|
 BleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/24/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 4 months, 9 days
|
 Re: Overpopulation and Diminishing Resources  [Re: Swami]
#2766216 - 06/05/04 03:03 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
that website rules swami 
--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,646
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 days, 1 hour
|
Re: Overpopulation and Diminishing Resources [Re: Swami]
#2766307 - 06/05/04 03:43 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Um hmmm. I took a look at that web page. Nice list of fantasy figures from an anti-meat organization. Interesting how not a single source for even a single one of their "factoids" is provided. I could put together a similar page with as much credibility given a couple of hours, with an entirely different set of figures. I'm surprised a self-professed skeptic famous for demanding proof on matters paranormal accepts so uncritically a totally unsupported laundry list of "facts". It seems out of character. Oh well.
Topsoil doesn't vanish, the nutrients the soil contains instead are depleted. These nutrients can be replaced.
As for the rain forest, it is true that it regrows at a much slower rate than a hardwood forest in Ohio or a pine forest in Maine, for example. Nonetheless, it will regrow if left alone.
I would prefer to focus on the spiritual and/or philosophical aspects of overpopulation, however. It is clear the earth can easily support many more humans than are alive today. The question to be answered is should it.
pinky
--------------------
|
EgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Re: Overpopulation and Diminishing Resources [Re: Phred]
#2766316 - 06/05/04 03:48 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I wouldn't worry about overpopulation, the next war will take a large majority away. So will Peak Oil if we already hit it.
|
 trendal
point of inflection
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,182
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Overpopulation and Diminishing Resources [Re: Phred]
#2766443 - 06/05/04 04:36 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
We also have to take wind erosion into account here, pinky. As nutrients in the soil are depleted, the soil becomes lighter and more dust-like. Then you come along and harvest all the plants that are holding the soil together...so that wind can blow away the top layer of soil.
Remember your history? This was (and is) a big problem for prairie farmers.
--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,646
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 days, 1 hour
|
Re: Overpopulation and Diminishing Resources [Re: trendal]
#2766509 - 06/05/04 04:58 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Not to nitpick here, but the soil still isn't gone. If it gets blown around by wind then it's not where it used to be, true, but it's not as if the damn stuff just vanishes in a puff of smoke. It's just downwind of where it was earlier.
pinky
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Overpopulation and Diminishing Resources [Re: Phred]
#2766559 - 06/05/04 05:16 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Topsoil without nutrients is no longer topsoil (doh!). The Sahara desert (once a lush forest) is full of nutrientless topsoil that has just blown around a bit.
Seems you equate the lack of destruction of minerals as somehow meaning the resources are still there.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
trendal
point of inflection
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,182
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Overpopulation and Diminishing Resources [Re: Phred]
#2766735 - 06/05/04 07:26 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Well that is definately some nitpicking, eh 
In the same light: energy never vanishes either...but that doesn't mean we have an unlimited supply of it 
--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,646
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 days, 1 hour
|
Re: Overpopulation and Diminishing Resources [Re: trendal]
#2766954 - 06/05/04 09:36 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
None of this is directly applicable to either spirituality or philosophy. It is an argument over whether or not resources "vanish" as human population increases. I would happily participate in the continued derailment of the thread, but I believe the S&P mods might object.
As a parting shot, however, the Sahara is sand. Sand is not topsoil nor was sand ever topsoil, although most topsoil does indeed contain at least some sand. Adding nutrients to sand doesn't make topsoil, it makes enriched sand. As for "destruction of minerals", the minerals absorbed from soil by plants aren't destroyed, they become part of the structural components of plant tissue.
I repeat, I can see reasonable spiritual and/or philosophical arguments in favor of deliberately choosing to have fewer children, it's just that preservation of "vanishing" resources isn't one of them.
pinky
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Overpopulation and Diminishing Resources [Re: Phred]
#2767012 - 06/05/04 09:50 PM (8 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
As a parting shot, however, the Sahara is sand.
As a parting shot, only 15% of the Sahara is sand.
The Sahara has undergone a series of wet periods, the most recent occurring c.5,000-10,000 years ago; it was not until c.3000 BC that the Sahara transformed into its present arid state. There is dispute as to whether the desertification of the region has continued into historic time. Those who support this theory contend that increasing aridity is the reason for the recorded advance of desert conditions into areas under cultivation in Roman times in the north and more recently (since the late 1960s) in the south. Opponents of this view explain such changes as being the result of alterations in land-use practices and neglect of water-supply and irrigation systems.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
