Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 79 of 79

Thread: Over population derail from "Humans as non-animals"

  1. Top | #71
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,170
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    If we assume that we have the right to live the way we do, then the same assumed right cannot be denied to those who seek the same standard of living. Which doesn't make consumerism a good thing to aspire to, only that it is the path we are on, which those on the sidelines see and aspire to achieve for themselves.
    You see, the problem here is that I do see environmental degradation and resource shortages as a dire threat to our communal global existence. I just don't blame the poor underclasses of the global south for that threat. Overpopulation is a red herring.In truth, it is a very small set of people who threaten the survival of this planet with their greed and apathy. And I do not have much sympathy for their prerogatives.

    I claim no right for myself that I would not happily extend to all human beings. I do not assume as you say. I think we all need to learn to live more sustainably, and I think this is more than possible.

    But not if everyone (or anyone) has three cars in their garage.
    I don't disagree with you that we should learn to live more sustainably. It is essential that we do.....now tell it to the marketeers and big business interests.
    And that's who we need to put pressure on. Not poverty-stricken families in Niger, Angola, and Mali.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  2. Top | #72
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,233
    Rep Power
    15
    Some TFTers continue to underestimate the consequences of human overpopulation. We are ALREADY suffering huge degradation of habitat and loss of biodiversity. These are NOT concerns about what will happen if the human population stays at ten billion for centuries; they are already problems. (And I agree with Politesse's example: Monsanto's biological warfare against natural plants in order to increase profits from sales of its "Frankenstein crops" is almost a self-caricature of the huge mistakes H. sapiens is making.)

    And some in the thread HUGELY overestimate the ratio of damage caused by rich versus poor. Fertilizers are used all over the world, and are a major concern, both in terms of the increasing cost of mining phosphate, and in the environmental consequences of washed-away fertilizer. Deforestation is an environmental problem; it happens in developing countries. Depletion of fresh water is also a major problem, and concerns several poor countries.

    The HUGE cost (not limited to habitat destruction) of eating beef is associated with rich countries, but billionaires do NOT consume hugely more beef than average Americans! :-) ... And poor people in poor countries aspire to eat beef also.

    Yes, Man is clever. Beef substitutes are being developed. But to assume that man will find technological workarounds for all the problems of overpopulation is much too Pollyannish. Trivial partial solutions seem to be beyond the reach of America. Mention a 50¢ per gallon tax on gasoline, and Americans will squeal like you're trying to castrate them.

  3. Top | #73
    Veteran Member Tigers!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    On the wing waiting for a kick.
    Posts
    2,285
    Archived
    2,558
    Total Posts
    4,843
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Anyway, I'd still like the proponents of overpopulation to answer my Hypothetical Question: If the choice is between a world of 10 billion happy humans and a world with 5 billion happy humans, is it fair to say the former has a humanity that's twice as happy?
    I would certainly be twice as happy in a world of 5 billon and opposed to 10 billion but only if we get to said 5 billon by eliminating those who think that people should be culled.
    NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

  4. Top | #74
    Veteran Member Tigers!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    On the wing waiting for a kick.
    Posts
    2,285
    Archived
    2,558
    Total Posts
    4,843
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    If we assume that we have the right to live the way we do, then the same assumed right cannot be denied to those who seek the same standard of living. Which doesn't make consumerism a good thing to aspire to, only that it is the path we are on, which those on the sidelines see and aspire to achieve for themselves.
    You see, the problem here is that I do see environmental degradation and resource shortages as a dire threat to our communal global existence. I just don't blame the poor underclasses of the global south for that threat. Overpopulation is a red herring.In truth, it is a very small set of people who threaten the survival of this planet with their greed and apathy. And I do not have much sympathy for their prerogatives.

    I claim no right for myself that I would not happily extend to all human beings. I do not assume as you say. I think we all need to learn to live more sustainably, and I think this is more than possible.

    But not if everyone (or anyone) has three cars in their garage.
    I don't disagree with you that we should learn to live more sustainably. It is essential that we do.....now tell it to the marketeers and big business interests.
    But you do not have to listen to the marketeers and big business interests. They only have as much power as ee give them.
    NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

  5. Top | #75
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,527
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,433
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigers! View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    I don't disagree with you that we should learn to live more sustainably. It is essential that we do.....now tell it to the marketeers and big business interests.
    But you do not have to listen to the marketeers and big business interests. They only have as much power as ee give them.
    Yet many people do swallow the big business economic model of consumerism and perpetual growth, including governments and policy makers.....buy, invest, collect toys, spend...

  6. Top | #76
    Contributor repoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,860
    Archived
    2,280
    Total Posts
    10,140
    Rep Power
    81
    The leftists being over population deniers at the same level as American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation is rather interesting.


  7. Top | #77
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,364
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,340
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigers! View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Anyway, I'd still like the proponents of overpopulation to answer my Hypothetical Question: If the choice is between a world of 10 billion happy humans and a world with 5 billion happy humans, is it fair to say the former has a humanity that's twice as happy?
    I would certainly be twice as happy in a world of 5 billon and opposed to 10 billion but only if we get to said 5 billon by eliminating those who think that people should be culled.
    Is this a suggestion that the way of reducing population should be by culling out those who think that people should be culled?

    Just damned, another irony meter blown.

  8. Top | #78
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,846
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    steve_bank you are playing on at the margins as an argument for the notion that overpopulation can lead to extinction. The margins will exist no matter what the species, but the capacity to increase carrying capacity to defeat any kind or capacity violation rests with few species like humans.
    I did not say extinction. Loking at civikization as a system I expect a large scale population decline in the future.

    We say catastrophic collapse in China ubder Mao leading to mass starvation.

    The estimate that in coming times width climate change we will no longer be a net food exporter.

    The md west aquifer is drawing down. California without drought has a water problem.

    It is only a matter of time.

    Humans will survive, our system will not. As evidenced by Congress we are unabe to deal withmajor problems.

    Biden resends Trump immigration policy. Now the media is outraged that we are unable to deal with a rising number of unaccompanied kids on the border. Cognitive dissonance.

    Western civilization is not manageable by the current paradigms.

    That is why China is on the rise. As much as we dislike Chinese policy they are getting things done.

  9. Top | #79
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    24,357
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    34,834
    Rep Power
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    steve_bank you are playing on at the margins as an argument for the notion that overpopulation can lead to extinction. The margins will exist no matter what the species, but the capacity to increase carrying capacity to defeat any kind or capacity violation rests with few species like humans.
    I did not say extinction. Loking at civikization as a system I expect a large scale population decline in the future.

    We say catastrophic collapse in China ubder Mao leading to mass starvation.

    The estimate that in coming times width climate change we will no longer be a net food exporter.

    The md west aquifer is drawing down. California without drought has a water problem.

    It is only a matter of time.

    Humans will survive, our system will not. As evidenced by Congress we are unabe to deal withmajor problems.

    Biden resends Trump immigration policy. Now the media is outraged that we are unable to deal with a rising number of unaccompanied kids on the border. Cognitive dissonance.

    Western civilization is not manageable by the current paradigms.

    That is why China is on the rise. As much as we dislike Chinese policy they are getting things done.
    Famine had very little impact on total Chinese population in the C20th. In 1950, China had a population of around 550 million; despite ~50 million famine deaths and ~30 million deferred births during the Great Leap Forward, by 1975 the population had risen to 921 million.

    War, famine, and disease have had very little influence on population numbers since world population reached the billion person mark. Even major death events simply couldn't compete with the high birthrates of the first eighty years of the twentieth century.

    Voluntary reductions in birthrates since then have, however, been effective in bringing population growth under control.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •