There are too many people.We are like marauding ants destroying the worlds natural beauty.We await passively the next natural cull of disease or catastrophe.Millions live half lives full of despair.Isn't it time we stepped up and had some real policy on this issue.
hey m still virgin
on serious notes...yes it is...
There are way to many people I agree. And there are to many people walking around with zero conscience or love for this earth. They do not deserve to be living. But what can we do?
i have an idea every 10secs/not all good ones/lets see what other people think first/you might be lightning john but pisean beat you to it.
They "do not deserve to be living" you say?!
I'll tell you "what" you "can do".
You can get a conscience yourself and apologize for your horrible statements.
Whats horrible about the fact that there are people walking around that would rather kill you as to say good morning, and I do not consider them worthy of this beautiful thing we call life on this planet?
Then you would agree that most of the Muslim world would see use dead because we are not in the same religion.Son of Darkness they are and nothing save God or Jesus coming to say that they are right in what they believe,and with this I ask What if Satan was the Angel who appeared to Mohammad,this would explain why they hate Christians,and those who do not believe the way they do. Something to think about.
I have written "hubs" concerning the subject of over population and it's eventual effects upon all life on our planet.
Einstein said (paraphase) ..with the advent of the atom bomb, the only way man will survive is under the rule of a 1 world Gov't.
It is much too late in our evolution to even think that that possibility exists without a massive culling of human population.
That "culling" is well on its way to becoming a reality.
An ever increasing human population will only "hurry" the "self fulfilling prophecy" of the religiously inspired "armageddon."
There is no way to stop it.
as usual you have a clear vision of how things are.It might be correct or otherwise but it is plainly stated for all to ponder and retort.
I respect you for this and wish your example was copied more.
Alot of posts almost see like a spam invasion .Not yours
i too feel that a quasi religious/capitalist armageddon is near nigh inevitable on our present course of action and hope that your pessimistic forecast of stopping this is the result of an underestimation of human ingenuity
those damn indians are everywhere on this thread
I suppose we could start sterilizing girls and boys at a young age to keep the population down. This is what Margaret Sanger of planned parenthood wanted to do. Of course not all would be sterilized, only certain ones.
How does one go about choosing who is sterilized and who is not?
Is it then called genocide after making the choices of who to sterilize?
you introduce the s word
then you went for the g word
then you shrug your shoulders as if it wasn't you
joke post if you ask me
SirDent - You're absolutely right. She wanted to do this and the idea was shot down as being a heinous affront to the dignity of women and the right to choose. Today I'm not so sure her idea would be shot down so quickly. The world view has changed. I agree with you. Who would make those choices? Hitler had a similar idea and he was far more drastic about implementing it.
Didn't you know that war is a way the Government has found for population control. Another way has to do with our children, this is bullying that goes on in schools and nothing is done until the life of a child is lost. I know because I took my daughter out of the Blanco Middle School due to all the years she went she was bullied by the same students.Went to police and still waiting for them to get back with me. I don't think they will because City Council has the last word so nothing is done. Then we have the speed limit which gets faster,and of course there is the oil on the roads that make them slick.THEN THERE IS THE ELDERLY which goes whithout saying,due to the lord not being in the lifes of others,the elderly suffer.
i'm in here digging as usual Brenda
Nothing wimpy about me
Ok, let's go with this.
Increased population is a huge danger. Thus we need someone to protect us from ourselves. Thus we need government to make decisions for us. Thus we need "one child only" policies in place. Thus abortions and arranged marriages will likely be instituted. Thus we will have our freedoms taken away. Thus we will live like cattle.
I think a much more logical solution is to say this: "Economic law easily shows that this claim is largely nonsense. As population increases, certain things become more scarce and certain things become more demanded. Prices will reflect this change. Things will work themselves out."
You mean the rich will still find a way to make plenty of money off of us? Whew, that's a relief! See boys, no problems.
In fact I guess it's a really good thing, economically speaking that is. More people, more demand, less resources, higher costs, more demand + higher costs = lots and lots of profits!
you're in now Padora
couln't keep your box shut /could ya! Welcome
"the rich" don't "make money off of us"
They make things that we agree to pay them, then they get rich, and we become better off as well.
Marx was wrong, deal with it.
Evan - yours is strictly an economic perspective, and in this you're correct. Unfortunately, extrapolating way into the future, say 200 years, it could go either way. There will a handful of very wealthy people locked in their homes against the critical mass of people who live hand to mouth and literally scrap around for daily sustainance or by then they will have found fabulous ways to feed the population without poisoning them like they are now. Things like enclosed, climate controlled farming, truly clean technology, etc. Let's hope for the latter because those who run things now are on the wrong track.
things will work themselves out
that is what you said Evan
none of the scare tactics please/your first paragraph would not be contemplated by any sane person
i've read nonsense posts in the past but this one of yours is a collectible
No scare tactics, just reality.
"none of the scare tactics please/your first paragraph would not be contemplated by any sane person"
Well, then, i guess that not a single person in China was a "sane person".
PS - i'm all for willingly and voluntarily choosing not to have kids. G'head, I don't care. But with posts like this, we get government jerk-nuggets thinking "hmmm I be I could get elected if I propose 'limited family incentive' legislation"... and then 1 child only policies come into place.
Yeh that'd fly over real well in America.
try and make sense evan
it didn't work for the chinese so therefore its a non runner until the end of time
imagine applying this logic to anything/first rocket didn't work /no more space race. etc
what is your bottom line on population control as a concept
is it never/maybe or yes
say something Evan
I've been talking a lot - quit accusing me of not proposing ideas or of ignoring the issue.
First, i've stated that it ISN'T an issue.
Second, I stated that if we THINK it's an issue, it will invite tyranny.
Now I will add that the best way to "deal" with this "issue" - despite the fact that i've already pointed out that this is not my stance.
IF you think it IS a problem, and you want to DEAL with this issue (which I don't think is an accurate ideal at all), then you simply ... do nothing out of the ordinary. People don't really like having 6 children that much, so when they are given the ability to NOT have children (i.e., birth control becomes affordable), then they regularly choose not to. Case and point: i've been with my fiance for 9 years and we don't have a kid yet.
So how do we make birth control cheaper? - you just keep living life and eventually it will become cheap enough. Supply and demand : a price is "the amount of wealth traded between X and Y for the good or service". As supply increases, demand should remain similar, and thus prices will plummet, and thus it will be more affordable.
Just keep on truckin, it'll work itself out.
You two are just saying that because it's happened before through out history. Well documented history. That it has been used as a veil for hate, racism, eugenics and baseless fears. You guys are PARANOID!
ok, taking the tounge out of my cheek....
what a load of toddle Evan
As population increases, certain things become more scarce and certain things become more demanded. Prices will reflect this change. Things will work themselves out."
capitalism is the worst religion in the world and you are singing it's praises
it creates inequality/division/desperation
unlike other religions it doesn't even pretend to have any moral or ethical creed
bye bye amazon rain forest=mahogany doors
bye bye wolf /tiger/elephant etc etc
when everything is gone you will realise that you cannot eat money
the worst religion bar none
it has within it a logic for self destruction which is second to none Evan
You clearly have no economic understanding whatsoever. I'm not going to bother responding because I've explained the follies of your comments in length elsewhere (check out my hubs).
Read the following for a better understanding: Economics in One Lesson; Lessons for the Young Economist.
Why is government control necessary for population control?
So far, the single greatest contributing factor to declining birthrates around the world has been educating women.
Oh my god, forcing girls to go to school! Government is so evil!
Actually, it would only be a correlation.
I could easily say that there is a correlation between declining birth rates and the number of priates who say "arrrr! avast ye scurvy scalawags".
Increasing education to a wider number of people (women are people) is exactly the same thing as what I'm arguing. In order to decrease the cost of education, you need to "produce" more of it. Then prices go down, and everyone can go get their learn on.
The same thing with birth control.
Increase supply, prices drop, life becomes easier.
Population does not increase uniformly in all places... It increases only in the Indian subcontinent. In Russia and other icy countries, it does not increase. Better think of spreading the population to all other places.... "Demographic displacement" is the only answer. Controlling population increase will end in catastrophe for humanity.
Venug - great idea. It could be like the movie "Escape From New York". Send all those convicted of heinous crimes to the Gulag. Let them duke it out. Send all virgins to tropical islands where they could enjoy paradise. Old people could be sent to - well they should have their own choice. Maybe we could inplement a "Soylent Green" policy. Since the U.S. Congress and most government leaders would exempt themselves, we could just start making food out of everyone over 30y.
Of course I'm only injecting a little levity with this. Actually, Vegu, the idea is a good one in theory but difficult to implement. Not practical. Who would get to go elsewhere and how would they get there?
It will be difficult, I accept. But is it not difficult to advise others to have less children and a small family? Who accepts our advice.
Instead, we should think of greening of the Sahara and West Australia. It was done in several places. If you plant some thorny plants on the sands of Sahara, it will spread wildly and make the rains coming. Then it will become habitable.
It is not correct to say the earth is being over-populated. If we apply the "per-capita space" available on earth to every human it is still far below normal. It is needless to search for "living space" on the outer planets. Just read Hitler's "Lebensraum" theory... he insists the expansion of German living space in the east..... ie., Russia. Why not Russia made habitable?
I agree with this. The desert of the western United States was made habitable by tapping water from the Rio Grande. Your idea of thorny plants is a great one. And simple really. Why hasn't anyone done this? I also agree moving to another planet would be expensive, to say the least.
Any innovative plans should be undertaken by he concerned country's government. Eventhough we have plans, it should be implemented by he African / Australian / Russian governments.
50 to 60 years back, there were several desert-like places in India. Someone brought the idea of greening of mountains and deserts and now, we are surplus in everything.... , including population.
Some have: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ8pjOG4pXI
However, tapping the Rio Grande, Colorado, etc. was a temporary solution at best.
another advocate for ownership of waterways, i presume!
Another advocate for not allowing lawns or private swimming pools in the desert.
One of the huge problems with rerouting the river was that it left little water going into Mexico. Venug's idea of thorny plants seems like a great one.
Yes, check out the video I posted above for an example of greening the desert in action. Permaculture puts tremendous emphasis on using suitable pioneer plants as "nurses" to help more tender and desirable plants take hold, even in incredibly harsh desert environments. It is completely possible to reverse desertification, and we should. Most of the Middle East and Mediterranean was once green and forested; so were many parts of the American Southwest. Humans cut down the trees and overgrazed the land, turning it into desert, but with a little good design and ingenuity, we can bring it back. Trees bring rain.
This is not to say that all deserts are caused by human activity, and obviously the natural ones should be left alone. But a substantial portion of them ARE, and those ones can and should be reclaimed.
the debate regarding population and development is not clear, which caused the other one. culture, development and policies affect growth of population. With culture - religion etc. affect reproductive goals and rights of couples most of all. When women are well educated there are more jobs for them, they tend to have lesser children.
I don't think we have population problem per se, as in the whole world, just some nations have high population growth.
There are cities which are overcrowded. Population distribution is a problem.
I think that the UN for Population Activities encourage meeting reproductive goals of couple with the help of their government and respecting their reproductive rights.
Population and population distribution are both problems.
Now, in India, almost all families have one or two children only. (Mine is a 3-child family and my wife is a teaching graduate) Education is a good cause for reducing population. But some people have aversion to send girls to schools beyond 10th class.
Even if we stick to 'limited family' principles, the existing 1.1 billion will exist.
no problem with the people here already Venugopal
the world has an obligation to help these people realise their potential on this earth/this committment is non negotiable/you mentioned a figure /not a bad idea actually/ when is enough , enough?
thanks for your personal insights into this area
Thank you for injecting a note of common sense into this thread. Population "culls" aren't "necessary", because demographics and economics will take care of things eventually; we might even end up finding that there aren't *enough* people.
Please, please, people - give all this "population explosion" hysteria/sh*te a rest would you?
hi empressfelicity /
demographics and economics will take care of things eventually
sounds like wishful thinking and i hope your wishes come true
i agree with you that hysteria is a campaign that is useless. Luabu
On the contrary - it's not wishful thinking on my part, just observation and a bit of reading/study. Unlike some people on this forum, I try and see the world as it actually is, rather than buying into this weird anti-human propaganda (for propaganda is what it clearly is, IMO. Call it the "self-hatred meme" if you like).
If anything, the people in favour of government population control (by whatever means), are the ones who seem to be engaged in wishful thinking.
i can hear you think from the other side of the world.
You mentioned areas of acute over population where the resources of that place are not sufficient for the numbers.
Try mexico city for example/rio/calcutta/lagos/etc, etc the so called hot cities
slum dog milliionaires
places with a mix of religion and capitalism all mixed up/places where everything and nothing are possible at the same time.
the pope is a joke when it comes to condoms
a simple solution for alot of people but no
condoms are for gay men to avoid aids but not for birth control
who writes this guy's material
In pakistan men play cricket all day in public places while their women hide around in houses with bags over their heads
home comes the great cricket hero for his due rights of food and pleasure
get some islamist leader to sort that out
religion is supposed to help and uplift people and not compound their misery
then there is capitalism?
3% of land is currently being occupied in the United States.
97% is not occupied.
Fair point Jim
I flew from San Diego to Los Angeles /unless you can eat rocks and sand that is all i could see/ a few irrigation circles/ same when you fly down the Iberian Peninsula/ i haven't been to North Africa/ Southern Asia and Australia /very arid/water is like gold in some places /you are right with your percentages but they seem to reveal very little
You were expecting something actually relevant to the discussion?
Its very relevant to the discussion.
But I understand the need to spread fear.
Nothing motivates like fear.
Nothing makes people send their hard earned money to the global warming crowd like fear.
Global warming is the new TV evangelist.
I'm seeing nothing in Jim's argument, except a complete thought-out and well presented argument that is directly in line with the OP.
You can disagree, but calling it pointless, or irrelevant to the discussion is to be incorrect.
What are we considering "occupied" land? Land that has residential or commercial buildings or roads? Land that actually has a house with someone living in it? There's no way that only 3% of the land in the US is owned.
Moreover, significant percentages of that land are not livable or barely livable, and much more provides food, water, and ecosystem services that would be destroyed by paving it over with roads and buildings. So luabu's right - percentages are meaningless.
Just because you don't understand the point doesn't mean its not there.
jim there is no point to your point /that's the point
I'm sure you are a believer in the global warming scam, so you would never see the point.
But thanks for chiming in..
Us and 97% of climatologists. But what would they know?
psyche - with respect, the global warming consensus has been debunked by another consensus of climatologists. So which one is correct? I've seen actual changes in the climate over the past 60 years but before that, climate as I experienced it, was the way it is now. It has cycled from hot summers and extreme winters to mild winters and nice summers and now it's back to extreme winters and hot summers again. The ozone is filling in. The tidal waves are a result of tectonic plate shift, something which occurs every several thousand years. We didn't witness the last curve but it has nothing to do with global warming in the trendy sense. I can't see anything that does.
Jim - with respect, has this number taken into account land which is currently farmland or national parks? A lot of our real estate is just that.
this is amazing, isn't it Jim? You make a valid point, and no one can respond in anyway but "you're a dumb dumb head".
What am I, mud?
"What are we considering "occupied" land? Land that has residential or commercial buildings or roads? Land that actually has a house with someone living in it? There's no way that only 3% of the land in the US is owned."
"Moreover, significant percentages of that land are not livable or barely livable, and much more provides food, water, and ecosystem services that would be destroyed by paving it over with roads and buildings. So luabu's right - percentages are meaningless."
Additionally, as I also mentioned elsewhere, the problem with overpopulation is not lack of land - there is plenty of land - the problem is lack of resources. You do not produce everything you ever need to live in your house, you also consume food and resources taken from other places. Scientists have calculated the total ecological "footprint" of the average US citizen as 24 acres.
We have 2,263,971,200 acres of land area in this country. Divide that by 24, and we have enough land to see to all the needs of about 94,332,133 and 1/3 people. Our population, as of 2010, is more than three times that. Globally, the human population is estimated to be consuming the equivalent of about 1.5 Earths' worth of resources at the present time.
I'm sure there are any number of reasons these stats could be argued with, but the point is, just saying that 97% of the US is uninhabited is meaningless. Lack of space is not the reason overpopulation is considered to be a problem; lack of resources is.
sorry, you actually bothered to respond. I was just amazed at the other responses.
Your concern over lack of resources isn't entirely founded: as population : resource ratio increases, prices will increase and thus issues should be allayed in one way or another -- if gas becomes too expensive, then electric motors will become profitable; if concrete and steel become to expensive, then living in cities will be just as expensive, and thus more land will be dedicated to living in wooden homes... etc etc.
Also, don't think that prices will SUDDENLY skyrocket - no, prices will gradually increase as things get more scarce. This is the beauty of capitalism: it automatically allocates scarce resources to their #1 best use through the system of prices. If diamonds are expensive, then don't expect people to have diamond rimmed sunglasses etc.
This is the reason why EVERY SINGLE CLAIM that "we'll run out of oil in 20 years" has failed to materialize. As the supply of oil goes down, prices go up, and alternatives are found to replace it. Such claims have been made for decades and have all been proven false.
I'm a bit worried about this statement you made: "Globally, the human population is estimated to be consuming the equivalent of about 1.5 Earths' worth of resources at the present time."
1) I'm not really sure what "1.5 Earths' worth of resources" really means.
2) it ignores the fact that prices exist
3) it kind of ignores the definition of a resource -- a resource is nothing more than what someone can use to achieve a goal. A rock could be a resource if we want to break windows; but it might NOT be a resource because ... well, we don't go around breaking windows very frequently!
4) and it seems to assume that humans are just idiotic beings who can't find alternatives to things.
Scientists and Economics rarely mix, and when they do, they get things like "let's just print up 3 trillion dollars! to solve our problems!"
The real thing to realize is that humans are fantastic at thinking of alternatives -- Bacon costs too much? then eat corn flakes; Can't afford a diamond? Make cubic zirconiums.
At the very least, thanks for ACTUALLY making an argument.
The problem with rising prices is that it encourages more harvesting, not less, of certain types of resources, and some of the resources in question are irreplaceable. One of the current examples is bluefin tuna, which is being severely overfished in many regions because it is such a prized and expensive sushi.
You're probably going to suggest that somebody should own them and will then have incentive to protect them against poaching and other illegal fishing, but bluefin migrate vast distances, making this a rather complicated prospect. You may also suggest that we should just let them go extinct to punish us with a toro-free future for our stupidity, but tunas are predators and play an important role in balancing ocean ecosystems, and driving species into extinction is always one big game of Jenga anyway. You never know which brick will cause the whole tower to collapse.
Dinner is ready, so I have to go, but quickly, re: 1.5 Earths, here's more info on one of the global footprint methodologies out there (there are several): http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/inde … _overview/
I have a hub on another (Top Ten Environmental Concerns of the 21st Century).
If you harvest more resources, then they become more scarce, and then they increase in price, and then people will stop paying for them.
And either way, it isn't necessarily the price that determines if X is bought or not, it's how profitable it is to be produced. Sure, you could cut down a forest for trees and sell it all in one year... but then you'd be screwed for the rest of your life.
The issue of BlueFin tuna is a symptom of a lack of property rights: no one can own the water or the schools of fish, and thus everyone goes nuts harvesting them for their own gain. It's called "the tragedy of the commons", and is the reason why the buffalo almost went extinct. It is also the reason why Cows are NOT extinct, despite the fact that we eat the crap out of them.
How can we track down tuna? Just catch one or two in the school, and mark it. Then someone can claim ownership of that school.
PS - I completely agree with preserving resources. It's VERY environmentally sound to do so, and it is VERY economical to do so. Investors in resources DO want to preserve resources, it's just that there needs to be an incentive to do so.
kerryg - why did you divide the land mass by 24?
I don't understand the Jersey Shore nonsense either. What's your point?
You don't think Americans could make those places habitable?
not much luck with this endeavour so far Jim i'm afraid
put a few indians and buffalo in for decoration while you are at it
Every nationality has had their share of bad times, the Native American perhaps moreso. But it's a good time to be an Indian. Hell, they've got their own country, small though it is, they could make the best of it. It's more than I have.
this is the first time that i really considered the possibility that the dumb blonde myth might have any inherent truth
But it's a good time to be an Indian
they've got their own country
It's more than I have.
these are your words
how many of you would i need to change a light bulb
a blonde went into a pc shop and asked for curtains
what do you want curtains for
my computer has windows
lu - I did say that. So you like stereotyping blondes. Tell me what's offensive or funny and I'll rephrase for better understanding.
couturepopcafe /hi from luabu/call it energetic writing/whatever/its a serious subject and i thought your post was glib and deserved censure
i'm frustrated that i could not really see what you were thinking on this
dumb blonde jokes are a response to your avatar/my opinions on women are clear for anyone to see on my last forum thread which you visited
someone said here that womens issues are central to this question and i agree with this
you are a woman/i assume so give this more constructive imput than that offered to date/ i don't think you are dumb but your post was.
sort it out Luabu
Fortunately, what you think is only part of the equation. The subject of overpopulation is serious to you, not so much to me. My comment was off topic but was in response to your equally glib remark about putting in a few Indians and buffalo for decoration. The idea that the Native American was savaged on the battle field and humiliated on the Trail of Tears is not a laughing matter. But that is history. This generation can do nothing to change it. What they have now is literally their own country. It is within the borders of the United States. One is the Cherokee Nation. There are others. They make their own laws, do their own policing, and are not subject to the laws of the United States except where there is extreme crime of a heinous nature. You would be wise to ask for clarification instead of making assumptions. And as everyone knows, posts cannot be dumb, only people can.
I don't know this. Somehow I was under the impression that even wise people can make dumb posts every once in a while...
If all those who hold humanity in contempt and believe that humans are a disease on the planet would kill themselves there would be relief in two ways. One, that terrible wastrel species would be "culled" and two, the rest of us would be spared the whining.
The entire population of the world could be "squeezed" in to the United States at less then the population density of the state of New Jersey. Population and even population growth are not the problem. The problem is behavioral and moral.
Freedom and prosperity reduces population growth. If you look at the population growth rates around the world those nations where populations do not live in constant want with unstable governments have the lowest population growth rates. The population growth rates in the US, Canada, Europe, Japan and Korea have been substantially lower than every other region - why? It is simple, fear for the future, economic strength, freedom, prosperity.
ucv - interesting perspective. "The problem is behavioral..." So you believe that if everyone behaved in a polite manner, without greed and deceit, not taking advantage of others, putting the welfare of the small community group ahead of personal gain, thinking of others, behaving rationally, disciplining children, eliminating unseemly behavior in the form of violent t.v, etc., maintaining one's environment with physical labor such as coop farming, neighborhood building, and stuff like this is actually good for humanity? Wow. What a concept.
The problem is not whether there is enough "room" on the planet in the literal sense of the word. There is enough land on the planet to house billions upon billions more people.
The problem is resources: water, food, energy, raw materials.
And another thing: would anyone who advocates population culling please do the decent thing and volunteer themselves for culling when and if such a policy ever gets implemented?
Imagine the ecological benefit if everyone who believes that humans need to be exterminated to make room, that we are an ecological blight and destroying the pristine and beautiful world ( that only we, by the way, can actually appreciate) were to kill themselves by mulching themselves into the soil would have on the world. What a paradise the world would be. Far fewer people, such rich soil and so much less complaining and whining.
It is the hall mark of the true believer to demand that everyone else live as he would have them live even if he does not. The true believer will tell you that you are the problem as he does exactly the same thing as you exempting himself from the very system to which he would force you to adhere.
If humans are such a problem and you are human then check yourself out first. Al Gore continually exempts, as do his believers, from the restrictions to which he would subject the rest of us.
Nicely put. And from what I gather Gore makes a very nice living out of the Great Global Warming Swindle too.
I've never replied twice to a post before... always a first time for everything I suppose
Having thought some more about it, there's a common thread running through a lot of this type of thinking (if "thinking" is the right word for it). It basically boils down to a case of "the ends justify the means", allied with "we know what's best for everyone because we're special. And you're not. So there".
You see it in totalitarian societies - under the Nazis, Stalin etc., people who were Party members had special privileges just by virtue of the fact that they'd joined the Party and had by implication bought into all the claptrap that their regime was peddling. If you weren't a Party member, you had it much harder - didn't matter how talented you were, how good a worker you were... Showing that you believed in the propaganda was the most important thing.
I'm afraid that in my eyes, a lot of the stuff that environmentalists come out with has a very similar ring to it. And I speak as someone who used to BE an environmental activist (before age and hence conservatism took over LOL).
I am still an environmentalist/conservationist if by that you mean a person who tends his own garden and lets others tend theirs. On my little quarter acre suburban plot there are fifteen trees and large bushes, numerous shrubs and perennials. I chase off the cats and dogs because i want the rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks, raccoons, possums and birds in my little Eden.
If the government wanted to force these actions on me I would cut it all down and pave it over out of spite just to remind them who they are effing with. "I am not a number. I am a free mane."
you might be termed an isolationist here uncorrectedvision
not following the norm can be looked at from many directions
i think the true state of humans is to be insular within family groups but that day has in reality long since past
less people would make a lifestyle approaching your own seem like an attainable goal for others
i agree with alot of this Empressfelicity
totalitarian societies have no great track record of being good for anyone
i totally agree/no sane person would wish this
all the more reason for agreed efforts globally on the issue of population control by different countries through different bodies ie UN etc
it's time for the religions of the world to help people in this and provide leadership and advice
women's rights within religions is a key component of this debate
after that there is plenty of room for a personal committment to a better world by everyone
You trust the UN? This is the organisation that brought us the IMF - just google "IMF riots" and you'll get the picture.
In any case, why on earth should we give governmental and quasi-governmental organisations a mandate to solve a problem that is going to go away of its own accord?
empress more wishful thinking /this isn't going anywhere/an ostrich thinks like this apparently
I'm not the one with the beak and feathers.
Why do you and others cling so tightly to ideas that just don't hold up to real examination?
Could it be that in the bible story when God said, Go now and fill the earth, it was so we could be harvested like kit kat bars for another species to survive when rounding this part of the universe?
It may turn out to be the "Eloi" against the "Morlocks."
If there there is a "nuclear" culling, there will be those who will have hidden underground to escape the nuclear fallout.
There will be those who will survive on the outside and will be horribly mutated over time into human life we would not recognize.
This is a "for certain" scenario.
Man will not become an extinct species but he will be "reduced and changed."
Wow! Thats bizarre! I geuss I'll come over and check out some of that info.
"It's the end of the world as we know it...and I feel fine!"
Mankind has a duty to be a good steward of this lava rock that we inhabit...but ultinately mankind is more important then the Earth itself. Life is more important. Overpopulation is a scary term...when used...that's one thing that is for sure.
If we controlled our pollutants...as each human being a respectful citizen of the planet.
If we safegaurded every part of our food chain and natural resources...and more importantly managed them efficiently.
If we cultivated other opportunities in Space like we had a brain.
Then, we wouldn't ever have to use a term like "Overpopulation"!
What do you mean by this:?
"but ultinately mankind is more important then the Earth itself. Life is more important."
What does this mean and what has inspired you come to this conclusion?
man-mankind-human life...on the balance scale is more important-more vital than yes...the Earth itself. That's what I mean. Ultimately...though we need the Earth and must take care of it...Human life...every Human life....is more important than this planet...in the end run. Even if it meant boarding a ship in some Battlestar Galactica-type of event. That is where I was going with that sentence right there!
Im not understanding your comment at all.
"Important?" To what?
Are you saying that human life must escape this planet 'cause it is doomed? If man desires to continue on he must find other inhabitable places to live?
I don't know what your point is when you say "WE" are more important than the earth.
You offered an opinion based upon nothing.
Try again pls///ty
Not necessarily! I agree that humans could be far more efficient than what they are now, but the planet has its limit!
I think overpopulation can be classed in the same way as pollution etc. If we over populate the planet, we leave a far worse quality of life for future generations, and considering human reproduction, overpopulation will get exponentially worse the longer we take in dealing with it. I think anyone who reads Hardin's "Living in a Lifeboat" would agree that it will be a very serious problem.
Welcome to the forum.
We are "spaceship" earth."
All life on this "spaceship" is controlled by "balance" i.e. predator, prey.
"Almost" all life has "natural enemies" but man!
Man operates outside of Mother Natures rules for the survival of a species. He "breaks the law!" "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime!"
Currently, we are headed down a "one-way" path to catastrophe.
There's no doubt about that!
We have painted ourselves into a corner and there's no way out.
Respectfully disagree. Man's enemy is man. Ok that was obvious. We, too, are part of Mother Nature, having not created the boundaries of physics or nature how can we operate outside the boundaries of what is? There is always a path out. Perhaps the last frontier is mind. By suspending perceptibility, we may find invisibility or something else.
The possibility exists, no doubt about that.
We have divorced ourselves from the "natural way." that doesn't mean that if we continued to exist we wouldn't find a way to control "environment" thus controlling our evolution.
The chances of that are slim to none.
WE do have the "potential" to survive as a species.
But the "probability" doesn't exist that we will without a catastrophe that will reduce our numbers to a level that can be governed successfully.
Man NEEDS to be governed with extreme deliberation if he desires to become a successful species.
Please define successful. Ok I'm playing devil's advocate, but go on.
The "dinosaurs" were a successful species. Sharks, alligators and crocs are successful species...etc., etc..
WE, as "modern man" have been here for 35 - 40 k yrs as Homo/sapiens.
We have been here for a "moment" in geologic time.
When a few million years have passed and we are here and still evolving, if I were here, I'd say we humans are a successful species.
We are an "incipient" species which is profoundly involved in the processes of "evolution" and not doing too well!
Thank you. Please don't lump me in with the unevolving sector of the species. I'm not sure, though, that dinosaurs evolved at all. Is there any information showing that their descendants differ morphologically and physiologically form their ancestors? Sharks and alligators, maybe to some small degree. Man, on the other hand, has changed, evolved, quite a bit if historical development is an indication of evolution. We, at least some of us, have evolved mentally, as well. Unfortunately, we don't do it as a collective. This is where my end of the argument falls apart and yours holds up.
I think Qwark is using the word "evolution" in its strict scientific sense which relates exclusively to biological species, not their social or mental habits. In that sense homo sapience did not noticeably evolve at all during the period in question. A prehistoric girl was built pretty much exactly like you and me.
you are food for thought
evolution as a species/socially and mentally ; has not happened quick enouugh to deal with our diminishing available resources
the maurading ants move on/we can't Luabu
Milla - I understand your comment, but still respectfully disagree. The science of the mind is unique to man so it must, by rights, be included in the debate of evolution. What say you?
I say when I was a teenager, I used to argue hard with my dad, and my mom almost always interfered and demanded we define the terms first. And after we went ahead and defined the terms uniformly, there was often nothing to argue about
You will never agree with Qwark on this because you are talking about evolution of human society, and he is talking about biological evolution of human specie. The former obviously is visible, the later obviously is not.
As for our minds being evolved I doubt that very much. We are just born into more technologically sophisticated environment and naturally learn how to live in it. Yet if you go deeper than this you likely find that people are as naive and gullible as before. Or I might just misinterpreted your term "the science of the mind", correct me then
I don't break "evolution" down into miniscule facets when I speak of it.
The "macro" defintion of "evolution" takes into consideration ALL facets of the subject.
"Man" is involved in every aspect of his "evolution."
Micro evolution has been empirically proved.
Macro evolution involves complex life. Visible differences, most often, take hundreds of thousands of years to be noticeable.
Regardless of the macro/micro regard, evolution does not take a hiatus.
Evolution consists of "ALL" the ancillary mutations necessary for a life form to survive i.e. societal as well as the physiological.
Evolution is Pure" science in every aspect of its definition/being!
Milla, Qwark - two brilliant arguments. Let me rephrase a bit. Science of the mind would refer to exploration by scientists into how the mind works. Evolution of the mind would refer to actual capabilities of the mind. If we were versed/developed enough to use our entire brain, the potential could be unlimited in terms of things like communication without speech, levitation, moving object forms through brainwaves, the list could go on and on and I am not qualified to converse adequately on the subject. This is only scratching the surface. As regards population, physical need would be greatly diminished. We would see the folly of having stuff, crime, invasion, etc.
Man NEEDS to be governed with extreme deliberation if he desires to become a successful species.
why do i keep agreeing with you
The problem is which man is going to do the governing?
I love the nonsensical argument put forth with this idea that "man NEEDS to be governed..."
Let's think about this:
If everyone goes out and about their daily lives and begin to use up resources that are scarce, prices will begin to reflect that change, and thus the scarce resources will be preserved through higher prices. Thus man will govern himself.
But of course, Luabu doesn't mean THIS kind of governing, he means the OTHER kind:
Man will go about their daily lives... BUT THEY WILL DO IT FOOLISHLY!!! THUS I NEED TO.... oops, i mean.... SOMEONE WILL NEED TO TELL THEM HOW TO LIVE!!! THAT PERSON WILL USE GUNS TO MAKE SURE THEY WILL NOT DO BAD THINGS!!!
The rate of growth of the population is decreasing but since the base is big the total number of population is still increasing. There is a trend all over the world that all countries are decreasing their fertility rates.
I don't agree with Hardins analogy either, technological advancement make for the growth of population
Robert Malthus a demographer argued that there is limit to growth that while resources is increasing in a linear way, people are increasing in number in a compounded way, he said that we will reach the limit but he failed to factor in technological advances.
In my own opinion, it is difficult to just say lets cull the population, change the culture of the people - dictate to them what number of children they can have. In some countries they have measures like laws if you have more than 4 children the next will not be included in tax deductions etc. it could work that way, while some countries encourage its citizens to have children - they have incentives because their population is aging - less labor force. China realized this that is why they are relaxing their one child policy soon.
Others argue about the level of resources maintenance of some culture like ours, is very high, we are living leisurely comparing to other poorer countries. They consume lesser gas - oil because they don't have cars, they just walk. Say environmental conditions affect culture - we need more beef, cattle ranches and milk because that is our food. We walk lesser, we use more non renewable resources - oil - we are used to the more convenient lifestyle to our own detriment, we survive on microwave etc. They also argue that even though we have lesser population we consume ten times energy resources bec of our lifestyle. An American baby they say spend more diaper plastic - than ten African babies. but this is our lifestyle and culture, we just should help in becoming wiser and spend resources wisely,
Several years ago I read that Bush said - the American way of life is not in compromise because he doesn't want to sign the Kyoto protocol limiting the use of energy resources plus many argue that the global warming is a hoax. Global warming or not we need to save our resources, live simply.
thanks again pretty dark horse
you are thinking past the problem and looking towards solutions
i am stuck here trying to convince people that there is a problem
no realisation means no solutions
you mentioned vested interests in several of your posts and this suggests that you are fully aware of the magnitude of the task facing us in dealing with population control
Qwark and I are feeling absolutely hopeless in this but don't let that contagion effect you
yes luabu (why is your username luabu?) We can do something but not to cull LOL We just need to care..
when i said the word cull i meant things like the two world wars/the ethiopian famine/the aids epidemic/starvation etc etc
i would never advocate consciously killing a person or a foetus but was making the point that this horrendous culliing processs seems to be almost acceptable to people as the way numbers of people are controlled
this is an old idea
at times of extreme poverty in the past when infant mortality was high the response by poor people was to have more children to redress the attrition rate
is this still a part of the human subconscious ///the security of having more than enough people in case of catastrophe.
You say all we need to do is "Care."
How do we "instill" that, "care," into 6.5 billion people, ( and growing,) who are abjectly ignorant and culturally, religiously, economically etc., etc. fragmented?
hi qwark, yes we can care in our own little ways. And we can't change people's culture drastically, we can just influence them - the people you call ignorant. In fact they will tell you that they don't spend as much energy as we are spending right now. It is a fact that some country spend most energy than all the poor country with big populations combined because of their lifestyle. It is not who is spending so much but we can do something if we just care in our own little ways. save electricity, water etc..walk walk not during winter LOL
listen me Steve...............you said
ultimately mankind is more important then the Earth itself
is this your first day out of the house by yourself
qwark you are an exceptional intellect /one that seems to comprehend what couturepopcafe is saying and one who can engage in conversation with same
C'mon...Luabu...Let's hear your amazing take on it...after you get through...with your astonishment over qwark...though, please.
let's keep it professional here. Oh, and it is the first day they let me out of the house...by myself...So?
hi me steve
if we cultivated other opportunities in Space like we had a brain.
that put me thinking about a kid playing with the battle star galactica and hence the comment about it being your first day out of the house by yourself
the rest of your origional post has a little more to it /about pollution and the protection of the food chain
ask me a direct question about this and i will offer a direct answer
Are you responsible for grading forum posts here. I have the personal believe that A. Would should always, always, always take care of our planet. B. If overpopulation is so critical, we are far behind it what could be a great opportunity to harvest other resources and set up work stations on the moon...and perhaps even Mars...by now. Thus, offering many new trades, skills, opportunities at these locations...and new resources for our planet...as in mining H3 from the moon. If we had half a brain, and a whole lot less politics, we would be much further along,after 40 years since the first moon landing. Compare the evolution of space travel to the evolution of the planes origin until it was able to go super-sonic...or the computer from origin...counting the years that it was able to go from IBM towers that took up huge rooms...down to fitting in the palm of your hand. I would say...that we haven't moved with the same diligence...when it came to advancing space travel. C. I believe that human life is the most important thing, on the planet. However, that is not to say that all life...and the planet itself...are not important. but, i believe this planet exists to take care of us...first and primarily...and that Humans are primary in God's eyes..as well. Yet, we are expected to care of...and even manage the planet and all the animals who reside here...whom he also cares for...but has given us that task...for which we all fall short...I would imagine. Resources of wind and sun have not been harnessed fast enough...so that others could make a profit...or people were scared of what would happen if we move out of an petroleum-based economy. Animal habitats are encroached upon to the point of extinction...and domesticized animals are left to fend for themseles...by the millions. hhhmmm...that's all I was referring to with a vivid imagination of tying that into some kind of BattleStar Galactica event...to make a point that I believe all Human life is the most important thing and most important part of the equation to the problem of Overpopulation.
a lot of thought here
the only good thing in space for us is the moon
it is reachable and would be a perfect place to dump nuclear warheads and the residue of our nuclear power plants
we would be confronted every night with our own recklessness and if these
volatile man made substances blew up /think of the fire work display
thanks for you post
if my writing was for sale it would be in the sandpaper section
well done for the back at ya
Man is his own enemy.
Nature controls everything. Eventually. Whether one facet is good or bad is merely a matter of perception.
We are headed down a one way path, the future. There may be a small time frame where a catastrophe is faced, but if there is, it will be a small blip in the life of the planet. A life that has seen thousands of "catastrophe's".
You just lived up to your name i.e. "Logic."
That comment is correct!
i totally agree with this Logic
it is a fallacy created by man's ego that suggests that he is capable of destroying the world even if he wanted to
the world was so beautiful before mans imprint on it
listen to old red indian tales about buffalo herds that took seven days to pass one spot/look at the old footage of the buffalo hunters/trappers /trophy hunters of the past/ it is horrendous
in a few small moments in time the tiger will be assigned to the kids colouring books like the dinosaur
the world will survive man but it will be polluted /mutated and redirected towards a future which is less than it deserved
It will stand in space as a monument to man's ingratitude.
Future space travellers will land and comment
What the fu...............k happened here?
Creation moves to action by an incidental cause.
The breath of life begins us, Earth cautions for a pause.
The object form - expression - can prove that we exist
as past becomes the future while memories persist.
The manifested attributes assume reality
and all mutations of the same prove only that we 'be'.
Distinction we call conciousness gives humanity a nod.
Some people call it Nature while others call it God.
if you wrote this i'm a monkey's uncle
its rubbish anyway so maybe you did?
lu - why would you just write an insult like this? So for some reason you might care to explain, you've chosen to attack me personally. Very mature. I did write it. If you don't get it, so? I didn't expect everyone to get it. First of all, poetry is not for everyone. Some people just don't like it. For those who do like it, maybe this is a bit out there. I wrote it in under 3 minutes simply to put into this forum. I can try to explain the meaning if you'd like but my father used to have a saying: "people usually describe themselves pretty accurately."
i had nothing to grab on to in your post couturepopcafe
it was worse than nonsense in that i could not dismiss it without engaging it
it wasted my time and it is a shield put up by you to avoid giving us your opinion
is population control a global responsibility or what
You may or may not find anything to grab onto here either. No, it is not. Defining the size and scope of a species is another way of saying someone gets to choose who lives, who dies, who gets to be born, who does not. I believe there is unlimited potential in the multiverse and humans are part of this universe. It is the responsibility of every individual to master his thoughts thereby eliminating the causes of disruption on the planet. Inertia, doubt, lack of enthusiasm, laziness, sensuality, mind-wandering, missing the point, instability - these distractions of the mind are the obstacles. By cultivating friendliness, compassion and gladness with an indifference towards or discrimination against vice, the mind becomes pure. When the agitations of the mind are under control, the argumentative condition is eliminated.
Population control is not just. Who will make the decisions, regardless of what they are? Are we now controllers and creators of life itself? Humanity needs to cultivate a positive and friendly collective consciousness. This and this alone is the answer to all the worlds problems. Realize that there is no difference in our makeup, no separation. There should only be discrimination and disassociation from ignorance and negativity. And I don't mean ignorance as in 'not knowing' or being stupid. Ignorance is taking the non-eternal for the eternal, the impure for the pure, evil for good and non-self for self. This continuous practice of discrimination is the only means of attaining liberation from afflictions of the mind. And when the mind of humanity becomes whole, we will not need to be concerned with how many people are on the planet. I haven't talked about resources because the conservation and edification of same would naturally follow suit.
P.S. I'm not blonde, I'm silver.
i'm silver too
Humanity needs to cultivate a positive and friendly collective consciousness.
i totally agree with this
now stretch this out a bit further and consider that other living things have a right to a say in the final solution to the worlds future allocation of resources
are you still going to play the dominion over all card on the silent
have they the same rights as the red indians were given
have they the right to lie down and die
I wil have to look up some old people jokes now darn
Lu - The idea that humanity should disassociate from ignorance and negativity would necessarily include the consideration of all things, animal, mineral and vegetable. There's no dominion over all. There is only self-restraint in actions, fixed observance, regulation of physical energy, mind-control in sense engagements, concentration, meditation, and realization. The Native Americans knew and lived this way.
This country has paid homage to those people in the only way it could. We cannot now go back and change what you did. Well actually it wasn't you, the Irish, because Irish immigrants didn't come here until much later. Unless your ancestors were Spanish or French or Dutch or English. This is put in as an eye-opener for you personally because I'm not sure why you bring the Red Indian up again or what you mean by 'on the silent'.
Just some thoughts about world population etc..
The world population growth rate is decreasing, but the total number of population is still increasing because the base is still high.
The increase in population is coming from Asia - mostly China and India plus Africa - it is leveling off because of high mortality from AIDS and communicable diseases.
The change of the attitude towards having more children will surely depend on the cost of raising a child and on the burden caused by an additional child to the welfare of parents. The quality of care is more important than the number of children. Once the couple realized that an additional child curtails their personal advancement in terms of monetary etc. then they will limit their number of children. It is inevitable.
The government has a role in making sure that they can provide services for additional children based on taxes etc.
The prob of population is a personal problem but to some extent it is also a part of the problem of the government. There are laws that a country enact pertaining to the number of children a couple can have, like tax laws etc...
The problem of overpopulation is not so much of a global concern but of individual and their governments concern. Collectively it is yes, because we live in just one planet and we can affect others by our actions.
I don't think that we have an overpopulation problem at all. It could be maldistribution of wealth or just a population distribution problem.
I noticed that the more developed countries have lesser number of children -- maybe because child care is expensive etc and they have their own career etc.
Among the more developed countries, US has a high fertility rate, and they have approximate 2 children per woman. Among European countries the average number of children is less than two. In France the total fertility rate is less than one meaning the average number of children per woman is less than one, LOL (,less than one, that is how they calculate it)
Most countries with low fertility rates have an aging population and they have problems in social welfare, elderly care etc...If a populations stops replenishing itself , it will encounter problems related to an aging populations. There are also problems relating to a young population (high fertility countries).
In 45 yrs or less human population will increase by at least 2.5 billion.
We are in trouble.
Thank you for the link qwark..projections are statistics and it incorporate rate of growth plus some data collected like number of people in a country. The more developed countries are more sophisticated in data gathering - returned census questionnaires while the less developed countries rely on house to house counting of people.
There are three usual projections slow medium and fast growth rate. I think they use the fast growth rate with that projection. Anyway, we can't do anything about the numbers there, I believe the UN collects data with more credibility.
As I have said the base is already big so even of the rate of growth is decreasing, and people are beginning to limit fertility size, the number is still huge. I would like to check if there is data about projection on population density - concentration of people and population distribution.
I guess population policies in those areas like Asia and Africa should be to ensure that people are well informed and to educate them. But it is a chicken and egg dilemma, they are poor because they have lots of children or they have lots of children that is why they are poor.
like what I have said it is inevitable that once people realized that an additional child is expensive then people will limit their number of children.
In the case of Indonesia, the largest Muslim country and like most African countries which are poor - the use of contraception is very low, culture plays an important role.
What I am saying is that I don't think that we can impinge on the right of couple and individual to reproduce children - freedom curtailment by just culling them. Education is the answer, once women are educated, they will learn to say no to their husband in those places like Africa and poor countries. Once women start to join the work force, they limit the number of their children. In Different culture permits different status of women - but then culture is transferable through mass comm. and pop culture which can be easily exchanged through Internet. After some time they can emulate the women in more developed countries - then they can take charge of their own sexuality.
Greed - we should avoid greed too so that others can have something.
these types of speculation are nonsense. If these people could predict the future, then they'd be trillionairres.
The fact remains: resources will become scarce, prices will increase, and people might choose not to have children if given the option. Increase the availability of birth control and amazing things will happen: Japan's population is upside down, there are so many old people compared to young.
Not something you can count on. The birth rate tends to be high in impoverished countries because having lots of children is the only form of social security.
The situation may be different in one-time industrial societies that have collapsed, such as the former USSR, because people are more aware that birth control is even possible, but since reliable birth control is not actually available in most of the former USSR, all you end up with is an abortion rate that's off the charts - more than four times that of the US and nearly 9 times that of Western Europe. I am pro-choice and pro-small family sizes, but that's hard to stomach.
I'm curious. I agree with you that increasing the availability of birth control is a good thing. How do you propose this to happen?
Dost thou think you are the one and only guy that debates points made on the internet? I have seen your responses to categories of this nature...I know what you want me to say. You are set on definitions...and conjecture...and I ain't playing that game, my friend. No disrespect to you...or your favorite past time...BTW!
What I offered was my opinion...One which has merit and a few valid points. You can take it and run...which ever way you want...but what you can't do is use it to make your own opinionated reponse. I know how that game gets played out. Seen it over and over. This one is my opinion...go get your own...!
: I can't say "never" 'cause that's an absolute, but I can say that I very seldom if ever, use "conjecture."
You offered an "opinion."
All I ask of you is that you back up your opinion. If you can't/don't, it's worth less than a dime in today's economy.
If you make a statement in the form of "opinion." I'd think that you'd think you might be challenged. Right?
I'll be able to back up my "opinions," with, in most cases, fact, or I don't comment.
The point is my friend...is whenever someone makes an opinion they don't have to back it. Is that C.S. Don't know...or care? just know that I don't necessarily have to "back" an opinion with well documented scientific evidence for something I believe.
Something...I know is being baited to discuss down to how much of a superior intellect someone wants to prove for everything that folks write an opinion for is old....and boring...and very old. oh...was that repititive? I wouldn't want to repeat myself...over and over and over. That would be like Hub Page Forum Topics on Religion Topics...or something.
What type of vibe...anyways...that Population Control is a Global Responsibilty utters in...that demands such explanation of my opinions?
Your going to get the last word in anyways...'cause it is your thread...I'm just holding back...with anything else I have to say. I've seen and understood where your coming from on this from a few of your replies already. Have you seen where I am going with some of my replies? It should be obvious what I believe by now...since I've danced around enough. my school of thought is from the Bible...as I know and understand it in which it says; "Be friutful and multiply"...a very age old scripture and saying that has been handed down since the time of Moses!
Now I know why you "tapdance" around the barn. Your "opinions are biblically based.
I don't remember ever having gotten a straight forward answer from a 'believer."
You have just joined the crowd... :
Ty so much! :
Well within the next 50-100 years, this country will pass a "one child per couple" law like China did. People are adapting to better health standards and living longer these days and I can see a law like that coming. Got to face reality.
Brenda, the bible says that God will bring to ruin those ruining the earth. So that's alright then, right?
Why is population control the only way to discuss this?
Its not that we need to be more discriminate about how we reproduce (I'm for it on a personal level, but advocating it on a grand scale is dangerous), we need to actually stop shuffling our feet and address actual resource concerns.
Uhh, the universe is really freakin' big. How much could we mine in the asteroid belt alone?
There's numerous reasons why we're in the hole, and not one blanket solution will pull us out of it.
Besides venturing too close to eugenics for me, selectively curbing the population doesn't actually address the issue. It just slows the progression.
And with unknown results. I agree with you. We have the capacity and talent to develop resources properly which could sustain twice the amount of people who exist now. Profit, unfortunately, remains part of the equation. Corn, soybeans and two other crops (I can't remember which 2) are highly contaminated with pesticides. They have been bioengineered to resist the harmful effects of the chemicals so that more can be grown in less space and time. It has an effect on streams and groundwater, wildlife dependent on that water, and others dependent on that wildlife. Best practices have been eliminated for the sake of money.
hi to all hubbers
I started this thread and i am amazed at the level of interest in it.
I feel a responsibility to this discussion.
It is late in the emerald isle and i will go through the posts tomorrow and try and pull this thing together for all of us to re-engage
this is a serious question and we should as a group not let it slide away like alot of forum discussions with alarmist notions which were never suggested in the first place/i generally agree that population control can only be dealt with in the context of an assessment of global resources and in the context of what a life in essence should contain/like a minimum wage so to speak
logically in any situation if we are dumping on the people who are alive already why would we want more.
It never ceases to amaze me when money people still sell the line that more people means better business/what a joke
there are alot of creative ways which are logical and effective in dealing with this issue,non of which should be threatening to anyone.
while i sleep would some einstein with knowledge come up with a ball park figure for how many people would be enough in the world.
America wakes while Ireland snores!
The projected maximum population for the world is expected to be 11 Billion. If we fall into the global warming trap that number will rise. It is economic freedom, prosperity and political freedom and stability that control populations not government dictates.
The one child policy in China has created a demographic disaster for them that threatens the Communist hold on government there. Nothing is more dangerous to a society than vast numbers of single, hopeless men.
thank you for this information /maybe 8 times more than exists today
maybe possible but hardly desirable
China's efforts in this area are interesting and worth having a look at
a basic blunt solution fell foul to the vagries of demographics and the vagries of culture
Let's look for the root causes of overpopulation
Let's play the blame game
I blame religion and capitalism.
What or who do you blame?
I blame poverty and lack of education*, with religion being a product of the first two rather than a cause in its own right. I suppose you could say that religion is a sort of feedback loop...
*Eliminate or reduce poverty and give people a decent education, and the overpopulation problem vanishes - possibly to be replaced by an underpopulation problem but we humans are ingenious creatures and will no doubt find a way round that
i like the feedback loop idea empress
it's another chicken and egg to chat about
you make sense a bit in places like pakistan ie poverty and ignorance produce the dependance on the dope of religion
in places like the so called bible belt/Salt Lake City /Rome etc where there is little real poverty by comparison the people are just as hooked on nonsense as in the third world
seems like religion lcraves poor and desperate conditions in which to thrive but it is not confined exclusively to these conditions.
thanks for input
Overpopulation itself is not the problem. Concentration of population is the bigger problem.Too many people in one small space. Manhattan for example. We do have a lot of uninhabited places in the world, why don't we spread out more?
When we are constantly bumping elbows with our neighbors we have more stress, anger, frustration and hatred. If we move about more we might have a different kind of stress, but less interhuman stress.
Another problem in our stressed out world is over-communication. We get more bad news in a day than and society used to get in a lifetime. We are told by our religions, neighbors, governments and everybody else that we areor should get, involved somehow in the earthquake that happened on the other side of the world and we, each of us, is supposed to do something to help. A hundred years ago we wouldn't have known about the earthquake, and we wouldn't be stressed because of the earthquake. We face a whole lot of stress. If our neighbors roof is blown off by a storm, we can get out there and help put up a new one. But if a roof is blown off a roof in China, there is nothing I can do about it, I don't need to know about it. I don't need that information about their roof to add stress in the already stressed out over-populated city that I live in. So Maybe I should move to the middle of the Salt Flats in Utah and get some peace and quiet.
i like your style/congratulations/you think/ you write with generosity and you make good sense
you say its a problem of distribution
i like your point about being down trodden by bad news
i think for what it is worth that it makes sense to live in cities where the facilities etc can be provided in an organised way
i think the countryside should be an amenity which people are able to use regularly .Shorter working weeks /better transport/more nature reserves etc etc
we are a gobal species and we need to co-ordinate to be sensible and that means global news and communication
we should confront bad news with questions both to ourselves and our religous and political leaders and we should be instruments in the mobilisation of solutions
nice to meet you Beege215e
I'm a bit disappointed that no one bothered to get any facts.
Around 1805-1810 world population hit 1 billion.
Around 1920-1930 world population hit 2 billion. (110 years)
Around 1960 world population hit 3 billion. (35 years)
Around 1975 world population hit 4 billion. (15 years)
Around 1988 world population hit 5 billion. (13 years)
Around 1999 world population hit 6 billion. (11 years)
We are at about 6.9 billion now - the rate of growth of the global population has slowed. Evan is right - the situation is self-correcting economically. If you are indifferent to the starvation of billions while the few who control food get rich in the castles built to withstand the worst food riots then everything is fine. There is a frightening fact about overpopulation - the higher the population, the further civilization can fall when it all comes apart.
Some kind of rational planning makes sense. I see no chance that we will do it.
"Some kind of rational planning makes sense. I see no chance that we will do it."
WE won't. We can't!
What makes you think we are not headed for a catastrophic reduction in human population.
I'd like to see some well thought out and logical reasons why you think mankind has a successful future ahead.
qwark maybe my stubborness won't let me concede defeat just yet
it may be wishful thinking but i want to hope for a better future.
i'll dig out some positives(not an easy task )about this tomorrow
i'll play good cop bad cop then /night here/cheers
thanks /check out the god in the cross hairs of perception thread /its showdown at high noon there if you get a chance/
lu - this is what I'm talking about in the above reply to your demand for an answer. Hope is part of the human condition. This is something that sets us apart from the rest of the animals. It is so prevelant in our history that we have given a name to that which is undefinable, which quickens our spirit to continue on in the face of all obstacles, to believe we can do better, the very spark which ignites us to rise every morning. Perhaps it is this hope that is the only thing that keeps us going. Even our dear qwark looks forward to tomorrow night with the hope of engaging in some intelligent conversation.
Very true, but you and I are but 2 of the "privileged" amongst billions of the less fortunate who are living day to day from hand to mouth.
Living with the barest of necessities and dying by the droves.
They have no hope but that which is promised after their pitiful lives have ended.
They wake up each morn and wonder if they will make it thru the day.
As human population grows, that facet of humanity will increase and "hope" will be diminished as the sun sets on each day of their misery filled lives.
They will constitute the vast majority of human life.
There is no way that potential can be destroyed. Not in our lifetimes.
i'm still trying to hobble together a case for the defence/i approach this task with the conviction of a free legal aid lawyer trying to make a plea for a druggie who has just beaten up his granny/
i respectfully request a posponment in anticipation of my latest cup of coffeee providing me with inspiration
I love what you said here
They have no hope but that which is promised after their pitiful lives have ended
this is the lotto big win hope of religion that is cynical in the extreme.
coutoureporcafe/now i can hear you think/sorry for goading you to this
it is things like this hope/love/trust/faith etc what alot of people call intangibles that are intriguiing me at the moment/i am going to have a go at this stuff on a thread soon because i think these things are very real
central to this question is something you raised in a throw away comment in your latest post
This is something that sets us apart from the rest of the animals.
i could not disagree with this more if i tried/all creatures that live have their own version of what you describe as hope
A guy earlier said that people are more important than the world/the old dominion over all theme from the bible/ this is an intrinsic part of why we feel we have a divine right to ravage and pillage
good to hear you think and thanks for your thoughts
Likely true about the animals and hope. I thought about that as I wrote the 'hope' response. If you look into a dog's eyes, for example, you can actually see hope or something that look's like it.
And make no mistake, there is little I write that is a 'throw away comment'.
I'd like to see some well thought out and logical reasons why you think mankind has a successful future ahead.
maybe we will see the writing on the wall
maybe the drunk will scare himself and self preservation will kick in
unlikely /scrap that idea
just maybe our ingenuity and greed will make it seem profitable and logical to be sensible and in an effort to grab this opportunity bad people will do the right thing for the wrong reason
ok /you got me/you win/happy now?Qwark
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring this up. If you "manage" your population with some kind of "Rational Planning". What do you do with the unexpected? Like epidemics, world war, etc? You may have managed yourself out of existance in the most extreme case. At the very minimum you have simply created a secondary problem.
Doug /you are different class /Thanks for bringing knowledge to this discussion/What do people think about Doug's numbers
I don't know if you knew this, Doug, but people used to starve even BEFORE libertarians existed.
Just wanted to make sure you knew this.
I completely agree that population control is a Global Responsibility!!! Societies don't seem to take it seriously, but we will have to in the future. You have countries out there that can barely sustain themselves due to the population overload.
Here in Ireland, we are lucky that the country has such a tiny population, tiny country but lots of space. Maybe we are less ho*ney here, but we don't seem to be making babies like we're on steroids. I think its mad that the population here decreased by over 2 million in the space of a couple of centuries. It used to be over 6 million, now its 4 million. I know it was due to the mass emigration due to the great famine in the 1800's, but even in 200 years the population still hasn't got back to what it used to be.
Maybe people should be limited to two children in countries that are over populated??? I know that sounds awful, but what can we do!
China limits children to 1 per couple - although in practice with all the exceptions for minorities, allowing a second child if the first is a girl, etc etc it comes out at around 1.8 kids per couple. And gets sh*t from the western media for it. Most Chinese would like more children on a personal level but agree with the one-child policy on the national level.
thanks iontach thanks china man /we meet again
i'll check in on you guys tomorrow/knackered hubbing/me heads fried
Seems a good idea in theory ,but in practice quite devastating to young pregnant chinese females,who are already at a disavantage in Chinese Chauvanistic society anyway.
I also suspect that underground abortions and black market 'for sale' babies are the result for sadly far too many.
Not the answer.
Not even close to reality I am afraid.
Every form of birth control is offered by the state, and dedicated hospitals for this, including abortions.
It is not young pregnant 'females' who suffer, it is the young males who culturally see children as the main goal in life.
China is no more 'chauvanistic' than the US, maybe less so from some of the christian threads about man and his woman.
Documentaries show the less wealthy not being able to afford healthcare ( that part is starting to sound familiar)
And sorry ,but since male babies are seen as being more 'worthy' it is inevitable that females would carry the greater burden ,single and pregnant?
The fact that young males culturally see children as a benefit is no new concept ,even in the west..
I would not say that China is any more chauvanistic than the USA, Christian or otherwise.
What would be great would be to hear from some women directly from China, however I think I heard something about China being banned from Goggle(?)
You should realise by now that most 'documentaries' about China are part true and part propoganda from the western media. China works on a different system from the bottom up - and so making comparisons is not easy, however, most people get healthcare from 'barefoot' doctors working the poor areas to the highest levels of care in city hospitals if you can afford it or are insured - no real difference to speak of with the US before the Obama 'Healthcare' thing. Spending money on healthcare is a choice and many older people choose not to spend it because the money is better spent on the children or whatever.
And sorry ,but since male babies are seen as being more 'worthy' it is inevitable that females would carry the greater burden ,single and pregnant?
I cannot understand why you would this would be the case or what burden you mean.
The fact that young males culturally see children as a benefit is no new concept ,even in the west..
I would not say that China is any more chauvanistic than the USA, Christian or otherwise.
You inferred both of these issues in your post as I read it.
What would be great would be to hear from some women directly from China, however I think I heard something about China being banned from Goggle(?)
I am sitting here in China surrounded by Chinese women, one is in the next room reading at this moment, and my future sister in law has recently had Xixi, a girl and is pregnant again less than 1 year after her birth with a boy this time - what would you like to ask them ?
And China dumped Google - basically over issues that Google claimed were about freedom of information, speech, and China claimed were about the Pornography that flooded into this strictly porn controlled country through Google. Google has since complied with the initial request to filter out porn and is available here again from Hong Kong.
I do not mean to be disrespectful toward your culture when I voice my concern over how females are treated in China ,but is it not a fact that a male child and not a female child is 'more desired'.
I also agree that the media is not always accurate ,but when that information is similar across the globe and different sources ,then yes I think there is merit.
No fire ,without smoke
The fact that young males culturally see children as a benefit is no new concept ,even in the west. ( was in response to your previous statement)
By the way why do they see children as a benefit.
I would not say that China is any more chauvanistic than the USA, Christian or otherwise.( same again, I am responding to your earlier statement.
However the USA does not have the same 'one child' policy as China ,so the ratio of aborted female babies is NOT the same. as China.
Thankyou for your offer to speak with Chinese women,but you took that out of context ,do they write on here ?
I come from a country ( New Zealand) where there have many hundreds of Asian students and proffessionals migrate in the last 10 yrs , so they are not strangers to me ,lol
Im gonna leave the Google issue thing ,because I can see that definately is a 'he said ,she said' issue..Not the version we have in the west thats for sure, and I only mentioned it to point out censorship and dictatorship.
China man :you said
And gets sh*t from the western media for it. Most Chinese would like more children on a personal level but agree with the one-child policy on the national level.
this got me thinking
china is a fascinating country as is japan
china had civilizations in the past that were the apex of sophistication
i think you are asking us a question that we have not even considered
How many individual human rights can you fit in a world before it is full?
How many individual human rights can you fit in a world before it is full?
How many individual human rights can you fit in a world before it is full?
the west seems to think that the answer is an infinite amount
i think you would describe this as a naive wishful notion
the more i think about this/the more i agree with you
I think we should reconsider the way we look at 'human rights' completely; at the moment it is clear that in the US it is considered that one US life = 70 Vietnamese (from the war where 85,000 US troops died to 6 million Vienamese people - from memory)
one US life = 5 Iraqi lives (but I don't have the figures for that to hand)
Christians scream the house down about abortion but condone killing other people in other countries and justify it through the same religion
Government healthcare schemes spend shedloads of money on keeping old people alive and mobile - and less on kids.
For human rights I read Human selfishness and preconceptions more than any ethical or moral high ground.
Having just posted a hub on climate change I had to make a comment. Of course population is a factor and if a large percentage of the population would take more of an interest in looking after our planet we would all have a chance.
Education ,and more education ,not just showing kids how to use a condom ,but a holistic teaching programme ,where parents are instructed in 'Parenting Classes' this should be mandatory.
For those who dont think they need teaching ,then they should teach others.
You need a car license to be able to use a vehicle on the road , so too ,you should get a license (education) on child rearing....and go on from there.....
Education and more education..
Luabu, you have done the impossible. You have found a topic where I completely agree with not only Ron Motgomery, but Jim Hunter as well. And I say this with all seriousness...anyone who believes there are too many PEOPLE, should go choke on a rope or eat a gun. Right now.
Anyone want to make a stab at the picture's context
Just to lighten things a little
Good thread this and i'll recap it in a post if it would help
I will be fair to the opinions i disagree with and give them honourable mention
It is the concern of the UN to stop overpopulation to the point food resources are worse than they currently are.
Some people passionately want to believe there is some 'overpopulation crisis' when there is not.
Any 'crisis' is of politics, distribution, and division among peoples.
Too bad, because a population crisis would be a lot easier to fix.
more mouths to feed/the bigger the number the bigger the problem/it's a no brainer.
More mouths = More hands. No brainer. Many hands make light work.
Remember? "Idle hands are the "devils" workshop!" and there will be alot of them lol
I never understood what his "devil thing" is.
...has to do with "evil" I guess! :
agriculture is mechanised and very labourless
so is industry etc etc etc
hands to open plastic bottles /hands to pray with/hands to scratch with/hands to point with/maybe hands to paint and draw with /hands to play music with/hands to reach out with
what is this light work you talk about
what use will all these hands be put to ?
riddle me this and i will concede the point cj wright
luabu says hi
Well there is your answer. No need for population control. The economy and the natural order of things will dictate the population.
If agriculture(the mechanism for feeding people) is mechanised and largely laborless. Then eventually too many people will require too little food. Right? Thats your premise, correct?
If that's the case, then those not smart enough to figure things out on their own will starve. Problem solved. Natural order.
Now, if you decide that we can have Natures decisions made by some person or entity. What would be the requirements? Who decides who lives and who dies? Who wants to bear that weight? You see, natures greatest asset is NOT it's resources. It's the ability to replenish. Every life gives back, even in death.
You see, our disagreement is not an issue of population. It's about "Central Planning." Central planning presumes that one size fits all. That a central planning entity can decide what's best for the collective. If they make a mistake, how will anyone know? In the case of population controll, you can't. If you decide that each couple can have only 2 children. Who's to say the third child would not have the answer to world hunger? Cold fusion? Who knows?
UN is just useful bec. they are collecting data on population based on the individual country's census data and they are the ones projecting it. The cause is noble yes, but the people working there have interests too just like any other people in other org
I thought you had to go to work?
What'cha doin' back in the forum? lolol
Did'ja buy a bat for that "Granny?"
Population control cannot work in a world such as the one we now live in.
The only way population can be controlled is if it is first reduced to a governable number.
Once that has happened, the gov't has to be selected by those who are "dedicated" to the survival of the human species.
That gov't must be "dedicated" to universal education and to the eradication of beliefs in mythical supernatual divinities.
The gov't must rule with "absolute" authority because man, by nature, is a thoughtful, wily predator who will revert to his genetic programming if not "guided" by a powerful force to become a more social and civil creature.
Contemporary man is like a 5 yr old child that needs guidance and discipline!
Man is in his formative years. The years that will either build character and wisdom or if left to his own, will make dreadful mistakes that will, eventually, lead him down the road to near extinction.
A one world gov't at this stage of man's evolution isn't possible. He (man) "absolutely" cannot come together, in concert, to work for the viability of his species.
If you think other wise, I'd love to see your "rational" points in print.
As far as the rational points go, here they are:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2006 … lation.php
It's nothing that hasn't already been said by posters here, but the basic points are that there is no need for some global nanny to decide who has children and how many, and who gets - urgh - "culled", because there are natural correction mechanisms which will kick in long before it becomes standing room only on Planet Earth.
Now for the non-rational bit. Your ideas are repugnant - they're straight out of Nazism For Beginners. (Well come on, somebody had to say it.)
I don't know the "origin" of that site, but it was interesting.
I've heard/read just about all the pros and cons ref. to "overpopulation" and "Malthusian" opinions of our future.
I'm sure you agree with me that all my "Malthusian' predictions are based soley on MY opinions, repugnant as they may be, but I stand squarely behind them based upon my understanding of the history of "man" and his prodigious, powerful. predatory needs and desires.
Oh yes, this earth could easily provide for the needs of many more humans.
Pls explain to me, why/how you think the controlling facets of the human populace will come together to educate the majority of humanity which "exists" in abject poverty and without hope of ever arriving in the 21st century.
Pls explain to me how 50+% of extant humanity which believes in mythical gods can be "educated" in ref to "truths" and be brought into the 21st century?
Pls tell me what can unite humanity in an effort to save itself when it is so fragmented by culture, teachings, religions, racial hatred and bigotry.
Pls tell me how the "greed aspect of human character can be sublimated into a sharing, caring and a more civilly oriented human creature.
Pls tell me how a humanity, seperated by great oceans, can intimately understand the needs and desires of others around the world.
Pls tell me how those who seek power and control can be convinced to change their ways and instead work for the benefit of all mankind.
Pls tell me how we can convince nations, such as China to pay more attention to human rights?
Pls tell me how we can control the promulgation of nuclear weapons and the desire to use them.
Pls tell me how we can overcome a human desire to kill and destroy without compunction.
Pls tell me why, since our appearance as modern man, man has been involved in wars over land, religion and ego.
I could go on for pages, but I'll stop here.
Within 50 yrs the human population will increase to about 9.5 billion of the same kinds of "animals' that, since their appearance, have been involved in "predation."
WE are incipient creatures involved in the insanity of "destruction."
WE ARE REPUGNANT!
Self flagellation in one with no divine purpose is really unbecoming. Nothing will be done without global consensus, and you seem to believe that a godless state would surely improve the situation. Can we say Soviet Union? I know it's a really really long time ago, but that is one of our examples of Godless states. The U.S., which was based on concepts beyond worldly material concerns, is still truckin' after more than two hundred years. And you say: Let's just forget all that. Want to control world pop? You better get out and direct traffic, cause darkness is falling upon your reality. Hey, here's a good Godless concept you'll like. Mandatory abortion/and or sterilization. Have you polished your goose steppin' jackboots?
You don't seem to read with understanding.
Of course, preconceived notions/beliefs are almost impossible to overcome..:
I've said many times in many of my forum responses that man is a predatious creature.
If there were no religious belief, which seems to be, historically, a reason to kill, he'd find another reason.
IF there is a nuclear reduction in human population, many millenia will pass before man will again progress to a point he will become dominant.
By that time I would hope he'd learned from past mistakes and amalgamate all mankind into a 1 world govt with the goal of human survival in mind.
"Self flagellation?" Naw, pain is not my forte.
The Soviet Union was not an atheist nation.
If ya read its history, Stalin, himself had been a seminarian. He made the state "god' for control!
The church was alive and well in the underground.
I am "unbecoming" and "repugnant." I am human...as are you!
Q - you've made so many valid points, as difficult as they are to face. You are the consumate realist. I, on the other hand, am an idealist. Though what you say cannot be disputed, perhaps the complete degradation of mankind is exactly what it will take for us to begin seeing each other as individuals, not governments. A supreme controller can't work either because there would likely be rebellion. It's sort of the way government is headed now, no? Trying to keep everything under control, everything equal. I still believe there is inherent goodness in most people. If they have to live without their stuff, they might behave differently. The only problem is the good tribes will have to fight off the marauders and eventually we'll go down the same path. So Jack Spratt, eat your lean and I shall eat my fat. Together we might save the world. Now what do you think of that?
A well thought out response.
IF a cataclysmic catastrophic reduction in our numbers should happen, as I explained before, there would be 2 camps remaining:
One would consist of those who had taken refuge underground and would be, for all practical matters, physiologically unchanged and
#2 those who survived and suffered the horrible mutations caused by radioactive poisoning.
Eventually the two would have to meet.
The future of mankind would be decided in that confrontation.
I know that I am the forever pessimist, but I can see no other result if we continue on as we are.
It would be a miracle if "man" could somehow realize that, continuing on as we are, will only result in regression and come together, in a synergistic effort, to live as brothers and sisters until the possibility can no longer exists.
I don't believe in "miracles."
You're right about that. Will probably never happen. Not in this lifetime anyway. That's why you have your pipe and I have my poems. It's what we do to keep our worlds from spinning out of control in the chaos.
I think it will happen Couture, but probably not in my life time.
I've got, maybe, 30 or so yrs left.
It may take another 50 -75 yrs.
I predict that it will happen around the beginning of the next century.
Of course I'm hoping it never does!
I think that a lot of the education is happening already. People in China and India etc. are getting a whiff of what it's like to enjoy Western-style standards of living and are pulling themselves up by their bootstraps out of abject poverty. And, as I said: once that happens, it eliminates the "need" to have large numbers of children to ensure that at least one or two of them reach adulthood and looks after you in your old age.
I do sometimes worry about the killing and destruction bit myself. But what you're proposing is to solve that problem by implementing... killing and destruction. On a massive, unprecedented scale. Not very consistent, are you?
No, we aren't. OK, so a few of us are maybe. But the majority are not.
This self-hatred thing is getting a bit old to be honest.
if we're so repugnant, then g'head and get rid of the only human being you have control over. It'll be one less "repugnant being" in the universe.
Then I am with Couturepopcafe with that - in the sense you just define people did evolve quite a bit.
Which does not mean though there is no looming overpopulation - it seems to be right at the door. And considering there are no real predators to cull the human population, we likely will have to do it ourselves, one way or another - or mother nature will do it, and we are guaranteed not to like the method it will choose...
Hawking said we stand a greater risk from ourselves than from anything coming in from outer space.
I have to agree with him.
We've only been here about 35 - 40k years and have already brought ouselves to the brink of potential extinction.
A "culling" will become a necessity!
extinction? what are you smoking?! I don't see extinction as a real possibility unless things REALLY change.
Like, if a meteor hit and the sun dried up... we'd probably still be ok - we have fossil fuels and geothermal heat and others
I really would NOT consider extinction a possibility.
I don't know why I waste time responding to your comments.
You don't read with understanding and your responses are those of a naive, adolescent child..
In fact, I haven't see a comment from you since you've joined the forum that has had been interesting or had any intrinsic value.
This is just my opinion, you are boring and trite and have nothing credible or of value to offer.
I'm going to add you to my list of those to ignore.
Have a very merry xmas and a great new year.
No hard feelings.
If a decent-sized meteor hit, most of us would be wiped out on impact or in the immediate aftermath. It's certainly possible that there would be survivors, but it's pretty unlikely that fossil fuels and geothermal heating would have anything to do with it because the infrastructure needed to acquire and transport the necessary materials would mostly be destroyed. Also note that fossil fuels and geothermal heat can't grow food without a sun...
no, but we'd have UV lights...
Anyway - hard times? yes...
Extinction - no.
Powered by what exactly? I don't think you're thinking this through.
A good-sized asteroid will vaporize everything in its path before it even hits the ground. Then it will dump thousands of cubic miles of super heated rock, earth, and gases for dozens or hundreds of miles in its immediate vicinity, followed by a blast wave moving faster than the speed of sound that will flatten everything for hundreds or thousands more miles and then send a rain of fire down on anything that may have managed to survive the blast. Within an hour or two, the whole earth will be covered in total darkness, lit only by a rain of flaming debris. Meanwhile, the blast impact sets off chains of violent earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes around the world, and all communication would be knocked out due to chaos in the ionosphere. The ash, soot, and other debris would block out the sun for months or even years and cause a nuclear winter - researchers have discovered that the massive KT impact that killed off the dinosaurs affected the climate to some degree for 10,000 years.
I agree with you that total extinction of the human race is unlikely, but there's a reason very few land animals larger than a house cat survived KT. When the dust clears, most of the world is going to look like a cross between Pompeii and Lisbon after the 1755 earthquake. Destruction of current energy infrastructure would be almost total - charcoal is probably the most advanced energy source anybody would be using for years, if not decades.
...but I'll hang in with "Hawking" and his remark (paraphrase)that we are in greater danger of problems caused by ourselves than from anything flying in from outer space.
I've mentioned many times that I doubt mankind will become extinct, but there will be a great reduction in human population in the not too distant future.
"I agree with you that total extinction of the human race is unlikely, "
... lol, ok, good. Let's drop it!
It is big calculation. Now a days everyone wants small family but some people still don not believe. It is our responsibility and should care for our resources.
Creatures come and go over millions of years. Why should we be any different. We'll be severely depleted in numbers and resources by natural disaster or disease, may start again and evolve into something better or worse, or may disappear altogether.
So qwark says man does use all of his brain, but has, as yet, limited capabilities. Should we develop our capabilities and evolve mentally, thereby bettering our world? Or should we allow someone to control our societies in the way they see fit, thereby achieving only population control, resentment, and possibly taking us down a wrong path?
I contend that through removal of impurities in both body and mind, there arises special powers in the senses allowing man to fully employ all of his capabilities, with much practice. There is knowledge of everything from intuition but we have been severely distracted by the external. The problems related to over population control are not a matter for governance, they are a matter for wisdom, discernment and mastery over primordial matter and materialism.
I've been quiet. Sitting back reading the more serious comments.
The idealism proffered by some is ludicrous.
For instance, one short sighted "hubber" says: "I love the nonsensical argument put forth with this idea that "man NEEDS to be governed...."
and then goes on to offer naive, uneducated, idealism about negative human population growth and man's ability to govern himself.
I'm not going to repeat myself in ref. to the irreparable 'fragmentation" of mankind.
It seems to me that "idealists" can't/don't think beyond the potential and possibilities of, alledgedly, "civilized" countries.
The majority of humanity lives in squalor, deprivation and illiteracy. Education is a rarity! These are the peoples who will cause the majority of the rise of human population over the next 50 yrs.
The possibility of "universal education" does not exist.
Child birth in many societies/cultures is essential to the survival of their ethnicity.
It is the acme of idealistic inanity to tout a belief that we humans will come together in concert to create that which will guarantee the suvival of our species.
The history of "modern" man is empirical proof of his inability to unite for the benefit of ALL life on this planet!
We are a "warring" species genetically grounded in the "art-of-the-kill!"
We continue to research, imagine, plan and create more efficient methods to kill OUSELVES!
We are "wired" to kill!
If we are to survive, we must reduce our numbers and govern the remaining with an iron fist!
A 1 world gov't will be a necessity.
To be successful, that governing body must have as its goal, the survival of the human species.
If that can't be attained, we will have been an unadaptable, short lived natural experiment in life.
"If we are to survive, we must reduce our numbers and govern the remaining with an iron fist!
A 1 world gov't will be a necessity.
To be successful, that governing body must have as its goal, the survival of the human species.
If that can't be attained, we will have been an unadaptable, short lived natural experiment in life."
q - ok, if you would be so kind as to put you're view aside for just a moment and indulge me. If, as you previously stated, man does use all of his brain but with limited capability, is it not within the realm of possibility that he could gather enough information/experience about his world to better it? Forget the warring faction, I'm talking about your majority which lives in squalor, deprivation and illiteracy. They may be incapable of walking to another field where there is wood for building, water for drinking. They may not have the capacity to 'figure out' how to better their immediate environment, but would you concede that the human brain/mind is capable of this?
Suppose for a moment, that a natural or manmade incident caused a population of Aspergers, those, who by your own admission, are capable of doing amazing things. Or a world of autistics out of whose directness might come a world of simplicity? Collective consciousness is not a new idea and, true, it can go either way. But if more of us direct our energy and thought toward joy, perhaps the part of the cycle we are in will spin back to peaceful times.
"Possibility" is an asolute!
The "warring" factor is inherent in man. It can't be forgotten.
Of course man is capable of creating a better world.
The human mind, as I've said in many of my comments and "hubs," is capable of anything that it can imagine.
Collective consciousness and action is a possibility but not a probability.
Joy is a relative concept.
To a Bushman, joy might be the simple action of finding a "grub" for lunch.
To the "illuminati" joy might be found in proofs of the TOE (Theory Of Everything) being realized.
Joy is personal.
There is only 1 "possibility" that will save humankind. It is that man unites in concert to progress and survive.
As we exist, that possibility does not exist.
Man will, necessarily, have to experience a catastrophe of such magnitude that it will regress him to the point in numbers and intellect, of having to evolve, again, into a hybrid, a new human species or both.
I can imagine no other way that man will survive.
If you can, please offer it, logically.
No, I think we are on the same page. We may just be splitting hairs over when and how it will happen but I can agree with you that there will likely need to be a severe and noticeable regression in numbers before any collective mind will change our direction. 'Uniting in concert to progress and survive' is possible but the non-probability of the action is totally in keeping with what we are currently seeing/experiencing. It is, however, logical to me that if there is one person, me, who can see a better future, there are likely millions. Maintaining this energy/view does not always spill over to the next generation.
As a scientist, you will understand the Daisy effect. Eventually, the white daisies will take over and the cycle will repeat itself.
Life has been "repeating itself" for a very long time and it will continue. There is no doubt about that.
" It is, however, logical to me that if there is one person, me, who can see a better future, there are likely millions."
Of course that is true, but millions amongst billions is, unfortunately, not nearly enuf to help us dig our way out of the "grave" we've dug for ourselves.
I offer myself as a "pragmatic realist."
Being such and having gained the understanding of man and life that I have, I can find no "practical" explanation/way to change from being a pessimist to that of an optimist in ref to the future of man.
by Ben Zoltak 16 months ago
Do you believe in overpopulation and/or population control?Do you believe there is a humane solution viable of human beings own free will? Many believe and have evidence that certain organized groups impose population control, often using nefarious techniques. Do you believe the world is...
by Scott Mandrake 9 years ago
Seems that the global warming post has taken a turn for the worse and headed into population control territory. I thought maybe if we should go that route we could do it here. So far from what I can tell is that every population will hit critical mass unless certain criteria are...
by ga anderson 3 weeks ago
Relative to changing state vote demographics, this question was posed in another thread:"Why is it only giant cities that typically go blue? An interesting question." - this pertained to a conversation about Texas turning into a Blue state.For background, that tangent started here:...
by ii3rittles 7 years ago
Why is it hard to believe that governments are enforcing population control?**Including the US**
by Barefootfae 6 years ago
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local … 14961.htmlIt's called excessive taxation.
by threekeys 20 months ago
Outside of war as an option for some, what two options would you offer to stop population growth.And what do you think the initial effects would be on our everyday lives? For instance do we reduce on prolonging life and letting nature take its course? Do we ban the global population for having...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|