Human / animal Hybrids.....it's true!

[zenfisher]

We don't compete with animals for food. We just take over.That has happened since we stood upright.I work with a guy that lived on a farm in Ethiopa. He said it is not uncommon for lions to follow people home. Not because they are stalking them, but because they know how wasteful we are. Its an easy meal without the risk of injuring themselves while hunting. It also uses up much less energy than hunting.

How do you think we managed to tame dogs? They were wolves. Also following us around because they knew they could a meal out of it.

We developed symbiotic relationships with many carnivores. Think about the traditional pets. Now think about the animals we eat. Not many carnivores in that lot. We tend to eat animals that graze.

How many cavemen were around competing for resources. Was it six billion plus? I think it was probably closer to twenty thousand globally.

I do agree that politics plays an important role in the amount of hungry. Having too many people in one location is also a major contributing factor. I agree the first and second world could easily feed the third world.That does not discount the fact that wildlife and plant populations are dwindling.

 

[tibear]

zenfisher,

Simply saying 6 billion people is too many is not a reason for saying the world is overpopulated. Take a look at the two most populous countries, China and India. Yes there are some desparately poor and starving people there but again these people aren't hungry because of lack of food but because of government policy and greed.

The countries we constantly hear about that have starving children tend to be in Africa where the population density isn't even close to the density in China or India. Again it is tribal fighting, government policy and greed that aren't providing enough to these people.

The reason I brought up the caveman was because you had claimed that because the deer were eating our lettuce that it proved the world was overpopulated. I was simply showing you that making the point that animals and humans were living side by side and competing for food has happened for thousands of years and didn't prove anything regarding the over or under population of the world.

As for not competing for food with animals. When humans first came to North America or whereever, the first place they settled was on rivers or lakes because we wanted an easy way to travel and of course we needed water. However, animals also needed this same water so they were also drawn to the same water sources.

I don't see the connection between your arguement of overpopulation and the domestication of dogs.

As for the wildlife and plant populations dwindling, I agree, but this has also been happening for thousands of years. Species come and go, thats life. Has man overhunted particular species, absolutely, do I believe that if we had half the worldwide population that we would still have bison roaming the prairies and cod stopping ships in the oceans, not a chance. We overfish because the fisheries get paid for every fish they catch, there wasn't any restrictions to prevent overagressive fisheries and now we have a real problem.

Overpopulation is a myth, nothing more.

 

[tibear]

zenfisher,

Simply saying 6 billion people is too many is not a reason for saying the world is overpopulated. Take a look at the two most populous countries, China and India. Yes there are some desparately poor and starving people there but again these people aren't hungry because of lack of food but because of government policy and greed.

The countries we constantly hear about that have starving children tend to be in Africa where the population density isn't even close to the density in China or India. Again it is tribal fighting, government policy and greed that aren't providing enough to these people.

The reason I brought up the caveman was because you had claimed that because the deer were eating our lettuce that it proved the world was overpopulated. I was simply showing you that making the point that animals and humans were living side by side and competing for food has happened for thousands of years and didn't prove anything regarding the over or under population of the world.

As for not competing for food with animals. When humans first came to North America or whereever, the first place they settled was on rivers or lakes because we wanted an easy way to travel and of course we needed water. However, animals also needed this same water so they were also drawn to the same water sources.

I don't see the connection between your arguement of overpopulation and the domestication of dogs.

As for the wildlife and plant populations dwindling, I agree, but this has also been happening for thousands of years. Species come and go, thats life. Has man overhunted particular species, absolutely, do I believe that if we had half the worldwide population that we would still have bison roaming the prairies and cod stopping ships in the oceans, not a chance. We overfish because the fisheries get paid for every fish they catch, there wasn't any restrictions to prevent overagressive fisheries and now we have a real problem.

Overpopulation is a myth, nothing more.

 

[tibear]

zenfisher,

Simply saying 6 billion people is too many is not a reason for saying the world is overpopulated. Take a look at the two most populous countries, China and India. Yes there are some desparately poor and starving people there but again these people aren't hungry because of lack of food but because of government policy and greed.

The countries we constantly hear about that have starving children tend to be in Africa where the population density isn't even close to the density in China or India. Again it is tribal fighting, government policy and greed that aren't providing enough to these people.

The reason I brought up the caveman was because you had claimed that because the deer were eating our lettuce that it proved the world was overpopulated. I was simply showing you that making the point that animals and humans were living side by side and competing for food has happened for thousands of years and didn't prove anything regarding the over or under population of the world.

As for not competing for food with animals. When humans first came to North America or whereever, the first place they settled was on rivers or lakes because we wanted an easy way to travel and of course we needed water. However, animals also needed this same water so they were also drawn to the same water sources.

I don't see the connection between your arguement of overpopulation and the domestication of dogs.

As for the wildlife and plant populations dwindling, I agree, but this has also been happening for thousands of years. Species come and go, thats life. Has man overhunted particular species, absolutely, do I believe that if we had half the worldwide population that we would still have bison roaming the prairies and cod stopping ships in the oceans, not a chance. We overfish because the fisheries get paid for every fish they catch, there wasn't any restrictions to prevent overagressive fisheries and now we have a real problem.

Overpopulation is a myth, nothing more.

 

[zenfisher]

Starvation in third world countries is due more to a lack of arable land ( war does have a tendancy to make land unusable)and cheap birth control. You are forgetting that as populations grow, cities and towns expand. As towns/cities expand they need land. I agree that many governments policies and greed contribute to the problem.

Why do fisheries pay for every fish? There is a constantly growing market for it. Why is there a constantly growing market for it because there are more people everyday. Over fishing is a serious problem, but if there were half the peole would the demand be as high?

What is the one investment you can make that is almost certain to increase in value? Land. Why because as our population grows (global) ... The supply and demand side of our economies kick in. Less land available higher price for real estate.

As for dogs, I was trying to show you that we didn't so much as compete with carivores, as tame them to help us hunt. Much as the lions in Africa follow humans looking for scraps. Wolf packs were hunting with humans for the same food and we began to tame them to help us hunt. Thus eliminating the competition.

Of course carnivores, herbivores and omnivores are all drawn to the same watering hole. Who hasn't seen footage of a watering hole in Africa ? That is of course until the Industrial Revolution made so many watersheds undrinkable, that animals were forced to find water elsewhere.

Look at the problems the world is facing...pollution, global warming, war, poverty...these are symptomatic problems of overpopulation. We need more crap, because there is more of us, so we produce more. As we build more factories, we use up more and more land. As there is less land ( and potable water), there is less opportunity to grow food. It may not have hit the second and first world yet, but its coming.

The only "myth" about overpopulation, is your opinion is that it is a myth.

 

[zenfisher]

Starvation in third world countries is due more to a lack of arable land ( war does have a tendancy to make land unusable)and cheap birth control. You are forgetting that as populations grow, cities and towns expand. As towns/cities expand they need land. I agree that many governments policies and greed contribute to the problem.

Why do fisheries pay for every fish? There is a constantly growing market for it. Why is there a constantly growing market for it because there are more people everyday. Over fishing is a serious problem, but if there were half the peole would the demand be as high?

What is the one investment you can make that is almost certain to increase in value? Land. Why because as our population grows (global) ... The supply and demand side of our economies kick in. Less land available higher price for real estate.

As for dogs, I was trying to show you that we didn't so much as compete with carivores, as tame them to help us hunt. Much as the lions in Africa follow humans looking for scraps. Wolf packs were hunting with humans for the same food and we began to tame them to help us hunt. Thus eliminating the competition.

Of course carnivores, herbivores and omnivores are all drawn to the same watering hole. Who hasn't seen footage of a watering hole in Africa ? That is of course until the Industrial Revolution made so many watersheds undrinkable, that animals were forced to find water elsewhere.

Look at the problems the world is facing...pollution, global warming, war, poverty...these are symptomatic problems of overpopulation. We need more crap, because there is more of us, so we produce more. As we build more factories, we use up more and more land. As there is less land ( and potable water), there is less opportunity to grow food. It may not have hit the second and first world yet, but its coming.

The only "myth" about overpopulation, is your opinion is that it is a myth.

 

[zenfisher]

Starvation in third world countries is due more to a lack of arable land ( war does have a tendancy to make land unusable)and cheap birth control. You are forgetting that as populations grow, cities and towns expand. As towns/cities expand they need land. I agree that many governments policies and greed contribute to the problem.

Why do fisheries pay for every fish? There is a constantly growing market for it. Why is there a constantly growing market for it because there are more people everyday. Over fishing is a serious problem, but if there were half the peole would the demand be as high?

What is the one investment you can make that is almost certain to increase in value? Land. Why because as our population grows (global) ... The supply and demand side of our economies kick in. Less land available higher price for real estate.

As for dogs, I was trying to show you that we didn't so much as compete with carivores, as tame them to help us hunt. Much as the lions in Africa follow humans looking for scraps. Wolf packs were hunting with humans for the same food and we began to tame them to help us hunt. Thus eliminating the competition.

Of course carnivores, herbivores and omnivores are all drawn to the same watering hole. Who hasn't seen footage of a watering hole in Africa ? That is of course until the Industrial Revolution made so many watersheds undrinkable, that animals were forced to find water elsewhere.

Look at the problems the world is facing...pollution, global warming, war, poverty...these are symptomatic problems of overpopulation. We need more crap, because there is more of us, so we produce more. As we build more factories, we use up more and more land. As there is less land ( and potable water), there is less opportunity to grow food. It may not have hit the second and first world yet, but its coming.

The only "myth" about overpopulation, is your opinion is that it is a myth.

 

[tibear]

zenfisher,

Sorry to burst your bubble but there is more than enough arable land to feed the world's population more than twice over. Just think about how much food the North American population wastes not to mention leaves to spoil.

As for your global warming being caused by overpopulation, it is a known fact that there have been warming periods in past history that were even greater than what we have today. Are you telling me that caveman 10000 years ago were driving cadillacs and building manufacturing plants to such a degree that they would have caused a greater temperature rise than we have today???

Pollution is not a result of overpopulation but rather governments that don't care about the environment. There are many places in the world that have high population density but relatively low pollution because the people live simply and care for the land. Similarly, we in North America are "pigs", we are a use and throw away society. Our governments care more about business bottom line than pollution control.

Your telling me that the reason the fighting is going on in Africa, the Middle East and Iraq are all because of overpopulation and not a result of thousands of years of hatred, religious extremists or government policies??

As for poverty, Japan is one of the most overpopulated countries in the world and yet there is no poverty. Why??

Have you ever flown in a plane?? Ever see how much open land there is in this country?? Its just like that all around the world, even in China where 1/6 of the world's population lives.

Face it your arguements don't stand up to scrutiny.

Again overpopulation is a myth, there is more than enough of the world's resources to take care of everyone if we would simply use what we need rather than use want we want.

 

[tibear]

zenfisher,

Sorry to burst your bubble but there is more than enough arable land to feed the world's population more than twice over. Just think about how much food the North American population wastes not to mention leaves to spoil.

As for your global warming being caused by overpopulation, it is a known fact that there have been warming periods in past history that were even greater than what we have today. Are you telling me that caveman 10000 years ago were driving cadillacs and building manufacturing plants to such a degree that they would have caused a greater temperature rise than we have today???

Pollution is not a result of overpopulation but rather governments that don't care about the environment. There are many places in the world that have high population density but relatively low pollution because the people live simply and care for the land. Similarly, we in North America are "pigs", we are a use and throw away society. Our governments care more about business bottom line than pollution control.

Your telling me that the reason the fighting is going on in Africa, the Middle East and Iraq are all because of overpopulation and not a result of thousands of years of hatred, religious extremists or government policies??

As for poverty, Japan is one of the most overpopulated countries in the world and yet there is no poverty. Why??

Have you ever flown in a plane?? Ever see how much open land there is in this country?? Its just like that all around the world, even in China where 1/6 of the world's population lives.

Face it your arguements don't stand up to scrutiny.

Again overpopulation is a myth, there is more than enough of the world's resources to take care of everyone if we would simply use what we need rather than use want we want.

 

[tibear]

zenfisher,

Sorry to burst your bubble but there is more than enough arable land to feed the world's population more than twice over. Just think about how much food the North American population wastes not to mention leaves to spoil.

As for your global warming being caused by overpopulation, it is a known fact that there have been warming periods in past history that were even greater than what we have today. Are you telling me that caveman 10000 years ago were driving cadillacs and building manufacturing plants to such a degree that they would have caused a greater temperature rise than we have today???

Pollution is not a result of overpopulation but rather governments that don't care about the environment. There are many places in the world that have high population density but relatively low pollution because the people live simply and care for the land. Similarly, we in North America are "pigs", we are a use and throw away society. Our governments care more about business bottom line than pollution control.

Your telling me that the reason the fighting is going on in Africa, the Middle East and Iraq are all because of overpopulation and not a result of thousands of years of hatred, religious extremists or government policies??

As for poverty, Japan is one of the most overpopulated countries in the world and yet there is no poverty. Why??

Have you ever flown in a plane?? Ever see how much open land there is in this country?? Its just like that all around the world, even in China where 1/6 of the world's population lives.

Face it your arguements don't stand up to scrutiny.

Again overpopulation is a myth, there is more than enough of the world's resources to take care of everyone if we would simply use what we need rather than use want we want.

 

[zenfisher]

http://dieoff.org/page27.htm

Google it you'll find more sites supporting the fact that we are overpopulated than you will saying its a "myth"

Look its common sense. We live on a partially renewing orb. When we as species are consuuming faster than the ability of the planet to renew those resources, we are overpopulated. We past that point about a decade ago.

My wife (edgerunner) and I are more than happy with not having children. We know that in our small way we are helping to alleviate the problem of overpopulation.

10,000 years ago we were out of the caves and beginning to build farming communities

Pollution is the result of production. Factories produce to the demand of the society. ( hmmm ... do you think factories might be using resources)While it is easy to blame the governments for not regulating industries...Ultimately the government is us. We as a society are not putting enough pressure on our "leaders" to make the neccesary changes. Voting is one thing, but economic pressure must be placed on companies as well. Publicized boycotts of goods has an indirect effect on campaign contributions. As in a CEO who suddenly faces a drastic drop in the markets ...has trouble making generous contributions to whatever political affiliation he supports. Less money in the pockets of campaigns ...means the politicians are reliant on smaller contributers. Smaller contributers can form small groups that support specific issues. Meaning the politicians will have to support the issues of the smaller groups to get their messeage out.

Meanwhile back to the point...because there is a demand for a particular resource. We tend to use that resource faster than we can replenish it. That is a symptom of overpopulation.

Yes, temperature has changed over the Earth's history. Don't you find it strange that the Earth has been warming since just after the industrial revolution. Pretty odd coincidence. More people, more cars, More people, more factories, More people, less forests, More people, more farms...see the common denominator yet?

I don't believe for one second that there is absolutely no poverty in Japan.

Open land does not mean you can farm it. Hence many of the problems in Africa.

Of course there are many reasons for wars.The main one always seems to be I want control of that piece of property. Hmmm...do ya think that might be because the resources on the piece of property now are dwindling ?

I think I can find more empirical data to support my arguments. Face it you know I'm right.

 

[zenfisher]

http://dieoff.org/page27.htm

Google it you'll find more sites supporting the fact that we are overpopulated than you will saying its a "myth"

Look its common sense. We live on a partially renewing orb. When we as species are consuuming faster than the ability of the planet to renew those resources, we are overpopulated. We past that point about a decade ago.

My wife (edgerunner) and I are more than happy with not having children. We know that in our small way we are helping to alleviate the problem of overpopulation.

10,000 years ago we were out of the caves and beginning to build farming communities

Pollution is the result of production. Factories produce to the demand of the society. ( hmmm ... do you think factories might be using resources)While it is easy to blame the governments for not regulating industries...Ultimately the government is us. We as a society are not putting enough pressure on our "leaders" to make the neccesary changes. Voting is one thing, but economic pressure must be placed on companies as well. Publicized boycotts of goods has an indirect effect on campaign contributions. As in a CEO who suddenly faces a drastic drop in the markets ...has trouble making generous contributions to whatever political affiliation he supports. Less money in the pockets of campaigns ...means the politicians are reliant on smaller contributers. Smaller contributers can form small groups that support specific issues. Meaning the politicians will have to support the issues of the smaller groups to get their messeage out.

Meanwhile back to the point...because there is a demand for a particular resource. We tend to use that resource faster than we can replenish it. That is a symptom of overpopulation.

Yes, temperature has changed over the Earth's history. Don't you find it strange that the Earth has been warming since just after the industrial revolution. Pretty odd coincidence. More people, more cars, More people, more factories, More people, less forests, More people, more farms...see the common denominator yet?

I don't believe for one second that there is absolutely no poverty in Japan.

Open land does not mean you can farm it. Hence many of the problems in Africa.

Of course there are many reasons for wars.The main one always seems to be I want control of that piece of property. Hmmm...do ya think that might be because the resources on the piece of property now are dwindling ?

I think I can find more empirical data to support my arguments. Face it you know I'm right.

 

[zenfisher]

http://dieoff.org/page27.htm

Google it you'll find more sites supporting the fact that we are overpopulated than you will saying its a "myth"

Look its common sense. We live on a partially renewing orb. When we as species are consuuming faster than the ability of the planet to renew those resources, we are overpopulated. We past that point about a decade ago.

My wife (edgerunner) and I are more than happy with not having children. We know that in our small way we are helping to alleviate the problem of overpopulation.

10,000 years ago we were out of the caves and beginning to build farming communities

Pollution is the result of production. Factories produce to the demand of the society. ( hmmm ... do you think factories might be using resources)While it is easy to blame the governments for not regulating industries...Ultimately the government is us. We as a society are not putting enough pressure on our "leaders" to make the neccesary changes. Voting is one thing, but economic pressure must be placed on companies as well. Publicized boycotts of goods has an indirect effect on campaign contributions. As in a CEO who suddenly faces a drastic drop in the markets ...has trouble making generous contributions to whatever political affiliation he supports. Less money in the pockets of campaigns ...means the politicians are reliant on smaller contributers. Smaller contributers can form small groups that support specific issues. Meaning the politicians will have to support the issues of the smaller groups to get their messeage out.

Meanwhile back to the point...because there is a demand for a particular resource. We tend to use that resource faster than we can replenish it. That is a symptom of overpopulation.

Yes, temperature has changed over the Earth's history. Don't you find it strange that the Earth has been warming since just after the industrial revolution. Pretty odd coincidence. More people, more cars, More people, more factories, More people, less forests, More people, more farms...see the common denominator yet?

I don't believe for one second that there is absolutely no poverty in Japan.

Open land does not mean you can farm it. Hence many of the problems in Africa.

Of course there are many reasons for wars.The main one always seems to be I want control of that piece of property. Hmmm...do ya think that might be because the resources on the piece of property now are dwindling ?

I think I can find more empirical data to support my arguments. Face it you know I'm right.

 

[tibear]

zenfisher,

You can give me a bunch of websites that "prove" we are overpopulated and I could give you a bunch of websites that "prove" we aren't. What does it prove???

The arguement you were making earlier was that there wasn't enough food in the world to feed everyone. Food is a renewable resource, we can't "use up" all of the food. It's not like an ore that there is a limited supply. If we need more food, we grow more food.

I agree with you that we are generally more polluted today that in the past but I think we'll both agree that compared to mother nature and the pollution that is caused through things like volcanic explosions we are bit players. It's a known fact that certain volcanic explosions in history have caused world-wide temperature reductions of 3 or 4 degrees immediately after the eruptions. Your right that we need to curb manufacturing pollution but that has nothing to do with population but rather it a result of the greed of the companies involved not wanting to pay for pollution control devices.

I'm sure that Japan has some poverty, but which country do you believe has more the US or Japan? Which country has a higher population density? Could it be that the American culture is one where it is generally, "Every person for themselves."? As I've said poverty is almost exclusively a greed and political problem.

Using your example that the more the people the more the pollution the higher the temperature, etc did we see a reduction of polution or temperature after WWII when all of those people died? How about with the war in Iraq and the tsunami, should I put an extra blanket on the bed tonight?? Of course not, because polution and temperature have nothing to do with population.

Another question, if we were to eliminate the population from Asia, Africa and South America how much do you think manufacturing will decrease. We in North America and Europe use most of the worlds resources and by eliminating those people who use little in the way of manufactured goods we haven't reduced polution have we. Yes the manufacturing plants we have will have to get bigger or we would build more but even though the world's population would have been reduced by well over half the polution and resource usage would NOT decrease proportionally.

Another interesting point, could your decision not to have children be seen as one of greed. You've decided not to have the "burden" of children and by not having children have put the tax burden onto others to support you in your old age. Interesting on how, your decision that you believed was made to help society can in fact be viewed as a one that is detrimental to society.

 

[tibear]

zenfisher,

You can give me a bunch of websites that "prove" we are overpopulated and I could give you a bunch of websites that "prove" we aren't. What does it prove???

The arguement you were making earlier was that there wasn't enough food in the world to feed everyone. Food is a renewable resource, we can't "use up" all of the food. It's not like an ore that there is a limited supply. If we need more food, we grow more food.

I agree with you that we are generally more polluted today that in the past but I think we'll both agree that compared to mother nature and the pollution that is caused through things like volcanic explosions we are bit players. It's a known fact that certain volcanic explosions in history have caused world-wide temperature reductions of 3 or 4 degrees immediately after the eruptions. Your right that we need to curb manufacturing pollution but that has nothing to do with population but rather it a result of the greed of the companies involved not wanting to pay for pollution control devices.

I'm sure that Japan has some poverty, but which country do you believe has more the US or Japan? Which country has a higher population density? Could it be that the American culture is one where it is generally, "Every person for themselves."? As I've said poverty is almost exclusively a greed and political problem.

Using your example that the more the people the more the pollution the higher the temperature, etc did we see a reduction of polution or temperature after WWII when all of those people died? How about with the war in Iraq and the tsunami, should I put an extra blanket on the bed tonight?? Of course not, because polution and temperature have nothing to do with population.

Another question, if we were to eliminate the population from Asia, Africa and South America how much do you think manufacturing will decrease. We in North America and Europe use most of the worlds resources and by eliminating those people who use little in the way of manufactured goods we haven't reduced polution have we. Yes the manufacturing plants we have will have to get bigger or we would build more but even though the world's population would have been reduced by well over half the polution and resource usage would NOT decrease proportionally.

Another interesting point, could your decision not to have children be seen as one of greed. You've decided not to have the "burden" of children and by not having children have put the tax burden onto others to support you in your old age. Interesting on how, your decision that you believed was made to help society can in fact be viewed as a one that is detrimental to society.

 

[tibear]

zenfisher,

You can give me a bunch of websites that "prove" we are overpopulated and I could give you a bunch of websites that "prove" we aren't. What does it prove???

The arguement you were making earlier was that there wasn't enough food in the world to feed everyone. Food is a renewable resource, we can't "use up" all of the food. It's not like an ore that there is a limited supply. If we need more food, we grow more food.

I agree with you that we are generally more polluted today that in the past but I think we'll both agree that compared to mother nature and the pollution that is caused through things like volcanic explosions we are bit players. It's a known fact that certain volcanic explosions in history have caused world-wide temperature reductions of 3 or 4 degrees immediately after the eruptions. Your right that we need to curb manufacturing pollution but that has nothing to do with population but rather it a result of the greed of the companies involved not wanting to pay for pollution control devices.

I'm sure that Japan has some poverty, but which country do you believe has more the US or Japan? Which country has a higher population density? Could it be that the American culture is one where it is generally, "Every person for themselves."? As I've said poverty is almost exclusively a greed and political problem.

Using your example that the more the people the more the pollution the higher the temperature, etc did we see a reduction of polution or temperature after WWII when all of those people died? How about with the war in Iraq and the tsunami, should I put an extra blanket on the bed tonight?? Of course not, because polution and temperature have nothing to do with population.

Another question, if we were to eliminate the population from Asia, Africa and South America how much do you think manufacturing will decrease. We in North America and Europe use most of the worlds resources and by eliminating those people who use little in the way of manufactured goods we haven't reduced polution have we. Yes the manufacturing plants we have will have to get bigger or we would build more but even though the world's population would have been reduced by well over half the polution and resource usage would NOT decrease proportionally.

Another interesting point, could your decision not to have children be seen as one of greed. You've decided not to have the "burden" of children and by not having children have put the tax burden onto others to support you in your old age. Interesting on how, your decision that you believed was made to help society can in fact be viewed as a one that is detrimental to society.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The arguement you were making earlier was that there wasn't enough food in the world to feed everyone. Food is a renewable resource, we can't "use up" all of the food. It's not like an ore that there is a limited supply. If we need more food, we grow more food.

You need to learn about farming, tibear. Arable land does get used up. If you look at Easter Island or the Middle East you will see historic examples of land being over-used and people starving because of it. If you actually take the time to learn about those things it becomes clear that we are on the same course.

I agree with you that we are generally more polluted today that in the past but I think we'll both agree that compared to mother nature and the pollution that is caused through things like volcanic explosions we are bit players.

That's a ridiculous argument. Volcanoes do have an effect on the environment, they have been implicatecd in mass die-offs before. The earth's envirnmental system has evolved to deal with average levels of volcanic activity though. We are not in a period of unusually high volcanic activity. In other words things are changing and we are the variable this time.

Your right that we need to curb manufacturing pollution but that has nothing to do with population but rather it a result of the greed of the companies involved not wanting to pay for pollution control devices.

It the duty of governments to look out for the best interests of the population. It is therefore the duty of governments to legislate the corporations into compliance. Why are you supporting the policies of governments and parties that have refused to enact such legislation, even rolled back existing legislation?

Using your example that the more the people the more the pollution the higher the temperature, etc did we see a reduction of polution or temperature after WWII when all of those people died? How about with the war in Iraq and the tsunami, should I put an extra blanket on the bed tonight?? Of course not, because polution and temperature have nothing to do with population.

If the population levels had remained low after the great wars there likely would have been a net reduction in pollution. That did not happen though. In addition to that the extra pollution caused by war was highest in the areas where the most population loss occurred.

Iraq and the tsunami are small, localised events. Iraq has also suffered massive pollution because of the war. To try to present them as proof of your theory shows a lack of understanding of the issues.

Another question, if we were to eliminate the population from Asia, Africa and South America how much do you think manufacturing will decrease. We in North America and Europe use most of the worlds resources and by eliminating those people who use little in the way of manufactured goods we haven't reduced polution have we.

Most of the manufacturing for our consumption occurs in Asia and South America, Tibear. The plants have moved there partly to avoid environmental regulations. If those plants were forced to move back to North America and Western Europe they would have to follow our regulations, so they would pollute less. Consumption would also drop because the cost of production here is higher.

Another interesting point, could your decision not to have children be seen as one of greed. You've decided not to have the "burden" of children and by not having children have put the tax burden onto others to support you in your old age. Interesting on how, your decision that you believed was made to help society can in fact be viewed as a one that is detrimental to society.

Only if you're the pope.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The arguement you were making earlier was that there wasn't enough food in the world to feed everyone. Food is a renewable resource, we can't "use up" all of the food. It's not like an ore that there is a limited supply. If we need more food, we grow more food.

You need to learn about farming, tibear. Arable land does get used up. If you look at Easter Island or the Middle East you will see historic examples of land being over-used and people starving because of it. If you actually take the time to learn about those things it becomes clear that we are on the same course.

I agree with you that we are generally more polluted today that in the past but I think we'll both agree that compared to mother nature and the pollution that is caused through things like volcanic explosions we are bit players.

That's a ridiculous argument. Volcanoes do have an effect on the environment, they have been implicatecd in mass die-offs before. The earth's envirnmental system has evolved to deal with average levels of volcanic activity though. We are not in a period of unusually high volcanic activity. In other words things are changing and we are the variable this time.

Your right that we need to curb manufacturing pollution but that has nothing to do with population but rather it a result of the greed of the companies involved not wanting to pay for pollution control devices.

It the duty of governments to look out for the best interests of the population. It is therefore the duty of governments to legislate the corporations into compliance. Why are you supporting the policies of governments and parties that have refused to enact such legislation, even rolled back existing legislation?

Using your example that the more the people the more the pollution the higher the temperature, etc did we see a reduction of polution or temperature after WWII when all of those people died? How about with the war in Iraq and the tsunami, should I put an extra blanket on the bed tonight?? Of course not, because polution and temperature have nothing to do with population.

If the population levels had remained low after the great wars there likely would have been a net reduction in pollution. That did not happen though. In addition to that the extra pollution caused by war was highest in the areas where the most population loss occurred.

Iraq and the tsunami are small, localised events. Iraq has also suffered massive pollution because of the war. To try to present them as proof of your theory shows a lack of understanding of the issues.

Another question, if we were to eliminate the population from Asia, Africa and South America how much do you think manufacturing will decrease. We in North America and Europe use most of the worlds resources and by eliminating those people who use little in the way of manufactured goods we haven't reduced polution have we.

Most of the manufacturing for our consumption occurs in Asia and South America, Tibear. The plants have moved there partly to avoid environmental regulations. If those plants were forced to move back to North America and Western Europe they would have to follow our regulations, so they would pollute less. Consumption would also drop because the cost of production here is higher.

Another interesting point, could your decision not to have children be seen as one of greed. You've decided not to have the "burden" of children and by not having children have put the tax burden onto others to support you in your old age. Interesting on how, your decision that you believed was made to help society can in fact be viewed as a one that is detrimental to society.

Only if you're the pope.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The arguement you were making earlier was that there wasn't enough food in the world to feed everyone. Food is a renewable resource, we can't "use up" all of the food. It's not like an ore that there is a limited supply. If we need more food, we grow more food.

You need to learn about farming, tibear. Arable land does get used up. If you look at Easter Island or the Middle East you will see historic examples of land being over-used and people starving because of it. If you actually take the time to learn about those things it becomes clear that we are on the same course.

I agree with you that we are generally more polluted today that in the past but I think we'll both agree that compared to mother nature and the pollution that is caused through things like volcanic explosions we are bit players.

That's a ridiculous argument. Volcanoes do have an effect on the environment, they have been implicatecd in mass die-offs before. The earth's envirnmental system has evolved to deal with average levels of volcanic activity though. We are not in a period of unusually high volcanic activity. In other words things are changing and we are the variable this time.

Your right that we need to curb manufacturing pollution but that has nothing to do with population but rather it a result of the greed of the companies involved not wanting to pay for pollution control devices.

It the duty of governments to look out for the best interests of the population. It is therefore the duty of governments to legislate the corporations into compliance. Why are you supporting the policies of governments and parties that have refused to enact such legislation, even rolled back existing legislation?

Using your example that the more the people the more the pollution the higher the temperature, etc did we see a reduction of polution or temperature after WWII when all of those people died? How about with the war in Iraq and the tsunami, should I put an extra blanket on the bed tonight?? Of course not, because polution and temperature have nothing to do with population.

If the population levels had remained low after the great wars there likely would have been a net reduction in pollution. That did not happen though. In addition to that the extra pollution caused by war was highest in the areas where the most population loss occurred.

Iraq and the tsunami are small, localised events. Iraq has also suffered massive pollution because of the war. To try to present them as proof of your theory shows a lack of understanding of the issues.

Another question, if we were to eliminate the population from Asia, Africa and South America how much do you think manufacturing will decrease. We in North America and Europe use most of the worlds resources and by eliminating those people who use little in the way of manufactured goods we haven't reduced polution have we.

Most of the manufacturing for our consumption occurs in Asia and South America, Tibear. The plants have moved there partly to avoid environmental regulations. If those plants were forced to move back to North America and Western Europe they would have to follow our regulations, so they would pollute less. Consumption would also drop because the cost of production here is higher.

Another interesting point, could your decision not to have children be seen as one of greed. You've decided not to have the "burden" of children and by not having children have put the tax burden onto others to support you in your old age. Interesting on how, your decision that you believed was made to help society can in fact be viewed as a one that is detrimental to society.

Only if you're the pope.

 

[tibear]

RB and zen,

I could go through each point and counter them over and over again and you both would do the same with my arguements. I don't see the point.

Having said that, you both seem to believe that 6 billion people is too many. If that is the case, then how many do you think our world can support? If we continue to "use up" our natural resources does it mean that each year the number of people that can supported is reduced??

Don't I also believe that the world could be overpopulated in the future but we are not even close to that situation today.

BTW, why would the pope be interested if zen has did his part to pay for his old age?