Originally posted by SLAYER69
On the contrary I have asked for concrete numbers that support this myth and you respond with further conjecture and again fail to supply ANY proof
for this hypotheses. I agree I dismissed unsupported claims for they are just that unsupported! Simply stating that you based it on “independent
Sources” Yet fail to supply these sources should be dismissed and there for it becomes an “opinion” rather than “proof”.
As i tried to say the last time you did not seem to be familiar with the worlds population growth as projected by the US census Bureau and the UN. For
the world population to reach 9- 10 billion the world must be able to support them as these projections include the scientifically estimated mortality
numbers for all countries and how they are likely to be affected by the changing environment or 'mass starvation' and such things. Clearly this
implied logic was entirely wasted on you so perhaps i will have to approach this from a very different angle.
Well at 6.8 Billion people we have gotten off to a wonderful start.
Yes we have. More people should in practice mean more people to participate in creating better living conditions for everyone. The more people there
is the more we can in theory do to protect the environment or , as corporate capitalism apparently dictates, destroy it. To prove that overpopulation
is a 'problem' in the corporate capitalist system ( you need only so many slaves to make you fantastically rich before they just get too hard to
control) is not hard to do but that was not my question when i asked how more people is logically a bad thing for the environment.
As for all the pictures i appreciate the effort you clearly went to and i agree that i form a very accurate representation of what our current
economic system results in for both the environment and the vast majority of the worlds population.
Again it doesn't have to be this way and even with the destruction it causes the world population will keep rising proving that the environment can
and will support additional billions of people. Remember that the same people and agencies who are discussing overpopulation today were discussing it
decades ago and painted a FAR bleaker picture for the year 2000 than turned out to be the case.
I can see here that we have a very real need for a reading comprehension course. If you can show me and everyone else reading this where I
have advocated “Killing or Sterilizing” please by all means do so.
Well that's why i didn't say you said it and instead made it clear that that was the norm of those who discussed the population 'problem'. I may
have my faults but reading comprehension is not something i am very worried about. Either way i am confident that it wont take long to expose the fact
that you think exactly the same way as the killing&sterilizing mob does as it's their propaganda your basing your illogical propagandist arguments
on. Not your fault for having been misinformed but certainly your responsibility to learn from your mistakes.
Now can we continue with a frank, honest and open discussion about the real threats instead of more fear mongering with no data to support
Well i would appreciate that but since you seem only interested in playing on emotions ( how many pictures do you have?) i doubt the frankness,
honesty or openess will be coming from the side of the person arguing that there is too many people on the planet and that we have to do something
about it. If we can't start solving the problem by 'doing something about you' i am against any measures other than allowing the worlds poor to
live like we do so that populations can start declining everywhere as they are doing in the developed world.
They were real life flesh and blood human beings not propaganda!
Sure they are flesh and blood but flesh and blood people are and have been dying for the same old reasons for a very very long time indeed. Why you
think these pictures can be made or are evidence that people are dying as result of 'overpopulation'? Are people starving in the densely populated
Japan , a country whuch has so few natural resources? Where is the logic in arguing that the environment can not support the people when Japan, and
most of the world, is doing pretty well? Do you understand that the argument should be expanded to include the fact that sufficient food is thrown
away in the west ( not even what spoils, just thrown away) to easily feed the worlds two billion poorest? Did you choose not to mention that reality
of where you simply ignorant of it? Do you know what segment of the worlds arable land is being used to raise cotton, tabacco and other 'cash crops (
that poor countries need to plant despite their starving citizens to pay foreign debts) and how easily a much larger world population could be fed if
we simply planted food there? In fact how much of the worlds remaining arable land is in use and how many more could we feed if we cultivated it all?
Nobody is talking about forcing population reduction by sterilization or killing.
You may not but then you by no means the norm. Feel free to investigate what the norms in this type of normally racist discussions is before judging
my reading comprehension.
Lets start with education, medical assistance, and food relief. We really need to be able to take care of the people we already have before we
can even consider expanding an already massively overpopulated planet.
Starving people do not need to be educated as much as national puppet governments and corporations just need to stop exploiting them to death , for a
few extra cents worth of profit, before moving on to the next poor people to slowly work them to death too.
I know I'm beating a dead horse here but can you supply me and the thousands of readers out there any proof for these claims? I know I'm
still one for concrete evidence.
What thousands of readers? Do you think this is theater? Do you see me posting pretty pictures to draw attention? As for 'sources' perhaps i can
just employ your circular logic method and post your photos of starving people as evidence; could you prove otherwise? How else do you think people
end up starving in a world that is clearly awash with a hundred billion pounds of wasted food in just the United States of America? If those starving
masses happened to be lucky enough to be miraculously transplanted to North America ( like those millions of Mexicans) they would live pretty well and
NOTHING about the environment would have been changed or additional stressed. It's not that world is 'overpopulated' but that human life, under our
current economic system, is worth only as much as it's ability to generate profit for international corporations. Since these poor people mostly
lacks everything but farming skills they are of no use to the capitalist who drove them off their farm land to get their nice, 'profitable' mining
Exponential growth also applies to the the human population. It begins growing very slowly, but over generations the growth rate increases more
and more rapidly, similar to a snowball affect. It took the human population thousands of years to reach 1 billion in 1804. However, it took only 123
years for us to double to 2 billion in 1927. The population hit 4 billion in 1974 (only 47 years), and if we continue at our current rate, the human
population will reach 8 billion in 2028. Doubling from our present count of 6.6 billion to 13.2 billion will have a much greater impact than our
last couple doublings combined.
More circular reasoning; there must be a population crisis because human population numbers are increasing. Why do North Americans, Europeans,
Russians, the Japanese, the Chinese and so many others now live better than we all did a hundred years ago despite the fact that world population has
nearly tripled in that time? There is NO logical in the argument that there MUST be a population crisis because there happens to be more humans.
As for the bolded part the impact we have on your environment will probably get very much worse IF humanity can not overwhelming turn against and
disband the current world economic order. Technologies have been available for at least a century ( no aliens involved) that could have prevented much
of our current pollution problems if only our economic system could turn a profit of it. It's the profit motive that is destroying this planet; not
the people or the number of them.
Overpopulation is a condition where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat. In common parlance, the term usually
refers to the relationship between the human population and its environment, the Earth.
So then the world isn't overpopulated as we are not all starving or soon likely to face starvation. So much for that argument. Overpopulation was
used to discuss what happens to ANIMALS and to even introduce the term when highly intelligent human beings are involved exposes much of the
authors/commentators way of thinking about humanity.