Overpopulation is not a problem

who cares
eat (meat), drink, smoke, and be merry... live your life to the fullest and let the future generations deal with our fuck ups. I'm not gonna waste my time worrying about the world when everyone else is just as lazy/ doesnt give a fuck as much as i do. Noone is going to do shit, o not enough people to make enough of a difference. Besides in the year 2026 a huge astroid is supposed to come closer to earth than the moon and it has a 1 in 20 chance of hitting us, says the author of Death by Black Hole... i dont remeber his name though.

 

Won't you feel silly when the asteroid misses?

I'm curious, "I'm not gonna waste my time worrying about the world when everyone else...". What is more fun that making a difference?

I think its much more fun to do things that I think are important, than to just get by and not care. Even if I'm wrong and what I'm doing is futile, its better than being completely powerless. A pessimist may be right more often, but optimists have more fun.

 

that may be true, but im not going to bother myself with helping people whom the majority dont care about anyone but themselves. so all im saying is that i should just worry about myself and those who are close to me right now, and not worry about people who im not even going to be alive to know, hopefully. i can definantly see why people want to save the world, dont get me wrong, and i would be perfectly happy to help if it would actually make a difference. being negative is my nature and always has been and so... i dont know where to go with what im sayin im a bit drunk but you get the general idea.

 

apathy is laziness by another name.

those people in the future who will have to clean up our mess are our decendants... maybe someone in your close circle will have a child, hmmm?

 

I wanted to comment further on your irrelevant rat analogy, as there is plenty of room on the planet for humans to multiply further, at least for the forseeable future. That's one of the practical reasons why humans tend to multiply so much, because they are apparently usually finding ample room to reproduce into, in spite of all the anti-life dogma and political/economic oppression.

Somewhere, in reading about the perplexing and controversial population issue, I recall reading some article in which some enviro-radical feminist author or whatever she was, talked about Ping! Ping! Ping! A baby on a mother's back, another one walking behind, and another one swelling her belly. Well what's so wrong with welcoming one's own children to come to life? Apparently, when so many of the world's people don't practice any awkward, unnatural "birth control," babies can sometimes come so fast and close together, that it squeezes the world to rising population density. And yet antinatalists, don't seem to want for anybody to breed very much, and they also don't want to breed so much either. So for who, are they saving all this space, or should I say more accurately as the issue is framed, resources, for? I disagree with the whole, possibly racist mindset of the critics of "excessive" human procreation. For many people apparently, Ping! Ping! Ping! is a rather obvious interpretation of God's commandment to humans to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That means "everywhere" that humans happen to live, not just in my hometown or country. I want for all the more people to be around to enjoy life, so I criticize the perverse "Lifeboat Ethic," as I may not have explained as well as I had intended, because I actually do want for people to live longer, to enjoy lower infant mortality, and to be encouraged towards more childbearing, as I do believe that all countries should explore how to grow vaster and thicker with lots more people, for the greater good of the many.

When God commands people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, that implies many things, not just to avoid "preventative measures" to limit family size, but also that humans are welcome to populate the planet fuller and fuller of people, for the greater good of the many.

China: I suspect that China's 1-child policy, wasn't even their idea. Commie Chairman Mao thought it a good idea to discourage "family planning" and encourage large families. A large and growing population would make China strong, or so he said. Well maybe, maybe not. It may make them more needy. But it would at least welcome all the more people to come to life, and to be able to experience life, a common interest of the entire human race. And big population is a rather interesting situation. So why would China flipflop and turn anti-natalist? A likely explanation would be Wester power mongers leaning on them, fearing that if the world's most populous country can't "control" its population growth, then "as goes China, so goes the world." And so it was a world domination scheme, to pave the way towards global tyranny, by the globalist power mongers, gaining power by manufacturing lies and phony crises. Well if "as goes China, so goes the world," then that's all the more reason to advocate the maybe 350 or 450 million women of childbearing age in China, to have their "traditionally very large families" in China, as more population would be great for the human race anyway.

The Philippines: Some former Prime Minister of The Philippines, both pro-life and Catholic I think, shrugged off the supposed rapid population growth of her nation, saying the whole world population is growing, and so it will be okay. While some people may think that a flippant response, I find it to be very wise, because if the whole world, was just the Philippine island(s), then they might be breeding themselves into a corner, so to speak. But since the entire world is growing, they can reasonably expect to import any population growth adaptations that the world develops in the process. And so the whole world growings, makes it easier and safer for all nations to grow in population, side-by-side in cooperation, for the greater good of the many.

 

yeah but then its their responsibility, not mine.

 

Just nuke China - Overpopulation solved.

 

Population phobics like to make specious claims that the world has "too many" people. Oh really? Well could somebody tell me which people, are the "too many?" Perhaps China and India won't mind if we just get rid of all the people who live there, and then we can have some new frontiers to colonize? Why don't China just rid of half of their people? Oh, but the people to be eliminated, might object, and it could be ugly? Maybe those who claim the world to have "too many" people could set the example, that only fools would follow, and futilely "sacrifice" themselves to some volcano? How do they think themselves "exempt" from being part of the "too many" of which they claim? Why would they have any more right to live, than babies yet to be conceived? Merely because they happened to be born first? Do human rights, only now get tossed out to the lucky few that can catch them, like some sort of lottery? Aren't human rights universal? No matter how many people there might get to be, everybody has the right to live and to procreate. We can't just get rid of innocent people, nor is there any practical or moral way to deny them their children. Who would want the sort of civil government, that can be in everybody's bedroom at once, to make sure that they don't breed "too much?"

I am deeply concerned about the 350 or 450 million Chinese women of childbearing age, many of who still want to have their "traditionally very large" families. Welcome the children to grow up, and also have large families. Far better to live in rows of closely-space highrises bursting with people, than for some wicked government to try to impose population quotas. And besides, more people leads in time to more housing construction anyway. The world can hold or be made to hold, lots more people, so go ahead and have all your precious darling babies, people. An obvious purpose of human life is to make more human life.

There is no reasonable alternative, but to welcome people to grow all the more populous, and adapt. When people have more babies, it promotes the greater good of the many.

 

China grew into a "population billionaire" and the world went on. Then India also joined the "population billionaire club" and the world went on. I have a sneaky suspicion that the world would still go on, even if with dozens of population billionaires and multiple billions of people living in both China and India. And it wouldn't even seem much different than today, as people would be as used to being so numerous, as they are now, probably all the more so.

 

Can the world handle more people?
Yes and No.
Are the environmental and starvation problems from our current population?
Yes and No.

There are so many factors involved here. It's not only the number of the popluation but how that population lives. Over the past ten years, I have seen destruction of land for "new" homes. At the same time, there were plenty of homes for sale. Yes, there will be a need for new homes. But also, there are people that insist on a "new" home. Another factor is the size of homes and buildings today. Bigger is better. In looking at house plans, I was amazed to find that a 2000 sq ft house was considered small. My current house in 950 sq ft. Yes it can get crowded at times, but it also forces everyone there to interact. (yeah another topic) The resources to build and maintain the larger structures is a strain on the environment. Therefore more people wanting bigger houses, the less the earth can take. On the other hand, more people be willing to life in less space, the more the earth can take.

The same goes for vehicles and such. Mississippi got a Nissan plant several years ago. Recently the millionth vehicle was produced. I know may of the vehicles go overseas, but I began to wonder. If all the plants are producing this many cars, when will there be enough?


Are we to blame for the starvation in world? Not directly, but it would be great to be a part of the solution.

 

Pronatalist said "There is no reasonable alternative, but to welcome people to grow all the more populous, and adapt. When people have more babies, it promotes the greater good of the many."

There is a reasonable alternative. Education. Educate the people about the consequences of over-population.
I understand your perspective and I can see your point, people have a right to life for life can be beautiful. People have a right to breed and have children it is after-all our biological impulse. But I believe you are overlooking a critical aspect of the equation.
What about the earth?
The mother that gives life to us all.
Does not every other living organisms deserve a chance to live and grow and multiply?
If human beings keep rapidly expanding and filling the earth and taking it's resources it will eventually reach a point that we've used every available resource. I know you doubt this, but it's fact.
Take Easter Island for example.
The people of Easter Island over-populated their island, exhausted it of all it's resources and eventually died out. Is that the future you want? People to reproduce to a point of no-return. To a point where we have ravaged the earth so much that there are no resources left resulting in mass starvation, warfare, etc.
Here's another part of the equation. Responsibility.
We have a responsibility. Not only to reproduce, but also to preserve. We must consider the well-being of future generations and that means future generation beyond the next. We must look ahead many generations.
How will they be able to experience the full beauty of life if we have inhabited every corner of the world? What would life be without a forest or a river running wild? How beautiful would the world be with the wild? Do you want your children and your children's children and so forth to live a world free from the wilds? I do not! That is why I say we must advocate responsibility and that means educating people of the dangers of over-population.

 

No, that's not true. Humans produce most of the resources we use, so with proper management and freedom, more people = more resources + more options.

And of course humans should rapidly expand and fill the earth, because human life is so great, and because that's what God commanded, every human life is sacred and precious, people of course expect to be welcome to have their precious and darling babies, etc.

Easter Island reeks of being a popular Malthusian myth. If the people there supposedly "overpopulated," why didn't they leave and spread to other lands? No, whatever disaster apparently befell them, was brought on by their own stupidity and false religion. I want for people to reproduce to a point of "no return" where the populace accepts that they actually do have to be so numerous after all. A point at which population "control" freaks wouldn't dare try to impose arbitrary "limits" on the natural procreation that God commanded. And no, those ill effects that you mention, aren't any more likely with greater numbers, but rather more likely with the stupidity that accompanies population "control," along with the apathy contrary to developing the needed resources.

To some extent, planning for growth is wise. There is a far better alternative to people multiplying seemingly "by chance" or willy-nilly. How about people have large families on purpose and state the reasons why? Wouldn't that be even better?

 

"No, that's not true. Humans produce most of the resources we use, so with proper management and freedom, more people = more resources + more options."


Please give any example of a resource we use that we produce... that doesn't utilize anything from nature. PLEASE list one.

"Easter Island reeks of being a popular Malthusian myth. If the people there supposedly "overpopulated," why didn't they leave and spread to other lands? No, whatever disaster apparently befell them, was brought on by their own stupidity and false religion. I want for people to reproduce to a point of "no return" where the populace accepts that they actually do have to be so numerous after all. A point at which population "control" freaks wouldn't dare try to impose arbitrary "limits" on the natural procreation that God commanded. And no, those ill effects that you mention, aren't any more likely with greater numbers, but rather more likely with the stupidity that accompanies population "control," along with the apathy contrary to developing the needed resources."

They couldn't leave their island because they cut down all the trees and thus had no way of making a boats. I believe until this very day no trees grow on Easter Island.

"To some extent, planning for growth is wise. There is a far better alternative to people multiplying seemingly "by chance" or willy-nilly. How about people have large families on purpose and state the reasons why? Wouldn't that be even better?"

If peolpe wish to have large families that is their choice. I do not believe that governments should interfere in our private lives.
I know people with large families that are extremely happy people. Good for them.
However, consider all the children in the world who need families. Adoption is a solution for those who wish to have large families. Just a thought.
This a heated topic and I understand you point-of-view, however, the point-of-view you are advocating is irresponsible.

 

Im with you! w000t w000t. Seriously, for those who are thinking about bringing more kids in this world what about the ones already here that need families and homes? No overpopulation with adoption, just compassion.

 

Electricity. Utilizes natural resource in it production.
House. Made from natural resources.
Food. Is a, and uses natural resources.
Cars. Made from natural resources.
Roads. Made from natural resouces.
These things are not ours, this earth is not ours for the taking. We are a part of the planet, not the planet itself. We are part of the life-cycle, not the life-cycle itself.

Well. Details aside. The real point of the Easter Island story is this.
The population grew so large that they expanded past the islands ability to provide for them and thus a crisis emerged.
Now imagine that on a global scale. And thus the problem shows itself.
Human society, and especially todays, never has shown an ability to stifle it's desire for growth and desire for material goods. So given the earth has a finite amount of space and resources and humanity's trend toward growth it is easy to see that one day we may hit the "point of no return" so to say. We may reach a point where the earth will no longer be able to sustain us. And then what good will it be having large families if no one in those families can eat? How much will the mass of humanity be able to enjoy life is they are hungry? Not to mention the spectrum of problems a large starving population would bear. Disease, Warfare, Crime, Genocide, etc.

Hold the phone...
Having large families is a public matter and thus out of the reach of the individual. So in essence you are saying that we should establish a public program (Government) to encourage people to have large families.
Does this not run counter to the freedom you are defending?
Will you also offer similiar services to promote small families?
Otherwise there is no freedom. Freedom is dependant on choice.
No choice, no freedom.

I am fully aware that people push the environmental agenda for their own benefit. This is why I do not consider myself an environmentalists.
I am merely a free-thinker. My agenda is not theirs. My agenda is protecting the earth and keeping it's wild place wild. It is sacred. Life is sacred and has a right to exist, not only human life, but plant, animal, etc.

Government is a powerful tool that can easily be abused. I do not believe in population control. I believe in educating people and allowing them to make their own decisions. Perhaps the more people become aware of our true position on the earth, they will see the dangers of irresponsible population growth.

I will even say this, the earth could probably support several billion more people, if only we were to wisen up and live properly. The way that most "1st World" nations lives is a lifestyle that will lead to our demise. That is, unless another castastrophe does not befall us first. Or if we discover how to space-travel quickly and efficiently... but that's another story.

 

There must be some 20, maybe 100 ways to produce electricity. All that is needed, is enegy, and energy is almost everywhere in nature. Even humans can produce energy, but only up to about 300 watts by pedal-power, less than 1/2 horsepower, not nearly enough, so we rely on machines to produce our electricity.

Currently, there doesn't appear to be any one "best" way to produce electricity, so we need to, for now, develop all economically viable sources. (Because the human population is already so big.) Hydro-electric dams where water and natural gorges make dams economically feasible. Wind energy on windy mountains. "Renewable" to stretch fuels such as coal and natural gas, so as to not bid up the price too much, and not have to purchase as much. But the wind doesn't always blow, nor does the sun always shine, so a "mix" of sources is required. Nuclear power can power big cities, without consuming all that much, but some nations don't seem civilized nor smart enough to run nuclear power plants safely. But the technology is getting better and safer.

As with most everything, there is ample raw resources, if we would but properly develop them.

Didn't I just say, that a house can be made, of most anything durable? There's lots of that, in nature. Even slate roofs, what's that? Rock. There's plenty of rock.

There's no shortage of organic matter in the world. There's grass and trees most everything, and that can be turned into fruit, grazing cows, ultimately food for humans. Or trees can be cut down for lumber for building furniture and house and for reducing natural forest fires, and the space cleared used for human housing or for growing crops to feed humans. And food is very cheap compared to the immense and sacred value of each and every human life, so of course people should be fed and always encouraged to breed all the more fellow people.

In poorer countries, people can ride bicycles, buses, and trains. But they prefer and are getting cars. Apparently there is ample resources to produce cars too, even for billions of people.

Which happen to also be quite abundant. Concrete is made of sand, technically manmade "rock." Asphalt or oil, is much the same as petroleum hydrocarbons I think, just more carbon and less hydrogen, than propane or gasoline. It's pretty much crud that came out of the ground to begin with. And neither concrete nor asphalt is "permanent." It all crumbles and yields back to nature, but it lasts long enough, for humans to get significant use out of it, before that happens.

Humans transcend nature. God gave us an eternal soul, far more than nature has. Humans live forever with God, but the planet does not live forever. I don't at all suggest that humans "trash" the planet, but rather, that our numbers need not be "limited" by nature, because God gave dominion over nature and other creatures, to man. And if nature could have any "wish," surely nature would want for humans to both eat and breed. Nature would multiply us all the more, if nature could, since humans are a part of nature, and like the plants and animals, we have the seed inside (Gen 1:11), plus, we have the huge bonus that we can use effort and intelligence, to alter nature to better support ever more people.

I know the point. But it appear that enviro wackos speculated what befell Easter Island, and deliberately overlooked the inhumanity and tribal warfare, and merely assumed "overpopulation," in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. I find it hard to believe, that such a huge population of people, would all be so stupid, that nobody would notice that they are about to cut down the last tree, nor to notice that the island is getting "crowded" and resources dwindling, so as to expand to other lands beyond the island. And yes, if humans naturally can, then of course, humans should go ahead and "outgrow" the earth. Do you think that humans should stop loving their children, just because a few eco-wackos, claim to think that the world finally has "enough" people? I do agree with human migration, as one of many tools to keep islands from "overcrowding" with people. But don't you think that new and larger generations of people, would like to have families and reproduce too?

Natural human population growth, isn't being "greedy," but rather being generous and kind. Thinking of others, and not merely ourselves. Sharing the precious gift of life from God, by passing it on to future generations.

Now I also have a few complaints about sometimes conspicuous consumption. It's not that people are consuming too much, but rather the lifestyle of consuming just to consume, sort of like how the stupid TV commercials constantly remind us to do. Want to consume more? Be frugal and plan for the future, but have lots of children. That way, the corporations and businesses and whatever, can have their lots of customers. Buy value stuff that lasts, and build more of it, for more people.

You speak of the human desire for growth, almost like an "addiction." Maybe it is, in some sense. But consider all the economic spasms and disruption then, that would come from population "stabilization"/stagnation. For all of history, human numbers have been accumulating, and now all of a sudden, just because a few population phobics don't understand God's purpose for humans, we are supposed to stop growing, when humans know almost nothing but growth? That's a rather foolhardy "experiment," to even think of trying to impede the natural progress of human expansion. Could one stand in front of a glacier, and expect it to stop? Or maybe stand in the freeway, and hope the big-rig trucks will stop? What's easier and simpler than "controlling" human population growth. Simple. Not controlling it. Letting and welcoming it to expand naturally, as it was meant to, for the greater good of the many.

Are material goods all bad? I hardly think that some over 6.5 billion human beings, can really live all that much "in harmony with nature." I read on some website, at about the time the human race reached the 6 billion milestone, that there are some 326 cities of over a million people. And 16 cities with 10 million or more. By 2025, they predict there will be 650. Do you really think that so many people, can live in the middle of the forest, not disturb much, maybe live in some little teepees, like Indians or more primitive like the Amish? Is that even realistic? No, what is needed, at least for many people who would prefer the modern lifestyle, is material goods, electricity, cheap energy, affordable housing even if in high-density developments or highrises, etc. Cities really are, a form of mild population archology, a place designed to fit in huge numbers of people, within a limited amount of space. Some "environmental" extremists have opined in favor of high-density, so as to keep humans out of the rest of supposed natural or more pristine wilderness. That is not my position at all, as I believe humans need and have the right to roam the entire planet, partly to prevent that "Easter Island" phony scenario of which you speak. Perhaps it increasingly takes the entire planet, just to hold us all, and give us whatever growing room, until population-driven technology growth can in time, improve all the more, as the population rises ever higher.

But I disagree with the gloom and doom Malthusians. If most anything that could limit our numbers is fast fading away, that itself is a signal to grow, and practical reason to grow also. The "point of no return" then, isn't some negative thing, but rather that perhaps the huge size of the human race, becomes increasingly intractable, thus that we should no longer have to hear the whining population control freaks, opining for global fertility control. Perhaps world population growth will soon rebound to being a "given" and family size being considered practically or generally "uncontrollable" again. Actually, it's simpler to treat world population growth as a "given," as the path to take then, is so much clearer. Then natural human population increase, must be accomodated, rather than disparaged. All the better for favoring families and family values.

Oh well, Mars does appear to be the best first alternate place, for human colonization. While a "small" planet, curiously, the land area is about the same, while the global commuting distance would be shorter.

Oh, but the people still will eat. Don't you remember Jesus and his multiplying of the loaves and fishes? God even rained down manna, to feed his people. "Too many" mouths to feed, is hardly an unsolvable problem. All those minds, or God's grace, would allow for the means of food production, to be greatly enhanced, by that time, if ever, but more likely, there will never be so many people.

I didn't deny individual choice here, that people may still have large families. Apparently, people even in "crowded" cities are finding room to reproduce still. What I am saying, is that there are other considerations, so those who say it is nobody's business but their own, are wrong. It's everybody's business, but that doesn't deny individual choice (and responsibility) either. But since the greater good for the many is promoted by people having more babies, society should also encourage large and "unplanned" families. As I have said, I am quite willing to explore how to live and breed in closer proximity to other people (on the global scale) in order to retain my basic freedom to procreate, as I expect other people would believe likewise. But with so many people and so many babies, and the proper respect for children and all, that leads to adopting as they do in developing more pronatalist countries, the attitude that it is just fine for mothers to breastfeed in public, as they may need or want to.

If there is to be any "public policy" about it, it should always be pronatalist. If humans don't naturally favor humans, then aren't we really just savages?

Out of time. Talk to you later.

 

I agree to disagree.
I am not a Christian and I do not have faith, as you do, that God will save us from ourselves.

 

this discussion has degenerated into a wild goose chase.

"and the cat riddled with worms, chases his tail. round and around, round and around. a circle has an empty sound..." -siouxsie