Has Earth reached a Population Tipping Point?

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Orm
I find it unlikely that everyone behaves rationally when they have been exposed to a deadly disease. I find it far more likely that most would behave irrationally in such situations.

Soon someone who lost their entire family to the disease is going to take all the money available and the go to Vegas and gamble with all his money because he has "always wanted to go to Vegas before he dies". Or visit Paris. Or London. Or Rome. Or go to their last living relative in Stockholm. And since his symptoms has yet to show and the authorities has no idea that he has been exposed he gets to travel his journey. Then he begins to feel sick but he tries to hide it since he doesn't want to spend his last days isolated since he know he is going to die either way. He rather spend it doing things he considers fun...

Or wants to get even with the world and goes to a few concerts or ballgames.

[Jamm]

Populations are kept in check with predation, starvation and disease.
Of course mankind believes the laws of nature do not apply to it.

[wodin]

Mother nature will find away to cut us down eventually. I think the Sun each year provides enough energy for a pop of 2 billion I believe. So once fossil fuels run out and if we don't go nuclear (wind is a joke) we will lose 5 to 6 billion people.

[Crimguy]

Wodin I'm curious how such a thing is calculated.

As an aside, check out a recent book called "Ebola K" by Bobby Adair. He wrote a series of very entertaining zombie novels. Ebola K is about an airborne strain of Ebola being used as a weapon of terror. Will be a trilogy, and the first book is free on Amazon.

It's a thriller, written by a small independent writer. I like his books for the entertainment value. It's not Faulkner.

[nate25]

Seems like this comes up every few years, usually because of some new strain of sickness.

As far as energy goes, crude is abiotic.

[wodin]

Not sure to be honest. Heard it mentioned more than once in different documentaries.

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

Wodin I'm curious how such a thing is calculated.

As an aside, check out a recent book called "Ebola K" by Bobby Adair. He wrote a series of very entertaining zombie novels. Ebola K is about an airborne strain of Ebola being used as a weapon of terror. Will be a trilogy, and the first book is free on Amazon.

It's a thriller, written by a small independent writer. I like his books for the entertainment value. It's not Faulkner.

[OttoVonBlotto]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Mother nature will find away to cut us down eventually. I think the Sun each year provides enough energy for a pop of 2 billion I believe. So once fossil fuels run out and if we don't go nuclear (wind is a joke) we will lose 5 to 6 billion people.

Whereas we could lose the whole 7.2 billion and most of the other indigenous life on the planet if we do go fully nuclear.

[Capt. Harlock]

I think the Sun each year provides enough energy for a pop of 2 billion I believe. So once fossil fuels run out and if we don't go nuclear (wind is a joke) we will lose 5 to 6 billion people.

I'm pretty sure that number is in error. The Earth receives about 1.7 X 10^17 watts from solar radiation, a fabulous amount of energy. Also, don't forget the potential of geothermal energy: we're sitting on an immense ball of molten rock, shielded by only a few miles of dirt. And it's renewable; scientists have calculated that he energy comes from the decay of the heavy radioactive elements at the Earth's core, otherwise it would have cooled off considerably more by now.

That being said, I have heard that the planet can only sustain about 4 billion people in the long run, from other factors like soil exhaustion from growing crops year after year.

[Zap]

Considering the seriousness of Ebola and I include terrorist threats to need the same action. The US , if it had b#$%s and a sense of protecting its people would stop all incoming flights from the countries of origin.

[MrsWargamer]

I think terrorists lack imagination.

They all expect to die in their attacks. What would stop them just being willing carriers willing to casually wander around spreading intentionally?

I think it is the same reason they have failed to realize, you can cause plenty of devastation by just detonating nukes in proximity. You wouldn't need to nuke New York, you could probably trash New York rather efficiently by detonating on board a ship in international waters within range of the coast and let the emp wipe out stuff sufficiently well to cause massive damage. Just think, every car in New York City height of rush hour suddenly becoming dead. And that's just cars.

Yep, I think terrorists lack imagination.

Or terrorists might be a bit more hype than we want to believe. Likely it is they lack imagination though.

As for mother nature. Well she's tried to wipe out all life on the planet 11 times that we can point to. Just not recently in human terms. But in planetary terms, 50k years ago wasn't very long ago. Yellowstone doing a Toba, sure would cut down on human population figures rather sudden like. Wouldn't eliminate us, but, it sure would make a lot of society arguments a lot more moot. Politics would sure get interesting. And no, the movie is not how it would go down.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: wodin
Mother nature will find away to cut us down eventually. I think the Sun each year provides enough energy for a pop of 2 billion I believe.

It provides a lot more. But getting it is a problem. In 2012 the USA generated 4,047.7 TWh of energy. That would require solar panels about the area of Vermont. Not just taking that land area out of production but the mining of all the rare earth elements for panels that size would be an impossible undertaking. The USA has the American desert so land there isn't used for faming. Europe would have a hard time coming up with land it can spare for solar panels.

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: Max 86

With the spread of Ebola and the Enterovirus here in the US and with Ebola expected in the UK and France in about a month I was wondering if our planet has reached a population tipping point to where Mother Nature steps in and delivers a rather brutal 'population readjustment' with plagues and the likes.

http://news.yahoo.com/high-risk-ebola-c ... 15476.html

As one doctor said, any person can get on a plane and be anywhere else in the world in 24 hrs and that levels the playing field, biologically speaking.

I would like to think we are better prepared to handle a virus versus the black plague back in the day but how well is your area prepared? Are any of us really ready for such an event? Are any of us more prepared that the native Americans were for small pox?

Thoughts anyone?

I was wondering if our planet has reached a population tipping point to where Mother Nature steps in and delivers a rather brutal 'population readjustment' with plagues and the likes.

People have been predicting this for decades.

Have you ever heard of Paul R. Ehrlich?
In 1968 he wrote the book "The Population Bomb".

Among other things, he predicted:
---The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate ..
---"I don't see how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980."[5] This view was widely held at the time, as another statement of his, later in the book: "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971."
---“By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.”
---in a 1969 article, “Eco-Catastrophe!”, he predicted that by the end of the century the population of the US would be under 20 million, and our life expectancy would be around 40 years. A similar prediction of his was that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980-1989 and that by 1999, the US population would decline to 22.6 million.
--- In 1975′s The End of Affluence, Ehrlich predicted cataclysmic food riots in America, leading the President to declare martial law.
---He predicted that by the 1980s most of the world’s important resources would be depleted.

It's now 2014. Hundreds of millions did not die due to famine. India now has over 1.2 billion and is food self sufficient. The world's population did not drop to 1.5 billion. 65 million Americans did not die due to starvation in the 1980s. US life expectancy is now almost 79 years. US population is more than 300 million. There were no cataclysmic food riots in the US leading to a declaration of martial law. And there are still plenty of natural resources around.

Ehrlich is not the only "doom and gloom" prognosticator who has been proven wrong by the passage of time.

[t001001001]

If Mother Earth is trying to kill us we should try to deorbit her. I don't know how much an explosion it would take to send her spiraling toward the sun, but the effort must be made.

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: wodin
Mother nature will find away to cut us down eventually. I think the Sun each year provides enough energy for a pop of 2 billion I believe.

It provides a lot more. But getting it is a problem. In 2012 the USA generated 4,047.7 TWh of energy. That would require solar panels about the area of Vermont. Not just taking that land area out of production but the mining of all the rare earth elements for panels that size would be an impossible undertaking. The USA has the American desert so land there isn't used for faming. Europe would have a hard time coming up with land it can spare for solar panels.

Solar panels and Wind power. How interesting are these!. Environmentalists HAVE BEEN TOUTING THESE as the new way. But these methods have created other environmental results not foreseen. Solar Panels reflect back into the sky(mirror effect) burning to death a significant number of birds. Modern windmills are killing many bats with the rotation of propellers. How many, programs I've watched, in the last ten years have said how important birds and bats are to the well-being of the planet. And here you have the potential (many say will save the planet) of solar power being responsible of wiping out an endangered bird species. But I'm sure, environmental aficionados will be able to rationalize all this and more. To keep the golden calf they idolize on its pedestal!

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: Zap

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: wodin
Mother nature will find away to cut us down eventually. I think the Sun each year provides enough energy for a pop of 2 billion I believe.

It provides a lot more. But getting it is a problem. In 2012 the USA generated 4,047.7 TWh of energy. That would require solar panels about the area of Vermont. Not just taking that land area out of production but the mining of all the rare earth elements for panels that size would be an impossible undertaking. The USA has the American desert so land there isn't used for faming. Europe would have a hard time coming up with land it can spare for solar panels.

Solar panels and Wind power. How interesting are these!. Environmentalists HAVE BEEN TOUTING THESE as the new way. But these methods have created other environmental results not foreseen. Solar Panels reflect back into the sky(mirror effect) burning to death a significant number of birds. Modern windmills are killing many bats with the rotation of propellers. How many, programs I've watched, in the last ten years have said how important birds and bats are to the well-being of the planet. And here you have the potential (many say will save the planet) of solar power being responsible of wiping out an endangered bird species. But I'm sure, environmental aficionados will be able to rationalize all this and more. To keep the golden calf they idolize on its pedestal!

Additionally, there is the issue of storage.
Yes, solar and wind can provide a lot of energy, but these sources do not provide a constant/steady stream of energy.
The length of day varies by season and by position of latitude, which affect the amount of electricity produced.
The wind does not always blow at a constant optimal speed. You have to implement ways of storing the energy generated by wind and solar for those times where the implements are not providing sufficient energy. The primary method for energy storage today (for individual circumstances) is batteries--but the use of batteries generates its own environmental concerns. Other methods of storage include the pumping of water to higher levels and then draining that stored water over watermill-type devices. This is also not necessarily practical for use in dry regions or during droughts (See California).

Currently power utilities that utilize wind and solar as a significant source of electricity have to have backup generating plants at the ready to provide power during low generation periods.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Zap
Solar panels and Wind power. How interesting are these!. Environmentalists HAVE BEEN TOUTING THESE as the new way. But these methods have created other environmental results not foreseen. Solar Panels reflect back into the sky(mirror effect) burning to death a significant number of birds. Modern windmills are killing many bats with the rotation of propellers. How many, programs I've watched, in the last ten years have said how important birds and bats are to the well-being of the planet. And here you have the potential (many say will save the planet) of solar power being responsible of wiping out an endangered bird species.

If I had to make a choice I'd take birds and bats over polar bears any day of the week.

[Zap]

Geo-thermal would be good. A constant source from the ground. We just have to move all cities to the zones where it can be found. No thermal power near Chicago! Lol

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: Zap

Geo-thermal would be good. A constant source from the ground. We just have to move all cities to the zones where it can be found. No thermal power near Chicago! Lol

There is alot of hot air in Chicago but that has more to do with politicians than it does with underground volcanic activity. [;)]

[Jeffrey H.]

Latest news on the nurse who treated the first Dallas victim is telling. The virus is able to get around even very cautious protections. The useless hack CDC director blames the victim. Sick.

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: Zap

Considering the seriousness of Ebola and I include terrorist threats to need the same action. The US , if it had b#$%s and a sense of protecting its people would stop all incoming flights from the countries of origin.

my previous post has relevance in the face of the development