Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ruger17hmr

    Shooter
    Rating - 97.1%
    33   1   0
    Jun 13, 2008
    648
    16
    Indy
    Where will the extra foods come from?

    It is simply too scary to imagin how the human race will meet the food requirements of the population of 9 billion.

    Will human race resort to elimination policy to retard the population growth?

    Something to think about ...


    Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say


    – 2 hrs 48 mins ago
    WASHINGTON (AFP) – A growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources could make for an "unrecognizable" world by 2050, researchers warned at a major US science conference Sunday.
    The United Nations has predicted the global population will reach seven billion this year, and climb to nine billion by 2050, "with almost all of the growth occurring in poor countries, particularly Africa and South Asia," said John Bongaarts of the non-profit Population Council.
    To feed all those mouths, "we will need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000," said Jason Clay of the World Wildlife Fund at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
    "By 2050 we will not have a planet left that is recognizable" if current trends continue, Clay said.
    The swelling population will exacerbate problems, such as resource depletion, said John Casterline, director of the Initiative in Population Research at Ohio State University.
    But incomes are also expected to rise over the next 40 years -- tripling globally and quintupling in developing nations -- and add more strain to global food supplies.
    People tend to move up the food chain as their incomes rise, consuming more meat than they might have when they made less money, the experts said.
    It takes around seven pounds (3.4 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of meat, and around three to four pounds of grain to produce a pound of cheese or eggs, experts told AFP.
    "More people, more money, more consumption, but the same planet," Clay told AFP, urging scientists and governments to start making changes now to how food is produced.
    Population experts, meanwhile, called for more funding for family planning programs to help control the growth in the number of humans, especially in developing nations.
    "For 20 years, there's been very little investment in family planning, but there's a return of interest now, partly because of the environmental factors like global warming and food prices," said Bongaarts.
    "We want to minimize population growth, and the only viable way to do that is through more effective family planning," said Casterline.
     

    indykid

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 27, 2008
    11,881
    113
    Westfield
    Once we have taken some more farms out of food service for the production of M85 and other blends, we just might think that growing stuff to eat might just be a bit more important than replacing imported oil with food based fuels.

    Of course, just drilling for oil on our land as well as farming for food instead of fuel would go a long way.

    Teaching 3rd world countries to farm so that they can grow their own food would also be beneficial. (where have I heard that one????) Oh wait, we have been doing that for years, but they don't care to grow their own when we are all too eager to just give them handouts. (where have I heard that too???)
     

    72Chevelle

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 19, 2011
    7
    1
    Southside
    What we need to do is stock up things that do not go bad. I suspect some major event will happen in the next 10 years or so that's going to change how we look at things.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    1,486
    38
    Valparaiso
    Overpopulation results in disease and epidemics. In third world countries, if that is where the population will soar, it can only go to a certain point on the curve where death will equal the birth rate. It is unfortunate that it will happen, but that is the way it always has been. 2050 is a long way to go without a major natural or man-made catastrophe, such as war with WMD's, to cause the world to go into chaos and kill off millions
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,199
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    If the world's population becomes too much for the available resources, we see wars and epidemics sufficient to reduce the population to survivable levels. The UN is not equal to the tasks of keeping the peace OR preventing epidemics OR controlling population growth. Of course, the UN bureaucracy can't find their collective a$$es with both hands, anyway.
     

    88E30M50

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Dec 29, 2008
    22,807
    149
    Greenwood, IN
    People tend to think linearly. In the 50's, they looked at the recent advancements in the automobile and assumed that it would continue in the same manner, resulting in flying cars by the 1990s. I don't think you can trace a line through the last 20 years and assume that the line will continue in the same direction for the next 40 years. The last 100 years were fueled by cheap oil. That gave us the ability to support far more people than we would otherwise have been able to do. Not only did farming become more efficient due to cheap oil, but the ability to transport bananas to wherever they wanted came along with it. It takes fuel to transport wheat, cotton, fruit, lumber, and whatever else it took to make a god forsaken dustbowl into something like LA or Las Vegas.

    Now that we are nearing the end of cheap oil, our ability to ship food from whomever can grow an excess to wherever there is a need will dwindle. Nature will self balance either slowly through lower birth rates or rather quickly through disease, starvation, war or weather. Either way, we will not hit 9 billion people in 2050. The planet will not support that many. Once the resources are gone, the huge populations go with it. There will be a few of us left once it's reached whatever new level of stability and we will have stories to tell our ancestors about how amazing things were at the peak.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,074
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    It is simply too scary to imagin how the human race will meet the food requirements of the population of 9 billion.

    ruger, relax, that is all rubbish.

    What will we do? We'll grown more food.

    The scaremongers in the '70s completely ignored the Green Revolution and what it was accomplishing. Malthaus was a fool. Ehrlich was a know-nothing. People would rather believe hysteria as with hysteria one does not have to go to work in the morning (why do you think all this "survivalism" and end of the world trope is so popular--escapism).

    The only famines we have had have been caused by demonic governments--USSR, China, Cambodia, Africa, inter alia. If population increases, so will food production.

    Look around you. Go to the mall and see the people waddle with their proud food blisters and bloated faces. Food is not a problem and will not be . . . as long as government does nothing.
     

    Roadie

    Modus InHiatus
    Rating - 100%
    17   0   0
    Feb 20, 2009
    9,775
    63
    Beech Grove
    More alarmist BS. I saw a show on the Science Channel awhile back where some alarmist claimed we would be out of oil in 10 years.

    Paging Chicken Little, Paging Chicken Little..
     

    CarmelHP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    7,633
    48
    Carmel
    When incomes go up, the number of children a family has goes down because you don't have to have 20 to make sure 3 survive. If food production is stressed then prices rise on the resource intensive items. There is a very good self-regulating market that works if we let it.
     

    88E30M50

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Dec 29, 2008
    22,807
    149
    Greenwood, IN
    More alarmist BS. I saw a show on the Science Channel awhile back where some alarmist claimed we would be out of oil in 10 years.

    Paging Chicken Little, Paging Chicken Little..

    I don't think we have to worry too much about running out of oil. I do think we need to worry about running out of cheap oil. Back in the 30s, we got something like 11 barrels of oil for every barrel worth of enery expended in drilling. Today, it's something like 3.7. With ultra deep drilling, shale and tar sands, it's getting closer to the break even point. It costs almost a barrel of energy to get a barrel of energy out of some of those places. We'll have oil for a long time, but the days of shooting at some food and up through the ground comes a bubbling crude are long gone. Same goes for copper and a lot of other resources.
     
    Top Bottom