I was rather stunned recently to read the latest U.N. projection for human population, by end of this century. I thought the projection for 2100 was about 9 billion people, but the estimate has been raised to 11.2 billion. That dropped my jaw. There could well be six billion people in Africa alone by the end of this century. But one has to factor who the worst culprits are, in terms of resource use. It's not Africans. It's us...in the developed countries. We're the ones who use the most, pollute the most, etc. I try my best to live like an African, except for the prodigious baby-making.

Two billion people would be sustainable, long-term. We reached that number in the 1920's. There's no way our numbers now are sustainable.

Many years ago I read Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb. When the Green Revolution happened, his excellent book began to be mocked. But I believed then - and still believe - that Dr Ehrlich was right. Human population is a bomb. In fact the Green Revolution will just make the ultimate death toll from that bomb exploding even higher, by billions. It's not something we can say will happen to Africa, and not us. It will happen to every continent...including North America.

The disaster that lies ahead is a collapse of the entire global ecosystem (primarily due to global warming). Nature is sensitive, and we have never given it enough respect. The collapse of agriculture will occur when the human population is at some truly insane level. The population bomb will just be a lot bigger than what Paul imagined. In the end, we just delayed the inevitable and made the catastrophe even worse.

Scientists keep warning us; but how many heed?

Around Antarctica, ocean life is already collapsing, because the population of krill - tiny shrimp-like creatures - is rapidly collapsing. Human warming of the atmosphere means that the plankton that the young krill eat off the bottom of the ice during the winter, so they can survive, are not being stored in the ice, owing to the ice-forming period being much shorter now. The ice doesn't contain much nourishment now, compared to what it once did. So...goodbye krill. Which means...goodbye fish. And also goodbye the creatures (like penguins) that depend on those fish. There are now only a few percent of the krill that were once there, and it's headed toward zero. They are important because they're the foundation of the entire food chain in that part of the ocean.

That's just one example of our increasingly devastating effect on the planet. The fundamental basis for the destruction we're doing is: the human population.

So how to put it in blunt terms? I love putting things in blunt terms. Humans...are breeding... like the bunnies in Australia were breeding? Before myxomatosis kinda killed their interest in sex? You can't be a lovin' bunny when you're dead. Maybe that was a C&W-style hit on Australian radio at one time.

I think now, a much better analogy for humans (than rats or bunnies) is Asian carp. Those fish didn't belong in North America; they were cleverly put here by a genius species. They got away from us, so to speak. Because we are the genius species that routinely effs up. They have just spread and spread and spread. They have been stopped at the Great Lakes - so far. But once they cross that threshold, they will then own the entire water system of North America, from Florida to Alaska. They're voracious and they breed like crazy.

So. Humans are a lot like Asian carp. Very much like. Many days I figure: humans are about as smart as, too. Look at us jump. Wow...we're planning to jump all the way to Mars...like that's a fit place to live. The plan is: trash this planet and move to an uninhabitable one. Do I jest? I think not.

I need to say this. I THINK ASIAN CARP ARE SMARTER THAN HUMANS. Sorry to any humans offended by my remark. But I believe it's accurate.
Certainly something to think about, Rod. In the meantime, how about we eat the carp? Just some food for thought :lol:
Apparently Asian carp are quite tasty. Definitely edible. But - like trout - full of fine bones. Trout are delicious, but tedious to eat, for that reason.

The primary problem with Asian carp is they drive out the other species, who cannot compete. And they do so very quickly. They totally disrupt any body of water they enter. They get big, fast - up to 100 lb or more - and they jump...kinda like flying fish. Except they don't sail as far. Anything spooks Asian carp...the air is full of fish. Along the Mississippi, it's now dangerous to go fishing, because a big carp jumping up into the air can hit a person in the face and badly injure or even kill them.

Down there, people going fishing are having to wear helmets and face masks, and furious because many of the species they used to catch are either hard to find, or gone. So they're considered a big nuisance.

As are most invasive species, like the huge Burmese pythons that have taken over large parts of Florida. Snakes big enough to eat young alligators. So the alligator population is in decline there, and so are many birds.

A scientific article I read some months ago blamed the spread of the horrific disease ebola on deforestation...and that is from too many people. I'd say most of the ecological problems around the world can be directly linked to the issue of human population; there are far too many of us.

And there is no excuse for that. I had a two-year sexual relationship...very amorous...we did it every day...plus...no contraception used in those two years (except for brains)...and no one got pregnant. This was not someone who didn't know what could happen; she was an RN.

I think anyone who believes that billions too many people is due to not enough contraception use...I would say: wrong. I blame it on ignorance and/or failure to be responsible.

I had a public health nurse tell me: you guys were just lucky. I had calculated it out; something like 1 in 16 million, if it was 'luck'. I told her...with 'luck' like that...I could win a lottery every day. I could have a fleet of yachts parked near my huge mansion. With 'luck' like that...Vegas would be mine. (Except for all the posters warning security to not let me in their casino.)

It's not sex that makes babies. My sweet RN friend and I proved that. Wow, did we ever prove that. In fact, we proved it and proved it and proved it, many times over. Hence my remark...humans are about as smart as...Asian carp. Certainly as prolific. But in the case of humans...unlike carp...most of the bones are in their heads. Riddled with them. :-)

If there is a Zombie apocalypse - I'm fully expecting one - the Zombies will find out. You can eat a human...except for the head...because there are too many bones in that part.

Thanks for the question. :-)
You WERE lucky. My five sisters and one brother, all born with parents using contraception are living proof of that :lol:
Nonsense. I don't believe in luck. Luck is superstition. Most humans are superstitious. (Tsk tsk, I'd say.)

No...it was skill. Skill of the highest order, really. Sometimes I thought...heck, we deserve a medal. Maybe the Order of Canada. For proving...what I asserted. Sex does not make babies. Else...we'd have made a bunch or a dozen.

And actually...we proved...(going by what you've told me)...that aside from disease transmission...and everyone should shudder at the 20-odd nasty diseases a person can get that way...now we gotta add ZIKA, maybe - WHO suspects that virus can be sexually transmitted (but that's based on only one case, last I read)...from Senegal with love...that it's better to not use contraception. Less chance of getting a woman pregnant, that way. You've admitted...on contraceptives...pop pop pop...waa waa waa...little babies to look after. Versus...(drum roll)...no contraceptives of any kind used...and no babies.

Just slide rule that, hey. :-)
CARP = Canadian Association for Retired People, so eating retired people will help? :P :lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARP_(Canada)
I seriously doubt that eating retired people would clean up the Mississippi.

There are other ways of dealing with retired people. The state government in Michigan is using electric shocks...on the carp. To discourage them from moving.

Here's a thought. Electric shocks for retired people...to encourage them to move. Get yer exercise, Molly. You need to go for a walk, Bill. :-)

Just kidding.
LOL so is that what they are saying to you Rod? :P :wink:
gwynnie wrote: You WERE lucky.


I don't feel lucky when a rousing argument just withers. Okay, so there is no proving it, especially at our age. In fact, I could never prove there is even such a thing as sex, now. Seems to me there isn't. It's only a myth.

So what's my luck today? PIT-I-FUL. Greatly declined from my "lucky" days, when I got lucky every night...plus lazy weekend afternoons. Back then I knew what LUCK was. Only time I wasn't lucky...she was visiting her parents in Saskatchewan. So that was like inter-provincial distance...not even neighbouring provinces...B.C. - Saskatchewan...Rocky mountains between us...plus prairie and ocean...Georgia Strait. Deep enough to drown a whale. But you know, I think psychically, we still did it. Somehow, we managed it. And let me tell you something else. A woman who is a virgin at 28...and her father is a church minister...really conservative family...the daughter who's never had a boyfriend? That's like AWESOME luck. Ten out of ten. Supposing I believed in luck. I don't...but I was actually forced to believe in it, back then. Good girls are amazing. Just reminiscing about the good old days.
Rod, I have no intention of joining in any kind of argument or debate. I was merely stating a fact :)
Ah. The woman slaps down the last card. An ace. A fact. I raise my hands in defeat. You win, Gwynnie. It's just a fact that a fact beats any other hand. It doesn't matter what the fact is. :-)
China law to control their population was that they will allow you to have one child, but recently they change it so that you can have two children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/world/asia/china-end-one-child-policy.html?_r=0

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/5-things-to-know-about-china-s-1-child-policy-1.3294335
Yes, I was shocked when I read the China had lifted its one child policy. I think bad. I have no idea why they did that. But I know if they didn't, India would overtake them in population in the next couple of decades. Both nations are well over a billion people. It should not be a contest. Population should be going the other way...reducing our numbers. Two billion happened between the two world wars...and one of the reasons Hitler gave for launching his stupid military aggression in Europe was more living room for his people. Evidence that human population was becoming a problem even in the 1930's.
China was worried that there would be no one to match up for marriage, like everyone has a girl, then there would be no male to marry if their match is right, this is why they lift the "one child per family" and change it to "only two children per family". So if mommy and daddy has a girl, then perhaps the next child would be a boy, China want to balance the gender. My thought is, what if each family has two girls instead of one each?
In China, something extraordinary happened to affect the sex ratio, which is normally about 105:100 females to males. The natural ratio varies around the world from about 103-107 males per 100 females. In the 2010's, in China, the ratio got pushed up to about 120 males for every 100 females, which is very unnatural. There are now about 34 million more men in China than would occur naturally. "According to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, there will be 24 million more men than women of marriageable age by 2020." That's a whopping difference.

But if it weren't for a preference for males...the sex ratio would never have gotten so crazily unbalanced. I don't see how lifting the one-child policy will correct it. Because it was not the one-child policy (in itself) that led to the imbalance. It couldn't be. It was attitude; a preference for male babies. Had Chinese couples respected nature - accepted whatever came - then even with their one-child policy, the sex ratio would still be close to a natural 105:100.

China has known mass famine historically. In my opinion, taking the brakes off is asking for an even bigger problem. If they begin to experience crop failures owing to climate change...which seems to me inevitable...the result will be a return to mass famine. That would dwarf the problem of gender imbalance.
cron