This is what I've been trying to tell everyone.

[jimmoyer]

Greed ?

This is something that will forever define our DNA,
as does more of our positive attributes define who
we are.

We all must take care of ourselves and make a million
decisions a day that accomodate our own self centerred
needs.

You all must not require higher standards for others
and not require the same of yourself.

Then you'll know and appreciate the sacrifice
you demand for change.

By the way, look into China's population control rules.
Look into how it has happened for China. Look
at the inevitable unfairness unevenly distributed,
and its ultimate incompetence of your wish for
some authoritarian fiat.

Instead embrace a more organic longterm view
of process.

You're seeing population limitation now by choice,
not by fiat.

Study your demographics.

Richer whites of the Western First world are procreating
less, by choice.

Wait until we Whites hand down the fiat
on the non-white masses.

There's a law of unintended consequences when
our passions demand a fiat ruling.

This is a more complicated issue that defies
the apocalyptic outlook of secular liberal thinking
which, on these matters tends towards severe
authoritarianism.

Economics of the critical mass is the one and only
thing that provides lasting, durable change, and
ultimately surpises us all as new powerful nations
emerge from world trade, getting more out of it
than the pittance of foreign aid could do for their
poverty.

 

[Toro]

In all due respect, I think anyone who believes the world would be better off with 90% of the population gone should off him/herself.

Remember - Think global, act local!

If not, then at least you should not have children.

 

[the caracal kid]

well toro,

the 90% issue is something I postulated quite some time ago, and then moved onto looking into real ways to address the issues. the 90% solution, if it were feasable, would only be the "easy way out" and whomever really did it would be a hypocrite if they ever supported or were indifferent to how animal populations are controlled by humanity.

Indeed, think global, act local. Somthing I encourage everybody to do. The greater the footprint of humanity, the greater the sacrifice of the individual.

I concur on children as well. I decided well before I even could of had children I would not because of the size of the human footprint on the planet.

 

[quinton]

jimmoyer, you are indirectly making a lot of assumptions.

Not sure what your point is to be honest.

I did not say that a authoritarian government fiat would work.

The public has to want change.

I think positive change (a declining human population that could curtail species extinctions) is extremely unlikely.

Toro, I am not advocating people to kill themselves or have zero children.

I am advocating for people to recognize the problem with our never-ending growth.

I am advocating a public discussion and awareness of this problem of human population growth, what causes it (economic growth) and why it is our biggest, worst, most serious problem.

I personally have decided not to have children; for the environment, for my own wallet, and for the good of all other life on earth.

Yes we humans, and all other life on earth would be in much better shape if we slowed down our reproduction to the point where in the near future we would have 1/10th the population.

We as a species are grossly overpopulated.

If another species spread and reproduced the way we have, we would have organized a huge cull of that species by now.

 

[jimmoyer]

Well, Caracal Kid, you fit the demographics of
a reasonably financially able White person who has chosen to have no kids.

No government fiat did that.

Those who prefer to make a family have an organic
emotional and psychological right especially during
these times where the secular apocolyptic believers
aren't much more right than the religious apocalyptic
believers who, leaning towards an authoritarianism
that assumes we will not find our way to do things better
in the future.

 

[Toro]

RE: This is what I've bee

I don't see growth as a problem. Growth is a good thing because it is driven by technological progress, which makes our lives easier.

 

[Nuggler]

8O SOYLENT GREEN: The only answer. :idea:

 

[the caracal kid]

toro,

You can not have constant growth with finite resources. It is clear such a scenario is unsustainable.

I would challenge you on how growth has made life easier.

 

[I think not]

You mean finite in terms of todays technology, don't you caracal?

Because tomorrow, we can very well be filling up with H2O, right?

We may also be planting fruits and vegetables on the moon, right?

Who knows, why think only in present day scenarios?

 

[quinton]

Toro: oops you forgot about what Caracal Kid said (finite resources) and nothing technology can do will change that.

And Toro you also forgot that all energy comes from the sun and all food originates from plants and moves up the food chain.

If humans sequester all plant growth for their own consumption (including when humans use it as livestock fodder), what happens is that the planet loses its biodiversity and species become extinct.

It seems so obvious to me and it amazes me that people like Toro can say such things.

I am shocked but it is true that Toro is a good example of the current public attitude in Canada and most of the world.

If I were Toro I would look for the nearest rock to crawl under in shame after saying such a nonsensical thing like "growth is good" with no qualifications.

I guess Toro is indifferent to other life on earth besides human pets and livestock and the grass that they eat.

Myself I am sadened whenever a reptile moves onto the endangered list.

I still fear that the recent sighting of the ivory-billed woodpecker is not enough to save that species.

In SW Ontario less than 3% of land is covered by forest.

In Northern Ontario, the forest is being ravaged without anyone knowing about it (besides the soldiers that work for the likes of Domtar, Tembec, Grant, etc)

 

[quinton]

I think not:

So to get around an oil crisis, you propose we burn oil to power the conversion of H2O into usable hydrogen fuel?

And you propose we replace gas stations with hydrogen fuel filling infrastructure (another big energy hit)?

Even water is finite and it takes a tremendous amount of energy to convert water to hydrogen!

Water that is clean enough to drink is especially finite

(I'm talking about naturally clean water that has been filtered through the wetlands and forests that produce the purest water, not the chlorinated chemically treated municipal water which is produced from a huge waste of energy and resources.)

It also takes a tremendous amount of energy to recycle all the gas cars into hydrogen powered cars!

I really don't see that as a solution.

Growing food on the moon? Are you crazy? Don't you realize the physical properties of the moon cannot grow plants?

There is no technological solution to overpopulation, because as Caracal Kid said, the earth has a finite amount of resources available.

 

[cortezzz]

nonhumans mammals will reach an equilibrium point with their natural environment
while humans do not appear to do so-- they grow at what appears to be at the expense of their environment

the reason for this apparent difference is
somewhat--- philosophical--
we are somewhat like the borg in that star trek
series

human= biological being+technological
appendages

the technological appendages--- grow-- and transform our being

so ---its complex because---
if for example---technology would freeze---
and no more technological delivery or innovation occurred---- our population would
stay static--- or diminish

but it doesnt---
technology gradually transforms us into-- ever
more adaptable creatures----able to fulfill the primary directive of all species--- to survive untill reproductive age -- and to replicate

we are still growing because--- we havent yet reached our equilibrium point

that point will be when our technology cannot extract resources at a sufficient rate to maintain our population--- then a negative feedback mechanism will kick in to keep us in check

or--- if we were to be intelligent about it--- when we DECIDE that our growth is sufficient
---THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN

by that time---the earth will very different than it is today
but no one will care
we grow accustomed to the absence of the nature we have transformed

i dont personally miss the buffallo
nor the wright whales
nor the billions of fish that teamed the ocean so thickly that it stopped wooden ships from sailing forward

-- its sad---
and intellectually---- a warcrime
a crime agianst ----nonhumanity
but who is going to convict us

we are a technology bomb

and stepping back a bit
we might also ponder
another deeper question
that -- this entire discussion presupposes that
man-- is different from nature

he in fact is NOT

there is in fact absolutely no division between man and nature
all of man is contained in nature
and that --strangely enough includes
our technologies and and its artefacts

we are --- absolutely no different than the bees making a bee hive
except that our beehive is going to take about 10,000 years to finish building

 

[quinton]

cortezzz yes humans are animals, but the means they use to modify their environment and their ability to grow at the expense of all other plant and animal life warrants serious consideration to say the least.

Is this never-ending growth what we really want?

It seems completely unrealistic to think that we will change our goals away from growth given historical trends and the fact that today virtually no country's population is declining no matter how first world or third world it is.

However, if the majority of even one of the earth's hundreds of countries saw things the way I do, then it would definitely stop growth and serve as a role model for all others by forcing government to provide incentives to halt reproduction, immigration, unecessary consumption, and unsustainable resource exportation.

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: This is what I've been trying to tell everyone.

Greed ?

This is something that will forever define our DNA,
as does more of our positive attributes define who
we are.

We all must take care of ourselves and make a million
decisions a day that accomodate our own self centerred
needs.

You all must not require higher standards for others
and not require the same of yourself.

Then you'll know and appreciate the sacrifice
you demand for change.

By the way, look into China's population control rules.
Look into how it has happened for China. Look
at the inevitable unfairness unevenly distributed,
and its ultimate incompetence of your wish for
some authoritarian fiat.

Instead embrace a more organic longterm view
of process.

You're seeing population limitation now by choice,
not by fiat.

Study your demographics.

Richer whites of the Western First world are procreating
less, by choice.

Wait until we Whites hand down the fiat
on the non-white masses.

There's a law of unintended consequences when
our passions demand a fiat ruling.

This is a more complicated issue that defies
the apocalyptic outlook of secular liberal thinking
which, on these matters tends towards severe
authoritarianism.

Economics of the critical mass is the one and only
thing that provides lasting, durable change, and
ultimately surpises us all as new powerful nations
emerge from world trade, getting more out of it
than the pittance of foreign aid could do for their
poverty.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greed is a learned attribute there is no gene for it, the needs of the individual are best served by cooperation within the framework of community. The society that places the needs of the individual above that of the community is in trouble.
Greed is a problem in our western society because we have taught and applauded it. Consumerism is a fatal mistake, it's built on greed and fueled on greed.

 

[cortezzz]

i agree with you--totally
i was describing what i see happening
not what i personally want to happen
i believe that your --insights are spot on
however
the forces that create our growth---
are orders of magnitude greater that the will to stop them

i think we can try---- but ultimately--
its too powerfull a biological-technological
imperative that moves us along
its the same imperative that made us who we are--essentially

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: This is what I've been trying to tell everyone.

I think not:

So to get around an oil crisis, you propose we burn oil to power the conversion of H2O into usable hydrogen fuel?

And you propose we replace gas stations with hydrogen fuel filling infrastructure (another big energy hit)?

Even water is finite and it takes a tremendous amount of energy to convert water to hydrogen!

Water that is clean enough to drink is especially finite

(I'm talking about naturally clean water that has been filtered through the wetlands and forests that produce the purest water, not the chlorinated chemically treated municipal water which is produced from a huge waste of energy and resources.)

It also takes a tremendous amount of energy to recycle all the gas cars into hydrogen powered cars!

I really don't see that as a solution.

Growing food on the moon? Are you crazy? Don't you realize the physical properties of the moon cannot grow plants?

There is no technological solution to overpopulation, because as Caracal Kid said, the earth has a finite amount of resources available.

Am I crazy quinton? No I don't think so, but apparently you have surrendered yourself to gloom and doom and you are not interested in any optimism. Techonology can make the difference, nothing else will. What was crazy 100 years ago, doesn't appear to be crazy today.

If anything is going to save the planet it's going to be techonological advances and not reverting back to the stone age or wiping out people en masse.

 

[quinton]

cortezzz wouldn't you agree then that this guy who calls himself "I think not" is out to lunch when he says technology will save us?

I shouldn't even have to argue against such an absurd point of view. After all, most technology today is used to further the speed of resource consumption.

Does technology stop population growth?

I doubt it. Therefore it cannot save the earth from the present doom of "too many people chasing too few resources"

 

[Toro]

You mean finite in terms of todays technology, don't you caracal?

This is exactly correct.

The only bounds of growth are the bounds of technology.

This argument was made 200 years ago by Thomas Malthus when he said the earth couldn't hold any more people right about the time mankind was about to go on its greatest burst of growth of all time.

It is incorrect to say that "based on today's finite materials, etc., etc., etc." because its doesn't account for advancements that have neither been made nor discovered. The advent of plastics, for example, has had an enormous effect on supply curves of many, many products, expanding what can be made and lowering the costs of making it.

For example, the advent of nanotechnology could - and I use the word "could" - be enormously revolutionary. By binding molecules much closer, we should be able to use a lot less to make items and/or the items we make will last much longer.

The history of economic growth is the history of technological advancement. People who make arguments like "there are too many people in the world" do not seem to understand this. Human beings are enormously adaptive.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: This is what I've bee

We'll see how we adapt to global warming and resource depletion both of which are developeing far faster than any pie in the sky technological advancements.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: This is what I've been trying to tell everyone.

cortezzz wouldn't you agree then that this guy who calls himself "I think not" is out to lunch when he says technology will save us?

Well you and your ilk certainly won't with that attitude.

I shouldn't even have to argue against such an absurd point of view. After all, most technology today is used to further the speed of resource consumption.

Do windfarms, hydroelectric dams and solar energy panels speed up that process also?

Does technology stop population growth?

It can, ever hear of birth control, condoms in your neck of the woods?

I doubt it. Therefore it cannot save the earth from the present doom of "too many people chasing too few resources"

Well you can stay in your doomed world and I'll stay in mine, agreed?