Quote:
Originally Posted by nekokami
My money is on a plague. As the population density goes higher, it gets easier and easier for disease to spread. Water shortages and quality, along with nutrition problems, will only make this worse.
I'm not saying I think this is a good idea, only that I think it's likely, unless we take voluntary steps to reduce the population.
It is worth noting, in this context, that the "developed" nations have lower population increase rates than the less developed. Correlation does not equal causation, and simply raising the standard of living in poorer communities or countries might not be enough (or even possible), but it seems to me that this possibility ought to be considered.
|
I do believe that overpopulation combined with dwindling resources is a far greater threat than global warming. And, contrary to the doom and gloom people, I don't think that global warming (if it is a long term event and not just part of the earths common cycles - see
The looming threat of Global Cooling) will occur fast enough to be the cause of global catastrophe
in any way.
Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus - Resume
Geologic evidence of the cause of global warming and cooling—are we heading for Global catastrophe?
"My money is on a plague."
A highly contagious fatal diseases does seem likely considering our (the worlds) mobility. It would have to be both long incubating and then quickly fatal. A combination AIDS and Ebola.
My money is on man. A posting on MR caused me to check out the internet for news on prejudice and racial hatred. Surprisingly there is quite a bit of it. More than I had expected. And many places seem to have none at all. At least according to their publications, that is. My guess is that a great deal of it doesn't make the headlines.
"It is worth noting, in this context, that the "developed" nations have lower population increase rates than the less developed. Correlation does not equal causation, and simply raising the standard of living in poorer communities or countries might not be enough (or even possible), but it seems to me that this possibility ought to be considered."
Much of the developing world has its' hope on becoming the next Japan, China, or India. But if there is a severe depression in two or more of the major developed countries you may see massive unemployment in the rest of the world. China can't sell enough in places like Argentina, Belize, or South Africa to keep its' population busy.
I also believe that in developing parts of the world large families are a safety net. To reduce population you must see to it that families have
at most 1 child (if that many). If you may have only one child then you want a boy. Not just to carry on your family line, but to provide for you as you get too old to take care of yourself. And where do things go from there? Down hill.
I would like to think that a girl child would be more valuable and better cared for in that case. But I don't think that's the case in some parts of the developing world, and certainly not in troubled times. And should
only one child be permitted, I don't think that the choice would be for a girl.
In times of major long term crisis, people will take the first leader that promises an appealing solution. Add overpopulation, unemployment, food shortages, and all of the hatreds (ethnic, regional, national, international, and religious) into consideration and you
will have an explosion or two around the world. Some may lead to WWIII.
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - War, Death, Pestilence, and Famine will by far more important, and immediate, than global warming.
TONGUE IN CHEEK
Perhaps what the world needs is a Gay pill or shot. Over a 50 to 100 year period there'll be enough accidents (boy and girl wake up with a massive hangover, look at each other and scream - girl now pregnant) to keep the world going.