|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
107.77.210.84
In Reply to: RE: Poll - Robert Ballard realist or, Hawking "Off Planet"? posted by pictureguy on May 24, 2017 at 14:39:14
We discovered how to use the resources and began to populate. We will just keep populating until we drown in our on excrement.
IMO the only reasonable form of sentience would be to recognize this tendency to overpopulate, stop doing it, and gradually reduce the Human population (by jut not making too many babies) to something sustainable. 200,000,000 Humans would be something the Earth could carry for a million years..
Follow Ups:
NOBODY or GROUP will 'voluntarily' stop breeding.
It WILL eventually come to a breaking point situation whereby one or multiple systems 'crash', leading to a total collapse.
The trick when population collapses due to food, disease or whatever, is to preserve technology in such a fashion as to help recovery AND at the same time put a cap on population.
IMO, the only groups trying to maneuver the planet into a 'soft landing' situatin would be either the Bilderberg Group or maybe the TLC or CFR. All 3 named groupls have substantial membership in common as well as both pubic and private agendas.
Too much is never enough
I think you mean "mash", but anyway... :)It appears that modern developed countries aren't the major problem with future over-population, but rather, under-developed countries.
Modern developed countries, such as the U.S. and Australia, have excess food, which is typically sent to under-developed countries. In fact, there is a recent report that the current grain glut isn't expected to end anytime soon. (Look up the recent news on ADM and Cargill regarding grain supplies.)
Just TWO countries, China and India, together make up 1/3rd of the world's population. The United States is in a distant 3rd place, having only 1/4th of the population of just India!
Look at the continent of Africa. We've all seen the news - for decades - about rampant starvation and disease. Who hasn't seen, for decades, the TV ads showing under-nourished little children with flies on their faces, and dozens of .orgs begging us to help them? Those countries need to figure out how to deal with their over-population and under-production of food and other basic resources. China, India, Southeast Asia, and the Indonesian region are in similarly sad shape. They need to solve their problems, over-population and otherwise. I'd agree that a couple handfuls of productive developed countries can't continue to subsidize them indefinitely. But so-called "world over-population" isn't coming to a neighborhood near you anytime soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)#/media/File:World_population_percentage_pie_chart.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)#/media/File:World_population_percentage_pie_chart.png
:)
Edits: 05/25/17 05/25/17
#51, you are falling for the 'if there is vacant space, their must be room for more people' arguement.
This isn't true.
And while I'd agree that population drives many of the issues of today, that won't necessarily be 'the limit' or the camel's back-breaker. Any one of a dozen conditions or combinations of conditions will or could be 'the limit'.
Humanity is puting itself into a precarious position. Grain mono-culture is very vulnerable to a single disease or bug. Shipping grain to starving countries encourages population growth. The US and Europe have transitioned from 'high birthrate / high death rate' of only a couple centuries ago to 'low birthrate / low deathrate'. India and China are still in 'high birthrate' conditions with death rate falling as medicine and other factors improve.
It is a world problem, not a single countries. China is now expanding to gain resources for MORE expansion. This will inevitably lead to problems.
Too much is never enough
"you are falling for the 'if there is vacant space, their must be room for more people' arguement."
No, my friend, not at all!
I'm saying that the agriculturely (sp?) productive countries produce WAY more than they/we consume, send/ship a LOT of food to other countries, and that there is a majority of the world's population which ISN'T providing for themselves, and that THEY are the problem of CURRENT AND FUTURE over-population, not the developed countries.
"it is a world problem, not a single countries."
NO!!!
It's a problem for MANY countries (China, India, etc.), but not ours, and not other developed countries. We sustain ourselves for the vast majority of our 'needs', and send excess production elsewhere. MANY countries can't even feed themselves!!
Who doesn't get that?!
"Third world" countries are dependent upon the food excess and generosity of "first world" countries.
"Over-population" is NOT a U.S. problem. The U.S., on the other hand, is an enabler of global over-population. Maybe we should stop doing that.?
:)
I beg to differ, #51.
While it is true that the US feeds itself as do quite a few other countries, that does not mean there is NO world problem.
The problem is one of long term sustainability. That means balance of all things so inputs basically equal outputs.
Right now, inputs are keeping up in a number of areas, but even IF the worlds food were distributed equally, that would be a temporary situation until breeding.
Food is not 'way ahead' by any means. Did you know that it is illegal for a farmer in the US to grow crops FOR PERSONAL CONSUMPTION ON-FARM? I'll find the Supreme Court decision if you questin that.
But food isn't the only problem. Pick one or more from the list. Pollution? Population? Critical Resource? WATER? Climate Change? Weather and its Patterns? If infrastructure continues at its expontial growth rate (whatever that is) will we have resources / time / money / ability to FIX it all in the future as repair and maintenance consumes ever MORE resources from a limited pool or a pool which at best can only grow to a limit itself?
You are drawing a non-existant 'hair thin' line when you say "Over-population" is NOT a U.S. problem. "The U.S., on the other hand, is an enabler of global over-population. Maybe we should stop doing that?"
I do not know what the solution is. Mathematically, the enemy is Exponential Growth. The rule of 72 prevails. Even at a 1% growth rate of anything, the number or consumption or whatever will DOUBLE in 72 years. Will food production match even a 1% growth rate? Keep in mind the Oceans are 'bout fished out. Catches are past peak levels. Please See Link:
There are Causes, and in a recent arguement with my brother I used the term ROOT Causes.
Getting to Root Cause is KEY to understanding what is going wrong and how to fix it. I personally don't think it Will be fixed, since nobody wants to take responsiblity for the grossly hard decisions to come.
Too much is never enough
Pictureguy, buddy, pal... You worry too much. :)Let's talk about pollution, fishing, consumption, water. The U.S. makes up approximately 4.3 percent of the world's population, yet provides resources to many other countries. We might say that we're the engine which makes a lot of the world sustainable.
As I wrote, maybe we should stop doing that. Nations which are unable or unwilling to support themselves will necessarily shrink their populations, their consumption, their pollution, their water usage, etc. Nature provides opportunities to control population growth. Disease, famine, etc. are natural limiters. Yet, what do we do whenever such events happen?
Again, China and India make up about one third of global population. TWO countries make up one third of the global population! Think about that. Sure, both of them have pockets of prosperity, but the vast majority of their billions of people are poor and dependent upon others to sustain them, and are contributing the vast majority of pollution to lakes, rivers, and oceans. Have you seen the pictures and videos of the squaler in even their most prosperous cities?
So, once again: Maybe we should stop helping them. Just provide for ourselves, and the heck with the .orgs and government programs. It'll be great for the environment and the planet. I'm not kidding - maybe that's the solution.
I know, it's a brash and harsh approach, but what alternative is better AND will accomplish the goal you say we should achieve? We can't help everyone AND reduce world population.
:)
Edits: 05/26/17
I dont' worry at all.
The MATH of exponential growth tells me there are limits. Done Deal.
Pick a limit. Any limit.
Sure and agreed. China and India are nightmare scenarios. Remember Chinas experiment with small families? How'd THAT work out? India tried UltraSound and so many FEMALE babies were aborted that a whole generation of Indian Men are in prime marriage age and Not Enough Babes.
Now? Think Domino.
US and Europe don't exist in bubbles. We even have a few things we need to get from 'em, China sells large quantities of Niobium, a rare earth. Sure, it can be gotten elsewhere. Even the US has deposits. Nasty stuff.
Some have suggested trading Oil for Food. Enough of that 'expensive' oil! Want to eat?
I agree with the TEMPTATION to let 'em all sink or swim. But Oh! what repurcussions as 'they' try to sort it out. Several 2nd string countries even have access to 'the bomb'. And believe me, with nothing to lose, they'll USE it.
Too much is never enough
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: