- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: At what point does population growth exceed the earth's carrying capacity?
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:55 am to Teddy Ruxpin
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:55 am to Teddy Ruxpin
I agree with you to a large degree. But there are exceptions. There have been instances where the almost exponential growth rate of a population (usually rodents) has outstripped the area's ability to support that population, causing a mass die-off in that localized area and population. But, as soon as the population regains a sustainable level, things return to normal.
I'm not sure humans procreate fast enough to achieve this, so I think your point holds.
I'm not sure humans procreate fast enough to achieve this, so I think your point holds.
1
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:55 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
Thanks, Nostradamus.
It's not hard to see coming. When it was just the superpowers with nukes it wasn't so difficult to keep from going nuclear since neither side was going to win. Now rogue states like North Korea have them. Pakistan could easily have an Islamic revolution and already has terrible relations with India who has their own nukes. We are not going to prevent Iran from building theirs shortly. We are talking about leaders who really don't care that much about the lives of their own citizens. I'd say the use of nukes is inevitable. The genie is out of the bottle.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:55 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:the existence of such a number is likely irrelevant as we will never get close to it
so you're saying there is no number that would be too much?
the end
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:57 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
prove to me there is no such thing as an invisible monster ghost demon that stares at me at night when I sleep
...
...
Who told you about the invisible monster ghost demon?
Who told you!?
Posted on 4/6/14 at 11:58 am to fr33manator
quote:
You're telling me that something beyond our ken is impossible?
No. I'm telling you that there isn't any reason to look beyond our ken concerning natural processes and their macro effects on population. It's all there and explained. If there is some "planetary consciousness," there's no evidence of it and it would be unnecessary to explain disasters.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:00 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
I agree with you to a large degree. But there are exceptions. There have been instances where the almost exponential growth rate of a population (usually rodents) has outstripped the area's ability to support that population, causing a mass die-off in that localized area and population. But, as soon as the population regains a sustainable level, things return to normal.
I'm not sure humans procreate fast enough to achieve this, so I think your point holds.
Right, and that was part of my point, you can perhaps temporarily outstrip a localized area, (and I bet the rat population worldwide was just fine
) but this notion that we are 3 billion over the limit for 50 years is just ridiculous on its face.Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:04 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
so you're saying there is no number that would be too much?
Probably not anything we will ever realistically approach. Population distribution is more of an issue than overpopulation. With wealth comes population decline and a reduction in birthrate. We'll never have a problem with overpopulation.
If you're asking at what population do present resources become scarce, I have no idea. I know we're nowhere close to that number though and scarcity will lead to innovation which will meet the need.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:04 pm to Tigerlaff
wow...
Don't let Pat Robertson know.
Don't let Pat Robertson know.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
mixing and matching foods and breeding out specific traits in foods
=/=GMO.
We aren't talking about cross pollination type shite, we're talking about genetic modification, as in changing the basic makeup of the plant. It is no longer the same plant.
Is this necessary to sustain our population? Maybe. I think it's just a way for the food companies to make billions more dollars. Is GMO NECESSARILY bad? No, certainly a better food COULD POSSIBLY be made. However, we don't have a good enough understanding of the human body and how it processes foods to be fricking around with it...hence, the insane cancer rates and food allergies that we're seeing today.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:08 pm to fr33manator
quote:
wow...
Don't let Pat Robertson know.
Alright, whatever man. Maybe you made the whole "planetary consciousness" thing up to troll. I don't know you. Just trying to point out a crazy view from an otherwise reasonable poster.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:10 pm to Casty McBoozer
quote:
We aren't talking about cross pollination type shite, we're talking about genetic modification, as in changing the basic makeup of the plant. It is no longer the same plant.
Are you sure we're not talking about cross pollination type shite? Cause it sounds like you're talking exactly about cross pollination type shite.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:12 pm to Casty McBoozer
quote:
=/=GMO.
you're wrong. those crops are GMO crops
quote:
We aren't talking about cross pollination type shite, we're talking about genetic modification, as in changing the basic makeup of the plant. It is no longer the same plant.
and even in this instance, we're doing it to devote fewer resources in ag to produce higher, more nutritional yields
that's a GOOD thing
quote:
Is this necessary to sustain our population? Maybe.
yes. it is certainly necessary. and we're talking about billions of lives in the balance. here? no. africa/asia? yes
quote:
However, we don't have a good enough understanding of the human body and how it processes foods to be fricking around with it.
wut?
we've been developing foods to increase efficiency and yields for tens of thousands of years
quote:
hence, the insane cancer rates and food allergies that we're seeing today.
we see higher rates of cancer b/c we do things like smoke more and live longer. the fact that we see more cancer is a clue that we're doing things right, as cancer is an "old man's disease." i mean you do realize that the life expectancy has increased a great deal in the same time period also, right? that's a sign of progression, not regression...also it's easy to sit in an ivory tower living in America looking down...but it's really kind of an assholish thing to tell poor people who don't choose to live in shite holes that we're going to ensure they will live shorter, more terrible lives, starve at higher rates, and have much higher infant mortality
Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:19 pm to Pilot Tiger
quote:
it wont
It has. The point when you know won't be when we've run out of resources, it is when we start to run out. That's where we are.
The hope is that technology can fill in the gaps.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:as an interesting point to this, if you look at autopsies done on men over like 70, there is like an 80% occurrence of prostate cancer
we see higher rates of cancer b/c we do things like smoke more and live longer. the fact that we see more cancer is a clue that we're doing things right, as cancer is an "old man's disease.
point being, cancer gonna get ya eventually
Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:27 pm to Tigerlaff
I mean, it's an actual theory. I don't necessarily subscribe to it, but I do think nature may be connected in ways we don't yet understand.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:29 pm to fr33manator
quote:
but I do think nature may be connected in ways we don't yet understand.
Avatar was a movie and nowhere near being based in reality, Fr33.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:30 pm to Draconian Sanctions
When the haves stop taking care of the have nots.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 12:43 pm to stout
i'm talking more along the lines of collective unconsciousness being the reason certain traits and behaviors are inherent in certain populations even in the absence of "learning". Fungal beds many acres wide. Levels of communication between entities far outside of our reckoning.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 1:03 pm to fr33manator
Oh so more like The Happening with Mark Wahlberg than Avatar
Posted on 4/6/14 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
when human ingenuity is stifled
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News