial and the non responsible way it used and still using energy resources are the cause for the pollution disaster. There are many power resources that are much cleaner than using fossil based energy.

]]> By: website designs http://www.green-blog.org/2008/09/11/overpopulation/comment-page-1/#comment-1673 website designs Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:32:45 +0000 http://www.green-blog.org/?p=445#comment-1673 A good discussion of the population crisis A good discussion of the population crisis

]]> By: Nathaniel http://www.green-blog.org/2008/09/11/overpopulation/comment-page-1/#comment-1671 Nathaniel Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:53:59 +0000 http://www.green-blog.org/?p=445#comment-1671 Actually I totally disagree with this article. It has been said enough solar energy hits the Earth in 1 hour to power the total human civilization for 1 year. That is very very different from what you have said. About fossil fuels, most of those aren't burned by those nations where many are poor and birth control is rare (if there at all). But by high consuming nations were the number of children per family is low but the number of TVs, cars, and other consumer goods per family is high. China didn't get to challenge the USA from for the position of largest polluter of the world by growing its population, it did so by encouraging its people to have less children and more cars. 1 child policy + rapid industrial development = environmental disaster Actually I totally disagree with this article. It has been said enough solar energy hits the Earth in 1 hour to power the total human civilization for 1 year. That is very very different from what you have said.

About fossil fuels, most of those aren’t burned by those nations where many are poor and birth control is rare (if there at all). But by high consuming nations were the number of children per family is low but the number of TVs, cars, and other consumer goods per family is high.

China didn’t get to challenge the USA from for the position of largest polluter of the world by growing its population, it did so by encouraging its people to have less children and more cars.

1 child policy + rapid industrial development = environmental disaster

]]>