This summer’s blockbusters are really about overpopulation

[Jessy169]

"Man of Steel" and Dan Brown's "Inferno" both reveal a concern about humanity's unsustainable numbers

The unfortunate truth is that our planet is nearing a similar state of crisis – one that is becoming increasingly irrevocable with each passing year. This past May, we exceeded 400 parts per million (PPM) of atmospheric carbon; experts maintain that anything above 350 PPM (which we exceeded over 25 years ago) is simply unsustainable. The planet is reportedly growing warmer every year, and the consumption of its limited resources, by an ever-increasing population, is doing relatively little to allay the situation. According to the United States Census Bureau, the global population is currently an estimated 7.093 billion people. The world should see 8 billion by around 2025, and perhaps 9 billion by 2050.

But how do these statistics compare with what analysts maintain is a sustainable global population – one in which poverty and starvation, along with horrendous living conditions and sanitation, are minimized to marginal levels? “Any environmental biologist or statistician will tell you that humankind’s best chance of long-term survival occurs with a global population of around four billion,” Zobrist chides Sinskey during their first meeting in “Inferno.” She takes that number quite poorly — understandable considering the current population is almost double that figure. But Zobrist’s assertion echoes the work of scientists such as David Pimentel, whose research within the past couple of decades locates a comfortable, sustainable global future between 1 and 3 billion people – a bit less than what this fictional, wide-eyed geneticist has predicted.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/this_summers_blockbusters_are_really_about_overpopulation/

The comments posted on this article are in my opinion very interesting. A discussion between several commentors ensues, where the general discussion centers around whether or not there are ethical ways to induce population decrease primarily in developing nations, and whether or not population decrease is even possible.

But the commenters fail to recognize one crucial point. That is, whether we plan for it or want it or not, the world's population is on the verge of significant reduction. Why?

Because our entire modern civilization is built on cheap and easily obtainable oil, and the period of cheap/easily obtainable oil is OVER. As the oil companies resort to fracking -- the functional equivalant of scraping the bottom of the barrel -- we now enter a long and protracted downward slide to the inevitable point where there is little to no oil remaining for general consumption. That slide will be punctuated with numerous bumps, some severe, some not so severe. At the end of that slide, we'll find that a good portion of the world's population has disappeared due to starvation, war, disease or "related causes". Because without oil to fuel the transport, crop fertilization and trade, economies will crash, people will starve, etc...

Not if, but when -- and more like "how soon", than when.

I believe that one of the commentators made the point that it is the teeming masses in some of the third world countries that will realize the most significant population decreases -- North America and Europe, not so much.

As we enter this phase of world events, there are numerous ethical considerations to ponder. Which is more ethical -- letting a billion or two miserably poor people die of starvation, or expending precious resources and energy to feed them and keep them alive for a little longer even while still knowing that in the end, we simply won't be able to save them.

Heavy things to consider as we move through the rest of this decade and into the next.

[Stargazer99]

1. How about telling anti-abortionist to "shut their trap"

There is enough pain and grief in this world from poverty and lack of ability to gain resources for a decent life
Abortion, contraception should be free to the poor worldwide.. but , hell, no...not as long as the "right to life" (no matter how miserable a life may be) is running the political show. Just how stupid can mankind be?

[Jessy169]

2. Just how stupid can mankind be?

Sadly, it is obvious that the collective stupidity of mankind knows no limit. If there is to be a massive die-off of humans on this planet, which seems inevitable, then let's hope that the stupid ones go first because they are the ones who prevent intelligent and decisive action on multiple issues, including contraception and abortion.

[Hestia]

3. which is why I liked the premise - handling of the problem - in Inferno.

No big die-off scenario, nobody actually knows who will contract the "virus" (it's not really a virus but nano-tech something or other thingie-poo) 1 out of 3 people will be rendered sterile and it will pass on to any further generations. Great arguments pro and con on the subject. And here you thought it would just be about the Illuminati and art history