Child Mortality is down - this is not good news Watch

Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1


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

(End of know workable deposits)

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

Also: http://www.glgroup.com/News/Only-New...i-M-39632.html
And http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/periodic-chart.htm if you want to look into applications etc.


However, there is one solution that would help but I do not think many people would be happy about it. Rather then harvesting materials etc, you form and grow them using viruses. How comfortable would you be with a car that ran due to chemical reactions made by viruses?
22
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
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.
11
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#3
(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.
You completely missed the point and clearly did not read what I posted.
Room is not the issues, but resources.
We do not have enough resources to sustain the current develop population for more then a few decades, let alone have enough to increase it. So unless we start culling people or master space travel, your children are ****ed.
3
reply
ElfManiac
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
Child mortality is decreasing, but so is birth rate. Hence why everyone is bothered about the pensions crisis - we have pensioners that were born in the 'baby boom' outnumbering the workforce that is paying for the pensions because of the declining birth rate.
1
reply
marcusmerehay
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
Birth rate is decreasing as well, so the net effect is minimal.
2
reply
TheFlyingDutchman
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
Why are you only looking at this one piece of information when you come to this conclusion ?

As many people have said birth rate is decreasing and there are more factors that need to be taken into account before you realise what is going to happen.

For me ? Less children dieing makes me happy.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(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.
Cant remember the name of the model but there is another that answers Malthus that basically states innovation and technology will always rise faster than population numbers as the higher numbers caused technology to be driven even faster,
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by ElfManiac)
Child mortality is decreasing, but so is birth rate. Hence why everyone is bothered about the pensions crisis - we have pensioners that were born in the 'baby boom' outnumbering the workforce that is paying for the pensions because of the declining birth rate.
(Original post by marcusmerehay)
Birth rate is decreasing as well, so the net effect is minimal.
(Original post by TheFlyingDutchman)
Why are you only looking at this one piece of information when you come to this conclusion ?

As many people have said birth rate is decreasing and there are more factors that need to be taken into account before you realise what is going to happen.

For me ? Less children dieing makes me happy.

Did you not read what I said?

WE CAN NOT SUPPORT THE CURRENT POPULATION UNLESS IT IS REDUCED BY AT LEAST 80%.

Birth rates are falling, put population is still increasing, or at least being maintained. We will not be able to produce enough electricity for everyone in the world to live at a developed rate for any sustainable amount of time.
Things like hydrogen cars are crap as we could not make enough to replace every car at the moment, let alone keep people supplied with them.

(Original post by Aj12)
Cant remember the name of the model but there is another that answers Malthus that basically states innovation and technology will always rise faster than population numbers as the higher numbers caused technology to be driven even faster,
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.
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
I have to say, the OP does have a point. We are rapidly running out of many of the resources that allow us to live our current lifestyle.
0
reply
marcusmerehay
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
"WE CAN NOT SUPPORT THE CURRENT POPULATION UNLESS IT IS REDUCED BY AT LEAST 80%."

Right.

Evidence?

And where does this apply, worldwide or in one particular corner of a third-world country?

Generic statements are for trololololols.
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by marcusmerehay)
"WE CAN NOT SUPPORT THE CURRENT POPULATION UNLESS IT IS REDUCED BY AT LEAST 80%."

Right.

Evidence?

And where does this apply, worldwide or in one particular corner of a third-world country?

Generic statements are for trololololols.
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

Go read this: http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_ra...ts_mining.html

Yeah, kiss goodbye all your 'green energy' schemes in the next 50 years.

Even if they did manage to find more, is it going to be 10,000 yrs worth? Or enough to get us through but **** over the rest of humanity?

EDIT: Wouldn't it be ironic that after all this time we are forced back to middle age lifestyle because we could not bring ourselves to control our own population - something nature does perfectly well but we deem it ok to fight against.
2
reply
Mr Disco
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by marcusmerehay)
Birth rate is decreasing as well, so the net effect is minimal.
But why let 'facts' get in the way of some good scaremongering and surly teenage pseudo political right wing thinking?
4
reply
whyumadtho
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
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

Go read this: http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_ra...ts_mining.html

Yeah, kiss goodbye all your 'green energy' schemes in the next 50 years.

Even if they did manage to find more, is it going to be 10,000 yrs worth? Or enough to get us through but **** over the rest of humanity?

EDIT: Wouldn't it be ironic that after all this time we are forced back to middle age lifestyle because we could not bring ourselves to control our own population - something nature does perfectly well but we deem it ok to fight against.
Developed countries' lifestyles rely on other people living in abhorrent conditions to keep the primary/secondary production cheap. Is your problem with overpopulation or the balancing of global lifestyles to a more equal position?
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by Mr Disco)
But why let 'facts' get in the way of some good scaremongering and surly teenage pseudo political right wing thinking?
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, enjoy trolling on your PC now because come 2050 you won't be able to make one.
And again, if I was to extra generous and say we had 200 yrs more of everything, unless we have space flight down to an art, then we are screwed in 200 years.

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Developed countries' lifestyles rely on other people living in abhorrent conditions to keep the primary/secondary production cheap. Is your problem with overpopulation or the balancing of global lifestyles to a more equal position?
Both.
Firstly you would need to get rid of the free market and simply make things that last. Secondly, we could not produce enough energy to support more people living a tolerant lifestyle. We do not have the room nor materials to do it.
0
reply
Sun Ra and his Arkestra
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
This is why it is and always has been criminally stupid to cut funding to the space programme. All the raw materials we could ever possibly need out there...
0
reply
J.tytler
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
The easter island effect... clearly, with everyone in the world aspiring to an MEDC standard of living, the current population is not susainable. Neither are falling birth rates as this creates an aeging population which is an eqally dangerous problem in terms of there not being enough food or resources being produced to sustain those who are dependant on the increasingly dwindling workforce.

History is about to repeat itelf on a massive scale. Lets jsut hope a few survive and learn the lessons.
0
reply
whyumadtho
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
Both.
Firstly you would need to get rid of the free market and simply make things that last. Secondly, we could not produce enough energy to support more people living a tolerant lifestyle. We do not have the room nor materials to do it.
It is the free market mechanism that allows wealthy nations to operate in such extravagant style. How do you think international trade and economies will function without such a system? Is the wealthy, Western lifestyle not inherently unsustainable?

How do you suggest international government go about culling "at least 90%" of the global population? Who deserves to live?
0
reply
J.tytler
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by whyumadtho)
It is the free market mechanism that allows wealthy nations to operate in such extravagant style. How do you think international trade and economies will function without such a system? Is the wealthy, Western lifestyle not inherently unsustainable?

How do you suggest international government go about culling "at least 90%" of the global population? Who deserves to live?
Obviously, they on't be able to. The world population will continue to mushroom... and nature has a way of dealing with species which overconsume to the extent that they ultimately destroy their environment.

Seems pretty inevitable at this point that, well, the future ain't looking to great :/
0
reply
Deebles
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
@OP,

The article you link to doesn't support the dates you quote. Where did they come from?
0
reply
kly45
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by Jimbo1234)


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

Are we all forgetting something?????


2012 is the end of the mayan calender!!!!:lolwut:
6
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! (273)
38.18%
No - but I will (51)
7.13%
No - I don't want to (51)
7.13%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (340)
47.55%

Watched Threads

View All