Fop 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Earth population 'exceeds limits' By Steven Duke Editor, One Planet, BBC World Service LIVING ON A CROWDED EARTH Current world population - 6.8bn Net growth per day - 218,030 Forecast made for 2040 - 9bn Source: US Census Bureau There are already too many people living on Planet Earth, according to one of most influential science advisors in the US government. Nina Fedoroff told the BBC One Planet programme that humans had exceeded the Earth's "limits of sustainability". Dr Fedoroff has been the science and technology advisor to the US secretary of state since 2007, initially working with Condoleezza Rice. Under the new Obama administration, she now advises Hillary Clinton. "We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support many more people," Dr Fedoroff said, stressing the need for humans to become much better at managing "wild lands", and in particular water supplies. Pressed on whether she thought the world population was simply too high, Dr Fedoroff replied: "There are probably already too many people on the planet." GM Foods 'needed' A National Medal of Science laureate (America's highest science award), the professor of molecular biology believes part of that better land management must include the use of genetically modified foods. "We have six-and-a-half-billion people on the planet, going rapidly towards seven. "We're going to need a lot of inventiveness about how we use water and grow crops," she told the BBC. THE MOST POPULOUS NATIONS China - 1.33bn India - 1.16bn USA - 306m Indonesia - 230m Brazil - 191m "We accept exactly the same technology (as GM food) in medicine, and yet in producing food we want to go back to the 19th Century." Dr Fedoroff, who wrote a book about GM Foods in 2004, believes critics of genetically modified maize, corn and rice are living in bygone times. "We wouldn't think of going to our doctor and saying 'Treat me the way doctors treated people in the 19th Century', and yet that's what we're demanding in food production." In a wide ranging interview, Dr Fedoroff was asked if the US accepted its responsibility to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be driving human-induced climate change. "Yes, and going forward, we just have to be more realistic about our contribution and decrease it - and I think you'll see that happening." And asked if America would sign up to legally binding targets on carbon emissions - something the world's biggest economy has been reluctant to do in the past - the professor was equally clear. "I think we'll have to do that eventually - and the sooner the better." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7974995.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 It's probably true that both Fop and Hilary Clinton don't smoke enough weed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 The return of Malthus. According to Darwin, if this research is true, we'll either evolve or die out. Cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 We need Moonbase Alpha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 2, 2009 Author Share Posted April 2, 2009 The return of Malthus. According to Darwin, if this research is true, we'll either evolve or die out. Cool. Most any natural population boom ends in a crash, we've just staved it off with technology (which is how we outwit evolution/natural selection, partially at least). But when you consider that the SE of England is actually deemed as in water poverty due to its hideous overpopulation (the only reason they all don't die is recycling technology and the ability to move water and goods into the area), it's pretty amazing that the powers that be ignore it so studiously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 The return of Malthus. According to Darwin, if this research is true, we'll either evolve or die out. Cool. Most any natural population boom ends in a crash, we've just staved it off with technology (which is how we outwit evolution/natural selection, partially at least). But when you consider that the SE of England is actually deemed as in water poverty due to its hideous overpopulation (the only reason they all don't die is recycling technology and the ability to move water and goods into the area), it's pretty amazing that the powers that be ignore it so studiously. Worse than the Greek Islands, southern Spain and so on iirc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 2, 2009 Author Share Posted April 2, 2009 The return of Malthus. According to Darwin, if this research is true, we'll either evolve or die out. Cool. Most any natural population boom ends in a crash, we've just staved it off with technology (which is how we outwit evolution/natural selection, partially at least). But when you consider that the SE of England is actually deemed as in water poverty due to its hideous overpopulation (the only reason they all don't die is recycling technology and the ability to move water and goods into the area), it's pretty amazing that the powers that be ignore it so studiously. Worse than the Greek Islands, southern Spain and so on iirc. And Morocco bizarrely, although maybe not for the last 2 years due to the glorious weather (hence the SE water companies -ing themselves and putting up water meter rates to keep their dividends up ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 nature has a very efficient way of dealing with overcrowding. Flu pandemic, coming to a continent near you soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 If you got rid of Asia, Israel and America surely it would be a sustainable population. We can dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 If you got rid of Asia, Israel and America surely it would be a sustainable population. We can dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccermom 0 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 We should build on mars a la total recall stylee, I wanna own the midget prostitutes section. two weeks two weeks two weeks Kuato..... Sorry, just had a moment..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 2, 2009 Author Share Posted April 2, 2009 We should build on mars a la total recall stylee, I wanna own the midget prostitutes section. two weeks two weeks two weeks Kuato..... Sorry, just had a moment..... It's already sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccermom 0 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 We should build on mars a la total recall stylee, I wanna own the midget prostitutes section. two weeks two weeks two weeks Kuato..... Sorry, just had a moment..... :razz: It's already sold. Go on lastminutegifts.com you can buy it by the acre!!! You want in? we could be property tycoons, 60/40 split - cos it was my idea and I'm the pretty one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 We should build on mars a la total recall stylee, I wanna own the midget prostitutes section. two weeks two weeks two weeks Kuato..... Sorry, just had a moment..... It's already sold. Go on lastminutegifts.com you can buy it by the acre!!! You want in? we could be property tycoons, 60/40 split - cos it was my idea and I'm the pretty one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flair 0 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 If you got rid of Asia, Israel and America surely it would be a sustainable population. We can dream. Or just get rid of all the twats in the world. Starting with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 4, 2009 Author Share Posted April 4, 2009 If you got rid of Asia, Israel and America surely it would be a sustainable population. We can dream. Or just get rid of all the twats in the world. Starting with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10662 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 we'll be fine, once terror, credit crunch , immigrants, over-population and religion have all taken their victims the population will be well within target. the only downside will be the endless processions and tv coverage... but every cloud... the hours of silence resounding from Liverpool will be magnificent... it may roll on long enough to fully eradicate that fucking awful accent too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 The UK's Royal Society is launching a major study into human population growth and how it may affect social and economic development in coming decades. The world's population has risen from two billion in 1930 to 6.8 billion now, with nine billion projected by 2050. The society acknowledges it is delving into a hugely controversial area, but says a comprehensive and scientific review of the evidence is needed. It is led by Nobel laureate Sir John Sulston of Human Genome Project fame. "This is a topic that has gone to and fro in the last few decades, and appears to be moving back up the political agenda now," he told BBC News. "So it seems a good moment for the Royal Society to launch a study that looks objectively at the scientific basis for changes in population, for the different regional and cultural factors that may affect that, and at the effects that population changes will have on our future in term of sustainable development." The burgeoning human population is acknowledged as one of the underlying causes of environmental issues such as climate change, deforestation, depletion of water resources and loss of biodiversity. The working group includes experts on the environment, agriculture, economics, law and theology drawn from a mix of rich and poor countries including the UK, China, Brazil and the US. Green growth In the 1970s, with disastrous food shortages routine in regions of Asia and Africa, the world's apparently dwindling capacity to feed its rapidly growing population was an issue high on the political agenda. New crops developed during the Green Revolution and other advances in agriculture, combined with economic progress, seemed to allay these fears in subsequent decades. In addition, some people in developing countries argued that western nations raised the issue as a means of distracting attention from the rising and unsustainable consumption in the west. Population growth is an often unspoken driver of trends such as deforestation Recently, however, population has started to re-emerge as an issue of discussion among people working on environment and development issues. High-profile champions such as Sir David Attenborough have spoken of its importance and the threats it may pose. However, some economists and policymakers consider population growth a good thing, as it produces a swelling workforce capable of producing more goods and continued economic growth. Jonathon Porritt, founder and director of the UK think tank Forum for the Future and a member of the Royal Society's working group, suggested the review could shed some objective light on the issues under dispute. "What it can do is shed some light on the different interpretations that people draw from the underlying trends," he said. "Why do some people say it doesn't matter and is all welcome, while others such as me say it is likely to have a greater impact on the future of humanity than some of the other issues we are talking a lot about?" Policymakers needed such objective studies, he said, in order to make effective choices - for example, deciding whether and how to support family planning policies in the developing world. The Royal Society's study is launched on World Population Day, and is expected to conclude in early 2012. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_env...nt/10578484.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now