The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

page: 4
64
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Then that's too bad. There is no balance to play with nature. You wither kill it or put it on like a hat. It is impossible to share.

The image I showed is probably the future city in a hundred years.

And it is hardly a utopia. There will still be wars, still be genocide, and still crime. That has no relationship, however, to nature. You treat nature like a character. It's nothing more than autopilot for the planet.

And yes, humanity is a virus species. That's been quite obvious since we left Africa and slaughtered everything that was hominid and not human.

All you can do is make sure the virus does as little damage as possible. Humans means pollution. In fact, technology means pollution. Now there is a balance there, but that balance is with ourselves, not nature.

Even a car that runs on water will create pollution in the form of water vapor, which will heat the atmosphere and accelerate global warming and flooding.

There is no such thing as a balance between nature and humanity. Humanity destroys nature. This is a rule. You can either let humanity destroy nature, of find a way so that what humanity builds in that destruction acts like nature.

Humanity has a responsibility to preserve nature. But there can be no sharing. Only making nature part of the city.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Gorman91]




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 




I know that for some the idea of a Hypercity miles thick, covering the entire earth is over the top, but if you can find a way to deal with the problems why not?
Why not? Well, planets like this are quite rare, maybe not that rare in the grand scheme of things, but I think people who say we can just destroy this one and move along are seriously deluded and just really don't care about anything or anyone other than themselves and their species. It's taking things for granted to the highest degree. If you want to live surrounded only by man-made items and technology, then why not just develop the ability to live in space facilities...don't destroy the Earth before you can do that...some people like the Earth, we like it how it is, if you don't like it, or you want to destroy the precious and beautiful life on it without a second thought, I say just get the hell off the planet.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by aliengenes
you could put every man woman and child from every country in the world in Texas, and give them all one acre of land,and they still wouldn't overpopulate the state. thats how many people there are.

overpopulation of the planet is impossible at the rate we die


Overpopulation question aside, at least get the math right before quoting, eh?


kilometres squared in texas = 696241
1 kilometre squared = 247.105381
696241 x 247.105381 = 1720448976
1,720,448,976 acres in texas


OK! even with the math you could still put everyone comfortably in texas. they just wont have an acre...lol



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Chaos, you refer to yourself as a futurist, do you not see the probability that humankind may develop into more of an industrial species, one that acts like a cancer not just to the planet but also the universe?

If so Is this one of your concerns?
It seems to me to be a two way street of development.
On one hand we can manage a way to utilize what we have without destroying the system in the process, and the other way is basically balls to the wall development.

Unfortunately right now it looks like the latter may be our fate.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Actually planets like Earth are common. We've already discovered 2 Earth-like worlds just 40 something light years away. And we know in this solar system that both Venus and Mars could support life if they were slightly different.

The fact is Earths are quite common.

You can tell us to leave but there are more people who would like the world as a city than not. Sorry. I understand romanticism tried to make people like nature but all nature is is a big b**ch. It is not something to marvel at. It's something to control.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


I agree but I just think that in a time such as the one I presented humankind may have developed to such a point that planets livable or not are really a non-issue. Assuming that a science level was great enough to develop what was needed for a planet or a people. These humans may have drastically different views than us "primitives" as they would say.

Tha'ts really a separate topic, I get where you're coming from though.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


WOW! that was kind of a mental rape to even me, and I tend to agree with you.

Harsh nonetheless. haha



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 




All you can do is make sure the virus does as little damage as possible. Humans means pollution. In fact, technology means pollution.
We don't have to be viruses, our virus like tendency is manifested from people who promote the virus like mindset. Technology does not have to mean pollution either.



Even a car that runs on water will create pollution in the form of water vapor, which will heat the atmosphere and accelerate global warming and flooding.
With that argument, you could consider just about anything pollution...simple play on words...water is perfectly fine and a hell of a lot better than the crap we load into the atmosphere each day...still not perfect, but easily sustainable, balance is possible for those who can resist the impulse of greed.

reply to post by snowen20
 




Chaos, you refer to yourself as a futurist, do you not see the probability that humankind may develop into more of an industrial species, one that acts like a cancer not just to the planet but also the universe?

If so Is this one of your concerns?
It seems to me to be a two way street of development.
On one hand we can manage a way to utilize what we have without destroying the system in the process, and the other way is basically balls to the wall development.

Unfortunately right now it looks like the latter may be our fate.
That's pretty much it actually...you summed it up well...

[edit on 17/8/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Everyone who is so convinced the Earth is overpopulated should do the Earth a favor and remove themselves from the populace.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   


"What do you call overpopulation?"

"Our small country has more than three hundred people to the square kilometer, which in my opinion is quite dense." "Compared to Earth's average of twenty-five to the square kilometer, that is indeed dense. Estimate the number of people living in the area that you see here. Every ring houses about ten thousand. Work it out per rectangle."




"Your word 'overpopulation' is pure nonsense. Our planet has a population density at least one hundred times greater than yours and we do not speak of overpopulation."




We do not know what the words "overpopulation and "overproduction" mean. When we complain about overpopulation, we mean inefficient economic structure and planning. With overproduction, we mean roughly the same: the low purchasing power of the average income through the inefficiency of our antisocial economy. As soon as we begin to distribute our products in a just manner, we will see that the problem lies in a too low productive capacity.


Source: www.galactic.no...



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


I think honestly Chaos our problem is ultimately a persons desire to have power.
It starts with the desire and leads to people wanting money.

It is because of this technology is polluting and commerce is damaging. People are individually working to survive and not working as a species.

When people strive they typically strive for them selves for the idea of freedom from menial tasks. If we would change our mentality to strive for our species we may be surprised at how for it gets us. Then again it may kill us faster.

AHHH ATS,,,Successfully postponing my workouts and causing me to be distracted since 2008! ARRHHGG!!



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


So we should kill ourselves in the name of our beliefs...seems reasonable to me...death to prove a point...*applause*...

We aren't saying to kill people (well I'm not), so why get so defensive over the topic of overpopulation, is that little voice telling you "must spread genes"...



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowen20

kind of like a overly domesticated Cat or Dog that has grown too reliant on humans



How 'bout overly domesticated humans that have grown too reliant on their corporate masters and an inhumane, unsustainable global economic system?

BACK TO - the OP's main point:

The myth of "overpopulation" is an erroneous distraction - obscuring the fact that humans are becoming infertile along with amphibians, fish and other animals.

For example, see:
MEN: You are being chemically castrated.

Unsaid, but implied, it follows that we're also on the list of endangered species facing the planet's 6th Mass Extinction.

...The "Overpopulation Myth" is the rationale for re-introducing Eugenics Policies. And as in the past, the proposed new Eugenics Policies are about breeding the "right" kind of "consumers" to better serve the current economic system and masters, and to ensure said system's, and those masters', post-apocalyptic survival.


[Great thread and contributions, btw. Flag and lots of Stars.]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by sphinx551
 


Uhh...what?

SECOND LINE..............



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Sure you can call water perfectly fine. But when the seas raise 6 meters and all of Earth's rice patties are drowned and 2 billion people are dead, I don't think you'll call it fine and dandy any more.

If you want nature to remain, you have to leave the planet. And nobody is going anywhere. The most likely end point is built arcologies.

Nature cannot and will not ever exist in balance with man. It is something to control and make sure we do not abuse that control.

Nature is not nice. The natural order of things is to die and go extinct.

The perfect world you are talking about means no advancement and stagnation. No. Sorry, that's not going to happen.

Yes, technology means pollution. And pollution is anything that harms the environment. Even water can be pollution. Water in a desert kills nature. One example.

You are basically advocating preservationism. Which is simply not the way of humanity.

Humanity is a virus. We spread our life forms and then we spread ourselves. Terraforming world to world, changing things to an Earth like world.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


Call it what you will. Earth is common and nature is one hell of a b*&ch. I really can't see anybody in the universe crying at the loss of Earth other than those of the Earth. I favor arcologies. A green Coruscant. Nature can exist perfectly fine and dandy in the city and in parks and reserves. And in time, they can terraform the worlds for us.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


You expounded on my point. I do agree that we are far to dependent on an elitist group to tell us how to live our lives, when in the other hand it is the same rulers who poison our food. Both metaphorically and literally speaking.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
It doesn't matter what we say or do, the human population will increase indefinitely.

Unless we can spread cities to the seas or something and acquire renewable resources, standards of living will decrease.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
The problem is not over population, it is the concentration of large numbers in areas that can't handle them. If we could move a lot of people to sustainable areas they could probably sustain themselves (unless they are to old or sick).


No, that's not the problem. The more you spread people out, the more expensive it gets to provide them with basic needs (food, water, electricity, etc.). Cities exist because they're an efficient way for a lot of people to get what they need, as well as freeing up a lot of land necessary for farming.


The problem is determining the maximum optimal carrying capacity of the planet. That doesn't mean jamming people into every square foot of land. It means taking into account such things as how much each person consumes and wastes, how much water and land are available to support people, but also how many jobs there are for people to do given advancing technology. What good does it do to have a billion people around who don't have jobs, so everybody else has to support them, too?

It would be nice if it was as easy to calculate as the number of square feet an individual needs to live divided by the square footage available on the planet. But it isn't. There are a huge number of social factors that have to be taken into account, also.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 


Or just build higher with vertical farms.

You can have up to 15 billion people with even a few vertical farms scattered globally.





new topics
top topics
 
64
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join