It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yes, I agree, and the non-abuse of that control means controlling and manipulating it in a sustainable manner.
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 can actually be nice if you spend some time getting to know "her". And yes all species will eventually go extinct, but all species on Earth (except humans) operate in some sort of unity and with balance...things do go extinct all the time, but you can see a high degree of balance and dependency on all other species in any ecosystem. We do depend on other species whether we like to admit that or not. But we also are able to directly control the growth and "production" of that species. We can theoretically do that in a sustainable manner which provides adequate resources for the entire worlds population.
Nature is not nice. The natural order of things is to die and go extinct.
It means nothing of the sort...it simply means balance and equality...you seem to think such things are impossible for a so called intelligent species...yes, it could potentially slow the rate of our advancement by limiting things to a sustainable level, but being gluttonous and wanting it all now is hardly the answer. Slowly but surely I say, the way that wins the race.
The perfect world you are talking about means no advancement and stagnation. No. Sorry, that's not going to happen.
Originally posted by die_another_day
It doesn't matter what we say or do, the human population will increase indefinitely.
Up until about the industrial era I'd say it was more like a steady progression and advancement rather than label it as destruction...there is a difference between when our actions are completely sustainable and when they are blatantly destructive, you seem to draw no line though.
Humanity evolved by consuming and destroying everything in its way and taking control of the natural world. This is how we evolved to what we are today.
I never said we were in balance, in fact I've said multiple times we are controllers and manipulators of nature. We aren't trying to balance our-self with nature, we are changing nature so it fits with our needs. HOWEVER, just because we don't seek a natural balance with nature doesn't mean we can't limit our actions to change the environment to a degree which is sustainable, it's not us balancing with nature, it's us balancing the systems of nature so that they can sustain themselves, and in doing so it also ensures the sustainability of our species, which is the main point here. I can't see why you feel no limits need to be set on our manipulations over nature etc. We could end up being our own worste enemy by doing so, we could provoke our own demise, not only in the way I put forward in that thread, but also other possible ways (e.i. destroying too many of those species and natural systems we depend on). Did that thought cross your mind?
How is such a species in balance with nature?
There aren't any "limits"...we still posses the same ability to advance the same amount, it just may take longer, and it's not only for the sake of nature, it's for our very own sake as well as I said above.
You are talking about putting limits on human growth for the sake of nature. That's not happening.
Again, there are no limits being placed...it's about taking the slow but steady path...doing things in a way that can be managed and sustained so that we need not do something we may greatly regret at a later stage.
I favor natural reserves and limited preservation. But I do not favor limiting human growth under any circumstances.
Originally posted by Aronolac
This world and its resources can support about 3 billion people easily; it can not sustain itself approaching 8 billion people.
Originally posted by LiveForever8
However, Malthus plagiarised many of his ideas from Giammaria Ortes, a defrocked Camaldolese monk who first wrote of population control on 1790. Ortes' magic number for maximum human population? 3 billion. Anything more than this and the world would collapse into itself and be destroyed.
Obviously this is all a load of rubbish as now the human population stands at roughly 6.5 billion, more than double what Ortes and Malthus had given as their unalterable upper limit for the world's human population.
They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by Starbug3MY
But evening out the population numbers over the land more would only mean more development land is needed, and more areas are becoming tainted by our malicious presence. Untainted areas of nature are absolutely thriving, some human infected areas look dead and diseased. You are thinking resource wise, and resources/wealth aren't the problem, it's the distribution of those assets.