Reply
Thread Tools
World population in 1930 None
Old 01-01-2009, 01:46 PM   #1
hoeg
New Member [01%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 20
 
I just heard the statistic today that in 1930 the entire population of the world could stand, shoulder to shoulder, on the Isle of Wight, UK. I've since learned that that wasn't quite true; it was the Isle of Wight and the Isle of Man combined, and that this statistic still holds today.

True?

Also, taking into consideration that WW2 depleted that number somewhat, which country/countries have been responsible since for increasing the population the most, post-WW2?
hoeg is offline
Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2009, 02:11 PM   #2
SirJac
Member [34%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,396
 
WW2 didn't have much of an effect on the worlds population, and probably was well exceeded by the baby boom that followed. Also, the world's population has tripled since 1930 so I doubt that it still holds true today. If I had to guess though, I'd imagine that India and China would be the biggest sources of population growth in that 80 year span.
SirJac is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2009, 07:20 PM   #3
Monte314
Core Member [502%]
Chief Scientist; Adjunct Full Professor of Computer Science; six times Who's Who in the World; national, state Advisory Panels; author of two books, many papers; Jedi Math Dog
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 20,111
 
Well, let's do a little computation.

Suppose we allocate an average of 24 cubic feet of volume per person, say 4 square feet to stand in, by 6 feet tall. Of course, children require much less, while some adults will need a little more.

With about 6 billion people to provide for, we'll need 6 billion times 24 cubic feet of space = 144 billion cubic feet of space.

Do you know how much space this is? Just shy of 1 CUBIC MILE.

That's right: what we call "massive overpopulation" is less than 1 cubic mile of volume, spread out over the 50 MILLION square MILES of land on the surface of the Earth.

Humanity doesn't have a space problem; humanity has a HEART problem. Until we stop killing people for more of what we already have plenty of, we'll continue to find things "too crowded".
Monte314 is online
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2009, 07:33 PM   #4
Pandemonium
Veteran Member [53%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,120
 
However, we are exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth.
Pandemonium is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2009, 07:38 PM   #5
Monte314
Core Member [502%]
Chief Scientist; Adjunct Full Professor of Computer Science; six times Who's Who in the World; national, state Advisory Panels; author of two books, many papers; Jedi Math Dog
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 20,111
 

  Originally Posted by Pandemonium
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
However, we are exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth.

I disagree. What we are exceeding the altruism of our fellows. Most commodity shortages are the product of political or market forces, not geologic or environmental factors.

Monte314 is online
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2009, 08:32 PM   #6
INTJoe
Veteran Member [75%]
Utilizing God Mode
MBTI: INTj
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,009
 
Also I've heard that the living population will never outnumber that of the dead.

Unless, of course, every woman aged 15-40 suddenly birthed like 10 kids each or whatever.
INTJoe is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2009, 08:59 PM   #7
Antares
Core Member [225%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,006
 

  Originally Posted by Monte314
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I disagree. What we are exceeding the altruism of our fellows. Most commodity shortages are the product of political or market forces, not geologic or environmental factors.

The same lack of altruism that led to overfishing famine, poverty and overexploitation and more. If everyone can really control greed, much of that would have been solved. Until then, the Earth is overpopulated with humans unless we can sustain exploitation at an acceptable level; at a sustainable level.

Antares is online
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2009, 09:19 PM   #8
Vaiti
New Member [01%]
Lost in Finland
MBTI: ENTJ
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10
 
Information overload. Fragmented shards of information. Misinformation. The thousands of languages or the world. In this regard "over population" scares me as I see these trends increasing exponentially with ever growing population.

This scares me mostly due to a freakish need and desire within myself to understand everything and anything. And the realization that this not something I can obtain.

Not that population is the sole cause for this quest of mine being a destined for failure, but somehow the thought still gives me pause at times.
Vaiti is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2009, 06:43 AM   #9
Lights
Member [22%]
MBTI: INFJ
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 911
 

  Originally Posted by Pandemonium
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
However, we are exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth.


Ecologists calculate the actual carrying capacity of the earth to be approximately 9 billion people. The biggest limiter is fresh water. You need water to sustain a population and to grow food. We are already lowering our groundwater stores at an alarming pace.

Lights is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2009, 07:05 AM   #10
HackerX
Core Member [182%]
*the huggleator*
MBTI: INTP
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,316
 

  Originally Posted by Monte314
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Well, let's do a little computation.

Suppose we allocate an average of 24 cubic feet of volume per person, say 4 square feet to stand in, by 6 feet tall. Of course, children require much less, while some adults will need a little more.

With about 6 billion people to provide for, we'll need 6 billion times 24 cubic feet of space = 144 billion cubic feet of space.

Do you know how much space this is? Just shy of 1 CUBIC MILE.

That's right: what we call "massive overpopulation" is less than 1 cubic mile of volume, spread out over the 50 MILLION square MILES of land on the surface of the Earth.

Humanity doesn't have a space problem; humanity has a HEART problem. Until we stop killing people for more of what we already have plenty of, we'll continue to find things "too crowded".

Factor in how much area of space that can't be lived in, that's required for food. This space would be much much larger.

I don't want to take away from your point though, it is really the problem.

HackerX is online
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2009, 08:29 AM   #11
hoeg
New Member [01%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 20
 
Monte314, I believe the statistic I originally quoted literally meant "standing-room only", as in 3 people per square metre, on average. Perhaps I should have said so at the time.

OK, so slightly off-tangent, but I can't get any information on the "baby-boom" numbers in the UK. I've googled just about everything I can think of to get this and have run out of ideas. I specifically want the number of babies born in the UK between 1945 and 1960. The consensus info doesn't relate; I've tried. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
hoeg is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2009, 09:17 AM   #12
Monte314
Core Member [502%]
Chief Scientist; Adjunct Full Professor of Computer Science; six times Who's Who in the World; national, state Advisory Panels; author of two books, many papers; Jedi Math Dog
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 20,111
 

  Originally Posted by hoeg
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Monte314, I believe the statistic I originally quoted literally meant "standing-room only", as in 3 people per square metre, on average. Perhaps I should have said so at the time.

OK, so slightly off-tangent, but I can't get any information on the "baby-boom" numbers in the UK. I've googled just about everything I can think of to get this and have run out of ideas. I specifically want the number of babies born in the UK between 1945 and 1960. The consensus info doesn't relate; I've tried. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

I understood what you meant. I've been more liberal, and chosen to use volume because I think the result has more impact.

There really aren't all that many of us... and there is still some slack capacity. If we could turn our attention from trying to kill each other to fostering the technology of sustainability, we'd all be better off.

Monte314 is online
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2009, 02:00 PM   #13
Lantigua
Member [02%]
MBTI: INTJ
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 90
 

  Originally Posted by Monte314
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I disagree. What we are exceeding the altruism of our fellows. Most commodity shortages are the product of political or market forces, not geologic or environmental factors.

I agree with you except on the part in bold. Market forces or the economy of a particular place is only a reflection of the political and cultural forces in each place.

Why does Cuba has a socialist economy? Because of its political forces.

Why is the economy of Zimbabwe in shambles? Because of its political forces.

Why is Brazil such a lopsided country when it comes to development, being one of the most industrialized and, simultaneously, one of the least industrialized countries on Earth? Because of its political and cultural forces.

Why is Haiti in such bad shape economically? Because of political and cultural forces.

Why is the U.S. in an economic recession right now? Because of its political forces.

The economy of a country is defined by its political and cultural factors. Without politics, there is no 'real' economy. Furthermore, the type of politics that prevails in a place is directly related to the cultural factors that dictates how relationships are created in a particular society.

Given that most of the human suffering in the world today has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with political and cultural factors, then we can safely conclude that market forces has nothing to do with the man-made shortages of goods in certain places, despite this being the most abundant time period in the history of humanity.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Lantigua is offline
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.