Debate and Discussion

So Humanity made it all this way, now some of its members want it to fall...
Lonnehart at 8:59PM, Oct. 20, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,588
joined: 3-16-2006
Humans have come a long way from being the furry apelike beings it has evolved from. It has barely survived going extinct due to a supervolcanic eruption, ice ages, disease, and wars with itself. Now Humanity is on top of nearly everything with very few predators. And even those few predators can't knock us off the platform that we now stand on. So you'd think that we get to enjoy our current success, right?

I find it odd that there are those among us who feel that we don't deserve to be here on top. In fact, some of those people think we cheated somehow and think that we should just step off the position that we didn't have any kind of right to. Others think we should not only step off, but that we should make ourselves extinct. Still others think we were not supposed to exist in the first place and that we're Nature's major mistake.

There are people out there who have formed groups dedicated to asking people to stop having children and to let humanity voluntarily die out. I bet there are other, more secretive groups out there who are looking for ways to wipe out humanity in one fell swoop for one reason or another. Maybe some serial killers out there feel they're doing their part to “correct” nature's mistake by taking out as many people as they can….

I find this all funny somehow. And it makes me wonder if these people ever even heard of the so called natural law about “the survival of the fittest”. Then again, maybe we probably should die out since humanity is the source of crazy people like these and somehow we'll make ourselves extinct without even knowing it.

What do you people think?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:39PM
TheFlyingGreenMonkey at 10:48PM, Oct. 20, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,830
joined: 12-19-2008
Nuclear war, biological weapons, war, climate change…Yeah we will be the cause of our own extinction some way or another. We are the only beings on this planet that could prevent a gaint rock from space from killing us. We are the only beings that can go out and colonize other planets. But instead of that stuff we go around killing each other and stealing resources from each other. I can see how this type of stuff can dishearten a person towards being human.

That being said I still think we should be kept alive just for the possibilty that we might get our shit together.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:18PM
lothar at 3:59AM, Oct. 21, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
i think we need to find a workable position somewhere between the “ we humans suck lets die ” and the “ fuck you nature we won” mindsets. actually , i'm pretty sure most people are somewhere in the middle, unless you're dick cheney or that pastey white guy from 12 monkeys !
humans deffinetly do need to curb their population growth or get their asses out into space asap.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Custard Trout at 4:01AM, Oct. 21, 2009
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
lothar
humans deffinetly do need to curb their population growth or get their asses out into space asap.

Why do people keep saying this? The Earth is hardly near full capacity. Come then when we're sharing holes in the ground with five other families, then you'll have a valid argument.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:02PM
Zad at 5:51AM, Oct. 21, 2009
(online)
posts: 163
joined: 2-6-2007
TheFlyingGreenMonkey
… I still think we should be kept alive just for the possibilty that we might get our shit together.
This. Compeltely, and utterly.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:54PM
ipokino at 9:19AM, Oct. 21, 2009
(offline)
posts: 161
joined: 2-25-2007
Custard Trout
Why do people keep saying this? The Earth is hardly near full capacity. Come then when we're sharing holes in the ground with five other families, then you'll have a valid argument.

I am of course assuming that remark was deeply ironic or sarcastic, because the very fact that people are starving anywhere is a pretty good indicator that over-population is an issue. Not to mention, if ‘assisted farming techniques’ were not in place (ie fossil fuel powered equipment, genetically altered crops ect) the world would not be able to support the current population at all! Loss of these technological benefices (which we all know could happen quickly and easily due to natural catastrophe) would doom an enormous amount of humanity. In the face of habitat/food production loss, the population would panic and whoosh, it all goes up.
There are, flat out, too many people for Gaia to sustain at current consumtion rates. I like Lothar's assessment–though short of major tech advances in ground to orbit transport, I see little chance of this. ah well. Still I have hope that wise population management practices will be put into place (the right to breed freely is NOT a Constitutionally guarranted right in the USA–thank Gaia!) though I am sure I am about to be lambasted for that remark!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:02PM
Orin J Master at 9:35AM, Oct. 21, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
Lonnehart
Humans have come a long way from being the furry apelike beings it has evolved from. It has barely survived going extinct due to a supervolcanic eruption, ice ages, disease, and wars with itself. Now Humanity is on top of nearly everything with very few predators. And even those few predators can't knock us off the platform that we now stand on. So you'd think that we get to enjoy our current success, right?

we're not on top, because it's not a pyramid. the best representation would be to have a map showing how life interacts, and then have a separate map for humanity because it's not really part of any ecosystem anymore

humanity's defense mechanism has been to remove itself from how the rest of life on earth functions and exist parasitically on the outside of that.

I find it odd that there are those among us who feel that we don't deserve to be here on top. In fact, some of those people think we cheated somehow and think that we should just step off the position that we didn't have any kind of right to. Others think we should not only step off, but that we should make ourselves extinct. Still others think we were not supposed to exist in the first place and that we're Nature's major mistake.

less like a mistake, more like a cancer, really. an abberant form of life that is disruptive to the ecosystem around it without becoming acclimated.

There are people out there who have formed groups dedicated to asking people to stop having children and to let humanity voluntarily die out. I bet there are other, more secretive groups out there who are looking for ways to wipe out humanity in one fell swoop for one reason or another. Maybe some serial killers out there feel they're doing their part to “correct” nature's mistake by taking out as many people as they can….

yes, yes, and certainly so. can you begrudge them for their opinions any more than they can for your belief that humanity “won”?

I find this all funny somehow. And it makes me wonder if these people ever even heard of the so called natural law about “the survival of the fittest”. Then again, maybe we probably should die out since humanity is the source of crazy people like these and somehow we'll make ourselves extinct without even knowing it.

What do you people think?

humanity isn't fit to do much of anything. it just sets itself outside of the competition and leeches off the world anyways.

i think the whole tone you've set is attempting to set it's own conclusion without looking critically at the interaction of humanity and the rest of the world.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
lothar at 9:36AM, Oct. 21, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
LOL ! realy CT ???
how about the 1 BILLION people on this planet already classified as hungry ? thats 1 out of 6 ! or all those failing aquifers ,soon to be flooded coastal farmlands , drying rivers, food being converted to “bio”fuel , shortages of nitrogen , and if thats not enough ; when we start running out of oil what's gunna power all those farm machines ? the answer - YOU are ! or you will starve !!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Custard Trout at 9:44AM, Oct. 21, 2009
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
OH! Silly me! Of course over population is the one and only reason there's any starvation. After all, everyone knows that statistic = cause, right? There aren't any other fucking factors at all. Has nothing to do with ill management of land, greedy dictators, or lack of fresh water, obviously. How could I have been so blind?

Morons.

- - - - -

More on topic: because a lot of people have this bizarre idea that the world is suffering somehow. That we have to ‘get our shit together’. Why? Justice is, and always was, an entirely human concept. The planet doesn't give a shit, other species on the planet, as a whole, don't give a shit. We have no reason other than our own guilt to give a shit either. Most of this blathering about how we're ‘going to blow ourselves up or poison ourselves or some shit’ is mostly just baseless paranoia or cynicism.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:02PM
kyupol at 9:55AM, Oct. 21, 2009
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
Lonnehart
Humans have come a long way from being the furry apelike beings it has evolved from. It has barely survived going extinct due to a supervolcanic eruption, ice ages, disease, and wars with itself. Now Humanity is on top of nearly everything with very few predators. And even those few predators can't knock us off the platform that we now stand on. So you'd think that we get to enjoy our current success, right?

I find it odd that there are those among us who feel that we don't deserve to be here on top. In fact, some of those people think we cheated somehow and think that we should just step off the position that we didn't have any kind of right to. Others think we should not only step off, but that we should make ourselves extinct. Still others think we were not supposed to exist in the first place and that we're Nature's major mistake.

There are people out there who have formed groups dedicated to asking people to stop having children and to let humanity voluntarily die out. I bet there are other, more secretive groups out there who are looking for ways to wipe out humanity in one fell swoop for one reason or another. Maybe some serial killers out there feel they're doing their part to “correct” nature's mistake by taking out as many people as they can….

I find this all funny somehow. And it makes me wonder if these people ever even heard of the so called natural law about “the survival of the fittest”. Then again, maybe we probably should die out since humanity is the source of crazy people like these and somehow we'll make ourselves extinct without even knowing it.

What do you people think?

Google EUGENICS.

Also read:
- Next Million Years by Charles Galton Darwin
- Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
- Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
- NSSM 200 by Henry Kissinger
- Eco Science by John P. Holdren

Sooner or later you'll find out that this is the same old ideology… that inspired both the Nazis and the United Nations
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
Product Placement at 11:01AM, Oct. 21, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
lothar
1 out of 6 Billion!
I actually think we're getting close to the 7 Billion mark.
Just checked it. According to The U.S. Census Bureau there are 6,787.5 million inhabitants, here on Earth. That's an increase of 6.5 million since last month. That's interesting since the 6 billion mark was reached around 2000.

The whole starvation and lack of clean water is more a case of unwillingness to share the wealth rather then there being lack of resources. Take Africa as an example.

My beef with the way Africa was treated throughout the entire 20th century is the fact that we disrupted their way of live and did little to fix it.

Africa is one of the worst off continent because it's relatively underdeveloped. The indigenous people, living there suffered the misfortune of having their way of life turned upside down by expansionist civilizations with technology that was lightyears beyond theirs while demonstrating a complete lack of cultural understanding. European empires ruled over self created colonies made maps, using rulers to decide the borders. The people were introduced to modern medicine and food while they were denied the chance to learn to replicate it. As a result they experienced the same population explosion that the rest of the world went through as their worlds developed. Increased population resulted in increased tensions between different cultured that were forced to live under the same rulers. Uneducated masses meant stagnant or declining cultures. It was a recipe for a world that would become the kingdom of the four horsemen, War, Famine, Pestilence and Death.

We, who live in the western world were greeted with sad images of starving children and sent pocket money so that they would have enough food for a week. Nothing went towards creating a working infrastructure there. This form of “help” only results in prolonged suffering. Handouts never helps the beggar. Wars and lasting tensions meant that the wrong types of leaders could advance to powers creating corrupt governments that benefit from the current status quo and use hunger as a weapon, feeding only those who support them. Potential paradises are reduced to hell on Earth. Superstition runs rampant since little is done to inform the people.

This is the modern man's gift to its cradle.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:51PM
lothar at 11:45AM, Oct. 21, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
people who say that the Earth can support more humans have got to be living in montana or in some cave in the arctic. have you seen places like mexico city or bankok , it's ridiculous !
great strategy , lets just pretend that we can go on forever like this .
the current agriculture that supports the world population is unsustainable even at the current population 6+ billion. we are using fossil fuels to prop up the food propduction as well as fossil water reserves .. fossil - meaning they took millions of years to build up and we are eating them up in a century or so.
WATER - china, us ,arabia - all of these places have a large part of their agriculture based on fossil aquifers , and they are all running out ! thats not even related to global warming.
then on top of that we have companies buying up huge tracts of land in poor countries to grow crops for fuel . .
the problem is not all because of limited rescources , certain policies are making it much worse , but to pretend that unlimited growth is at all possible is moronic.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
ipokino at 4:13PM, Oct. 21, 2009
(offline)
posts: 161
joined: 2-25-2007
lothar
people who say that the Earth can support more humans have got to be living in montana or in some cave in the arctic. have you seen places like mexico city or bankok , it's ridiculous !
great strategy , lets just pretend that we can go on forever like this .
the current agriculture that supports the world population is unsustainable even at the current population 6+ billion. we are using fossil fuels to prop up the food propduction as well as fossil water reserves .. fossil - meaning they took millions of years to build up and we are eating them up in a century or so.
WATER - china, us ,arabia - all of these places have a large part of their agriculture based on fossil aquifers , and they are all running out ! thats not even related to global warming.
then on top of that we have companies buying up huge tracts of land in poor countries to grow crops for fuel . .
the problem is not all because of limited rescources , certain policies are making it much worse , but to pretend that unlimited growth is at all possible is moronic.


Dude! You are sooooooo speaking my language here! (Actually, your very Libertarian' veiwpoint strikes a HUGE chord with me most times…) but you have nailed it on the head. Custard Trout's idea that we are not living on borrowed time is waaaay wrongheaded. Think of how cool this world would be if we had our current tech, and only one million people (plus a lot of robot minions) to make it happen! We would so be ALL living in ritzy mansions, have lots of food to eat, the best of the best in entertainment. An infrastructure to pale the lives of kings (which most of us folk in the USA enjoy today, if you think about it) and no worries!
Not gonna happen. Too many no brains breeding children with no brains to make it work.. Oh well!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:02PM
TheFlyingGreenMonkey at 11:06PM, Oct. 21, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,830
joined: 12-19-2008
ipokino's remarks reminds me of Idiocracy.


@CT: Since justice is all just a human made concept. Who cares if the planet or the animal gives a shit? They don't have too, we do! It dosn't matter if the white tiger or polar bear care if they die, we do. It IS a human made concept so lets keep it going.

Also yes global warming/climate change isn't happening. If it were happening we had nothing to do with it. We could totally survive another ice age. e.e

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:18PM
lothar at 4:06AM, Oct. 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
TheFlyingGreenMonkey
Also yes global warming/climate change isn't happening. If it were happening we had nothing to do with it. We could totally survive another ice age. e.e
lol maybe that was just realy great sourcasm
because just because you say something is not happening doesnt mean its not happening , and just because you think ballets are boring and monster truck shows are fun doeasnt make that true either !
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
TheFlyingGreenMonkey at 8:28AM, Oct. 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,830
joined: 12-19-2008
lothar
TheFlyingGreenMonkey
Also yes global warming/climate change isn't happening. If it were happening we had nothing to do with it. We could totally survive another ice age. e.e
lol maybe that was just realy great sourcasm
because just because you say something is not happening doesnt mean its not happening , and just because you think ballets are boring and monster truck shows are fun doeasnt make that true either !

Yep it was great sourcasm aimed at CT's statement that all that worry of us commenting our own doom is bull.

The e.e = rolling eyes.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:18PM
Custard Trout at 8:41AM, Oct. 22, 2009
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
TheFlyingGreenMonkey
lothar
TheFlyingGreenMonkey
Also yes global warming/climate change isn't happening. If it were happening we had nothing to do with it. We could totally survive another ice age. e.e
lol maybe that was just realy great sourcasm
because just because you say something is not happening doesnt mean its not happening , and just because you think ballets are boring and monster truck shows are fun doeasnt make that true either !

Yep it was great sourcasm aimed at CT's statement that all that worry of us commenting our own doom is bull.

The e.e = rolling eyes.

At no point did I state that none of them are happening. They are, they're just not as important as they're made out to be.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:02PM
ipokino at 9:07AM, Oct. 22, 2009
(offline)
posts: 161
joined: 2-25-2007
TheFlyingGreenMonkey
ipokino's remarks reminds me of Idiocracy.


In what way? It really isn't fair to impugn an essay without making some kind of rational argument to back it. Since you didn't, it smacks of an inability to formulate a rational rebuttal…
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:02PM
SpANG at 9:43AM, Oct. 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
ipokino
TheFlyingGreenMonkey
ipokino's remarks reminds me of Idiocracy.


In what way? It really isn't fair to impugn an essay without making some kind of rational argument to back it. Since you didn't, it smacks of an inability to formulate a rational rebuttal…
Eh, perhaps you didn't see the movie 'Idiocracy'? I'm pretty sure he was talking about this:
Too many no brains breeding children with no brains to make it work.. Oh well!
This was essentially the premise of that movie.

No need to jump to nasty conclusions, ipokino. Chill out. ;)

On your next points…
ipokino
Think of how cool this world would be if we had our current tech, and only one million people (plus a lot of robot minions) to make it happen! We would so be ALL living in ritzy mansions, have lots of food to eat, the best of the best in entertainment. An infrastructure to pale the lives of kings (which most of us folk in the USA enjoy today, if you think about it) and no worries!
See, here's the problem. You can blame the woes of society on the inbreeding of stupids if you want, I happen to think that a very narrow viewpoint.

20 years ago, people that had computers could upgrade them themselves. 40 years ago, everyone that had a car could fix it on their own. You can keep going back, but the formula is the same. You can use a calculator but that doesn't make you smart enough to add things in your head. From the industry age to the technology age, our society has become so reliant on the inventions of others that we rarely think or do for ourselves. Even having an opinion is becoming rarer.

Your Utopia society would be doomed about 10 years in.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
TheFlyingGreenMonkey at 2:55PM, Oct. 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,830
joined: 12-19-2008
Thanks for clearing that up SpANG.


I do have a problem with your examples though. A normal person can't fix there cars anymore with the way they are designed. 20 years ago the people who were using computers were userally people who were interested in computers. Now the people that ARN"T interested in computers have to use them to compete into days market. I can now longer use a keywriter for my essays nor am I expected to do all the research from books. In fact I'm incouraged to just go for the internet databases.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:18PM
Ronson at 3:25PM, Oct. 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
“Survival of the fittest” should not be confused with “Suvival of the strongest/most powerful” … “fittest” in the Darwinian sense is the ability to fit in one's environment.

A species that exhausts its environments resources is doomed for extinction, which is evolution's method of maintaining balance.

As has been pointed out, technology has allowed us to expand our populations more, but there is a downside in that we have more people using resources at the same time we're polluting the planet.

We are the only species that can consciously think about the long term effects of our immediate needs, and the only species that has the ability to modify instinctual behavior. The question is will we recognize any of the long-term dangers soon enough?

Are there too many people? Well, that's subjective. Some people don't think there will be too many people until “we're sharing holes in the ground with five other families” … but I personally think that is far past the population mark that I would be comfortable with. It would probably also be too many people to co-exist with other animals … most notably the ones we rely on for food.

I'm not leaving without a fight, though, so I don't feel I can say that anyone shouldn't exist*. :)

*except Glenn Beck.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ipokino at 11:26AM, Oct. 24, 2009
(offline)
posts: 161
joined: 2-25-2007
SpANG
Eh, perhaps you didn't see the movie 'Idiocracy'? I'm pretty sure he was talking about this:

You are quite correct. I do not have television, nor do I spend a lot of time watching movies.

SpANG
Too many no brains breeding children with no brains to make it work.. Oh well!
This was essentially the premise of that movie.

No need to jump to nasty conclusions, ipokino. Chill out. ;)

This may be true, however, to reference a bit of popular culture without making it known to all communique's that it is a reference and not an insult (which I took it to be; anyone in the communications field will tell you, if you fail to communicate your idea clearly and succinctly–you will end up with a hugely bad result–as I have reason to know having been toasted on these very same forums myself once a while ago, when I made a pop culture reference and Amelius took it waaaaay bad…)
However, my premise stands and has not been rebutted! Evolution is not fiction. Nor is over-population. Custard Trout noted several things he felt were contributory to our problems today…but each and every one, Fresh water, land management, land ownership issues–they are ALL population management issues!!!


SpANG
20 years ago, people that had computers could upgrade them themselves. 40 years ago, everyone that had a car could fix it on their own. You can keep going back, but the formula is the same. You can use a calculator but that doesn't make you smart enough to add things in your head. From the industry age to the technology age, our society has become so reliant on the inventions of others that we rarely think or do for ourselves. Even having an opinion is becoming rarer.

Your Utopia society would be doomed about 10 years in.

Not sure where you are going with this? My ‘utopian’ society would not need to be in any way affected by the above statement's premise. A million–or a few more– persons would have all the necessary skill specializations to continue the expansion of human knowledge…as well as the resources. I am probably wrong in assuming that there would be no problems with the system–all systems have issues–but endless resources have never been a problem!!!!
On the other hand, over-population has led to every single war (with the possible exception of the American Civil War, which was based on ideology) since the early sixteen hundreds! And many wars prior to this were probably similarly based.

I love being alive. I love seeing the incredible things people are creating and doing, but I still feel we are a cancer on Gaia's surface. Wiping out vast numbers of species in our quest to breed in unrestrained numbers, instead of being the protectors of Gaia's habitats…

Hey Ronson!!! Good ta see you back! Missed ya!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:02PM
Ronson at 7:19PM, Oct. 24, 2009
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I've never left, but I'm usually lurking. If someone says what I want to say, I see no reason to repeat it. :)

Pop culture references are a problem with such a diverse media. Idiocracy was, in my opinion, a pretty clever movie until the end bits. This is the same problem as the Obama as Joker poster - if you don't get the pop culture context, you read into it whatever you want to see.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Orin J Master at 9:18PM, Oct. 24, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
Ronson
I've never left, but I'm usually lurking. If someone says what I want to say, I see no reason to repeat it. :)
i really need to learn how to do that….

Pop culture references are a problem with such a diverse media. Idiocracy was, in my opinion, a pretty clever movie until the end bits. This is the same problem as the Obama as Joker poster - if you don't get the pop culture context, you read into it whatever you want to see.
the problem with pop culture is that the understanding that you need to get it fades rather quickly most of the time and you're left with media that's either incomprehensible, too easily misinterpreted, or both.

i wonder if that's the explanation for the the bible…..2000-odd years later there's too much of the context gone from public knowledge.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
Ochitsukanai at 12:17PM, Oct. 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 979
joined: 6-11-2008
Is it really that humanity doesn't deserve it? We must, since we're here. But that doesn't make us a benevolent influence. We're in the middle of a great extinction that many people are unaware of - we annihilate ecosystems in our wake, we encroach needlessly on habitats.

It's fair to argue that we deserve to be where we are, but do we deserve to live as we do? That sort of argument is tantamount to saying “Because we are the fittest, we may do whatever we please.” It's nonsensical. Think, survival of the fittest is the rule regarding what organism is best adapted to its environment. Our placement now will be irrelevant if we create unsustainable lifestyles.

If we breed too much, fill our water and air with toxins, fill the land with toxic garbage and the seas with nuclear waste, and pretend that people who worry about industrial cleansers and such in the water supply are just crazy tree-huggers, our placement will be irrelevant because the world won't be a fit place for anyone.

Always, I wanna be with mew, and make believe with mew
and live in harmony harmony oh nyan
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:20PM
cartoonprofessor at 6:00PM, Oct. 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007
Some good comments abounding in this discussion.

ipokino… wars are not caused by overpopulation though, they are caused by coorporations, companies and individuals seeking to make profit… including the Civil War. Ideology is what the above use to convince the slaves to give their lives to realize that profit.

Back on subject…

I live in Australia. Growing up on a farm in the driest continent on earth taught me well the limitations of our resources, in particular water. Per square mile, Australia is also the least populous country on earth, yet we already are way over our sustainable population levels. The arable land here exists mainly along a narrow strip of our eastern seaboard, yet it is this very same land we are covering with cement in the form of houses, highways and shopping centres. Our water crisis is well documented in the media, a crisis my dearly departed Dad predicted thirty years ago. The answer from our governmental bodies? Not restrict our immigration levels, but increase them! The building industry is what keeps this country going economically, so come on in everybody!

Here, as with in many other places, the environment is teetering on the brink. In fact is is collapsing all around us as we speak. The earthquakes, storms, floods, fires, droughts etc are ample evidence of that. And worse is yet to come. We don't need radical ‘greeny’ groups releasing some virus to kill us off. It is happening naturally. Some will survive, perhaps many. Life will go on even without us. As CT mentioned, nature doesn't give a shit. She just is. She does not have a sense of fair play or justice, she just does.

I don't like to quote biblical texts but one will always ring true… “As you reap, so shall you sow”
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
El Cid at 7:51PM, Oct. 26, 2009
(online)
posts: 972
joined: 5-4-2009
I definitely don’t believe humans can just go on multiplying and using up finite resources indefinitely, but then I also find the “doom and gloom” stories of our imminent extinction equally fantastical. I doubt anything humans are capable of pulling off would succeed in eliminating the entire species. Our civilizations might fail, as have so many others, and we may have to go through some very ugly transitions at various points in the future, but the species will keep on truckin’ one way or another.

I’ve heard of die-off groups like these before, and I don’t get their motives at all. On the one hand, if your aim is to get rid of all humans, then what’s the point of there being a planet at all if no one’s here to appreciate it? A bazillion trees falling in a forest and no one there to hear ‘em. What a waste. On the other hand, if you just want to drastically reduce the population to more sustainable levels, what is there to say that people aren’t just going to go shag-mad and repopulate the place back to critical mass in a century or two? Either way it's a futile effort.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
Product Placement at 9:40AM, Nov. 1, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
I mentioned before that the world was unbalanced when it comes to how the resources of the planet is distributed. The main problem today is that those who have plenty refuse to share with those who have little. Today, according to the World Health Organization, there are more people dying from obesity then there are people dying from starvation in the whole world.

With that being said, I'm not claiming that the world can easily fit more people.

Ironically, the countries that suffer the worst are the ones that contribute most to the population increase in the world. It's an old insurance policy that less developed cultures use. By having lots of children, you ensure that you will be taken care of in your old age, since you maximize the chances that at least few of your children will survive. With things like food aid and better medicine, spilling over from the industrialized societies, more and more of those children survive. It's a curse that's hidden inside the blessing. With more children surviving, the population skyrockets. Europe went through the same phase as it was going through it's industrial revolution but it could maintain a balance by exporting its excess population to other colonies. The current developing nations don't have that same luxury.

Providing devolving nations with minimal aid hurts them more then it benefits. It's a cruel thing to say but they'd be better of if their exes offspring would die. If we truly want to help them, we need to do much more. We'd need to help them develop major infrastructure withing their economy. Educate the masses so that the people have more options available then just farming or farming. The interesting side effect occurs: In modern society, the elderly are taken care of differently. They have pension and elderly care that ensures that they live a relatively easy going live during their autumn years. At the same time, bringing up children becomes more work. You need to take care of them for much longer as they require more education then before. The mentality of the people will switch over to few children per family. That is what will stabilize the population growth.

Unfortunately the next problem with that approach brings us back to resources. Modernize societies, use much more of them then others. Pollution would go up unless we'd introduce green technology to the developing nations, giving them the choice of skipping the whole oil dependency stage. How viable that option is is still a question since none of the developed worlds have yet to achieve that level.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:52PM
therealtj at 4:48PM, Nov. 1, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,282
joined: 3-15-2007
Okay, let's assume for a minute that humans did die off the face of the Earth. Let's say somehow the Earth magically fixed everything humans had done to it. Everything is same as billions of years ago, before humans. Now what happens? Apes follow the evolutionary path to become homosapiens, just like they did before. These new humans will follow a similar path as we did, perhaps killing off themselves only to, once again, be replaced by more apes. Repeat ad nauseum.

And assuming for an instant it's not more homosapiens who fill in our place, what's to say that, for instance, an advance race of mice or dolphins would do any better a job than us?

“The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter Q into a privet bush, but unfortunately there are times when it is unavoidable.”
-Douglas Adams, The Restaurant At the End of the Universe
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:28PM
PhilWrede at 9:48AM, Nov. 3, 2009
(offline)
posts: 83
joined: 10-26-2009
While I don't necessarily think that a sentient species descended from gerbils or iguanas or gerbil/iguanas would do any better than us regarding messing up the planet, the fact of the matter is, now that humans have clawed their way up to the top of whatever dominance chain you're talking about, we have responsibilities to this world that we're so effortlessly able to dominate anymore. Whether we're coming to a point where the world can't sustain the number of people on it, or we've passed it, whether this global warming/climate change thing is 100% man-made or just 65% our fault, whatever it is, we need to face up to the fact that we can affect some kind of change (positive or negative - positive tends to be harder, but negative might just turn the Earth into Tatooine, and we should work to avoid that if at all possible) in the way we treat the world around us.

Humanity needs to do a better job managing itself and the planet. Personally, I don't think we need to die off, but certain aspects of our behavior could stand to. I bet my life has a far greater negative impact on the environment than hundreds of people in Africa or even Asia…
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:43PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved