Child Mortality is down - this is not good news Watch

amiparanoid
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#81
Report 7 years ago
#81
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.
0
reply
EssexDan86
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#82
Report 7 years ago
#82
(Original post by K the Failure)
1995: Beginning of Tiberium
It's the future.
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#83
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#83
(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
So we run out of gold before 2050..........because an extra 25 years makes all the difference :rolleyes:
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.
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....
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.
0
reply
T.Reid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#84
Report 7 years ago
#84
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
So we run out of gold before 2050..........because an extra 25 years makes all the difference :rolleyes:
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
1
reply
Aeschylus
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#85
Report 7 years ago
#85
http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-news/2...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.
0
reply
EssexDan86
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#86
Report 7 years ago
#86
(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.
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.
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#87
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#87
(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
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/m...eft-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.
0
reply
canimakeit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#88
Report 7 years ago
#88
(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.
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?
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#89
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#89
(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?
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.
0
reply
PendulumBoB
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#90
Report 7 years ago
#90
(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.
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.
1
reply
nexttime
  • Volunteer Team
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#91
Report 7 years ago
#91
Regardless of whether we can or can't support 10+ billion people, population caps are definitely a good idea.

EDIT: ignoring the practicalities, of course.
0
reply
dunnicare
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#92
Report 7 years ago
#92
Why don't we just nuke lots of countries. :rolleyes:
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#93
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#93
(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.
1
reply
whyumadtho
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#94
Report 7 years ago
#94
(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.
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"?
0
reply
canimakeit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#95
Report 7 years ago
#95
(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....
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.
0
reply
User570431
Badges: 15
#96
Report 7 years ago
#96
(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
Yeah we can invest in renewable's then
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#97
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#97
(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"?
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 ?
0
reply
speedbird
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#98
Report 7 years ago
#98
(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
2050 End of divination
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#99
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#99
(Original post by speedbird)
2050 End of divination
Lat time I checked, remote sensing and other modern prospecting techniques are not exactly guess work :rolleyes:.

(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.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#100
Report 7 years ago
#100
(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.
What scientific method would they use for that? I have never heard of a method to create materials that uses Energy only.
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! (553)
37.82%
No - but I will (115)
7.87%
No - I don't want to (103)
7.05%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (691)
47.26%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed