Will the world have to become vegetarian by 2050? page 6

[cori93437]

So I take it the people on this thread wouldn't support my life goal of having 100 kids and then dying in a glorious battle that will be talked about for the next 1000 years?

You'd probably be talked about more... if you just killed yourself now and posted it to Youtube.
Cause that shit is the most likely way to have ANYONE talk about it other than the 3 people you know.

[magicmerl]

I watched most of it and yes, I do still agree that incentives to reduce population growth are a good idea. Yes, they will likely have to be tailored to specifically fit different cultures. And no, I wasn't assuming every woman in African had twenty babies that died before they reached adulthood. I'm seeing more people around the world becoming more affluent, which often does reduce the number of offspring, but not enough. I'd like to see negative population growth, because it isn't about space, it's about resources. As people become more affluent they buy more stuff and that stuff requires resources, of which we have a finite amount. And America, being the largest consumer of stuff for its population really needs to cut back. And as much as the population growth may be slowing, it hasn't stopped. While we're currently at about 7 billion we're expected to be between 7.5 and 10 billion by 2050.

But 10-11 billion is the peak projection, even going out to 2100. The reason the world's population is still growing is because the countries with the short life expectancy and large family size needs to stabilise it's population by having their children live. You CANNOT solve this issue without doing that first. There's no 'quick fix' to changing population demographics from one where nearly everyone is under 15 to one where the birth rate is at or below replacement level. You have to actually have those children grow up and live to old age. The fact that you are 'adding' middle and old aged people to the population means that you *have* to increase the population before it stabilises (typically the population triples across two generations, then is stable).

I definitely agree with your bolded bit though. America consumes a disproportianate amount of the worlds resources, and needs to live more modestly. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 50 years.

[JWBooth]

The problem is not here in the developed world, but rather in the developing world- those sort of incentives do not work when college educations are a dream for even the elites

But that illustrates another problem with this whole theory- the world is segregated in to different cultures and populations living in different countries and continents. If India and China are driving all the population growth, then maybe India and China will have to revert to vegetarianism full time, but it won't have any effect on the rest of us.

[Alex Good]

You'd probably be talked about more... if you just killed yourself now and posted it to Youtube.
Cause that shit is the most likely way to have ANYONE talk about it other than the 3 people you know.

Did you not read the 100 kids part? Assuming 75% of them reproduce and there is an average of 2 kids per reproducing child then that means 150 grandchildren will hear about awesome old me fighting an eternal battle against a demonic horde in some far off realm.
Because, you know, the story will develop into something like that by the time the grandkids are made.

[cori93437]

Show me 25... then I'll start listening.
You haven't even managed 1... you're behind the curve boy!

[j3nn]

If JP Morgan didnt stand in Tesla's way we'd all have free and unlimited energy. It's all around us. The universe IS energy. We're simply not trying hard enough to harness it for various reasons.

[AussieNana]

Have a look at the Fukushima thread in this forum - perhaps the beginning of the end for many is on its way.

[Blackcatbone]

But 10-11 billion is the peak projection, even going out to 2100. The reason the world's population is still growing is because the countries with the short life expectancy and large family size needs to stabilise it's population by having their children live. You CANNOT solve this issue without doing that first. There's no 'quick fix' to changing population demographics from one where nearly everyone is under 15 to one where the birth rate is at or below replacement level. You have to actually have those children grow up and live to old age. The fact that you are 'adding' middle and old aged people to the population means that you *have* to increase the population before it stabilises (typically the population triples across two generations, then is stable).

I definitely agree with your bolded bit though. America consumes a disproportianate amount of the worlds resources, and needs to live more modestly. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 50 years.

I agree, absolutely. The off the top of my head post was, admittedly, referencing western cultures. Education and opportunity is probably the best way to speed the process of limiting family size and having more of them survive to adulthood. The number one thing I would do is get the church out of these places. Then allow the people themselves to figure out what they need in terms of survival and figuring out ways of assisting them.

How to get western cultures to cut back and live more sustainably is probably the biggest problem. The US in particular is such a throw away culture, we love our cheap/disposable goods. The idea of spending more for higher quality that will last much longer is anathema to most and our economy is based on this. The amount of pollution and waste created by clothing alone is pretty horrendous.

[sbhikes]

I hate cheap disposable goods. And I hate it that I can't put my bones and meat waste into the compost pile. And it bugs the hell out of me that meat products come wrapped in way too much plastic. Even the damn butcher wraps it in plastic and THEN in paper. WTF??? And I'm sure I'm about to be miffed as hell when my Amazon.com book arrives with one of those plastic pillows in it. Seriously? Newsflash: You can put a book in the mail and it won't break.

[magnolia1973]

Oh hell yeah....

I used to work next door to a distribution center for Rite Aid. They had 5 or 6 enormous dumpsters for "damaged goods" that were guarded by armed guards. My co-workers were friends with some of the guards and allowed to "dumpster dive" on occasion. Here are things that got thrown out: ONE leaky laundry soap? The whole palette to the dumpster. Cases of candy, for seemingly no reason, not out of date. Entire case of toothpaste that got a crush on one end. Occasional things like cases of stuff like head phones and random electronics. Food was pretty frequent- one dented can, the whole case goes. So 90% of the stuff was usable and saleable. But it went off to the landfill after being written off as a loss. Yeah, we waste stuff.