Overpopulation and the Exponential Function

[walter0bz]

There's only so much we can dig up.

Why is it so many people resist understanding this simple fact.

[controlpopulation]

@walter0bz , because people are stuck in their religious delusion and have been brainwashed to be fruitful and multiply so the child molesters in rome can profit. Religion is slavery.

[phillips78]

All see "One Planet, One Child"

[chemerich]

Religious people want war, famine and diseases, otherwise the prophecies cannot be fulfilled !.

[centurion180ad]

You need to know that HUMAN population also behaves under the influence of exponential decay. Malthus is ALL lies. There lots of examples in all times, that human population is able to voluntarily plane off.

[leduck1000]

Yikes.....,

I think nature is going to solve this problem....,

We're to stupid and or greedy.......

[ShillBasher]

Germanium?, I think I need to look that one up.

Great vid, thanks.

[Battery9876]

It's not just that population grows exponentially, it's also that they CONSUME EXPONENTIALLY.

Unless we find a completely different way of doing business very rapidly it's game over.

[ManicEightBall]

Good point.

[Perrine234]

Great video. Every conservative in the world should watch this.

[HyperIndividualist]

Education hasn't sufficiently worked. If you believe 7,000,000,000 is too much and a TFR of 1.7 is still too large considering the exponential function, then obviously global scientific dictatorship is necessary. Mass culling is what is called for. I never called you evil, and I gave you the DICTIONARY definition of eugenics.  What about the dictionary definition of eugenics do you disagree with? If earth is overpopulated, then a hierarchically directed depopulation agenda is the solution.

[ManicEightBall]

Eugenics has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Only education is going to help. If people know what's at stake and can make that choice for themselves, then we can have a long-term solution. If you force people for a few years, you will only make it worse. You won't be able to keep it up.

Remember, disease, famine, and natural disasters only have a linear or one-time reduction. The exponential growth will overwhelm those numbers in no time.

[ManicEightBall]

Selective breeding means having a relitively larger number of one group than another group. What we need is to have everyone slow down the growth.

Selective breeding is for those who think one group of people is better than another. Whatever groups we have, we are all responsible for overpopulating the planet.

[HyperIndividualist]

I mean that literally since every other "solution" to overpopulation has failed utterly to prevent earth from reaching some 7 billion spores of humanpox. War hasn't worked, nor has famine, plague, natural disaster, etc. Thus, totalitarianism is the only option.

[ManicEightBall]

Here's an idea. Why not try education?! But you don't think it's a problem, so you won't like any suggestion I have anyway. It's easier for you to claim I'm evil rather than explain how I'm wrong. But you know I'm right. You just don't want to face what you have to do to be responsible.

[HyperIndividualist]

Eugenics: selective breeding as proposed human improvement: the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those people with genetic characteristics judged desirable. It has been regarded with disfavor since the Nazi period. (takes a singular verb.

So you see, the term eugenics has absolutely nothing to do with race or ethnicity. If you believe there is overpopulation, the only solution is totalitarianism.

[ManicEightBall]

I get tired of all the hyperbole you people spout. You call it Eugenics because you don't want me talking about it. I could say you want overpopulation so you can have more children to molest, but that would be a scare tactic and wouldn't address the real problems we have.

[ManicEightBall]

Eugenics is completely irrelevant to overpopulation. It isn't a solution, and no one is saying it is. You don't want to talk about overpopulation because you don't want to face reality. You don't want to face your own responsibilities to yourself and your family. You children's children will have to live in the world you make. Leave them something that will make them proud of you.

[mphello]

@ManicEightBall GREAT COMMENT!

Libertarian conservative extremists simply refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.

They are super-hypocrites: demanding big government protect THEM and THEIR property, but opposing and routinely breaking laws which prevent THEM from murdering animals (meat SHOULD be outlawed) and destroying other people's clean water supplies and arable land via climate change.

[Perrine234]

Get an education. Then get some compassion.

[5ag5]

Well how many people do you consider each family should have? One, two or three?

[ManicEightBall]

That's not easy to answer, but I think on average people should have about 1-2 children. Of course some will not want any and some will want 3 kids, but the average should be 2 or less to stop the population from exploding.

Remember, the fewer children you have, the more you can leave to them.

[5ag5]

Do you think that reduces the population? Or just mantains the growth flat.

[5ag5]

I ment do you think that number reduces the population or maintains the growth flat

[ManicEightBall]

Again, it's difficult to say. How many die of disease? How many go on to ave 5 children? There are a lot of factors. I think if the average were around 2.1 the population would pretty much stay flat, but a slight exponential function is still a huge increase/decrease over time. So flat is more theoretical than practical.

[5ag5]

that makes sense, i always though that people shouldn't be allow to have more than 2 kids, big families are not a good thing either, because we forget about the rest of the comunity and only think for thr welfare of our family forgetting about the rest of the world. Maybe i am being too idealistic, but i think society looses too much social capital when they form big families. I think men should have the vasectomy after two kids. But anyways thank you.

[DonQuixotedeKaw]

Well soapboxearth can slander away at me, because the high probability of eugenics can be rationally viewed in two metaphorical ways; as a ticking time bomb that is inevitable under the circumstances, or as a land mine that we currently have very poor methods of detecting, and almost no means of dealing with it, once it happens, again.

GetMeThere1 is also correct. There are too many irreversable effects of human overpopulation already in play. Momentum takes the lemmings off of the cliff.

[soapboxearth]

do your own math . 6.5 billion pop/ world acreage . this is eugenics crap.

[StuckInPhilly36]

You think all of the acreage in the world can be cultivated? Given any thought to where the fertilizer would come from? How about the water?

Anyone who thinks humans can keep breeding is guilty of the worse kind of mindless cruelty towards the earth, animals and other humans.

[ManicEightBall]

eugenics? Wow, you're confused. Eugenics is the selective breeding of people to prefer one group over another. I think everyone is having too many babies. I don't care what color people are when they're starving to death.

You just figure slandering me is a substitute for a logical argument. You don't have anything intelligent to add, that's obvious.

BTW, you can have your 6 acres at the top of Mt Everest. I'll take mine in the Bahamas.

[GetMeThere1]

Listening to this makes me laugh. It's SO far behind the curve. Given the SOCIAL realities of people, we are ALREADY past the time that anything can be done about this--i.e., NOTHING can stop it (well, except the most draconian police state tactics--BEYOND what China is now doing).

China's example is SMALL and TEMPORARY (it's only been what, 20-30 years?). ONLY chaos and destruction can really cut populations--that's not math, it's sociology.

[SoftWarewolf]

finally someone who recognize this problem.. i wish you would reveal some more numbers and hypothesis's.

such as, what is the doubling time for the human population? and what could be done to stop it?

[ManicEightBall]

Thanks.

The doubling time is 70/p where p is the percent growth. So if you assume 1.6%, then it's 70/1.6=43 or so. I figured out the rate from taking 1965 as the year with half the population of today. So if this keeps up, we'll see 6.7*2 (about 13.2 billion) by the year 2050 (2008+42).

I don't think this will happen. I think we will have huge shortages before that. We may have something like 2-3 billion. I don't know. But you can imagine what it would take to do that.

[ManicEightBall]

BTW, you can figure the percent growth by the formula 70/n, where n is the number of years, so

70/42 = 1.67 (more or less). If you want to be more accurate, it's ln(2)*100, which is around 69.3 actually.

[SoftWarewolf]

why would the population growth stop? people would'nt allow humans starving to death.. and humans won't stop increasing the population.. i suspect we will be over 20billion people within 2050.. i am mostly concerned about the loss of species, nature and wildlife.

you think its a good idea advocating birth control laws in africa and india or do you have any other ideas?

[ManicEightBall]

The population must stop growing at some point. This is the way of all living things.

We cannot grow indefinitely. Eventually, we will run out of resources. We have a choice, wait until mother nature kills most people off, or practice family planning now.

People wouldn't let others starve? Are you serious? People DO let others starve. It's happening now. Search for starvation on Google and see what you find.

[SoftWarewolf]

the problem is that what you defined as "resources" should never be allowed to run empty.. EVER

are there any organizations that actively go out and sterilize women, lobby for birth control laws and the like?

[ManicEightBall]

"...should never be allowed to run empty.. EVER"

Interesting choice of words. How do you plan on making sure we don't run out of oil, metals, and fresh water?

Maybe I'm not being clear. My point is, the amount of resources goes down at an exponential rate because population goes up at an exponential rate. There's no way we can keep making more people and NOT run out of resources.

[stopchemtrails]

Google :

> Air Force 2025

> vol3ch15.pdf

> HR 2977

Also if u just google '2025' you'll see a range of plans for the world. Seems we are gearing up for some monumental change ie; Global economy, one single currency, a single world government etc .. all organisations are a part of it, like porns carrying out 'the great work' unknowingly enabling NWO heads to

sit back and watch it all come together.

[AntandAm]

Nice video>>I watched Bartlett>>People just do not understand what is going on>>Natural resources are FINITE like oil>>>I am a firm believer Peak Oil is already upon us>>Your thoughts?

[ManicEightBall]

Thanks.

I've heard the peak started around 2004 or 2005. It looks like we're going to plateau for a while because when the price goes up, people start conserving. But the easiest conservation is the first. People are going to find it more and more difficult to keep saving more, and then the hurt will be on.

I give it another 2 years before people stop denying the peak. Until then, they're going to call us crazy.

[Carlstens]

Video response is a simplistic example... but thought You would enjoy it

[ManicEightBall]

No, I thought it was great. You got more into the whole oil thing which I didn't do. I didn't cover the bell curve shape of oil supply. I'm glad you did.