Wuhan China Coronavirus.

majority of people just go to the supermarket and buy what they eat. if the supermarket is empty, that is not a "food shortage".

the world will never have a food shortage. but rather people just don't know how to get food. its a people problem not a world problem.

even when there are people starving to death its because people are controlling food for power.

the world produces plenty of food. way more than the worlds population could ever consume.

"

Boem wrote:

The real issue will be how you sustain a society structure that required triple the manpower to function and how will people behave when they need to live on standards lower then previous generations because we simply have less people in total.

The actual numbers are:
-449.100 Farmers and Famalymembers (including seniors beyond workingage)
-204.600 fulltime Workers
-286.300 seasonal workers
feeding a ecumenopolis of about 81Mill.
50% of the area is farmable
30% is forested

The main problem are the ~100.000 buerocrats that rely on a steady income of DinA4 Paperwork just to keep the engine theoretically running.
Or in other words: There is a certain 1% of the population that is important to maintain at all cost.

Also, about your dreams of not having to work when your old. Forget about it.

:)

"

Boem wrote:

"

RPGlitch wrote:

Probably more relevant to address the cause of food problems (population) rather than focusing on the quality of the food itself.

Only cranks and idiots are concerned with the population numbers.

If anything, the current trend is problematic because we will have a global population shrink in the comming century and not the opposite.

There hasn't been a famine in the past forty years that couldn't be atributed to politics rather then actual shortage of food.
People decided to let people starve, thats not a food issue but an ego issue.

Peace,

-Boem-

In one country there are "food shortages" and in different a tons of wasted. Because somebode makes PROFIT from this situation and all "food is low and population is to big" is just propaganda. Lies damn lies.

Ohh shit now i feel bad x'D didn't saw there was a post about it before i made it lol well guess it was a lil bit different anyways :P

"

elesham4ever wrote:

"no evidence the coronavirus epidemic is under control [in China]"
-CDC virology expert

"it [china plague] is very transmissible and it is almost certainly going to be a pandemic"
-director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

"the world is dangerously unprepared for this pandemic"
-WHO director Tedros Ghebreyesus

"the virus has confirmed cases in at least 27 countries; china, hong kong, macao, australia, cambodia, canada, finland, france, germany, india, italy, japan, malaysia, nepal, philippines, russia, singapore, south korea, spain, sri lanka, sweden, taiwan, thailand, UAE, UK, USA, vietnam"
-CDC

Given how easy it spreads and how likely it is that infected people will seem healthy and thus be out and about spreading it further for up to 2 weeks on average before they take to their sick/death bed its probably in the process of spreading everywhere and we're just marking time till we all realize it. And if the experts thinks all the Chinese efforts to contain this plague have failed then we're doomed because most nations wont go as far as they did until its way too late to save the bulk of the population.

Stay safe poebros!

---------------------------------------

"

samgreg wrote:

Add this to OP, please:

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6.

---------------------------------------

Person dies from coronavirus in Washington state, first in the US, health officials say
https://www.foxnews.com/us/person-dies-from-coronavirus-in-washington-state-first-in-the-us-health-officials-say

also u miss a few! atleast on the netherlands xD

"

Boem wrote:

This makes me dismiss your viewpoint instantly, because there are only two country's in the entire world currently that have a birthrate over 2.1.(which means sustainable levels)

And this makes me think you are being ignorant. Where are you even getting this from? All the studies as far as I'm aware of acknowledge that the current global birthrates are not at a sustainable level.

Some predict it 'will' be sustainable once the global population growth reaches a certain point in the future, but there isn't overwhelming scientific consensus that warrant outright dismissal.

It remains a pretty relevant concern given the thousands of scientists and nobel laureates who have voiced their opinion on the matter. Not to mention how many historical examples you want to pull where things turn violent.

You really think that India and China suffering from malnourishment problems has nothing to do with their population? That things like this stem just from political egos? I'm just saying consider there may be other factors involved here that you are outright ignoring.

"

So no, there isn't going to be violence because we are already in the shrinking phase because people aren't producing at levels of sustainability worldwide.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a global population shrinkage. We are still net positive for global population and that's a cause for concern.

So, yeah, it can actually lead to violence.

"

Why do you think most country's are moving towards an inverted population pyramid where the new generations have to provide for double or triple their own population size of elderly.

The problem isn't food or space, because we have plenty of both and more to come when older generations die out.

Well add a few billion more people and you won't have plenty of either, considering the global population is still growing. Once we hit global population capacity both of those concerns become pretty relevant as will inevitable shrink that will occur afterwards.

That shrink is what I'm talking about.

"

The real issue will be how you sustain a society structure that required triple the manpower to function and how will people behave when they need to live on standards lower then previous generations because we simply have less people in total.

My point is this goes back to population.

There are plenty of communities which are self-sustaining but none of them have the millions and billions of mouths to feed.

IE. What's easier? Developing new technologies or telling people to stop making babies?

"

RPGlitch wrote:

IE. What's easier? Developing new technologies or telling people to stop making babies?

Developing new technologies.

As for your other remarks, the global population is already shrinking, we simply don't see it yet because we grow older.
That's why i mentioned the inverted pyramids, people are getting 5 hours older per day on average since the industrial revolution kicked off.

The entire next generation population is below sustainment value's so there is a huge shock incomming when the older generations start dying off from natural causes.

Current projection is 9.2 billion if im not mistaken before the older generation is going to start diminishing rapidly.

Though we don't know what the age limit will be in another fifty years or for next generations, we might be in a perpetual inverted pyramid situation for all we know.

As for the "india and china malnourishment", of course its a political ego problem. The plans are on the EU and WHO's table to stop this for the little price tag of one billion a year, which given the total budget isn't a lot.

Instead they decided to invest 3.5 billion in a global nutrition program spread out over a 2012-2025 time frame with a projected result of helping 7 million children from stunted growth.

Which is by no means a bad thing, but it isn't the requested 1 billion a year to simply stop the effect of stunted growth worldwide en mass.

The resources are available and so is the technologie and the populations in china and india have nothing to do with either.
One could argue they just hit a stroke of bad luck with the climate hype where climate plans take presedence on childrens stunted growth when it comes to the big budgets and resource re-directions.

Peace,

-Boem-

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4198?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-bXwpMyH6AIVRIXVCh3yJwjOEAAYASAAEgJl1fD_BwE

"

MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE
GUIDE REPRODUCTION WISELY — IMPROVING FITNESS AND DIVERSITY
UNITE HUMANITY WITH A LIVING NEW LANGUAGE
RULE PASSION — FAITH — TRADITION AND ALL THINGS WITH TEMPERED REASON
PROTECT PEOPLE AND NATIONS WITH FAIR LAWS AND JUST COURTS
LET ALL NATIONS RULE INTERNALLY RESOLVING EXTERNAL DISPUTES IN A WORLD COURT
AVOID PETTY LAWS AND USELESS OFFICIALS
BALANCE PERSONAL RIGHTS WITH SOCIAL DUTIES
PRIZE TRUTH — BEAUTY — AND LOVE — SEEKING HARMONY WITH THE INFINITE
BE NOT A CANCER ON THE EARTH — LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE — LEAVE ROOM FOR NATURE

Yeah yeah thats conspiracy but not theory.

"

Boem wrote:

Developing new technologies.

Developing new technologies is not easier than maintaining a sustainable birthrate.

Are we just not considering that every additional person requires food, space, mental health, etc...and whatever technologies to support that?

There is a reason countries don't just invent new technologies to combat their population issues. It's obviously harder.

It's why countries usually just pass incentives or penalties for having children when they have population problems, not invent new technologies.

"

As for your other remarks, the global population is already shrinking, we simply don't see it yet because we grow older.

The global population is not shrinking. The birthrate is decreasing, but the population is still increasing. It's not even at the point where the elderly are outnumbering the young for a majority of the world.

I'm well aware of the inverted population pyramids but even looking at the European trends on their total fertility rate (TFR) which is what I'm assuming you are referring to, cause obviously Africa and other parts of the globe don't seem to care.

You can see that in the last 10-20 years the TFR isn't just a continuous downward trend, but one that goes up and down.

Which makes sense considering that many countries are actively aware of the issue of an inverted population and are passing actions to reverse its effects.

It's why I don't find inverted pyramid populations representative of future trends. If people know there is a problem with their population and do something about it. You can't just assume downward trends like that will continue indefinitely.

"

The entire next generation population is below sustainment value's so there is a huge shock incomming when the older generations start dying off from natural causes.

Yeah, assuming nothing changes. Which is a big if.

"

As for the "india and china malnourishment", of course its a political ego problem. The plans are on the EU and WHO's table to stop this for the little price tag of one billion a year, which given the total budget isn't a lot.

Where are you even getting this from?

"

Instead they decided to invest 3.5 billion in a global nutrition program spread out over a 2012-2025 time frame with a projected result of helping 7 million children from stunted growth.

I'm going to assume its 3.5 million dollars invested in global nutrition programs. Cause otherwise the rest of your sentence doesn't make any sense.

"

Which is by no means a bad thing, but it isn't the requested 1 billion a year to simply stop the effect of stunted growth worldwide en mass.

Yes, and without knowing the context cause I don't know where this is coming from.

There is a multitude of reasons other than ego that would explain such behavior. One of which, is whether or not the proposed solution would even work? Just because the WHO says it needs 1 billion dollars, doesn't necessarily mean it will even solve the problem.

How many welfare programs proclaim to have the one and only solution to homelessness and poverty but end up squandering whatever money is given to them.

And the EU and UN hardly have a track record of being reliable.

The question is should countries be expected to just throw money at whatever people think is the next best solution?

The answer is obviously no.

This is roughly the same reason why everyone can agree that climate change is an issue, but most countries aren't willing to dump money into 'proposed solutions' that are both vague and would hurt themselves.

Cause not everyone is a humanitarian and neither should they expected to be.

Not to mention whatever other consideration they maybe having.

"

The resources are available and so is the technologie and the populations in china and india have nothing to do with either.

No, the resources are not available, which is at least partially why they are starving, and neither is the technology.

If China had the industrial capacity of the United States it'd be able to produce several times more food then they currently do.

Yet, there are practical reasons the United States doesn't just toss out its technology to everyone to use willy nilly.

Just because one country has the technology to produce the food, doesn't mean the entire world has access to it.

Just like you may have a house in the suburbs yet the 10 homeless folks living in your neighborhood don't have access to your house.

It's not your ego, when you decide not to let 10 homeless folks into your home despite the homeowner association saying it would solve the homeless problem in your area. It's what you call common sense.

People have other priorities and so do nations of the world, if they want to actually exist.

"

One could argue they just hit a stroke of bad luck with the climate hype where climate plans take presedence on childrens stunted growth when it comes to the big budgets and resource re-directions.

Peace,

-Boem-

If people actually think China and other countries don't have ulterior motives for their 'participation' in climate change that'd be pretty naive.

There are a lot of other reason other than the goodness of your heart to impose restrictions on other countries.