|
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]
#14443056 - 05/12/11 11:41 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Bias? Towards what? Being the average consumer in America, it appears as though I'm speaking out against my own lifestyle.
I stated that technically speaking, number is a tiny factor. And no, the data I refer to clearly shows that lifestyle is far more important than numbers. I'll show ya
Average American ecological impact=800xyz Average Bangledeshan ecological impact=1xyz
1 billion Americans living on the planet (hypothetical)=800,000,000,000xyz 25 billion bangledeshans living on the planet (hypothetical)=25,000,000,000xyz
http://www.uni.edu/gai/Bangladesh/BackgroundInformation/BangladeshsEcologicalFootprint.htm
According to that chart it's only a 1:20 difference but I find that incredibly hard to believe. It still proves that
In the case of a Bangledeshan, you can have 20 people before they've impacted the ecology of the planet as much as ONE American.
How do you consider this an "equality"? It clearly proves that lifestyle is more important than numbers. If every American lived like your average Bangledeshan, it would reduce the overall ecological impact by 95%!!!
|
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]
#14443070 - 05/12/11 11:44 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Population control would be ineffective unless applied on the countries at the top of that list.
|
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]
#14443103 - 05/12/11 11:50 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Either that solution (population control in DEVELOPED nations), or start livin off the land.
Take your pick.
Or yes, we are fucking up this gift called earth.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14444087 - 05/13/11 07:31 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
There is no need for an argument about whether it is population or consumption that is the problem. It is both.
Environmental scientists have formulated it with the famous IPAT equation.
Basically I (environmental impact) = P (population) x A (affluence/consumption) x T (Technology).
So the higher the population, the higher the impact. The higher the affluence/consumption, the higher the impact. Technology can be either an aggravating or a mitigating factor depending. So a high number of people consuming lots but doing so with green and sustainable technology is less of an impact than those consuming the same amount with polluting technology.
But what is not in question is that BOTH P and A, both population and consumption, are important parts of the overall ecological destruction equation.
If we want to reverse the damage done to our planet, we need to reduce both population and consumption as much as possible, simultaneously.
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Moonshoe]
#14444199 - 05/13/11 08:14 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
or just reduce the population and let those left live free and to there fullest extent. Large populations "enable" a person to overconsume. Things don't have to be complicated, its very simple, stop reproducing case closed.
--------------------
  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]
#14444497 - 05/13/11 09:38 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
DENIAL!
You guys can't admit that the earth would have no trouble supporting 30billion humans considering they didn't live like you and I. If they stayed in tribes of 100 or less and grew/hunted their own food and collected their own water. Simple, stop consuming. Obviously 50 billion bangledeshans have 50x more of an impact than 1billion. Stop trying to "teach" me this. I'm trying to show you guys that lifestyle is far more important to consider.
Each one of you impacts the planet as much as 20 bangledeshans. Do you guys think the earth will be fine if we continue this consumerism? Even if 90% of the world died off? Check it out,
90% population reduction would leave you guys gratefully with 600million people. If they all lived like Americans, we'd be screwed. Secondly, if we didn't reduce the population at all, yet everyone lived like the bangledeshans, then we would reduce the overall global ecological impact by 85%! (Bangledesh ecological footprint=.5, global average ecological footprint=2.5)
Keep convincing yourself it's "stop reproducing" instead of "stop consuming oil".
Yeah sure, that's the solution, stop fucking??? No thanks. It's far more natural to live appropriately and moderately, raising children to do the same.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis


Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14444507 - 05/13/11 09:40 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
From the Earth's perspective, it is better if we both stop our rate of population growth AND reduce our consumption.
In terms of what is more responsible for the current state of ecological collapse, it is consumption, no question about it.
The problem is that the masses of people in the developing countries (such as bangladesh) are steadily increasing their own rates of consumption towards the standard of the developed world.
So it is imperative that we address both issues simultaneously.
--------------------
Everything I post is fiction.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14444563 - 05/13/11 09:57 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: DENIAL!
You guys can't admit that the earth would have no trouble supporting 30billion humans considering they didn't live like you and I. If they stayed in tribes of 100 or less and grew/hunted their own food and collected their own water. Simple, stop consuming. Obviously 50 billion bangledeshans have 50x more of an impact than 1billion. Stop trying to "teach" me this. I'm trying to show you guys that lifestyle is far more important to consider.
Each one of you impacts the planet as much as 20 bangledeshans. Do you guys think the earth will be fine if we continue this consumerism? Even if 90% of the world died off? Check it out,
90% population reduction would leave you guys gratefully with 600million people. If they all lived like Americans, we'd be screwed. Secondly, if we didn't reduce the population at all, yet everyone lived like the bangledeshans, then we would reduce the overall global ecological impact by 85%! (Bangledesh ecological footprint=.5, global average ecological footprint=2.5)
Keep convincing yourself it's "stop reproducing" instead of "stop consuming oil".
Yeah sure, that's the solution, stop fucking??? No thanks. It's far more natural to live appropriately and moderately, raising children to do the same.
no i didn't say stop fucking, i said stop having children there's a big difference. I also mentioned that large populations "enable" people to live outside of there means, i think you missed that part.
if you cut america's population by 90% what kind of footprint do you think an individual would leave behind? its going to completely change the way of life just by changing the population. Why do you think we have wars?
--------------------
  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]
#14444628 - 05/13/11 10:11 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with you completely.
It just has to be mentioned that 2 ways of reducing the global ecological footprint by 85% are
1. Reduce population by 85% (evenly reduced among all nations) Or 2. Everyone start living like a Bangledeshan.
lol I know it's funny because it's unrealistic, if not all out impossible. I would probably agree, if one of those 2 were to ever occur, it's gonna be the first one. Only because it is a choice that 6 billion people don't have to collectively make, but rather a dozen motivated resourceful individuals could accomplish.
Possibly, not realistically.
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14444678 - 05/13/11 10:19 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
with all the super viruses, designer viruses, radiation, chemicals in our water, im thinking its not even going to be a choice we make, just the consequences of our actions. It was always predicted that the next great extinction would be caused by us all the signs are here. we were given a great gift of intelligence, the problem is they forgot to remove the animal
--------------------
  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]
#14445643 - 05/13/11 01:49 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
lol I guess you're right. Thinking about the extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occurring. It'd be silly to think that we could continue the way we are forever, always able to maintain said warheads. When we go out, there's gonna be some nasty shit to follow our extinction on earth.
|
Comradez
stargazer



Registered: 03/21/10
Posts: 615
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14448197 - 05/13/11 09:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
In the long run, we have a choice:
We could support 100 million people living a wealthy, industrialized lifestyle, or...
We could support 2 billion people living like people in Bangladesh.
I'd much prefer the first option, and I think most people would.
So let's make a deal with the poor countries: we give every childless couple $4,000/year. We give every couple with only one child $2,000/year.
Case closed.
--------------------
They say that life's a carousel / Spinning fast, you've got to ride it well / The world is full of kings and queens / Who blind your eyes and steal your dreams / It's heaven and hell - Ronnie James Dio (RIP)
|
Spooge
The Nutter
Registered: 04/21/04
Posts: 5,189
Loc: Ice patches that last for...
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Seuss]
#14450993 - 05/14/11 12:15 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: I have no problem with pre-conception population control, but I don't like the idea of playing mother nature and selecting which babies get to live and which do not. China has gotten their problem mostly under control, but India is going to be a world wide nightmare in the next twenty years or so... no way around it without a good crisis to kill off a large portion of the population.
I agree completely.
A lot of people think I'm psychotic because I sound like the guy in the article. People are talking about all these supposed epedemic diseases, floods, earthquakes and so on and I just say...."bring on the chaos".
I don't deserve to be here anymore than anyone else and if it's my time, so be it, but mother nature needs to knock a billion or two off the planet.
And I don't give a shit about the planet. I don't have some holier than thou agenda of saving the planet. It's survival of the fittest. If I can surivive longer than the planet...great. And the odds are stacked in my favour. But I truly believe that I might not to live a full life with so many bloody people on the planet. I can't imagine where the state of things will be if I and the planet make it another 50 years.
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: Spooge]
#14451620 - 05/14/11 02:21 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ZoooftheMoon said:
Quote:
Seuss said: I have no problem with pre-conception population control, but I don't like the idea of playing mother nature and selecting which babies get to live and which do not. China has gotten their problem mostly under control, but India is going to be a world wide nightmare in the next twenty years or so... no way around it without a good crisis to kill off a large portion of the population.
And I don't give a shit about the planet. I don't have some holier than thou agenda of saving the planet. It's survival of the fittest. If I can surivive longer than the planet...great. And the odds are stacked in my favour. But I truly believe that I might not to live a full life with so many bloody people on the planet. I can't imagine where the state of things will be if I and the planet make it another 50 years.
The whole thing about us ruining the planet is, people don't understand the way our planet works.
Say we kill the planet for, 100,000 years due to radioactive fallout. No fuck that, lets say 10 Million years. EVEN, after 10 million years, the Earth WILL recuperate itself.
As for whether we (or any other life) come back in any of the forms that we know them NOW, is another story.
|
Spooge
The Nutter
Registered: 04/21/04
Posts: 5,189
Loc: Ice patches that last for...
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14452208 - 05/14/11 04:27 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
KrizzKaliko said:
Quote:
ZoooftheMoon said:
Quote:
Seuss said: I have no problem with pre-conception population control, but I don't like the idea of playing mother nature and selecting which babies get to live and which do not. China has gotten their problem mostly under control, but India is going to be a world wide nightmare in the next twenty years or so... no way around it without a good crisis to kill off a large portion of the population.
And I don't give a shit about the planet. I don't have some holier than thou agenda of saving the planet. It's survival of the fittest. If I can surivive longer than the planet...great. And the odds are stacked in my favour. But I truly believe that I might not to live a full life with so many bloody people on the planet. I can't imagine where the state of things will be if I and the planet make it another 50 years.
The whole thing about us ruining the planet is, people don't understand the way our planet works.
Say we kill the planet for, 100,000 years due to radioactive fallout. No fuck that, lets say 10 Million years. EVEN, after 10 million years, the Earth WILL recuperate itself.
As for whether we (or any other life) come back in any of the forms that we know them NOW, is another story.
I agree
|
makaveli8x8
Stranger

Registered: 02/28/06
Posts: 21,636
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: KrizzKaliko]
#14453719 - 05/14/11 09:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
KrizzKaliko said:
Quote:
ZoooftheMoon said:
Quote:
Seuss said: I have no problem with pre-conception population control, but I don't like the idea of playing mother nature and selecting which babies get to live and which do not. China has gotten their problem mostly under control, but India is going to be a world wide nightmare in the next twenty years or so... no way around it without a good crisis to kill off a large portion of the population.
And I don't give a shit about the planet. I don't have some holier than thou agenda of saving the planet. It's survival of the fittest. If I can surivive longer than the planet...great. And the odds are stacked in my favour. But I truly believe that I might not to live a full life with so many bloody people on the planet. I can't imagine where the state of things will be if I and the planet make it another 50 years.
The whole thing about us ruining the planet is, people don't understand the way our planet works.
Say we kill the planet for, 100,000 years due to radioactive fallout. No fuck that, lets say 10 Million years. EVEN, after 10 million years, the Earth WILL recuperate itself.
As for whether we (or any other life) come back in any of the forms that we know them NOW, is another story.
when people talk about saving the planet, i think they are referring to life as well as the planets ability to sustain it...
--------------------
  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.
|
KrizzKaliko
Lurker



Registered: 04/15/11
Posts: 192
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: makaveli8x8]
#14453772 - 05/14/11 09:55 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
makaveli8x8 said:
Quote:
KrizzKaliko said:
Quote:
ZoooftheMoon said:
Quote:
Seuss said: I have no problem with pre-conception population control, but I don't like the idea of playing mother nature and selecting which babies get to live and which do not. China has gotten their problem mostly under control, but India is going to be a world wide nightmare in the next twenty years or so... no way around it without a good crisis to kill off a large portion of the population.
And I don't give a shit about the planet. I don't have some holier than thou agenda of saving the planet. It's survival of the fittest. If I can surivive longer than the planet...great. And the odds are stacked in my favour. But I truly believe that I might not to live a full life with so many bloody people on the planet. I can't imagine where the state of things will be if I and the planet make it another 50 years.
The whole thing about us ruining the planet is, people don't understand the way our planet works.
Say we kill the planet for, 100,000 years due to radioactive fallout. No fuck that, lets say 10 Million years. EVEN, after 10 million years, the Earth WILL recuperate itself.
As for whether we (or any other life) come back in any of the forms that we know them NOW, is another story.
when people talk about saving the planet, i think they are referring to life as well as the planets ability to sustain it...
Fair enough.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: LightShedder]
#14454572 - 05/15/11 01:45 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LightShedder said: lol I guess you're right. Thinking about the extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occurring. It'd be silly to think that we could continue the way we are forever, always able to maintain said warheads. When we go out, there's gonna be some nasty shit to follow our extinction on earth.
How do you justify your claim that people have an extensive nuclear arsenal that requires daily human maintenance just to prevent a complete ecological annihilation from occuring?
Who exactly has these warheads that are so fragile? How exactly do they cause a catastrophe if not maintained daily? I've never heard of this- what do you base this on?
Quote:
LightShedder said: Bias? Towards what? Being the average consumer in America, it appears as though I'm speaking out against my own lifestyle.
So what? I don't see what your point is here- as if you cannot be biased against your own culture. You see this all the time: how many Americans who know pretty much nothing of history have convinced themselves that the US is some imperialist aggressor? How many soccer moms value "eastern wisdome" and "eastern medicine" despite that shit being pretty much all crap to the extent its any different? How many westerners bitch about "western media" as if it is particularly suspect in advancing agendas and so forth? (actually I only see this on this board, probably because of the demographic here and their unfamiliarity with media in other countries).
Quote:
I stated that technically speaking, number is a tiny factor. And no, the data I refer to clearly shows that lifestyle is far more important than numbers. I'll show ya
Average American ecological impact=800xyz Average Bangledeshan ecological impact=1xyz
1 billion Americans living on the planet (hypothetical)=800,000,000,000xyz 25 billion bangledeshans living on the planet (hypothetical)=25,000,000,000xyz
http://www.uni.edu/gai/Bangladesh/BackgroundInformation/BangladeshsEcologicalFootprint.htm
According to that chart it's only a 1:20 difference but I find that incredibly hard to believe. It still proves that
Okay, well it seems you were incorrect, off by a factor of 40, lol, yet your revised factors equating numbers vs lifestyle still show the equality, obviously. Looking solely at an equality that relates two variables to some third dependant variable, it would seem any preference for one or the other being 'more important' would have to be based on some illogical bias- given that no additional factor or prefernce has been introduced.
How exactly do you come to the conclusion that one of these variables is more important? Without demonstrating this, it seems yoru claim is clearly unsupported.
Quote:
In the case of a Bangledeshan, you can have 20 people before they've impacted the ecology of the planet as much as ONE American.
How do you consider this an "equality"?
?
equality: a statement that two quantities are equal; equation. 20NB = NA; where NB is number Bangladeshi and NA number American. This clearly shows that 20NB= 1NA, an equality.
Quote:
It clearly proves that lifestyle is more important than numbers. If every American lived like your average Bangledeshan, it would reduce the overall ecological impact by 95%!!!
Okay (!!!), Bangladeshi have a 20 times smaller requirement for land per capita than the US to sustain their lifestyle. How does this establish "that lifestyle is more important than numbers"? You simply declare this to be the case without explaining how it is so. Clearly either factor may affect the level of consumption and bring it above or below a particular capacite- to prefer one or the other would seem to require some additional consideration not supposed in your analysis: the math has no 'preference' for a given level of consumption being caused by any particular factor- population or consumption per capita
Regardless, this is only true if nothing else changes, a doubtful premise. Why wouldn't you assume the Bangladeshi would consume more resources if they had them available? Do you think they live how they live by choice or necesity? Would you think the Americans would continue to consume the same resources if they didn't have them available?
|
viktor
psychotechnician



Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: johnm214]
#14458475 - 05/15/11 07:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The problem is that is has historically and biologically been to the advantage of a tribe to breed like rabbits.
Those tribes that didn't were conquered by those that did.
France used to beat Germany in wars, then they drew even in WWI with roughly even populations. By WWII the more numerous Germans overran the French.
There's a lesson there: demography is destiny.
-------------------- "They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."
|
Soluminia
The mind is god


Registered: 03/18/11
Posts: 3,978
Loc: CO
Last seen: 11 months, 14 days
|
Re: Overpopulation---Dangerous to talk about? [Re: viktor]
#14458497 - 05/15/11 07:36 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
we done fucked up
--------------------
|
|