Overcrowding of Earth?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Ratchet wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[you would have to be selective on who gives up an auto. If cities were organized in a fashion to allow people to live close enough to commute via Bike or walking .

I know you can not legislate things like this but public Transportation is derived with this concept in mind .

You sound like you have the world all figured out, I will let you argue with all the Green Hippies , al by your self :slight_smile:

One thing you have right is the solution to our energy crisis is Bad and Worst.
[/quote]

That brings up a neat point. I have lived in 8 different states in the last 10 years and some places really nailed public transit, others did not. If you engineer cities so everyone lives one place and works another public transit works great (read Seattle and Chicago)… but when everyone lives all over and works all over its a waste (read Detroit, alabama and virginia).
[/quote]

New York City Nailed it, you would have to cut the density of NYC a lot with out public transport[/quote]

One of the most effecient mass transit systems in the world, and it still is not self-sustaining.
[/quote]

I have been there , it is cheap to ride they would have no problem doubling or tripling the fare . It is truly worthy of a Government subsidy [/quote]

That’s easy for us to say as we don’t live there and have to pay the subsidy.

102

[quote]Ratchet wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
Now everyone whose rationnal prime over their animal part can agree that we would be better off with a population decrease. Environmentalist are part of those people. I mean, they want to limit themselves and reduce the nomber of specimen with future in their mind? What the fuck is this animal.

[/quote]

why do liberals always refer to people not being smart enough to disagree with them?
[/quote]

It’s not a liberal thing and it’s not being smart enough. It’s another kind of intelligence. Someone may be able to understand nuclear bomb but don’t ‘‘understand’’ that he shouldn’t drop them everywhere.

103

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Ratchet wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[you would have to be selective on who gives up an auto. If cities were organized in a fashion to allow people to live close enough to commute via Bike or walking .

I know you can not legislate things like this but public Transportation is derived with this concept in mind .

You sound like you have the world all figured out, I will let you argue with all the Green Hippies , al by your self :slight_smile:

One thing you have right is the solution to our energy crisis is Bad and Worst.
[/quote]

That brings up a neat point. I have lived in 8 different states in the last 10 years and some places really nailed public transit, others did not. If you engineer cities so everyone lives one place and works another public transit works great (read Seattle and Chicago)… but when everyone lives all over and works all over its a waste (read Detroit, alabama and virginia).
[/quote]

New York City Nailed it, you would have to cut the density of NYC a lot with out public transport[/quote]

One of the most effecient mass transit systems in the world, and it still is not self-sustaining.
[/quote]

I have been there , it is cheap to ride they would have no problem doubling or tripling the fare . It is truly worthy of a Government subsidy [/quote]

That’s easy for us to say as we don’t live there and have to pay the subsidy.
[/quote]

I think you fail to see that with out that subway NYC would be like any other city, truly a World Class city

104

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Overpopulation is an undefinable concept.

It is just an other environmentalist bogyman whose purpose is to control with fear.[/quote]

When scientists talk about overpopulation, they are usually referring to a population exceeding its biological carrying capacity which is defined as "the maximum number of animals that a specific habitat or area can support without causing deterioration or degradation of that habitat. Likewise, human overpopulation is when the number of people can not be permanently maintained without depleting resources and without degrading the environment and the people’s standard of living.

One might consider that if we were to consume less, we may be able to live within the carrying capacity of the planet. However, we should not reduce our consumption or degrade our lifestyle in order to claim that the human race is not overpopulated.

Clearly an environmentalist ‘‘bogyman’’
Before claiming that something is undefinable you may want to take 5sec to do a research.

105

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Ratchet wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[you would have to be selective on who gives up an auto. If cities were organized in a fashion to allow people to live close enough to commute via Bike or walking .

I know you can not legislate things like this but public Transportation is derived with this concept in mind .

You sound like you have the world all figured out, I will let you argue with all the Green Hippies , al by your self :slight_smile:

One thing you have right is the solution to our energy crisis is Bad and Worst.
[/quote]

That brings up a neat point. I have lived in 8 different states in the last 10 years and some places really nailed public transit, others did not. If you engineer cities so everyone lives one place and works another public transit works great (read Seattle and Chicago)… but when everyone lives all over and works all over its a waste (read Detroit, alabama and virginia).
[/quote]

New York City Nailed it, you would have to cut the density of NYC a lot with out public transport[/quote]

One of the most effecient mass transit systems in the world, and it still is not self-sustaining.
[/quote]

I have been there , it is cheap to ride they would have no problem doubling or tripling the fare . It is truly worthy of a Government subsidy [/quote]

That’s easy for us to say as we don’t live there and have to pay the subsidy.
[/quote]

I think you fail to see that with out that subway NYC would be like any other city, truly a World Class city[/quote]

I can’t believe you guys are talking about eliminating cars (which are convenient and comfortable) in order to be able to fill more people into an already crowded city. there is no hope for this world.

106

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Overpopulation is an undefinable concept.

It is just an other environmentalist bogyman whose purpose is to control with fear.[/quote]

When scientists talk about overpopulation, they are usually referring to a population exceeding its biological carrying capacity which is defined as "the maximum number of animals that a specific habitat or area can support without causing deterioration or degradation of that habitat. Likewise, human overpopulation is when the number of people can not be permanently maintained without depleting resources and without degrading the environment and the people’s standard of living.

One might consider that if we were to consume less, we may be able to live within the carrying capacity of the planet. However, we should not reduce our consumption or degrade our lifestyle in order to claim that the human race is not overpopulated.

Clearly an environmentalist ‘‘bogyman’’
Before claiming that something is undefinable you may want to take 5sec to do a research. [/quote]

Exactly.

Of course there exists a limit at which this planet cannot support further population growth. Ever heard of a non-renewable resource?

But that doomsday limit isn’t even the real concern, because far before it is ever reached, widespread pandemic disease and chronic warfare over dwindling supplies of resources come into play.

107

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Ratchet wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[you would have to be selective on who gives up an auto. If cities were organized in a fashion to allow people to live close enough to commute via Bike or walking .

I know you can not legislate things like this but public Transportation is derived with this concept in mind .

You sound like you have the world all figured out, I will let you argue with all the Green Hippies , al by your self :slight_smile:

One thing you have right is the solution to our energy crisis is Bad and Worst.
[/quote]

That brings up a neat point. I have lived in 8 different states in the last 10 years and some places really nailed public transit, others did not. If you engineer cities so everyone lives one place and works another public transit works great (read Seattle and Chicago)… but when everyone lives all over and works all over its a waste (read Detroit, alabama and virginia).
[/quote]

New York City Nailed it, you would have to cut the density of NYC a lot with out public transport[/quote]

One of the most effecient mass transit systems in the world, and it still is not self-sustaining.
[/quote]

I have been there , it is cheap to ride they would have no problem doubling or tripling the fare . It is truly worthy of a Government subsidy [/quote]

That’s easy for us to say as we don’t live there and have to pay the subsidy.
[/quote]

I think you fail to see that with out that subway NYC would be like any other city, truly a World Class city[/quote]

I can’t believe you guys are talking about eliminating cars (which are convenient and comfortable) in order to be able to fill more people into an already crowded city. there is no hope for this world. [/quote]

I am not really talking about every one giving up their car, I personally would love to give up my truck, if I did not need it,y truck is paid off now but payments , Insurance and gas had to run close to $1000 a month , now it is $70 just to fill up.

108

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Overpopulation is an undefinable concept.

It is just an other environmentalist bogyman whose purpose is to control with fear.[/quote]

When scientists talk about overpopulation, they are usually referring to a population exceeding its biological carrying capacity which is defined as "the maximum number of animals that a specific habitat or area can support without causing deterioration or degradation of that habitat. Likewise, human overpopulation is when the number of people can not be permanently maintained without depleting resources and without degrading the environment and the people’s standard of living.

One might consider that if we were to consume less, we may be able to live within the carrying capacity of the planet. However, we should not reduce our consumption or degrade our lifestyle in order to claim that the human race is not overpopulated.

Clearly an environmentalist ‘‘bogyman’’
Before claiming that something is undefinable you may want to take 5sec to do a research. [/quote]

What are the units of measure for “carrying capacity” and how do you measure it?

109

^look it up on the internet

110

No measurement can account for economization of scarce resources.

111

How the hell you gonna talk about “carrying capacity” of the earth’s resources when we’re constantly improving the efficiency with which we can produce and use these resources? It’s a fluid number, and always going up as we become more and more resourceful.

And, as has been noted multiple times, war over resources, combined with sicknesses and disease always seems to do a decent job of keeping population down. Maybe we should stop preventing wars in all these countries, and playing global police, for more than one reason…

112

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
How the hell you gonna talk about “carrying capacity” of the earth’s resources when we’re constantly improving the efficiency with which we can produce and use these resources? It’s a fluid number, and always going up as we become more and more resourceful.

And, as has been noted multiple times, war over resources, combined with sicknesses and disease always seems to do a decent job of keeping population down. Maybe we should stop preventing wars in all these countries, and playing global police, for more than one reason…[/quote]

We are so much better off trying to fix our side of the hemisphere where the real threats to national security are than the middle east.

But yeah, of course we’re improving our resource efficiency. No one with any basic knowledge on the issue will say otherwise. The question is if technology is improving fast enough or are the resources being depleted faster.

I don’t know how to post images, so bear with me as I try to explain.

Let’s say we two graphs. One is technology improving are ability to stretch out our resources. The other graph is rate that resources are being depleted. If you superimpose the two graphs, the first line should never ever touch the other point. The argument is that rate of resource depletion is greater than that of techonology.

If that’s true, and the rates are very similar, it might be a thousand or a hundred thousand years before they meet. If it’s significantly different, than it could be 100 years. The other thing to consider is that the rate is not constant for either graph. It’s also extremely difficult to predict because of the zillions upon zillions of factors.

Now my common sense argument is that we are the stewards of our planet and we need to take care of it accordingly.

113

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No measurement can account for economization of scarce resources.[/quote]

Where are you getting at? Correct if I am wrong but it seems you want to reduce our lifestyle in order to economise resource, so you could consider that the earth isn’t overpopulated anymore? Then what about stopping to eat meat today? That would economize a shitload of ressource.

114

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
And, as has been noted multiple times, war over resources, combined with sicknesses and disease always seems to do a decent job of keeping population down. Maybe we should stop preventing wars in all these countries, and playing global police, for more than one reason…[/quote]

If the goal in keeping population low is to provide a good life for everyone then that’s not the point. Those countries have the right and should develop themselves (and consume more…), and the people to have a good life. They should have the right to live in a war-free environment

About demographics, it has been proved that educated women tend to have less babies. Consequently to reduce the demographic growth we should fund program to educate them. and send them condom of course. but I think you are a christian, right?

Finally the only thing we can really do now about overpopulation is TALK about it and dispel the taboo. Like we do in this thread. Just talk about it.

115

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No measurement can account for economization of scarce resources.[/quote]

Where are you getting at? Correct if I am wrong but it seems you want to reduce our lifestyle in order to economise resource, so you could consider that the earth isn’t overpopulated anymore? Then what about stopping to eat meat today? That would economize a shitload of ressource.[/quote]

Why not just call overpopulation overconsumption since there is no clear way to measure either of the two qualities?