Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 2, 2013, 03:04 PM   #51
Prof.
macrumors 68040
 
Prof.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
It has - widespread worldwide use of birth control .
But but but... THE POPE!
__________________
When kids look up to great scientists the way they do to great musicians and actors, civilization will jump to the next level
- Brian Greene
Prof. is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 09:19 AM   #52
63dot
macrumors 601
 
63dot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Platte
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8thark View Post
And what happens when these rare resources like earth metals etc etc run out? Or there's not enough far land or water or whatever? Will people say not my problem or will they take action now?
We as a human race have gone too far as far as population and some resources may be depleted in a few centuries. We basically barely dodged a bullet since before then, but not much before then, the population will decline measurably.

Either way, we personally won't be around to see if we keep on the depopulation model and save the resources. One one hand we wont' see the great decline in population in one generation since the previous two will have to live out their lives. At the same time we won't run out of resources right away or pollute the earth beyond repair that quickly. The good thing is that China worked on depopulation already and implemented it.

Last edited by 63dot; Jun 10, 2013 at 09:24 AM.
63dot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2013, 03:53 AM   #53
the8thark
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by 63dot View Post
The good thing is that China worked on depopulation already and implemented it.
Yes a good thing. And the rest of the world needs to follow suit and do the same.
__________________
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
the8thark is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2013, 09:01 AM   #54
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
(Emphasis added)

I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. I just did a quick calculation. World's population is 7 Billion. New Your City has a population density of 27,550 people per square mile.
New York City is largely suburban. Manhattan, even with all the office buildings full of people from outside, is something like 80,000 people per square mile. Kowloon (dense part of Hong Kong) is over 100,000 people per square mile. Historically, parts of some neighborhoods of big cities exceeded 1 Million people per square mile (e.g. Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, at its population height, parts of Hong Kong). So, the Duggars (whoever they are) exaggerated. It would take 10 Jacksonvilles or so with some serious packing, 100 with moderate packing. In other words -- forget about suburbia, but, if everyone moves to crowded, closely-spaced apartments (and quits driving cars) you can compact people pretty well. Perhaps not your version of "joy", but, tastes differ.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2013, 09:32 AM   #55
63dot
macrumors 601
 
63dot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Platte
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
New York City is largely suburban. Manhattan, even with all the office buildings full of people from outside, is something like 80,000 people per square mile. Kowloon (dense part of Hong Kong) is over 100,000 people per square mile. Historically, parts of some neighborhoods of big cities exceeded 1 Million people per square mile (e.g. Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, at its population height, parts of Hong Kong). So, the Duggars (whoever they are) exaggerated. It would take 10 Jacksonvilles or so with some serious packing, 100 with moderate packing. In other words -- forget about suburbia, but, if everyone moves to crowded, closely-spaced apartments (and quits driving cars) you can compact people pretty well. Perhaps not your version of "joy", but, tastes differ.
When we are talking the legal boundaries of New York City, then there are other places more densely populated. But when we talk about Manhattan, there is no place on earth even close, but maybe parts of Hong Kong like you say. I think as China is able to build more skyscrapers there may be a Hong Kong section, if it's divided up that way like Manhattan in NYC, that can exceed NYC one day.
63dot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2013, 04:10 PM   #56
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by 63dot View Post
But when we talk about Manhattan, there is no place on earth even close,
Except Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai .
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2013, 11:52 AM   #57
63dot
macrumors 601
 
63dot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Platte
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Except Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai .
They had a good segment on CBS about why that can't happen. China is pulled so many different ways and while prosperous in some sectors, there is no city that has the same central location and economic power of a New York. It makes more sense to spread out the population in any major Chinese city and it's not stuck into the same very narrow confines of a Manhattan (ridiculous 71,000 per square mile) expand the boundaries of Manhattan (the way London was officially enlarged). Yes, there has been talk about redistricting the sections of NYC and making Manhattan envelop more than just an island. But while the central focus of NYC is still Manhattan, there will always be an unthinkable level of density on that island.

Now if Shanghai (a still crowded 9,400 per square mile) were confined to a small island then the density would exceed that of Manhattan. People often get confused because while some cities approach and surpass NYC, nobody is even close to Manhattan. But to be fair Manhattan is not all of NYC and only a part so let's give the title of density to a Shanghai or similar city.

China's economic growth has led to other cities taking some of the business and it won't be just Shanghai and Hong Kong so if anything the density will be diminished in coming years also helped by the one child policy.

A hundred years from now people will complain about the crowded island of Manhattan as they do now and did a hundred years ago. No matter how far technology moves forward, you can't physically expand that tiny island.

Last edited by 63dot; Jun 13, 2013 at 11:59 AM.
63dot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2013, 12:44 AM   #58
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by 63dot View Post
It makes more sense to spread out the population in any major Chinese city and it's not stuck into the same very narrow confines of a Manhattan (ridiculous 71,000 per square mile) expand the boundaries of Manhattan (the way London was officially enlarged). Yes, there has been talk about redistricting the sections of NYC and making Manhattan envelop more than just an island. But while the central focus of NYC is still Manhattan, there will always be an unthinkable level of density on that island.
Manhattan has an excess of tall office buildings, but, population-wise, it doesn't seem "unthinkable" to me. Actually, Manhattan is pretty easy to get around in-- easy to walk short distances, or, take the subway if the distance is too far. Manhattan really isn't that dense. You can do that density with low-rise 5-story buildings-- 1 commercial ground floor level and four apartment levels above. Look at this Manhattan-density development:



Caption: Low-rises rises like 8th & Howard are four to six stories tall, with 155 dwellings per acre and 83,000 people per square mile.

Quote:
Now if Shanghai (a still crowded 9,400 per square mile) were confined to a small island then the density would exceed that of Manhattan. People often get confused because while some cities approach and surpass NYC, nobody is even close to Manhattan. But to be fair Manhattan is not all of NYC and only a part so let's give the title of density to a Shanghai or similar city.
Actually, I think 80,000-100,000 people per square mile is a good goal for a dense city-center. That density supports high-density transit, which in turn supports minimal auto requirements.

Quote:
China's economic growth has led to other cities taking some of the business and it won't be just Shanghai and Hong Kong so if anything the density will be diminished in coming years also helped by the one child policy.

A hundred years from now people will complain about the crowded island of Manhattan as they do now and did a hundred years ago. No matter how far technology moves forward, you can't physically expand that tiny island.
I think just the opposite is going to happen. I think dense places will increase and suburban sprawl will decline.

Here is an article about high density in cities:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/des...o-be-ugly/376/
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2013, 01:02 AM   #59
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovex View Post
Distillation plants would eradicate water shortages, It's just a matter of costs.
And you store the salt where?
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2013, 01:09 AM   #60
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire View Post
And you store the salt where?
Bury it in an old uranium mine.
chown33 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2013, 01:25 AM   #61
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 601
 
Mr. Retrofire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: www.emiliana.cl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
My gut feeling is to say yes we are overpopulated.
Huntn, YOU and your avatar belong to an endangered species, so you have no right to speak about OVERPOPULATION! OVERPOPULATION!!



----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. View Post
THE POPE!
Yes, i'm here. Can i help you?
__________________

“Only the dead have seen the end of the war.”
-- Plato --
Mr. Retrofire is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2013, 02:40 AM   #62
rovex
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Retrofire View Post
And you store the salt where?
Would make for good a export.
rovex is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2013, 08:20 AM   #63
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. View Post
Clearly we need another plague. Let's kill off... 2 billion? Nah, let's be generous: 3 billion.

But seriously, life will find a way.
You should read (or maybe you already read) Dan Brown's latest novel... Inferno.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2013, 10:17 AM   #64
63dot
macrumors 601
 
63dot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Platte
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
Here is an article about high density in cities:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/des...o-be-ugly/376/
In the future it would be nice to employ such ideas in Manhattan and make wiser decisions about what limited space there is. So many who could afford it have just gotten sick of what is there and have moved out into areas in the burbs with more elbow room. But elbow room is relative since those areas may seem as crowded as Los Angeles.

Beyond just smart architecture, it's important to have diverse crops and keep an eye on the ecosystem. While we could build a better place for us to live in, we have to keep in mind the other creatures who share this planet which we can't do without. I once heard it put this way as each species being like a rivet on an airplane and there are only so many rivets you can eliminate before it becomes dangerous.
63dot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2013, 11:22 AM   #65
Prof.
macrumors 68040
 
Prof.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
You should read (or maybe you already read) Dan Brown's latest novel... Inferno.
I'm reading it now, 75 more pages to go.
__________________
When kids look up to great scientists the way they do to great musicians and actors, civilization will jump to the next level
- Brian Greene
Prof. is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2013, 01:29 PM   #66
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by 63dot View Post
In the future it would be nice to employ such ideas in Manhattan and make wiser decisions about what limited space there is. So many who could afford it have just gotten sick of what is there and have moved out into areas in the burbs with more elbow room. But elbow room is relative since those areas may seem as crowded as Los Angeles.
Los Angeles seems more crowded to me than Manhattan because you have to drive everywhere and it is crowded with cars and takes forever to drive anywhere. Central Park is a lot faster and easier to get to than the Santa Monica or Big Bear Lake if you need a little elbow room.

But, that's kind of an aside. One of the reasons urban planners are interested in high densities is because high density cities use a lot less energy and water per capita than suburban sprawl cities.

Fresh water is the limiting factor for agriculture and humanity in general, in addition to energy. Someone mentioned desalinization plants. Works for drinking water and showers in coastal cities, but, the energy cost is too high for general agriculture (not to mention the additional energy to pump it to the dry agricultural areas).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2013, 01:38 PM   #67
DUCKofD3ATH
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
An alternative to desalination plants is towing icebergs to where they can be allowed to melt, allowing megatons of fresh water to be pumped inshore.
DUCKofD3ATH is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2013, 07:02 PM   #68
63dot
macrumors 601
 
63dot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Platte
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
Los Angeles seems more crowded to me than Manhattan because you have to drive everywhere and it is crowded with cars and takes forever to drive anywhere. Central Park is a lot faster and easier to get to than the Santa Monica or Big Bear Lake if you need a little elbow room.

But, that's kind of an aside. One of the reasons urban planners are interested in high densities is because high density cities use a lot less energy and water per capita than suburban sprawl cities.

Fresh water is the limiting factor for agriculture and humanity in general, in addition to energy. Someone mentioned desalinization plants. Works for drinking water and showers in coastal cities, but, the energy cost is too high for general agriculture (not to mention the additional energy to pump it to the dry agricultural areas).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination
Nobody knew that Los Angeles would grow quickly into the 3rd largest American city in such short order so there was no time to plan it thus the traffic congestion. All that being said with maybe 10 million people in what is considered driving distance of downtown Los Angeles, it's nothing like the 31 million in driving, or train commute distance of Manhattan*see below. I would probably still like my NYC and London travels via train and bus more than a single car/single passenger experience in the narrow and too few highways in Los Angeles.

More than space, even though we abuse it, we have few resources and fewer plants and animals in place to create enough diversity and ecosystem to sustain any life on earth. We could depopulate from 8 billion down to 5 in an aggressive and planned approach in a century but that wouldn't make a lick of difference if we don't watch our ecosystem.

Albert Einstein predicted that when honeybees were not commonplace anymore, the drain the human race put on the earth would eliminate our species in just four years. Whether he was right, he was thinking along the correct ideas that we need the pollination they offer which even the best technology cannot replace. China were so worried about what crops the sparrows ate, which was substantial, but it wasn't as horrific as when we wiped out the sparrows in China only to have no natural enemy for the locusts. The locusts ended up eating far more crops than the sparrows could have and tens of millions of people starved to death. Our misuse of the land has caused a great drop in honeybees and it's only time before that has a similar effect to decimating the sparrows in China as was done in a previous generation.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	map_ny_tri-state_rev.gif
Views:	2
Size:	36.6 KB
ID:	418388  

Last edited by 63dot; Jun 18, 2013 at 07:16 PM.
63dot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2013, 10:38 AM   #69
snberk103
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Island in the Salish Sea
Quote:
Originally Posted by 63dot View Post
When we are talking the legal boundaries of New York City, then there are other places more densely populated. But when we talk about Manhattan, there is no place on earth even close,...
Surprisingly, the West End neighbourhood of Vancouver comes close at over 56k people sq/mile vs 70k people sq/mile for Manhattan.

Though of course there are a couple of big differences. There are a lot more of Manhattan than the the West End, so the over all population is greater. Also... the West End is primarily residential and therefore the neighbourhood empties during the day as commuters go to work, while Manhattan gets more crowded as people commute into the city.

So, I'm just quibbling about the rather broad and unsupported statement about "... no place even close....".
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton
snberk103 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2013, 06:35 PM   #70
the8thark
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
I agree having so many people in such a small confined space is never good. But there is a lot more factors to consider other then population density before you can say an area is over populated. A more dense population could be less over populated if the land and infrastructure can support it.
__________________
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
the8thark is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2013, 06:50 PM   #71
63dot
macrumors 601
 
63dot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Platte
Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
Surprisingly, the West End neighbourhood of Vancouver comes close at over 56k people sq/mile vs 70k people sq/mile for Manhattan.

Though of course there are a couple of big differences. There are a lot more of Manhattan than the the West End, so the over all population is greater. Also... the West End is primarily residential and therefore the neighbourhood empties during the day as commuters go to work, while Manhattan gets more crowded as people commute into the city.

So, I'm just quibbling about the rather broad and unsupported statement about "... no place even close....".
There is a borough of London that, if taken by itself, surpasses the average of Manhattan. The biggest difference is that in London, Vancouver, and Shanghai, there's elbow room. What I would think can happen to NYC is that if the room runs out or gets too expensive, there are the other boroughs which can just take up the space. It's just semantics as the boroughs get the equal treatment as a business center, too. I would like to see Manhatten featured in some sci-fi movies of what is done about the mass transportation. I think 5th Element is NYC-Manhattan in the future but I didn't see that movie.

I think e-commerce and telecommuting can help alleviate the need for such crowded city centers and maybe somehow we can use technology to reduce pollution and over crowding.
63dot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2013, 08:26 PM   #72
snberk103
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Island in the Salish Sea
Quote:
Originally Posted by 63dot View Post
....
I think e-commerce and telecommuting can help alleviate the need for such crowded city centers and maybe somehow we can use technology to reduce pollution and over crowding.
Ironically, dense cities have less impact on the environment - per person - than when you spread them out. Mass transit really only makes sense in dense areas. Infrastructure is much more efficient in densely populated areas. For instance, in a city you need far less than copper to bring power to an apartment than you do running a couple miles of wire to a single family dwelling in a rural area.

People in cities tend to walk to their destinations far more than rural or suburban dwellers who need to drive due to the distances.

Apartments typically expose only 1 or 2 surfaces to the elements, whereas a typical detached house exposes 5 surfaces - each surface leaking heat during the winter and absorbing heat during the cooling season. The amount of land that is disturbed for an apartment building with hundreds of people can be about the same has a dozen or less houses.

So, while it is really nice to able to work in the forest - as my wife and I do - we don't kid ourselves. We know we are having a bigger impact on the environment than when we lived in the city. To help balance that out we are leaving our property as 'natural' as possible and growing as much of our own veggies as possible to absorb some of our kitchen waste as compost (therefore it is not trucked away) and to minimize the trucking of food to us. As an example.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton
snberk103 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 20, 2013, 09:59 PM   #73
63dot
macrumors 601
 
63dot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Platte
Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
Ironically, dense cities have less impact on the environment - per person - than when you spread them out. Mass transit really only makes sense in dense areas. Infrastructure is much more efficient in densely populated areas. For instance, in a city you need far less than copper to bring power to an apartment than you do running a couple miles of wire to a single family dwelling in a rural area.

People in cities tend to walk to their destinations far more than rural or suburban dwellers who need to drive due to the distances.

Apartments typically expose only 1 or 2 surfaces to the elements, whereas a typical detached house exposes 5 surfaces - each surface leaking heat during the winter and absorbing heat during the cooling season. The amount of land that is disturbed for an apartment building with hundreds of people can be about the same has a dozen or less houses.

So, while it is really nice to able to work in the forest - as my wife and I do - we don't kid ourselves. We know we are having a bigger impact on the environment than when we lived in the city. To help balance that out we are leaving our property as 'natural' as possible and growing as much of our own veggies as possible to absorb some of our kitchen waste as compost (therefore it is not trucked away) and to minimize the trucking of food to us. As an example.
I didn't think of it that way. It makes sense. Hopefully we can also reduce the population and strain on resources however efficient we get the system.

I read that if we took the average height of a male person (one day approaching 6' with females being slightly smaller) and bring it back down to an average of 5' where it once was for an adult male, the drain on resources would be down by 70% percent. Not only that but some disease symptoms of both height mixed with obesity would be alleviated.
63dot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 04:25 PM   #74
cclloyd
macrumors 68000
 
cclloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Alpha Centauri A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM
__________________
iPhone 5 Sprint w/ iOS 7.0.4 Jailbroken
iPad mini Retina w/ iOS 7.0.4 Jailbroken
MacBook Pro Retina Early 2013
cclloyd is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC