[quote]kothreat wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Don’t take it personal…it’s just the political forum…but honestly man, you aren’t making any sense…
It’s the whole “preciousness of life thing” that just doesn’t compute, in case you’re not getting my main point.
(I only skimmed the thread)
Personally my concern with overpopulation is not running out of oil or saving the earth or anything like that but I want to be able to sustain my quality of life that doesn’t seem possible in an overpopulated world.
I consider myself an environmentalist but not for hippy-treehugging reasons but because as a person equally as selfish as those who wish to pave over everything, I wish to not pave over everything so it is there for me to enjoy. IE I want the valleys I hike in to remain intact so I can continue to hike in them, not for the owls that may be living there, although there existence does enhance it. I think a large chunk of environmentalists are actually in it for the same reasons but won’t admit to it. But I wish they would because the dishonesty is how they lose credibility. The earth WILL survive whatever we humans can throw at it but will it be worth living on?
I believe as populations reach certain levels, quality of life does decline and so I do agree with Oleena’s title of the thread.
[quote]debraD wrote:
(I only skimmed the thread)
Personally my concern with overpopulation is not running out of oil or saving the earth or anything like that but I want to be able to sustain my quality of life that doesn’t seem possible in an overpopulated world.
I consider myself an environmentalist but not for hippy-treehugging reasons but because as a person equally as selfish as those who wish to pave over everything, I wish to not pave over everything so it is there for me to enjoy. IE I want the valleys I hike in to remain intact so I can continue to hike in them, not for the owls that may be living there, although there existence does enhance it. I think a large chunk of environmentalists are actually in it for the same reasons but won’t admit to it. But I wish they would because the dishonesty is how they lose credibility. The earth WILL survive whatever we humans can throw at it but will it be worth living on?
I believe as populations reach certain levels, quality of life does decline and so I do agree with Oleena’s title of the thread.[/quote]
Now THIS is an environmentalist point of view I can totally understand and relate to. VERY different from the “save the earth” bullshit. Cuz that shit’s just 100% disingenuous.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
It’s the whole “preciousness of life thing” that just doesn’t compute, in case you’re not getting my main point. [/quote]
It could be that I’m not.
Are you referring to a previous post when I wrote, “Oh no, but life is too precious”, or what ever it was?
If that’s the case then, it was meant sarcastically. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think life has no value. But, in the large picture it’s rather insignificant.
[quote]kothreat wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
It’s the whole “preciousness of life thing” that just doesn’t compute, in case you’re not getting my main point. [/quote]
It could be that I’m not.
Are you referring to a previous post when I wrote, “Oh no, but life is too precious”, or what ever it was?
If that’s the case then, it was meant sarcastically. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think life has no value. But, in the large picture it’s rather insignificant.[/quote]
If life is insignificant, then why do you care about over-population at all? Believe me, the effect that human consumption, waste and pollution has on the Earth is a blip on the radar screen, if that. It seems as if you want to rid the planet of enough people to maintain some sort of environment under which human life can thrive. Yet human life isn’t important in the larger picture, according to you. So which is it? Human life is worth so much that we need to kill off billions of people in order to maintain it? A “we had to destroy the city to save it”-type of thing? Or is life not that important? And if so, why all the bizarre attempts to save mankind?
Surely you aren’t foolish enough to think that maintaining an environment under which humans can thrive is “natural”? You do realize that the Earth is going to warm and cool and warm and cool regardless of whether we’re here or not and that all we can do is slightly put off this phenomenon in order to stick around for what amounts to less than a blink of an eye in the lifespan of the Earth, right?
It seems to me that most people’s arguments are based on the premise that the earth has a “natural” and “unnatural” state. No. The current state of affairs is always just a continuation of the evolutionary process governed by the laws of nature. What I mean by this is that there is no “pure” state of the Earth where everything is ‘lovey-dovey’ or ‘ideal’.
Having said that, natural resources such as oil will never run out. The supply will just rise and fall, and eventually it will dwindle to a point where other currently unfeasible options become more economic. That is not good or bad, it’s just the way things are and will always be. The same thing can be said about global warming, population, whatever…
Definitely seems like Mercantilism is still a prevalent state of mind. Wealth is created, and unlimited. I should feel bad when I eat a steak or build a house or drive a car? As I see it, we are never losing resources. They only change form. If anything, the Earth is gaining resources because it absorbs energy given to it by the Sun.
[quote]majik wrote:
Sounds like a crackpot old man to me. Too many statements on half assed human geography and little knowledge into biology, ecology, and insight to world resources and reasons for over population other that us fucking like rabbits.
We won’t “decline” as he puts it, we have yet to reach our maximum level of population before controls take over. Once we reach that number, some sort of control will occur and then the population will “level off”. and by that, lots die. We get a period of regrowth, so on and so forth.
It’s fear mongering as most will not look deeply into the issue.[/quote]
Good post!
Humans will adapt. Or they won’t. We are all contributors to the eventual outcome (whatever that may be). If one of the “doomsday scenarios” happens during the course of MY lifetime, I will certainly do what I have to do to ensure that I’m on the side of the equation with the most advantages. What other choice does one have? In that scenario you’re either the hammer or the nail… It’s a no-brainer.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
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.[/quote]
So what you’re saying is thriving=multiplying at an exponential rate and changing in a constant direction away from nature?
Now, whoever said we’d thrive by killing off that large a percentage of the population is just throwing shit out there without really thinking it through, as no one nowdays knows how to do anything for themselves and we certainly wouldn’t thrive with so few people in the total equation. We’d probably starve and freeze or catch diseases immediately after the number cut.
[quote]Berserkergang wrote:
[quote]majik wrote:
Sounds like a crackpot old man to me. Too many statements on half assed human geography and little knowledge into biology, ecology, and insight to world resources and reasons for over population other that us fucking like rabbits.
We won’t “decline” as he puts it, we have yet to reach our maximum level of population before controls take over. Once we reach that number, some sort of control will occur and then the population will “level off”. and by that, lots die. We get a period of regrowth, so on and so forth.
It’s fear mongering as most will not look deeply into the issue.[/quote]
Good post!
[/quote]
Agreed, this is what I learned in my bio class as well. There will be some limiting resource, or control, that we will run into (a long time from now), it could be oil, it could be something else such as food, shelter, or predation by aliens (ok I made that last one up, hopefully we don’t run into that :P). We won’t encounter that day by waking up in the morning, and saying “oh shit the oil wells are dry!” Essentially, we will realize what that limiting resource is as it dwindles down, and it will take a looong time for that resource to dwindle down. Over this period of time, humans will be coming up with alternatives.
BTW fertility rates have been leveling off for quite some time. The jump from 6 to 7 billion population only took 10-15 years, but right now there is a steady decline in population growth. We should reach 8-10 billion people by 2050. This is a sign that we are reaching our carrying capacity.
Also, when a price spike of this limiting resource occurs (let’s say it is oil), people will counter this by substituting an equivalent resource (even if it is inferior) or switching to a new technology.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
So what would be less dignified- Living in a population explosion where you are still an autonomous being of your own free will, which may be more difficult of a life than we know of now, but at least having the dignity of a free and autonomous existence, or living within the boundaries of a plan that is not of your making or agreement, in which dignity is considered a commodity, and people are essentially herd stock where in some will be culled and others will be the breed stock.
I would take my chances on the former rather than the latter.
If we were to anthropomorphize for the sake of analogy- Look at a white tail deer for a moment. It is born and dies a free animal. It may starve to death or be torn to pieces as a meal for a pack of wolves, but it lived freely and fruitfully its entire life, without regard for how it will end.
On the other hand, you have a beef cow. It’s entire existence is completely contrived, from conception to its end, either as breed stock of food. It is penned in, weighed, measured, fed, then destroyed, with it’s own volition never taken into consideration.
I would put forth that when a person engages in the conversion of an intrinsic value such as human dignity from a given right of existence to a commodity, which is what is done under the assumption that more people = less dignity, that person is putting their self and everybody else into the pen to await slaughter. The death of their dignity has already occurred, and it is just a matter of time before the body follows suit.
I for one would rather not put myself or anybody else in that pen. Not surprising that from the hallowed halls of Academia comes a professor who puts forth an idea that that takes a running leap down a very slippery ethical slope like a kid getting a head start for a slip and slide.
In short- Fuck that professor and his theory on human dignity. He can sacrifice his own on the altar of high minded idealism, but he damn sure better leave mine alone.
edit: Nothing against you Jasmine, Yours was just the post that stimulated a though, which developed into another.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
So what would be less dignified- Living in a population explosion where you are still an autonomous being of your own free will, which may be more difficult of a life than we know of now, but at least having the dignity of a free and autonomous existence, or living within the boundaries of a plan that is not of your making or agreement, in which dignity is considered a commodity, and people are essentially herd stock where in some will be culled and others will be the breed stock.
I would take my chances on the former rather than the latter.
If we were to anthropomorphize for the sake of analogy- Look at a white tail deer for a moment. It is born and dies a free animal. It may starve to death or be torn to pieces as a meal for a pack of wolves, but it lived freely and fruitfully its entire life, without regard for how it will end.
On the other hand, you have a beef cow. It’s entire existence is completely contrived, from conception to its end, either as breed stock of food. It is penned in, weighed, measured, fed, then destroyed, with it’s own volition never taken into consideration.
I would put forth that when a person engages in the conversion of an intrinsic value such as human dignity from a given right of existence to a commodity, which is what is done under the assumption that more people = less dignity, that person is putting their self and everybody else into the pen to await slaughter. The death of their dignity has already occurred, and it is just a matter of time before the body follows suit.
I for one would rather not put myself or anybody else in that pen. Not surprising that from the hallowed halls of Academia comes a professor who puts forth an idea that that takes a running leap down a very slippery ethical slope like a kid getting a head start for a slip and slide.
In short- Fuck that professor and his theory on human dignity. He can sacrifice his own on the altar of high minded idealism, but he damn sure better leave mine alone.
edit: Nothing against you Jasmine, Yours was just the post that stimulated a though, which developed into another.[/quote]
I don’t know that in the midst of a population explosion/crisis you can completely maintain autonomy as we know it today, more controls will need to be in place so that “the plebes don’t run amok.” So you have the appearance of free will without true free will.
If the options are that vs. breed stock/slaughter stock, I guess it’s the more appealing option, but it’s still a loss of dignity in either situation.
First of all, what the hell is Human Dignity? Dignity is something you either have or do not have as an individual there is no such thing that just comes with being born. We humans are neither rare nor precious.
Crackpots have been shouting about peak oil since 1970 at least and so far its all been crap. Will we run out? Yep, but anybody even trying to estimate when is kidding themselves. Will we end up with massive wars over resources, probably but thats been the story of mankind for our entire history.
As for overpopulation well nature is going to take care of that if we don’t accidentally do it ourselves…
[quote]Theface wrote:
I don’t know that in the midst of a population explosion/crisis you can completely maintain autonomy as we know it today, more controls will need to be in place so that “the plebes don’t run amok.” So you have the appearance of free will without true free will.
If the options are that vs. breed stock/slaughter stock, I guess it’s the more appealing option, but it’s still a loss of dignity in either situation.[/quote]
Regardless of population or even with consideration for the current population- are you yourself, or are you lost in a mass of humanity governed by the rule of law?
If you are yourself with a code of ethics and values by which you define yourself, you are autonomous regardless of rule of law. Rule of law applies to your actions and the society that you live in, not your identity or personal values. They may coincide, but they are not the same.
Rule of law can state that if you see a man steal a loaf of bread, it is your responsibility to shoot him dead. That is the rule of law.
But a personal value of the sanctity of life would compel you not to. That is who you are.
I think I’m picking up what you’re laying down… both factors determine one’s final action, however I was referring to the fact that some punishments are draconian to coerce better compliance with that regulation, and sometimes enforcement of said regulation exceeds what the rule of law says. In both situations one is at a loss of dignity.
We’re constantly in a battle of true free will vs what society tells us is acceptable, and we have to trade some of that free will if we want the benefits of what a society provides.
We’re not going to run out of resources. I’m sure we have 10 viable technologies ready once the oil is gone.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
So what would be less dignified- Living in a population explosion where you are still an autonomous being of your own free will, which may be more difficult of a life than we know of now, but at least having the dignity of a free and autonomous existence, or living within the boundaries of a plan that is not of your making or agreement, in which dignity is considered a commodity, and people are essentially herd stock where in some will be culled and others will be the breed stock.
I would take my chances on the former rather than the latter.
[/quote]
Freewill still exist even if you can’t have children. You are still free but now you don’t only have theoretical freedom but practical freedom, ressource and space. But there is a price to pay for that. I honestly think things would far better for everyone is such a thing would be enforced. We are not talking about regulation and control (because it would fail) but about putting some chemical that would sterilise in a widely distributed product. And everything would continue the way it always been which is something that seems important to people from USA. except now people don’t have children and a bunch of problem are solved.
but if drinking and eating polluted water and food, dying of diseases related to pollution and overcrowding, and overall living a crappy life with unhappy people everywhere around you all the time in a fucked up place (which has nothing romantic even with all the free will in the world) is no problem then I see why you would oppose this.
Also I noticed how people from Canada are more open to this idea than people from the USA and from the rest of the world. This doesn’t matter except everywhere in everywhere in disfunctionnal place of the world you meet people that dreams of going in CANADA.Why? because it is seen has an harmonious country with a lot of space. Now that pisses me off that those people are gonna come here because we have the avantage of a country where there is not much people with that kind of let’s shit everywhere chaos ideology from retarded countries. They are gonna bring what they want to get away from. Being as stubborn as everyone they aint gonna leave their retarded mentality in their country. but that is another story
About immigration and disease
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/11/19/16214916.html
HIV positive African infects people.
It’s like the 3rd or 4th time I’ve heard about this happening. It’s complete bullshit. I don’t get letting people with serious diseases into your country.
But:
“Since 1991, it has been Canadian
government policy that people living
with HIV/AIDS do not represent a
danger to public health or safety by
virtue of their HIV status.”
source:
http://mqhrg.mcgill.ca/i/bisaillon/Immigration_policy_and_PHA_2007.pdf
This needs to change. Tell those infected that it’s not a danger to your health.