The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

So scientists have predicted that the earth can only hold 9-12 billion humans before resource like the basic needs of food water space and shelter are all too limited. They say that the rate in which they're currently reproducing the world will be maxes out before 2050. I want your opinions on this likely hood and what you think would held prevent such an occurrence. After all we've only got one earth and it's home to us all. Comments!

These sorts of predictions have been around for many years and always end up being changed. The fact is the Earth isn't over-populated, we are just incredibly inefficient at feeding the population. There is of course an inevitable limit to population growth that we will hit one day. It could be 9 billion, 12, or 50. One thing to look at is most developed nations have a tiny or even negative growth rate. The bulk of the population booms are in areas that can't provide enough water or food naturally such as the Mid East, parts of Africa and Asia.

If somehow those places could slow (drastically) their growth then things could be fine for some time. But just because places like Uganda have high growth rates and poverty as well doesn't mean the world is about to collapse.

We all need to do our parts to protect the environment, not consume more than we need, develop better technologies for growing food and providing clean water but we also have to recognize that with 1/3 of the worlds population belonging to 3 countries alone it's hardly the responsibility of Canada (for example) to save the rest of them.

Personally I think around 10 billion is the limit. I also think that the notion of never ending population growth is absurd and there's no need for the population to always increase. I'd be very happy with a permanent global population between 4-6 billion and no one would have to be "eliminated" to get there either.

Odd, I was thinking about this, one for the Man, One for the Woman, One for the Gods...

Anything else should have a disproportionate cost until it is sustainable.

The human population, if we weren't so developed, would naturally monitor itself. Overpopulation would cause a decline in population due to numerous factors and this would also have an effect on evolution.

Of course, we have the technology to keep a large population sustained. I would say the limit would be around 8 or 9 billion. At that point there wouldn't be enough of anything for anyone except the rich, and this would lead to eventual anarchy, then worldwide government collapse. By this time though, we may have discovered some way to colonize space, although then we have to worry about the Big Rip.( google it)

I think a comfortable population would be around 6 billion with today's technology. Maybe more in the future.

~~~Fallendemon

The Big Rip theory is a scientific equation and an interesting one that makes me giggle. I had heard of it but it actually being published as a quasi fact...Eeek.
How can anyone measure the forces that hold reality together when so much of the equation is "unknown dark forces"
At best it is a terrible guess and at worst it is a man with a telescope peering out of his window, observing the world is flat and predicting ships will fall off the edge.
Good luck with that one.
On a more serious current note, you are correct. With present technology their is a tipping point.
The problem is that democracy is flawed. It relies upon the masses to come up with the right policies and then Vote them in.
Nobody will vote for small families, or taxing big families.
So where am I going with this?
We need "qualified democracy" where common sense and facts from scientists over rule the wishes of the masses.
Problem is our leaders are weak and bend to the religious minority, a truly great leader would be more honest and courageous.

The "Big Rip" theory is an interesting one but it's rather unlikely.

Anyway, fallen gave me an idea as to population. In any ecosystem the population of a given species is controlled (in most cases). If too many live then they eat up all the food and die out so in general there is a balance.

In the case of humans we have very few natural predators...mostly germs. The longer the lifespan of an animal the fewer there tend to be because they naturally breed less often. With humans we have no "breeding season" and the longer we live coupled with that the more there will be of us.

While it's a good thing to have better health unless we curb our growth (like I said primarily in specific regions, Europe for example doesn't need to lessen their birth rates) we will end up in a situation with little food and water no matter the technology. Although that wont be for some time it's still a good idea to a) increase food/water efficiency and b) find ways of lowering the overall birth rate in those problem areas.

We have many people and too few resources now. We need to stop having children, and replenish our resources immediately wean ourselves off oil and petroleum products and start major recycling programmes. Otherwise we are finished.

Well most people will die, we won,t because we are Omnivores. Develpoing a taste for mushrooms is a dead good way to survive, all major exstinctions are followed by a plethera a bloom of fungi on dieing wood, evidence for which is found in rock strata.... honestly, I love them.

Bad News....today on Bloomberg a money manager went on Live TV and said Germany had conquered Southern Europe in 24 months by introducing the Euro.
OMG, the implications for such talk are unbelievable.
Southern Europe has 50 % unemployment under 25yrs old.
An army waiting to march?
Historically everytime mass unemployment and stress has hit Europe? Equals WAR!
They probably have 3 months to get their Act together ...Or else the right wing will march again.
The Good News is the USA is the safe haven and all the Rich will come here, house prices and stocks will rise...mmm

Actually, F-it, let them fight it out.LOL.

the callous response is cover your own leave the rest to fend for themselves...

i have a question how many people do you know that are capable of and actually grow their own food?
do they retain seed stock?
what are the long term effect of genetically modified plant and animal life on the ecosystem?
what are the long term effects of ingesting modified material?
(we are what we eat after all)

an interseting idea is to calculate the waste produced by any given town, city,state, nation, country and this i think will give us a reasonable idea of whether or not we are pissing away resources or not.

is it not reasonable to ask for the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat not to be contaminated by industry and technology in the name of progress while they make billions of dollars selling us things that contain acual poisons?

why ae we not reforesting the parts of the world that given the opportunity would become a benefit as opposed to a burden...answer is i before we...i think.

I don't have a lot of faith in these predictions. Not that I believe it's not possible, because it is common sense that if resources become limited it can cause chaos. However, people are still going to die. And just because the birth rate is high now, doesn't necessarily mean it will stay steady or continue to increase over the next 40 years.