But does the overconsumption of resources by the “haves” and the restricted access to resources of the “have nots” which will undoubtedly occur in an overpopulation scenario allow for human dignity to exist?
Maslow anyone?
[quote]Theface wrote:
But does the overconsumption of resources by the “haves” and the restricted access to resources of the “have nots” which will undoubtedly occur in an overpopulation scenario allow for human dignity to exist?
Maslow anyone?[/quote]
This is exactly my point. The discrepancy between the rich and the poor can only increase unless population growth is halted or we find unlimited resources (which is impossible if we still live here). He points out that twenty years ago your vote counted for a larger percentage of the total vote because there were less people. As population increases, your voice is heard less and less and it matters less if you die.
I’d like to point out that he DOESN’T claim when we’re going to run out of resources, he simply states that WE WILL IF POPULATION GROWTH AND CONSUMPTION RATES CONTINUE.
Also, where are people getting the idea that DEATH is the only means to population control? What about contraception?
This guy’s biggest point is that the things which Americans are taught are desirable- growth in consumption rates (which would mean increased demand and thus supply of products thus increased GDP) and protecting life (prolife) cannot be sustained. It simply wont. We’ve already witnessed a decrease in the production of oil, and WEIRDLY it occurred at the same time as the biggest global depression we’ve seen in most of our life-times.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Cliff’s Notes:
Basically, in about 10-30 years we’re going to run out of oil and the population is going to be way above what it is now.
Because of this, there’s going be be much more competition for resources and the division between the poor and the rich is going to grow. the importance of human life is going to decrease and democracy is going to cease to exist (that last one is because the more people there are, the less your vote does.)[/quote]
The poor and the rich has separated more and more since 1974. And, before oil runs out, prices will go up too much and the opportunity cost will have people use alternative energy before oil actually runs out.
Plus, with as much fast food restaurants we got around here seems that oil will never run out. Just throw diesel engine in the ride and poor French fry oil in the tank.
BTW Family Guy last week had an interesting commentary on something along these lines in their recent Christmas episode… and yes I just cited Family Guy as social commentary on a serious subject
[quote]kothreat wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
Dude…I’m from Canada and your idea makes no sense.
We could put 200,000 people into northern Alberta and no one would know for 200 years.[/quote]
That’s the point. It shouldn’t be known we are here. If we as an “intelligent” animal were seriously worried about the state of the earth and our species, the quickest way to deal with it would be kill off 99.5% of the population. The earth would thrive and I’m guessing so would humans. [/quote]
Um…no. Humans wouldn’t thrive because that means growth and you just killed 99.5% of the population.
[quote]kothreat wrote:
[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
[quote]kothreat wrote:
IF we were truly intelligent and rational, we would gather about 200 000 people of diverse backgrounds, set them up with all that would be needed to keep shit running on a smaller scale, then kill the rest of us.
[/quote]
Great idea. Unless you’re not one of the 200,000.
[/quote]
Exactly.
That’s why I was saying ‘if’ we were truly rational animals we would be able to see this.
I’m pretty fucking useless, I’d volunteer to be blasted into the sun.
[/quote]
Wow…rational =/= kill ourselves. I hope you don’t have any guns in your house.
BTW Family Guy last week had an interesting commentary on something along these lines in their recent Christmas episode… and yes I just cited Family Guy as social commentary on a serious subject
I always liked this documentary
it’s a touchy subject isn’t it
population control anyone? It seems that for most of you not having babies = killing yourself
Human dignity DOESNT survive overpopulation. You just have to go to any poor country to see how less life is worth there.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Kothreat, you say that it is more natural to want to prolong our stay than it is to create and discard products that do nothing but waste resources and pollute everything. But what is MOST natural is for individual humans to make their own personal stay on this planet as comfortable as possible, because we CAN. This necessitates the “overuse” of certain resources. I would argue that it is much more unnatural for us to purposely live in less-than-ideal conditions, by our standards, in order to prolong future generations’ existence, because that is contrary to what humans have done since the beginning of civilization.
[/quote]
The solution would be to reduce the population so everybody can use how much ressource they want.
since the world is chaos meaning that no such thing can be enforced AND
since the natural desire to have child is the stronger than any kind of rationnal altruist effort
since most people are religious which is not the most rationnal thing
the only thing that can be done is mass sterilisation of human against their will and in their ignorance. Everything is saved but how many people would be pissed against who done it.
It seems most people don’t quite get this. The problem is not running out of oil or overpopulation. The problem is peak oil, population size will have an effect on exactly when this happens but its not the cause of it. At the time of Peak oil there will actually be quite a lot of oil left in the world but. Its value will start to quickly go up causing a faster gap between the rich and the poor.
Predictions of when this will happen can change based on finding new oil fields but how long do you think we will keep finding those for?
[quote]kothreat wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
Dude…I’m from Canada and your idea makes no sense.
We could put 200,000 people into northern Alberta and no one would know for 200 years.[/quote]
That’s the point. It shouldn’t be known we are here. If we as an “intelligent” animal were seriously worried about the state of the earth and our species, the quickest way to deal with it would be kill off 99.5% of the population. The earth would thrive and I’m guessing so would humans. [/quote]
How can the “earth” thrive? It’s a rock. Rocks thrive?
[quote]kothreat wrote:
IF we were truly intelligent and rational, we would gather about 200 000 people of diverse backgrounds, set them up with all that would be needed to keep shit running on a smaller scale, then kill the rest of us.
Seriously, if we were truly worried about the survival of the human race and wanted to reverse the negative effects we have caused to this planet, that’s what needs to be done.
Oh no, but human life if too precious. Bullshit, buncha selfish fucks flying around space on this rock with a nugget centre.
Oh, the irony…
If human life IS precious, then indeed, genocide is unethical.
If human life is NOT precious, why would the life of ANY animal be precious? And if NO life is precious, who gives a shit about global warming? The only potential downfall of not caring is that all life ends, but it’s not precious, so who gives a flying fuck? Your logic is so fail it fails at failing…
[quote]kothreat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What I don’t get is why people always look at this sort of thing from a disastrous perspective. There are going to be benefits from over-population, if it even happens. First of all, the Earth will self-regulate itself. Us humans are part of the natural process and while we may not be around forever, the Earth probably has several hundred billion years left. It’s unnatural for us to be around even remotely that long.
Global warming is a perfect example. Sure, global warming is happening, but all we hear are these disaster-type scenarios rather than the benefits of global warming. And some of these “disasters” aren’t even going to happen. For instance, I’m here in Santa Cruz visiting my parents, and my dad was telling me how everyone here is up in arms about global warming and people freak out because they think rising ocean levels will bury the town under water.
What they don’t realize is that it’ll NEVER HAPPEN. The tectonic plates out here are such that the North American plate is being pushed up by the Pacific plate at a rate far faster than the ocean’s levels are expected to rise in even the most drastic circumstances. The shoreline is rising faster than the ocean can. So what if a place like New Orleans is buried under water. It’s built in a fucking hole set below sea-level. Global warming may eliminate it, but it shouldn’t be there in the first place. Sacramento is the same way.
Also, with global warming people are growing all sorts of shit in places like Greenland or Siberia that was never possible before. This could be a boon to all sorts of places. Plus, with rising ocean levels in places that ARE susceptible to coastal flooding, such as the East Coast or parts of the western European coastline, the ability to desalinate water will become very important as natural waterways are inundated with salt water.
So now there will be a demand for desalinization plants and developed countries that are best-equipped to build these and that HAVE to build them will become the forerunners in a new, very viable industry. These countries could be at the forefront of a movement to bring more clean drinking water to places like India or the Sudan. Because THAT is what is threatened more than anything by over-population: access to drinkable water. 90% of India doesn’t have access to it and it’s the same in most of eastern sub-Saharan Africa.
Another benefit is the melting of the polar ice cap in the Arctic Ocean. With that thing melted for four months out of the year, ships can sail out of the Hudson Bay, over the North Pole and into Northern Europe or Russia without having to use all the extra resources necessary to ship goods across North America to the coast, across the Atlantic or Pacific and into these other continents.
That route hasn’t been open in centuries and when it does open, it will save on all sorts of fuel costs and thereby reduce carbon emissions. It will also make it easier to ship food to other parts of the globe, thereby further easing the strain of over-population.
I don’t think people realize any of this stuff. There’s all sorts of other potential benefits that I can’t even think of right now. So instead of all this doom-and-gloom talk about killing everyone off, let’s take the time to think about the possible benefits to global warming or over-population. Here we are worried about preserving the atmosphere and limiting carbon emissions because they’re unnatural and people forget that human waste and consumption IS natural. WE are natural. Our emission, our waste and pollution is just as natural as cows shitting in fields and releasing methane gas.
We aren’t going to be here forever, period. THAT would be unnatural. So I think we should embrace the benefits of global warming caused by over-population because there are some there. But to try to slow the whole thing down simply to prolong our stay here is what’s unnatural. Our over-population is natural and, short of killing everybody off, is unavoidable. In fact, even that wouldn’t work. If we reduce the globe’s population down to 200,000, assuming that current technological advances remained in place, we’d be right back where we are now in just a few generations or so. [/quote]
We may be able to survive, but we won’t thrive. And, neither will anything else (except disease etc) while we continue to use resources at an ever increasing pace.
It’s more natural for us to want to prolong our stay than it is to create and discard products that do nothing but waste resources and pollute everything. It’s natural for every species to want to prolong itself for as long as possible.
It’s not natural that we can be blamed for the unnatural extinction of many animals and other living things. I know, from what you wrote above you can argue that it is natural. But, I can’t see it that way.
[/quote]
Sorry, I wasn’t aware you were the authority on what’s “natural” for all things mankind related. Where do you take that course? Is it a special school they have in Canada?
[quote]kothreat wrote:
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I thought global warming was supposed to kill everybody except people who love the earth and buy green labeled products.
You mean that plan has changed?
(actually, this reminds me of the “peak oil” arguments from a few years ago. Same premise.)
[/quote]
when I started college in 2001 they said by 2020 all oil would be gone. Then someone did some real calculations and it showed we had over 200 years of oil based on continued linear growth (which never happens, its less). so the oil thing is a bunch of BS.
Global warming and the whole green thing are the way comunists realized they could control the free world. They have to control us to save us !!!
Also, has anyone noticed the canadians around here are all about killing off everyone in the name of saving the environment??[/quote]
Not just to save the environment, but ourselves as well.
[/quote]
What IS an environment? How do you save it? Who is to say at what point is this intangible thing “balanced”? Is our “purpose” as a race to preserve a chemical balance, or am I missing something?
kothreat please stop posting here.
That is all.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]kothreat wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
Dude…I’m from Canada and your idea makes no sense.
We could put 200,000 people into northern Alberta and no one would know for 200 years.[/quote]
That’s the point. It shouldn’t be known we are here. If we as an “intelligent” animal were seriously worried about the state of the earth and our species, the quickest way to deal with it would be kill off 99.5% of the population. The earth would thrive and I’m guessing so would humans. [/quote]
Um…no. Humans wouldn’t thrive because that means growth and you just killed 99.5% of the population.[/quote]
I suppose it depends on how you view thriving. I don’t see humans thriving right now. Sure, we’re growing, but with a figure like 2% of the population owns more than half the wealth I can’t believe that is considered thriving.
Eliminate a majority of people, and make sure they’re set-up, that population would thrive.
There’s a possibility that this will happen anyway. Why not be preemptive about it?
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]kothreat wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
Dude…I’m from Canada and your idea makes no sense.
We could put 200,000 people into northern Alberta and no one would know for 200 years.[/quote]
That’s the point. It shouldn’t be known we are here. If we as an “intelligent” animal were seriously worried about the state of the earth and our species, the quickest way to deal with it would be kill off 99.5% of the population. The earth would thrive and I’m guessing so would humans. [/quote]
How can the “earth” thrive? It’s a rock. Rocks thrive?[/quote]
The stuff growing out of it can thrive. I would consider that part of the earth as well.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
kothreat please stop posting here.
That is all. [/quote]
Seriously man? You’re trying to run my show? Don’t worry about it.
You’re on of the posters that I have a lot of respect for on this site, but you can kiss my ass.
Kothreat, you talk about thriving as a species, but do you even understand exactly what that entails? For mankind to thrive we must be progressing forward. Now what exactly progressing forward means is open to interpretation, but I get the impression that you feel in order for us to thrive we must either move backwards or we must do what’s totally unnatural for humans, all in the name of maintaining what is “natural”.
Humans are not thriving if we are not using the intellect that separates us from all other animals to limit ourselves. Sure, we could use our intellect to ensure a longer existence on this planet, but how do we do that? Your solution is to kill off 99.5% of the humans. All this does is ensure that we DO NOT thrive. Think about it: if we were to do this, humans will just return back to the position we are in now. THAT is not natural. What is natural is for humans to seek out new ways to prolong our existence here without murdering billions of people. We cannot create the cyclical process that will keep global population in check AND expect to thrive as a species AND maintain a natural state on this planet. It is natural for us to multiply to the point where we cannot sustain our lifestyle. Killing off even 1/3 of the globe’s population, similar to what the Plague did, would set back progress for mankind. We would not be thriving if we were dropping like flies.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t expect to maintain this mythical natural state that includes a check on global population. It’s a contradiction, because to remain natural is for humans to continue to multiply until we naturally reach a point where we cannot continue at that rate and resources dry up to the point where the population finally begins to drop. Of course, then we cannot “thrive”, unless you equate thriving with mass death due to lack of resources, food and water.