Scary Number: 10.1 Billion - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

roflwaffle · #31 05-04-2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I understand, but you are assuming a continued rate of technological development that exceeds both the industrialization of the current population and the future increase in population. I'm less confident than you. I just don't see a world with an increasing population obtaining western standards of living anytime soon.

I doubt they will, the current western lifestyle is too destructive for even the western world to keep up for much longer. It's also nuts to correlate population numbers with environmental impact. The wealthiest nations in the world have roughly half of the total environmental impact. So about 1 billion people are causing the same impact as the other ~6 billion. Remove the national boundaries and I bet we would have something like the ~200 million wealthiest people causing the same damage as the other ~6,800 million. That's not a problem with population, that's a problem with the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

pj67coll · #32 05-04-2011, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

I doubt they will, the current western lifestyle is too destructive for even the western world to keep up for much longer. It's also nuts to correlate population numbers with environmental impact. The wealthiest nations in the world have roughly half of the total environmental impact. So about 1 billion people are causing the same impact as the other ~6 billion. Remove the national boundaries and I bet we would have something like the ~200 million wealthiest people causing the same damage as the other ~6,800 million. That's not a problem with population, that's a problem with the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

That study is bogus and the conclusions nonsense.

- Peter.

#33 05-04-2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

I doubt they will, the current western lifestyle is too destructive for even the western world to keep up for much longer. It's also nuts to correlate population numbers with environmental impact. The wealthiest nations in the world have roughly half of the total environmental impact. So about 1 billion people are causing the same impact as the other ~6 billion. Remove the national boundaries and I bet we would have something like the ~200 million wealthiest people causing the same damage as the other ~6,800 million. That's not a problem with population, that's a problem with the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

That was part of my point, between India and China there are about 2.5 billion people who are rapidly becoming industrialized and are on the road to consuming like westerners. Even without a significant population increase, something will have to change over the next few decades. The current situation is not sustainable.

roflwaffle · #34 05-04-2011, 02:46 PM

There's a world of difference between western style industrialization/wealth and the equivalent in China/India. The average middle class household salary in Beijing for instance is about $1500 per month. That's almost $5,000/year below the U.S. federal poverty line. In China or India being middle class is associated with having stuff like a scooter, a computer, and an apartment, not flying around the world and having a two ton SUV like it is in the Western world. There are only ~$25+ million households in China with income of $18,00/year or more. Even if some households in China/India can gain wealth comparable to western standards, that still doesn't change the fact that most of the environmental damage is being caused by the wealthy. Rich man's war, poor man's fight.

roflwaffle · #35 05-04-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

That study is bogus and the conclusions nonsense.

- Peter.

OMG clearly, you said it therefore it's true! Why didn't I see it before? Along the same lines, you're really a space alien zombie ninja serial killer intent on turning Jesus, the devil, and Allah to your side in an intergalactic terrorist campaign and you love your mother and father in a very sexy way. I said it therefore it's true!

#36 05-04-2011, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

There's a world of difference between western style industrialization/wealth and the equivalent in China/India. The average middle class household salary in Beijing for instance is about $1500 per month. That's almost $5,000/year below the U.S. federal poverty line. In China or India being middle class is associated with having stuff like a scooter, a computer, and an apartment, not flying around the world and having a two ton SUV like it is in the Western world. There are only ~$25+ million households in China with income of $18,00/year or more. Even if some households in China/India can gain wealth comparable to western standards, that still doesn't change the fact that most of the environmental damage is being caused by the wealthy. Rich man's war, poor man's fight.

Wait 20 years, that will change.

SwampYankee · #37 05-04-2011, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

That was part of my point, between India and China there are about 2.5 billion people who are rapidly becoming industrialized and are on the road to consuming like westerners. Even without a significant population increase, something will have to change over the next few decades. The current situation is not sustainable.

I wonder at what point does China's selective abortion of females due the family size limitations catch up with them? I'd think the population boom would come to a screeching halt at some point without the females to pump them out.

#38 05-04-2011, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

I wonder at what point does China's selective abortion of females due the family size limitations catch up with them? I'd think the population boom would come to a screeching halt at some point without the females to pump them out.

Even if they obtain zero population growth, they already have 1.3 billion people. Imagine the impact of that many people consuming energy and manufactured goods at the same rate as americans. How much do you think a gallon of gasoline will cost then?

Since66 · #39 05-04-2011, 04:41 PM

That figure must be in error. I just looked outside and I can't see anyone! Not a single person!

Oh...........wait.

..............never mind

Hatterasguy · #40 05-04-2011, 04:46 PM

Man you guys are so doom and gloom, if I listened to you I might as well swallow a bottle of sleeping pills and wash it down with vodka....its all over anyway.

#41 05-04-2011, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Man you guys are so doom and gloom, if I listened to you I might as well swallow a bottle of sleeping pills and wash it down with vodka....its all over anyway.

Just understand that the future distribution of resources will be different than it is today; that information should inform policy. For example, being a net importer of energy may not be a good thing in 20 years. OTOH, developing technologies to sell to the developing world may be a better plan. Sitting around and wishing it was 1950 again it definitely not a good idea.

MTI · #42 05-04-2011, 05:02 PM

We nearly ran out of whales for blubber . . . then one technology replaced another. Replacing gasoline and the IC engine isn't "if" it's "when". So, if we only measure current modes of consumption and the things being consumed . . . the numbers will be skewed.

Mike D · #43 05-04-2011, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

I might as well swallow a bottle of sleeping pills and wash it down with vodka....its all over anyway.

You are being part of the problem. Vodka is a finite resource. If yer gonna swallow a bottle of sleeping pills then you are wasting the vodka. Leave the bottle for those of us hanging around.

Hatterasguy · #44 05-04-2011, 05:10 PM

You guys are to negative. For starters its impossible to extrapolate with data we have today out to 2100. What you get is a wild a** guess.

How many predictions they made in 1910 turned out to be correct today?

Hatterasguy · #45 05-04-2011, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

We nearly ran out of whales for blubber . . . then one technology replaced another. Replacing gasoline and the IC engine isn't "if" it's "when". So, if we only measure current modes of consumption and the things being consumed . . . the numbers will be skewed.

It killed the whaling industry, and boat building industry. Their are no more good jobs anymore, everyone has to work in factory's.