OverPopulation is never a pleasant topic. Why? Well for so many reasons:

1. It is Anti-Capitalistic. Capitalism is founded on an unlimited growth model as is it’s hand maiden in literature – science fiction. Malthus sends Capitalists into a frenzy of “it ain’t so” denial. But if he is ultimately right, and our technology and science can not prevent our population from stabilizing at a set amount, then Capitalism is dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8-WgJVUcD4

2. It is anti-religious. Almost every religion in the world preaches procreation. The idea has always been that the religion that has the most recruits will eventually  become the ULTIMATE Religion. Which is the goal of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kndX3tVxCt8&feature=related

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm

Earth population ‘exceeds limits’

By Steven Duke
Editor, One Planet, BBC World Service

LIVING ON A CROWDED EARTH   Current world population – 6.8bn Net growth per day – 218,030 Forecast made for 2040 – 9bn Source: US Census Bureau

There are already too many people living on Planet Earth, according to one of most influential science advisors in the US government.

Nina Fedoroff told the BBC One Planet programme that humans had exceeded the Earth’s “limits of sustainability”.

Dr Fedoroff has been the science and technology advisor to the US secretary of state since 2007, initially working with Condoleezza Rice.

Under the new Obama administration, she now advises Hillary Clinton.

“We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people,” Dr Fedoroff said, stressing the need for humans to become much better at managing “wild lands”, and in particular water supplies.

Pressed on whether she thought the world population was simply too high, Dr Fedoroff replied: “There are probably already too many people on the planet.”

:}

3. OverPopulation is very male. Knowing that OverPopulation must end is very women centered. One of the most mysogynist impulses is religion’s and men’s impulse to control a woman’s womb. When women control their womb they produce 2 or 3 children which is just about right for their health and just about right for the planet. But over procreation has been the norm for the last 300 years and we are about to reap it’s wind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA&feature=related 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_5_84/ai_62896162/

COPYRIGHT 1999 Sierra Magazine

COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group

Y6B: The Real Millennial Threat

- effects of overpopulation – Brief Article

Sierra ,  Sept, 1999   by William G. Hollingsworth

Think the population explosion is over? Think again.

On or about October 12, 1999, human population is expected to reach 6 billion. While it took until about 1800 to reach the first billion, the trip from 5 billion to 6 will have required a mere 12 years. Those born in 1930 will have seen humankind triple within their lifetime.

That makes all the more surprising the strange take of the national media, which over the past few years have been full of stories like “The Population Explosion Is Over” (The New York Times Magazine) or “Now the Crisis Is Global Underpopulation” (Orange County Register). These contrarian stories are based on two recent demographic trends: fertility in nearly all developed nations has fallen below the population-stabilizing “replacement” rate (2.1 children per woman, where mortality is low), and fertility is declining in most of the developing world. These trends led the United Nations to revise its population projections, reflecting a slower rate of growth than previously forecast.

Related Results

Short Term Energy Monitoring: A Road To Long Term Energy Savings?

• NCS-Omnicare: The New Landscape For M&A
• Cloud Computing Also Hit by IT-Spending Cutbacks
• Ohio’s Health House Provides Asthma-Free Indoor Living
• Agistix’s On-Demand Solution Gives Maxim Centralized Logistics Control

“Slower,” however, does not mean slow. At the current global growth rate, 1.5 million people–roughly a new metropolitan Milwaukee–are added every week. Despite fertility declines, birthrates in much of the world remain high. For example, Guatemala’s fertility is 5.1 children per woman, Laos and Pakistan’s 5.6, and Iraq’s 5.7. And those are not even the high end of the spectrum: Afghanistan’s fertility rate is 6.1. The 43 nations of East, West, and Central Africa average 6.0, 6.2, and 6.3 children per woman, respectively. Countries that have reduced their birthrate to three or four children per woman are also growing very rapidly. This is partly because of “population momentum,” in which earlier high fertility yields a large proportion of young people. Even fertility rates fractionally above replacement can perpetuate rapid growth.

What if every nation’s fertility stayed at its present level? Human population would exceed 50 billion by the year 2100–if the earth could support that many.

The UN “medium” projections (perhaps the most realistic) now assume that fertility in developing nations will fall to about 2.2 children per woman over roughly the next 30 years. Even so, world population would reach 8.9 billion by 2050. The 2.9 billion gain would itself equal the world’s entire human population in 1957.

Most future growth will occur in the most distressed regions of the earth, many of which are already experiencing severe deforestation, water shortages, and massive soil erosion. In the medium projections, sub-Saharan Africa’s present population of 630 million will more than double to 1.5 billion by 2050. By that time, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan will also more than double, as will Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Paraguay. Bangladesh will grow by two-thirds, and India will increase by more than half a billion persons to 1.5 billion.

:}

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/overpopulation/overpopulation.html

4. OverPopulation harbors everyone’s worst fears about “State” control. That we will be prohibited to breed “for our own good” and that only the rich shall have kids. Which would your rather have a human die off of 6 billion people or a little self control?? But we are past that now. The die off will happen and the real issue is “what do we do when humans become food”…and once we get over the crash how do we stabilize the population.  Many world leaders are thinking about this now. Shouldn’t you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kndX3tVxCt8&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

Overpopulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Map of countries by population density (See List of countries by population density.)

Areas of high population densities, calculated in 1994.

Map of countries and territories by fertility rate (See List of countries and territories by fertility rate.)

Overpopulation is a condition where an organism’s numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat. In common parlance, the term usually refers to the relationship between the human population and its environment, the Earth.^[1]

Overpopulation does not depend only on the size or density of the population, but on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources. If a given environment has a population of 10 individuals, but there is food or drinking water enough for only 9, then in a closed system where no trade is possible, that environment is overpopulated; if the population is 100 but there is enough food, shelter, and water for 200 for the indefinite future, then it is not overpopulated. Overpopulation can result from an increase in births, a decline in mortality rates due to medical advances, from an increase in immigration, or from an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources. It is possible for very sparsely-populated areas to be overpopulated, as the area in question may have a meager or non-existent capability to sustain human life (e.g. the middle of the Sahara Desert or Antarctica).

The resources to be considered when evaluating whether an ecological niche is overpopulated include clean water, clean air, food, shelter, warmth, and other resources necessary to sustain life. If the quality of human life is addressed, there may be additional resources considered, such as medical care, education, proper sewage treatment and waste disposal. Overpopulation places competitive stress on the basic life sustaining resources, leading to a diminished quality of life.:}

:}

http://www.culturechange.org/overpopulation_resources.html

:}

This is Beautiful:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/323116main_s119e010286_hires.jpg

www.shuttlepresskit.com

:}

This is not:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52T5TN20090330?rpc=64

NASA in Colbert conundrum over Space Station

By Irene Klotz

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) – NASA’s outreach to the public to drum up interest in the International Space Station started innocently enough with an online contest to name the station’s new living quarters.

But Stephen Colbert, a comedian who poses as an ultra right-wing news commentator on cable television’s Comedy Central, nosed into the act with a grass-roots appeal that has backed the staid U.S. space agency into a corner.

The comedian’s supporters cast 230,539 write-in votes to name the new module at the $100-billion space outpost “Colbert.” The top NASA-suggested name, “Serenity,” finished a distant second, more than 40,000 votes behind.

Contest rules stipulate that the agency retains the right to basically do whatever it wants, but it may not be that easy.

Last week, U.S. Representative Chaka Fattah, a Pennsylvania Democrat, called on NASA to do the democratic thing and use the name that drew the most votes.

“NASA decided to hold an election to name its new room at the International Space Station and the clear winner is Stephen Colbert,” Fattah said in a statement. “The people have spoken, and Stephen Colbert won it fair and square — even if his campaign was a bit over the top.”

NASA is taking some time to ponder its next move.

“We have a plan and we’re working with some folks and in a couple of weeks you’ll know what the answer is,” NASA’s associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier said.

:}

Who is laughing now Mr. Colbert..hmmmmm?

:}

:}

Normally I stick to the light commercial/ residential energy consumer markets and grass roots environmental issues. This blog will occasionally address industrial issues especially involving large power generators. The Space Shuttle is so way past industrial that well it’s hard for this blog to comment. I am also very conscious of the 2 we collectively blew up. I lived through both of them and the fire aboard the Apollo 1 space flight testing. That said I think NASA needs to keep flying the Shuttles until they have an effective replacement for it. NASA argues that they don’t have the money or the manpower to do both. I think that is sissy talk myself. The Hubble needs them and so does the International Space Station. We are never leaving this solar system of ours. That’s a fact Jack. Even Asimov said it would take us 100 years to have the infrastructure in place to go to Mars so let’s slow down and get this one right. The first thing we need to do is create an integrated space command so that everyone is flying together.

We need to create reuseable space stuff too. Our orbit is starting to look like a flying garbage dump. We have our stuff scatterred willy nilly over 4 planets besides our own. We have even thrown something out into the galaxy. But throwing stuff away, like Burning Behavior will take several posts.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn15145-space-shuttle-is-key-issue-for-obama-agency-says.html

Space shuttle is key issue for Obama, agency says

• 22:48 06 November 2008
• NewScientist.com news service
• Rachel Courtland

Incoming president Barack Obama must decide the shuttle’s fate soon if he wants to keeps its replacement on schedule, the Government Accountability Office says (Image: NASA)

Related Articles

• Problems mount for NASA’s Ares rocket
• 28 October 2008
• What direction now for US space exploration?
• 03 October 2008
• Moonlighting engineers design alternative NASA rocket
• 21 July 2008
• Search New Scientist
• Contact us

Web Links

• Constellation, NASA
• Retirement of the space shuttle, GAO
• NASA’s post-shuttle prospects, Congressional Budget Office

US president-elect Barack Obama will need to decide soon whether to retire the space shuttle in 2010 or extend its life, a government oversight office said on Thursday.

The space shuttle is one of 13 ‘urgent’ issues that face the next US president, according to a US Government Accountability Office (GAO) list. “These are issues that will require the attention of the President and Congress early on in the next administration,” says GAO spokesperson Chuck Young.

Deciding the fate of the shuttle is particularly time-sensitive, Young says. If the government decides to fly more shuttle missions, it could impact how quickly NASA can move forward with a shuttle replacement, set to be ready to fly by March 2015.

The replacement, the centrepiece of a NASA programme called Constellation, would end a five-year gap in the US’s ability to transport astronauts to space. During the interim, astronauts will have to hitch rides to the International Space Station on Russian Soyuz capsules.

Interdependent programmes

Extending the shuttle’s lifetime means that if “NASA’s budget doesn’t change, it will put Constellation off”, says Cristina Chaplain of the GAO.

But even with more money, NASA may not be able to close the gap in its access to space. That’s because the shuttle and Constellation programmes are interdependent, Chaplain told New Scientist.

The agency needs to free up facilities and personnel that currently maintain the shuttle fleet for work on the replacement vehicle, an Apollo-inspired capsule called Orion that will launch atop the Ares I rocket.

Congress built in time for Obama to decide the shuttle’s fate. NASA is not allowed to take any actions before 30 April 2009 that would prevent the shuttle from flying safely after its scheduled retirement in 2010, according to the agency’s new authorisation act, which passed in October.

:}

Would you care to bet on that?:

 http://www.hubdub.com/m21244/Will_the_Space_Shuttle_retire_by_the_end_of_2010_as_planned

Will the Space Shuttle

retire by the end of

2010, as planned?

Current forecast: 30% chance

Combining all predictions, the current forecast is that this is 30% likely to happen (unchanged in last 1 day)

The addition of an extra mission to NASA’s space shuttle flight manifest could significantly reduce the chance of retiring the orbiter fleet in 2010 as planned, possibly to as low as 5 percent, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in a report released Monday [Nov 3, 2008].
The CBO studied risks associated with delaying the space shuttle’s retirement and how that would affect work on the replacement system – consisting of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Ares I launcher – which is expected to debut in 2015.
The report concluded there was a 20 to 60 percent chance NASA would be able to fly all of the 10 scheduled shuttle missions in the next two years. The addition of an 11th mission to transport the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to the space station, as Congress has directed, would reduce that probability to between 5 and 30 percent, the CBO report said.
:}

Then again the way the Orion and the Constellation are going they may have all the time in the world:

 http://www.space.com/news/081104-nasa-shuttle-retirement-cbo.html

 The gap between the shuttle’s retirement and the first flight of Orion and Ares I could widen if NASA cannot keep Orion’s mass from growing during development. Other issues that could delay Orion and Ares I include a longer-than-expected development of Ares I’s J-2X upper-stage engine, difficulties with the Orion’s heat shields and excessive thrust oscillation in Ares 1’s first stage, the CBO report said.

The report also said a $577 million reduction in NASA’s 2007 funding prompted NASA to forego some robotic lunar surface exploration missions, which could delay plans to return astronauts to the Moon by 2020.

The gap between the shuttle’s retirement and the first flight of Orion and Ares I could widen if NASA cannot keep Orion’s mass from growing during development. Other issues that could delay Orion and Ares I include a longer-than-expected development of Ares I’s J-2X upper-stage engine, difficulties with the Orion’s heat shields and excessive thrust oscillation in Ares 1’s first stage, the CBO report said.

The report also said a $577 million reduction in NASA’s 2007 funding prompted NASA to forego some robotic lunar surface exploration missions, which could delay plans to return astronauts to the Moon by 2020.

The gap between the shuttle’s retirement and the first flight of Orion and Ares I could widen if NASA cannot keep Orion’s mass from growing during development. Other issues that could delay Orion and Ares I include a longer-than-expected development of Ares I’s J-2X upper-stage engine, difficulties with the Orion’s heat shields and excessive thrust oscillation in Ares 1’s first stage, the CBO report said.

The report also said a $577 million reduction in NASA’s 2007 funding prompted NASA to forego some robotic lunar surface exploration missions, which could delay plans to return astronauts to the Moon by 2020.

http://www.space.com/common/media/video.php?videoRef=SP_080821_parchute_test

 http://www.space.com/common/media/video.php?videoRef=SP_080721_constellation1

 http://www.space.com/common/media/video.php?videoRef=SP_080721_constellation2

http://www.space.com/common/media/video.php?videoRef=080626-constellation-rock