Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by alexb123, Oct 13, 2005.
i wouldn't care if there was a trillion people on earth...
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I'd like to add that I understand completely the caring about humanity
enough that you see the benefit of a decrease in population now
to benefit the generations that follow.
Its the difference between a self-hating pathalogical altruism and
a logic based altruism based on concrete benefits and results.
those that operate from an emotional perspective
will never accept something that goes against their
indoctrination and conditioning no matter how much
logic and fact it is based on.
would you care if there were one billion?
i just mean that it wouldn't matter to me if there were many people on earth... but if there was only a billion... i guess it would be better. but it would probably be best if there were none.
I think you're missing your underlying desire. You don't seem to be wanting people to die to get joy, you seem to be wanting humans to co-exist with the ecosystem in a beneficial way, or for the ecosystem to be better, that's what you really want.
caring about future generations may cause one to SEEM unfeeling
and inhumane to the present generation, especially if one is contemplating
the culling of the present generation to enrich those that will live
150 years from now.
i have personaly decided to NEVER have children,theres WAY too many stupid people.
if earth reaches its carrying capacity for humans,nature will take us out.
look at bird flu,and sars,products of or stupidity and over crowding.
this is a common refrain amongst those educated and amongst those
who fancy themselves as intellectuals.
why are you not going to procreate if you see the rampant stupidity
and growth in the numbers of savages?
If this keeps up, we won't have anyone with sufficient IQ
to keep up basic infrastructure in a handful of generations.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What should have been the prime population consideration, is that more and more people would be glad to be born. And most everybody wants or ends up with children. Therefore, for the interests of human rights, the benefit of society, to respect human life and God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and to benefit the many, large families should be encouraged worldwide. We can't make the planet any bigger, colonizing other worlds or outer space doesn't appear feasible anytime soon at least not until preceded by massive population increase, and yet more and more people would be glad to live. The proper response to the trendy and unsubstanciated population phobic enviro wackos should have been glaringly obvious—increase world population density. If more people are coming to life, make the best of it and welcome our fellow humans, scoot over a little if necessary and make way for more people to be alive at once.
Humans reproducing isn't just about respecting the God-given rights of individual families, but also going along with nature and the common global goal we all share in enlarging the human race, as evidenced by our powerful reproductive urges and all the compelling reasons why parents have children.
Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of available land area. It could be more. There could simply be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Let the people build themselves more cities and towns to make way for all the children they are having. Urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed.
Come on people, how can you have so little imagination or vision? No faith in God? No faith in anything but trendy deluded hearsay junk-science?
Thomas Malthus, the apparent father of population-phobic anti-human propaganda, supposedly said that somebody must die to make room for each birth. Why? While the earth may no longer be "empty" of people anymore, neither is it full. There is plenty of room for lots more people. Enviro radicals like to claim that if humans don't limit their numbers, nature will. Wrong. Nature won't. Nature doesn't "think" and so doesn't "care" how populous human become. God gave people dominion over nature and other creatures, a likely or possible explanation why nature can't seem to keep human populations "in check" and why we shouldn't bother to limit our numbers either. I have a much better idea. Considering the shortage of "volunteers" to somehow cease living to promote the population reduction they claim to advocate (hypocrites!), wouldn't it be far more elegant and practical to be more pronatalist and go along with the natural enlargement of the human race, and to welcome humanity to grow denser as God would allow?
Before we can think much of colonizing other worlds, why not colonize this one first? After all the people are already here, so the question of how to transport people to other worlds wouldn't even be an issue. What we don't have yet, is the necessary technology to populate other worlds. What we do already have, is the scalable and wel-understood technologies to populate this world more and more densely, via more modernization, more flush toilets, proper sanitation, modern clean gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens, food storage and harvesting technologies, vaccines, etc. Why not work with what we have, and stop trying to play god, or rebelling against God, the God who commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. What part of "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," do we not understand?
Actually, that could have been a great point, had you taken the trouble to elborate or explain it better?
Let's say that you and I did happen to be born in a world with a trillion people, perhap earth in some hypothetical future scenario. Few people then by then, would see anything worrisome or strange about living on a planet with so many people living most everywhere, perhaps some stacked up into great highrises or skyscrapers. As they would never have known a world that wasn't so heavily populated and dominated by people. It would seem quite the "normal" thing. After all, nobody on the Jetsons cartoon, seems to be aware just how large their population may have become, or questions why most everybody lives in highrises. Just the way it is in the future? Or in "futuristic" cartoons at least. After all, living space isn't scarce and they have flying cars and prosperity. (Even after watching the Jetsons DVDs, I still have to wonder if the highrise Jetsons world is the inevitable result of freedom, future, and sluggish but steadily-ever-rising human population, or whether the highrises are merely technological progress and for the scenic view, as they never seem concerned that the remaining countryside has shrunk to accomodate massive population-swollen cities or whether the cities are still compact and most land still uninhabited.) Actually, there is enough land for most everybody, even a trillion people, to build their houses on ground level. Only then, the world would be nearly solid-continental-wide city. The land area of the world is so vast that each person could have their own 1000 square feet, or 100 square meters of land, up to around 1 1/4 trillion people. After that, presumably, more living space could be obtained by stacking people into vertical cities rising into the sky.
Population concerns really are largely vague and perceptional, not much rooted in reality or science.
Current population size is nearly irrelevant to all the great and compelling reason why parents have children, or families may still tend to grow possibly rather large.
If there were over a trillion people on earth, I would still want to have been born, and be free to have children regardless. Far better to live in a hypothetical (and quite unlikely BTW) future "overcrowded" world than not at all. Far better to live in an overcrowded highrise in a massive city, than be told how many children we may have. Some things should be left up to a "higher power," i.e. God. Population is what it is.
I do like the idea of vertical cities being a fan of science fiction as I am,
but I think you've glossed over alot of inescapable nasties in your attempt
to present a densely populated utopia.
I do agree that overpopulation concerns are largley unfounded, but thats
no reason to endorse irresponsible breeding.
It seems to me that there are already problems in huge portions of the current population being unable to feed themselves and great numbers of uneducated and unemployable people now with the population at its current size. Gawd don't bother to feed the huge crowds of emaciated walking dead now, why do you invoke his name while extolling the virtues of a planetwide slum? Do you think he will then? And what about the food neccesary to feed these citizens of mundopolis? Are you expecting manna? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
hmmm; allowing nature to take its course would mean
letting those unable to feed themselves starve.
It would mean letting those displaced by natural disasters
make it or break it on their own.
"Far better to live in a hypothetical (and quite unlikely BTW) future "overcrowded" world than not at all. Far better to live in an overcrowded highrise in a massive city, than be told how many children we may have."
If you lived in this scenario you've envisioned for yourself
the psycological conditioning for such a life would be intensive,
"Far better to live in an overcrowded highrise in a massive city, than be told how many children we may have"
That was so flawed I had to repeat it.
If you lived in said overcrowded highrise
do you really think that you'd have freedom to reproduce
however you wanted????? Restrictions on the # of children allowed
would only be the first thing to go, with other restrictions getting
exceedingly harsh from there.
I think you mentioned as well some utopian dreamscape in which
people bred with abandon and everyone had 1000 square foot apartments...
Research any high density urban center (hong kong; bejing; ny; london; tokyo)
and you'll see that the average living space is unimaginably small.
I did find your fantastic extrapolation lovely in a simple way though.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I like the idea of vertical cities too, especially in sci-fi stories where the "impossible" or unlikely is at least considerable, but there's no need to start building them anytime soon. Think of all the incrediable technological advances that occurred as human populations were rising worldwide, and cities filling and swelling with people. Not just that, but an increasingly free flow of information, and the growing trend towards democracy and self-government, and hopefully less of Roman-style empire building by force? Perhaps similar improvements could come from packing more people into vertical cities, but that is far more sci-fi fantasy than reality. I don't see there ever being so many people on earth, as to require vertical cities, unless people for some reason just decide they like each other so much that they want to populate up closer to each other, for the sake of society and togetherness? BTW, is the New Jerusalem in Revelation, a huge "vertical city" of some sort. Note that it is made by God, and not by human hands.
I don't pretend that man can build "a densely populated utopia." Rather, that we should explore the far better alternatives more, before talking crap about "over population" as if it was certain or science. If world population is rising, wouldn't it be prudent to adapt rather than resist our own fellow kind? Humans make far better friends than adversaries, as humans can be quite powerful and cunning.
And what of all the "nasties" of trying to scheme some workable human population "control" monstrous intrusion into people's lives?
I am a little confused here. If overpopulation concerns are largely unfounded, then how is the "irresponsible breeding," "irresponsible" exactly? Nowhere did I suggest that people breed outside of marriage, nor run off on their duties to raise all their children. If overpopulation concerns are largely unfounded, wouldn't that probably imply then that human populations could yet grow far larger than they are now, and humans could adapt and thrive?
And haven't those problems been with us all through history, and would not magically vanish, were the population to shrink either. In fact, I think things could get a lot worse, if human populations were to shrink drastically due to underbreeding or nonbreeding, as it would indicate serious problems in society, and the plummeting number of people would ultimately cause technologies to collapse or become unfeasible again. While an increasely dense world population would tend, over time, to bring technology closer to formerly isolated villages, and "crowd out" poverty even.
Didn't Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol," say something similar? Implying that helping the poor isn't worth the bother? And so of what use is counting coins, if they aren't to be put to some productive use? Family is of more value, than a big, empty, and cold house, and hardly anybody attending one's funeral when they pass on.
Hypothetical massive population increases don't imply a planetwide slum, but rather simply more urbanization. Cities can be beautiful you know. And if there is no escape from the giant cities, due to them filling more and more of the land, isn't that all the more reason for beautification or flowers or painting artwork on drab walls?
So do you think I am some enviro wacko or nature purist?
I am for letting nature run its course, along with what benefits people. That means restricting deathrates, but letting birthrates remain unrestricted. Similar to the process that causes an erection in a guy. Bloodflow from the penis is restricted, while blood entry remains free, and the heart even increases its beating. Similarly, human populations should be welcome to swell naturally. Natural increase is quite natural for humans, but God did give us intelligence for something? Surely it could be used for living in denser populations more comfortably and safely, since God commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
I read in a government university textbook about the so-called "lifeboat ethic" concerning population growth. If we help the poor, is it really counterproductive? If we give or sell the developing nations food and medicine and such, we supposedly increase longevity, decrease infant mortality, and encourage more childbearing, all of which serve to worsen "overpopulation." Now we have more needy people than ever? So what's wrong with this picture? For one thing, isn't it racist? For it suggests treating people over yonder differently than we would want to be treated. That they happen to be of a different skin color, makes this easier? Also, it is socialist and globalist. It considers that man can manipulate and master society, like a potter forming a clay pot. Whatever happened to individuals and individual rights? And of course it is condescending. It assumes that "we" have all the resources, and that the poor can only be helped, by of course, "us."
I am pro-life, and I consider that pro-life is more consistantly pro-life when it is pro-population. Thus, I would want for any "help" or trade, to have the end effect that the nations being "helped" grow denser with people. I want more people to be welcome to live. So of course I would want to increase longevity, decrease infant mortality, and encourage childbearing. But I also think that true compassion leads to more self-reliance and less neediness over time. And that we all are truly needy, and that those who help others make friends, and may more likely be helped in our time of need.
Actually, I am not arguing for bigger government, more taxes, more so-called "foreign aid" to disappear into the pockets of politicians and tyrants.
Rather simply that countries can absorb more and more people, and that the people have very compelling reasons to breed, that ought to be given much more consideration as to why the population MUST expand and its natural growth be merely accomodated, never limited.
In the dramaticized CD series of the Left Behind books, a fictional account of how Biblical endtimes prophecy might play out, the Anti-Christ scolded the developing nations for letting their population balloon in size. Conversely then, the humane and kind thing to do, is to welcome the various nations to let their population balloon, so that their people may have "all the children that God gives."
So that nature can take its course (in naturally enlarging the human race), and people may be free to use the "no method" method of "family planning," especially if they love children or trust that God knows what is best for them better than they can know themselves.
And so some sci-fi accounts suggest this?
No, I don't think all that conditioning would be needed, actually. Brave New World was hopefully wrong. Most of the masses won't want to forever be stoned on the supposedly safe drug, Soma. Growing up in a big family, never having seen a world that wasn't already densely populated, would condition children already. People who live in densely settled shantytowns of the world, don't find them so unpleasant nor shocking, as spoiled-rich outsiders who visit not long enough to learn hardly anything of the people or their culture.
At last someone is addressing the problems I have raised here Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If we NEED to thin out the human numbers, can we start with some of the less worthy people in the world?
Oh! shock and horror!! Who am I to say that some people are less worthy than others??
That's right, I said it.
Well you can start with the violent, and religious fundamentalists.
That'll get rid of a good 10% between them, so thats half a billion.
Then you can exterminate people found guilty of writing computer virus', spyware, malware, and PEOPLE WHO WORK IN ADVERTISING/MARKETING/TELEPHONE SCAMS.
That'll thin a good 1-2% of people out of western society, and possibly up to 5% of the population of India.
After that, you can thin out the numbers of people that seem to push out 10 babies each, none of whom are raised to actually survive or contribute anything to the world.
They don't seem to like using condoms, these folk, even if they are given to them for FREE. Surely they can't ALL be "gangstas" or write "rap music" - I think that market is already saturated.
What do you think people?
Ahhhh reading back I see Zendrake is with me.
Zendrake you might find what I just wrote amusing.
Nice to know I'm not alone.
I agree with the problem, I don't agree with the solution!
Eventhough, considering that humans are really ruining our earth, I wouldn't mind sacrificing the human race for saving nature. We humans don't deserve it. I think that is why nature/ God has given humans the virus called religion (at least certain religions) that will trigger an end of the humankind with their terrorism. Just wait till one day they get their hands on the mother of all nuclear bombs.
I have been stressing since day one that we humans ourselves have been responsible for increasing our population beyond what we need. It is our ancient obsession with procreating more than we should --- and we have been competing with each other as communities, to outnumber each other. Relgions, particularly those who seek to proseletyse aggressively have add fuel to this greed and competition. Unless they are defeated, there will not really be an end to this competition. Science is just as obsessed with 'procreation' being the main purpose of life, which has not done much to reduce the problem.
Heterosexuality, which is an artificial phenomenon/ construct has been a major tool for increasing procreation beyond the natural limit. First (in the traditional days) by forcing everyone to marry and by making sex with women an issue of 'manhood', without which man would just not be considered a man, and then now with the help of 'science' institutionalising the marginalisation of same-sex bonds through sexual orientation, and also institutionalising the power given to male-female sex indirectly, through procreation, through inventing the heterosexual identity.
Technology, instead of freeing us from the burden of heterosexuality is being used by the vested interest groups in continuing their tradtional power base that the undue powering and articial masculinising of male-female sex has bestowed on them.
Natural selection / selfish gene theory: genes that drive people to have children are more likely to survive.
Sexual selection is half (actually 10% of) the truth. And half the truth is more misleading and disastrous than a complete lie. Please refer to the thread "Darwin was wrong about sexuality
Buddha, if heterosexuality is artificial:
How do you explain the huge market for heterosexual porn?
Men go out of their way, at risk of being caught and embarrassed, to pay for pornography!! The internet, newsagents, adult bookstores, are full of pornography designed to cater, mostly to heterosexual men who want to masturbate whilst looking at pictures of naked women.
Now if a homosexual man is forced by society to be pressured into behaving homosexual, I can understand that. Infact I know of a man who was married with 2 kids and was in his 40s when he came out and got a divorce.
BUT: how do you explain the porn.
Do you know before the internet, how embarrassing it was for men to buy porn?
Why would they do this in such huge numbers, if so many didnt want to see naked women? or women having sex with men, or women having sex with each other?
I think, it some sort of nature ballance that eliminates or grows the number of people on the planet.
I can't tell exactly why.
Separate names with a comma.