-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
"the ocean is broken"
- Thread starter iwannaretire
- Start date
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ygk98kEQfk&list=TLT-sdarJPhInr4CNJJ1A4sZ9T-SMyMXfe
[youtubeif]TLT-sdarJPhInr4CNJJ1A4sZ9T-SMyMXfe[/youtubeif]
link is broken...
[youtubeif]TLT-sdarJPhInr4CNJJ1A4sZ9T-SMyMXfe[/youtubeif]
link is broken...
Last edited:
[youtubeif]IgqCtZerjng[/youtubeif]
..about ocean acidity.
Community dynamics and ecosystem simplification in a high-CO2 ocean
Kristy J. Kroekera,1,
Maria Cristina Gambib, and
Fiorenza Michelic
Edited by David M. Karl, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, and approved June 7, 2013 (received for review September 20, 2012)
Abstract
Disturbances are natural features of ecosystems that promote variability in the community and ultimately maintain diversity. Although it is recognized that global change will affect environmental disturbance regimes, our understanding of the community dynamics governing ecosystem recovery and the maintenance of functional diversity in future scenarios is very limited. Here, we use one of the few ecosystems naturally exposed to future scenarios of environmental change to examine disturbance and recovery dynamics. We examine the recovery patterns of marine species from a physical disturbance across different acidification regimes caused by volcanic CO2 vents. Plots of shallow rocky reef were cleared of all species in areas of ambient, low, and extreme low pH that correspond to near-future and extreme scenarios for ocean acidification. Our results illustrate how acidification decreases the variability of communities, resulting in homogenization and reduced functional diversity at a landscape scale. Whereas the recovery trajectories in ambient pH were highly variable and resulted in a diverse range of assemblages, recovery was more predictable with acidification and consistently resulted in very similar algal-dominated assemblages. Furthermore, low pH zones had fewer signs of biological disturbance (primarily sea urchin grazing) and increased recovery rates of the dominant taxa (primarily fleshy algae). Together, our results highlight how environmental change can cause ecosystem simplification via environmentally mediated changes in community dynamics in the near future, with cascading impacts on functional diversity and ecosystem function.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2...ract?sid=01f5b29f-bb88-45ba-afa8-f1c537eb8ae1
Community dynamics and ecosystem simplification in a high-CO2 ocean
Kristy J. Kroekera,1,
Maria Cristina Gambib, and
Fiorenza Michelic
Edited by David M. Karl, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, and approved June 7, 2013 (received for review September 20, 2012)
Abstract
Disturbances are natural features of ecosystems that promote variability in the community and ultimately maintain diversity. Although it is recognized that global change will affect environmental disturbance regimes, our understanding of the community dynamics governing ecosystem recovery and the maintenance of functional diversity in future scenarios is very limited. Here, we use one of the few ecosystems naturally exposed to future scenarios of environmental change to examine disturbance and recovery dynamics. We examine the recovery patterns of marine species from a physical disturbance across different acidification regimes caused by volcanic CO2 vents. Plots of shallow rocky reef were cleared of all species in areas of ambient, low, and extreme low pH that correspond to near-future and extreme scenarios for ocean acidification. Our results illustrate how acidification decreases the variability of communities, resulting in homogenization and reduced functional diversity at a landscape scale. Whereas the recovery trajectories in ambient pH were highly variable and resulted in a diverse range of assemblages, recovery was more predictable with acidification and consistently resulted in very similar algal-dominated assemblages. Furthermore, low pH zones had fewer signs of biological disturbance (primarily sea urchin grazing) and increased recovery rates of the dominant taxa (primarily fleshy algae). Together, our results highlight how environmental change can cause ecosystem simplification via environmentally mediated changes in community dynamics in the near future, with cascading impacts on functional diversity and ecosystem function.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2...ract?sid=01f5b29f-bb88-45ba-afa8-f1c537eb8ae1
Last edited:
toketronix
Member
Not really, there have in fact been several errors found in the IPCC climate model, which have since been corrected, the errors were so small they did not in any way effect the conclusion ...this is all completley normal for such a large data set which draws on so many different natural indicators, indicators which are monitored & compiled by many thousands of scientists, all of which work in different fields.
The fact you think this is meaningful only further illustrates your complete lack of understanding on the subject matter and the science behind it.
..& of course,'former employees' have no bias towards their old employers eh bombadil? ...it seems like you only apply this bias thing on a selective basis, iow when it suits your argument.
toketronix
Member
You are completely wrong about this, what you are really saying here is: Everything was fine up until the 1960's
Some racist overtones going on here & not for the first time in this thread, Dude you sound like Hitler! ...3rd world is to blame, not America? ...even though I'v already posted the numbers showing that Americans use far more oil/resources than anyone else on the planet? ...that should be enough to convince any rational person with half a brain that we need a collective solution that applies to EVERYBODY regardless of nationality.
You are completely wrong about this, what you are really saying here is: Everything was fine up until the 1960's
Some racist overtones going on here & not for the first time in this thread, Dude you sound like Hitler! ...3rd world is to blame, not America? ...even though I'v already posted the numbers showing that Americans use far more oil/resources than anyone else on the planet? ...that should be enough to convince any rational person with half a brain that we need a collective solution that applies to EVERYBODY regardless of nationality.
Everything WAS fine up until the 60s.
Hitler? Get real. Figures someone would play the race card. You are not Al Sharpton, are you?
It's pretty logical to me that population needs to be reduced in the areas where it is increasing most, which doesn't include U.S. or Europe. I've already explained how that could be accomplished, but apparently you were not paying attention. The third world population is growing by leaps & bounds, so any discussion of over population must include the worst offenders. Has nothing to do with race, everything to do with education. And, for your information, the world's richest people, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, all recognize overpopulation as our #1 problem. Are they racists too? Before you answer and make a bigger fool of yourself, be advised that Bill Gates is doing a tremendous amount of philanthropic work in Africa.
Last edited:
toketronix
Member
Step away from the crack pipe! ....google: industrial revolution
Nobody in this thread has played the race card as much as yourself...
------------------------------------------
...you're all over the place, bill gates is doing tremendous work increasing the population in Africa? ...your points are nothing more than moronic youtube regurgitations, you cant even tell when your contradicting yourself.----------------------------------------
Your entire argument seems to centre around: America is fine, its all the poor people living hand to mouth in other countries that need to be controlled ...BEFORE THEY EAT US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's evident from your posts that you are ill-informed, just looking for an argument, and mischaracterising what I have said. Maybe you should get educated and do some reading, instead of spouting your "racist" crapola.
From Melinda Gates, who has dedicated her life to fighting overpopulation.
It's important to note that the Gates have done considerable work in Africa, in working to provide vaccinations, pure water, and the effort to eliminate malaria:
Melinda Gates’ vow to put the availability of contraception back on the global health agenda – even if it means going against the Pope – has provided a welcome voice for logic and compassion.
Speaking to The Guardian during last week’s London Summit on Family Planning, Gates explained: “In my country where it’s considered highly controversial… 82% of Catholics believe contraception is morally acceptable. So: let the women in Africa decide. The choice is up to them.”
The summit was co-hosted by the British Government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with strong support from Prime Minister David Cameron. It represents a historic global breakthrough, since discussion of contraception – and the role it can play in maintaining the sustainability of our planet – has been largely overridden by views of minorities and political correctness.
This is in spite of World Health Organization figures showing that by 2020, 1.2 billion people, or 16% of the world’s population, will be entering their child bearing years, with the developing world accounting for 90% of this figure. Important discussion articles from this meeting were published in The Economist, in a series in The Lancet, and in a report from the Guttmacher Institute, a New York think tank.
Conference speakers pointed out that in 2012 alone, full access to family planning could prevent 200 million unintended pregnancies, 50 million abortions, 25 million miscarriages and 100,000 maternal deaths. This is in addition to the millions of children who, if they survive their first year of life, face a future of poverty and ill health. There is a strong unmet need for voluntary family planning, with 40% of pregnancies in the developing world unplanned and approximately 215 million women unable to access much wanted family planning support.
The outcomes from the summit go a long way towards Melinda Gates’ aims. Developing and developed countries contributed US$4.6bn to support family planning initiatives over the next eight years. This transformational funding will reverse years of neglect; with initiatives including the provision of contraception (along with education about contraceptive options) to 84 million women annually across 42 countries. Overall, women in 69 of the poorest countries with low rates of contraception will have their lives revolutionised.
As Melinda Gates has enunciated so strongly, contraception is the key to so much, even beyond saving lives of women and children. As well as reducing the number of unsafe abortions and the high mortality at childbirth, it results in healthier mothers and children and increased investment in each child.
Thanks to the recent global vaccination programs supported by the Gates Foundation, children now have a greater chance of survival, providing good reason for the social ambition to focus on the health of children, rather than number of children. Fewer mouths to feed means increased input into the health and education of children. It’s also clear that voluntary family planning results in more peaceful and more prosperous communities.
Freedom from the likelihood of pregnancy is also essential to the liberation of women and to ensuring they can access educational and employment opportunities. Indeed, the surge in the contribution of women to western societies during the past 50 years has been largely attributable to the availability and uptake of the contraceptive pill. Women are half of our human resource and yet many in the developing world are disabled by repetitive pregnancies and lack of appropriate care. Thus fewer pregnancies mean a healthier mother who is more likely to survive to see her children reach adulthood.
Ready access to contraception will also increase the overall health of communities living close to the poverty line. There is now an entire discipline, The Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) based on the knowledge that the nutritional status of the mother, before conception and throughout pregnancy, has a significant impact on the long-term health of the child. Not only does near starvation during pregnancy increase prematurity and low infant birth weight, but those infants will grow to be adults with increased propensity for serious disorders including diabetes, hypertension and obesity.
Apart from improving the health of women and children, population growth damages the environment, particularly with human beings competing with most other species for space and resources. While population size is now either stable or reducing (excluding growth by migration) in most developed countries, in many places land degradation is reducing the capacity to grow food, and the availability of clean water is a continuing major issue.
Previous contraception campaigns have courted controversy. Most notably, India’s sterilisation campaign in the 1970s raised issues of coercion and discrimination. Concerns have been highlighted in the media and social media that the new initiative will follow these lines, since success will be measured quantitatively. However, lessons have been learnt and the statements from London affirm that the outreach will be non-coercive and non-discriminatory.
The Gates Foundation is also funding the development of new contraceptive options, with a particular focus on contraception provided by a six-monthly or annual injection and the development of dual action contraception that may assist in reducing sexually transmitted disease. In an environment where research on contraception has been poorly sustained, this support is most welcome.
It’s easy to see why Melinda Gates has pledged to dedicate the rest of her life to this issue: contraception saves lives and remains central to the rights of women to access education and jobs. As Gates says, “There are 200 million women who want to have access to contraception, and if we’re not serving them, that’s not right.”
http://theconversation.com/contraception-best-for-women-babies-and-the-planet-8283
Your assertion that we need to eliminate 99% of the population to make life sustainable is both laughable and moronic.
Population of Africa from 1950 to today:
1950 228,827,000 —
1960 285,270,000 +2.23%
1970 366,475,000 +2.54%
1980 478,459,000 +2.70%
1990 629,987,000 +2.79%
2000 808,304,000 +2.52%
2010 1,031,084,000 +2.46%
2013 1,110,635,000 +2.51%
That's 228 million in 1950, to one billion, 128 million today, a six fold increase in 63 years. Keep in mind that it took hundreds of thousands of years to reach the 228 million mark, and only 60 more years to sextuple the population.
Americas, including North & South & Central:
Total Americas
Year Pop. ±% p.a.
1950 339,484,000 —
1960 424,791,000 +2.27%
1970 519,017,000 +2.02%
1980 618,950,000 +1.78%
1990 727,489,000 +1.63%
2000 841,695,000 +1.47%
2010 942,692,000 +1.14%
2013 972,005,000 +1.03%
So the population increase in the Americas has tripled in that same time period, with most of the increase in South & Central America. North America's population has increased from 171 million to 355 million, or about double. That includes U.S., Canada, and Greenland.
Total Asia
Year Pop. ±% p.a.
1950 1,395,749,000 —
1960 1,694,650,000 +1.96%
1970 2,128,631,000 +2.31%
1980 2,634,161,000 +2.15%
1990 3,213,123,000 +2.01%
2000 3,717,372,000 +1.47%
2010 4,165,440,000 +1.14%
2013 4,298,723,000 +1.06%
Increase from 1.4 Billion to 4.3 Billion, and this is with China having a strict "one child" policy. 3 Billion people were added in Asia in just 60 years, which =the entire world population in 1960.
Europe:
Europe
Year Pop. ±% p.a.
1950 549,043,000 —
1960 605,517,000 +0.98%
1970 657,369,000 +0.83%
1980 694,510,000 +0.55%
1990 723,248,000 +0.41%
2000 729,105,000 +0.08%
2010 740,308,000 +0.15%
2013 742,452,000 +0.10%
Notice that Europe's population has gone up by only about 200 million.
Oceania: Australia & New Zealand
Oceania
Year Pop. ±% p.a.
1950 12,675,000 —
1960 15,775,000 +2.21%
1970 19,681,000 +2.24%
1980 22,968,000 +1.56%
1990 26,969,000 +1.62%
2000 31,224,000 +1.48%
2010 36,659,000 +1.62%
2013 38,304,000 +1.47%
Population has tripled, from only 12 million to 38 million.
World:
World
Year Pop. ±% p.a.
1950 2,525,779,000 —
1960 3,026,003,000 +1.82%
1970 3,691,173,000 +2.01%
1980 4,449,049,000 +1.89%
1990 5,320,817,000 +1.81%
2000 6,127,700,000 +1.42%
2010 6,916,183,000 +1.22%
2013 7,162,119,000 +1.17%
2.5 billion in 1950 to over 7 billion today.
Notice that it is Asia & Africa are the biggest problem areas when it comes to population increase, and the inevitable environmental destruction. Also notice that the most educated continents & countries have the least increase in population, while the least educated have the largest increases. So it seems pretty plain where the problem exists. Africa has had the greatest percentage increase, due to their high birth rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_population
Note that the ten countries with the highest birth rates are ALL in Africa.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-birth-rates.html
List of birth rates by country: Note, only in African countries are women averaging over 7 children apiece in some countries, over 6 in most of the rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate
Why the Falling U.S. Birth Rates Are So Troubling
Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/10/04/why-the-falling-u-s-birth-rates-are-so-troubling/#ixzz2jANb727E
We’re becoming Europe. At least, that’s what a long line of U.S. birth-rate figures seems to being telling us. And that’s bad news for the future of the country.
New numbers released by the U.S. government on Tuesday show record-low birth rates in 2011: the general fertility rate (63.2 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44) was the lowest ever recorded; the birth rate for teenagers ages 15 to 19 declined; birth rates for women ages 20 to 24 hit a record low; and rates for Hispanic and non-Hispanic black women dipped. Some birth rates remained unchanged, like those of women in their late 40s. Only women ages 35 to 39 and 40 to 44 are more likely to have babies now than in the past.
The data are part of a broader post–financial crash trend. Every year since 2007, when the number of births in the U.S. hit 4.3 million, Americans have brought fewer babies into the world. Much of that has to do with the recession: Americans apparently decided that they couldn’t afford to have as many kids in an unstable economy, even if they were married.
Such declines are typical during economic crises. During the Great Depression, birth rates dropped significantly, and the same thing happened during the stagnation of the 1970s. “We’ve seen this previously throughout the last 100 years,” says Mark Mather, a demographer for the Population Reference Bureau. “Fertility rates drop in periods of economic stress.”
It appears that the decline in birth rates has at least begun to slow, likely reflecting the fact that Americans are feeling more confident about their economic future. The birth rate fell by 1% in 2011, as opposed to the 2% and 3% drops in prior years.
Even so, the trend toward fewer births is likely to continue over the long term, mirroring what’s been going on overseas for decades. “I would suspect that fertility rates over the long term would start to resemble those of Europe,” says Mather.
Europe’s birth rates have been declining for decades, especially in its most economically stable country. Germany’s rate — 1.36 children per woman — is the lowest in all of Europe and one of the lowest in the world. There were fewer German births in 2011 than at any other time recorded.
Even before the euro crisis, experts were sounding the alarm over Europe’s gloomy demographic future. How is the continent supposed to take care of an aging population when its birth rates are pointing toward a shrinking workforce in the decades to come?
The U.S. rate hasn’t fallen to European levels yet. The birth rate of children per woman in the U.S. is about 1.9. But the downward trend will almost certainly force the U.S. to rethink how to financially support the elderly and fund programs like Social Security and Medicare, ongoing economic debates that will take on even more weight as the country ages.
Some experts are more optimistic about the latest figures. While birth rates have been sliding since 2007, officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say they aren’t worried about a possible demographic time bomb. To keep the population stable, countries need to have a birth rate of about two children per woman, which is close to the current U.S. rate. One CDC official told the Associated Press, “We haven’t seen any studies that show couples want to have fewer children or no children.”
Unfortunately, it may not be a matter of whether families want to have children, but whether they can."
You REALLY have a lot to learn. But go on spouting drivel, if that's what turns you on.
From Melinda Gates, who has dedicated her life to fighting overpopulation.
It's important to note that the Gates have done considerable work in Africa, in working to provide vaccinations, pure water, and the effort to eliminate malaria:
Melinda Gates’ vow to put the availability of contraception back on the global health agenda – even if it means going against the Pope – has provided a welcome voice for logic and compassion.
Speaking to The Guardian during last week’s London Summit on Family Planning, Gates explained: “In my country where it’s considered highly controversial… 82% of Catholics believe contraception is morally acceptable. So: let the women in Africa decide. The choice is up to them.”
The summit was co-hosted by the British Government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with strong support from Prime Minister David Cameron. It represents a historic global breakthrough, since discussion of contraception – and the role it can play in maintaining the sustainability of our planet – has been largely overridden by views of minorities and political correctness.
This is in spite of World Health Organization figures showing that by 2020, 1.2 billion people, or 16% of the world’s population, will be entering their child bearing years, with the developing world accounting for 90% of this figure. Important discussion articles from this meeting were published in The Economist, in a series in The Lancet, and in a report from the Guttmacher Institute, a New York think tank.
Conference speakers pointed out that in 2012 alone, full access to family planning could prevent 200 million unintended pregnancies, 50 million abortions, 25 million miscarriages and 100,000 maternal deaths. This is in addition to the millions of children who, if they survive their first year of life, face a future of poverty and ill health. There is a strong unmet need for voluntary family planning, with 40% of pregnancies in the developing world unplanned and approximately 215 million women unable to access much wanted family planning support.
The outcomes from the summit go a long way towards Melinda Gates’ aims. Developing and developed countries contributed US$4.6bn to support family planning initiatives over the next eight years. This transformational funding will reverse years of neglect; with initiatives including the provision of contraception (along with education about contraceptive options) to 84 million women annually across 42 countries. Overall, women in 69 of the poorest countries with low rates of contraception will have their lives revolutionised.
As Melinda Gates has enunciated so strongly, contraception is the key to so much, even beyond saving lives of women and children. As well as reducing the number of unsafe abortions and the high mortality at childbirth, it results in healthier mothers and children and increased investment in each child.
Thanks to the recent global vaccination programs supported by the Gates Foundation, children now have a greater chance of survival, providing good reason for the social ambition to focus on the health of children, rather than number of children. Fewer mouths to feed means increased input into the health and education of children. It’s also clear that voluntary family planning results in more peaceful and more prosperous communities.
Freedom from the likelihood of pregnancy is also essential to the liberation of women and to ensuring they can access educational and employment opportunities. Indeed, the surge in the contribution of women to western societies during the past 50 years has been largely attributable to the availability and uptake of the contraceptive pill. Women are half of our human resource and yet many in the developing world are disabled by repetitive pregnancies and lack of appropriate care. Thus fewer pregnancies mean a healthier mother who is more likely to survive to see her children reach adulthood.
Ready access to contraception will also increase the overall health of communities living close to the poverty line. There is now an entire discipline, The Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) based on the knowledge that the nutritional status of the mother, before conception and throughout pregnancy, has a significant impact on the long-term health of the child. Not only does near starvation during pregnancy increase prematurity and low infant birth weight, but those infants will grow to be adults with increased propensity for serious disorders including diabetes, hypertension and obesity.
Apart from improving the health of women and children, population growth damages the environment, particularly with human beings competing with most other species for space and resources. While population size is now either stable or reducing (excluding growth by migration) in most developed countries, in many places land degradation is reducing the capacity to grow food, and the availability of clean water is a continuing major issue.
Previous contraception campaigns have courted controversy. Most notably, India’s sterilisation campaign in the 1970s raised issues of coercion and discrimination. Concerns have been highlighted in the media and social media that the new initiative will follow these lines, since success will be measured quantitatively. However, lessons have been learnt and the statements from London affirm that the outreach will be non-coercive and non-discriminatory.
The Gates Foundation is also funding the development of new contraceptive options, with a particular focus on contraception provided by a six-monthly or annual injection and the development of dual action contraception that may assist in reducing sexually transmitted disease. In an environment where research on contraception has been poorly sustained, this support is most welcome.
It’s easy to see why Melinda Gates has pledged to dedicate the rest of her life to this issue: contraception saves lives and remains central to the rights of women to access education and jobs. As Gates says, “There are 200 million women who want to have access to contraception, and if we’re not serving them, that’s not right.”
http://theconversation.com/contraception-best-for-women-babies-and-the-planet-8283
Your assertion that we need to eliminate 99% of the population to make life sustainable is both laughable and moronic.
Population of Africa from 1950 to today:
1950 228,827,000 —
1960 285,270,000 +2.23%
1970 366,475,000 +2.54%
1980 478,459,000 +2.70%
1990 629,987,000 +2.79%
2000 808,304,000 +2.52%
2010 1,031,084,000 +2.46%
2013 1,110,635,000 +2.51%
That's 228 million in 1950, to one billion, 128 million today, a six fold increase in 63 years. Keep in mind that it took hundreds of thousands of years to reach the 228 million mark, and only 60 more years to sextuple the population.
Americas, including North & South & Central:
Total Americas
Year Pop. ±% p.a.
1950 339,484,000 —
1960 424,791,000 +2.27%
1970 519,017,000 +2.02%
1980 618,950,000 +1.78%
1990 727,489,000 +1.63%
2000 841,695,000 +1.47%
2010 942,692,000 +1.14%
2013 972,005,000 +1.03%
So the population increase in the Americas has tripled in that same time period, with most of the increase in South & Central America. North America's population has increased from 171 million to 355 million, or about double. That includes U.S., Canada, and Greenland.
Total Asia
Year Pop. ±% p.a.
1950 1,395,749,000 —
1960 1,694,650,000 +1.96%
1970 2,128,631,000 +2.31%
1980 2,634,161,000 +2.15%
1990 3,213,123,000 +2.01%
2000 3,717,372,000 +1.47%
2010 4,165,440,000 +1.14%
2013 4,298,723,000 +1.06%
Increase from 1.4 Billion to 4.3 Billion, and this is with China having a strict "one child" policy. 3 Billion people were added in Asia in just 60 years, which =the entire world population in 1960.
Europe:
Europe
Year Pop. ±% p.a.
1950 549,043,000 —
1960 605,517,000 +0.98%
1970 657,369,000 +0.83%
1980 694,510,000 +0.55%
1990 723,248,000 +0.41%
2000 729,105,000 +0.08%
2010 740,308,000 +0.15%
2013 742,452,000 +0.10%
Notice that Europe's population has gone up by only about 200 million.
Oceania: Australia & New Zealand
Oceania
Year Pop. ±% p.a.
1950 12,675,000 —
1960 15,775,000 +2.21%
1970 19,681,000 +2.24%
1980 22,968,000 +1.56%
1990 26,969,000 +1.62%
2000 31,224,000 +1.48%
2010 36,659,000 +1.62%
2013 38,304,000 +1.47%
Population has tripled, from only 12 million to 38 million.
World:
World
Year Pop. ±% p.a.
1950 2,525,779,000 —
1960 3,026,003,000 +1.82%
1970 3,691,173,000 +2.01%
1980 4,449,049,000 +1.89%
1990 5,320,817,000 +1.81%
2000 6,127,700,000 +1.42%
2010 6,916,183,000 +1.22%
2013 7,162,119,000 +1.17%
2.5 billion in 1950 to over 7 billion today.
Notice that it is Asia & Africa are the biggest problem areas when it comes to population increase, and the inevitable environmental destruction. Also notice that the most educated continents & countries have the least increase in population, while the least educated have the largest increases. So it seems pretty plain where the problem exists. Africa has had the greatest percentage increase, due to their high birth rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_population
Note that the ten countries with the highest birth rates are ALL in Africa.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-birth-rates.html
List of birth rates by country: Note, only in African countries are women averaging over 7 children apiece in some countries, over 6 in most of the rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate
Why the Falling U.S. Birth Rates Are So Troubling
Read more: http://business.time.com/2012/10/04/why-the-falling-u-s-birth-rates-are-so-troubling/#ixzz2jANb727E
We’re becoming Europe. At least, that’s what a long line of U.S. birth-rate figures seems to being telling us. And that’s bad news for the future of the country.
New numbers released by the U.S. government on Tuesday show record-low birth rates in 2011: the general fertility rate (63.2 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44) was the lowest ever recorded; the birth rate for teenagers ages 15 to 19 declined; birth rates for women ages 20 to 24 hit a record low; and rates for Hispanic and non-Hispanic black women dipped. Some birth rates remained unchanged, like those of women in their late 40s. Only women ages 35 to 39 and 40 to 44 are more likely to have babies now than in the past.
The data are part of a broader post–financial crash trend. Every year since 2007, when the number of births in the U.S. hit 4.3 million, Americans have brought fewer babies into the world. Much of that has to do with the recession: Americans apparently decided that they couldn’t afford to have as many kids in an unstable economy, even if they were married.
Such declines are typical during economic crises. During the Great Depression, birth rates dropped significantly, and the same thing happened during the stagnation of the 1970s. “We’ve seen this previously throughout the last 100 years,” says Mark Mather, a demographer for the Population Reference Bureau. “Fertility rates drop in periods of economic stress.”
It appears that the decline in birth rates has at least begun to slow, likely reflecting the fact that Americans are feeling more confident about their economic future. The birth rate fell by 1% in 2011, as opposed to the 2% and 3% drops in prior years.
Even so, the trend toward fewer births is likely to continue over the long term, mirroring what’s been going on overseas for decades. “I would suspect that fertility rates over the long term would start to resemble those of Europe,” says Mather.
Europe’s birth rates have been declining for decades, especially in its most economically stable country. Germany’s rate — 1.36 children per woman — is the lowest in all of Europe and one of the lowest in the world. There were fewer German births in 2011 than at any other time recorded.
Even before the euro crisis, experts were sounding the alarm over Europe’s gloomy demographic future. How is the continent supposed to take care of an aging population when its birth rates are pointing toward a shrinking workforce in the decades to come?
The U.S. rate hasn’t fallen to European levels yet. The birth rate of children per woman in the U.S. is about 1.9. But the downward trend will almost certainly force the U.S. to rethink how to financially support the elderly and fund programs like Social Security and Medicare, ongoing economic debates that will take on even more weight as the country ages.
Some experts are more optimistic about the latest figures. While birth rates have been sliding since 2007, officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say they aren’t worried about a possible demographic time bomb. To keep the population stable, countries need to have a birth rate of about two children per woman, which is close to the current U.S. rate. One CDC official told the Associated Press, “We haven’t seen any studies that show couples want to have fewer children or no children.”
Unfortunately, it may not be a matter of whether families want to have children, but whether they can."
You REALLY have a lot to learn. But go on spouting drivel, if that's what turns you on.
He never said this.
toketronix
Member
Can you quote the exact part(s) of my post(s) which you feel to be inaccurate ...then go on to provide reasonable evidence for your assertion.
Just saying somebody is wrong doesn't make it so....but it usually means the accuser has nothing.
toketronix
Member
There is some irony in your comment ....cos I never said he said that.
However he did imply it, unless your suggesting that vaccinations, clean water, and efforts to eliminate malaria will not reduce mortality rates thus increasing population ????????????????
All of it.
Pure drivel.
I already posted evidence of my belief.
You said the earth can sustain only 1% of the current population.
Like I said, you just like to argue. You haven't made a valid or cogent point yet. Just spouting rubbish.
He just likes to argue for arguments sake. Backs up his ramblings with nothing. I call it gibberish.
Do some Googling on "overpopulation", and on the environmental effects of cattle ranching, our #1 & #2 problems. If you're a beef eater, you may not like what you find out about this most destructive and wasteful of industries.
surfguitar
Member
I've been seeing a lot more dead seals the past year
Sucks that the thing I love to do the most is centered around the ocean...
Sucks that the thing I love to do the most is centered around the ocean...
I got away from the ocean. plenty of clean clear water flowing from the mountains still. peace
surfguitar
Member
the only barrels here are part of a still lol had some good shine yesterday
