China in grip of AIDS epidemic, WHO warns (AFP)

Given the populaiton density of China, this is the last place that can afford to have such an epidemic...
asia6yn.gif

...it will be a long battle to get this under control.
 
If it spreads in China like it has in Africa, the worlds population is in big trouble.
 
Whats the word im looking for... When silly people get die and stops them from reproducing...

Well in a way for all those that havent got aids this is sadly a good thing. The world will soon be overcrowded and we will be at war over space etc and everythinbg will cost more. Basically out quality of life will go down as soon as the world starts getting over populated.
 
Poverty
Whats the word im looking for... When silly people get die and stops them from reproducing...

Well in a way for all those that havent got aids this is sadly a good thing. The world will soon be overcrowded and we will be at war over space etc and everythinbg will cost more. Basically out quality of life will go down as soon as the world starts getting over populated.

Seriously, the world is not getting overcrowded. Where does this assumption come from? We've got LOTS of room in the world for many many more people. You've obviously never been to west texas. We could fit a billion people out there - it's not like we're using the land.
 
That may be so for the USA but other countries are already overcrowded. London is nearly overcrowded nowadays.
 
Poverty
That may be so for the USA but other countries are already overcrowded. London is nearly overcrowded nowadays.
We can probably fit everyone in the US in Arizona, let alone New Mexico, Texas, Alaska, Montana, etc.

The world won't be getting overcrowded anytime soon.
 
danoff
Are you telling me that the UK is just fundamentally out of room? I don't buy it.

It's not only about living space, right? It's about getting food, water & energy for those people. Pollution and destruction of nature.... influence on climate etc.

population per square mile etc is ok in G8, especially if you count in future trends ( Japan is really crowded atm for example, but that will get better)

The AIDS desease is bad... the "overcrowded planet gets help from HIV " theory is BS though. While beaming away people might be a very questionable but effective way to solve the problem, AIDS is different. It costs a ton of money to
help those people - for years. And I'm not talking about $10000 dollar a year per person or sth like that. It's by far more. But even if China doesn't help its Aids victims in the way we do, it still hurts the economy and could destroy generations of hard working people.
And China has the "one child per family " policy for several years now. The population of China will start decreasing by 2030-40 ( that's what I've read recently).
Not only the silly get Aids, also the uninformed and through blood donations etc the helpless.

Sorry, Poverty, but I think you should rethink your opinion on this.....
 
Max_DC
It's not only about living space, right? It's about getting food, water & energy for those people. Pollution and destruction of nature.... influence on climate etc.

Pollution? Compare the pollution of New York and Los Angeles, or New York and Houston. Pollution doesn't necessarily go up with population.

...and are you telling me that we're fundamentally out of farmland? Or that we're in danger of running out of farmland? Here in the US we still pay farmers not to use all of their land.

Water? You're concerned about water? It's the most abundant substance on the planet. That's like saying you're concerned about getting these people oxygen.

Electricity is going to be an issue? No way, build another Nuclear power plant - problem solved.
 
danoff
Pollution? Compare the pollution of New York and Los Angeles, or New York and Houston. Pollution doesn't necessarily go up with population.

...and are you telling me that we're fundamentally out of farmland? Or that we're in danger of running out of farmland? Here in the US we still pay farmers not to use all of their land.

Water? You're concerned about water? It's the most abundant substance on the planet. That's like saying you're concerned about getting these people oxygen.

Electricity is going to be an issue? No way, build another Nuclear power plant - problem solved.

Are you serious? Population and pollution almost go hand in hand. Remember, pollution doesn't always mean garbage. Theres noise, light, human waste, and many others, that all affect our natural environment.

And yes, farm land in your country may be great, but slowly, around the world we're losing more and more acres of usable, noncontaminated farm land each year.

Water may be abundant, but fresh drinking water isn't. Its one of the most valuable resources on earth, and contaminant free water is slowly becoming non existant. Remember, 3rd world countries can't afford purification plants for all of their people.

Finally, another nuclear power plant isn't going to solve electricity problems, remember Chernobal? Also, coal and nuclear power stations eat up nonrenewable resources, and the more people using em, the quicker the resource goes.

Just because theres room for the people, doesn't mean theres the resources for the people.
 
danoff
Electricity is going to be an issue? No way, build another Nuclear power plant - problem solved.
There is a finite amount of suitable nuclear fuel on the planet. 200 tons of ore are needed to run a typical nuclear plant for one year. Unless safe fission plants are accepted...it is not an infinte resource.
 
danoff
Pollution? Compare the pollution of New York and Los Angeles, or New York and Houston. Pollution doesn't necessarily go up with population.

As SRV2LOW4ME already said, it is not taht simple. Also, don't forget, that Cities like NY or LA are gigantic cities which have to import resources ( beginning from water over food and products ) . In order to satisfy the population of those cities, many othe rplaces must contribute : from the farmer in Kentucky to the cloth manufacturer in India and China.

...and are you telling me that we're fundamentally out of farmland? Or that we're in danger of running out of farmland? Here in the US we still pay farmers not to use all of their land.

Ok that is a typical American thing, have you ever been to Europe or Japan ? Try to find 5 squaremiles of empty land in Japan ( apart from mountains )...



Water? You're concerned about water? It's the most abundant substance on the planet. That's like saying you're concerned about getting these people oxygen.
See SRV2LOW4ME's post
Electricity is going to be an issue? No way, build another Nuclear power plant - problem solved.
Energy certainly isn't the greatest problem, I agree.

Generally you can say, that overpopulation is a huge problem. You also tend to forget that nature ( recreation for humans and living space for millions of animals and plants ) needs space for its own - and I'm not taling about a little zoo in a metropole like LA...
 
Max_DC
As SRV2LOW4ME already said, it is not taht simple. Also, don't forget, that Cities like NY or LA are gigantic cities which have to import resources ( beginning from water over food and products ) . In order to satisfy the population of those cities, many othe rplaces must contribute : from the farmer in Kentucky to the cloth manufacturer in India and China.

I haven't forgotten... and that's not a problem. We've got room for all of them.

Max
Ok that is a typical American thing, have you ever been to Europe or Japan ? Try to find 5 squaremiles of empty land in Japan ( apart from mountains )...

SRV
And yes, farm land in your country may be great, but slowly, around the world we're losing more and more acres of usable, noncontaminated farm land each year.

Just because some countries are running out of farmland doesn't mean the world is.There's still a lot of untapped farmland in the world. Like I said, even the tapped farmland in the US isn't fully being used.

SRV
Water may be abundant, but fresh drinking water isn't. Its one of the most valuable resources on earth, and contaminant free water is slowly becoming non existant. Remember, 3rd world countries can't afford purification plants for all of their people.

Water is a fundamentally solvable problem. The world has sufficient water. We can purify and desalinate water from the ocean and we have massive lakes of purifiable freshwater. The world does not have a water supply problem - regions of the world have water supply problems due to local government failure mostly. In countries that have infrastructure - freshwater for an expanding propulation is not an issue.

SRV
Are you serious? Population and pollution almost go hand in hand. Remember, pollution doesn't always mean garbage. Theres noise, light, human waste, and many others, that all affect our natural environment.

OH MY GOD!! AAAAAHHHH!! NOISE POLUTION!!! NOOOO!!!!! Light pollution?? Give me a break. We're not running out of room for garbage, and we're not running out of sewage treatment facilities. If you're worried about C02 output, I'd bet NY puts out less C02 than Houston - which indicates that air pollution doesn't have to go up with population.

SRV
Finally, another nuclear power plant isn't going to solve electricity problems, remember Chernobal? Also, coal and nuclear power stations eat up nonrenewable resources, and the more people using em, the quicker the resource goes.

So you're saying that because the russians maintained a nuclear plant poorly that we can't use that as a viable power source??

skip0110
There is a finite amount of suitable nuclear fuel on the planet. 200 tons of ore are needed to run a typical nuclear plant for one year. Unless safe fission plants are accepted...it is not an infinte resource.

It's much more efficient if the plants are allowed to reprocess the uranium - so we'd have to go ahead and break that treaty. Nuclear plants well get us a long way.

Max
Energy certainly isn't the greatest problem, I agree.

Thank you.

Max
Generally you can say, that overpopulation is a huge problem. You also tend to forget that nature ( recreation for humans and living space for millions of animals and plants ) needs space for its own - and I'm not taling about a little zoo in a metropole like LA...

Nature isn't using a lot of the space we give it. Take a drive through west texas, arizona, and mexico at some point - you'll see what I'm talking about.

Plus, we don't need all that much room - check out New York City.
 
Okay, a few points.

We could fit the world population in Texas, maybe, but how would you provide for their needs? It's difficult to position population centers far away from a reasonably stable source of water. In fact, many metropolitan areas around the world have exhausted available local groundwater supply and draw their resources from distant aquifers.

Simply put, you can't position dense populations in wide arid expanses of land and keep the cost of living down. Poor people have to live near cheap potable water.

And since water and waste requirements mandate that companies position a lot of their factories along rivers... often near population centers, unpolluted ground water that is easy to get to is scarce.

We don't need that much space, yes... you can crowd people in... New York and Tokyo are really swell examples. Well... how many people can actually afford to live in New York? Not everyone makes US and Japanese wages. Australia is currently being hard hit by high urban real estate prices, rendering a lot of middle-incomers homeless.

Your average office worker in any third world country can't even afford a house in the 'burbs... and living space in any third world country costs a fraction of what it does in the US.

_____

Farmland is scarce in many countries. A lot of topsoil is washed away by wind and rain. Many farmers don't practice proper crop rotation meant to rejuvenate the soil. But if we're picking nits, heck, yes, there's a lot of farmland available... we just have to chop down all the forests that governments and environmentalists don't want us to touch, because they fix atmospheric carbon and provide us a reserve of biodiversity that is now rapidly dwindling. Plus, a lot of countries have stopped chopping down forests willy-nilly, recognizing them as a slow-replenishing resource. They need to maintain or increase the current amount of forest cover in order to be able to "farm" the trees effectively.

American farmers receive a big subsidy from the government so they can use expensive farming equipment and chemicals while still undercutting crop prices of farmers in third world countries, who can produce the crops cheaper because they don't spend a ton of money on them.

Same goes for Japanese farmers, actually...

It's actually very difficult for farmers in many countries who do have enough land to make a living nowadays, because the rate of trade and the price of their farm goods don't really cut it in the face of such cheap products from bigger countries and farms. That's contributing to overcrowding and poverty in urban centers, because your basic beggar eats better and makes more money than the average third-world farmer, even if he doesn't contribute positively to the economy.

_____


We aren't running out of physical space, but we're approaching the point where we can't viably maintain the current level of industry and quality of life that the small percentage of the population who can afford a decent house, a car and quick internet enjoy.

_____

@Poverty: AIDS doesn't curb populations. It just gives you more sick people to think about. Look at Africa. I don't see poverty and population pressure easing, even decades after AIDS first came out... I just see millions of sick people. AIDS is painful and slow, slow enough that people with AIDS can still have kids before they go.

Now Bird Flu... that'll kill us all off. :(
 
We could fit the world population in Texas, maybe, but how would you provide for their needs?

The same way you provide for the needs of people in the middle of LA or NY - you bring it in from outside. My point is that we're not running out of outside from which to bring resources in.

So you've conceeded that we're not running out of space to put people - it's a matter of resources. But you still refuse to see the final equation. We've got more capability to produce food than we need. So food isn't a problem - maybe it's a problem for certain people in certain countries - but the planet as a whole is capable of providing more than enough food for everyone, especially given modern farming techniques.

You've conceeded that power is not a problem, so I won't delve into that too much.

You seem to have conceeded that it is possible to generate way more than enough freshwater for everyone on the planet - once again it isn't the earth holding us back.

Now you're focusing on this issue of transportation of goods. You seem to think that it's impossible to transport enough water to sustain a city. Ever heard of pipes?? We do it with oil from Alaska already. Is this seriously an engineering feat you don't think we can overcome? To get freshwater to people that are far away from it??

I think the point is tired at this stage. You know what I'm getting at - we've got plenty of natural resources and space on our planet to handle way more people than we have now - and we have the technology/engineering knowhow to get those resources to the people that need them.

Now I don't want to argue whether third world country x has the ability to provide for its citizens, that's really not what this is about. This is about whether the planet can sustain a larger population. The answer is quite certainly yes.

Edit:

AIDS doesn't curb populations. It just gives you more sick people to think about. Look at Africa. I don't see poverty and population pressure easing, even decades after AIDS first came out... I just see millions of sick people. AIDS is painful and slow, slow enough that people with AIDS can still have kids before they go.

Not only is aids not a population curb, it isn't even a real issue. I've never heard of a disease so overhyped as AIDS. It has a SOLUTION!!! It's a little peice of rubber that costs you next-to-nothing. Done! Problem solved. Can we move on?

Now Bird Flu... that'll kill us all off.

At the moment the bird flu isn't a threat of any sort.


Edit #2: Ok I shouldn't have posted that about AIDS because now we're going to talk about blood transfusions again.
 
danoff, you know, of course the world doesn't explode if we have an increase of the population. What you say sounds nice on paper and might be true. But in reality it looks different. Have a look at the rain forests, at the decrease of species, the pollution in third world countries and especially China, India etc.
Look at the countries with a huge pop. growth rate. Europe ? Japan ? USA ? No. Third world countries which give a sh** about enviromental issues and the consequences of their actions in general. All they look for is a fast dollar and that fu**s up this planet.
I can understand that you don't see the problem, the USA is the worlds biggest polluter on the one hand, on the other you certainly have a lot free room. Your and our companies go into to the third world and they have to pay the price for our way of life....
 
The planet can sustain a larger population, yes, that's a given, but for how long?

I'm not saying it's impossible to maintain a city, what I'm trying to get at is that everything has a price. Pipes, water treatment plants and the maintenance of such cost money. The cost of importing food goes up the further a city is from farmland, electricity prices get higher, sewage and waste handling become expensive in the absence of a nearby river.

That's why so many old cities are built on rivers, because they just aren't economically feasible without them. Newer cities may be built far from bodies of water or arable land, but they cannot support large populations of poor people. And what land they might use for farming has long since been developed into residential and industrial land in the drive for economic progress, or has been set aside by local governments as biological reserves.

If you want to give everyone land to till, you're going to be killing off a lot of wildlife... and timber... which is very important for the economy, too.

In terms of the middle class and the rich, hey, the planet is big.... but for the billions of "little people", it's a little cramped.
_____

The reason I bring up third world countries, is because they are at the point where they are overcrowded. These preview what can happen globally in the face of a growing population.

You don't feel it because you live in a rich country, with more square miles per head of population than anywhere else except maybe Canada. Sure, you've got enough land and water to feed everyone, but tell me... when China passes the 2 billion mark and India passes the 1 billion mark, is the US going to open its doors and let all of them in? I think not.

_____

AIDS isn't overhyped... with about 40 million HIV carriers and 3 million deaths a year, it's a very big problem. Condoms would help, but poor health education, and an obstructive stance by the Catholic Church are making it difficult to promote condom use.

One recent development that's encouraging is the find of some people in Africa who are seemingly immune to HIV infection... nothing's come of it, though.
 
Max_DC
danoff, you know, of course the world doesn't explode if we have an increase of the population. What you say sounds nice on paper and might be true. But in reality it looks different. Have a look at the rain forests, at the decrease of species, the pollution in third world countries and especially China, India etc.
Look at the countries with a huge pop. growth rate. Europe ? Japan ? USA ? No. Third world countries which give a sh** about enviromental issues and the consequences of their actions in general. All they look for is a fast dollar and that fu**s up this planet.
I can understand that you don't see the problem, the USA is the worlds biggest polluter on the one hand, on the other you certainly have a lot free room. Your and our companies go into to the third world and they have to pay the price for our way of life....

What a load of crap. Sorry man but I feel zero guilt about my way of life. I earn my way of life and so does everyone else. The people in third world countries that work in what you would call sweat shops are also earning their way of life. I don't live my life at the expense of anyone else's. Give it a rest.

Europe has a declining population. The US is barely able to sustain its population. Obviously third world countries are where populations are booming. But so what? They have land and they can figure out how to make it sustain their numbers. We've got a pretty big planet.

I'm not saying it's impossible to maintain a city, what I'm trying to get at is that everything has a price. Pipes, water treatment plants and the maintenance of such cost money. The cost of importing food goes up the further a city is from farmland, electricity prices get higher, sewage and waste handling become expensive in the absence of a nearby river.

So what you're telling me is that poor people can't survive in cities like El Paso.... That doesn't appear to be panning out.

In terms of the middle class and the rich, hey, the planet is big.... but for the billions of "little people", it's a little cramped.

Give the class warfare a rest. This planet isn't cramped for anybody, rich/poor/black/white. It's cramped for certain nations, but that's not an engineering issue, that's a political one.

The reason I bring up third world countries, is because they are at the point where they are overcrowded. These preview what can happen globally in the face of a growing population.

It previews what happens when their local governments fail them.

You don't feel it because you live in a rich country, with more square miles per head of population than anywhere else except maybe Canada. Sure, you've got enough land and water to feed everyone, but tell me... when China passes the 2 billion mark and India passes the 1 billion mark, is the US going to open its doors and let all of them in? I think not.

Our doors are open to immigration. We have a process for that.


AIDS isn't overhyped... with about 40 million HIV carriers and 3 million deaths a year, it's a very big problem. Condoms would help, but poor health education, and an obstructive stance by the Catholic Church are making it difficult to promote condom use.

We pour billions of research dollars into looking for a cure for a disease that is effectively prevented by a 50 cent peice of rubber. I call that waste. AIDS isn't going to take over my country - so why the hell should my government spend so much money searching for a cure. Let someone who cares deal with the problem. I suggest we focus on problems that actually matter to the people footing the bill.
 
Many third world countries are in dire straits because of corrupt/crappy governments that couldn't care less about their people. If the money that is embezzled each year by corrupt leaders were put into civil infrastructure, these countries would be on the up. I took a really crappy geography class a few years ago where the professor tried to make us feel bad for being Americans who can afford such luxuries such as toilet paper and soap. That load of tripe got me to thinking: it is not my "lavish" lifestyle, or the fact that our government refuses to relieve foreign debts that is causing these nations to suffer. Much of the monetary aid given to these countries is misappropriated by their awful governments. If that money were spent on infrastructure, people could start to move away from cities, and start to tap into the resources that the country has. I agree with danoff; this planet is not overcrowded.

AIDS? That's a sexually transmitted disease, which disqualifies it from being a global pandemic.
 
danoff
What a load of crap. Sorry man but I feel zero guilt about my way of life. I earn my way of life and so does everyone else. The people in third world countries that work in what you would call sweat shops are also earning their way of life. I don't live my life at the expense of anyone else's. Give it a rest.

Europe has a declining population. The US is barely able to sustain its population. Obviously third world countries are where populations are booming. But so what? They have land and they can figure out how to make it sustain their numbers. We've got a pretty big planet.

So what you're telling me is that poor people can't survive in cities like El Paso.... That doesn't appear to be panning out.

Give the class warfare a rest. This planet isn't cramped for anybody, rich/poor/black/white. It's cramped for certain nations, but that's not an engineering issue, that's a political one.

Dude, I'm not trying to make you feel bad about being rich. Hell, I'm middle class and American. I live better than 95% of the other people in this country. I'm just telling you what's going on.

It's not an engineering issue, it's an economic issue.

Poor in the US =/= poor. In fact, poor in any urban area =/= poor people in rural areas. That's why we have urban overcrowding. The rural poor live like ****. You could be a king in the countryside off what you get from begging in the streets of NY.

It previews what happens when their local governments fail them.

True. 👍

Our doors are open to immigration. We have a process for that.

Which costs money. Around a few thousand dollars (again, you can't afford it unless you're pretty well off), and unless you're a licensed porfessional moving to the US to work or if you have family in the US, about a decade or two of processing.

I should know. A lot of the upper and middle classes from here are moving to the US because they think it's tough for them here. Which is sad really... if the people who can afford to move are the only ones who do, that leaves the ones who actually contribute to the population problem.

We pour billions of research dollars into looking for a cure for a disease that is effectively prevented by a 50 cent peice of rubber. I call that waste. AIDS isn't going to take over my country - so why the hell should my government spend so much money searching for a cure. Let someone who cares deal with the problem. I suggest we focus on problems that actually matter to the people footing the bill.

Your government is searching for a cure for those couple of thousand citizens it has who have the disease. So far as I can tell, the cocktail of chemicals that health researchers have come up with do help HIV positive patients in the West, but do absolutely nothing for Africa.

Condoms prevent overpopulation, too. After spending millions trying to push condoms on third world countries, does this seem to have worked? Hell no.

And that's a patently selfish observation. Not one that you'd share if you had AIDS. Something like Christopher Reeve's "Now that I'm paraplegic, I think stem cell research is a swell idea.".

______

Guys, it's not guilt-tripping, it's just the facts of life. You've got it easy. You've got lots of space. So do I. Much of the rest of the world doesn't. Okay?

And it's not just a matter of space or resources now... it's the sustainability of those resources. With our current consumption, we are using up oil, lumber and animal resources (wild species and marine life) at an alarming rate.
 
danoff
What a load of crap. Sorry man but I feel zero guilt about my way of life.
So what? What does that mean ? You don't feel guilty ? If somebody for example steals a CD in a shop and the this person doesn't feel guilty...well then he is guilty nevertheless. Bad example, but I hope you understand what I mean.

I earn my way of life and so does everyone else. I don't live my life at the expense of anyone else's.

Sure you do, and I don't say that you directly abuse third world countries. But the G8 countries have a lot of companies that do. And you buy their cheap products because the third world made them cheap. Of course you have to draw a line between fair and unfair ways of producing certain goods in foreign countries. It's not that there aren't a lot of advantages for those countries aswell... Always depends...
The people in third world countries that work in what you would call sweat shops are also earning their way of life.
Yeah, but many are rather slaves... as I said, always depends...


Europe has a declining population. The US is barely able to sustain its population. Obviously third world countries are where populations are booming. But so what? They have land and they can figure out how to make it sustain their numbers. We've got a pretty big planet.

I think we talk about two different things. You always see 1 squaremile and how many houses you can build on them and another suaqremile with genetic super food for them.

I add 200 squaremiles of pure nature and that's why we end up with different calculations.

The "load of crap" I explained to you is reality. Face it or don't.
 
Back