The Over Population Problem

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Liebling, Feb 10, 2009.

  1. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    Its very prevalent. But back home its for environmental reasons
    It encourages farmers to convert highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, such as tame or native grasses, wildlife plantings, trees, filterstrips, or riparian buffers. Farmers receive an annual rental payment for the term of the multi-year contract. Cost sharing is provided to establish the vegetative cover practices.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Six of the seven years between 1999 and 2006 the world produced less food than it ate. I never knew an unknown Chicago politicians/ social worker had so much power over global food production. Thanks for setting me straight.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Summary:
    While there is a limit on the Earth's ability to produce food, there appears to be no limit to your silly ignorance.

    Your policy, if done, will produce a sterile Earth with the oceans slowly boiling away into space. For more details see:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2237458&postcount=86

    The second paragraph of which, (copied below) is a quick summary of this current danger. A significantly larger population consuming fossil fuels would make it happen with near certainty. Thus, in your ignorance, you are advocating the termination of ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

    “As there is more energy stored in these CH4 hydrates than ALL the fossil fuel yet burned, there is some unknown tripping point where the system goes unstable with positive feedback. As CH4 is a much stronger GHG than CO2, even half of the hydrates CH4 dumped into the atmosphere in a decade or two would have a good chance to convert the Earth into its other stable state: A slightly cooler version of Venus. This would not completely be achieved for a very long time as the heat capacity of the oceans is very large. I.e. it would take a long time for the last drop of liquid water to become atmospheric steam. However, that is of little concern, as Earth would be sterile long before the oceans begin to boil.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Hemp, I have heard more than once, is beneficial in crop rotation. I'm guessing it can grow nice and dense too, from pictures I've seen of hemp cultivation.

    To further address your point, or rather, add to it, some of the crops could be usable for something else too. I mean, perhaps they could have a dual purpose? A temporary habitat for wildlife that could also be harvested and utilized after the term is up? Two birds, one stone?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    I'm glad Pronatalist is back. Was beginning to miss that broken record sound!
     
  8. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    It has been the exact same post 674 times.
     
  9. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,361
    Gee, you noticed this also.

    I WILL BREED RED CHRISTIAN BABIES AS RED RUIN RUNS FROM MY RED RIGHT CHRISTIAN HAND BANISHING THE TRAITOROUS YELLOW NON-BREEDERS.
     
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Yes, there is certainly the potential to increase food production, so long as fossil fuels can be converted into fertilizer and pesticides etc. at an affordable price.

    The world has evolved a social structure, which I am pretty sure you like, that is based on financial rewards for creativity and more efficient production. This was a natural, and needed result of shortages. Now, however, for example, if all owners of land were to farm it the prices of food would drop and then all but the most efficient giants of agri-business would financially fail. (Many already have. - Compared to 1900 era only a very tiny fraction of the population is now engaged in growing our food.)

    The least efficient farmers, under this financial reward system, say in Africa, cannot produce competitively even for their local markets so ADM, Bunge, Cargill etc. deliver food to them at a lower price. The world obviously needs some other social/economic system than the one which the era of shortages produced. I do not know what it is. Certainly it is not socialism and collective farms - that has proven to be much worse. Perhaps China is developing an alternative that may work, now that they have changed their land use laws?

    As far as your post 300 comments on the tendency of greater social affluence to produce less than replacement birth rates that too is a confirmed fact. Unfortunately*, not all nations are affluent so a great shift in the average level of education, etc. is under way. The average human is becoming less well off, more are starving, and many are malnourished as children, with permanent brain damage, if they live. This transformation, now in progress, of the typical human capacity for understanding the world he lives in is a very serious problem, IMHO and I do not know the solution, if it exists.

    I advocate spending more on education and birth control in the lands where starvation and mal nourished children are common and greater incentive for more children where this is not the case (larger tax deduction, totally government paid for education at all levels, not just thru grade 12, etc.) I also advocate free food, laced with contraceptives to all who cannot provide adequately for the children they already have.

    I do not know if these measures would reverse the current trend to fewer children born in home that can encourage their intellectual and physical health and less defective brains in malnourished children or not, but it seems worth trying. It may be politically impossible as subject to "elitist" charges. If that is the case, we have already passed the point of no return and humans are now on a downhill course to tragic ends.
    ---------------
    *Perhaps, in view of the increased rate of fossil fuel burning that would imply during the 100 years or so before total population began to significantly decrease, that should be "fortunately" - see last paragraph of post 303.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2009
  11. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    BIRTH CONTROL?!?!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Not those shoddy pills and potions!
     
  12. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    I am certain that Pronatalist lives partially in a world of fantasy, or wishes he did. Or is it a she?
     
  13. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,361
    Look, it's either the shoddy potions and pills or I go gay. Really gay, not just threesome hot gay. Fewer Xtians are mad this way.
     
  14. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    You make me just a little nervous.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There's nothing quite as convincing as using the emotions of non-existent humans who just would LOVE to experience life!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Too bad for them, those darling, precious, God-given babies that most of them have a good chance ending up following the Beast and being thrown into the Lake of Fire. Surely you see THAT in your Bible, don't you? I guess that feeling of "happy to experience life" is only a temporary state, huh?

    C'est la vie!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Pronatalist doesn't have any kids. What a hypocrite..
     
  16. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    I used to be more hard on criticizing those looking for excuses to grow hemp. Isn't that just excuses to promote hippie drug abuse culture?

    But there is a side that does interest me, and that is out-of-control medical monopoly ripoff costs. Which leads me to question why it is that government has us bound up so tight we can't even move or take a breath without asking government for permission. Why can't I practice my own medicine? Why must I see some unaffordable doctor to get a prescription. Now I rarely take so much as an aspirin, but I gave up on the medical insurance ripoff years ago. Am I allowed to see a vet for medical care, since they are cheaper? Do I have to go to another country to find affordable medical care?

    What is some doctor sees the handwriting on the wall, thinks someday this U.S. country is going to somewhere in a handbasket, decides to hoard medical supplies in his "doomsday room" for when the government and medical monopoly goes into meltdown, so his family can get care when hospitals are overrun by some pandemic. Should he wait for the crisis to hit, when prices go through the roof, and panicked people clean out the shelves of all the drugstores? Do we really expect Big Brother government to help us in time? I'm not saying all that will happen, I'm just asking "what if." How many "laws" would this doctor be breaking to buy more stuff than he needs, helping keep suppliers in business, buying while the prices are cheaper, beating the mad rush? Why should "being prepared" be illegal? Why must I be restricted to only unaffordable medical monopoly Big Pharma-pushing licensed quacks?

    So if they ever get around to "legalizing" dangerous drugs, that I don't think they should, could they PLEASE, PLEASE bust up the prescription monopolies once they destroy any purpose left for maintaining them, other than keep on bankrupting more and more Americans with skyhigh medical bills?
     
  17. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    For some reason, his personal ads looking for a "Female who wants to breed as many children as god will give us" have been sadly ineffective in finding a mother for his future brood.
     
  18. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Nice..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    What's with this more Malthusian junk-science? I am not of the Malthusian faith. I don't believe that growing human populations can only lead to scare-tactic gloom-and-doom fanciful stories. I tend to think it leads towards a The Jetsons, or Star Trek, sci-fi world. Maybe crowded and not much nature anymore, but who cares, as they don't remember the old world before they were born anyway. The new nature is skies swarming with flying anti-gravity cars. Like a new "lifeform" or whatever nonsense.

    Nature can deal with significantly more CO2 release, I am not some "zero pollution" nut, as a moderate amount of pollution release is necessary for the anti-poverty interests of this "huge" and growing human population, not quite ready with the completed technologies of the future. I do expect in time, burning fuels will become obsolete, and human-caused CO2 emissions will ultimate drop even as human numbers rise further. But the green nazis claiming to be in favor of lower CO2 emissions, are outright hypocrites, otherwise they would warm to the nuclear electric power bandwagon. I find them to be liars, really communists seeking to destroy business, jobs, and our livelihoods.

    If we can't release CO2 from burning fuels, then it's backwards back to slavery and animal labor. Is that what we really want? Our machines are happy to be our faithful slaves, and do our "sweating" for us, because they have no souls and don't care, so what better to do than serve humans?

    Read the book, Climate Confusion by Roy Spencer. It does a great job explaining how resilient and self-regulating nature is, and isn't going to ever be warmed significantly by human activities.
     
  20. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Hey, if hemp really does further the vision towards a possibly far vaster and dense human population, I might be persuaded to consider its more productive benefits.

    But so far, I'm not taking it seriously. Come on, a Cheech-and-Chong van made of hemp? Does the world really have any rope or clothing shortage?

    What about kudzu? I hear it's edible, and grows ridiculously fast. Hey, maybe it could easily feed vast multitudes? Anybody ever produce a kudzu cookbook? If government mismanagement of the economy leads to soaring food prices, could we just take to growing kudzu in our backyards?
     
  21. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Isn't the answer to all that, an end to all the Big Brother government manipulation, and a return to more fair and competitive markets?

    Perhaps more people might like to buy local crops, but the giant corporations have gained an advantage, with all their hyped advertising and convenient undersized product packaging? If more mothers were Stay-At-Home Moms, and not career-burdened, they might find more time to shop the farmers' markets and buy more fresh food more often? Surely hanging out and talking with friends, is more pleasurable than punching a corporate timeclock all the time?
     
  22. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    And therein lies the problem with statements like, "The average American uses X times as many resources as the average person from [insert third world country here]." The average American is most likely creating more goods and/or providing more services (wealth, in other words) than the average Zimbabwean, for example, which makes the discrepancy in resources used a bit more understandable.
     
  23. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    The Real Purpose of Sex

    What's the difference? Except for the more "natural," "good" Catholic-approved methods like rhythm, they are all shoddy.

    I don't really like rhythm either, although there's something to be said for self-control. What's really so "natural" about still rejecting God's blessings of children? Is it so natural to prolong the body's periods of high fertility, rather than letting pregnancies happen when they happen?

    I don't believe in "pulling out" nor rhythm, as it's supposed to be a good thing to bring another precious life into the world, so why not let the semen spurt out freely to where babies are made, during the most fertile time of the month, since that's supposed to be when sex is most pleasurable? It's not so much about the selfish carnal pleasure, but in generosity of sharing, seeking not only one's mate's pleasure, but the pleasure of naturally growing and spreading human life, allowing more precious people to come to life as a natural result and primal legitimizing of the sex act. Making it more erotic in that it's helping the "huge" human population to grow further. Without procreation, why not just all become prudes not having any sex, as how sanitary can it be anyway, to exchange bodily fluids? The real proper purpose of sex, was for procreation.
     

Share This Page