Lethal Manmade Pandemic vs Natural Population Crash

[cronus]

The problem I see is that a natural human population crash will allow multiple rebounds and this will seriously damage remaining higher biological systems as survivors cut down remaining forests and kill anything to survive. A 250,000 year dead patch could be reduced to 25,000 years by other means? The alternative is a artificial population crash induced by the release of a high mortality bug leading to produce a population crash of sufficient intensity that it allows 'higher life systems' time and space to recover from the petroleum age? The bug must be nearly universally fatal so that only a few isolated pockets live through it....thankfully there is such a beast and it is this which may need releasing by responsible scientists who think about the wider picture rather than their, or your, place in it?

[Thinking Aloud]

OOOOoooh! Can we do both??!

[PsychoSerenity]

Ra's al Ghul, sometimes written Rā's al Ghūl, is a DC Comics supervillain and an enemy of Batman. His name is Arabic for "the ghoul's head" (the Demon's Head, see Algol). Created by writer Dennis O'Neil and artist Neal Adams, he was introduced in Batman #232's "Daughter of the Demon" (June 1971). He has also come into conflict with Superman and other DC Comics superheroes.

Little is known of the early years of the nearly immortal Ra's, but it is accepted that he has lived for many centuries due to the Lazarus Pits' mysterious brews that restore his youth. A brilliant master of strategy and organization, Ra's al Ghul's goal is to save the Earth from ecological devastation by destroying most of its population. He recognizes Batman as both a worthy foe and a possible ally--except that Batman cannot accept his dystopian worldview. Batman also shares a love-hate relationship with Ra's daughter, the beautiful Talia. Ra's also commands a legion of followers dedicated to bringing his version of an earthly paradise to fruition.

Are you taking notes from this guy, Scrumple?

[Tyrannical]

You don't really need anything too fancy for a population reducing pandemic, just let nature take it's course. There is a tendency for the poorest countries to be the most over populated, and they are also the least able to deal with communicable diseases without outside medical expertise. A few decades of restricting medicine exports is all it should take to reduce those populations to pre-industrial sustainable levels. No need to make us comfy first worlders suffer when it is easier to free up more space elsewhere through natural means.

[cronus]

If we wait for resource depletion then any chance for a technological civilization comeback will lost. Every day wasted on this current false paradigm sustaining the current untenable population is a hundred years worth of resources lost from the smaller sustainable technological alternative. I believe it is imperative to look at things as they are and for people with the means to release the solution to a better future?

[Tyrannical]

If it makes you feel better, if any of those cold fusion theories ends up working out there would be no such concept as over population as fresh food and water would be nearly limitless.
Then you can just build really big buildings. A one mile square, one mile tall super skyscraper with twenty feet between floors could give 7,000,000 families 1000 square feet of living space.

[cronus]

If it makes you feel better, if any of those cold fusion theories ends up working out there would be no such concept as over population as fresh food and water would be nearly limitless.
Then you can just build really big buildings. A one mile square, one mile tall super skyscraper with twenty feet between floors could give 7,000,000 families 1000 square feet of living space.

Wishful thinking Tyrannical....like hot fusion it is always fifty years away although funding is needed today.

[Audley Strange]

Cataclysm porn so 2012.

[cronus]

Humans are the only 'higher intelligence' to have evolved and could go extinct with a quarter million year dead patch but a 25,000 year one is survivable (maybe) so cruel to be kind in the right measure. Things could be worse without my advice and I suggest you take it...or at least take it to someone with the smarts to see where the narrow path to daylight is in this current global dilemma?

[mistermack]

I don't get it.
There has never been a time when humans have been more advanced medically. Or more advanced technologically and agriculturally.
So why should a crash happen now? We waste most of the food we produce as it is.

If things got really bad, we would waste a lot less, because food would be so much more expensive.
The population of the Earth is always going to match food production, excluding major disasters. I can't see food production dropping, so why should the population drop?

Viruses are the only candidate that I can think of, for a near extinction. You would think that if something REALLY deadly evolved, the news would make people drastically change behaviour to avoid catching it..

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's simple, MM. Animals that reach a critic population frequently get hit with epidemics. So, we human animals must have to go through the same thing. Because we ain't no different from any other animal on the planet that makes computers and drive cars.

[Blind groper]

Humans will not get hit by any serious pandemic. We are too smart for that. Even without vaccines or therapies, we would quickly learn the mechanism by which the disease is spread, and take measures to limit the spread.

Anyway, it is quite unnecessary. Fertility has already dropped to 2.4 offspring per couple as global average, from 5.5 about 50 years ago, and it is still falling.

[Jason]

Of the 81 countries above the global average of 2.47 children/woman about 77 of them are dirt poor third world shit holes. The average for those 81 countries is 3.98. The average for 'rich' countries is somewhere around 1.8. This creates a problem don't you think?

[Blind groper]

This creates a problem don't you think?

No, it does not, because all those poor countries are also showing a substantial reduction in fertility. It will take a bit longer before they reach 2.4 or less, but it will happen. The United Nations projections are for global average of 2.0 by 2050, and for a reducing population by 2100.

[Jason]

You are apparently missing that we're talking about a recursive process here where seemingly small gaps in numbers result in huge differences when you do the pencil work. The population gap between 'rich' and 'shit poor' countries will rapidly grow, not shrink, even as birthrates continue to decline across the board. It's simple math.

Assume initial populations are equal. Population A has a birth rate of 4 and population B has a birth rate of 2. Statistically, half the children born will be female. Lets assume the birth rate will drop .47 across the board over four generations, as you claim. Then:

Population A: 2000 Women (4000 total)
Population B: 2000 Women (4000 total)

Generation 1
Pop A: 8000 kids - Birth rate 4
Pop B: 4000 kids - Birth rate 2

Generation 2
Pop A: 15372 - Birth rate 3.843
Pop B: 3686 - Birth rate 1.843

Generation 3
Pop A: 28331 - Birth rate 3.686
Pop B: 3107 - Birth rate 1.686

Generation 4
Pop A: 49990 - Birth rate 3.529
Pop B: 2375 - Birth rate 1.529

We now have an average birth rate of 2 between both populations. We started with equal populations. Both populations were subject to the same decrease in birth rate. Population A, after only 4 generations, has a population 21.05 times larger than that of Population B. Population A is now 12.5 times larger than it had been when we started. Population B is now decreased by 60% from what it had been when it started. Obviously I'm not accounting for the survival rates of the previous generations. Now population A is extremely poor and population B is extremely wealthy. Does anyone else see a problem here?

You're supposed to be some kind of scientist? I guess you skipped math class.