A Solution to Over-Population (and Resource Shortage)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Please note:

This is not an opinion, nor a suggestion. It is meerly an observation.
The views I express are not necessarily my personal beliefs.
This thread does not belong in Fragile Earth, or Peak Oil, due to it's 'opinionated nature.


Okay. We have all heard the phrase "Fighting Fire with Fire," and the concept of "Killing animals to help them survive." But what exactly does this mean?
Basically, if a species has an overly successful breeding year period, there will be competition for resources later.
For example: If there are too many wild donkeys, as a mass, they will consume more grass than usual. As a result, there will be no more grass to feed on. Thus, they all die out, due to resources.
This is where hunters step in and 'Thin out the herd' so they may survive for another generation.

Hopefully you can already see where I have taken this.
As a species, we are overpopulated. As a result, we are consuming more resources than ever before. The only way we can allow our following generations is if we sacrifice ourselves and 'thin out our own herd'. Which ultimately, ofcourse is not going to happen.




posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Whatever opinions you, or others, have on this subject we must not forget that all life is precious.
Natures laws prevail in most circumstances and are self regulating. Imbalance in the sphere of life and death are due to many factors such as natural disasters (conflagration, climate change, drought, overpopulation, famine, tsunamis, disease, earthquakes,etc)
War and conflict add to swelling the human death toll as do automotive fatalities, narcotic overdoses, suicides, cancer and a myriad of other medical fatalities.
Contraception has helped to prevent unwanted pregnancies thus reducing potential population increases.
State and private welfare services have enabled people to have longer lives thus extending ther lifespan.
Only time will tell how much longer mother earth can sustain the stress imposed by humankind.




posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
So how do you plan on doing this?

What about an unstoppable virus that can mutate and is transmitted by the one thing that humans will never stop doing?

Ohh wait, they already made that one.... it's called AIDS.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
What's the basis for your contention that we're overpopulated?

The majority of our resources aren't strectched due to overuse, they're stretched due to inefficient use combined with shocking levels of waste.

We now have the technology to produce fresh, healthy food in urban settings, things like fish raised in barrels and hydroponic produce. We choose not to do these things. Why?

Profit margins...

So, in my mind, it's not a problem of too many human beings, it's a question of too few selfless human beings.

Eventually, we'll learn to cooperate, or we'll die out. I'd rather see us get the hint, personally.

There is an enormous amount of unused landmass on this planet, and at the same time, you've got cities in India and China with millions upon millions of people packed in like sardines.

We're not running out of land though. And we wouldn't be running out of resources, like fish, if we took advantage of our technological advances and created renewable sources for our food, water, and energy.

It's only a matter of time before our home is destroyed, or at the very least wiped clean, by an impact from space. The sooner we can learn to live within our (considerable) means, the sooner we can pioneer long-term space colonies and perhaps even garden ships.

I hear people, all the time, saying that we're overpopulated. By what measure? Please provide some evidence to support your claim. The earth could feasibly support hundreds of billions of people, from everything I've read - it just can't support us in our current lifestyle.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Gear, this same idea has been proposed a number of times, always by people with the wrong motives.

Who is going to volunteer for extermination? Who deserves death, and who deserves life?

Are you qualified to answer those questions?

Is anyone?



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
Gear, this same idea has been proposed a number of times, always by people with the wrong motives.

Who is going to volunteer for extermination? Who deserves death, and who deserves life?

Are you qualified to answer those questions?

Is anyone?


P, of course no one is qualified to play God, however there are many in close proximity that think they somehow have the devine right to decide
what is best for the unwashed masses.

Thinning the herd is part of their grand design. I think their ideal for this planet is 60 million.

It's a brave new world; welcome to the monkey house.


Edn

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
What's the basis for your contention that we're overpopulated?
Whats the basis for our connection to the over population of rabbits or moles? We go out killing them because we feel there over populated but it was us that cause there overpopulation in most cases in the first place.

Its fairly obvious that we are overpopulating the earth the fact that we have to rely on mass farms, warehouse chickens and gm foods, if we weren't over populated there would be absolutely no need for this.

Of course the only real solution that I can think of is if we go back to the way things used to work, respecting the world and animals and use there resources carefully. Of course most of the world these days simply don't care, heck most don't even know where they get there food.

The Parallelogram to answer your questions. No one(well probably someone would), no one, everyone, yes, yes.

btw (after seeing whaaa's post.) I say yes to the last two questions because the first three questions shouldn't change in answer, no one should have to volunteer for extermination, no one deserves death, everyone deserves to live. There shouldn't be any other answer to those questions so everyone should be allowed to answer them.

[edit on 9-12-2006 by Edn]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   


Its fairly obvious that we are overpopulating the earth the fact that we have to rely on mass farms, warehouse chickens and gm foods, if we weren't over populated there would be absolutely no need for this.


Agriculture raised human beings out of the muck. There's a difference between 'necessary' and 'sensible' - it's not necessary, but it is sensible.

It's not fairly obvious that we're overpopulated. Population densities are insanely low in many parts of the world.



Of course the only real solution that I can think of is if we go back to the way things used to work, respecting the world and animals and use there resources carefully. Of course most of the world these days simply don't care, heck most don't even know where they get there food.


Why go back, when we can go forward? Nostalgia for the good old days is popular, but it's ill-advised. Human beings wiped entire species off the face of the earth, by the dozen, long before we had trucks, and rifles, and all the other toys of the modern age.

'living in harmony with nature' is only possible if we reduce our impact on nature. To do that, we need technology.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
It would be hard to volunteer oneself to meet the reaper to help solve the population problem. Perhaps if it was run like a lottery, heh, I can see it now:
I WON!, I WON!

Anyway, no lotteries needed, some diseaese will be the lotto commision for us, it will strike, like a lottery.
We can't escape nature, we will tip the balance soon enough, then the earth will be happy again, the tumor will go into remission.

In a sense I would have to agree, the planet is damaged not so much by over pop. of humans, but by a few profiteers and a wasteful way of life.
I feel wasteful after every garbage bag I fill
Why is garbage not processed (some places they do) but anyway, back on topic.
As humans we pee and poop in our own food dish, and every other creatures dishes to.
I really get a kick out of how people that live in sub-urban areas whine about deer in their gardens and how they are a nuisance, how they should be thinned out, or how moose should be fenced in from the highway, or thinned out to prevent collisions.
Then I shake my head and say, 'You idiots, who is invading who's territory?'
The animals were there first, now they are a nuisance!

Ahhhgg!, Human filth, you make me sick


Edn

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne


Agriculture raised human beings out of the muck. There's a difference between 'necessary' and 'sensible' - it's not necessary, but it is sensible.


So aboriginal Afirans, Austrailians, Inuits etc. are living "in the muck", I'm not sure what that phrase is supposed to mean but whats wrong with a hunter/gatherer? Its a very sensible, productive and environmentally friendly way to live.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
In most Western Nations, the population is falling.
Australia only increases its population via Immigration.

It seems to go along with a bit of prosperity that people are satisfied with a couple of kids. So the solution? Prosperity for all!
From first hand experience in India, attitudes there are slowly changing. People aren't interested in having 13 kids like their Grandma did.

Give it time.

The threat of personal disaster with too many kids, the temptation of personal wellbeing with less will do it's job.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   
No, no, no. no...there is no overpopulation...period.
There is a lack of expansion...there is plenty of space to grow.
America has tons of land...go to Georgia, get out of Atlanta and its hillbilly farms until you get to Miami basically. The whole south is empty...The whole country is empty...space, space, space, everywhere...thousands of acres.

They say the U.K. is overcrowded...the cities, there is space...expand, expand.
China...there is space, go to the mountains, its beautiful.

Make the cities 'smart' in the way they are built from now out, with growth in mind.

The earth has room...we just need to konw how to expand and build.
Oh, the natural resources...we will devour it all.
Again, using wisdom and an eco friendly system...we dont need oil, farming types of oil rich foods such as hemp, which is fast, and also good for fabric, etc.

It is possible...this world doesnt seem ready for it...but no, overpopulation is not a true problem..it only exist in the minds of the elite who have a system that would crumble by it.

Peace

Dalen



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   
When the call for thinning the herd goes up, you can bet money is behind it somewhere. This is what happens when the society is completely run on a survival of the fittest scenario. The elite, who call the shots, get to decide what is and isn't a legitimate cause for thinning the herd. People start sprouting little dollar bill signs over their heads, or Pesos, Lira, Pounds, Yen and so on.

This is what happens when the elite start calling for population control:



Check out these figures:

www.gendercide.org...

So if you're female, I should think you'd want to reconsider this whole survival of the fittest scenario as an untenable option or solution lest you encourage the rest of your gender to be wiped from the planet in some totally concocted overpopulation scenario that probably has as many solutions as the dead bodies it creates (but you don't know that, cause they don't tell you that part).



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   


So aboriginal Afirans, Austrailians, Inuits etc. are living "in the muck", I'm not sure what that phrase is supposed to mean but whats wrong with a hunter/gatherer?


It's a figure of speech to describe conditions where one is living with no barrier between the elements, natural predation, using no tools, creating no art, experiencing no comfort and so having no time to think about anything more than survival. Art, philosophy, music, these are luxuries that can be afforded by very few animals indeed. They have value, and we should seek to preserve the small measure of comfort that allows us to experience the range of experience our intellect allows us.

The amazing thing is that we have paid a stiff penalty to get this far, but we now have the means to put a stop to many of our more destructive behaviors, while still realizing the benefits of them. Examples being inefficient fishing methods (lines and spears), replaced by industry-driven overfishing (drag nets), replaced by renewable, controlled sources (fish in a barrel). Ineffficient farming (hoes and wooden hand-plows), replaced by dead soil created by overfarming, replaced by renewable, low-impact methods with higher yield (hydroponics). An inability to move quickly across the terrain to escape natural disasters, replaced by fast vehicles that produce toxic emissions, replaced by fast and clean vehicles. Do you see where I'm going with this?

We are within a hair's breadth of destroying Eden, but the ingenuity we've so sorely abused has given us a chance at salvation. Not only can we stop doing so much damage, bringing our impact down to levels not seen in probably millions of years, we can even reverse some of the damage already done!

People like to think of technology in one of two ways - the destroyer of all that is good, or the creator of all that is good. I think it's both - depending entirely on how we see fit to use it.

I firmly believe that humanity has never been closer to salvation and damnation than we are in this age - this moment.



Its a very sensible, productive and environmentally friendly way to live.


What's sensible about it? Why would anyone give up a longer lifespan, more comfort, adequate food, entertainment, and all the rest, and for what? Spend a month eating grubs out of rotten logs, chasing after squirrels in a loincloth, getting swarmed by gnats in the swamp, and let me know if you wouldn't rather be a responsible user of technology, rather than throw it all away for the noble dream of living like the animals we eat.

I don't think man is inherently superior to the animals. We've fought hard to get here, we've suffered a lot. We've paid for our progress with blood enough to fill the Atlantic basin. Why on earth would we want to give Prometheus back his gift now that we've paid for it a hundred times over? I can't understand that anymore than I can understand why we seem so intent on killing ourselves with it!

What's productive about it? Human history didn't begin, for all intents and purposes, until people stopped living the life of the hunter-gatherer. We don't know a thing about the cultures that preceeded agriculture and city-building (for the most part), because they didn't keep records, they rarely created art, they made no lasting structures and they left no legacy. There is something noble about that, I agree, but there's also something very foolish, and more importantly, very SELFISH. We humans benefit from the mistakes and triumphs of our forefathers, that's the benefit of living in a community that remembers the past. We can learn from our mistakes. The fact that we choose not to do so as often as not is an entirely different matter that's in no way connected to the current discussion.

And how, exactly, is it environmentally friendly? Wood/charcoal cooking fires are no better than cars, and hunter-gatherers ushered an untold number of species into extinction to support a growing population, before mankind realized it didn't have to follow the herds around in circles, but could stay in one place and harvest cereal grains and fruits and vegetables year after year - not to mention animal husbandry.

I ask these questions because it seems to me that human beings struggled for a very long time to get where we are today. Just because we're screwing it all up and misusing beneficial technologies left and right is no reason to become a Luddite.

Fix the behavior of the guy with the hammer, if he's using it improperly, don't take away the hammer or worse yet, destroy it - especially when there are plenty of people who know how to use the damn thing with a modicum of responsibility!

It's not my intention to berate you or attack you - I hope you can agree that reasonable men can disagree without it becoming a fight.

In fact, if I understand your points correctly, I used to think a lot like you do. I wanted to throw off the golden shackles of civilization and head for the hills. I see now, though, that it's not an all or nothing affair. Our choices are not limited to a.) destroy technology or b.) get destroyed by it.

We can be stewards of this planet without destroying it or giving up the advancements that have raised us up.

Before you say we haven't been raised up, show me a dolphin who has broken the bonds of gravity and seen the stars clearly. Show me an elephant that can tamper with the threads of creation in a lab, splicing traits from some animals into others. Show me a chimpanzee that can communicate instantly with billions of other chimpanzees across a vast network of light and electricity that spans the globe.

We're on the brink my friend, we can run away from it in abject terror, fling ourselves off of it in desperation, or we can back up slowly, with purpose, stand at a safe distance, and admire the majestic view.




posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I've always thought that the best way to deal with overpopulation is for the government to put a limit on how many children a father and a mother can have in any given household. If every family in the world was only allowed to have a maximum of 3 children, we can end this exponential growth of poulation.

[edit on 11-12-2006 by Impreza]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Wydre One,

That was almost poetic! Really interesting thoughts and I must agree, responsible use is ultimately, at this late juncture in the game, the only viable, remaining solution. I second that motion.

Problem is, we aren't the ones in charge.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Definitely awsome Wyrd one. You should run for President. that makes more since than anything I have heard all centry. What a brain.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Impreza
I've always thought that the best way to deal with overpopulation is for the government to put a limit on how many children a father and a mother can have in any given household. If every family in the world was only allowed to have a maximum of 3 children, we can end this exponential growth of poulation.


And if you have a fourth or fifth child? Should that child be killed, aborted, or exported?

BTW, If every 2 people had [/3] children, the population would still have an exponentia growth, just not as high as previously. If every 2 people had 2 children, the population would hold. And if every 2 people had 1 child, the population would decrese.

This is excluding gays, the infertile, and those who choose not to have children.

Also, has anyone ever read A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift?
art-bin.com...

It's a quick read, and appropriate to this discussion, if you ask me. But then again, you didn't ask me.

[edit on 11-12-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
?

instead of 'thinning out the group'
with all the pitfalls that line of thought raises...

why not just Down Size the population
not by culling the weak, intellectually challenged, poor, hobbled,
or athletically challenged...etc

I mean actually "down-sizing" our body structure,
we have means to genetically engineer our DNA
so that humans can become a race of 'hobbits'

instead of the 6-7 ft 300 lb behemoths we adore on the gridiron
and seek to become- with all those steroids & growth hormones,
we might seek to package future generations of 'wee-folk'
so that more & more of us can infill the cities & living space we
already carved out of the limited resources Earth (Giaia Principle)

with less volume, humans could quadruple in numbers & drive mini cars, live in bungaloos instead of mansions, eat smaller portions, & with greater numbers the tax base will increase, production will grow, the exchange of goods/services/credit will increase bring prosperity to everyone...

well, some of the above is tongue-in-cheek,
but to genetically engineer us into munchkins might solve or remedy
a bunch of problems we now have,
or course new situations may arise, but that's the price of living...


Edn

posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne


So aboriginal Afirans, Austrailians, Inuits etc. are living "in the muck", I'm not sure what that phrase is supposed to mean but whats wrong with a hunter/gatherer?


It's a figure of speech to describe conditions where one is living with no barrier between the elements, natural predation, using no tools, creating no art, experiencing no comfort and so having no time to think about anything more than survival. Art, philosophy, music, these are luxuries that can be afforded by very few animals indeed. They have value, and we should seek to preserve the small measure of comfort that allows us to experience the range of experience our intellect allows us.

You may want to watch Ray Mears world of Survival it gives a little bit of an insight to they way people live and lived. people didn't just hunt and survive. Art, Culture, philosophy, music never suddenly appeared, its always been there.

I wont argue the rest of your post (I agree and disagree with several points) but ill leave that for another thread.

I think we could live very easily with technology without destroying the world we live in but we could also easily destroy the world we live in because of the technology and I think were on that knife edge right now, it all depends on how much faith you have in humanity and to tell you the truth I don't have so much faith in us right now.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join