Child Mortality is down - this is not good news Watch

Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#61
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#61
(Original post by whyumadtho)
I've made some new points in my previous post.

There is too much interdependency in global trade for any major world war to occur in the near future. One major country going to war with one of their largest trading partners would devastate both parties. Perhaps the global interdependency is what is driving the diffusion of the unsustainable Western lifestyle and the precipitous increase in resource usage. :holmes:
Global trade is something that has kept many counties at peace with each other for some time. The fact that the global trade that holds them together would be falling apart could encourage countries to use military force as they would have nothing to lose. What would happen when something like uranium starts to run out. What would happen it China wants to buy the last uranium off Australia, but America uses force to get it as it could not afford to buy it?
I do agree with your point on global trade driving us ultimately into the ground. No company would reduce its production due to a lack of minerals - instead it would simply charge more for its product. Also the consumer would never stop buying the product because the average person does not stop to think about where the item came from etc.

(Original post by F1Addict)
Ok, reduce population by 90%. You do realise that at least 6billion people would need to die right? Thats a lot easier said that done.

Stupid idea.
Yes, I know 6 billion people would have to die.

Why is it stupid?

What is stupid is thinking materials simply appear from thin air and we can carry on as we are for the next 2 billion years. You just sound like you are in denial over the problem.
0
reply
truthandtragedy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#62
Report 7 years ago
#62
I'll be dead before 2100. I really don't care.

Edit;
Before this sounds insensitive.. I know I'll have children, grandchildren etc.. But I won't be there to see them regardless, I will be dead by 2100 as will many people that I know. It's how life works. I believe in the whole 'live life as it comes' sort of ethos, and I really do believe that. I could be hit by a bus tomorrow, so could anyone. I just want to have fun and live whilst I can. I don't see the point in wasting some of that time debating whether or not we'll still be here in 30 years.
0
reply
F1Addict
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report 7 years ago
#63
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
Yes, I know 6 billion people would have to die.

Why is it stupid?

What is stupid is thinking materials simply appear from thin air and we can carry on as we are for the next 2 billion years. You just sound like you are in denial over the problem.
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.
0
reply
username196545
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#64
Report 7 years ago
#64
Hey! Malthus, is that you?

Anyway, I like to subscribe to the Cornucopianist branch of thought.
reply
Ewan
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#65
Report 7 years ago
#65
I guess you're a glass half empty kind of guy?
0
reply
username196545
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#66
Report 7 years ago
#66
(Original post by zjs)
Oh, Holly. Oh dear. :no:
What was cringey, the Malthus comment?

Get outtt.
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 7 years ago
#67
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
But look at the time when that bet was made and the materials it was made on. The real issue lies with the massive boom of China and India along with rare earth minerals- something no one had really heard of up to 10 years ago. Combine this with modern prospecting (remote sensing etc), and our estimates of materials is far better the it has ever been.
And again, even if the estimates are out by 200 years, that is 200 years, not the hopeful life span of humanity.

NB. Also power generation. This is becoming a problem as no method of generating electricity does not harm the environment and it is on the increase.
We'll think of something

See if you can get hold of a book called 'all the trouble in the world' by P.J O'Rourke over the summer. Enjoy the sunshine, and try cheer up a bit
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#68
Report 7 years ago
#68
(Original post by Jimbo1234)

But he forgets about materials. We have the science, but not the materials to supply it to so many people. Unless we master fusion, we are screwed.
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.
0
reply
whyumadtho
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#69
Report 7 years ago
#69
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
Global trade is something that has kept many counties at peace with each other for some time. The fact that the global trade that holds them together would be falling apart could encourage countries to use military force as they would have nothing to lose. What would happen when something like uranium starts to run out. What would happen it China wants to buy the last uranium off Australia, but America uses force to get it as it could not afford to buy it?
I do agree with your point on global trade driving us ultimately into the ground. No company would reduce its production due to a lack of minerals - instead it would simply charge more for its product. Also the consumer would never stop buying the product because the average person does not stop to think about where the item came from etc.
Any warfare would only serve to shift the balance of consumption, as opposed to reducing it permanently. Countries have developed on the back of international trade, so they are specialised in a specific industry and import where they have production disadvantages. A war between two major countries would trigger WW3, and the financial and resource costs of reconstruction would be astronomical.

However, I think anarchy will occur before international warfare can break out. Unemployment, disenchantment with personal/national debt, falling tolerance from society towards the elite and wealthy, and the increasing disparity between the rich and poor are all likely to cause societal revolution against the political-economic system under which the world operates. Fuel prices for the consumer is what I think will be the trigger in developed countries and water scarcity in undeveloped countries.

The question is: what socioeconomic-political system will replace the system that doesn't end up repeating the same mistakes?
0
reply
Nick Longjohnson
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#70
Report 7 years ago
#70
Theres too many people on this planet.

We should mass sterilize the dumb ones. That would clear out 90%+ of people.
0
reply
magnum.opus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#71
Report 7 years ago
#71
(Original post by Made in the USA)
Your warning about the risks of population growth was first voiced by Thomas Robert Malthus at the turn of the 19th century. For the most part all of his concerns were discredited. Last time I flew to Nevada I could see hundreds and hundreds of miles of nothing from the airplane window. There is plenty of room for the human race to grow.
If you think there's room in Nevada, you should take a look at Wyoming :lol:

But seriously, does anyone else find it unnatural for people to have to live on top of one another via skyscrapers and such? Isn't that a sign that there are too many people?
0
reply
Tobedotty
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#72
Report 7 years ago
#72
I love the guy who wrote that naturalnews.com article, he's clearly economically ignorant. If Rare-earths are running out then its not a bubble that will pop in 2012, the price of rare-earths will stay high and increase provided they are still industrially in high demand. Also where are you getting the numbers about when resources are running out? Last time I checked it was extremely difficult to predict when a resource would run out and that lots of different sources had diffetrent dates for the end of resources.
0
reply
Fynch101
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#73
Report 7 years ago
#73
(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_ra...ts_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
lol 2021 end of silver bahahahahahaha I don't think so

Do some proper, individual research you fool
0
reply
Tobedotty
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#74
Report 7 years ago
#74
(Original post by magnum.opus)
If you think there's room in Nevada, you should take a look at Wyoming :lol:

But seriously, does anyone else find it unnatural for people to have to live on top of one another via skyscrapers and such? Isn't that a sign that there are too many people?
they choose to live in sky scrapers so that they can live in the city, lets face it, they could live in the country where theres nobody around, they don't have to live above other people.
0
reply
K the Failure
Badges: 2
#75
Report 7 years ago
#75
1995: Beginning of Tiberium
reply
magnum.opus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#76
Report 7 years ago
#76
(Original post by Tobedotty)
they choose to live in sky scrapers so that they can live in the city, lets face it, they could live in the country where theres nobody around, they don't have to live above other people.
Valid point. And I'd much rather the city folk stay in their towers: it allows me to breathe in clean air and live in a crime-free neighborhood
1
reply
canimakeit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#77
Report 7 years ago
#77
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
Yes, I know 6 billion people would have to die.

Why is it stupid?

What is stupid is thinking materials simply appear from thin air and we can carry on as we are for the next 2 billion years. You just sound like you are in denial over the problem.
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.
0
reply
visa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#78
Report 7 years ago
#78
Oh well won't be in my lifetime
0
reply
T.Reid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#79
Report 7 years ago
#79
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
EDIT:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_ra...ts_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
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
1
reply
EssexDan86
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#80
Report 7 years ago
#80
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....
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (264)
38.94%
No - but I will (46)
6.78%
No - I don't want to (51)
7.52%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (317)
46.76%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise