Originally posted by brass
reply to post by JR MacBeth
You focused on the "hockey stick" graph, but failed to acknowledge the fact that I also addressed the logistic curve which takes into account the
carrying capacity of a population. Including the fact that populations will either come to the carrying capacity and hover there, or overshoot and
come back down. You repeated exactly what I put in my original post.
Instead, you suggest that I have "an agenda". You don't know me, please don't make unfounded assumptions.
Sorry mate, your first post and all, forgive any assumptions you felt I made.
Here's a quote from your first post:
Unfortunately, I am not of the belief that our population growth is necessarily "healthy". My guess is that the growth rate indicates an overshoot
will occur...the question remains that nobody knows the answer to is what the implications will be on the human race as a result of us blowing right
by the carrying capacity.
You don't have to call it an "agenda", that term does seem a bit negative I suppose. But, you certainly made your position clear, and I'm still
not sure I misread you exactly. Even in the snippet I'm quoting above, you do refer to a "growth rate", and if you go back and read my post,
you'll see that I felt it was important to make sure that the little-known fertility crisis
is factored in somehow. It's too often ignored,
IMO, but probably mostly based on the fact that it's seldom spoken of.
I actually liked your presentation, especially your acknowledgement that a population can overshoot, and collapse to near extinction. You deserved my
star for that one, since few ever want to get quite that drastic, even though it is a possibility of course.
I'm not sure I repeated exactly what you said. Yes, the population will peak, by all appearances, but the fertility crisis seems to be ahead of any
supposed carrying capacity considerations. And yes, I admit that I "failed" to treat of this issue, of carrying capacity, but perhaps not out of
dishonest omission. Obviously, this is the controversial part, whereas the fertility crisis really should not be too controversial, for anyone who
looks into it. As the OP points out, we are still a long ways from capacity issues, especially by employing just a wee bit more technology, or will.
That latter one is probably the biggest problem of all.
Back to the word "agenda"
. No, you and I likely do not have one to speak of. But, those who I sometimes call "our masters", they
seemingly DO have an agenda. These are the powerful people who, right or wrong, have the means to push their agendas.
One of those agendas appears to be to get the majority of people thinking in terms of "overpopulation". Have you been "guilty" of falling for
this one? Have you further shared "your" opinion on the matter, perhaps aggravating the already propaganda-filled atmosphere, within your circles,
even if they are relatively small? If so, then you too have been a "victim" of the propaganda our masters have been feeding us.
I hope you won't take that as an "accusation", it's more for anyone reading the thread, we ALL have been victims of this powerful propaganda, at
one time or another, I agree with the OP on this one. I also think that your presentation does in fact have balance, and your observation that our
population growth may not be "healthy", as you put it, certainly has merit. Growth in some areas is clearly problematic, even if overall things are
not as catastrophic as we are usually led to believe.
In retrospect, I can see that part of my response was there to blunt the raw impact of your initial graphic presentation, which to me seemed a bit
misleading. Considering the level of propaganda out there, I would submit that we should be more careful, since the average person is likely to
misinterpret what you are trying to say.