Watched a fascinating documentary last night on BBC2 by Sir David Attenborough on the subject of how many people can the Earth sustain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pdjmk/Horizon_20092010_How_Many_People_C...

Roughly the basic facts are that according to UN figures we are at 6.8 billion today, and in about 4 months time it will hit 7 billion. By 2050 this will reach probably 9 billion.

Working on the basis of a calculation that each person ideally requires 2 hecters of land production to sustain them, the World can cope with about 11 billion.  But based on what the average American uses, 9 hecters, and Britain, 5 hecters, the Earth will only sustain between1.5 to 2.5 billion long term.  Using the hecters that Indians use the limit is around 15 billion.

Thomas Malthus in 1798, amid a growing population boom, expressed the opinion that this would lead eventually to the outstripping of food production and future famines.  Fortunately agricultural practices have kept advancing to produce enough food for the world's expanding population - until apparently now.  With water and oil supplies deminishing to such an extent that creating food in the quantities required, let alone producing the surpluses witnessed to recently, it is now becoming doubtful the Earth can provide long term for the human race, and come 2050 things will be decidely desperate!

An added fact was that India will have a population of 1.5 billion,  outstripping China's then 1.4 billion.


With our climate under going some form of change, these facts make for some further serious thought.  Maybe the only thing to say, and hope for, is GOD HELP US!!  Especially our children, grand children, and great grand children

Lizzie Zoom wrote on 10. Dec 2009 at 17:48:


So, if I was a 'one in a million kind of guy' and I lived in China they'd be 1400 more just like me?

pembroke wrote on 10. Dec 2009 at 17:54:


ermm.. must be 1400..

Lizzie Zoom wrote on 10. Dec 2009 at 17:54:


agreed Lizzie.. With todays economic conditions its  not easy to grow even 1 children..at least here..

and I'm afraid in the future we will be exposed to very strict limitations 

You can't limit children

I like children---but I couldn't eat a whole one

and another subject also comes to mind ..

And in my opinion couples must proove their proficiency to be a parent economically, physically and psychologically (which was necessary for a long time for a healthy society but who cares )

'Twas indeed a potent reminder of the fragile state of the earth : people v resources. As usual it was a little thin on actual info, made instead to hold the average attention span of Joe Public.

For me the other salient facts were:

- In 3rd world countries, where education was compulsory for both boys and girls, the birth rate has dropped.

- Issues with the amount of water actually available. 1 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water. Living in a hot dry country I for one can appreciate that problem.

- The inescapable fact that population is going to continue to rise due to longer life expectancy due to medical science even if the rest of the world follows Chinas quite draconian limits on family size. Too many people see it as their "God given right" to have a family of whatever size they choose".

The most sinister revelation to me was that the more advanced countries (China included) are wholesale buying up large chunks of poor countries, like those in Africa, and setting up to produce food (using irrigation - local water) to feed people back home. Meanwhile the locals continue to starve and have less land each for their subsistence farming.

Oh dear.

Varche

threppence wrote on 10. Dec 2009 at 18:35:


yep.. a bit eugenic..   but I dont see any reason to pass a deadly cancer or other sickness to your children and suffers same like you..