Population reduction: Why not?

Originally posted by slackerwire
Sometimes unpleasant events are necessary in order to maintain the greater good. People who tend to think more with emotion than logic will have a hard time understanding the problems that lie in wait for us. Something must be done, and the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

I could comment in volumes on why I think this statement is wrong, but I will just say this: you don't have to eradicate massive amounts of people to solve a problem. Instead of spending all the ridiculous amounts of money we spend on the war machine, invest in the technology to terraform Mars. Then, half the of the people on planet Earth could essentially start over by creating a new civilization there. By the time they fill up that planet, we would have the technology to terraform other solar systems.

Originally posted by slackerwire The planet is in danger of being overpopulated, and something must be done soon in order to prevent it.

No, it isn't. The planet Earth and its ecosystem can support up to 12 billion people. Many scientists have studied this. The problem is the populace of major metropolises. Too many people are gathered tightly in areas where other land masses such as Canada are thinly populated. If all the people of the planet were evenly spread out, there would be no problem at all. Granted, people should not be permitted to have endless amounts of children. If they do, they should be taxed accordingly (as they are in Japan). Learning to control the spread of our own offspring is what is important. Eradicating hoardes of people is pointless (as well as morally unethical), as they will just repeat history if they don't learn from their mistakes.

Originally posted by slackerwire
the rate of births exceeds that of deaths, thereby creating a surplus of people.

If what you said were true, the population would never increase. Unfortunately that is not the way things are.

Yes, it is how things are. Nature always balances itself out. If the planet continues to overpopulate, it will spawn a multitude of virii and bacterial organisms that will turn into uncontrollable plagues. People that make comments like you have, however, suffer from a condition called "the human ego" whereby you think humans are the "be all, end all" of any species and are invincible from any such spawning the universe might throw at you. Sadly, this is a "human" delusion. The quicker one snaps out of it, the quicker one can start the process of self-healing.

[edit on 8/21/2007 by pjslug]

I just had to post this news item on this ridiculous thread, in reply to some of the asinine assertions here:


news.yahoo.com...

Slackerwire, there may be hope for you yet ... learn something from this man. Atleast he is not looking to eliminate entire countries so his life could be easier.

Originally posted by pjslug


No, it isn't. The planet Earth and its ecosystem can support up to 12 billion people.

Source?

What we can

Originally posted by plumranch
You bring up religeon, good point. What about the billions of Muslim who do not care a hoot what Christians or the West thinks of their irresponsible birth rates and what we want them to do about it? How are we going to help them out?

You do what is feasible. I suppose you're speaking of Bangladesh and of Muslim countries in Africa -- for the rest, I don't know of any Muslim-majority country where overpopulation is really that serious a problem. Bangladesh is a special case; they're Bengali as much or more than they are Muslim, and the evils of overpopulation are pretty well understood there, even among the poor. It isn't like the mullahs of Dhakha and Chittagong are urging the locals on to have more sprogs; it's not that kind of Muslim country. The problems are more to do with local cultural traditions and geography than with religion. Bangladesh knows it has a problem and is trying hard, against almost impossible odds, to fix it.

Africa -- well, I can't speak from firsthand experience. But if you look at Muslim countries in the Middle East or even at Egypt, rather than focusing on those in Africa, you see populations of varying density (from Cairo to the Rub al Khali) but these regions seem to be bearing up pretty well. No famine, rampant malnutrition, epidemics, STDs, etc. So you really end up looking back at Africa again -- and despite very high population growth rates, you know that too many people isn't really Africa's problem. It's poverty, which is not the same thing. The reason those populations are growing so fast actually has to do with the fact that, awful as much it is seen to be and portrayed on the media, vast swathes of the continent are actually better off than they were, but still very poor. People in this sort of situation -- subsistence economics -- tend to have lots of children because they can be economic assets and insurance policies for their parents' old age. When people become better off, and start to feel a bit more secure about their lives and property, they bear less children. So what you say about improving living standards (I might prefer to say something like 'the quality and security of their lives') is the royal road out of this mess, even if it's a long and winding one.

I'll tell you what might work: give every African peasant title to the land he lives on and farms. Not the Zimbabwean way, which is an eyewash; real, proper ownership, individual, with property rights. Not much help to nomad herders, I know, but sadly that wonderful way of life just has to go; there's not enough room for it any more. Those people will have to find different ways to make a living. I recognize that this means leaving behind most of what is precious to them in their cultures and traditions but this, too, is inevitable.

As the world gets more crowded, more complicated and more integrated, all of us must change and adapt, even if the adaptation is sometimes traumatic. Neither the citizens of the rich world (who have increasingly come to accept this) nor those of the poor world (most of whom are still struggling with the concept) are exempt from this. And of course it will be rough; people will always try to hold what is precious to them, even when it has ceased to be an asset and become a burden. They'll fight and kill to keep it.

But the change is happening all the same, and it will continue to happen.

In the end, though, remember: while we share a common responsibility to our fellow beings, human and otherwise, no-one is his brother's keeper. We do what we can for them, hope for the best, and cope with what comes back at us.

12,000,000,000

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by pjslug
The planet Earth and its ecosystem can support up to 12 billion people.

Source?

Source

----------
Or better still:

This page and its satellites will contain references to articles, my own and by others, explaining how humanity is likely to advance in the near future. In particular, we argue that the whole world can reach and maintain American standards of living with a population of even 15 billion. We also argue that maintaining material progress is the highest priority and the best way to ensure that population eventually stabilizes at a sustainable level with a standard of living above the present American level and continues to improve thereafter.

- John McCarthy

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Thank you for providing a source. I just figured it was common knowledge. So many people try to play the overpopulation card without doing the research first.

[edit on 8/22/2007 by pjslug]

Did you know that every single human on earth could live in Texas on one acre of land each? There is no overpopulation. You prescribe to the entire eugenics program that Hitler subscribed to. You better wake up because there is only one solution for a person who believes that there should be a culling.

And you guessed it, SUICIDE!! You should not reproduce, and you should kill yourself. at the soonest possible time.

Otherwise, you are a total hypocrite.

How about this simple solution?
personal responsibility
such as only have as many dependants
as you can afford to support
personal responsibility
if you can't feed your kids
don't have them.

Sorry, but I think those sources of the 12 billion figure are weak.

The first quotes the studies of scientists from the late 1600's to late 1800's. Do you suppose that men living in those times would have been able to consider the effects of the pollution that would be release over the next 200 years of prosperity in the industrialized nations?

It ends the section with this ambigious statement...
"Many scientists now believe that the human carrying capacity of Earth may be approximately 12 billion."

Many-believe-may be-approximately... thats an awful lot of empty space.


The Stanford professors site has some good information and references but he is still slanting his view according to his personal opinions on population, economic growth, stability, and an extreme case of optimisim.

I found this particular Q and A exchange particularly repulsive...

"Q. Is humanity suffering from an enormous loss of biodiversity.

A. The loss is quite small of the important or individually interesting species. Here is a beginning on biological diversity. There's not much there yet, but there is an adequate discussion in the references given there."

Who decides whats important or individually interesting?

reply to post by Galactic Overlord Stimpy


That is simply one source he quoted. All you need to do is look through a search engine and you can find hundreds of sources. Scientists today, not of the 1800s, are saying the same thing.

We should not prescribe to depreciating the value of life. We must preserve life, if this is what you argue then do not advocate the whole sale slaughter of human beings. rather look to use the resources available more wisely. How many trillions spent on war.....how many mouths we could feed. How many minds we could fill. How much better the world could be if those that take the world as their own would just leave it for us all. This planet could support the lives of everyone here now, and those that will logically come after them... Do not think small. We can all live.


Just live and let live man. Dont talk murder, its below you. Logic would dictate that by murdering those that are inconvienient you will eventually murder those that are needed. you will never be able to choose corectly. Some one will choose your kind one day and you will be sorrowful. Your pain will birth more hate. You will be a slave to your mind and its false truths. Accept all, and feel the freedom of absolute hope. Be the hope people look for. Dont scare the week away , defend them. Be their warriors, not their executioners.

it's predicted that half of all species on planet Earth today will be gone by the end of this century, if we carry on like we are. 50-72 species are disappearing each day - that's 2-3 species every hour 3 per hour- certainly not natural!! look at the bees, look at the frogs, won't you miss 'em? according to professor norman myers roughly 1 species would disappear every 3-5 years, if things were all honky-dory prof norman myers. Our growing population isn't helping this. The demands are growing, but where are the supplies? I would like my dining room set to be made out of the finest bamboo please - okay sir, here is your complimentary dead panda?!!?!? we don't know how to manage ourselves or resources - and quite rightly I don't think we would like to be managed by some all-encompassing government - we don't know what to do with ourselves, so we do do do without a clue. what are we doing! and with more and more people born doing without a clue, how will this help at all?? kurt vonnegut - "we are here on Earth to fart around. don't let anybody tell you any different." all this activity and work is highly unnatural for a mammal, most mammals in nature are lazy because they need the energy to go hunt for food, for example a cat will sleep for 16 hours in a day and then spend as little as 1/2 hour hunting. such great brains we possess going down the potty of work. nature is showing us that we don't have to do in the most extraordinary of ways, because when we do do, we find unmarked graves of all mother nature's children scattered round. consciousness is nature's nightmare!

I've no doubt the earth can support 12 billion humans, but at what cost to everything else?

and really, where will we go by growing? lets say that we do know what we're doing. we could become more technologically advanced, looking into all kinds of alluring alleys such as living on other planets, eternal life in computers etc.... but it never ends. the answers will not be found. At one time or another we would come to a point where we would have to face our ultimate enemy - ourselves. there'd be nothing else, we'd have been searching outwards and further away from the truth forever lifting up every rock and space plant to find "the answers" but we will have to turn around and look inwards some day - and there we may find all the answers. when will we become comfortable in our own natural bodies? have we forgotten the feeling of earth to our sensitive toes cramped in work shoes? when I fart, why do people look at me as if to say, "how DARE you demonstrate to me a healthy indicator that your bowels are in order!!" we may as well be aliens, we're completely alien to this earth. we've even sterilized the air, as if we were living on mars. civilization is a mistake, look at the mess. but just 'cause we're here right now, doesn't mean we have to stay on this path leading presently to mass extinction - we can change........ how...........


hm.
maybe I went offtopic, I don't know.

sincerely with love
ellen oneironaut

[edit on 23-8-2007 by Ellen Oneironaut]

reply to post by slackerwire


I mean no offense in what I am about to say.

This post is horrible. First of all, you forget that our technology will be so much greater by 2050 that we'll definitely have a way.

You also forget that the midwest is practically empty.

You also forget that the largest parts of the population are all in very centered spots.

You also forget that man always seems to find a way to overcome and adapt. All the fear and worry is what causes people to quit. In the mean time, the people who are thinking ahead are the ones coming up with answers.

Not to mention, it is completely illogical to kill off a bunch of people just so that a few can move on and eventually repopulate again and then kill off again... what a ruthless and nasty cycle.

I just realized a question that really needs to be asked.

In the event that there was a voluntary population reduction, would you voluntarily be killed?

----
Think real hard.
----
Think a little harder.
----

Now let me break it down for you so that you know that there is no right answer to this question.

Response to the answer of "Yes" - now let's think realistically. A family woman or man has kids. The government assures them that their kids will be taken care of. The first registered thought will be "What if there is another reduction...? I'm being sacrificed for the better of the country, but... I am not leaving my kids behind so that they can be reduced as well!"

Let's say you have no family to speak for you. The government tells you, "you're doing a great service for this country." Then you realize something. How am I doing a service to this country by dying? Isn't there work to be done? Isn't there a better way? Ops, too late, your brains are lying all over the ground.

Let's say you're young. The government tells you, "You're very brave young individual. Your name won't be forgotten." But, then you realize... wait. How can a society thrive knowing that it just killed off a bunch of its people? Will anyone ever feel secure? Ops, too late, your brains are lying all over the ground.

Now, response of "No."

Well, now you've proven that you're not willing to sacrifice yourself for everyone else, atleast in the government's eyes. Now you will be ridiculed, or more likely than not, destroyed---and when you're dead, who is going to speak for you?
"This young woman/man gave her/his life to keep our country secure..."
And that goes for all the millions that would be killed off.

OR

You realize that you can't leave your children in the hands of people who are willing to sacrifice their own people to "reduce population". Now you must find a place to hide with your children. More likely than not, your children will be killed with you because you tried to protect them and keep them close, but danger ensued. If not, they have to witness you getting killed because they're with you.

OR

You're a lone person hiding out all alone. You're fighting other potential reductees over resources, hideouts, etc. just to live. There is no freedom. It's all out war.

OR

You're a wealthy individual who has the excuse of backing portions of the economy in your own way. Well, now terror has spread throughout the entire country because of the reductions. How well is your economy gonna do? I guess it's time to resort to slaving again. No other way to build things back up. But, now, you've just created mortal enemies with yet another minority of people who will eventually come back to haunt your greedy ass and probably your brains will be lying all over the place before you're too far along...

So, now you see how sick just the thought is... that much more the proposition.

Thank you for reading. ^_^

Originally posted by pjslug
No, it isn't. The planet Earth and its ecosystem can support up to 12 billion people. Many scientists have studied this. The problem is the populace of major metropolises. Too many people are gathered tightly in areas where other land masses such as Canada are thinly populated. If all the people of the planet were evenly spread out, there would be no problem at all.

therefore, we are overpopulated... the system we are currently living with and building upon, cannot support our numbers because it is in direct conflict with earth... earth is not in support of this system!

slackerwire

The largest problem with overpopulation rests in the 3rd world nations, those nations who really dont contribute much to the planet while sucking away vital resources.

What? are u from the CIA or what..? u must be.

as you will know, the boys behind the NWO have already some plans do do some..reduction..

´they dont contribute´..WE do not contribute something to them, while stealing THEIR recourses, boy.
just look what happend to afganistan.this is NOW a 3rd world nation.

take a lesson in american war history..flame:





[edit on 23-8-2007 by anti72]:

[edit on 23-8-2007 by anti72]

True, something needs to be done to reduce the worlds population. I don't avocate killing people, but maybe every family should be allow to have only 2 children max.

The graph of the worlds population looks exactly like the graph of global warming.

Eventually, it will reach critical mass and we all we cruble together.

Just my 2 cents.
I am sure the planet takes care of itself. Many species have grown to great population,to be decimated by lack of food, natural (and cosmic) events, disease and predation. Why would mankind be any different, except for the ability of a few to modify their environment enough to survive?
Though a higher percentage of the survivors might be the wealthy, with a greater ability to purchase "safe" places and supplies, I am sure it would all even out in a generation or two.

your not factoring in the repopulation rates, unless they control that too. But thats pervers, you think humans could maybe use this reverse engineered technology and find new planets to live on? Or maybe use our advanced knowledge of farming to turn deserts into crops..as we have already.. theres no need for genocidal madness, they are either insane, or committing an occultic blood sacrifice for the return of lucifer. theyre master idiot. the first fool etc...