Why depopulation is an idiots dream.

Originally posted by miragezero
Flagged. People assume our technology will remain the same as it is today when it should slap them in the face by now that things are and will turn out just fine. Depop doesn't matter, and in fact would hurt things MORE.

Yes the technology required to reach this goal is unimaginable.

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean

Originally posted by miragezero
Flagged. People assume our technology will remain the same as it is today when it should slap them in the face by now that things are and will turn out just fine. Depop doesn't matter, and in fact would hurt things MORE.

Yes the technology required to reach this goal is unimaginable.

Nuclear fusion is unimaginable?

Nanotech is unimaginable?

AI is unimaginable?

Gene therapy/nanotech wiping out disease is unimaginable?

You better tell all these scientists to stop being human and figuring out a way to make it happen then... cause they're certainly doing it.

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
If we were to keep the human population low then we are actively repressing our full potential

This is basically the only reason you gave against depopulation. Everything else was merely saying why a huge population wouldn't be that bad, but not why it would be necessary.

In fact, the value of humans as a resource and thus their potential has been dramatically declining over the last decades and it expectedly will continue to decline as the productivity increases with new technology. Not too soon only the best educated people will even be needed as all the others can be replaced by machines.

The reasons against a huge population however won't disappear. The most important reason being that by lowering the population the living standards of every remaining human being can be drastically increased for the rather low price of not crapping out as many children as we currently do.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by El Indio]

Good God, a World with trillions of dirty humans, that would be something

The whole point with population sustainability is exploiting the pockets of land we live in. I don't deny the fact that we could proliferate into the dark reaches of Earth to inhabit the inhospitable, such as deserts or tundras.

However, the bottom line is indeed a technology concern. If the present status quo of oil being the backbone of our society continues, then we are doomed whether there's 7 billion or 70 trillion humanoids.

However, what if fusion fuel does become reality, TPTB will still work out where to put the meter and thus you'll get echelons of society who can and can't afford the fuel.

I think there is a cut-off point where Humans can happily coexist with the environment, but beyond that number, the resources in whatever form, will never sustain everyone, TPTB will make sure of that.

You mentioned deforestation, but i see trees as the lungs of our planet. We are living in an hermetically sealed glass-box. Chopping down trees with continual veracity, cannot be good in the long run. Having an exponential population explosion, will just exacerbate the problem of resource management.

I concur that our destiny lies with the stars. We should view Mother Earth as a womb; an embryonic cradle where we can evolve and flee the nest to our true home - the star dust from whence we came.

So in summary, should we depopulate - yes, although i'd prefer to call it 'maintenance'. How should this depopulation occur - naturally and NOT selectively, as TPTB would wish for.

If you have the 'right stuff' you will survive, whether you're an Ethiopian or an Elitist scum; that's just natural selection, the way it should be.

Remove the DNA and Human crap from the cesspool of life and let's just bloody build that Mothership to meet our Galactic friends, whom i'm sure are just twiddling their tentacles awaiting for us to make contact, once we have the technology to make it so.

However, contact won't come any time soon, and i don't blame 'em; as you said we are Neanderthals still living in the the Stone Age. Once we learn not to throw stones at each other, perhaps we can break away from the glasshouse which imprisons us all.

Regards
PoS

reply to post by El Indio


No there is much more reason you just have to ponder the notion a bit.

The point really is to show how a huge populous could guide us away from dependence on this doomed ecosystem we currently depend on.

If humankind is to survive we must not bind ourselves to the fate of this environment because it 100% destined to bite the dust. We are not talking about the problems of today. Although we are not overpopulated in fact we are very far from it. Did you know every man woman and child on earth could have two acres in Texas.

I suspect you reside in a city. If it’s packed then move man.

This post does not really relate to the problems in the world today.
We must move from fossil fuels to alternate energy somehow regardless of how long we drag out the affair. In my mind the more people effected the bigger the response will be.

Culling the herd when, the goal is independence from this environment does not make a lot of sense. We will perish if we cannot reach for the stars. It is 100% certain! I love nature myself, but we are in it for the species.

Earth should be used for the single purpose of supporting human life.



[edit on 2-6-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

I generally agree with "not-depopulating" supporters, not because I know this is correct, but for somthing else I want to point out about "depopulation" supporters: How is that everyone suddenly is an expert at measuring global population, and making so accurate, informed, scientifical asserts like "the world can sustain this magnitude of human pop", "we are destroying the ecosystem", and so on.
If I wanted to know whether any of these things are true, I would start studying Biology and any other collateral fields. Then I would travel the world, studying this very things I "believe", for instance, that there is not enough food to support more people. Then, I would make an educated guess about this issue. It seems that propaganda is succesful once again on introducing some agenda into people's minds, whether this population stuff is true or not is irrelevant. We have to stop spitting out stuff because "some scientist said it".

Who ever agrees with depopulation; should be put on the depopulation list first along with the family.


I have a question; why is it that when ever this topic comes up here its always we should make everybody else change we should be the ones to change. In the US, Canada, Western Europe we consume the most meat, use the most energy etc.

We have plenty of resources on this planet to support everybody if people didnt all have SUV's when its only 1-3 people and they dont need the space inside the vehicle. Consume meat all the time when there are other foods that can be eaten, all the meat most people consume are chicken, bovine, pigs, turkey; there are billions of other creatures on earth when can eat.

All countries should be using every type of resources they have; not just which is easiest to get to and the cheapest.

People should learn to have more variety in there diet than we would not have to raise as many bovine, pigs, birds as we do for food; the amount of space it takes these animals to graze on, plus the land to grow there food on could be put to better use by using it to grow food for us and just letting the animals go. Most of the animals we raise for food eat the same food we do so we are using twice the energy and food to take of these animals when we could just take care of our self with the gains and vegetables they eat.



This is another idea I was thinking about a while ago I know people will hate this one

People should not have huge amounts of land unless they grow there own food or provide there own electricity or water from that land. It is a waste for people to have huge amounts of land and doing nothing with it when it could go to benefit some person or the population as a whole. I think that all land should come with an intent to use it and if you have no use for at least 70% of the land you buy the purchase is not approved.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by jatsc]

reply to post by Donkey_Dean


Your assertion is akin to Microsoft saying "we are losing money and have become totally inefficient AND we are going to fix this problem by hiring tons more people..."

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by Donkey_Dean

 

Your assertion is akin to Microsoft saying "we are losing money and have become totally inefficient AND we are going to fix this problem by hiring tons more people..."

Society as a whole is not about generating a profit so this analogy is not very apt. Addtionally "hiring tons" more people may do the trick though, as it increases cumulative intelligence particularly when coupled to the magnification of research you can do when using computers and networks for computation and communication. We are much better off having more people, especially since our advances in science have become so specialized a human (at the moment) must devote 10 years of their adult life learning that specific fragment of tech/knowledge and his/her remaining life refining it and communicating with others in other fields. You will also need people doing the same or to a lesser extent to keep the system (finances, infrastructure, communications) maintained in the interim... and then there is of course leisure which mother nature definitely approves of. :-) Depop IS an idiot's dream at this point if our development IMO.

Originally posted by miragezero
Society as a whole is not about generating a profit so this analogy is not very apt. Addtionally "hiring tons" more people may do the trick though, as it increases cumulative intelligence particularly when coupled to the magnification of research you can do when using computers and networks for computation and communication. We are much better off having more people, especially since our advances in science have become so specialized a human (at the moment) must devote 10 years of their adult life learning that specific fragment of tech/knowledge and his/her remaining life refining it and communicating with others in other fields. You will also need people doing the same or to a lesser extent to keep the system (finances, infrastructure, communications) maintained in the interim... and then there is of course leisure which mother nature definitely approves of. :-) Depop IS an idiot's dream at this point if our development IMO.

My analogy a bit weak so that automatically equals to every one pumping out kids like there's no tomorrow? This will force us to tackle all the problems once and for all! WRONG.

I didn't say bring the population down to 100 did I? Last time I checked there were 6-7 billion people on this planet and a finite number of resources. There are plenty of people to keep the precious "system" going.

Can I ask where you received your bias from please? Have you, like the OP, been watching too many Star Wars films? Or do you come from a large family yourself?

I think there are way too many NWO rumors going around this site. Like this one. When I say depopulation I don't mean NWO concentration camps or germ warfare.

I mean every grown man and woman on this planet stepping up the the plate and producing something for society other than carbon copies of themselves!

reply to post by Scramjet76


Did you know that every man woman and child on earth could have two areas in Texas. We are not over populated, and yes a the sooner we exhaust the fossil fuels the sooner we will have a solution to our energy needs (If one exists!). We need the technology to completely manage our environment, and the sooner we destroy the natural balance the sooner we will achieve this goal.

The preservation of nature is crucial for our survival now but cannot be in the future as this environment is doomed. I’ll say it once again, It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.

Struggle is the father of all things!!

I think most of you missed the point here. We as a species face certain extinction if we continue with the status quos, and I am not speaking of our polluting ways etc. 98% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct because this world is continually destroyed and rebuilt.

We all know that without forcing no adaptation takes place. What forcing may drive humanity to survive even when the Earth is long gone? We may like to think we are up above it, but we must adapt or die.

If you post saying this is all wrong then please state what you think may drive our species to survive.

I know the notion that we should learn to completely manage this world and do away with the natural order is out there, but ponder it just a bit. Is it not the only option we have? We must completely own the means to our survival rather than continue to be dependent upon an doomed ecosystem. I don’t purport to know any answers, but I can see that our species cannot survive if it continue with the current save the whales attitude.

The current C02 scare should be met with technology to scrub it from the atmosphere, we would likely get it wrong but it’s a step in the right direction. There will without any doubt come a time when humankind will have to completely manage the atmosphere or die out.


[edit on 20-6-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

Originally posted by Scramjet76

My analogy a bit weak so that automatically equals to every one pumping out kids like there's no tomorrow?

That would be increasing the population, not maintaining or depop which is what the thread is about. Industrialized countries have leveled off their growth rate.

reply to post by miragezero


That is my point though. Industrialized countries are leveling off not because they want to do the planet a favor. It's because everyone is so busy making and spending money + other factors, that the population naturally levels off.

I'm not talking about a gov't, country, or any other entity actively seeking to ban kids. I'm saying individuals need to step and act like they want their great-grandkids to have affordable water prices!

reply to post by Donkey_Dean

I think most of you missed the point here. We as a species face certain extinction if we continue with the status quos, and I am not speaking of our polluting ways etc. 98% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct because this world is continually destroyed and rebuilt.

Hehe...I think you are missing the point my friend. The status quo IS having a family and a white picket fence in a beautiful suburban neighborhood.

If you want to do the world a favor stop having so many kids and start posting on ATS more.... or find some other hobby. There is so much in this world that can be entertaining and occupy one's time.

S&F for you.


IMO, I think we do not need depopulation, because as people are born, there are people dying as well.

We all do not have to be fed to live forever, and for sure, that we cannot avoid the inevitable (death).

OP your 100% correct

I have been around this circle anytime on ats

always the same...

Someone lik you has the brains to WAKE UP and realize there are a Million ways to deal with these minor problems and there is nothing to worry about.

And a handful of people who have been brainwashed by science articles (they never did the research to see who funded and why) go on and on about why the environment is dying and there needs to be less people.

I'll keep having children and not even debate this because... like allot of things i'd be wasting my breath

I'd rather work on my Real plans for vertical food towers.

I don't think we have any choice in the matter do we? There will always be natural disasters and disease to keep us in check, not to mention threats from space. There is a mass extinction every 65 million years and there was nothing that could stop it then or now. Sorry. I would like to believe that we could out smart all these natural threats with technology, but we can barely forcast the weather for more than 7 days.

A planet wide city? I hope not. I'd rather have the wilderness than a bunch of "Central Parks" to go to. Any city planet wide would mean extinction for a lot of animal life, It's their planet too. unless some amazing alternitive energy sources where created we'd run out of resources quickly. I say less people are better.

Forget about two acres in Texas for everybody, land you can actually can live on is a different story. Mankind has left a nasty enough footprint on this planet as it is with our pollution and plastics, I say the less people the better.

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
I don't think we have any choice in the matter do we? There will always be natural disasters and disease to keep us in check, not to mention threats from space. There is a mass extinction every 65 million years and there was nothing that could stop it then or now. Sorry. I would like to believe that we could out smart all these natural threats with technology, but we can barely forcast the weather for more than 7 days.

And that’s the sad truth. Genius post friend!