An after dinner drink gone bad - because of over-population!

Yesterday afternoon I had a lovely dinner with a close friend and we went to a garden pub.
It's somebody quite a bit older than me.

She started speaking about what she heard on the radio about over-population, how species are dying daily, and how humans are breeding themselves into extinction, and we'll be extinct before 100 years (the 6th extinction or whatnot).

I replied that I could not necessarily agree (knowing, also from ATS, how many opinions there are about this) and that some countries have a negative growth rate (which means that some form of immigration is inevitable), and that the Elites have supported population control, and propaganda for population control.
Well, I think most people are for some form of population management, but let me rephrase that the genocidal pruning of the "useless eaters" is what can also lurk behind such arguments.

She kept saying the earth is over-populated.
My point was: how do we know when the earth is overpopulated?
How do we know so many species are dying every day, or who crunched those numbers?
Maybe we should just have better management and distribution.

Eventually she got quite loud and somewhat snarling.
Then she spoke about how "we" must feed the world and drop bags of food from planes.
But is this what feeds the world?
Bags from helicopters and planes?
Great propaganda shots and pop songs, but is that really feeding the world?

Next she said that if she was a young person she would never "breed", because the world is simply overpopulated.
Then I told her that as a gay person the most common argument thrown at me is that we cannot "breed", but if I could I'd actually love to.

Then we just sat in silence and ordered the bill.
We spoke subsequently, and all seems so-so OK.

It scared me though, because we've always discussed everything, and suddenly it seemed like I was facing a fascist environmentalist.
My point was just that there are other opinions on this.
And the reaction was something like: "What? You don't believe the earth is over-populated and our only solution is to have less people? HOW DARE YOU?"

Right you are on the extremes of opinions these days. It seems more and more, people are becoming closed off and mentally isolated by taking the position that they are 100% right, without question and everyone else wither agrees or is there to be educated ..or put in their place. No room for hearing each other or even allowing that people can disagree...and part company still in disagreement, but learned something from the exchange of ideas. It's a sad and disturbing thing to see developing and I'm seeing it in real life more in the last few months than ever before.


Oh..by the way, it wouldn't have helped. I know. In fact, it might have gotten you slapped...but I couldn't resist sharing this. It crossed my mind the second you said she talked about dropping food from planes like Bernanke drops money from his figurative cartoon helicopter.

U.S. Food Drop Kills Civilian, Military Says

Who said there can't be too much of a good thing? About 1,200 pounds too much ... in that case.

* Umm.. (embarrassed smile) Try the link now. err.. yeah.. sowwy

Any time someone uses the word 'breed' internal red flags start being thrown. I've rarely, if ever, heard the term used in a positive light and its nearly always said with a, somewhat, elitist attitude. If poverty and hunger were problems that this world truly wanted to solve it'd be done within a decade....but alas...

reply to post by halfoldman


Only an idiot believes the "overpopulation" myth.
Above all, the fact is, math don't lie!
Doing the math would give every man woman and child a 1/4 acre and every man woman and child would fit into the landspace of Australia.
I think the real problem is rich folk with too much "stuff" and mismanagement.
Really, who needs anything over a hundred acres???

Well this "conversion" happened over one radio talk program.
That's what scares me even more, although unfortunately I didn't get the name of the speaker, but I think there are a lot going around parroting the same stuff.

I'm not necessarily saying what they said was all wrong, but for goodness sake, one must question a bit.
It's easy to slam politicians or religious preachers, but that's not where the mind-control or propaganda stops or starts.

I felt like I was back in college.
A hippie or environmentalist can do no wrong.
Maybe because I was like that when I was much younger it was unexpected that I should raise other points.

I thought a lot about David Icke's talk at Oxford on Youtube (not that I agree with him on all points).
Mainly about people policing other people.

Did I police back?
Maybe, although I didn't have one cogent counter-argument, I was just skeptical of many presented to me.

I simply do not think humans will be extinct in 100 years.
Perhaps humans will suffer and find other solutions.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Your link took me to my own thread topic.
Quite strange, yet interesting.

This is chit-chat, and I've never said I was 100 percent right on anything.

I think a lot of famines are really made by humans, and in SA I think we're seeing the gradual destruction of an once almost self-sufficient and competitive industry.
It is purely done for political reasons.

The world is certainly overpopulated...in some areas
Namely India and China. They have bred far outside of their resources.

Western nations generally are fine for now. Bit crowded, but that is by choice (most want to crowd in and around cities).

the OP argument is a argument on resource for the local population, and the environmental impact. I think 2 kids per couple in the west is fine..but the highly pop areas need to settle with 1 kid if they want a future that isn't dismal.

Then there is the issue with places, such as india and china, becoming more and more industrial..the impact of billions of people suddenly getting cars, eating meats, etc...this will indeed effect the global climate more and more.

the solution is simple...we need to build a tardis and leave
or..maybe that is simply my solution.

Over consumption of resources is a problem. We consume more than we need to survive.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Good points.

But are India or China currently starving?

Are they staring extinction in the face?

I don't think so, and they are far ahead of southern Africa.

European Western nations are facing a decline.
I don't have a crystal ball, but it doesn't look so rosy in the long term.
They face nations that believe in large families, and have a dependence on migrant/immigrant labor because they've been blasted with with this propaganda on over-population.

reply to post by halfoldman


The link should work now. Sorry about that...

Of course it's chit chat. I might have totally misread your focus ..I thought you were talking about how extreme she became over the whole thing as much as the specifics of what she got so overworked about? My bad, if so.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Good points.

But are India or China currently starving?

Are they staring extinction in the face?

I don't think so, and they are far ahead of southern Africa.

Depends on who you ask. The average indian or Chinese? yes..they more or less are starving..which is also ironically why they breed more. The bigger the litter, the more chance of someone crawling out of the poverty and in turn providing for you/yours

I don't know too much about SA outside of..erm...zef...and cape town being pretty (in some areas), and like several completely different types of cultures being slammed together and forced to live side by side (but hey, at least its no longer instantaneously related to racism and nothing more).

Anyhow, ultimately both sides of the argument is valid. If we have much better global lines of resource deliverance, use, and remove most of the corruption, we are perfectly fine populationwise. That mixed in with helping developing nations to focus in on green renewable energies over pollution early on and I think we will be ok.
However, that is idealism over reality..and the reality is corruption, mass waste, and toxic practices of the big boys..and so yes..if we don't want to change our ways, then there needs to be less of us globally speaking...

I prefer a change of ways personally...I like people...the more the merrier.but with all having a chance at a nice comfy life in balance with nature.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

No problem, I think you actually got my gist quite well.
No apologies required, it's chit-chat.


I just think right now SA is in a precarious position.
People see and hear all these Western programs about immigration and multiculturalism, and so forth.

But the same thing is happening here.
There's an area in Johannesburg called Hillbrow that's a first stop for immigrants and refugees from across Africa, and they say whenever Africa sneezes, Hillbrow catches a cold.

Then there's massive urbanization.

SA doesn't really have a negative growth however (despite a devastating AIDS pandemic), and we're getting loads of people.
Some bring skills and contribute; others bring crime and waste limited resources.
The politicians just steal and waste everything.

But can I really blame this on global over-population?

reply to post by SaturnFX

The average person from India and China is starving?

Wow, first I heard.

Actually China has had an one-child policy.

OK, on this term "breeding": I think it's OK as an evolutionary term, since that world-view basically equates humans with animals anyway.
I think it could get dicey if applied to specific groups of people, perhaps, instead of a global collective.
The Afrikaans word was actually "vermeerder", which can also mean to increase or multiply.
As a verb "breeding" could also be used in a slightly different sense, that is, potentially procreative sex.
It's quite clinical and biological, and not ideal, but it's essentially correct.
I wouldn't go as far as "human litters" however, although that's a matter of taste.
Basically that's what the population overload theory reduces us to.

The paradigm that is trapping us in the present "overpopulation" rhetoric is the practice of considering land to be a possession and a very valuable one at that. This creates a situation where vast tracts of land end up being wasted rather than efficiently utilized.

I like having a yard to look at, as do we all. But the reality is that my pretty lawn, and the lawns and houses of my entire neighborhood, are sitting on land that could be used for food growth.

The reality is that people could change their value systems and the entire worlds population could be housed in a city about the size of Texas - or in a series of small cities that would leave the preponderance of the planet open to sustainable agricultural growth - without having to "cull the herd" or limit procreation at all.

Inb4 "ZOMG U DA AGENDA21!!!!!!"

The extremes tend to get heard on this issue sadly. The psycho hippies who are, essentially, cynical and preach that nature matters more than man - ignoring that man is part of nature and, therefore, anything we do IS, by definition "natural". On the other side the industrial capitalists who try to find profit in every resource that can possibly be exploited for gain.

Neither side makes sense at all. Progress, science, humanity, nature, and sustainability are all pretty compatible if we simply take a common sense approach to things. Living in cities isn't for everyone and people rebel against it. Then again... Manhattan and Paris aren't cheap places to live for good reason. Well designed and modern cities are extremely convenient places to live.

reply to post by Hefficide

I think that sums it up very well.

This could cause a clash eventually between private property owners and those who think "the earth belongs to everybody".
Perhaps it should, but historically it hasn't made socialist countries much richer.
It does cast doubts on what should define personal property, or who should define the anthropology of space.

Thinking about Paris: it is also close to immigrant communities who are very poor, like the Roma, and areas that are sometimes described as virtual states within a state.
These are fast growing communities who are not much interested in assimilation.
Perhaps they are necessary communities.

I have an inkling however that not all communities are equally interested in population control.
Not that I'm saying that they culturally should.
But the crux of the matter for me is that the situation is so complex, and it does have to do with resources, wars, disruptions, gender issues, property ownership, migration and so much more.
To simplistically say the planet is over-populated is such a sweeping negation of all that complexity.

reply to post by halfoldman
The more I hear about South Africa, the more I'd like to see the place some day. Perhaps when this whole world wide period of turmoil and chaos settles down...if it ever really does in my lifetime anyway.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Come see South Africa any time.
The exchange rate is good.

We have problems, like all other countries.

We also have much more ... from modern sprawling cities to bush-veld, and the friendliest people you can meet.

We have long-term challenges for sure.
If we could get state or government wastage and corruption sorted, and the global firms they are in cahoots with, we could be the best country ever.

The first thing the ANC leaders did was have a global arms deal (for weapons that nobody needed) for over R60 Billion.
Now with resources squandered like that, I think over-population is a secondary issue.

We live such a short span of time on this little rock floating through space. Yet we spend so much of that time purposely being unhappy. Where's the benefit in any of that?
Things suck all the time all over the place. We can make small changes, through our actions, and sometimes big changes. But other things will develop and life will suck again for some.

Do we spend our time wallowing in the muck and mire that we create? Or is it too much to ask, that we take the time to enjoy the peaceful, beautiful aspects of life, of nature, of what we do have and can enjoy.

Just some humble thoughts from a small little bunny.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

The average person from India and China is starving?

Poverty in India is widespread, with the nation estimated to have a third of the world's poor. In 2010, the World Bank reported that 32.7% of the total Indian people fall below the international poverty line of US$ 1.25 per day (PPP) while 68.7% live on less than US$ 2 per day

about 70% of india then is dirt poor..almost half of that number is starving.
That's pretty bad.

Deaths from malnutrition on a large scale have continued across India into modern times. In Maharashtra alone, for example, there were around 45,000 childhood deaths due to mild or severe malnutrition in 2009, according to the Times of India.[128] Another Times of India report in 2010 has stated that 50% of childhood deaths in India are attributable to malnutrition.

And china, in a lesser extent due to mega social programs, But they still are dealing with 71.6% (948 million) living on less than 5$ a day. Actually a huge improvement from the 80s when 81% of the Chinese population lived on less than $1.25 a day.
So starving may be a slight exaggeration, but then again, one can hardly suggest eating rice and beetles to survive is living the good life.

reply to post by beezzer

Nice thought my friend.

Until the bad hippies in suits come and slap carbon taxes on everything, or push up electricity prices 16 percent a year, for example.

Somebody on the other hand has to pay for all the other bunnies who don't pay a cent and will run riot if they don't get free stuff.