|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Joe Joe]
#14325637 - 04/20/11 11:17 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Who's assuming we know the evolution of the ecosphere on a planet over billions of years? Who's assuming human conduct isn't natural and not good motivation for extraterrestrial settlement?
It seems like your post relys upon some sort of naturalistic fallacy that presumes if the course of humanity is 'natural' that it is therefore desirable. It also seems like you might be anthropomorphizing evolutionary trends, the universe, et cet: it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to talk about the universe's preferences and desires or to presume it has any design to encourage particular behavior.
By definition the universe is just what's there. Even if there was some way to arrive at some preferred relationship between humanity and the universe, there's no reason to believe that this would be in the interest of humanity: i.e. entropy seems to indicate humans and all other organized systems are disfavored- does this mean we should blow everyone up and burn the world?
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: johnm214]
#14326216 - 04/21/11 02:51 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You first must explain the concept of duality to the unaware before you can try and resolve it johnM.
Although it's probably instinctual to worry over more and more humans in your "tribe" just for fear if competition. In this day in age, I'd say the more possibilities (humans) the better the chance of some groundbreaking genetic/astral travel breakthrough allowing for some serious proliferation of homo sapiens.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14326364 - 04/21/11 04:55 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
doubtful, anytime there's a baby thats "different" we slice that shit out, melt it down and zip tie it back together until it looks "normal"
and life on earth its getting dumbed down, not "progressing", humans have killed this world.
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: makaveli8x8]
#14328087 - 04/21/11 02:50 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
It's not that black and white though. True, there's more dumbasses right now on the planet than there have ever been before in history. And tomorrow there will be even more. Stupid people are increasing in numbers no doubt. I still think that were not too many generations away from the genetics that put out Einstein,hawking etc. The good is increasing so slightly compared to the bad that it's easy to overlook it, but it's on a path that will eventually lead to a huge upward spike in progression, discounting any relevance to how long it takes to get there, or how many fucktards we have to deal with along the way. It may not even happen in my lifetime but i think were close enough (genetic engineering/astral travel) that unless we either wipe ourselves out or get wiped out naturally in the next century or 2, mark my word, there will be anti-aging homo sapiens exploring our universe physically.
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker


Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14333780 - 04/22/11 02:45 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Some people hate me for it, but ive said this for a long time.
If i thought killing myself would also kill another 3 billion people, i would do it in a heartbeat. Yes its sad, yes its kind of mean, but the amount of good that would come from it would be immeasurable imo.
Shy of that, the only way we can secure our foothold as a species, is to get off this godforsaken rock. We are all on it. We've got ALL our eggs in one basket. One asteroid, comet, or global disaster and BAM we're all gone.
Space travel = the spreading of the human genome = colonization of more planets = more resources = ability to sustain more people. It's really the only way, but we are too busy bickering about our petty differences like religion and recreation (war on drugs anyone?) to see that the only real answer is expand, proliferate, explore and learn.
Edited by KrizzKaliko (04/22/11 02:50 PM)
|
PassiveAgressive
Sleepy-_-kinoko!




Registered: 10/16/09
Posts: 924
Loc: Tueri honorare saltus
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14360522 - 04/27/11 10:51 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
OP asked is overpopulation dangerous to talk about? I would have to say yes. Many people have agressive sentiment concerning population, especially capitol hill. The vast majority choose not to engage the subject because of the implications. If population is left to it's own devices, ad-infinitum, a time will come where the Easter Island scenario will play out. The inverse would be a virulent or violent, man-made preventive measure. While the population debate is arguably the most dangerous topic in existence, it is a necessary evil.
I would have to say that this is truly a catch 22, rock and a hard place. But I maintain the age old adage, if someone has to make change for you, it won't be as kind as if you had done it for yourself. Unfortunately humanity is largely reactive instead of proactive as a whole, and this is unacceptable if we are to continue as a species.
-------------------- (\___/) (= ‘.’=) (”)__(”) Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared. - Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.
|
Ahab McBathsalts
OTD Windmill Administrator




Registered: 11/25/02
Posts: 35,107
Loc: Wind Turbine, AB
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Madtowntripper]
#14375001 - 04/29/11 10:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Robert Malthus Described the effects of over population over 200 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus 
Resources such as oil, food, water and medicine are already divided distinctly across the globe.
-------------------- "Nobody exists on purpose. Nobody belongs anywhere. Everybody's going to die."
|
PassiveAgressive
Sleepy-_-kinoko!




Registered: 10/16/09
Posts: 924
Loc: Tueri honorare saltus
|
|
Quote:
evilnick said: Robert Malthus Described the effects of over population over 200 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus 
Resources such as oil, food, water and medicine are already divided distinctly across the globe.
I read about him in the book, The Coming Population Crash, by Fred Pearce. Apparently Malthus became irrelevant, but still controversial. Time proved many of his theories to be false. The reality he foretold never came to be. He did much to enshroud the poor in suffering. By many accounts, Malthus was an evil man. Despite the controversy, the rhetoric he used is very similar to a lot of what floats around in the here-and-now. History repeats.
Malthuss' case exemplifies why the population topic is horribly dangerous. It has everything to do with theoretical ideals in action vs. the reality of things.
-------------------- (\___/) (= ‘.’=) (”)__(”) Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared. - Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.
|
foliocb
always running



Registered: 07/14/08
Posts: 1,152
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
|
Actually, you don't need deaths, war, or disease to reduce the global population drastically
-------------------- ^v^
|
Vitalux
Stranger from the next universe



Registered: 02/15/11
Posts: 2,695
Loc: Canada
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: foliocb]
#14397858 - 05/04/11 12:49 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I doubt if anyone is really going to read what I am typing. But I will say it anyways. Some might find it insightful.
You and I have a brain about the size of a small marble. We actually are naive enough to actually believe that we harbor much intelligence. 
How you think the world actually works is actually quite false. You have no clue as how things actually operate. We are not much more intelligent than an ape in the grand scheme of life. In fact we are more related intellectually to the parrot. Because much of what we think we know, we have been just parrot what we were told. 
Now lets look at this situation of World Over Population. 
Comparative Reasoning:
India is about one third the size of Canada and they have about 1.13 Billion People over there.
We are not acutely aware that there is a serious over population there.
Considering the landmass of Canada and United States and comparing relative carrying capacities of both continents, USA+ Canada could support about 6.8 Billion people. 
Currently today the estimated accumulated populations of USA and Canada is about 341 Million ( USA 307 Million + ~34 million ).
341 Million:6.8 Billion 
Ok so I don't see any impending current problem. 
Ok now I am going point this out;
Have you ever tried to reverse population growth and actually see if it made sense?
Believe me, you haven't. Why?, because your an idiot....remember....your brain is the size of a fucking marble.
Lets start with a quick lesson on the basics which relates to population growth:
If say you start with a penny; 
double it to 2   double it to 4     than double that to 8         and double it twenty nine more times x35 times
You will have 68 719 476 736 pennies. 
That is 68 Billion, 719 Million, 476 Thousand, seven hundred and thirty six pennies.
So lets look at some history and apply this understanding to population growth and then population reversal.
Every species has a population growth, including humans. Also known as doubling.
Lets say a human family doubles it's population every 50 years.  
You know man and woman - have kids - those kids have kids etc.    Just add up how many people are alive today as a result of your Great Grandparents having kids.        
If you consider that if you go back 17 hundred years ago, there certainly was more than two folks running around. Well, if there was only two people running around about 1700 years ago we should be walking around on a planet with 68 Billion people on it......
But hold on here.......there is only 6 Billion ....Hmmmm...
Lets say then the population doubling growth for humans was oh ... every 100 years. Ok so we say that every 100 years a family doubles it's size.
Ok so ....34 Hundred years ago, there certainly was more than two people. and even if there was, only two people, ....one would wonder again why we are not wallowing around in a group of 68 Billion. 
Now we were taught that humans surely have been running around on this planet in our current ape form for about 250 thousand years.
Something (or someone) has been controlling our population and it sure as hell is not the weather. 
We are not the masters here, but merely the puppet master's puppets
If you have ever listened to Maxwell Jordan, you might understand. 
Population, as well as most of what you think is real, is not. It's all just propaganda designed to fuck with your head. 
Last but least people will say...you never too into consideration about famine, war, etc and low birth rate.
Actually, I did. If you think about it. In North American in 1492 when AMereica was discovered the Indians had lots of food, they were not waring, and there certainly was not an over population problem from the native aboriginals, and most certainly there was no evidence to ever show that there was a population problem. They had plenty of food, land and all the right reason to be able to double their population.
You just have to really think about it...and it should dawn on you. Our history is quite different than what you are told.
Edited by Vitalux (05/04/11 01:14 AM)
|
ReposadoXochipilli
Here, there, inbetween



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 7,501
Loc: Sand and sunshine
Last seen: 19 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Vitalux]
#14405164 - 05/05/11 01:02 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
a lot of that context is irrelevant due to our species technological advances, ie longer life, more food, convenience, ect. ect.
i foresee issues between resource needs and availability, as well as wealth consolidation. life might go on modern and wonderful for a few but i highly doubt the majority of the human population will be in good shape in 50 years.
--------------------
|
foliocb
always running



Registered: 07/14/08
Posts: 1,152
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
|
did you guys not watch the video i posted or something
-------------------- ^v^
|
Olympus Mons
esprit de l'univers

Registered: 09/15/09
Posts: 5,777
Loc: ∞
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: deryl]
#14434325 - 05/11/11 10:51 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deryl said: Read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.
Over time, humans have accepted the idea that the Earth is ours for the taking, almost as if evolution stopped in it's tracks once man became aware of himself and his surroundings.
Man possesses a trait no other species on the planet has, the ability to drastically manipulate his own environment, and that of his co-inhabitants. With this ability comes great responsibility, one which few are up for assuming.
Population growth out-paces agricultural advances greatly, and that gap gets larger with every human born.
The Agricultural, Industrial, Medical, Technological, and Biotechnological revolutions have created a scenario where the number of babies being born (and surviving) and the number of people living much longer lives have skyrocketed. The less developed countries of the world (India, China, Mexico, North Africa, etc.) have imported technology from the modern world which make these advances possible, yet in many regions of the world, even with the technological advances, people lack the natural resources and infrastructure to properly use the technology they have been given.
This leads to dependency on weather seasons, and intensive subsistence agriculture (IE: slash and burn). If a crop doesn't come in, then millions die. If a plot of land is over worked and improperly cared for, desertification occurs, which means there is even less land for people to survive on.
Essentially, in order to support a population with the quickest doubling time in history, we are scavenging the Earth and setting ourselves up for a momentous crash.
The areas of the world where the population is most rapidly growing are the areas least suited to support more people, and they are becoming less suited daily.
I could go on much longer on the implications of such a collapse, which would span over every aspect of our lives, but in the interest of avoiding a ramble (too late) I'll finish by saying....
If we don't figure out how either support our future population, or do something to make the growth stop, we're screwed.
yeah someone just let me borrow this book it's very insightful.
--------------------
I close my eyes and seize it I clench my fists and beat it I light my torch and burn it I am the beast I worship....
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: foliocb]
#14437904 - 05/11/11 11:27 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
foliocb said: did you guys not watch the video i posted or something 
As much as I love the man, I gotta disagree with him when he says an easy, simple solution.
My sex drive has already led me to producing 2 offspring at age 22. I don't intend on having more for zpg but I mean how "simple and easy" would it be to get EVERY woman to limit her children to 1. You can claim it's simple and easy for you, or even for anyone but it's not simple and easy to ensure that it happens in every woman's case.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14437909 - 05/11/11 11:30 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Here's a good analogy.
It would be simple and easy IF we legalized all drugs.
It would not be simple and easy TO legalize all drugs.
Strictly because the way of the world.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14438286 - 05/12/11 01:28 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
its somewhat hard to hide a child in modern society, if they approached population limits like the war on drugs it wouldn't be that hard
--------------------
  We were sent to hell for eternity Ø h® We play on earth to pass the time Over-population the root of all Evil-brings the Elites Closer to the gates.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: makaveli8x8]
#14440027 - 05/12/11 12:49 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Sure someone could come up with the military force to enforce the rule. How realistic is it though to think that every woman on the the entire globe would limit there children to 1. Terrence said "such a simple and easy solution" and was surprised that every woman wasn't voluntarily limiting child-bearing to one kid. I'm just sayin it's not surprising at all to me considering the nature of sexual attraction.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Madtowntripper]
#14440347 - 05/12/11 01:58 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Humans are already drastically over-exploiting the Earth's resources, and driving other species into extinction at a massive rate as a result. It is ridiculous to think that a finite earth can support an infinite increase in the number of people, especially as the ecological footprint of each individual person continues to rise.
We are already in the grips of a devastating global ecological collapse and each new person makes the problem worse.
I think that we have a moral imperative and a survival imperative to slow, stop and even reverse the trend of population growth.
I for one have already decided not to have children for the sake of our already exhausted Mother Earth.
If we don't control our own breeding eventually a catastrophic Malthusian re-balancing will occur in the form of world war, global pandemic, mass starvation or total planetary ecological collapse. The latter is already well under way.
Voluntary reduction of the human population through intensive and widespread use of reproductive technologies such as condoms, birth control, vasectomies, and in worst-case scenarios abortions is an absolute survival necessity if humanity and nature are to co-exist for much longer.
The oceans are fished clean, only a fraction of our forests remain, the atmosphere is saturated with greenhouse gas, and each new person exacerbates those problems. The Earth is doing her best, but she just doesn't have much more to give.
of course, existing people need to consume less, but over-population is a huge part of the problem and is slated to get much worse if drastic measures are not taken.
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
LightShedder
Trading currencies



Registered: 08/30/05
Posts: 3,026
Loc: AustinDenverLA
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Moonshoe]
#14440585 - 05/12/11 02:59 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
This is nothing new but....
The earth could comfortably sustain 25 billion humans if they all lived like modern-day bangladeshans. The earth would collapse far quicker than it is today with 6bil if there were only 1billion of them living like Americans do. It's really more about lifestyle here than numbers(not that numbers aren't a small factor, but 1 American has 800 times the impact than someone in Bangladesh so lifestyle is obviously more worthy of considering than numbers).
If you want to have a positive effect, don't hold back your jizzems, but hold back your consumerism. Stop consuming oil (electricity,running water, transportation, electronics [shipping/production] etc.) Grow your own food so you can stop allowing it to e shipped here and there and here again before reaching your mouth.
Lifestyle, not numbers.
It really disturbs me that so many people who are supposedly concerned about the ecology of the planet are so ignorant. They're looking for a simple idea to blame. "oh it's overpopulation. Wow we discovered the key to saving the planet!" rather than facing the truth which is
OUR CONSUMERISM (study history pre- and post-industrial revolution why dont ya) IS THE CAUSE OF THE ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE!!!
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14441710 - 05/12/11 07:23 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: This is nothing new but....
The earth could comfortably sustain 25 billion humans if they all lived like modern-day bangladeshans. The earth would collapse far quicker than it is today with 6bil if there were only 1billion of them living like Americans do. It's really more about lifestyle here than numbers(not that numbers aren't a small factor, but 1 American has 800 times the impact than someone in Bangladesh so lifestyle is obviously more worthy of considering than numbers).
If you want to have a positive effect, don't hold back your jizzems, but hold back your consumerism. Stop consuming oil (electricity,running water, transportation, electronics [shipping/production] etc.) Grow your own food so you can stop allowing it to e shipped here and there and here again before reaching your mouth.
Lifestyle, not numbers.
It really disturbs me that so many people who are supposedly concerned about the ecology of the planet are so ignorant. They're looking for a simple idea to blame. "oh it's overpopulation. Wow we discovered the key to saving the planet!" rather than facing the truth which is
OUR CONSUMERISM (study history pre- and post-industrial revolution why dont ya) IS THE CAUSE OF THE ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE!!!
What do you base these conclusions on?
Quote:
It's really more about lifestyle here than numbers(not that numbers aren't a small factor, but 1 American has 800 times the impact than someone in Bangladesh so lifestyle is obviously more worthy of considering than numbers).
Given your equality, it would seem that numbers and lifestyle are equally relevant. How do you justify your claim that "it's really more about lifestyle here" given this? Since you've shown the numbers and lifestyle of an existing population both effect the remaining capacity able to be accomodated, it seems you may be showing some bias here.
|
|