Child Mortality is down - this is not good news
Scroll to see replies
It's Malthus again. More people means better education and greater technology allowing us to do more with the limited resources we have. Who knows what resources may have been available thousands of years ago, and what we could have done with them. Far as i'm concerned science is about doing more with our limited present resources.
Original post by K the Failure
1995: Beginning of Tiberium
It's the future.
Original post by T.Reid
WRONG!
My step-father works on a gold mine in East Asia, on his mine alone they have gold reserves guaranteed until 2034, and enough stockpile to process for a further 8 years after that.
I don't believe any of your figures anymore as they are simply not fact
My step-father works on a gold mine in East Asia, on his mine alone they have gold reserves guaranteed until 2034, and enough stockpile to process for a further 8 years after that.
I don't believe any of your figures anymore as they are simply not fact
So we run out of gold before 2050..........because an extra 25 years makes all the difference
What is wrong with you people and thinking about the long term? You know, the next couple of hundred years?
Original post by canimakeit
Which 6 billion to die? the only reason western civilisations are so well off compared to others is because they are propped up on the backs of poorer countries. We couldn't survive to the same standard at all without them.
6 billion who are not the smartest or gifted etc - just your average Joe because we do not need them sadly/we could keep the smartest and still have room for enough normal people to keep society going.
Original post by DorianGrayism
I am not sure why you consider fusion to be the solution to running out of materials.
Anyway, people will find a solution that is more practical than mass murder. Your apocalyptic predictions are not new.
Anyway, people will find a solution that is more practical than mass murder. Your apocalyptic predictions are not new.
Fusion is pretty much free energy. With that we could do as much 'alchemy' as we wanted and simple make the materials require.
Original post by F1Addict
I'm not in denial. I do know that the planets resources are finite and will run out very soon, but killing 6 billion people is stupid and barbaric. There is probably a more humane way of solving the problem, which technology will probably solve. Like 'ultimate' recycling, where anything can be recycled into anything, by changing the molecular structure and stuff.
Well unless we have some stupendousness break throughs in science over the next few decades, and I seriously mean unbelievable breakthroughs, then we are going to have a bit of an issue.
Original post by EssexDan86
There needs to be a global rule to not have more than 2 children - if every couple had 2 children they would only be replacing themselves.
Unfortunately, if you go to most developing countries you'll see that people have absolutely masses of kids, and that is going to be a very difficult process to reverse.
Overall, however, the OP is being a massive scaremonger and has presumably stumbled across a set of pseudo-facts. Untapped minerals and fossil fuels exist in vast quantities in the earth - we are just going to have to be more innovative in extracting them, otherwise mining will ruin the natural environment. In the long run we'll be mining the Moon and asteroids. Nuclear fusion will definitely be cracked within 100 years.
And building massive wind farms will 'stop wind'? PLEASE....
Unfortunately, if you go to most developing countries you'll see that people have absolutely masses of kids, and that is going to be a very difficult process to reverse.
Overall, however, the OP is being a massive scaremonger and has presumably stumbled across a set of pseudo-facts. Untapped minerals and fossil fuels exist in vast quantities in the earth - we are just going to have to be more innovative in extracting them, otherwise mining will ruin the natural environment. In the long run we'll be mining the Moon and asteroids. Nuclear fusion will definitely be cracked within 100 years.
And building massive wind farms will 'stop wind'? PLEASE....
And you just demonstrated how little you know.
As I said, 2 people will be too much as that keeps the population at 6.7 billion.
And even if the list is out by 200 years...that is only 200 years. Then what? Either we have started mining on Mars (last time I checked we are still some way from even traveling there) and Mercury or we are screwed.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Jimbo1234
So we run out of gold before 2050..........because an extra 25 years makes all the difference
What is wrong with you people and thinking about the long term? You know, the next couple of hundred years?
What is wrong with you people and thinking about the long term? You know, the next couple of hundred years?
No you prat, your figures are totally disproved, until you find a more reliable source you can't assume Gold will run out before 2050 at all.
You can't stand by your original statement as it has shown to be untrue
http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-news/2263-iea-natural-gas-can-supply-world-for-250-years.html
Natural gas for another 250 years
What was it Samuel Johnson said? Nothign concentrates a man's mind like being hanged in the morning. As soon as natural resources (oil gas etc) rise to a point where it is prohibitively expensive to use them, alternatives such as synthetic oil derived from algae will become commercially viable. The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stone.
Natural gas for another 250 years
What was it Samuel Johnson said? Nothign concentrates a man's mind like being hanged in the morning. As soon as natural resources (oil gas etc) rise to a point where it is prohibitively expensive to use them, alternatives such as synthetic oil derived from algae will become commercially viable. The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stone.
Original post by Jimbo1234
And you just demonstrated how little you know.
As I said, 2 people will be too much as that keeps the population at 6.7 billion.
And even if the list is out by 200 years...that is only 200 years. Then what? Either we have started mining on Mars (last time I checked we are still some way from even traveling there) and Mercury or we are screwed.
And you just demonstrated how little you know.
As I said, 2 people will be too much as that keeps the population at 6.7 billion.
And even if the list is out by 200 years...that is only 200 years. Then what? Either we have started mining on Mars (last time I checked we are still some way from even traveling there) and Mercury or we are screwed.
The Moon is very high in iron and titanium, amongst other minerals, and the asteroids even higher. Never doubt the ability of man to advance technologically - you cannot fathom where we'll be in 200 years time.
As for food, hydroponics are the future.
Original post by T.Reid
No you prat, your figures are totally disproved, until you find a more reliable source you can't assume Gold will run out before 2050 at all.
You can't stand by your original statement as it has shown to be untrue
You can't stand by your original statement as it has shown to be untrue
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2819512/A-perfect-storm-for-gold-as-mines-left-empty.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photogold.html
"It is estimated that the total amount of gold yet to be retrieved from the Earth is 100,000 tons. South Africa is the world’s largest producer of gold and is estimated to have half of these gold resources. The United States and Brazil each have significant amounts of the world’s gold resources. Approximately one-fifth of the total resources of gold in the world is by-product from copper and silver ores"
NB. We have mined 160million tonnes so we are past the half way mark on gold. Add to this increased consumption as well as the majority only being mined in the last 100 years and 2050 is a pretty good guess.
Now I cba doing that will everything I listed, but I think this shows my point still stands.
Original post by Jimbo1234
6 billion who are not the smartest or gifted etc - just your average Joe because we do not need them sadly/we could keep the smartest and still have room for enough normal people to keep society going.
6 billion who are not the smartest or gifted etc - just your average Joe because we do not need them sadly/we could keep the smartest and still have room for enough normal people to keep society going.
See this is a problem your killing the vast majority of the worlds population 85% of the world are not stupid you will have to kill normal/smart people as well. And even if they are not the brightest people like I said it is people who work in manual labour that props up those that do not.
You think you can kill most of the humans on this planet and expect societies to be able to function?
Who is going to do manual labour then if only the smartest people are around, who is going to provide them with resources?
Original post by canimakeit
See this is a problem your killing the vast majority of the worlds population 85% of the world are not stupid you will have to kill normal/smart people as well. And even if they are not the brightest people like I said it is people who work in manual labour that props up those that do not.
You think you can kill most of the humans on this planet and expect societies to be able to function?
Who is going to do manual labour then if only the smartest people are around, who is going to provide them with resources?
You think you can kill most of the humans on this planet and expect societies to be able to function?
Who is going to do manual labour then if only the smartest people are around, who is going to provide them with resources?
Well seeing that there are not 700 million graduates/artists etc, you would easily have enough room for normal people to do the more simple, but necessary tasks.
If not, only leave those who could run a small civilization well, because when you look at it, most people only exist to keep the huge number of people alive.
Original post by Jimbo1234
Well seeing that there are not 700 million graduates/artists etc, you would easily have enough room for normal people to do the more simple, but necessary tasks.
If not, only leave those who could run a small civilization well, because when you look at it, most people only exist to keep the huge number of people alive.
If not, only leave those who could run a small civilization well, because when you look at it, most people only exist to keep the huge number of people alive.
I like you; you have the *******s to admit that most people are just pointless (if somewhat meaty) machines using up fuel and contributing f*** all to the human race.
Original post by PendulumBoB
I like you; you have the *******s to admit that most people are just pointless (if somewhat meaty) machines using up fuel and contributing f*** all to the human race.
...but it is true. Look at the highest employment sectors in the UK for example. They are all to do with maintaining societies numbers rather then actually contributing towards development.
Original post by Jimbo1234
...but it is true. Look at the highest employment sectors in the UK for example. They are all to do with maintaining societies numbers rather then actually contributing towards development.
In your opinion, what is "development"?
Original post by EssexDan86
There needs to be a global rule to not have more than 2 children - if every couple had 2 children they would only be replacing themselves.
Unfortunately, if you go to most developing countries you'll see that people have absolutely masses of kids, and that is going to be a very difficult process to reverse.
Overall, however, the OP is being a massive scaremonger and has presumably stumbled across a set of pseudo-facts. Untapped minerals and fossil fuels exist in vast quantities in the earth - we are just going to have to be more innovative in extracting them, otherwise mining will ruin the natural environment. In the long run we'll be mining the Moon and asteroids. Nuclear fusion will definitely be cracked within 100 years.
And building massive wind farms will 'stop wind'? PLEASE....
Unfortunately, if you go to most developing countries you'll see that people have absolutely masses of kids, and that is going to be a very difficult process to reverse.
Overall, however, the OP is being a massive scaremonger and has presumably stumbled across a set of pseudo-facts. Untapped minerals and fossil fuels exist in vast quantities in the earth - we are just going to have to be more innovative in extracting them, otherwise mining will ruin the natural environment. In the long run we'll be mining the Moon and asteroids. Nuclear fusion will definitely be cracked within 100 years.
And building massive wind farms will 'stop wind'? PLEASE....
I would agree with the only 2 children many of which will die before having their own due to illness, accidents, crime etc meaning the population will slowly decrease over time.
Of course people will start crying about Human rights.
I'm just hoping some person will develop some wondrous renewable energy source it's doable think what we were 200 years ago.
Original post by Jimbo1234
Original post by Jimbo1234
http://www.childmortality.org/cmeMain.html
So, child mortality is coming down, more countries are becoming developed, this should be good news right?
Wrong.
We barely have enough resources to support less then a billion people in a 'developed' lifestyle, how can we possibly support more?
I am not talking just about oil, but other materials such as lithium (20 years supply left so you better start enjoying nuclear batteries), rare earth minerals which are key to electronic goods, and general power consumption. Unless we crack fusion there is no possibly way we can generate enough energy. Wind farms? The amount needed would screw up the wind patterns or completely stop wind in areas. Solar panels? They would take up such a large surface area that it would heat up the atmosphere and destroy the eco system.
The only solution I can see is that every country needs to put a population cap and reduce the worlds population by at least 90% otherwise humanity will be permanently stuck in the middle ages within 100 years.
EDIT:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_rare_earth_elements_mining.html
2012 : end of terbium
2018 : end of hafnium
2021 : end of silver
2022 : end of antimony
2023 : end of palladium
2025 : end of indium
end of gold
end of zinc
2028 : end of tin
2030 : end of lead
2038 : end of tantalum
2039 : end of copper
2040 : end of uranium
2048 : end of nickel
2050 : end of oil
2064 : end of platinum
2072 : end of natural gas
2087 : end of iron
2120 :end of cobalt
2139 : end of aluminium
2158 : end of coal
http://www.childmortality.org/cmeMain.html
So, child mortality is coming down, more countries are becoming developed, this should be good news right?
Wrong.
We barely have enough resources to support less then a billion people in a 'developed' lifestyle, how can we possibly support more?
I am not talking just about oil, but other materials such as lithium (20 years supply left so you better start enjoying nuclear batteries), rare earth minerals which are key to electronic goods, and general power consumption. Unless we crack fusion there is no possibly way we can generate enough energy. Wind farms? The amount needed would screw up the wind patterns or completely stop wind in areas. Solar panels? They would take up such a large surface area that it would heat up the atmosphere and destroy the eco system.
The only solution I can see is that every country needs to put a population cap and reduce the worlds population by at least 90% otherwise humanity will be permanently stuck in the middle ages within 100 years.
EDIT:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_rare_earth_elements_mining.html
2012 : end of terbium
2018 : end of hafnium
2021 : end of silver
2022 : end of antimony
2023 : end of palladium
2025 : end of indium
end of gold
end of zinc
2028 : end of tin
2030 : end of lead
2038 : end of tantalum
2039 : end of copper
2040 : end of uranium
2048 : end of nickel
2050 : end of oil
2064 : end of platinum
2072 : end of natural gas
2087 : end of iron
2120 :end of cobalt
2139 : end of aluminium
2158 : end of coal
Yeah we can invest in renewable's then
Original post by whyumadtho
But isn't the constant, unending drive towards "development" the problem? More and more resources are being consumed to produce ever faster computers, faster cars, better military equipment, etc. Why is this "development" necessary? If, in your opinion, society should only be producing what is absolutely necessary, doesn't this contadict your assertion that we should preserve those who contribute to development? The things society is developing are currently made to preserve health and create a more sedentary lifestyle. According to you, this is a bad thing. Which point is right?
In your opinion, what is "development"?
In your opinion, what is "development"?
Ah, but what is the key to everything being made?
Make sure it has a short life span so we can sell more.
Development is needed and is good as it makes our lives better, and helps our understanding of the universe. Yes, it is not vital, but ambition is a human trait, and we want to be the best and know as much as we can. It would be a sad thing that this ambition is cut short simply because of over breeding - something that could have been solved so easily.
Society could produce what is only needed, and have enough resources to carry on our research and developments to the point where we would not need to worry about resources ever again. However how would people feel if they went from a very basic home to a workplace which was state-of-the-art ?
Original post by Jimbo1234
http://www.childmortality.org/cmeMain.html
So, child mortality is coming down, more countries are becoming developed, this should be good news right?
Wrong.
We barely have enough resources to support less then a billion people in a 'developed' lifestyle, how can we possibly support more?
I am not talking just about oil, but other materials such as lithium (20 years supply left so you better start enjoying nuclear batteries), rare earth minerals which are key to electronic goods, and general power consumption. Unless we crack fusion there is no possibly way we can generate enough energy. Wind farms? The amount needed would screw up the wind patterns or completely stop wind in areas. Solar panels? They would take up such a large surface area that it would heat up the atmosphere and destroy the eco system.
The only solution I can see is that every country needs to put a population cap and reduce the worlds population by at least 90% otherwise humanity will be permanently stuck in the middle ages within 100 years.
EDIT:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_rare_earth_elements_mining.html
2012 : end of terbium
2018 : end of hafnium
2021 : end of silver
2022 : end of antimony
2023 : end of palladium
2025 : end of indium
end of gold
end of zinc
2028 : end of tin
2030 : end of lead
2038 : end of tantalum
2039 : end of copper
2040 : end of uranium
2048 : end of nickel
2050 : end of oil
2064 : end of platinum
2072 : end of natural gas
2087 : end of iron
2120 :end of cobalt
2139 : end of aluminium
2158 : end of coal
http://www.childmortality.org/cmeMain.html
So, child mortality is coming down, more countries are becoming developed, this should be good news right?
Wrong.
We barely have enough resources to support less then a billion people in a 'developed' lifestyle, how can we possibly support more?
I am not talking just about oil, but other materials such as lithium (20 years supply left so you better start enjoying nuclear batteries), rare earth minerals which are key to electronic goods, and general power consumption. Unless we crack fusion there is no possibly way we can generate enough energy. Wind farms? The amount needed would screw up the wind patterns or completely stop wind in areas. Solar panels? They would take up such a large surface area that it would heat up the atmosphere and destroy the eco system.
The only solution I can see is that every country needs to put a population cap and reduce the worlds population by at least 90% otherwise humanity will be permanently stuck in the middle ages within 100 years.
EDIT:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_rare_earth_elements_mining.html
2012 : end of terbium
2018 : end of hafnium
2021 : end of silver
2022 : end of antimony
2023 : end of palladium
2025 : end of indium
end of gold
end of zinc
2028 : end of tin
2030 : end of lead
2038 : end of tantalum
2039 : end of copper
2040 : end of uranium
2048 : end of nickel
2050 : end of oil
2064 : end of platinum
2072 : end of natural gas
2087 : end of iron
2120 :end of cobalt
2139 : end of aluminium
2158 : end of coal
2050 End of divination
Original post by speedbird
2050 End of divination
Lat time I checked, remote sensing and other modern prospecting techniques are not exactly guess work
.Original post by blueray
Yeah we can invest in renewable's then
Not really when they require rare earths. A great example is the hydrogen car. There is only enough lithium to replace every car once....then it is all gone. Combine this with growing portable electronic devices and the amount of lithium well drop significantly.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Jimbo1234
Fusion is pretty much free energy. With that we could do as much 'alchemy' as we wanted and simple make the materials require.
Fusion is pretty much free energy. With that we could do as much 'alchemy' as we wanted and simple make the materials require.
What scientific method would they use for that? I have never heard of a method to create materials that uses Energy only.
(edited 12 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Vote For February Book of the Month: TSR Book Club
- The Feel Good News Thread!
- Advanced Higher English Dissertation question- never let me go
- Smoke me a Kipper - the blog
- My confidence is crumbling because I look 10 years younger than I am :(
- A level classical civilisation world of hero 2023
- My Secondary School Experience 2019-2024
- Does Sutton Trust actually guarantee an offer? For St andrews
- dissertation topic
- I don't think my mother can handle me going to Uni
- Name a film without the letter 'E' in the title
- Predictions for 2024 World of the Hero Paper
- Child maintenance payments
- BTEC H&S Care Unit 12: Supporting Individuals with Additional Needs Work Explained
- Edexcel EPQ Secondary referencing
- I’m struggling on a topic for my EPQ!
- Poem opinions
- theoretical perspectives on reflection in professional development
- ‘gifted kid’ - does it continue?
- Can someone please mark my 8 mark structure question for English Language, thanks!
Latest
Last reply 5 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 8 minutes ago
Learn Direct - Vet science Unit 9 HELPLast reply 17 minutes ago
LSE undergraduate accommodationLast reply 22 minutes ago
The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2025 Entry ThreadLast reply 22 minutes ago
Airbus degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 24 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 41 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawTrending
Last reply 16 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 16 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?