Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, "experts" say

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources could make for an "unrecognizable" world by 2050, researchers warned at a major US science conference Sunday.

The United Nations has predicted the global population will reach seven billion this year, and climb to nine billion by 2050, "with almost all of the growth occurring in poor countries, particularly Africa and South Asia," said John Bongaarts of the non-profit Population Council.

To feed all those mouths, "we will need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000," said Jason Clay of the World Wildlife Fund at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

"By 2050 we will not have a planet left that is recognizable" if current trends continue, Clay said.

The swelling population will exacerbate problems, such as resource depletion, said John Casterline, director of the Initiative in Population Research at Ohio State University.

But incomes are also expected to rise over the next 40 years -- tripling globally and quintupling in developing nations -- and add more strain to global food supplies.

People tend to move up the food chain as their incomes rise, consuming more meat than they might have when they made less money, the experts said.

It takes around seven pounds (3.4 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of meat, and around three to four pounds of grain to produce a pound of cheese or eggs, experts told AFP.

"More people, more money, more consumption, but the same planet," Clay told AFP, urging scientists and governments to start making changes now to how food is produced.

Population experts, meanwhile, called for more funding for family planning programs to help control the growth in the number of humans, especially in developing nations.

"For 20 years, there's been very little investment in family planning, but there's a return of interest now, partly because of the environmental factors like global warming and food prices," said Bongaarts.

"We want to minimize population growth, and the only viable way to do that is through more effective family planning," said Casterline.

Source

Here's hoping we'll be able to download our minds into computers by then.

inb4cyborgs

Just in time.

Sorry I couldn't get the find the whole article, but you get the idea.

Yet more propoganda to control the population. The resources of this planet are only low due to government control and regulation of said resources. This planet is more than capable of supporting a human population of more than 9 billion. Global warming has already been proven to be a farse because carbon produced by humans is not causing the earth to heat up. The sun is causing that and earth is not the only planetary body feeling the effects. Many other planetary bodies are also heating up.

Yet more propoganda to control the population. The resources of this planet are only low due to government control and regulation of said resources. This planet is more than capable of supporting a human population of more than 9 billion. Global warming has already been proven to be a farse because carbon produced by humans is not causing the earth to heat up. The sun is causing that and earth is not the only planetary body feeling the effects. Many other planetary bodies are also heating up.

:f6: Do you have ay studies to back those claims up?

:f6: Do you have ay studies to back those claims up?

Ask and you shall recieve. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...rming.html

I have more if you require it but this one backs up my claims just the same.

Dammit, why did I have to be part of this generation.Inb4bugsfordinner

Ask and you shall recieve. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...rming.html

I have more if you require it but this one backs up my claims just the same.

Interesting.

Though people should stop having babies like crazies. 1 or 2 kids are more than fine.

Interesting.

Though people should stop having babies like crazies. 1 or 2 kids are more than fine.

I would say no more than 4 kids is fine. Though some people should not have any at all...lol.

Yet unfortunately they still do.

I would say no more than 4 kids is fine. Though some people should not have any at all...lol.

I would say most people shouldn't have any kids at all.
Specially in "developing nations" were eventhough things are pineappleed up people keep having kids.
I live in one of those "developing nations" and I can remember my maid that had a crappy income getting pregnant like 5 times in 5 years.
I still don't know how the pineapple she planned to feed them but the future should be worse...
Not enough money to pay for college and her kids will be in the same condition as her when she got pregnant.

I might be a pessimist but I think there are few possibilities for them: be a "thief", a bus driver or any job with sucky incomes and have 10 kids that will have same future.
The other one that's probably the one that's gonna happen (because it's popular right now):
Since they're poor they'll be more or less forced to join either the army or the police. If the join the army they'll be killing people for stupid reasons and making political/social things stay they way they're right now. So they'll just contribute in one way or another to staying stuck with the same political/social/cultural issues.
I hate when people say "developing nations", we're not developing anything: people still lives in crappy conditions and will live in crappy conditions who knows for how long. The only things that's developing is rich people's wallet and political life.

I hate when people say "developing nations", we're not developing anything: people still lives in crappy conditions and will live in crappy conditions who knows for how long. The only things that's developing is rich people's wallet and political life.

The term "developing nation" is kind of a general term. It usually signifies a nation that is growing into the western style economy by way of imports and exports. This is something that China did very rapidly and is fast becomming the world leader in that respect. That is just one use for the term. You are right about it developing rich peoples wallets and political life though...seems to go hand in hand.

The term "developing nation" is kind of a general term. It usually signifies a nation that is growing into the western style economy by way of imports and exports. This is something that China did very rapidly and is fast becomming the world leader in that respect. That is just one use for the term. You are right about it developing rich peoples wallets and political life though...seems to go hand in hand.

Yeah, my point is I hate when words that mean something are used to signify something else that's to any point different. Also, as far as I know with what I was teached, it's more of a politically correct term. "3rd world nation" didn't sound nice so we changed it to "developing nation". Which might be the reason that makes me hate it, politically correct terms are so moronic. For example, feminists that say stop using "men" instead of "humanity". Humanity comes from some latin word that also means male or men, can't really remember. Anyway, it shouldn't really mattter because it isn't really related to the topic. I just said that on a ...sidenote?