Human Population: How Does It Compare To Other Species? (VIDEO)

From National Geographic's New "7 Billion" App:

Nigel Holmes writes:

There will soon be seven billion humans on Earth, but how does that number compare to other species on the planet?

We are certainly outnumbered by ants. Harvard biologist and ant expert Edward O. Wilson has estimated that there are a thousand trillion to ten thousand trillion ants at any one time. That would be about a million ants for every one of us. And doesn't it seem like that when they invade our kitchens? Estimating animal populations, especially wild ones, is hard, but here's a look at one category of animals we can count: the ones we eat.

National Geographic magazine's year-long series on population is now available as a free app for iPad. Check it out here, or visit National Geographic's website.

Comments

[MikeyJaii]

10:44 PM on 10/30/2011

If we could find a solution to something we do such as a nonrenewable resource, find an alternative. We could tackle the overpopulation.

[anilimili]

04:11 PM on 10/30/2011

Cool video... I'd bet there are also tons of mosquitos, bats, certain fish, gnats, and other critters... Not sure that I'd like the thought of being compared with them....but numbers are a way of comparing presence on this planet...and we're in their company, it seems...
Sure makes you think.
Interestingly, many experts say that there are many ways in which the planet can sustain 7 billion humans, only not under the conditions we are forcing on the planet today. There is enough food and water, resources and fuel--but not the way it is distributed, and not the way it is consumed: most of it by such a small percentage ot us.
I am not claiming to have all the answers (I don't believe ANYONE really has them, however sure they want to come across), but I hope that this 'milestone' will be a place for thought and wonder--how DO we sustain ourselves on this planet. What kind of animals are we willing to become to do that (some here preach 'extermination' of some people--as if that is reasonable--I bet it won't be for them if it were THEIR families at risk of being exterminated)? What are the compromises were are each willing to take, if any? And can we live with ourselves if we love what makes and defines us as humans--an ability to foresee, to choose, to predict consequences, and to reflect about our choices and out souls.

[Chandra ChannyCozy]

01:44 PM on 10/30/2011

Honestly, that video sucked. Did nothing to actually "compare" human population to animal/insect population... just encouraged us to eat ants.

Grrr. Wish I had that 1 minute and 48 seconds of my life back

[Neil20]

12:24 PM on 10/30/2011

7 billion! We don't need a nuclear holocaust to destroy this planet. The planet is being destroyed by a six-inch weapon between the legs of men. And if all the governments of the world don't stand up and tackle the problem of over-population, then the writing on the wall is already written. Governments must use all conceivable (pun not intended) ways to lessen the population of their respective nations. Free distribution of condoms, the full and proper education of the girl child, the liberty to have abortions and not be subjected to the diktats of religion or their husbands, a system of rewards to those that undergo sterilization and poor nations like India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Brazil etc should implement the one -child-policy like China. The earth does not have enough resources - oil, mineral, water and food - to sustain so many human beings. People are dying of hunger. We cannot allow the further destruction of our ecosystems and the environment. Climate change is already beginning to affect the globe. If prosperity and peace are to return to this planet the population must be maintained at sustainable levels which currently is not being maintained. The ideal would be around 3 billion plus. I hope all governments take this population disaster seriously.

[Chandra ChannyCozy]

01:48 PM on 10/30/2011

It is not the actual # of people that is the threat, it is what is consumed... and the US (only 300,000,000 respectively) consumes and consumes and consumes much of the resources... that is the problem.

http://www.truththeory.org/zeitgeist-3-moving-forward/

[Polar Shift]

02:08 PM on 10/30/2011

Chandra, BOTH are part of the problem. Consumption is a problem, but that one is easier to solve than the one of overpopulation, because WE can do that without negotiating with other nations. We worship money, and gadgets more than we care about the environment, because we have become so REMOVED from what truly keeps us alive. And limiting birth rates only work when the survival rate of children is raised. The recent disasters in China that left many people without ANY children, demonstrates that limiting birth rate to one child is a not-so-well-thought-out plan. We also need to cut back DRASTICALLY on our meat consumption, especially meat that consumes more resources than it provides. Beef would be a good start. And expensive crops like alfalfa, which cattle and horses shouldn't really be consuming in the quantities we feed just to put on WEIGHT. Another short-term disaster. The water it needs ALONE is devastating. And then of course, there is the level of WASTED resources. We have all the tech we need to solve all of this. We don't have the political WILL, or at least enough of it to make the changes necessary in TIME to prevent widespread disaster, and I recently read that if we stopped ALL pollution today, the temps would continue to rise for another 60 years.

[ces1llc]

07:40 PM on 10/30/2011

You should be the first to do something great for humanity. Get rid of yourself and encourage others like yourself to do so as well. Self abortions would solve the fictional problems you and the so called "elites" come up with. There is plenty of food, water and fuel but we also have too much government interference that causes starvation.

[Aladdin Sane1]

11:45 PM on 10/29/2011

Fictional warnings related to overpopulation

"The Mark of Gideon"

http://www.startrek.com/watch_episode/fFggRjky7ICXnV4nYcKieU3djWk8n8Kf

"Soylent Green"

http://www.amazon.com/Soylent-Green-Charlton-Heston/dp/B0016I0AJG

Note: This 1973 movie mentions "global warming."

[Aladdin Sane1]

02:27 PM on 10/30/2011

A documentary related to overpopulation, among other concerns:

"Koyaanisqatsi - Life Out of Balance" (1983)

http://www.amazon.com/Koyaanisqatsi-Life-Balance-Ron-Fricke/dp/B000068OCS/

From the blurb:

"Celebrated director Godfrey Reggio, innovative cinematographer Ron Fricke and Golden Globe-winning* composer Philip Glass have created a 'spellbinding [film] so rich in beauty and detail that with each viewing it becomes a new and different film (Leonard Maltin). Unique profound mesmerizing and thought-provoking (Boxoffice), Koyaanisqatsi contrasts the tranquil beauty of nature with the frenzied hum of contemporary urban society."

[Aladdin Sane1]

11:30 PM on 10/29/2011

The Malthusian Nightmare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_nightmare

"A Malthusian catastrophe (also phrased Malthusian check, Malthusian crisis, Malthusian disaster, Malthusian fallacy, Malthusian nightmare, or Malthusian theory of population) was originally foreseen to be a forced return to subsistence-level conditions once population growth had outpaced agricultural production. Later formulations consider economic growth limits as well."

[Aladdin Sane1]

11:29 PM on 10/29/2011

[In response to this question by Bill Moyers: What do you see happening to the idea of dignity to human species if this population growth continues at its present rate?]

"It's going to destroy it all. I use what I call my bathroom metaphor. If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have what I call freedom of the bathroom, go to the bathroom any time you want, and stay as long as you want to for whatever you need. And this to my way is ideal. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution. But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up, you have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, aren't you through yet, and so on. And in the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, but it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies."

--Isaac Asimov, Interview by Bill Moyers on Bill Moyers' World Of Ideas (17 October 1988)

[Polar Shift]

02:12 PM on 10/30/2011

Aladdin, Beautiful posts. I think your Malthusian reference of subsistence-levels are what the wealthy are COUNTING on. They feel 'insulated' from it.

[FreeHat]

12:13 PM on 10/29/2011

Wealth seems to be the best way to tackle the situation. Distributed wealth, not the middle east dictator type.

Wealth seems to do away with most of the reasons, cultural, religious etc, to have a lot of children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

[Rob Vann]

12:34 PM on 10/29/2011

Not wealth by itself.. but in the desire to become wealthy. Education is another factor..better educated the fewer kids.

[Rob Vann]

02:53 PM on 10/29/2011

Wealth is as much of a problem as population growth unless you mean "Second life". Wealth drives consumption. Bigger houses, cars and the acquisition of more stuff.
Population+$$$= Resource depletion

[Polar Shift]

02:35 PM on 10/30/2011

Robb, For the Paris Hiltons, that is certainly true. BUT, education ( A LIBERAL education), changes the priorities a bit, and KNOWLEDGE becomes more valuable than consumption, especially if technology changes how those goods are produced, and the necessary paradigm shift to knowledge for knowledges' sake takes hold. You can't think about education when your stomachs' growling. And we have little time left to solve all these issues. I don't see it happening, except in small local economies. There ARE communities working towards clean energy independence, and focusing on a rich, but not consumer-based lives. I don't see this coming from the 'top down'.

[Polar Shift]

02:42 PM on 10/30/2011

Rob, Also, I see a huge problem with single crop intensive farming which devastates environments in the name of PROFITS, and I include beef and soybean production as major culprits, since GMO becomes a major destroyer of diversity. Nature is pretty good at designing itself. We need to respect the mechanisms already in place MORE instead of thinking we are smarter than nature. We're NOT. 70% of Paraguays' environment is gone FOREVER because of Monsantos' Roundup. Same with Mexicos' heirloom corn varieties, which GM corn has infiltrated (wind). Our subsidized big agriculture is a major threat to natures' bio-diversity, and the overuse of water is another. Alfalfa crops need to be cut by 3/4, and beef has to be broken up into small ranching, and grass fed. The coming climate change will NECESSITATE it.

[Kenz300]

10:44 AM on 10/29/2011

The world added a billion people in the last 12 years and will add another billion people in the next 12 years. We were not able so solve the worlds problems of poverty, hunger and despair when the world had 5 billion people and adequate resources. How will we solve these problems in a world of 9 billion people and limited resources?

We have a food crisis, a water crisis, an oil crisis, an immigration crisis, a financial crisis, a jobs crisis, an environmental crisis and an over population crisis. The ever growing world population makes all these problems harder to solve.

[Rob Vann]

08:45 AM on 10/29/2011

A pointless comparison.

The reality is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?index=1&feature=BF&v=F-QA2rkpBSY&list=PL6A1FD147A45EF50D

[Blodo]

12:03 AM on 10/29/2011

All I can tell you is that when the crunch comes, I want to be a Morlock rather than an Eloi.

[iknowscottyknows]

10:27 PM on 10/28/2011

What is the magic number of people the Earth can withstand, and how do you know?

[Gas-Bag]

12:06 AM on 10/29/2011

It comes down to a matter of resources I suppose, being a sardine in a can may be efficient but doesn't sound very good to me. If the people that are comfortable with having eight children would chose to have six or seven and so forth instead, over time we could achieve a balance that would be healthier for all.
It would not take draconian measures to accomplish this, just some educated thoughtfulness.

[nzchicago]

02:51 AM on 10/29/2011

Actually, since we already have too many people as it is, we need to reduce the fertility rate to sub-replacement, or at least just at replacement. If we could just convince everyone to stop at 2 children, we could gradually settle to a more sustainable level and keep it steady.

Oops, forget it. Will never happen! I guess we are doomed...

[Jim Milks]

08:04 AM on 10/29/2011

The number depends on the living standard of the average person. You can get an introduction to human carrying capacity here: http://www.sustainablescale.org/ConceptualFramework/UnderstandingScale/MeasuringScale/CarryingCapacity.aspx

[Aladdin Sane1]

11:10 PM on 10/29/2011

Thanks. That helps.

[Steve Marchand]

08:21 PM on 10/28/2011

7 billion humans...still, so little intelligent life.

[Canadian on the border]

10:40 PM on 10/28/2011

lmfwao

[outnow]

08:12 PM on 10/28/2011

So few voices speak truth about the fact that the planet cannot support unlimited human POPULATION.

So when will the new world government decide to apply the brakes on unlimited growth?

Unlimited economic growth depends on unlimited population growth - right up until the collapse of the eco-system.

Isn't mankind notable for not seeing the truth about the environment and his relationship to that accelerating decline? The population of Africa is around.1.1 billion and will increase to 3.2 billion by the end of the century. Europe has slowed down the birth rate. There is proof that it can be done.

Not a single US politician would dare speak of population control. The Church and Wall Street want more sheeple. Our fates are sealed, as per usual.

[Rob Vann]

09:57 AM on 10/29/2011

The European birth rate has declined for economic reasons as it has in most industrialized countries. China's one child policy would be a good example of state controlled population growth.. Mother nature sets the rules on population growth. We need to wake up or pay up.

The link I posted is a real eye opener.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?index=1&feature=BF&v=F-QA2rkpBSY&list=PL6A1FD147A45EF50D

[cadawa]

07:12 PM on 10/28/2011

Bacteria are still the dominant life form. Some of them even get into poliitics.

[jimboy71]

07:23 PM on 10/28/2011

Some?

[mravka]

09:56 PM on 10/28/2011

HAHAHAHA.

Your lovely mayor.

HAHAHAHAHA