Hard decisions are coming to the infinite growth paradign, how will you respond?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
*cracks knuckles*
Ok, so here goes nothing.

Humanity and our civilizations (especially the more advanced ones) for the most part are stuck in the progress trap. It's been sort of obvious to me for awhile now but it has been made far more relevant to my thinking recently because of this documentary I recently watched on netflix.

Surviving Progress

This documentary goes into a great amount of detail to explain in very simple terms why infinite growth can not be sustained and at some point we really have to put a cap on population. It's pretty obvious to anyone observing the world around them that global resource problems are an epidemic and if the population continues to grow it will run into a very hard wall at some point and reduce itself naturally anyway due to a lack of resources.

While this documentary and others out there go into vivid detail as to the problems very few of them offer any real solutions and that is where the heart of my post really lies.

I want to discuss solutions to the infinite growth paradigm since genocide whether intentional or inevitable is certainly not something anyone really desires and ultimately that's what a resource wall amounts to. An inevitable genocide due to lack of sustainability not caused by any one nation or any one leader but by a sheer lack of ability to feed, water, or power vast populations of various countries, including the United States.

That being said the alternatives, at least the ones I've come up with in my head probably won't sound very appealing to most either, but ethically they are the most fair ideas I have been able to imagine.

So, in the future in order to promote evolution and to maintain a certain level of population people will still need to have children obviously.

That being said, not everyone can have children in the future, it's simply not a realistic option. So how to determine in an ethic way who is permitted to reproduce based on the best interests of humanity and what to do about everyone who won't be "allowed" to reproduce. Obviously any policies along these lines would have to apply globally which is in itself a challenge that will likely never be addressed, but moving forward.

I personally believe that it would be easy to find out what population level is easiest to sustain based on resources available at least to some degree. Hopefully we are not over that number already but we could be.

Either way, once the sustainable Earth population was determined we could begin to calculate exactly how many people could be born each year to sustain that population level. If our overall population is above this point then the sustainable number of people born each year would be reduced so that the overall population would reduce until it was at the level of population that was agreed upon to be sustainable.

Once the number of people needed to be born each year is known we could then begin determining who gets to reproduce.

For the betterment of humanity and to make the whole process fair if you wanted to have children, then you would apply for it, like you do a job. You would have to qualify though in order to be approved since only a limited number can be approved. In order to be approved you would need to ultimately have the best genetics can offer. You would be submitted to a variety of tests and your genetic background would be studied as closely as possible to look for genetic defects. Obviously the best candidates would be chosen year to year, and you could apply as many times as you like but if the demand was too high (for applying), you might have to pay to apply, which makes sense anyway as you should be able to sustain yourself and would help sustain the program. These tests would be cover your physical prowess, your intelligence, and your genetic defects. In this way we would not only be able to maintain a population but we would slowly weed out genetic defects/weaknesses and promote evolution of the strongest and smartest to even greater heights which ultimately would only serve to better mankind. The program could be self sustaining if the cost of applications were enough and if there was excess it could go toward financial aid for people to help raise the children they have already qualified to have or tax programs could be made to financially aid already qualified persons.

There are some flaws to just this part of the concept which I have not fully worked out. Such as couples. Obviously you can apply as a couple but what if one person qualifies and another person doesn't. As near as I can tell at this point either the qualified person could do a number of things, they could try to apply again in a later year with their significant other, they could forget it if they are loyal to their significant other and they don't wish to be a parent without them, or they could breed with another eligible candidate that is willing and the job of raising the child would either be a forced cooperation or more realistically the child would go with whoever was already more financially stable or appeared to be more qualified based on the living situation of the applicants.

Unfortunately this is not enough as people wouldn't necessarily want to follow such a process. In the case of accidental pregnancy, the party involved could be tested to see if they qualify but otherwise abortion would be mandatory unfortunately as that is the only way this whole idea could really work if we really wanted to make growth stagnant for the population and if a woman is guilty of multiple accidental pregnancies then a mandatory hysterectomy would be applied since there is various forms of birth control (which will likely only improve) and multiple accidental pregnancies would therefore imply guilt or negligence. Hysterectomy would guarantee that the system of abortion could not be abused by guilty or negligible persons. This could also apply to men guilty of making women pregnant multiple times via vasectomy which would almost certainly apply to any men who got more then one woman pregnant without being approved through application.

Not everyone wants to reproduce, so for those people, we simply make them sterile so they can have all the sex they want and not worry about pregnancy. This could easily be accomplished especially via men as a vasectomy is a quick and relatively pain free procedure.

I admit my ideas are radical and I'm sure many will find them hard to swallow or will simply see them as unrealistic as it would certainly be a massive undertaking to apply such a solution. I'm not suggesting genocide but at some point you can not consider all life sacred no matter what at the cost of already existing life. Infinite growth is a myth and anyone who can't see that is woefully ignorant or delusional. My ideas may be radical but I've seen no other realistic solutions to apply to this situation. If anyone has any constructive criticism or thinks they have a better idea please speak up as I am all ears. I know I'm sure to get flamed and some may even consider me a monster for such thoughts but they are the most ethical ideas I could come up with for what ultimately is a plan population control that avoids murder with the exception of the abortions that would surely take place. I don't really have an issue with this as I don't consider abortion murder, especially in early pregnancies, but it doesn't really matter. A line must be drawn somewhere or we all fall




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


Oh and I'm fully aware that this would apply to me and perhaps the children I may already have when such a solution could be applied. It is a personal cost I must abide for what I would consider a greater good. Eventually, if we progressed enough technologically we could begin to expand the population again but only if we had the means to do so and more realistically if we could perfect space travel and go to other planets.

(also mods not sure if this was the correct place to put this thread, please move it to the correct location if necessary)
edit on 9-11-2012 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Here's why you're wrong.


Nevada's borders enclose about 70,745,600 acres, making it the seventh largest state. The federal government controls 60,863,345 acres, or 86.1 percent of the land (See Table 1-3 below) Of the remaining 13.9 percent (or 9,882,250 acres), 11.5 percent is privately owned, 1.6 percent tribal, 0.4 percent local, and 0.4 percent state government owned.


www.answerbag.com...

The same is true for most of the western states. So tell me again who is the big hog that needs to be euthanized to make more room in the pen for all the little piglets. Scarcity is an illusion they create to manipulate your mind. Don't fall for it.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Hmm....that is a very interesting counter argument that I had not considered; that does make the future look a little bit more promising, although just because their is land doesn't mean that it can support agriculture and therefore life. Do you know how much of that land would be able to actually support people through agriculture, fuel, or any number of other resources? I'm not just talking about space here. The amount of space is not the soul concern, more to the point, the amount of resources within that space required to maintain life is what I am concerned with.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


All things being equal, we will probably never know the answers to your questions because they're not going to turn any of it loose. They don't have to, no one's even asking them to turn any of it loose.

For a bit of history on how "the west was won", when the Homestead Act went into effect in 1862...

Of the some 1 billion acres of public land that the government owned in the nineteenth century, 183 million acres went to railroad corporations; 140 million acres to the states; 100 million acres to Indian tribes; and 100 million acres to free farmers (the total acreage given out in cash sales). (One half of the land had not been sold because it had been reserved for national parks or was totally unsuited for agricultural development.)

Add to that, "enforcement officials were over-whelmed. This of course gave rise to cheating. Speculators, monopolists, and others used the land laws to create giant farms."

www.enotes.com...

Got that? Almost twice the amount SOLD to individuals was GIVEN to the railroad barons and of course speculators with money to burn ended up with the choice pieces of land before small farmers could scrape together enough money to buy anything. It never changes.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Fair enough, although I would like to point out that this isn't just a US issue but a global one and no matter how much land their may seem to be eventually an ever demanding population will make use of it and frankly it would become an issue eventually even if you don't believe it is one now. Infinite growth can simply not be maintained while we are confined to a single planet. That being said eventually, even if not now, these questions will be forced to be addressed through sheer necessity or like I said in my op we will hit a wall and a lot of people will die anyway because they can not be sustained.
edit on 9-11-2012 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
reply to post by frazzle
 


Fair enough, although I would like to point out that this isn't just a US issue but a global one and no matter how much land their may seem to be eventually an ever demanding population will make use of it and frankly it would become an issue eventually even if you don't believe it is one now. Infinite growth can simply not be maintained while we are confined to a single planet. That being said eventually, even if not now, these questions will be forced to be addressed through sheer necessity or like I said in my op we will hit a wall and a lot of people will die anyway because they can not be sustained.
edit on 9-11-2012 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)


Ever wonder why there's hundreds of billions of dollars freely available every year for research and for manufacturing expensive medical equipment and drugs to save the lives of people who are in an end game scenario anyway and how OTOH, there's not enough space on the global grid for indigenous peoples who have lived in their homelands for tens of thousands of years without overusing or overpopulating their lands but are suddenly "in the way" because oil or other resources have been discovered beneath their feet? I'm not even going to try to list all the examples. Even Iraq and Afghanistan fall into that game plan.

It isn't about space, its about money. And it isn't a global problem other than the global overlords want more of everything the globe has to offer and there are too many humans in the way of them getting it. Time to cull the herd. Well, the part that doesn't need help to survive, anyway.

edit on 9-11-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I think you are very wrong.

China being a country of sensibilities enacted a one child policy back in the seventies. There has been a great amount of MSM and Western mis-information about how it was started and continued.

This system allows every women to have one child. This engenders a negative population growth as for every two people in china today there will be only one in future years.

This is the fair way to implement a global population reduction. We do not have to, and never should try to stop the right of procreation. We just need to limit it.

Mother Nature will take care of this problem without any help from us. Any event that interferes with global food production, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere for a reasonable period of time will, right now, send billions to their death due to starvation and disease. A massive CME, a volcanic winter or global weather change could and WILL do it.

My advice is to chill out. Mother Nature has this one!

P



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


I like your response.
Even stared it.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
The gay lesbian rights issue is being pushed as part of the fix for this. Abortion doesn't hurt things either. Like them or not they are part of the solution to the problem.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
The one thing that will help, unfortunately, is something like this.



In development right know are robots that can do chores, look good, they don't answer back, they can sing and well, use your imagination. I think they will be the thing to have in the next decade.

With society becoming more insular, more lonely people may well go down this path. Unfortunately, the more lonely and insecure people are likely to be the more brilliant therefore continually lowing the intelligence rating of our species. Dumbing down seems to be the in thing in Governments at this time so how about it.

Now, I would like mine in a red head, 1.4m tall, slim build 35b...........

P



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
OP, despite very well-constructed counter arguments, you appear determined to convince mankind to contemplate playing God. It's ludicrous to believe that the human population has reached a tipping point when it's the wealthiest minority and governments who own the largest percentage of land and resources and deliberately hold it back from production. Instead, you think the solution is to either prevent or kill new life.

Our Creator gave a command "Be fruitful and multiply". There is only one who preaches the opposite. "Do not be fruitful and kill."

The "mighty men" of this age are back in record numbers, and produce this very media that you consume. Step back and analyse - the wealthiest approve, create and produce indoctrination and propaganda to further their agenda. These are the same who hold the land and resources - who throw bags of rice to Africa instead of teaching land and crop management, which leads only to mass starvation instead of betterment - who are destroying small family farms across the world to control the world food supply

Why would you believe any of what they tell you?


"Skin for skin!" Satan replied. "A man will give all he has for his own life." Job 2:4


If you fear for your life because it's all you value, you will give and do anything to save it. Eugenics? Yep. Depopulation cull? Yep. Please, stop and consider why this fear porn is being spread - it puts you in fear for your very life and it will lead you to exactly Satan's point. You've reached it - your hardened heart contemplates these evils which you propose. You are ready to kill other people's children. You are already ready to force sterilisation upon your fellow man. You, sir, are Hitler and can't even see it.

"Man is becoming god" - Adolph Hitler

He fell for Satan's lies too. Man reaches the point in deluded thinking that he is the top, that he is divine, that he is god. He then starts to define good and evil from a human viewpoint - what feels pleasurable is encouraged even if it means dath to someone else! You even said it! You get to go out and screw around to your hearts content! How utterly masochistic and self absorbed and how low can man descend? Jesus tells us - MUCH LOWER. And yet, the world is fast rejecting the Truth about ourselves - that inherent knowledge of good and evil is a death sentence for mankind, who devoid of their Creator's spirit, succumb to the age old promise - you can become like God, holding life and death within your hands.

"Man is becoming god" - Adolph Hitler



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
You're trying to play the Malthusian Catastrophe. Some limits, when going to infinity, do hit zero. Malthus was right in his calculations. However, Malthus wrote his predictions in 1798, and has been disproven every day since.

As I said Malthus's math was right. To him the equations was a simple equation of limits. It wasn't until the 1920s did we truly have workable competition models that explained why Malthus's prediction never happened. Malthus's math was right, but his equation was wrong. What the equations are are non-linear differentials, that is populations are a subject of their environment. It is something intrinsic in nature. We use these equations today to determine all kinds of crazy things like gang violence and how often you go to the store. To the non-initiated (math illiterate) it may seem like witchcraft, but to make the story short: in a big picture, everything is fine, and humanity is not on the brink of extinction. Some countries may collapse, but humans are fine.

I can cite my textbooks, if you'd like, but the shortened argument is that starvation does not occur because of lack of food production, but because of lack of access to food (when people starve to death it is typically in urban centers when food deliveries stop). Mali, for example, had a famine that simultaneously had food rotting on the shelves. The problem was so many people had become impoverished and lacked a skill that produced enough wages to purchase food. The poverty problem is an entirely different subject than lack of production.

More over, Phoenix's argument is completely false. Apparently, nobody told them that the global population is in decline. I've written about this before, addressing most of the arguments.

As far as living space is concerned, the per capita total is roughly 1 person for 84 acres. Is all that land arable? No, but it doesn't really matter as not everybody has the skills to make use of 84 acres, and instead live with a bunch of other people on a single acre in a metropolis.

The growth paradigm ain't. Mathematically it holds true only as long as the initial assumptions are true, but when those assumptions aren't true, then the whole damn thing falls on its face.

Don't buy the hype. It wasn't true in 1798, it's not true today.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
I think you are very wrong.

China being a country of sensibilities enacted a one child policy back in the seventies. There has been a great amount of MSM and Western mis-information about how it was started and continued.

This system allows every women to have one child. This engenders a negative population growth as for every two people in china today there will be only one in future years.

This is the fair way to implement a global population reduction. We do not have to, and never should try to stop the right of procreation. We just need to limit it.

Mother Nature will take care of this problem without any help from us. Any event that interferes with global food production, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere for a reasonable period of time will, right now, send billions to their death due to starvation and disease. A massive CME, a volcanic winter or global weather change could and WILL do it.

My advice is to chill out. Mother Nature has this one!

P


Except that Chinese culture requires a male to propagate lineage. Therefore infanticide of females was common. As well as abandonment of girls into orphanages where they are simply left to die in pain.

www.youtube.com...

They now have a demographic imbalance with too many frustrated angry males.

As pointed out above, there is no shortage of space on planet earth. Our problems are greed, concentration of power and misallocation of available land and resources.

The 'we need to stop the poor breeding so we can keep our share' is as pernicious an idea now as it was when Malthus kicked it off in the late 1700s. It always leads to horror and suffering.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


I think you misunderstand me entirely, but if you want to call me Hitler I can't stop you.

I think you'll find me surprisingly open to other ideas. If you have them, instead of bashing my ideas because you think they are evil then why not come up with a better solution and prove your point by example hmm?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


I hadn't heard of Malthusian Catastrophe before you brought it up in this thread. Also I have never seen any documentation stating the population is on a natural decline. In fact I've heard from several different sources that the population increases by at least several million each year. If we aren't expanding at a fast rate then it would certainly alleviate a lot of my fears for the future. Can you provide documentation?

I think people have it under the impression that I'm incredibly close minded and not open to change but that's entirely untrue; I think people will find proving a point to me requires evidence of some sort as opposed to simply insulting my humanity. I thank you for not assuming such and providing me with a basis of argument against my proposed ideas based on what you believe to be a false concept.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Also I would gladly give my life to ensure mankind saw peace and prosperity for a millennium without suffering caused by stupidity and growth beyond reason. Not all men are so selfish as to put themselves above mankind. I'm not a Christian but I believe Jesus was considered to be such a "man".



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
It is funny how they try to tell us that our economy is growing at an acceptable rate......It is still way less than it was in 08. They neglect to tell us it is still way down and the only reason it is growing is that food and rent is increasing along with the price of large appliances and so on. But that computer that you can't eat is now a third as much and cell phone service is cheaper so you can still talk as you starve.


This competition of economic growth and competition in general is destroying everything we built in the past. It has gotten out of hand. I don't mind competition but lately it seems like everyone is choosing sides at an almost crazy infatuation. We need to get this under control. Big corporations just have to trim the overpayed personal at the top and their diapers will be priced to sell. I use diapers as a recent example.

Good thread here, I will be watching peoples replies.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
The population doubles every 50 years and that was at the last guesstimate based on the last 150 years, but that number is accelerating with the advancements of medication, general safety and less people dieing in wars (overall).

Now its true that the planet CAN support many many more hundreds of years worth of growth with the right precautionary planting of food and fresh water sources found and used more efficiently.

However. What is a large solar flare was to knock out communications for a few weeks, or an oil crisis hits a country for more than a month, what happens to the supply then? All the super stores in developed country's dry up, or planes cant fly cargo to more remote places with more modest smaller stores etc. We are not protected from major catastrophes and for the overall population of the planet this might come as a blessing in disguise.

I doubt if we will see overpopulation, in terms of sheer available food/water sources, fail to meet the needs of the human race's requirements, in our life times, but to just stamp down your foot and say "theres enough land for everyone" while true is ignoring the fact that massive amount of it are desert, sea and ice. Its a bit idealistic to say that while theres enough land theres not enough seed and water to actually grow anything, never mind the million upon millions of cows we farm producing massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere every day its not just cars and truck planes and crane trains etc reducing air quality and effecting our atmospheric sun shield.

There are just so many factors, just a dip or raise in temperature of 10 degrees over 100 years could devastate crops, or push farms north/south to cope, which would have a dramatic effect on food supply. Theres very real evidence everywhere from every angle is is a problem, just because its not at your door step yet, does not mean you should feel like its not an issue (or wont be).



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


There are 2 things we need to acknowledge before addressing the problem...
1. Where is most of the growth occurring

In the Western world birth rates are low, as are the birth rates in many European countries. Asia has relatively high population but they recognize this and tax families with more than 1 child. The Middle Eastern countries on the other hand have highest birth rates, and not only do they not recognize the problem they are encouraging procreation.

2. What is driving that growth

The population of all species around the world is directly related to the availability of food/nutrition. In the case of humans most of our food is mass produced, and is highly dependent on energy production. If energy is in abundance than production of food becomes very cheap. As we all know most of our energy comes from fossil fuels, and as we also know the middle easts primary export is Oil. So their boom is tied with the export of Oil.

To give an example of where this is relevant... In some cases mass amounts of corn are shipped from one side of the country to the other just to feed cows. It can get cows fatter, faster and for less cost per pound than other methods of feeding. However due to the rise in fuel prices this cost advantage is starting to turn the other way, since shipping the corn is becoming almost impractical. The mass production of food was only possible while energy costs remained low. Imagine if most farmers switched to grass feeding... It would result in less beef and higher costs for consumers.


So here are some possible solutions...
1. The best long term solution is an optimistic one, but eventually we will need to colonize other planets. It could be 50 years, 100 years, or even 1000 years from now.
2. Humans innovations have been the cause of our growth from the beginning of our race. From hunting, to farming, to irrigation, fertilizers, to pesticides, growth hormones, GMO, etc... Eventually we find ways to produce more food with the same or less resources. This will be the primary non violent solution, until colonizing other planets becomes possible.
3. Reduce dependency on fossil fuels... It will result in less waste and raise the cap on human population.
4. Fertility rates will drop from consuming processed/synthetic foods. I can't pronounce most of the ingredients in my food anymore. I am sure it can't all be good. As food prices rise, cheaper substitutes are added to foods so that demand can be met.
5. Worst case scenario resources become so scarce that it leads to wars/genocide.
6. The least likely outcome... The world ends on December 21st, 2012. Population = 0



The bottom line though is that we need energy to maintain or increase population cap. This increase in energy production must also not result in more waste, or it will lower our population cap. It seems to be a circular problem. Which is why we need to produce less waste, recycle remaining waste, and find more space to store non recycle materials.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join