Jump to content
Science Forums

Population Increase And Its Implications In The 21St Century


Recommended Posts

 

Sustainable development requires human ingenuity. People are the most important resource, :phones:

Buffy

 

 

I agree except for one issue. Do you really believe that no matter how many you have, more is always better? That idea strikes me as thoughtless!

 

You would first have to determine which fields of study are most important. 

 

Now here you are failing to take into account the fact that our ignorance means that we essentially have no idea as to what knowledge is most important. My position is that all fields of research should be studied and extended.

 

Furthermore, I have been around for a long time and have run across no serious cases of inbreeding among the people I have known personally. In my opinion "inbreeding" is a phenomena which rarely occurs within an open and free society.

 

The issue everyone absolutely refuses to look at is the absolute excess of humanity which is in fact the single most important component of the dangerous and destructive activities of humanity. I think it is quite obvious that there are more people on earth than are needed. If I am in error, please point out the need for this massive population and explain why you think the resultant suffering is a worth while component. Should mankind actually invest in ignorance?

 

My impression is that you just don't want to think about such things. All I am asking is what you think the population ought to be and you seem to be scared to death that thinking about that question requires you to think about how to achieve such a thing. That is nothing more than a reason for not thinking!!!!  Please---

 

Thank you -- Dick 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think everyone's experience is limited to what they see, and the main advice I'd give is that every generation is extremely disappointed with the one that succeeds them going back to time immemorial

Well, the technology and the rapid pace of new products certainly gives rise to the thoughtlessness of which Doctordick wrote.  Nobody expects anything to last.    Something I have noticed about the y

Ah, well, you have a daughter the same age as one of my stepdaughters, and that explains a lot, actually.  I was speaking with a neighbor today, and we both noticed that the young women in the working

I agree except for one issue. Do you really believe that no matter how many you have, more is always better? That idea strikes me as thoughtless!

 

To clarify, the quote is by Dan Shechtman, winner of the Nobel Chemistry Prize in 2011. While the implication is that more is better, it doesn't really say that there's no notion of "too many." That of course is what we're discussing here, but the concept does imply that while there's a desire to stay within a sustainable limit, that there's an argument for more than a very small number, in fact I'd argue that this point means that we do want a "number that is as large as sustainable, but no larger."

 

Whether this is true or not depends on how desirable "ingenuity" is, or in a more general sense, sources of intellectual diversity (similar to genetic diversity, which is also an issue).

 

What do you think?

 

 

We need diversity of thought in the world to face the new challenges, :phones:
Buffy
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To clarify, the quote is by Dan Shechtman, winner of the Nobel Chemistry Prize in 2011. While the implication is that more is better, it doesn't really say that there's no notion of "too many." That of course is what we're discussing here, but the concept does imply that while there's a desire to stay within a sustainable limit, that there's an argument for more than a very small number, in fact I'd argue that this point means that we do want a "number that is as large as sustainable, but no larger."

 

Whether this is true or not depends on how desirable "ingenuity" is, or in a more general sense, sources of intellectual diversity (similar to genetic diversity, which is also an issue).

 

What do you think?

 

 

We need diversity of thought in the world to face the new challenges, :phones:
Buffy

 

 

Ah, Buffy; look around at the world as it is today and tell me that you truly believe we need more of every component of the current society which exists today. My question is quite simple, what number would accommodate all the beneficial aspects of humanities existence without implementing some of humanities more dangerous tendencies. Do we really need the population we seem to be working with?  What would be a rational number?

 

This seems to be an issue no one wants to think about. Perhaps they are right! Perhaps all aspects of human behavior have worth while benefits and populations should be increased until the numbers can no longer be sustained. Let our environment do its job of eliminating the unsustainable. Thought on the subject is clearly not recommended here.

 

Perhaps education is also a total waste of time???

 

Have fun -- Dick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...