You are currently browsing the forum as a guest which gives you limited access. To make use of all forum features such as posting to topics, reply to other postings, starting polls and using the Private Messaging System (PM) you are invited to register. Registration is free and simple. All you need is an e-mail address and a password and you are ready to go! Sign up and join the Green Car Network today!
Should you have problems with the registration process, please contact us.
Thoughts about world population
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Written on: 30 August 2008 [12:32]
|
|
|
ecoadmin
Administrator
Topic creator
registered since: 20.07.2007
Posts: 585
|
I am considering the exponentially growing world population as one of the biggest challenges ahead of us. Here is a graphic and a description: The world population increased from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion by 1999, a doubling that occurred over 40 years. The Census Bureau's latest projections imply that population growth will continue into the 21st century, although more slowly. The world population is projected to grow from 6 billion in 1999 to 9 billion by 2040, an increase of 50 percent is expected to require 41 years. Source: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html Rapid population growth will only stop once people can be assured of care, shelter, food and security when getting older. As long as those basic needs are not provided to the majority of the worlds people, population growth will continue. In industrialized countries health services, family planning, social care and security services have reached leves so that the population growth has stopped. I am no expert on these issues and I am just trying to understand the relations and links to todays problems of environmental destruction. A book which helps me to understand thes issues better is 'Limits to Growth', I think I mentioned it once earlier, available at your bookstore. # ISBN-10: 193149858X # ISBN-13: 978-1931498586 This brings me to the conclusion that helping societies in need for those basic needs through education, investments and cooperation are a key for success to many of the environmental problems we face today. As population grows, so does the worlds car fleet. With our lifestyle today we are clearly in overshoot mode. Our demand for unlimited mobility is one of the main drivers of unacceptable levels of emissions. As more and more cars are joining the roads of this planet and rapidly growing economies are about to copy our exessive lifestyles, the problem becomes evident. If we want to keep our mobility up in a sustainable way, our cars need to be much more efficient as they are today. It is fair to say that a car should not use more than a tenth of the energy it uses today. We should aim to reach this goal with no delay. Societies waiting to climb the latter to 'unlimited mobility' are copying us, the rich and wealthy nations. If we continue to drive our inefficient cars, waste energy and resources at home and at work, and do not care about others and their needs, our brothers and sisters striving for a better life will copy our poor practices. With severe consequences for all of us. And now its your turn. You may disagree with me, start ranting, be in agreement with me or you may let off some steam.  Thats what this place is for! Best, Stephen Twike 890
 |
|
Written on: 30 August 2008 [16:28]
|
|
|
Lensman
 registered since: 31.05.2008
Posts: 75
|
Be aware that a lot of what's in the book Limits to Growth is outdated. World population is now expected to peak in the not-too-distant future and then decline; birth control is becoming more available even in poor countries, which is helping a great deal. I think overpopulation is the root of pretty much everything wrong with the world. Too many people means too much pollution, trees being cut down more rapidly than they grow, resources such as oil being depleted rapidly, famine, and wars-- which are *really* always about groups competing for resources, regardless of the excuses people give. It's even the cause of drought in some areas where the water table has been depleted by too much irrigation. Now, people always want to argue with me when I say that, claiming there are various other causes, and that it's not really that simple. Let's put it this way: Reducing the world's population significantly, overnight, would immediately end all those other problems, overnight. There's nothing else you could point to that would end all those other problems. Of course, then there's the question: Who's gonna voluntarily reduce the world population by committing suicide? Not me, I admit. There's the rub.  [This article was edited 1 times, at last 30.08.2008 at 16:29.] |
|
Written on: 31 August 2008 [22:19]
|
|
|
ecoadmin
Administrator
Topic creator
registered since: 20.07.2007
Posts: 585
|
Lensman wrote: Be aware that a lot of what's in the book Limits to Growth is outdated. World population is now expected to peak in the not-too-distant future and then decline; birth control is becoming more available even in poor countries, which is helping a great deal. The original boom 'Limits to Growth' was published in 1972. But there is a new edition of it wich is called 'Limits to Growth - the 30 year update'. This version is brandnew and very up-to-date. I should have been more specific. The great thing about this book is the ability of the authors to remain factual. It does not predict the worlds future - I think nobody can - but the authors analyse the data available, explain how humans and society may act or may not when faced with challenges. This data is then used to calculate several scenarios the world will find itself, depending on the path we choose. The basic findings of this report are still very much true and have been (unfortunately) confirmed over the last 30 years. But there are also good news: The world has managed to win the Ozone Layer case. It shows that humanity is able to wake up if it realizes how dire the situation is.. Though the Ozone Layer case cannot be directly compared with the challenges we face in regard to the 'overshoot and collapse' scenario, it does give hope. Its my belief that the worlds population will continue to grow at a rapid pace but at a reduced rate. When is for you a 'not-so-distant' future Lensman? If we manage well and let the overshoot not continue to go on, we might be able to stabilize world population. If we carry on as usual we face the risk of collapse with severe consequences. A possible scenario described in the book is 'the global pollution crisis'. It is based on the assumption that we find more nonrenewable resources than we think there are now, industry is growinng 20 years longer, population peaks at 8 billion in 2040, at much higher consumption levels. This means pollution levels will soar, depressing land yields requiring huge investments for agricultural recovery. The population finally declines because of food shortages and the negative health effects from pollution. Humans have extraordinary skills and powers. Will we be able to turn it around? Or are we 'on the way out', just as so many species before us? Wish you all a very good week! Your Admin Twike 890
|
|
Written on: 02 September 2008 [01:10]
|
|
|
Lensman
registered since: 31.05.2008
Posts: 75
|
Oh, thanks! I didn't realize there was an updated edition to Limits to Growth. I wonder what they have to say about how well or poorly the estimates in their first edition have held up? I've seen various population studies suggesting the world population will peak around 2050 and slowly decline thereafter. But perhaps that's just the "optimistic" study. Just now my Google search doesn't find much indicating a definite population decline after circa 2050. What I do find is graphs showing a variety of population curves, depending on assumptions of higher and lower fertility rates. Such as this one:  * * * * * * * * * * ecoadmin wrote: It is fair to say that a car should not use more than a tenth of the energy it uses today. That seems overly ambitious to me. It's said that about half the energy used to propel a car at highway speed comes from fighting wind resistance. So unless you believe most of us will start driving ultra-streamlined "cars" such as this one...  ...which is more a three-wheeled recumbant bicycle with a streamlined plastic shell than it is a full automobile, with no accessories such as windshield wipers or cargo space, I just don't think we can achieve a 90% reduction in energy use. I think a better goal is *sustainable* energy use, thru electric cars charged with solar and other renewable energy sources. [This article was edited 1 times, at last 02.09.2008 at 01:11.] |
|
Written on: 11 September 2008 [21:53]
|
|
|
childress
Administrator
registered since: 14.08.2007
Posts: 140
|
True, driving a car at highway speeds requires a lot of energy per passenger. The obvious answere then is to NOT drive cars at highway speeds -- drive trains, which are much more efficient at highway speeds and also require far fewer stops & starts, and are much more comfortable. Drive cars at in-town/bicycle speeds. If you pay attention to the graphs in the Twike manual, you will find that much over 35mph (56kph) pedalling is worthless. This tells you a lot about how you should be driving your petrol car... The problem in the US outside of major metropolitan areas (and the East Coast) it is very difficult to find public or private transportation once you reach the end points of the train (take the Amtrak into Chicago, and you're left at Union Station and a $40 cab ride to the 'burbs), and the other problem is that it is darn expensive to take the train in the US -- a lack of a Euro-rail style pass for Amtrak is damning -- the passes they have explicitly disable commuting, with only 4 trips allowed between the same cities along the same route. If you were able to get a Euro-rail/Commuting style Amtrak pass, and had a folding electric bicycle (is typically considered a carry-on), one-person commuting/transit becomes quite comfortable/affordable & green. Commute suck? Twike it; You'll like it!
http://www.uiuc.edu/goto/twike |
|
Written on: 13 September 2008 [19:02]
|
|
|
Lensman
registered since: 31.05.2008
Posts: 75
|
Western Europeans seem fond of telling Americans that we should embrace mass transit, as they have done. I find this constantly amusing, as Europeans tend to view Americans as parochial, yet here it's the Europeans who are showing their lack of understanding that not every place is like their countries. The population density in most of the United States is far lower than what it is in Europe. On our East Coast, it's about the same, and mass transit should work well there. And in fact, there are a lot of commuter trains running on the East Coast, altho probably not nearly as many as in most western European cities. But in the west and midwest USA, the population density simply isn't high enough to make mass transit economical. Even our cities tend to be spread out a lot more. A bit of thought should make it apparent that the lower the population density, the less cost-effective mass transit will be. On another forum, someone was talking about a sign that said "NO SERVICES FOR 105 MILES". "Services" as in gas stations, restaurants, or even rest stops. Was this on some wilderness trail? A rural two-lane highway in the middle of nowhere? No! This was on an Interstate Highway out west! Mass transit... well, it's nice where the population is dense. Where it's rather lonely... it's completely impractical. [This article was edited 1 times, at last 13.09.2008 at 19:03.] |
Portal information:
At the moment there are 6 users online, thereof 0 registered users and 6 guests.
Today 1 registered user and 376 guests were already online.
Now online
ecocarforum.com has 738 registered user, 619 topics and 1217 answers. On the average 1.04 posts are written per day.
Today 1 registered user and 376 guests were already online.
Now online
ecocarforum.com has 738 registered user, 619 topics and 1217 answers. On the average 1.04 posts are written per day.