No one blames over-population for our diminishing natural resources! WHY NOT?

[charles brough]

I believe the reason no one wants to ask it publically, let alone deal with it, is that it has only two solutions (that I can think of):

 

1. You impose tyrannical reproduction constraints upon everyone (like China has attempted). This is pretty much guaranteed to outrage almost everybody, and probably trigger mass uprisings and revolts that you will have to put down by brutal force and the imposition of a police state. (Luckily, China already had a police state.

 

Yes, you have, I think, hit upon two major reasons. There is one more: the subject is also avoided because all the old religions of the world promote the concept of fertility and the so-called "sacredness" of life. If it is "sacred," then "the more of it the better." Now, the old-religious influence has so grown in our society that no media source wants to get involved in mentioning the subject. After all, the over-religious have a big stake in it; over-crowding the world leads to atomic war and the faithful want an armageddon so they can be "saved" and Christ can return.

 

This shows the power of religion! Well, if even old religions can have such negative power over society, imagine what a scientific one, a scientific world-view and way-of-thinking system would have and how it would have the power to mold thinking in a population reduction way. It is not a matter of only brute force. Incentives could be used. But people with a common belief system against population growth would cooperate to see that it happens. It just needs to be the society's goal.

[charles brough]

I think there are other significant forces at work as well. Well, they are at work when birth control is available and social/religious taboos do not prevent them.

 

Most of the world exists in different stages of a demographic transition from high infant mortality to low infant mortality. Some countries are completely through the transition already. In those countries, the average fertility is well below 2 children per woman. In the 25 countries of the EU, it is at 1.5 on average. Japan is at 1.3. North America is 2.

 

The “cost” of having too few children is no free labor and no old age security. The “Cost” of having too many children is a tremendous burden and hardship on the family itself to maintain its own level of living. From these forces comes a balance that seeks for the unit to perpetuate itself, plus a little bit more or less. It is a natural state of mankind and can be shown before and after the demographic transition brought about by the current causes of population increases.

 

I guess what I am trying to say is that within 1 or 2 generations, with no intervention by man or government, each society has, and I believe will continue to, self adjust it’s own birthrate. I personally think it will end up somewhere between 9 and 10 billion, and decline from there naturally.

 

There are some animations on this website that show some of what I mean.

 

Interesting . . . Assuming we both mean the same thing by "society" (with Islam, the West, the Hindu world and the East Asian Marxist world being examples), the we can go back into world history and find out what did happen to all the earlier faith-based societies. They all had a great cultural/technological age and then their science died, religious reaction took its place, and they languished in over-crowded conditions until a new "wave of the future" religion gathered up even more people and united them into a force able to build a new and larger society or civilization.

 

I think they all tended to go through the cycle you mentioned.

 

Anyway, you surely don't think that the rest of non-Western world is going to eradicate poverty in a couple generations do you? Even China is still mostly a vast, dense population of poor farmers, as with India and Africa.

[Icarus]

Neo-malthusian proponents have always been there.

 

It seems fairly obvious. But scientific technology seems to have contained the problem. But of course, water wars are now occurring in Africa. And many famine-inflicted areas see a lot of conflict over the little resources left.

 

So, when things get really scarce, then over-population (or simply any population) will react to the lack of resources.....

 

Over-population is not regarded a problem because we seem to trust the human ingenuity in finding a way out of any problem. Too less oil, we'll eventually switch to solar energy. Too less food, we'll find higher yielding foods. Its a cycle which we need to hope will not fail.

 

About China containing its population. Seriously, i believe to be an over-reaction which infringes upon nature and basic human right to procreate.

[Symbology]

Yes, you have, I think, hit upon two major reasons. There is one more: the subject is also avoided because all the old religions of the world promote the concept of fertility and the so-called "sacredness" of life. If it is "sacred," then "the more of it the better." Now, the old-religious influence has so grown in our society that no media source wants to get involved in mentioning the subject. After all, the over-religious have a big stake in it; over-crowding the world leads to atomic war and the faithful want an armageddon so they can be "saved" and Christ can return.

 

And just to be clear they are talking about the "sacredness" of human life.

 

Chickens, pigs, cows, other water fowl, spiders, snakes, harvestable plants, weeds... well ok... anything we can eat, find annoying, or hampering progress is fair "game" for extermination.

 

Heck now that I think about it, in some cultures, not even all humans are safe.

 

George Carlin:

Do you believe in God?

No?

BANG! Dead!

Do you believe in God?

Yes!

Do you believe in my god?

No?

BANG Dead!

 

George Carlin: The longer you listen to this abortion debate, the more you hear the phrase "sanctity of life," "sanctity of life." You believe in it? Personally, I think it's a bunch of $#!%. I mean, life is sacred? Who said so? God? Hey, if you read history, you realize that God is one of the leading causes of death.

 

George Carlin: Here's another question I have. How come when it's us, it's an "abortion," and when it's a chicken, it's an "omlette?" Are we so much better than chickens all of a sudden? When did this happen that we pass chickens in goodness? Name six ways we're better than chickens.

[brief silence]

See nobody can do it! You know why? Because chickens are decent people! You don't see chickens running around in drug gangs, do you? No, you don't see a chicken strapping some guy to a chair and hooking up his n#^$ to a car battery do you? When's the last time you heard a chicken come home from work and beat the $#!% outta his hen, huh? Doesn't happen. Because chickens are decent people!

[paigetheoracle]

If, in the process of discussing science or opinion, we blithely trample all over a minority (or majority's) feelings, rights, and dignity, then we can damn well better expect to get told our insensitivity is wrong, degrading, and non-productive to the discussion.

 

This branches into the topic of "politically correct" words. But there are a whole string of words that in the past were considered "just fine" by those that were not the target of such words. But the words still carried significant negative connotations. Somebody had the balls (a word that, ironically, does not carry negative connotations) to speak up and declare those words as not right, and to offer some alternatives.

 

I find that the anti-pc and anti-affirmative action groups still try and grumble about having to share the public space with "Them damn ____". I can agree with them that it is important that such protective campaigns not bring the whole process to a screeching halt if possible. But if bringing it to a screeching halt is what it takes to get it to stop, then count me in.

 

Firstly this shows the problem people (like me and you - in other words 'anybody') losing their temper because they see something as real and threatening.

 

Science should be about discovering the cause of something (understanding) so it can be dealt with, not suppressing it because you don't like it and that includes both PC and non-PC comments (Morality says you should or shouldn't do something but science and especially technology is only interested in what works i.e. is practical).

 

Political correctness is impossible to enforce and counterproductive as it pushes things underground (hides them not eradicates them or allows them to mature and die out naturally). If the thought still exists, even if not expressed, then how do you get rid of the thought?

 

Is the fault in the listeners ego or the speakers? (hurt pride at image destruction or true victimization?). In my opinion political correctness is a lie upon a lie or a negative attitude versus a positive one (One man's joke is another man's insult).

 

Speaking personally it isn't only women who get all of this crap either but how do you really stop it? Last week I had someone call me 'Darling' and asked if I'd like a bottle put somewhere, where the sun doesn't shine and I'm a bloke but I must be on the feminine side to get that I suppose. So what should I have done - hit him (and his two mates) or insulted him back? Would that have changed the situation or only inflamed it more? Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me (only bruise my ego somewhat).

 

If you want to take this further then I suggest a moderator drag this whole argument elsewhere.

[paigetheoracle]

About China containing its population. Seriously, i believe to be an over-reaction which infringes upon nature and basic human right to procreate.

 

Rights to do what you want to do, even if it slits your own throat? Sounds like a peevish schoolboy attitude to me or the religious belief that we should breed into oblivion (George Carlin is a joke!*).

 

 

 

*Subtle point, that - he's actually more like a humanist or simple philosopher (What are you ignoring here?). We ignore common sense at our peril but addicts do because they are blinded by their addictions (ego).

[Symbology]

If you want to take this further then I suggest a moderator drag this whole argument elsewhere.

 

Good plan. I moved it over here.

[paigetheoracle]

Reading an article in The Guardian Newspaper (28th October), I was interested to find that several people researching the history and fate of The Maya, had come to the same conclusion (Jared Diamond "Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed"/ Marcello Canuto, Prof. of Anthropology at Yale/ David Webster of Penn. Uni./ Michael Coe) - namely that what we are going through is the same thing they went through, leading to their civilizations collapse i.e, weak leadership, population explosion, climate change and economic fall. To that I would like to add what I noticed preceded our demise - namely the collapse of educational standards and the loss of community (overconfidence and feral children on the streets in growing numbers or the equivalent of free radical damage in the body).

 

"Those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them" George Santyanna:doh:

[paigetheoracle]

When I was in Scientology they believed in infinite growth just as capitalism does but where are we going to go, once we run out of land - outer space? Don't think so - not enough craft can be built, to take a large amount of people off the Earth and as for Terraforming technology, it's still too primitive to change the Moon or Mars enough to support vast amounts of people, despite what the conspiracy theorists believe.

 

Unrestrained action is addiction, not sense and we're paying for it and will continue to pay for it until we knock out enough of our own population to reach sustainable numbers, not inflatable ones.:phones:

[paigetheoracle]

I predict that the collapse of this society will be interspersed with more and more hedonistic behaviour as well as accidents, Sodom & Gomorrah and Three Mile Island style. This is just part of the aging process (grasping versus letting go of control, knowledge (memory) and interest i.e. shallow egotistical pursuits, disinterest and apathy as life is revealed in all its boring details, to those who once found it passionately interesting - 'Been there, seen it, done it').:phones:;)

[charles brough]

paigetheoracle, I see you are also familiar with ancient history and the rise and fall of civilizations! Few people apply it to our own civilization. Hedonism, etc., yes, that's us, the break down of the marital system, political corruption and gross materialism . . .

 

In the Atheistic Science Institute - home page    I actually explain the social evolutionary process that is involved in the rise and fall process. But, I must say, it is not popular reading because to do it I had to break down not only the Christian and other old religious systems but our secular system as well. And, after all, isn't it the ideological foundation of our civilization?

 

As you say, we are not running out of potential territory as we can expand into space and, eventually, perhaps the whole universe! but we will always have to control our population growth at least here on Earth. To manage that we only need a whole new ideological over-haul . . .

 

charles

[paigetheoracle]

paigetheoracle, I see you are also familiar with ancient history and the rise and fall of civilizations! Few people apply it to our own civilization. Hedonism, etc., yes, that's us, the break down of the marital system, political corruption and gross materialism . . .

 

In the Atheistic Science Institute - home page* * I actually explain the social evolutionary process that is involved in the rise and fall process. But, I must say, it is not popular reading because to do it I had to break down not only the Christian and other old religious systems but our secular system as well. And, after all, isn't it the ideological foundation of our civilization?

 

As you say, we are not running out of potential territory as we can expand into space and, eventually, perhaps the whole universe! but we will always have to control our population growth at least here on Earth. To manage that we only need a whole new ideological over-haul . . .

 

charles

 

Oh I do so agree. Prophets are never welcome in their own country or time but then Lot had the sense to gather the sensible people together and skedaddle out of the insane asylum but where are we going to go, while the nightmare unfolds?

[Symbology]

Reading an article in The Guardian Newspaper (28th October), I was interested to find that several people researching the history and fate of The Maya, had come to the same conclusion (Jared Diamond "Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed"/ Marcello Canuto, Prof. of Anthropology at Yale/ David Webster of Penn. Uni./ Michael Coe) - namely that what we are going through is the same thing they went through, leading to their civilizations collapse i.e, weak leadership, population explosion, climate change and economic fall. To that I would like to add what I noticed preceded our demise - namely the collapse of educational standards and the loss of community (overconfidence and feral children on the streets in growing numbers or the equivalent of free radical damage in the body).

 

"Those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them" George Santyanna:doh:

 

Yes but every generation has been saying they were THE doomed generation for as long as I have been able to find. There are always big floods, famine, economic crisis, wars, and other things that line up with Nostradamus' predictions going on somewhere.

 

To a large degree I find getting hung up on such things is a form of giving up, and worse a form of not taking responsibility for what is currently going on and instead just blaming it on fate and accepting it.

 

To a large degree it doesn't really matter who got us here. The fact is all our ancestors got us to where we are (pollution from waste, wars from greed and intolerance), and now the baton is in our hands. The question at this point comes down to what are we going to do with it while we have it?

 

"When the game is on the line, winners want the ball"

[paigetheoracle]

Yes but every generation has been saying they were THE doomed generation for as long as I have been able to find. There are always big floods, famine, economic crisis, wars, and other things that line up with Nostradamus' predictions going on somewhere.

 

To a large degree I find getting hung up on such things is a form of giving up, and worse a form of not taking responsibility for what is currently going on and instead just blaming it on fate and accepting it.

 

To a large degree it doesn't really matter who got us here. The fact is all our ancestors got us to where we are (pollution from waste, wars from greed and intolerance), and now the baton is in our hands. The question at this point comes down to what are we going to do with it while we have it?

 

"When the game is on the line, winners want the ball"

 

This is similar to what I said on another website I visit - you can predict any disaster you like as one of those you mentioned turns up on a regular basis.

 

No it doesn't matter what got us here because 'here' is what we are responsible for dealing with and 'can' because it exists in the 'now', not the past (blame/ pass the parcel): Optimists enjoy the challenge - pessimists drop it like a hot potato (Not me! not now! not here!).

 

Well, what are YOU going to do about it? (Nobody listens to me):hihi:

[Symbology]

This is similar to what I said on another website I visit - you can predict any disaster you like as one of those you mentioned turns up on a regular basis.

 

No it doesn't matter what got us here because 'here' is what we are responsible for dealing with and 'can' because it exists in the 'now', not the past (blame/ pass the parcel): Optimists enjoy the challenge - pessimists drop it like a hot potato (Not me! not now! not here!).

 

Well, what are YOU going to do about it? (Nobody listens to me):)

 

Like I mentioned earlier, I advocate (and would be happy to vote for funding) free sterilization and birth control to anyone that wants it. I'm also willing to support further education on overpopulation, and spreading the word in forums like this ;)

[paigetheoracle]

Like I mentioned earlier, I advocate (and would be happy to vote for funding) free sterilization and birth control to anyone that wants it. I'm also willing to support further education on overpopulation, and spreading the word in forums like this :phones:

 

By the way the last line was two sided in meaning - firstly as a joke, in that it is blatant hypocrisy, throwing the blame back at you and claiming my existence is nothing to do with me (Overt criticism of others is covert praise of oneself). Also the bit in brackets is self deprecating humour or victim mentality.

 

The second angle is what are you 'personally' doing about birth control? Not what can you do through society to affect society (others) but do you practice birth control yourself? (How many children do you have, if any?).

[charles brough]

Hay Paigetheoracle, we all three are on the same side, aren't we? Perhaps we have worn this thread down now. It may be time to stop.

 

chas.