If you do nothing else with your day, your week or even your life... (World Population Thread)

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Are you okay, Auditor?

Just a little broody that's all - I know you MEN wouldn't understand ..

Serious question - does Ireland need to raise its population levels or what ? Couldn't we have more people here as immigrants from left right and centre as it generates activity and business and all. I know there are threads on p.ie going on for miles about immigration but I never read them

Auditor #9 wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Are you okay, Auditor?

Just a little broody that's all - I know you MEN wouldn't understand ..

Serious question - does Ireland need to raise its population levels or what ? Couldn't we have more people here as immigrants from left right and centre as it generates activity and business and all. I know there are threads on p.ie going on for miles about immigration but I never read them

Once your economy has moved away from primary/extractive industries, where the limits on production tend to be physical and/or capital, increased population tends to aloow increased economic growth.

However, the whole point of the world population argument is that populations everywhere need to fall, because the current level of population is unsustainable at current and projected levels of technology.

Will a balance not be struck when certain countries reach certain levels of affluence? I think I read on p.ie that those who live in poverty tend to have much larger families than their more affluent neighbours due to the fact that child mortality is more widespread among the poor. Therefore, once affluence has increased, population growth should level off. Added to this is the inevitable population reductio that occurs amongst an educated populus. This would mean that we are probably not dealing with two massive dangers, .ie. population growth and increase in affluence, but rather just the latter. They cannot co-exist. But it would mean that our best bet for survvival would then be to bring affluence and education into the third world as quickly as possible, rather in the future where the increase in population size would make an affluent population unsustainable.

riadach wrote:

Will a balance not be struck when certain countries reach certain levels of affluence? I think I read on p.ie that those who live in poverty tend to have much larger families than their more affluent neighbours due to the fact that child mortality is more widespread among the poor. Therefore, once affluence has increased, population growth should level off. Added to this is the inevitable population reductio that occurs amongst an educated populus. This would mean that we are probably not dealing with two massive dangers, .ie. population growth and increase in affluence, but rather just the latter. They cannot co-exist. But it would mean that our best bet for survvival would then be to bring affluence and education into the third world as quickly as possible, rather in the future where the increase in population size would make an affluent population unsustainable.

The problem is rather more that:

human population x average affluence = human footprint

where already:

human footprint > carrying capacity of planet

Therefore, while increasing affluence will lead to population stabilisation in the medium to long term, it will also lead to degradation of the planet in the meantime.

Part of the problem is that the 'carrying capacity' of the planet is reduced by environmental degradation, so we're in a positive feedback loop already - the only question is the rate of degradation and the resilience of the planet's systems - the former we don't measure, and the latter we don't know.

Quote :

Part of the problem is that the 'carrying capacity' of the planet is reduced by environmental degradation, so we're in a positive feedback loop already - the only question is the rate of degradation and the resilience of the planet's systems - the former we don't measure, and the latter we don't know.

But we know that they are governed by the exponential function - as is everything. As eg the melting of the polar ice caps. We seem to be hitting about a million different tipping points all at the same time.

Aragon wrote:

Quote :

Part of the problem is that the 'carrying capacity' of the planet is reduced by environmental degradation, so we're in a positive feedback loop already - the only question is the rate of degradation and the resilience of the planet's systems - the former we don't measure, and the latter we don't know.

But we know that they are governed by the exponential function - as is everything. As eg the melting of the polar ice caps. We seem to be hitting about a million different tipping points all at the same time.

That seems to be the case - and we don't even know where they are.

Aragon wrote:

Quote :

Part of the problem is that the 'carrying capacity' of the planet is reduced by environmental degradation, so we're in a positive feedback loop already - the only question is the rate of degradation and the resilience of the planet's systems - the former we don't measure, and the latter we don't know.

But we know that they are governed by the exponential function - as is everything. As eg the melting of the polar ice caps. We seem to be hitting about a million different tipping points all at the same time.

Some things are measured - the rate of dertification - melting of polar ice caps and so on. Satellite imagery has made that very much easier to do. Sea temperatures are measured. There is a certain amount of measurement of fish stocks. Do we really know nothing at all about tipping points?

Btw - by tipping point, are you talking about a point at which there is collapse of human population due to environmental change ?

cactus flower wrote:

Btw - by tipping point, are you talking about a point at which there is collapse of human population due to environmental change ?

It is said, I believe, that if the bees die out then so will we. That could be a tipping point.

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Btw - by tipping point, are you talking about a point at which there is collapse of human population due to environmental change ?

It is said, I believe, that if the bees die out then so will we. That could be a tipping point.

Scary thought.

Could it be one when Paddy Meighans runs out of Guinness?

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Btw - by tipping point, are you talking about a point at which there is collapse of human population due to environmental change ?

It is said, I believe, that if the bees die out then so will we. That could be a tipping point.

Scary thought.

Could it be one when Paddy Meighans runs out of Guinness?

No, when you have to start tipping for pints will be the end there in aould Paddys.

cactus flower wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Quote :

Part of the problem is that the 'carrying capacity' of the planet is reduced by environmental degradation, so we're in a positive feedback loop already - the only question is the rate of degradation and the resilience of the planet's systems - the former we don't measure, and the latter we don't know.

But we know that they are governed by the exponential function - as is everything. As eg the melting of the polar ice caps. We seem to be hitting about a million different tipping points all at the same time.

Some things are measured - the rate of dertification - melting of polar ice caps and so on. Satellite imagery has made that very much easier to do. Sea temperatures are measured. There is a certain amount of measurement of fish stocks. Do we really know nothing at all about tipping points?

Btw - by tipping point, are you talking about a point at which there is collapse of human population due to environmental change ?

Hmm. No - tipping points are points at which new positive feedback loops kick in, or when previously reversible processes becomes irreversible. For example, the loss of summer ice cover at the North Pole is probably a 'tipping point', because the lack of reflective ice cover means that the polar sea will warm more than it otherwise would have done. That, in turn, will speed up the loss of ice in Greenland, and the melting of permafrost in the circumpolar regions - which in turn may release more methane, which is a greenhouse gas.

Each tipping point makes it that much less possible to recover from the induced change by simply reducing emissions.

I logged onto this site earlier just before 10 o'clock pm and now at 2:30 am the site tells me that 45,000 people have been born in the world.

http://www.populationmedia.org/

I might leave it on all night just to see...

With this many people getting born then I'm thinking the economic boom has to get boomer the world over with this kind of crowd of hoors being born every day. Of course you could take the Malthusian nightmare scenario on the other hand and predict disaster on a massive scale but it's worth kicking the alternative scenario around too ..

In a very short time there will be on this planet another billion mouths to feed and maybe there will come a crisis before it's addressed but those mouths will be fed - assuming there is enough space and fertility on the face of the earth and I'm confident there is.

If there comes this breakthrough where we realise we can comfortably feed, clothe and house another couple of billion then isn't it likely that that revelation will bring massive positives as well, globally? All those new babies in the old hospitals giving work to nurses and doctors in India, China, parts of Africa and South America and the odd one in the States; all those grannies, grandas, uncles, cousins etc. coming along visting and using petrol to get to the hospital, snapping photos, bringing presents etc.; all those (by now) 46,500 babies getting fed whatever baby-goo babies eat and this has to be created in factories or in breasts or grown or picked from trees. All those accoutrements and baby paraphernalia add up to a small hill of stuff in the world daily as those new half a million daily babies have to get their baby stuff. All this creates work - babies are good employers.

As long as there are the resources there to create all the baby stuff then why can't it be seen as a massive source of economic growth? All those new nappies being manufactured; all the new and extra pharmaceuticals that are needed; the registring of the children in a computer database - the filling out of forms and creation of new records all happening every half second for every new baby around the globe; Isn't it silly to be an economic Doomsday merchant if we are managing to look after these new bábógs - every half a million or more daily who are born around the world and whereever they are they manage to leave a little footprint in Germany, China or America where medical equiptment is manufactured among other places; they create business on the Net through parents who can't buy their eco-friendly nappies in Glenammaddy so they need to be imported from the UK; they end up getting beamed between Australia and Japan via multimedia messages sent over Skype, Messenger or mobile handsets.

Right now those babies are making researchers all across the planet in private corporations and public bodies as well as institutions of research and learning not to mention the tons of trainspotters - the babies are making all these people do calculations and equations to investigate all sorts of economics variables, limits and quantities which are to do specifically with them and whether or not they can be sustained by the earth.

Don't you just have to be an optimist?

(There are now 6,730, 872,500++ on the face of the earth)

There are now 6,737, 839, 279++ according to Population Media.Org - that's 7 million more than when I started counting above just under a month ago.

In the first month of a baby's life, besides all the you give it there is also :

Quote :

Going through pregnancy and birth is very costly, but worth every penny!

Crib with mattress- $160-$750
Crib bedding set- $35-$270
Crib blankets (4-6)- $8-$40 each
Fitted crib sheets (2)- $8-$20 each
Water-proof mattress cover- $10-$20
Bassinet or cradle- $35-$260
Changing table- $70-$600
Changing pad & cover- $25-$50
Dresser- $90-$650
Rocker or glider- $90-$500
Car seat- $35-$280
Stroller or travel system- $30-$300
Playpen or porta-crib- $60-$180
Swing- $45-$130
Play center or walker- $50-$125
Mobile- $25-$70
Baby carrier or sling- $20-$140
Monitor- $20-$230
Baby gate- $35-$250
Bouncer seat- $30-$90
Toy box- $25-$90
Gym or play mat- $25-$90
Doorway jumper- $25-$60
High chair- $45-$240
Diaper bag- $10-$60
Diaper pail- $20-$45 Refills- $15-$20 (3 pack)
Thermometer- $10-$90
First aid supplies (kit)- $20-$30
Humidifier or vaporizer- $15-$130
Bottles 8 oz & 4 oz (8-10)- $10-$20 (3 pack) or $20-$40 (starter set)
Bottle warmer- $18-$35
Sterilizer- $30-$70
Breast pump & accessories- $45-$350
Breastfeeding pillow- $20-$35
Bath tub or seat- $15-$35
Hooded towels (4)- $6-$30 each
Wipes (a lot)- $4-$5 (pack)
Clothes for first year- $500-$1,200

thats everything your baby is going to need.
but usually every month the list could consist of;
bottles
nipples
formula
baby food
diapers
wipes
clothes
medicines
1 month ago

Source(s):
mommy of a 7 month old boy

Which just happened to be posted on Yahoo one month ago.

and a second answer below that

Quote :

Well.....diapers - at least $60/month
formula (if you're bottle feeding) - $40-$60/month
clothing - $50/month
toys/other things like bottles - $30/month
doctor visits (without insurance) - $300/month
doctor visits (with insurance) - $20/month depending on your co-pay
medicine/gas drops/nasal spray/tylenol/etc. - $20/month
extra utilities - $10/month
savings for college - $$$$$$$/month
others (extra paper towels, baby wash, pacifiers, and a million other things) - $20/month

so overall, expect to pay an extra house payment a month. if you can't afford a double house payment, you can't afford a child.

1 month ago

Now multiply that by 7 million and you get what more the world spent last month than the month before on babies alone. Some of that is once-off but a lot of it is ongoing expenses and that's the part that must add significantly to economics on a macro scale at some point.

Unfortunately not all those babies born since the 19th July will get the care of that mother above.
Other links
http://www.geohive.com/default1.aspx

Check this baby out

http://www.worldometers.info/

Auditor #9 wrote:

Check this baby out

http://www.worldometers.info/

That is amazing and hypnotic. Can it go on the Portal ?