Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Population is relatively easy to throttle down, and the real problems present themselves in societies with shrinking populations and no means to replace lost folks.

It's true that if we keep pushing our technology, we may be able to squeeze more food out of the Earth and keep more people alive. But is that the ultimate goal? To keep producing until we're at a maximum sustainable level?

The key problem is still agricultural uncertainty. We don't know what the weather is going to do. Sure, we can keep building high-rises and jam people into every shrinking and elevating spaces. But we still can't predict or control the weather good enough to ensure that all the people we let be born will have enough food for their entire lives. A 20-30 year drought in major grain growing areas will dry up aquifers and kill millions.

Another thing that the breed-all-you-want folks keep forgetting to add to the equation is the actual NEED for more people in the future because our machines continue to get more numerous and smarter. Sure, we can keep breeding, but what are all of these people going to DO?

This world is turning into nothing but a bunch of pizza delivery guys, delivering pizza to a bunch of Chinese food delivery guys.

All of this "it'll take care of itself" talk is nothing but propaganda by religious fundamentalists who want everyone to keep breeding until Judgment Day, which is coming soon, since Heaven (or Hell) doesn't have a capacity limit.

I couldn't help notice the article on the link is also wildly politically anti-Green. I'm no fan of those wackos, either, but there's probably some kind of mid-point between the two arguments that is drowned out by the howling of kooks on either end of the teeter-totter.

I don't think it would be a good idea to kill all of those people off at once. What a stink! So forget the Ebola. Too fast. I would, however, like to encourage people to experiment with Ebola to produce a non-lethal variety that sterilizes whoever gets it. A slight fever, a little headache, then no more annoying babies.

If we get a vote on it, I'll vote for that.

Originally posted by nukunuku
well that inhumane scumbag can step up to the plate and take a shot of ebola first just to show how good he is

Why should an enlightened man voluntarily commit suicide?

I agree with the author of the article and dgtempe; the enthusiastic standing ovation for someone who would promote the genocide of the human race is indicative of a time of madness.

A Time of Madness is when a tiny minority of worthless beings are regarded as more valuable to the Biosphere than 99.8% of all other Life, and that that tiny minority should be able to obliterate Earth's ability to sustain the majority of life.

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
You can agree with this guy or not, The fact remains we humans are destroying this planet at an ever increasing rate, and sooner or later a mayor pandemic disease will cause a significant reduction in our numbers.
Even the UN has repeatedly said the human popularion must be reduced. I tend to agree with this professor, a 90% reduction in humans would be the best way to save this planet.

These Fools condemning Pianka better start cursing Mother Nature, because it will likely be HER and not humans that wipe out most of humanity. A few degrees of temperature change will cause major climate change which will lead to massive, worldwide crop failures. We know it's coming, and probably by 2020.

I believe disease, whether Ebola or Bird Flu or something else, will only be a part of Mother Nature's "flush" of the majority of worthless creatures that are Her worst enemy.

manabovetime,
Your general distain for humans is evident here. Are you paid for these comments or do you really find your fellow humans that needless?....If the later what a sad waste of a life you must have led. My condolences.

manabovetime, look to the top right of your screen, it says you have X# of u2u's. Click on that, it's private communications.

Originally posted by manabovetime

Originally posted by nukunuku
well that inhumane scumbag can step up to the plate and take a shot of ebola first just to show how good he is

Why should an enlightened man voluntarily commit suicide?

enlightened? this is what you call enlightened? I bet you consider yourself one of the "enlightened" as well.

please do explain what makes him enlightened for us "useless eaters"

[edit on 3-4-2006 by nukunuku]

Ummm... I don't want to sound stupid but I'm pretty sure I'm right about this..

Ebola Reston, outbreak of Reston, Virginia, killed one person, and a ton of non human primates. It's not the really contagious one.

Ebola Zaire is, and it kills thousands. Source is unknown. Epidemic in Africa.


...I may be wrong. I really don't think so.
-Raven

What a funny concept, "useless eaters". I don't owe this pompous windbag any usefulness nor do I wish to be considering his twisted attitude. What makes him think he's a "usefull" one anyway? I don't know what his problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.

Originally posted by manabovetime

I agree with the author of the article and dgtempe; the enthusiastic standing ovation for someone who would promote the genocide of the human race is indicative of a time of madness.

A Time of Madness is when a tiny minority of worthless beings are regarded as more valuable to the Biosphere than 99.8% of all other Life, and that that tiny minority should be able to obliterate Earth's ability to sustain the majority of life.

This is why throughout history, man keeps returning to search for God, AFTER each period of "enlightenment", "reason" and "a new way", brings all these murderous, Godless ideas into practice.

It's when we leave God, and accept we are just animals, that we start to behave like animals, and devour all, without conscience.

Originally posted by Enkidu

The problem is not too many people, it's just that we're too damn big, as animals. If we were the size of squirrels, we'd have plenty of room and resources. Instead of eliminating people, why don't we work on shrinking people down?

Thank you.

Great idea, BTW.

Why do these guys who want to solve the "overpopulation problem" the "green" way never talk about prioritizing? Like, who should live and who should die? For example, how many smart people does the world really need? I mean, we have computers - and they don't eat.

And do these guys think they can run genetic tests to find the perfect maid, waitress and concubine bloodlines?



The Human Genome Project proved there aren't enough human genes to explain intelligence, character or disease as bloodline issues. [bad pun, sorry]


.
oops

[edit on 3-4-2006 by soficrow]

Thinking about it, why didnt he just talk about enforced sterilisation for a large % of the population?

In 50 years the problem solves itself and we get a gradual reduction in poulation, there would be anarchy if only 10% of the current population was alive.

I would be the last to defend Pianka if it was shown to be true, but I do find this story hard to believe. I do not think this man should be condemned based on these reports. We are supposed to believe his audience gave a raptuous ovation while a couple of others thought he wanted to kill 90% of the world's population.

That's possible, but what if those few that objected, just did not get it. Maybe he was being ironic. Maybe he was saying look here's a way we can kill ourselves, we can spread a virus around and have slow painful deaths or we can kill each other because of what we are doing to the planet. Maybe he was pointing out graphically the stupidity of what we are already doing.

Sudden extermination of 90% of the people and watch the infrastructure rot and crumble while pathogens fill the ecosystem. Wonder how these nihilists plan on advancing humanity when they roll the entire planet back to the stone age.

The lizard man has given his idea little forethought,
maybe he should stick to playing with reptiles.



[edit on 3-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

manabovetime

These Fools condemning Pianka better start cursing Mother Nature, because it will likely be HER and not humans that wipe out most of humanity. A few degrees of temperature change will cause major climate change which will lead to massive, worldwide crop failures. We know it's coming, and probably by 2020.

I believe disease, whether Ebola or Bird Flu or something else, will only be a part of Mother Nature's "flush" of the majority of worthless creatures that are Her worst enemy.

Why would I want to curse nature?

I have absolutely NO problem seeing 90% of humanity go away. It's just not our place to make that happen, that's my contention.

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
You can agree with this guy or not, The fact remains we humans are destroying this planet at an ever increasing rate, and sooner or later a mayor pandemic disease will cause a significant reduction in our numbers.
Even the UN has repeatedly said the human popularion must be reduced. I tend to agree with this professor, a 90% reduction in humans would be the best way to save this planet.

I certainly hope that you aren't advocating the mass slaughter of millions of people. That's just inhumane.

In response to your statement that a 90% reduction in the world's population would be a good thing, I say no, getting off of this rock would be, for two reasons. One, it would minimize the loss of life due to the "imminent pandemic" everyone keeps talking about. And two, it would reduce the population because there would be LINES of people wanting to get out of here and away from the people here that they can't stand. They could go to a planet of their own, and behave however they wanted to. If they wanted to kill each other off? Cool, they can do that. If they want to live in peace? Cool, they can do that too.

My main point here is that we need to get off this notion that killing people is the only way to solve the problem. It solves nothing, and it creates the obvious problem of having to dispose of the nasty corpses. Why not use them to better our current existence? Couldn't the people just work together towards a common goal for once? These narrow-minded approaches don't bode well for our near future. I fear that if this kind of thinking keeps up, we may never know what it's like to truly explore the reaches of space, nor will we know if we're alone.

How sad a day that would be...

TheBorg

Why is everyone talking about extermination and forced sterilization before HOMOSEXUALITY. Homosexuality would be an effective (and renewable) source of population control if so many countries in the world didn't ban or discourage homosexual behaviour. Gays are a gift from God, they control the population, and sometimes adopt abandoned children in need of good homes.